View Full Version : B717 Evac @ Bos
homesick rae
2nd Oct 2003, 19:57
Anyone know any more?
Engine fire on taxi, pax evcuated safely...27 pax I believe.
HR
PaperTiger
2nd Oct 2003, 22:56
At the risk of being branded an armchair captain, this would seem to have been a slight overreaction to a hot start.
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/01/plane_fire.htm
phnuff
2nd Oct 2003, 23:10
Sorry to sound dumb, but, is the 717 the new (Boeing) name for the MD80 ?
LightenupFrancis
2nd Oct 2003, 23:26
To blow the fire bottle(s) for a hot start seems a little excessive, but maybe they actually had fire lights also and other indications. As for the 717 being a new name for the MD 80, yes and no. The 717 is/was a McDonnel product that was a complete remake of the MD80/DC9 series that boeing decided to continue producing, at least to satisfy the initial order backlog. New engines and at least two versions, stretched and what not. They were going to close the line, but I think orders have been enough to keep it open. Don't quote me on any of that.
Beanbag
2nd Oct 2003, 23:28
No, the 717 was the MD-95 in MacDac days. A new small variant of the rear-engine twin theme. None delivered at the time of the Boeing takeover, but Boeing decided to keep the programme going to slot in below the smallest 737.
phnuff
2nd Oct 2003, 23:39
Re the name 717 + MD80
Thanks
Ace Rimmer
3rd Oct 2003, 00:04
Yep it started life as the MD95 and incorporates a bunch of bits from other programmes... DC9-30 fuselage and wings MD87 tail MD90 tailcone MD11 flight deck (nadged about a bit) and then the BR715 engines an all new bit - they also changed a bunch of other stuff to improve maintainability.
Right now they are producing at a low rate (~I think the backlog is about 40 or so) and are banking on a big order from the Star Alliance carriers in fact they're even talking about a stretch if it comes off ...the order that is...
Globaliser
3rd Oct 2003, 00:58
Does it make it better or worse that the evacuation was commanded, in contrast to this one (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030702X00998&key=1) ?
davethelimey
3rd Oct 2003, 23:35
That was interesting... i'd never seen the full report.
At the risk of (again) exposing my ignorance, it must surely always be better to have a commanded evacuation rather than an impromtu rush for the doors. Also, on a 717 the passengers would not be able to see ignited fuel due to the aft location of the engines.
Always 'appy to be corrected, guv.
Golf Charlie Charlie
4th Oct 2003, 01:35
Only 27 passengers ? Sounds as if AirTran's yield management techniques need to be upgraded.
broadreach
4th Oct 2003, 09:52
Innocence was bliss. That "WHUMPHH" of flame used to be so ho-hum on one-elevens. Just a reminder of the tenuous relationship between gas ovens, sparks and jet engines. Perhaps not so good for the tail logo
Many moons ago I loaded up five pax in a King Aire 200 and commenced starting engines. The thing had auto ignition when you hit the start button, as I recall. Was cranking the left but could not get a light off. I suddenly noticed the ignitor light wasn't on - without thinking I flipped it on manually. You guessed it, big torch + "WHUMP!" + EGT through the roof.
I aborted the start and kept motoring the engine. I turned around to reassure the passengers - and barely saw the last one rounding the wingtip! They had popped the door and absquatulated. Took some coaxing to get them back in!
Pimp Daddy
6th Oct 2003, 16:17
You guessed it, big torch + "WHUMP!" + EGT through the roof.
mmmm - flame check satis :ok: