I am a retired AA 320 Captain who was based at DCA for a few years. Almost universally , we would pre brief a diversion to IAD with an engine failure. Andrews is closer but it is military, no AA personnel there at all. We had so many checklists to run in this situation, the extra time to fly the divert to Dulles was also just enough time to go through the ECAM procedures and the required follow up items. Besides Dulles has longer runways than DCA and the approach to 19 at DCA requires a 30 degree turn on short final. The Airbus flies just fine on one engine. This crew sounded extremely professional, calm and focused. Great job!
@@ChrisS-ez3mu Easy to say, but at 400 on the River visual youre likely in the turn, you dont know what kind of manuevering they did after hitting the bird and what sort of profile to land they now found themselves. A simple roll back wouldve been an easier decision to land.
Wouldn’t you have different procedures if you were on a full glide approach? I’ve been wondering forever why more pressure isn’t applied to make them standard.
@@jbrown3547 excerpt from the AA 32F AOM: "with Flaps FULL, the captain's decision to continue the approach or to go-around depends on aircraft position, performance, and weather conditions." I can say that this airplane was most likely using flaps full. Very few pilots would land at DCA with flaps 3. The RNAV RNP 19 at DCA has a 43 degree right turn starting at 479 feet above touchdown. Not what I'd want to be doing without setting things up before hand. The crew absolutely did the right thing by taking it around. A landing at Dulles with long, runways and a straight-in approach after getting the airplane set up for a engine out landing is much safer than any landing at DCA. Again, the Airbus flies very nicely with one engine inop.
@@nunyabidness3075 Are you saying make the approach at idle? Impossible with any turbofan powered airplane. It takes a long time (several seconds) for the engines to spool up. That's why we always fly with flaps 3 or full on final approach. It keeps the engines spooled up in case more thrust is needed immediately. As a matter of fact, spooled-up engines at 1000 feet is a requirement for a stabilized approach.
Thanks for providing the audio and the flight track. Very informative. Thought they did a really great job with the IFE. Doesn’t the co-pilot generally handle the radio calls or is it up to how the Captain wants to divide crew duties? Anyway, obviously a well trained crew. Thank goodness for flight sim training, as I’m sure this scenario or something like it was part of the syllabus.
When the co-pilot is in the midst of running checklists, sometimes a procedural 'handover' of duties is done to prevent distractions. I'm sure it varies somewhat by airline or aircraft manufacturer.
It's interesting to note that generally radio transmissions from aircraft declaring emergencies often repeat MADAY or PAN at the end of each transmission. I don't know if this is mandatory or optional protocol, but it didn't happen in this incident.
@@hawkpilot01 It is good idea because you never know when ATC might have to change controller and they aren't necesarily aware of the situation. It has happened before where a newly contacted controller doesn't give the plane appropriate priority.
@@hawkpilot01 I'm a pilot and, yes, workload. However, adding a single word qualifier to the end of each transmission isn't egregious and ensures clarity of the situation as @marksmith8079 points out.
The graphic in this video indicated that the airliner passed over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge at an altitude of 800 - 1000 feet. I'm sure that rattled a few drivers on the bridge!! Gotta love that D.C. traffic on the highways!
Seems like way more work to land at IAD. Anyone know why they immediately diverted to IAD? I'm guessing something with the airspace around DCA and an emergency aircraft. Technically they did not declare an emergency until after they were headed towards IAD.
guessing since DCA is a visual approach and a last minute right turn over the bridge before landing with one engine which can be tricky, the crew would rather have a long straight in approach on a much longer runway. They could also keep the aircraft a bit higher which is a good thing.
Eng Fail on Final requires assessment. Land on R/W in front of airplane, or if control/energy is a factor, go around. This crew picked option 2. And did a fine job, quite frankly..
Probably the much longer runways, the easier airspace, and time needed to run checklists was gonna take them that far anyway. Also possibly an AA maintenance facility.
Having flown into DCA often, the final approach feels like a video game some days. Seems to require high precision and the above mentioned 30 degree turn. I can’t imagine going around with that approach to run while not knowing why one engine failed and if the other one is next. To use extreme skiing analogy, the approach into DCA feels like the equivalent of a “no fall zone” on a very steep and dangerous piste.
DCA 19 is a slightly tricky approach onto a much shorter runway. IAD 19 allows a long, straight final onto a long runway. And they needed time to run checklists (as the video makes clear) anyway.
Bad decision to do a single engine go around from short final. Reduce flaps to approach flaps, add 10 knots and land. Stupid, stupid adherence to check lists.
Not ignorant but an option. 10000 on Airbus and I experienced this, a single engine GA on the real aircraft is way different than ‘playing’ at it in the sim.
This was an employment interview question years ago for a cargo airline. What would you do if you had an engine failure/fire warning on a 4 engine DC 8 at 400 ft. on final. The answer given was land on the runway in front of me. The Chief pilot interviewer said " Good answer". That was on a 4 engine aircraft with 1 out.
I am a retired AA 320 Captain who was based at DCA for a few years. Almost universally , we would pre brief a diversion to IAD with an engine failure. Andrews is closer but it is military, no AA personnel there at all. We had so many checklists to run in this situation, the extra time to fly the divert to Dulles was also just enough time to go through the ECAM procedures and the required follow up items. Besides Dulles has longer runways than DCA and the approach to 19 at DCA requires a 30 degree turn on short final. The Airbus flies just fine on one engine. This crew sounded extremely professional, calm and focused. Great job!
Really? At 400 ft? No Sir. Land The airplane!
