Plane makes emergency landing at South Bend Regional

Tribune Staff Report

Tools

By Beth Boehne

Story Created: Sep 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM EST

Story Updated: Sep 23, 2008 at 11:16 AM EST

SOUTH BEND — Better safe than sorry. That was the idea behind an emergency landing made by a Delta Airlines jet at the South bend Regional Airport late Monday, which ended in a safe touch down for the 46 people on board.

Airport Director John Schalliol said Tuesday morning that the plane, a Bombardier CRJ-200, was enroute to South Bend from Atlanta shortly before 11 p.m. Monday and was preparing to make its landing when the pilot noticed a malfunction with the flaps on the plane.

The flaps are used to alter the flow of air over the wing during slow-speed flight, allowing the aircraft to maintain lift.

Schalliol said the pilot of the plane did not believe it was necessary to declare an emergency. However, air traffic control personnel decided to treat the landing as an emergency in case the malfunction caused problems.

The landing occurred without incident.

Wednesday, Sep 24 at 5:56 PM The Real JA wrote ...

I work at SBN facility and i would like it known that i didnt make the comment left on here at 1:39pm...by a fake J A.... I am the real JA and i approve this message!!!

Wednesday, Sep 24 at 4:01 AM Cornfusion wrote ...

BOYS! Enough shop talk! Your Hot Pockets are getting cold and pretty soon they won't be worth stabbing someone for!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 11:38 PM Stew wrote ...

To put a final point in here....I worked the aircraft into the airport. The PILOT declared an emergency after holding for 10 minutes going through his checklists. This article is full inaccurate information....as are folks commenting on here from NATCA. At least NATCA should do is talk to the controller who worked the aircraft before trying to spew so called facts....acting like they have a clue....especially from the so called rep!!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 11:05 PM Confusion wrote ...

OH GOOD GRIEF John, Stan, Eric, Thomas, Brian and Haksheed; everyone just chill out and relax. You say TomAto, he says tomOto,someone else says Rutergaga, the other says Rutagagor. The fact is, the plane came down in the same amount of pieces it went up in. EVERYBODY WINS! Stewardess, HOT POCKETS all around!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 9:27 PM Thomas Thompson wrote ...

Mr. Wesley, Just curious sir, which year in your 44 did you decide you knew everything about every situation in the ATC system? Thanks :)

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 9:07 PM Brian Moore wrote ...

John, your initial comment stated that "controllers are far exceeding their legal reach...". That is simply untrue as Stan Parulski pointed out above. Controllers do have the legal power to declare an emergency, whether it is warranted or not is simply your opinion- which you are more than entitled to- just be careful not to use it as a vehicle to push your anti-controller union agenda on a public that relies on the "honesty" of FAA officials past and present for their information.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 8:46 PM R. Eric Dawson, NATCA Controller, Commercial Pilot wrote ...

John, It's the FAA, not the union that allows controllers to declare an emergency. If controllers had had that option in 1990, Avianca FL52 might not have crashed after exhausting all their fuel. The investigation found that the crew was either afraid to declare an emergency or not familiar with the term. Avianca then tried to sue the FAA claiming that ATC should have declared an emergency for them. I'll put my 22 years of ATC experience, and 25 years of flying up against yours any day.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 8:43 PM Stan Parulski wrote ...

John, I once again cite your lack of knowledge of the system as a whole. You paint a picture of Fire trucks and Ambulances racing from all corners of South Bend to the airport. This is NOT the case. In the above incident all that was done was the on field rescue personnel were advised of the situation and then staged their vehicles along the runway. In the unlikely event that assistance was needed, they were right there. Those of us with knowledge of the system call this a phase 1 alert.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 7:46 PM John Wesley wrote ...

Stan, I will put my knowledge of the ATC system, from 44 years of experience in it, up against yours or any other controllers that never see outside the tower cab, or the radar room. Flaps not operating is a non event, it does not rate a full "Equipment response", and does not justify the danger to the population of a full response by emergency vehicles.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 6:55 PM John Wesley wrote ...

