FAA: "Alaska Airlines Flight 309 landed safely at Los Angeles International Airport around 8:05 p.m. local time on Thursday, Nov. 14, after the crew reported a possible wheel issue on departure. The Boeing 737-900 departed from Washington Dulles International Airport. The FAA will investigate."
It was absolutely the right call to continue the flight. As long as fuel burn was nominal (indicating the gear was fully retracted) there would be nothing gained safety wise by diverting. It just becomes a question of where you want to deal with landing with a blown tire and LAX has a nice, long, easy ILS approach and the aircraft wouldn’t be overweight. Professional job by the pilots.
Good job to all for getting this taken care of. One point for those pilots out there though is to communicate this sort of thing as promptly as possible. When it is night and/or low visibility, people on the airport won't see the incident, and when other aircraft depart behind, they run the risk of damage from the FOD. It doesn't feel right to report such things so early, when you are still processing it yourself, but it is important all the same
I heard about this last night at like midnight my time here in Houston ATC in Dulles and LAX did a great job with helping out and pilots did a great job communicating
@ it’s a southwest plane so I highly doubt it cus they don’t move that much and the part that does move doesn’t have a pinch point where a phone can get crushed or damaged
If anything, it's better to continue the flight if it is safe to do since it decreases fuel weight like he said. No reason to inconvenience the passengers for nothing.
It seems that a lot of these situations would be clearer if planes had a few wide angle camera bumps like a Tesla on the lower hull, just to be able to get some visual confirmation of things like these. Now, obviously manufacturers have already thought of that as well, so anybody any idea why that isn't a thing?
As an outside observer it's surprising how much pilots don't or can't know about the aircraft. I mean, it's not really surprising I suppose given the important of incremental change, but it's a shift in perspective to consider how they're going off of signals and sensors because you can't just check.
The 737 is a 1950s design with the concomitant legacy systems and lack of instrumentation. In all current Airbus aircraft there are tire pressure and brake temperature sensors on every wheel and you can see them all at the press of a button. The 737 has no EICAS system which on modern aircraft would alert you to low tire pressure. I am surprised the 737s are so backward though. The pilot statement that he though there wasn't a problem because the gear handle moved normally is indicative of a shocking lack of systems knowledge. Even on the 737 that handle is just controlling a hydraulic valve. Blowing a tire has no possible affect on the handle that moves the valve that allows hydraulic pressure into the cylinders that raise and lower the gear.
Oh, it wasn't something on the runway? It was us? Well darn. Also, the Dulles controller...there's something on the runway, but you are clear to land. WTF?
@@Kook-a-mal Yeah, but at first they were like "so... watch out for that" and the pilot responded with "umm, maybe vectors until you know what's up??" before they settled on the visual for 19C.
The pilot said he possibly hit something 3000 feet *from the end* of the runway, but the controllers were telling other flights that it was 3000 feet from the beginning. Doesn't matter, they still had to inspect the entire runway.
Try: fast temperature and air pressure pressure, extreme cold/heat, very high rotational speed, high landing velocity and impact. Ask for an engineering evaluation, design estimate, wireless connectivity, design cost.
Most new commercial aircraft _do_ have tire pressure sensors. But airplanes are taken care of better than most people's cars, hence they last longer. A lot of commercial airplanes are more than 15 years old, so there's no reason to expect that this airplane would be "new".
Don't 737s have tire pressure indications? Airbus show pressure and brake temperature on all wheels on all their aircraft. Why in god's name would a handle that controls a hydraulic system be hard to move when a tire explodes? That makes me question the systems knowledge of these bus drivers.
They'd need to hold in air for hours and burn fuel to be able to land back again, an overweight landing is much more risky at that point. Not all aircraft has the equipment to dump fuel.
Not as bad of a decision as it sounds. Landing overweight has some risk and the 737 can't dump fuel. The pilots need time to troubleshoot the problem, brief the landing and burn fuel in the process. It could take a few hours to get the plane down to a safe weight for landing. It wouldn't make sense to stay in a holding pattern around IAD for several hours. As long as there is no immediate risk to the aircraft flying to the destination will make the most sense. The aircraft will be at a safe weight, the passengers and plane will be at their scheduled destination and LAX has plenty of emergency equipment to handle the emergency and there a few nice long runways for them to choose from.
It's not like they were going over the ocean or something. If they had a problem later on, they had plenty of diversion opportunities. Sounds like they checked for other issues and found it safe to continue flying
FAA: "Alaska Airlines Flight 309 landed safely at Los Angeles International Airport around 8:05 p.m. local time on Thursday, Nov. 14, after the crew reported a possible wheel issue on departure. The Boeing 737-900 departed from Washington Dulles International Airport. The FAA will investigate."
It was absolutely the right call to continue the flight. As long as fuel burn was nominal (indicating the gear was fully retracted) there would be nothing gained safety wise by diverting.
It just becomes a question of where you want to deal with landing with a blown tire and LAX has a nice, long, easy ILS approach and the aircraft wouldn’t be overweight.
Professional job by the pilots.
Thanks for uploading so quickly
Good job to all for getting this taken care of. One point for those pilots out there though is to communicate this sort of thing as promptly as possible. When it is night and/or low visibility, people on the airport won't see the incident, and when other aircraft depart behind, they run the risk of damage from the FOD. It doesn't feel right to report such things so early, when you are still processing it yourself, but it is important all the same
Go for it, dude!