@@ChrisS-ez3mu Easy to say, but at 400 on the River visual youre likely in the turn, you dont know what kind of manuevering they did after hitting the bird and what sort of profile to land they now found themselves. A simple roll back wouldve been an easier decision to land.
Wouldn’t you have different procedures if you were on a full glide approach? I’ve been wondering forever why more pressure isn’t applied to make them standard.
@@jbrown3547 excerpt from the AA 32F AOM: "with Flaps FULL, the captain's decision to continue the approach or to go-around depends on aircraft position, performance, and weather conditions." I can say that this airplane was most likely using flaps full. Very few pilots would land at DCA with flaps 3. The RNAV RNP 19 at DCA has a 43 degree right turn starting at 479 feet above touchdown. Not what I'd want to be doing without setting things up before hand. The crew absolutely did the right thing by taking it around. A landing at Dulles with long, runways and a straight-in approach after getting the airplane set up for a engine out landing is much safer than any landing at DCA. Again, the Airbus flies very nicely with one engine inop.
@@nunyabidness3075 Are you saying make the approach at idle? Impossible with any turbofan powered airplane. It takes a long time (several seconds) for the engines to spool up. That's why we always fly with flaps 3 or full on final approach. It keeps the engines spooled up in case more thrust is needed immediately. As a matter of fact, spooled-up engines at 1000 feet is a requirement for a stabilized approach.
Thanks for providing the audio and the flight track. Very informative. Thought they did a really great job with the IFE. Doesn’t the co-pilot generally handle the radio calls or is it up to how the Captain wants to divide crew duties? Anyway, obviously a well trained crew. Thank goodness for flight sim training, as I’m sure this scenario or something like it was part of the syllabus.
When the co-pilot is in the midst of running checklists, sometimes a procedural 'handover' of duties is done to prevent distractions. I'm sure it varies somewhat by airline or aircraft manufacturer.
It's interesting to note that generally radio transmissions from aircraft declaring emergencies often repeat MADAY or PAN at the end of each transmission. I don't know if this is mandatory or optional protocol, but it didn't happen in this incident.
They would be rather busy after an engine failure on final straight into a single engine go around.
@@hawkpilot01 It is good idea because you never know when ATC might have to change controller and they aren't necesarily aware of the situation. It has happened before where a newly contacted controller doesn't give the plane appropriate priority.
@@marksmith8079 I’m just saying to all you Monday morning quarterbacks that she was busy. They got around to declaring an emergency.
@@hawkpilot01 I'm a pilot and, yes, workload. However, adding a single word qualifier to the end of each transmission isn't egregious and ensures clarity of the situation as @marksmith8079 points out.
The graphic in this video indicated that the airliner passed over the Woodrow Wilson Bridge at an altitude of 800 - 1000 feet. I'm sure that rattled a few drivers on the bridge!! Gotta love that D.C. traffic on the highways!
Why didn't the pilots respond to ATC with "Unable"?
Why not just go back to DCA?
Seems like way more work to land at IAD. Anyone know why they immediately diverted to IAD? I'm guessing something with the airspace around DCA and an emergency aircraft. Technically they did not declare an emergency until after they were headed towards IAD.
guessing since DCA is a visual approach and a last minute right turn over the bridge before landing with one engine which can be tricky, the crew would rather have a long straight in approach on a much longer runway. They could also keep the aircraft a bit higher which is a good thing.
@@bobdonovan34 DCA runway short, IAD runway long....single engine = 50% flap approach = extra distance.
All emergence aircraft are diverted to Dulles.
Looks like another old America West plane
Why didn't they land at DCA since they were there?
I'm not sure, but if I had to guess it's because of the restrictive airspace around D.C.
Eng Fail on Final requires assessment. Land on R/W in front of airplane, or if control/energy is a factor, go around. This crew picked option 2. And did a fine job, quite frankly..
Probably the much longer runways, the easier airspace, and time needed to run checklists was gonna take them that far anyway. Also possibly an AA maintenance facility.
Having flown into DCA often, the final approach feels like a video game some days. Seems to require high precision and the above mentioned 30 degree turn. I can’t imagine going around with that approach to run while not knowing why one engine failed and if the other one is next. To use extreme skiing analogy, the approach into DCA feels like the equivalent of a “no fall zone” on a very steep and dangerous piste.
DCA 19 is a slightly tricky approach onto a much shorter runway. IAD 19 allows a long, straight final onto a long runway. And they needed time to run checklists (as the video makes clear) anyway.
Cool heads prevail.
Andrews would have been much closer
Closer isn’t necessarily best
FAILIRE
Thanks.
The irony here is too funny.
Bad decision to do a single engine go around from short final. Reduce flaps to approach flaps, add 10 knots and land. Stupid, stupid adherence to check lists.
Ignorant comment.
Single engine go around is a commonly practiced procedure, not a big deal at all. What you are suggesting isn’t a good idea at all.
Not ignorant but an option. 10000 on Airbus and I experienced this, a single engine GA on the real aircraft is way different than ‘playing’ at it in the sim.
Wrong, just plain wrong.
This was an employment interview question years ago for a cargo airline. What would you do if you had an engine failure/fire warning on a 4 engine DC 8 at 400 ft. on final. The answer given was land on the runway in front of me. The Chief pilot interviewer said " Good answer". That was on a 4 engine aircraft with 1 out.
They landed safely, so for all the armchair aviators, you weren't in the cockpit. Also, are some of the critiques because the pilot is a woman?
@@anonnymowse We don't know if she was flying.
@@leeoldershaw956 I know, but I still think there is prejudice.
Good grief!
@@leeoldershaw956