An American Airlines jet caught fire Thursday evening around 5 p.m. at Denver International Airport.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/american-airlines-jet-catches-fire-in-denver
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/american-airlines-jet-catches-fire-in-denver
Great outcome, passengers and crew deserve credit for a textbook evacuation.
The flight was scheduled from Colorado Springs to Dallas-Ft. Worth. Denver is in the opposite direction. Maybe AA has heavy maintenance facilities in Denver? Itās hard to imagine that ATC initially headed the flight north before turning it to the southeast and whatever happened to āLand as soon as conditions permitā?
Uh, Dan Marotta, my interpretation of maps shows Denver is much closer to Colorado Springs than Dallas, saying it is in opposite direction is misleading - Denver is a large airport in Colorado.
As for where ATC headed the flight you do not make sense.
And you speculate about where AA has heavy maintenance, there is much available in Dallas but engines can be replaced at many airports though needs truck and crew driving to them (or an air freighter). Return to Colorado Springs of course not appropriate given mountains and nature of that airport.
Was the weather below landing minimums at COS? Were they still on two engines ( albeit one at idle perhaps)? Didnāt it land at COS on two engines when it came in?
Now an argument can be made that once a decision to divert is made, checklists are run and FAs are preparing for an emergency, DEN was actually closer in time, but there would have to be a lot of extenuating circumstances to rule out the airport you just departed from. One of them might be that you didnāt expect it to catch fire.
n8274k:
Well of course it was on two engines when it arrived at COS, else substantial delay to get engine running again or replace it.
Iād look at terrain and time to circle back and land rather than going to what I remember as a big airport in open terrain.(Vibrations seem serious.)
Colorado Springs, Colorado - Wikipedia
(BTW, your last sentence does not make sense.)
ā¦there would have to be a lot of extenuating circumstances to rule out the airport you just departed from.
n8274k: Iād really like to know why, with an engine malfunction, you would return to your departure airport rather than land at another suitable airport which is closer in time when the malfunction occurs. Me? With an engine malfunction, Iām looking to minimize time in flight, and thereād have to be one of your āextenuating circumstancesā to get me to fly further than the nearest suitable airport.
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to a decision to overfly the departure airport which would have been closer. DEN is only closer in time if you take into account a decision already made and the time necessary to complete checklists. Of course a high vibration in and of itself may not constitute an emergency and a fire breaking out afterwards leads you to unfairly question the first decision to go to DEN.
Keith, I flew airliners out of Denver and Colorado Springs and I was based at DFW so I know what Iām talking about. Have you been to KCOS? Its a very large airport with parallel runways.
When I was a training instructor at my airline, one of the additional duties was flying maintenance recovery flights and I have flown out of Denver on two engines (B-727), Austin, Cleveland, New Orleans, so I know what Iām talking about.
And look at an aeronautical chart, VFR or IFR, and youāll see that KDEN is 354/63 from KCOS. KDFW is 124/514. Why not turn back to KCOS? Departing KCOS for KDFW would be a straight out departure to the south (the prevailing winds) with a slight left turn for Dallas.
It seems odd to fly north when it would be simpler, shorter, and quicker to return to KCOS.
Now, there may have been ripping winds across the Rockies and a mountain wave with rotor right over KCOS so, perhaps going to Denver was the best for that day, but there was nothing about weather mentioned in the article.
Iāll stick by my assessment made in the blind. Do you have better information about the weather because thatās the ony reason Iād have flown to Denver unless the company told them to.
The aircrew did not declare an emergency and only reported it as āan engine vibrationā Absent emergency status, you generally do not get priority handling into a core 30 airport. Denver was likely chosen for repair for facilities or directed by company to get the passengers on to their destination.
Agree in general, Ron Levy.
Open land DEN was not a lot further from point of diversion than mountainous COS.
Thanks but your two-engine B727 flight is not relevant IMO, it was out of a large airport, usually requires crew selected for skill in handling the airplane on one engine - takeoffs plan on another engine resigning, no pax, 727 has far less thrust asymmetry than 737.
I am using the flight tracking map for relative distance.
Turning back to COS makes no sense to me.
High vibration requires priority action, flying a twin with only one engine producing much thrust requires careful action. If fire warning came on then Iād call that an āemergencyā.
Second guessing this crew without more information than we already have has been a total wast of pixels.
3 Likes
Clearly direct experience is overshadowed by a ātracking mapā so Iāll bow out now.
1 Like
The track of AA1006 as captured by Flightradar24 shows it departing COS and heading SE towards Dallas but leveling out at ~16,500 ft when abeam Pueblo. At the time it leveled off, COS was the closest major airport. It maintained that altitude for the rest of the flight until beginning the approach into DEN. After leveling off it continued for a significant distance towards Dallas until almost reaching the southern border of CO at which time it turned around and flew past COS to land at DEN.
THE question is which airport was closer in time when vibration started.
I read people saying DFW was NOTā¦
I hope that an airport would give priority handling to a 737 that is effectively operating on one engine.
Terminology gets fuzzy, crew do need to be clear what their situation is.
Once having stated MAYDAY or the lesser PAN, they need to give details.
Perhaps this case was less than PAN urgency, but of great concern.
Some of us have read and remember cases of running low on fuel, such as Qantas 747 jerked around by London ATC - finally ATC asked if the crew were declaring a fuel emergency, crew responded yes to ensure they werenāt delayed further. (They were following SOP to avoid burning into reserves.)
More recently there was one in SE Asia of diversion due wx and uncertainty of airport suitability, ATC for the alternate should have let the flight come instead of fussing about parking space etc. Weather was varying at both airports, fuel quite low on eventual landing.
And one in Australia if a 737 crew landing below limits rather than risk running out of fuel.
Seattle Times of 14Mar25 has a good article on vibrations and fires: ā All eyes on the engine after older Boeing 737 catches fire in Denverā.
āvibration meterā?
Yes, a small digital readout on EICAS display, technically not a āmeterā in common use of term.
boeing 737 - What does VIB stand for in EICAS? - Aviation Stack Exchange
CFM56-7B Advanced Vibration Monitoring | AviaDeCo GmbH
Has some information for crew to determine if above normal limits, and some diagnosis support for maintenance which can be sent by datalink (ACARS).
Those articles and the ST one give information on possible causes and reasons for probability of a fire when vibration is high. Good idea to get on the ground, I say. (Wasnāt there an Avweb article on a problem of oil into A/C system from some engine problems?)
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.