DEN 7/26/25 AA 737 high speed abort, smoke & rwy evac

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
21,874
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Dave Taylor
Home Airfield
KMRF
The Darwin winner was the idiot with his kid in one arm and his luggage in the other. Head first on the ground using his kid as a cushion. That’s really dumb. I guess in the stress of the moment it’s easy to do dumb things I just hope if I’m ever in that situation my head and prostate are a little further apart.
 
I’d be more interested with the reason for the reject, yeah, likely not easy to decipher early on. The whole brake fire/smoke was the result, the article acts like they rejected for a ‘tire problem’.
 
If a person is holding up evacuation because they’re so #%^$& self-important that they are gathering their luggage, they need to have their posterior kicked.
 
sourdough44 said:
The whole brake fire/smoke was the result, the article acts like they rejected for a ‘tire problem’.
Click to expand...

That would be a very reasonable guess. ;)
 
Tarheelpilot said:
The Darwin winner was the idiot with his kid in one arm and his luggage in the other. Head first on the ground using his kid as a cushion. That’s really dumb. I guess in the stress of the moment it’s easy to do dumb things I just hope if I’m ever in that situation my head and prostate are a little further apart.
Click to expand...
You can get a Plexi Op now so you don’t have to worry about that when it happens. A Plexi Op is when you have a piece of plexiglass surgically inserted into your abdomen so you can see where you are going during a Rectal Cranial Inversion.
 
luvflyin said:
You can get a Plexi Op now so you don’t have to worry about that when it happens. A Plexi Op is when you have a piece of plexiglass surgically inserted into your abdomen so you can see where you are going during a Rectal Cranial Inversion.
Click to expand...
I have known a lot of folk who could benefit from this procedure.
 
Ok youse heavy iron dudes. That seemed like a pretty late rejection to have had to come to such a screeching halt. What are typical things that might cause that?
 
luvflyin said:
Ok youse heavy iron dudes. That seemed like a pretty late rejection to have had to come to such a screeching halt. What are typical things that might cause that?
Click to expand...
In the low speed regime you reject for most things. The reject does not present a threat to the aircraft and then you'll have time to evaluate and deal with the reason for the reject.

In the high speed regime you reject for an engine failure, any fire, windshear, or serious doubts as to the airplane's ability to fly.

My airline uses 100 knots as the beginning of the high speed regime. I've seen others that used 80 knots.

I've seen information showing the the incident AAL airplane had a very long taxi. It showed that they initially taxied for runway 8, then taxied to runway 17L, and finally taxied to runway 34L. If true, that would have put them with some pretty hot tires and brakes at the start of their takeoff roll. It wouldn't be surprising that the reject would cause a brake/wheel fire.

The airplanes are designed to withstand such fires, as this airplane did.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I thank Larry in TN for popping in with sensible, accurate, real- (airline) -world info on these threads. Much appreciated, dude.
Click to expand...

I agree - he takes a lot of time to explain things thoroughly. I rarely answer questions anymore because I know that he'll soon come along and do a much better job than I ever could. :p

But to give some more detail- at AA the high speed regime begins at 80, and in that regime the Boeing guys brief to reject for engine failure, fire, loss of directional control, any reason to think the plane won't fly, or predictive windshear.
 
I had a cagey reply earlier because I wanted to verify the gossip, but blown tires on the left gear is what caused the reject (not sure the interval between each tire letting loose, though).
 
Larry in TN said:
In the low speed regime you reject for most things. The reject does not present a threat to the aircraft and then you'll have time to evaluate and deal with the reason for the reject.

In the high speed regime you reject for an engine failure, any fire, windshear, or serious doubts as to the airplane's ability to fly.

My airline uses 100 knots as the beginning of the high speed regime. I've seen others that used 80 knots.

I've seen information showing the the incident AAL airplane had a very long taxi. It showed that they initially taxied for runway 8, then taxied to runway 17L, and finally taxied to runway 34L. If true, that would have put them with some pretty hot tires and brakes at the start of their takeoff roll. It wouldn't be surprising that the reject would cause a brake/wheel fire.

