American Airlines Jet Flies From Dallas To Paris With Exposed Belly

Federal regulators said Thursday they are investigating how an American Airlines jet lost a panel from its belly shortly after taking off from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport before continuing on across the Atlantic and landing safely in Paris.

Part of the Federal Aviation Administration's probe involves whether the pilot should have turned back, said FAA spokesman Roland Herwig.

Airline officials say the pilot thought the loud noises during the flight last month were due to cargo shifting, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press.

A flight attendant on the April 20 trip said there was "a loud shaking noise from the belly of the plane." A few minutes later, there was another noise that "sounded like an explosion," the attendant said in an e-mail, according to Dallas television station WFAA.

When the Boeing 767 landed in Paris after the nine-hour flight, ground crews discovered a panel allowing access to an air conditioner was missing. The panel was part of the jet's outer skin and measured several square feet.

An American spokesman said the air conditioner area is separate from the cargo area and the pressurized cabin.

In a statement, the airline said it was also investigating and wouldn't comment further. The pilots' union had no comment, and the pilot, Steve Kantlehner, was not available for comment.

Story continues below

advertisement

The airline's flight department told all pilots Wednesday that the captain "did exactly what we want our captains to do," according to a company memo obtained by The Associated Press.

"There was no way this crew could have known this panel had departed," said the memo from Jim Kaiser, American's manager of flight operations quality control, and Chuck Harman, the airline's fleet captain for Boeing 757 and 767 planes. "If they had known, they obviously would have returned" to DFW Airport.

According to the memo, no cockpit warning lights came on, and the pilot, who was not identified, also spoke to a maintenance technician in Fort Worth.

Kaiser and Harman, who are both pilots, said while pictures of the hole in the fuselage "are very dramatic," the passengers were never in danger.

After the plane landed, a flight attendant snapped pictures of the missing panel, and the photos began circulating in e-mails between American Airlines employees.

The case of the Paris-bound flight occurred only a week after American canceled about 3,300 flights while it grounded its fleet of MD-80 jets to inspect electrical wiring.

Comments

[Chavez08]

Why doesn't Bush support the "Free Market" and remove regulations and license rules/fees ("illegal taxation" to pro-market forces) so private owners can build and fly our own planes and "compete" with the big carrier monopolies?

Why don't Bush and McCain support Free Markets?

[dadw5boys]

Why have Republicans passed so many BARRIERS TO ENRTY laws that give existing businesses protection form competition by grandfathering them and requiring new business jump hurtles to compete?

Oh that what those campaign and pac donations get big business. For a moment there I was thinking they might be honest about the FRE MARKETS and OPEN COMPETITION. Sorry getting old I guess.

[Chavez08]

I think all post maintenance aircraft should be tested using highest paid airline executives, board members and Neoliberal U.S. Senate members riding coach in the plane for 200,000 miles before a plane is deemed safe by the FAA. Isn't that more than fair???

I wonder if the "Free Trade" dialogue would change with these rules(?)

[Sciguy]

Maybe they shoulda oughta inspected ALL of EACH plane...

[plages]

Easy. What was the flight number of this craft, and what is the number of the craft, and where was it last maintained?

[JessWonderin]

What the hell is the big problem? It made it and was "on time" - biggest issue may be a concern for littering . . .

[Killer]

Here is my concern. Experienced pilots can detect things like a tire bulge, even when taxiing over uneven surfaces. Why could not this flight crew notice the increased drag caused by the missing panel immediately after they rotated?

[HowietheScreamer]

Nope, aside from the noise, which was probably lost in Take off turbulence, they would have noticed nothing.

If they had paid extremely close attention to fuel consumption they MIGHT have noticed a negligible increase in fuel consumption, indicating slightly higher drag. This panel did NOT increase drag by any kind of substantial margin. FAR less than even 1%, probably not even up to 0.5%. There is no such thing as a drag meter in the cockpit.

[elektrik]

I read that the plane was more than 100,000 lbs overweight for return to DFW. At $3.50 a gallon, that's over $50,000 of fuel they would've had to dump. I'm certain that's part of what they expect their pilots to consider when making decisions about aborting flights. Don't interpret that as supporting the pilot's choice, which I don't. I'm just saying economics trumped safety in this case.

[HowietheScreamer]

Nope, sorry that does NOT factor into the decision to call an emergency return to base. Doesn't even enter the equation.

[elektrik]

so you're saying that safety vs $ vs on time performance are not PART of the decision tree?

and you're also stating that emergencies are the ONLY justification to return to base?

lol

[hugs4u]

What I cant understand is, for example a while back a nose wheel didnt retract. the plane had to fly in a circle and use all fuel up before attempting a landing at airport it left from. My question is if it had to use up the fuel, why didnt it fly to destination to use up fuel and attempt the same landing. they have pretty much the same rescue equipment at both airports.

[elektrik]

In that case, it's safety. You just don't fly an airplane with 200 or more passengers, thousands of miles when you have a landing gear problem.

Another big reason is drag. A lowered nose wheel kills aerodynamics and forces a lower cruise altitude. Read this as using way too much fuel and way slower, even if the FAA would let you get away with it.

Lastly it's where your maintenance crew is. If you fly out of of a hub city to a spoke airport, you might not have parts or crew at the destination. It's always more efficient to have a broken plane at or near a maintenance center, than to pay another airline to fix it for you, or to have to move assets around to handle it.

[cartach]

I thought it flew in circles until the fuel was used up,and no doubt over a populated area. Seems to me that it would be much safer to fly in a more or less straight line to another destination and then attempt landing. You're still going to fly the plane approxinmately the same distance to get rid of the fuel.

[jerrypenguin]

"You just don't fly an airplane with 200 or more passengers, thousands of miles when you have a landing gear problem. "

As a passenger, I was on a flight from New York City to Salt Lake City. There was a loud thump during take-off. This was followed by a burning rubber smell. My thoughts were that we were in big trouble. Nothing was announced.

Upon our destination approach, the pilot announced that the aircraft had blown out a nose wheel tire or tires during departure. We were then provided landing instructions. Fire trucks accompanied the plane as it landed. The plane bounced and shook, several cabin panels fell, the plane filled with dust and other strange stuff. There was a lot of noise. Some people started screaming.

This was a very exciting landing. It seemed like something from the movies.

[MajorKong]

It depends on a lot of factors.

If the destination was a long distance, they might not have been able to make it with the increased fuel burn caused by the extended nose gear.

There might not have been maintenance to fix the problem at the destination so they elected to land at the departure base.

The Captain would have coordinated with the company's operations center to figure out what they wanted to do.

[M1nkyb0y]

I doubt the airlines can pay for fuel AND maintenance at this point, without doubling ticket prices.

[MajorKong]

The problem with this sort of thing is that you instantly become a test pilot. Odds are nobody's ever flown a 767 with that particular panel missing so you just don't know what effect it will have on the handling of the airplane.

[technopolitical]

Actually, the effect is pretty clear: somewhat increased drag and fuel consumption, but not much else. It would have been different if the panel were out on a wing.

[elektrik]

What about the fact that the pilot didn't know the extent of the damage, or whether any pieces of debris hit the airplane and what might have happened. He tested for fuel pressure and control surfaces, but any kind of problem might have surfaced over the transoceanic part of the flight. The point is he didn't know what was wrong (he blamed shifting cargo), and he didn't what other damage occurred, so he endangered the flight by continuing.

[MajorKong]

True, until you get into the landing phase. It could cause a turbulent flow across the inboard flaps which would increase your stall speed, for example.

[editor]

You mean in an era of safety; there was no $20 web cam to observe the underbelly of the plane?

[TXfemmom]

Planes routinely will fly back over an airport low, without landing so the tower, or mechanics and maintenance can get a look of the plane to see if something is wrong. The other issue in this is that this plane was going to fly for thousands of miles over water without a place to land in the event that it did develops problems.

Call me silly, but had I been on that plane, charge me for another bag and fly back low over the airport and let them see if something is wrong.

[scottm207]

I agree, the pilot should have reported the problem and flown back over the airport for a visual check from the ground. Then they could have decided the best plan. More than likely that plane would not have been allowed to cross the ocean. They may have opted to fly it toward an airport with sufficient maintenance crews that was close to the original route to burn off the fuel, move the passengers along and not risk the danger of the transatlantic crossing.

It may have only been an air conditioner panel but the drag and turbulence from having part of the plane exposed that shouldn't be is a big unknown, especially when there's no airports to divert to over the pond.

[Mandelbrot]

You're 100% right editor. After flying for 20 years I am still amazed at how the airlines and plane companies skimp on technologies which wouldn't cost much as litigation and other expenses in case of an accident. All they can have is (web)cameras which can observe most of the outer parts of the aircraft - and like the cockpit voice recorder and black box can come in very useful in case of an incident.

[smokeystover39]

Look at the bright side - it saved maintenance cost and all the fuel which would have been otherwise wasted IF the pilot had turned back - in the meantime FU*K THE PASSENGERS.!

[springsm]

He probably would have had to land with that full load..no time to dump the fuel. So give it a break. Those pilots don't want to lose the plane either. Interesting tho that the darn piece blew off. Maintenance at American Airlines again? This is no doubt outsourced like so much of it is. The web cam is a good idea. The 767 is a good plane. The MD80 is questionable. Look at the airlines on this one.

[11Bush]

American is one of the few U.S. airlines that doesn't outsource it's maintenance - and their mechanics are all union.

Want to make another uninformed statement?

[smokeystover39]

springsm: Absolutely brilliant - no time to dump the fuel huh? Which would take longer - to fly to Paris OR to circle around and dump the fuel over the U.S of A.?? Which would be the smarter move? I'd love to get the flight recorder as well as the transcript of any transmissions between air controllers and/or the company. Meantime - my original observation remains FU*K THE PASSENGERS.

[elektrik]

nice try...

As smokeystover39 correctly pointed out, you dump fuel and land. You're talking minutes vs a 10 hour flight mostly over water.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the MD80. There are over 500 still flying and it's a dependable workhorse in fleets worldwide. The only thing you can say bad about it is that it uses a lot more fuel than something equivalent, like a B737.

The recent problems with wiring harnesses don't reflect the reliability of the aircraft in any way. Basically the FAA inspector didn't like the spacing on the wiring ties because they didn't exactly match the picture in the book. You can fault AA for not interpreting the FAA airworthiness directive properly, but to state that the MD80 is questionable shows your lack of understanding.

[DismayedRepub]

Good thing it was a US MADE Boeing 767. An Airbus would never have made it.

[Paul]

Maybe it wouldn't have fallen off the Airbus in the first place.

Good thing American, bleeding cash as they are, isn't skimping on maintenance.

[teembee]

Yeah, great answer. Only the TAILS fall off of an Airbus.

[LibsRway2funny]

I fly with my belly exposed all the time. (;^')