No wheels touchdown AA at JFK
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: On a warm beach
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex,
I myself took a flight on one (N424AA I believe) in August (LGA/TPA), and I have to say that it was without doubt the worst flying experience I have encountered in 25 years of flying on commercial a/c.
What exactly caused this to be the worst experience in 25 years Connex? I don't remember reading anything in the papers.
I myself took a flight on one (N424AA I believe) in August (LGA/TPA), and I have to say that it was without doubt the worst flying experience I have encountered in 25 years of flying on commercial a/c.
What exactly caused this to be the worst experience in 25 years Connex? I don't remember reading anything in the papers.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why they did not use door 1L to evacuate the plane.
Is this to keep the passengers away from possible debris or sharp edges at the damaged part of the fuselage, to avoid injuries ? Is it to keep the space near the nose gear free for the fire sevice, so is it intended to keep the door closed ? Is there any advice in any document to do so ?
Or was the door jammed because of the quite hard shock when hitting the runway without any suspension, and therefor deforming the forward fuselage and the door frame ?
Is this to keep the passengers away from possible debris or sharp edges at the damaged part of the fuselage, to avoid injuries ? Is it to keep the space near the nose gear free for the fire sevice, so is it intended to keep the door closed ? Is there any advice in any document to do so ?
Or was the door jammed because of the quite hard shock when hitting the runway without any suspension, and therefor deforming the forward fuselage and the door frame ?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex:
No: I have spent the last twelve months racking up more than 19,000 American Airmiles between Tampa and Chicago, the vast (and I do mean vast, maybe all) of those on MD80/83s. Never a problem, never an unpleasant landing.
No: I have spent the last twelve months racking up more than 19,000 American Airmiles between Tampa and Chicago, the vast (and I do mean vast, maybe all) of those on MD80/83s. Never a problem, never an unpleasant landing.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dudly,
re your last post - basically the a/c had a flaps problem, which caused lots of angst for those on board. It didn't crash, (so it did not make the papers), but most of us on board thought it was going to, especially on arrival at TPA. No point relaying the whole episode here, but will send you a PM if you really want the details. Without doubt the most frightening experience I have ever had personally on any commercial airliner - thats why I questioned whether there was a maintenance/revenue issue here - general opinion on board was that the plane should never have left the gate. As stated originally - I shall be trying to avoid S80s in the future - I don't think the wife and kids will get on one again anyway.
re your last post - basically the a/c had a flaps problem, which caused lots of angst for those on board. It didn't crash, (so it did not make the papers), but most of us on board thought it was going to, especially on arrival at TPA. No point relaying the whole episode here, but will send you a PM if you really want the details. Without doubt the most frightening experience I have ever had personally on any commercial airliner - thats why I questioned whether there was a maintenance/revenue issue here - general opinion on board was that the plane should never have left the gate. As stated originally - I shall be trying to avoid S80s in the future - I don't think the wife and kids will get on one again anyway.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically the a/c had a flaps problem
(RE: Connex's experience)
Do the flaps not have to be functioning (and set properly) for take-off? Hence the crew would have (reasonably) been under the assumption there was no problem with the flaps.
Do the flaps not have to be functioning (and set properly) for take-off? Hence the crew would have (reasonably) been under the assumption there was no problem with the flaps.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing without flaps is not particularly dangerous, you just need a long runway due to the higher approach speeds. If you must land without flaps, AND without slats, you're Vref speed is roughly 60kts higher than a normal landing.
The MD80 has a very nice flaps system. It's hydraulic with mechanical selection so they'll work just fine even without electrical power. All you need is one of three hydraulic pumps providing pressure to one of two hydraulic systems to get flap extension. It's a very well built airplane.
The MD80 has a very nice flaps system. It's hydraulic with mechanical selection so they'll work just fine even without electrical power. All you need is one of three hydraulic pumps providing pressure to one of two hydraulic systems to get flap extension. It's a very well built airplane.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi AtlPax -
Yes, I agree - it would seem reasonable to us non-pilots to expect the flaps to be seviceable and set properly for take-off on the a/c. The pilot at LGA informed us of the problem himself - this is not "non-pilot speculation" from the back of the plane. He also informed us of what was going on outside, and those paxs on the r/h side could see and hear the mechanical rectifications taking place. The pilot then said the problem was fixed - "he (the engineer outside) has cranked them down, and he's cranked them up again" - the pilot's own words) - so why the aborted take-off that followed, then a very hair-raising second attempt, and finally the very high speed and bumpy landing at TPA with the flaps in the same position as they were at the LGA gate, with the plane seeming to drop like an elevator with snapped cables ?
and to Larry in TN -
Thanks for your post - As you have probably deduced, I am not qualified to fly S80's and so I will not disagree with your statement that it is not particularly dangerous to land an S80 without flaps. However, in this scenario, you must remember that the only people on the plane who really know what's about to happen are the 2 crew up front - and for the other 120plus punters in the cabin it is a SERIOUSLY unfunny experience, no matter how "nice" the flap systems are.