I too have been met on the runway by emergency equipment, equipment that I was very glad to see, and in a couple of cases was desperately needed, my point is that I, the Pilot in Command, had declared an emergency and had requested the "Equipment", it was my call, not the controllers, and it was the pilots call, or not to call in this incident, not the controllers. The risk to the general population from emergency traffic running to the airport for a non event is not worth it.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 5:43 PM Stan Parulski, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association Local, South Bend wrote ...

It is ignorant comments by folks, like John, that have absolutely no comprehension of the ATC system. John's comments clearly show that he has absolutely zero knowledge of the job requirements of an ATC. In this situation, there are only 3 entities that are responsible for declaring an aircraft emergency. The company that owns the plane, the pilot and the air traffic controller. I don't critique the method in which you make the fries at your job, John. Please do not critique the way we do ours!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 4:21 PM Sporty wrote ...

Sharpy,ROFL!!!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 4:13 PM Brett wrote ...

John, the last question an air traffic controller wants to answer after a crash is why he/she didn't summon ARFF crews when a pilot of an inbound commercial flight reported a control surface problem. As a pilot I have had ARFF crews respond to the runway to meet my plane a few times because of flap malfunctions or gear lights. ATC did the right thing. Good job pilots and South Bend Tower.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 4:12 PM Bryan Zilonis, National Air Traffic Controllers Association wrote ...

What John has failed to comprehend in his political statement is that the incident was treated as an emergency. The air traffic controllers did not and never would take responsibility for flight. The requested landing was treated as an emergency, declared to protect the safety of all within the system, not just the aircraft diverting to SBN. Something well within the defined responsibilities of an ATC. Next time John is at an airport he may want to take note that he is not alone.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 2:33 PM Eileen wrote ...

What is a Bombardier coming to South Bend for? Are we under attack from the commies?

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 2:27 PM Sharpy woodrow wrote ...

Oh puhlease John Wesley Crusher, this aint about no authority flim flam, this bout plain common sense. Sides, it gave the firemens a chance to drive fast and sound the siren. I had a similar incident on the toll road other day, had a powerful bad feeling my flaps were gonna fail, so I had a emergency landing at Elkhart services, scary couple minutes on the final approach, but in the end it all came out good, not even no skidmarks on the tarmac!

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 1:39 PM J A wrote ...

In reference to Johns response. What IF the pilot underestimated his judgement and what IF when the plane landed there was a problem, then whose fault would it have been if the emergency personnel was not in position. If I were on that plane I would have wanted all the right emergency people on hand just in case something went wrong.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 1:22 PM What? wrote ...

I bet you wouldn't think that if one of your family members was on that plane and it had crashed.

Tuesday, Sep 23 at 11:54 AM John Wesley wrote ...

The pilot, final authority under the Federal Aviation Regulations did not see fit to declare an emergency, then what gives an air traffic control the right to do so, someone not trained in flight operations, not familiar with the airplane and totally not responsible for the flight. this just further reinforces my theory that controllers are far exceeding their legal reach in attempting to force the hand of the FAA in the current labor disputes. that controller should be dismissed.

Add a comment

Name:

Comment: 500 Characters Left

Comments are moderated and will not appear on this story until after they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

WSBT and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the above comments or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any Public Forum.
Countdown to Digital TV:

WSBT Weather

icon
Current Temp 27
°
More Weather

On Demand

More On Demand

Stock Quotes
This content requires the latest Adobe Flash Player and a browser with JavaScript enabled. Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

Tonight On WSBTFull Schedule

7.00
Wheel of Fortune
7.30
Jeopardy!
8.00
Big Bang Theory
8.30
How I Met Your Mother
9.00
Two and a Half Men
9.30
Worst Week
10.00
CSI: Miami
11.00
WSBT News
11.35
Late Show with David Letterman

Question of The Day

Do you think Notre Dame should keep Charlie Weis?

E-mail your comments. We'll pick some to read during WSBT News at 5.

  • Yes
  • No