Makes more sense to continue on to destination, lighter landing weight. Recently similar situation, crew opted to land immediately after take off
That was impressive how well coordinated that was by everyone.
I heard about this last night at like midnight my time here in Houston ATC in Dulles and LAX did a great job with helping out and pilots did a great job communicating
Good pilot. Common sense and no over reaction etc. Well done.
I was approaching DCA yesterday and heard this on with Potomac Dep/App. Another aircraft reported a bump on the runway as well.
WN3316 this morning out of Denver. Cell phone caught fire caused evacuation on runway and subsequent seat fire
Cell phone caught fire? What is this, 2006? 🤦♂
@@Datamining101 Or 2016 with the Samsung Note 7 fires.
what are the chances it's again because a phone slid down into the seat mechanism and then the seat was moved
@ it’s a southwest plane so I highly doubt it cus they don’t move that much and the part that does move doesn’t have a pinch point where a phone can get crushed or damaged
@@Datamining101well you know…. There are a lot of people who are walking around with 2006 phones. Mainly over the age of 70.
Good for the pilots relaying back to the tower that something happened and the airport for their actions.
If anything, it's better to continue the flight if it is safe to do since it decreases fuel weight like he said. No reason to inconvenience the passengers for nothing.
It seems that a lot of these situations would be clearer if planes had a few wide angle camera bumps like a Tesla on the lower hull, just to be able to get some visual confirmation of things like these. Now, obviously manufacturers have already thought of that as well, so anybody any idea why that isn't a thing?
Even my bad aul car will tell you if your tire is blown or soft😢
As an outside observer it's surprising how much pilots don't or can't know about the aircraft. I mean, it's not really surprising I suppose given the important of incremental change, but it's a shift in perspective to consider how they're going off of signals and sensors because you can't just check.
It's like being a flea on the head of an elephant guiding the elephant as best you can.
The 737 is a 1950s design with the concomitant legacy systems and lack of instrumentation. In all current Airbus aircraft there are tire pressure and brake temperature sensors on every wheel and you can see them all at the press of a button. The 737 has no EICAS system which on modern aircraft would alert you to low tire pressure. I am surprised the 737s are so backward though. The pilot statement that he though there wasn't a problem because the gear handle moved normally is indicative of a shocking lack of systems knowledge. Even on the 737 that handle is just controlling a hydraulic valve. Blowing a tire has no possible affect on the handle that moves the valve that allows hydraulic pressure into the cylinders that raise and lower the gear.
Oh, it wasn't something on the runway? It was us? Well darn.
Also, the Dulles controller...there's something on the runway, but you are clear to land. WTF?
They switched from 19L to 19C
@@Kook-a-mal Yeah, but at first they were like "so... watch out for that" and the pilot responded with "umm, maybe vectors until you know what's up??" before they settled on the visual for 19C.
@@Kook-a-mal After the pilot asked for a 19C visual
Completely normal. Its pilots discretion, if an aircraft has a short landing distance and the FOD was way down the runway it would still be safe.
The pilot said he possibly hit something 3000 feet *from the end* of the runway, but the controllers were telling other flights that it was 3000 feet from the beginning. Doesn't matter, they still had to inspect the entire runway.
Local news coverage of incident: ruclips.net/video/0MDzY32m0sY/видео.htmlsi=iY8Os-qOYoUJH5bj
Boeing is done for…
yeah dead joke i know.
All new cars require a tyre pressure sensor, you'd think aircraft would have them aswell
On cars, some of them work not by actually measuring the pressure but is inferred by the car's performance while it's moving
Try: fast temperature and air pressure pressure, extreme cold/heat, very high rotational speed, high landing velocity and impact. Ask for an engineering evaluation, design estimate, wireless connectivity, design cost.
Most new commercial aircraft _do_ have tire pressure sensors. But airplanes are taken care of better than most people's cars, hence they last longer. A lot of commercial airplanes are more than 15 years old, so there's no reason to expect that this airplane would be "new".
@@serkandevel7828 Aircraft tire sensors do actually measure the actual air pressure in the actual tire.
@@Rhaman68 Sometimes, the answer is a lot simpler than you would think.
Don't 737s have tire pressure indications? Airbus show pressure and brake temperature on all wheels on all their aircraft. Why in god's name would a handle that controls a hydraulic system be hard to move when a tire explodes? That makes me question the systems knowledge of these bus drivers.
Wow. Fly across the country with unknown damage to aircraft.
why monday morning qb? Iad-Lax is a long flight so they had plenty of fuel and landing overweight with possible blown tire cant be any safer
They'd need to hold in air for hours and burn fuel to be able to land back again, an overweight landing is much more risky at that point. Not all aircraft has the equipment to dump fuel.
Not as bad of a decision as it sounds. Landing overweight has some risk and the 737 can't dump fuel. The pilots need time to troubleshoot the problem, brief the landing and burn fuel in the process. It could take a few hours to get the plane down to a safe weight for landing. It wouldn't make sense to stay in a holding pattern around IAD for several hours. As long as there is no immediate risk to the aircraft flying to the destination will make the most sense. The aircraft will be at a safe weight, the passengers and plane will be at their scheduled destination and LAX has plenty of emergency equipment to handle the emergency and there a few nice long runways for them to choose from.
It's not like they were going over the ocean or something. If they had a problem later on, they had plenty of diversion opportunities. Sounds like they checked for other issues and found it safe to continue flying
It was the right decision