If an a/c develops a fault on the ground, then common sense would dictate that it should not fly again until the fault is rectified - whatever the cost to the airline. Unfortunately, the constraints of the financial side of the commercial aviation business and common sense rarely see eye-to-eye!
Yes, I agree - it would seem reasonable to us non-pilots to expect the flaps to be seviceable and set properly for take-off on the a/c. The pilot at LGA informed us of the problem himself - this is not "non-pilot speculation" from the back of the plane. He also informed us of what was going on outside, and those paxs on the r/h side could see and hear the mechanical rectifications taking place. The pilot then said the problem was fixed - "he (the engineer outside) has cranked them down, and he's cranked them up again" - the pilot's own words) - so why the aborted take-off that followed, then a very hair-raising second attempt, and finally the very high speed and bumpy landing at TPA with the flaps in the same position as they were at the LGA gate, with the plane seeming to drop like an elevator with snapped cables ?
and to Larry in TN -
Thanks for your post - As you have probably deduced, I am not qualified to fly S80's and so I will not disagree with your statement that it is not particularly dangerous to land an S80 without flaps. However, in this scenario, you must remember that the only people on the plane who really know what's about to happen are the 2 crew up front - and for the other 120plus punters in the cabin it is a SERIOUSLY unfunny experience, no matter how "nice" the flap systems are.
If an a/c develops a fault on the ground, then common sense would dictate that it should not fly again until the fault is rectified - whatever the cost to the airline. Unfortunately, the constraints of the financial side of the commercial aviation business and common sense rarely see eye-to-eye!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex,
It is illegal to takeoff in an MD80 with inoperative flaps. Since they did take off, the previous problem was believed fixed, and tested, prior to departure. In flight, things often go differently from the test on the ground.
The MD80 can, however, takeoff without flaps extended, though the slats must be in the takeoff position. A zero flaps takeoff would be used to increase maximum takeoff weight in cases where you are otherwise climb limited (hot temps, high elevation) but have a long runway available. Even in those situations, it would be illegal to make such a takeoff if the flaps were inoperative. The only exception would be a ferry flight on a ferry permit which would require that the airplane be empty of passengers and cargo.
Not sure what the Captain meant by "He has cranked them down". I don't know of any method of flap extension that could be accurately described like that. I'd imagine that he just powered the hydraulics with the Aux Hydralic and Alt Gear pumps and operated the flaps normally.
Again, a flaps zero landing is not particularly dangerous, just faster. Where the crew failed was in not assuring the passengers that there was no danger.
It is illegal to takeoff in an MD80 with inoperative flaps. Since they did take off, the previous problem was believed fixed, and tested, prior to departure. In flight, things often go differently from the test on the ground.
The MD80 can, however, takeoff without flaps extended, though the slats must be in the takeoff position. A zero flaps takeoff would be used to increase maximum takeoff weight in cases where you are otherwise climb limited (hot temps, high elevation) but have a long runway available. Even in those situations, it would be illegal to make such a takeoff if the flaps were inoperative. The only exception would be a ferry flight on a ferry permit which would require that the airplane be empty of passengers and cargo.
Not sure what the Captain meant by "He has cranked them down". I don't know of any method of flap extension that could be accurately described like that. I'd imagine that he just powered the hydraulics with the Aux Hydralic and Alt Gear pumps and operated the flaps normally.
Again, a flaps zero landing is not particularly dangerous, just faster. Where the crew failed was in not assuring the passengers that there was no danger.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Larry in TN,
My wife and kids have just read your post, and are now appraised of some of the flying capabilities of the MD80. However, they still don't want to fly on one again!
As for myself, I appreciate that problems can occur with any form of transport at any time - my point is, that with regard to aircraft, the end results of some of those problems can sometimes be catastrophic. Once it's flying, it's not as simple as pulling to the side of the road when something malfunctions. Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough. Its probably going to be that 1% that causes the a/c to involuntarily demonstrate the Law of Gravity! If there's a reported problem with a vital component (be it large or small), then the plane should stay grounded until it's fixed. I do not agree with trying to effect a repair during the (often limited) turnaround time, especially if its something to do with parts of the plane that actually keep it in the air, like the flaps for instance. Replacing an overhead bulb, or fixing a pax's seat is one thing - repairs to flaps, engines etc is quite another. I appreciate that this is easier said than done in today's cut-throat airline environment. Planes on the ground equals no revenue for the airline - just expense.
Safety within civil aviation is normally extremely good. The vast majority of us SLFs do not know about technical capabilities, safe operating limits et al - we just want to travel from A to B on an a/c that is in complete working order. We dont want high speed flapless landings and stomach turning descents, even if they are safely within the a/c's capabilities. If the plane ain't working 100% properly when its time to depart, then put us on one that is! THEN go and fix the one that isn't. As for the particular MD80 we flew on - sorry, Larry, but that one was a sick'un, and should have stayed at home.
My wife and kids have just read your post, and are now appraised of some of the flying capabilities of the MD80. However, they still don't want to fly on one again!
As for myself, I appreciate that problems can occur with any form of transport at any time - my point is, that with regard to aircraft, the end results of some of those problems can sometimes be catastrophic. Once it's flying, it's not as simple as pulling to the side of the road when something malfunctions. Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough. Its probably going to be that 1% that causes the a/c to involuntarily demonstrate the Law of Gravity! If there's a reported problem with a vital component (be it large or small), then the plane should stay grounded until it's fixed. I do not agree with trying to effect a repair during the (often limited) turnaround time, especially if its something to do with parts of the plane that actually keep it in the air, like the flaps for instance. Replacing an overhead bulb, or fixing a pax's seat is one thing - repairs to flaps, engines etc is quite another. I appreciate that this is easier said than done in today's cut-throat airline environment. Planes on the ground equals no revenue for the airline - just expense.
Safety within civil aviation is normally extremely good. The vast majority of us SLFs do not know about technical capabilities, safe operating limits et al - we just want to travel from A to B on an a/c that is in complete working order. We dont want high speed flapless landings and stomach turning descents, even if they are safely within the a/c's capabilities. If the plane ain't working 100% properly when its time to depart, then put us on one that is! THEN go and fix the one that isn't. As for the particular MD80 we flew on - sorry, Larry, but that one was a sick'un, and should have stayed at home.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, they thought it was 100% fixed or it would not have taken off. Working flaps are required for takeoff.
BTW, there is a binder about an inch thick filled with items that may be inoperative at takeoff and the conditions/restrictions that must be applied. Flaps are not included in that binder, they must be working for takeoff.
BTW, there is a binder about an inch thick filled with items that may be inoperative at takeoff and the conditions/restrictions that must be applied. Flaps are not included in that binder, they must be working for takeoff.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connex...
Can I try and correct some of your comments in the light of the "modern commercial world" - it may help you regain some confidence! I have never flown MD80s / DC9s etc., but the principles hold.
<<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough>>
A lovely ideal, but nor practical. In fact, modern aircraft have lots of "spare" systems built in, so that it is possible to fly with 1 of 2 systems not working. Of course, having now put in a "spare" system, the chances of 1 of the systems failing is doubled - Catch 22.
If it was a requirement for <<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time >> then the designers would not put in the spare systems to the same extent? And you, the customer, the fare paying passenger would be inconvienienced to a far greater extent.
<<Its probably going to be that 1% that causes the a/c to involuntarily demonstrate the Law of Gravity>>
Mechanical causes for accidents are rare, and even rarer where the cause was evident prior departure. As stated above, we have a large book of faults we can "carry", and any associated restrictions this fault entails. On some occasions these restrictions mean the flight cannot be undertaken...
<<especially if its something to do with parts of the plane that actually keep it in the air, like the flaps for instance>>
Flaps do not "keep it in the air"... they enable the aircraft to fly at a lower speed. In general, you will not takeoff with a Flaps problem... However, if they fail in the air, the consequence is:
1. You land faster
2. So you need a longer runway
3. So you might need to go to an airport other than where you intended.
This is not "dangerous" - just inconvienient to everyone - including of course the airline, because without the flaps, it cannot takeoff again until they are fixed. And often when these things "break", you fix them (on the ground), and they seem to work fine. Then you get in the air and they go wrong again... but that's life.
<<If the plane ain't working 100% properly when its time to depart, then put us on one that is! THEN go and fix the one that isn't>>
<<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough>>
Statements such as these are great, but not practical in economic terms. If I invented an airline that used the above principles, would you be be prepared to pay double to ticket price to travel with me? And I'm not sure it would actually be any safer anyway...
NoD
Can I try and correct some of your comments in the light of the "modern commercial world" - it may help you regain some confidence! I have never flown MD80s / DC9s etc., but the principles hold.
<<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough>>
A lovely ideal, but nor practical. In fact, modern aircraft have lots of "spare" systems built in, so that it is possible to fly with 1 of 2 systems not working. Of course, having now put in a "spare" system, the chances of 1 of the systems failing is doubled - Catch 22.
If it was a requirement for <<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time >> then the designers would not put in the spare systems to the same extent? And you, the customer, the fare paying passenger would be inconvienienced to a far greater extent.
<<Its probably going to be that 1% that causes the a/c to involuntarily demonstrate the Law of Gravity>>
Mechanical causes for accidents are rare, and even rarer where the cause was evident prior departure. As stated above, we have a large book of faults we can "carry", and any associated restrictions this fault entails. On some occasions these restrictions mean the flight cannot be undertaken...
<<especially if its something to do with parts of the plane that actually keep it in the air, like the flaps for instance>>
Flaps do not "keep it in the air"... they enable the aircraft to fly at a lower speed. In general, you will not takeoff with a Flaps problem... However, if they fail in the air, the consequence is:
1. You land faster
2. So you need a longer runway
3. So you might need to go to an airport other than where you intended.
This is not "dangerous" - just inconvienient to everyone - including of course the airline, because without the flaps, it cannot takeoff again until they are fixed. And often when these things "break", you fix them (on the ground), and they seem to work fine. Then you get in the air and they go wrong again... but that's life.
<<If the plane ain't working 100% properly when its time to depart, then put us on one that is! THEN go and fix the one that isn't>>
<<Aircraft need to be 100% seviceable 100% of the time - 99% is not good enough>>
Statements such as these are great, but not practical in economic terms. If I invented an airline that used the above principles, would you be be prepared to pay double to ticket price to travel with me? And I'm not sure it would actually be any safer anyway...
NoD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Connex,
I’ll add a few more thoughts to NigelOnDraft post to calm your nerves.
Both the Captain and the mechanic have been issued licenses from the FAA. If either the Captain or the mechanics are not happy with the aircraft either of them can keep the aircraft on the ground until the aircraft is fixed properly. The FAA can revoke their licenses and they will be flipping hamburgers the next week.
Once in a great while maintenance doesn’t get it fixed correctly on the first try. The FAA watches for these “repeat” write-ups and will ask questions if they find them. Unfortunately in your case it resulted in your ordeal.
A short story; once I was called out to take and aircraft up for a test flight in the middle of the night from American’s maintenance base in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The aircraft had many write-ups over a period of a month about a “Stall Indication Failure” light coming on at cruise. The aircraft had several test fights over the month and each time the problem came back with the same symptoms. My night we had several “suits” on board including a Tech Rep from McDonnell Douglas. It looked to me that heads would roll if the problem wasn’t fix this time. We had several bundles of cables coming out of the electrical compartment running down the aisle back into first class where they could monitor the affected systems. We took off at midnight with a full load of fuel and flew a big continuous box over the middle of the United States for over four hours at 37,000 feet. The problem seemed to be fixed and we returned to Tulsa. I took a personal interest in that plane and watched it for the next month to see if the problem came back, it didn’t. Needles to say this one light cost AA tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who paid for all of this, eventually you the passenger.
The DC-9 has two hydraulic systems driven by four hydraulic pumps. Two engine pumps left and right, one electric (right), and one transfer pump that will transfer pressure (not fluid) from one system to the other. The flap and slats work off both the left and right system together. Either hydraulic system can operate the flaps and slats just at a reduced rate.
You cannot “crank” down the flaps. The Captain may have used that phrase on the PA at the gate but there is no manual method of lower or raise the flaps and slats on the DC-9. The aircraft can be landed safely with no flaps and no slats all you need is a long runway.
I’ve flown the DC-9 for 15 years and not once have I had the flaps and/or slats fail me. The only “emergencies” I have had in all these years on the plane have been in the simulator. I’m sorry you had a bad experience onboard but as a rule the DC-9 fleet is a very dependable work horse with an excellent accident record.
I’ll add a few more thoughts to NigelOnDraft post to calm your nerves.
Both the Captain and the mechanic have been issued licenses from the FAA. If either the Captain or the mechanics are not happy with the aircraft either of them can keep the aircraft on the ground until the aircraft is fixed properly. The FAA can revoke their licenses and they will be flipping hamburgers the next week.
Once in a great while maintenance doesn’t get it fixed correctly on the first try. The FAA watches for these “repeat” write-ups and will ask questions if they find them. Unfortunately in your case it resulted in your ordeal.
A short story; once I was called out to take and aircraft up for a test flight in the middle of the night from American’s maintenance base in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The aircraft had many write-ups over a period of a month about a “Stall Indication Failure” light coming on at cruise. The aircraft had several test fights over the month and each time the problem came back with the same symptoms. My night we had several “suits” on board including a Tech Rep from McDonnell Douglas. It looked to me that heads would roll if the problem wasn’t fix this time. We had several bundles of cables coming out of the electrical compartment running down the aisle back into first class where they could monitor the affected systems. We took off at midnight with a full load of fuel and flew a big continuous box over the middle of the United States for over four hours at 37,000 feet. The problem seemed to be fixed and we returned to Tulsa. I took a personal interest in that plane and watched it for the next month to see if the problem came back, it didn’t. Needles to say this one light cost AA tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who paid for all of this, eventually you the passenger.
The DC-9 has two hydraulic systems driven by four hydraulic pumps. Two engine pumps left and right, one electric (right), and one transfer pump that will transfer pressure (not fluid) from one system to the other. The flap and slats work off both the left and right system together. Either hydraulic system can operate the flaps and slats just at a reduced rate.
You cannot “crank” down the flaps. The Captain may have used that phrase on the PA at the gate but there is no manual method of lower or raise the flaps and slats on the DC-9. The aircraft can be landed safely with no flaps and no slats all you need is a long runway.
I’ve flown the DC-9 for 15 years and not once have I had the flaps and/or slats fail me. The only “emergencies” I have had in all these years on the plane have been in the simulator. I’m sorry you had a bad experience onboard but as a rule the DC-9 fleet is a very dependable work horse with an excellent accident record.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Costa del Hampshire
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Larry in TN -
Agreed - the crew must have OK'd the repair, and I don't think I want to know what items can be inoperative at take-off, thank you very much!
NigelOnDraft -
thanks for your "confidence booster". Hasn't worked for the wife and kids, though - we have just sat here discussing and remembering that flight, and just how BL**DY SCARY it was from start to finish - not just for us, but for all those SLFs on that flight.
AAL_Silverbird -
thank you for your post. I am pleased to hear(and do not doubt) that AA take such tasks as line maintenance seriously (as per your story).I have flown many sectors on AA S80s over the last few years, but I do not relish the thought of the next one, and I don't expect my family will either. For the duration, I shall plan my itinerary with S80s at the bottom of the list. Seeing what happened at JFK recently (the original thread) gives me no cause for optimism. Give me a 757 every time!
One last point - at the aerodrome I work at I have witnessed a good number of flapless landings, most of which were handled as LSBs or even full emergencies. A flapless landing is not a normal event - no matter how capable the a/c is of doing it, and particularly when you happen to be an SLF on it! If increased maintenance (and yes, increased cost) is required to help prevent it further, then I am all for it - I am not bothered about the additional cost -I am used to it already - I already get shafted for extortionate Airport Tax every time I fly from the UK!!
Agreed - the crew must have OK'd the repair, and I don't think I want to know what items can be inoperative at take-off, thank you very much!
NigelOnDraft -
thanks for your "confidence booster". Hasn't worked for the wife and kids, though - we have just sat here discussing and remembering that flight, and just how BL**DY SCARY it was from start to finish - not just for us, but for all those SLFs on that flight.
AAL_Silverbird -
thank you for your post. I am pleased to hear(and do not doubt) that AA take such tasks as line maintenance seriously (as per your story).I have flown many sectors on AA S80s over the last few years, but I do not relish the thought of the next one, and I don't expect my family will either. For the duration, I shall plan my itinerary with S80s at the bottom of the list. Seeing what happened at JFK recently (the original thread) gives me no cause for optimism. Give me a 757 every time!
One last point - at the aerodrome I work at I have witnessed a good number of flapless landings, most of which were handled as LSBs or even full emergencies. A flapless landing is not a normal event - no matter how capable the a/c is of doing it, and particularly when you happen to be an SLF on it! If increased maintenance (and yes, increased cost) is required to help prevent it further, then I am all for it - I am not bothered about the additional cost -I am used to it already - I already get shafted for extortionate Airport Tax every time I fly from the UK!!
Hmmm. Funny nobody's said anything about flogging dead horses. Hats off for the effort NoD and AAL_S.
And, of course, completely off topic, hats off to the two who put that long md-80 nose down with with what appears to have been such a gentle thud.
And, of course, completely off topic, hats off to the two who put that long md-80 nose down with with what appears to have been such a gentle thud.
