Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > American Airlines | AAdvantage
Reload this Page >

AA 300 hits sign on / about takeoff from JFK and returns (10 Apr 2019)

AA 300 hits sign on / about takeoff from JFK and returns (10 Apr 2019)

Reply

Old Apr 11, 19, 8:46 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AA/US - PlatinumPro; 1W Sapphire; HHonors - Silver; UA dirt
Posts: 5,367
AA 300 hits sign on / about takeoff from JFK and returns (10 Apr 2019)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/us/am...ign/index.html

I always thought AA JFK-LAX service were assigned low flight numbers (e.g., AA 1, etc.).

Flight 300 ... hit a sign adjacent to the runway, Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman told CNN.

The sign "directs pilots as they're going down the runway," Coleman said. The plane hit the sign because it was slightly off center during takeoff, Coleman said.

Last edited by IADCAflyer; Apr 12, 19 at 5:36 am Reason: Add information as required by rules
IADCAflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 8:59 am
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Programs: The Airline Run by Doug P
Posts: 17,116
Is that a max? The tail looks max-ish....
enviroian is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 9:12 am
  #3  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 61,081
Originally Posted by enviroian View Post
Is that a max? The tail looks max-ish....
All MAX aircraft around the world are grounded. You’re looking at Airbus A321-200 “A321T” Sharklets wingtip devices. The MAX has APB Boeing Split Scimitar Winglets, giving them a unique appearance vs the Airbus Sharklet or the Boeing-APB blended winglets on AA Boeing 737-800.
Attached Images  
JDiver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 9:20 am
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Programs: BAEC Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, AMEX Platinum (US)
Posts: 18,066
Originally Posted by enviroian View Post
Is that a max? The tail looks max-ish....
Stock photo....no 737s on JFK-LAX....c'mon, I know you're DFW based but an EXP should know that
Fraser is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:14 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Programs: The Airline Run by Doug P
Posts: 17,116
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
Stock photo....no 737s on JFK-LAX....c'mon, I know you're DFW based but an EXP should know that
I thought it was probably a stock photo hence the max question. That plane’s nose looks all 737 to me.

I’m getting old.
enviroian is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:15 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU + KSFO
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador
Posts: 4,773
AA is a garbage airline

Antarius is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:19 am
  #7  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 80,252
So much for the MAX argument that AA has such expert skilled pilots. I presume that hitting the sign and damaging an aircraft would not be good for one's airline career.

It sounds like the incident occurred too far down the runway for the takeoff to be aborted.
SFO777 likes this.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:29 am
  #8  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AA/US - PlatinumPro; 1W Sapphire; HHonors - Silver; UA dirt
Posts: 5,367
Photo of le dommage:


SFO777, enpremiere and krakendown like this.
IADCAflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:38 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 127
I think we will find that this incident happened either during, or just after, rotation.There are very few signs on the left side of the runway (direction of travel taking off R/W 31L), so it was likely a distance-to-go sign. Those signs are close to 200' from the centerline, further out than the runway edge lights by some distance. If the plane wasn't airborne or just about airborne at this point, it was going to have bigger problems.

Too tight a left turn on departure? Gust of wind helping things get a bit less stable?
jspira likes this.
gernabae is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 10:42 am
  #10  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 80,252
I had interpreted the story as implying that the pilot was doing a takeoff with the aircraft not centered (left to right) in the middle of the runway. If the aircraft was moving in a direction at an angle to the runway, the plane might have gone off the tarmac into the grass before leaving the ground, which of course could have caused more damage.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 11:00 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 127
The aircraft's wingtip is approximately 59 feet away from the center of the aircraft, if the aircraft were to takeoff on the edge line of the runway (far left side w/r/t direction of travel, if they would have inadvertently used the edge line as the center line), the wing tip would still be 15 or so feet away from the sign. Any further off center (say if the pilot inadvertently mistook the edge lights as the center line lights) and they would not have made it past the first few as they are all elevated lights.
RoyalFlush and nancypants like this.
gernabae is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 11:06 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 127
Also, (sorry, will stop soon) the aircraft's wing tip, which was the striking point from the images, is between 12 and 13 feet high. The tallest signs of that type FAA allows is 5', which means that wingtip would have to be rolling 7-8' , which means it would have been off the ground or performing some sort of lopsided rotation.
nancypants likes this.
gernabae is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 11:11 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Frisco, TX
Programs: The Airline Run by Doug P
Posts: 17,116
Too bad it wasn't a Barclays billboard he hit.
gernabae, SFO777, wrp96 and 2 others like this.
enviroian is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 11:32 am
  #14  
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Mexico, Technical Support and Feedback, and The Suggestion Box
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 61,081
We will have to wait for a report on this one, as what we have is too ambiguous. The wing height, distance from center line, sign height and requirement for frangible mounting if most impediments close to runways... just too much to speculate about and very little factual information.
JDiver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 19, 12:14 pm
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 22,792
Originally Posted by enviroian View Post
I thought it was probably a stock photo hence the max question. That plane’s nose looks all 737 to me.
Yes, stock photo of a MAX. Look at the back of the engines - the "fluted" design, like the 787s. And the split winglets (a bit harder to see in that photo).
JDiver likes this.
ijgordon is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread