B717 Evac @ Bos
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
From: Wet Coast
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
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/01/plane_fire.htm
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: AZ
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.
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
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.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
From: Horsham UK
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...
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...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
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.
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.
Trash du Blanc
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
From: KBHM
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!
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!