The airplanes are designed to withstand such fires, as this airplane did.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they were chasing the wind. Maybe it shifted again when they were rolling
 
kayoh190 said:
I agree - he takes a lot of time to explain things thoroughly. I rarely answer questions anymore because I know that he'll soon come along and do a much better job than I ever could. :p

But to give some more detail- at AA the high speed regime begins at 80, and in that regime the Boeing guys brief to reject for engine failure, fire, loss of directional control, any reason to think the plane won't fly, or predictive windshear.
Click to expand...
“…predictive windshear…” What’s that compared to just windshear
 
luvflyin said:
“…predictive windshear…” What’s that compared to just windshear
Click to expand...
Theres multiple windshear modes depending on software on the aircraft. Predictive is usually radar based for my fleet you get a "monitor radar display" along with a highlighted area on the ND and its a mandatory abort. There also reactive modes based on what the aircraft is experiencing. These consist of cautions ( amber windshear on PFD, consider going around or avoiding) and warnings x3 like "tailwind shear! tailwind shear! tailwind shear!" which would be an abort or windshear escape maneuver.
 
What about ground speed. How fast were those tires going? It’s Denver, it’s summer, how heavy was the plane? How much tailwind, if any? Is there a speed limit on the tires?
 
luvflyin said:
What about ground speed. How fast were those tires going? It’s Denver, it’s summer, how heavy was the plane? How much tailwind, if any? Is there a speed limit on the tires?
Click to expand...
Tire speed limit is 195 kts on the NGs, 205 kts on the MAX.

You definitely approach max tire speed on summer takeoffs from DEN. Sometimes you have to use a higher flap setting in order to keep liftoff speed below the max. That means a lower max takeoff weight.
 
sourdough44 said:
125 kts, strut collapsed, in the report. 35 kt cross wind.

https://avherald.com/h?article=52ad5fcf&opt=0
Click to expand...
Rwy 8, then 17L, then 35R, then 34L. I was having trouble sorting through all those METARS. Can’t quite figure out why they ever wanted a 17. But it finally turned out that 12,000 feet of any runway wasn’t going to be enough so they decided they needed 34L, the only one longer than 12,000 at 16,000
 
First I've heard of a strut collapse. The pilots definitely thought their left main tires failed.
 
I heard some fresh scuttlebutt, could be. This theory is that with all the taxiing, they got hot brakes. On the takeoff roll a tire fuse plug decided to let go & deflated the tire. That lead to the reject.
 
Last edited:
sourdough44 said:
If that Metar is close, 35kts is flirting with max ‘demonstrated’ crosswind limits. Then one may wonder how/if the ‘strut collapse’ was related to the crosswind, if at all. I’m certainly not looking to place blame, just trying to learn.

Seems to me, without the crosswind, no strut collapse, no high speed reject, no brake fire, no evacuation. But again, WTHDIK.
Click to expand...
The ATC wind report accompanying 3023’s takeoff clearance for 34L was “wind calm.”
 
bonefishpete said:
I’d say that’s a good reason for an abort.
Click to expand...
In the high-speed regime, it generally is not a reason to reject. You're better off taking it in the air then preparing for the landing with the full runway ahead of you.

A strut collapsing could certainly result in a serious doubt as to the airplane's ability to fly, i.e. loss of directional control, which is a reason to reject in the high-speed regime.
 
One passenger reported a bang, other noises, followed by seeing a wheel go past his window.
 
AquaLand said:
3023 stayed with tower the entire time he was in the east complex.

KDEN1-Twr-East-Jul-26-2025-1930Z
Click to expand...
Outstanding Controller. They should clone him and and get as many copies out there as possible. I'm thinking AA2023 was very heavy. A lot of planes took off on 8 throughout all that. He was the only one who had a problem with the tail wind.

Go to about 0:55

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top