Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)  
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To continue American MD-80 Lands At STL With Engine Fire (by KPDX Sep 28 2007 in Civil Aviation)









DC9 taking off from STL. The pilot did a go around with multiple warning lights on one engine. FAA is really steaming about this one.

Any more news?

(removed pic)

[Edited 2007-10-30 19:37:05]

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18061 times:

The top photo is Fake.......!!! The rest are real
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Lane


Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
FAA is really steaming about this one.

Steaming...??? Why...??? The engine failed on climb out. What else is he going to do...???

[Edited 2007-10-30 19:36:51]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineBoeingFever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17959 times:

Fxramper... Jimbo send you those?

Nothing alittle Turtle Wax can't fix!



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 18005 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):

Didn't see that photo in database, but I'm hearing a lot from AA guys that the FAA is hot about this particular incident.

Comments?


User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17904 times:

It might sound funny, but I'm happy to see a plane with that much damage that can still land safely. It gives me more confidence in all the planes I fly on.
And also, I'm glad that pilots can stay cool and take care of business with crazy warning lights and alarms going off when they lose an engine at a crucial time.

The FAA should give them a medal.


User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17861 times:

Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
The pilot did a go around with multiple warning lights

Did the pilot do a go-around (i.e., continue take-off, turn around, approach for a landing, then reject the landing and attempt again) with the warning lights, or did the pilot continue a take-off, turn around and come in to land?

if it was the former, I can understand why the FAA would be "steamed" ... if the latter, then I do believe that the pilot's actions were the correct ones*.

*I'm not in the aviation field, so don't know the finer points of things like this. Just trying to get things clear in my mind.

Bren



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17836 times:

NTSB Preliminary report makes for interesting reading ... available at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI07MA310&rpt=p

Basically the NTSB is noting that the nosegear failed to extend when the landing was attempted. NTSB Prelim. report doesn't explicitly state that a missed approach was, or was not, executed -- wording is ambiguous.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17808 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 2):
Fxramper... Jimbo send you those?

He's your uncle too dude. Yes.

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 4):
The FAA should give them a medal.

I agree.

Quoting Brenintw (Reply 5):
The FAA should give them a medal.

There were multiple warning lights on, not just engine.

 redflag 


User currently offlineBrenintw From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1647 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17745 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 7):
Quoting Brenintw (Reply 5):
The FAA should give them a medal.

There were multiple warning lights on, not just engine.

I dirrent say dat!  Smile I only asked questions.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17693 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 7):
There were multiple warning lights on, not just engine.

So what.....??? That is going to happen when you have a failure like they did.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineSideflare75 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17645 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1):
The top photo is Fake.......!!! The rest are real

OK I'll bite. What makes the top one fake? Sure looks like the same plane to me.

And why would the FAA be steaming? Sounds like the crew did an extraordinary job dealing with first an engine fire and then a gear problem.


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17548 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Sideflare75 (Reply 10):
And why would the FAA be steaming?

According to my source, the pilots lied about the situation - warning lights on during their emergency landing.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17517 times:

Quoting Sideflare75 (Reply 10):
OK I'll bite. What makes the top one fake? Sure looks like the same plane to me

He deleted it. It was a photo shopped picture of the same pic I have above.... but with flames added. (Note his edit conmment)

Quoting FXramper (Reply 11):

According to my source, the pilots lied about the situation - warning lights on during their emergency landing

Lied about what...? I'm sure that cockpit was lite up like a Christmas tree.

[Edited 2007-10-30 20:45:13]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3303 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17498 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 11):
the pilots lied about the situation - warning lights on during their emergency landing.

Would anyone have expected anything else?

And if you have to do a go-around, you have to do a go-around...one engine or two.

Of course, you try not to have to do a go-around if you're down an engine...but it can't always be avoided.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17478 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 7):
There were multiple warning lights on, not just engine.

I can think of at least four (4) other systems that should have had lights on, other than the engine.


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 17349 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 12):
I'm sure that cockpit was lite up like a Christmas tree.

they stated, just immediate engine failure - which would include no less than four lights. There were a lot more than four lights blazing.


The whole things is screwy. I read the only thread, not much more stated so far...


User currently offlineNEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 716 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17088 times:

Amazing pics of this damage.. Looks to me like all of the blast went downwards. I hate to think what might have been the outcome if it was more towards the fuselage or directly upwards towards the tail. Thankfully, this was not the case but makes you think...


There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8269 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16579 times:

Engine fire and a faulty nose wheel... that's a hell of a day! I bet they'll appreciate the sim that much more next time.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16406 times:

Quoting NEMA (Reply 16):
I hate to think what might have been the outcome if it was more towards the fuselage or directly upwards towards the tail. Thankfully, this was not the case but makes you think...

But aren't the engines specifically designed so that an engine blowout points "away" from the aircraft? Isn't that part of their designed failure mode? I would hope that's the case, as you wouldn't want a "routine" engine failure, no matter how dramatic looking, to destroy the control surfaces and make the plane crash, right?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7591 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16403 times:

The initial report (which may have changed since) was that the left start valve malfunctioned and opened shortly after takeoff, causing the starter to spool up to a high rate of speed and fail. When the starter failed, in essentially exploded out through the engine cowling, taking out the generator, causing the fire, and compromising a portion of the hydraulic system.

During the emergency landing, the nose gear would not fully deploy due to the hydraulic system issue as a result of the engine failure/fire. They lowered the gear manually and did a go around/fly-by to ensure that the gear was lowered.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23021 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 16403 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 17):
Engine fire and a faulty nose wheel...

Nothing wrong with the nose gear... but a hydraulic extension is a little difficult with that much engine damage.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16356 times:

Quoting Sideflare75 (Reply 10):
OK I'll bite. What makes the top one fake? Sure looks like the same plane to me

Although it was the same N454AA, the original "real" picture was shot 3 years ahead of the date of the fire on N454AA. Additionally, the real/doctored photo show the aircraft about to touchdown on STL's 12R, while the NTSB report indicates the flight with thefir landed on STL's 30L.

[Edited 2007-10-31 10:14:27]

User currently offlineCubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 409 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16272 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18):
But aren't the engines specifically designed so that an engine blowout points "away" from the aircraft? Isn't that part of their designed failure mode? I would hope that's the case, as you wouldn't want a "routine" engine failure, no matter how dramatic looking, to destroy the control surfaces and make the plane crash, right?

Engines are designed for containment in the event of a catastrophic failure. Some things can't be designed totally fail safe. The CF-6 center engine failure on the UAL DC-10 was failure of the compressor disc. DL had a MD-88 turbine disc failure on takeoff out of Pensacola where several pax were killed. CO had a DC-10 engine overspeed (caused by the crew) that sent shrapnel through the fuselage and killed a pax. Designers and manufacturers shoot for 100 percent. Occasionally, they don't quite make it.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16214 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 15):
The whole things is screwy. I read the only thread, not much more stated so far...

The unofficial story within AA pilot ranks (AA's "official" position is that the "incident" is being "investigated") is that the starter valve (placarded so a mechanic had to manually open/shut this valve) wasn't fully closed after start, the Start Valve Open light was not illuminated after engine start (should have been), therefore the starter spun essentially out-of-control during takeoff and "blew" shortly thereafter causing the fire. Engine Fire light properly illuminated and crew followed proper procedures, but fire continued (nacelle would not hold extinguishing agent for obvious reasons).

There were other problems (I don't recall all) including the DC Bus-Tie not closing so they did NOT have the emergency instruments they would normally have (as in all simulated situations) along with the nose gear indicating UNSAFE when attempting the first emergency landing (nose "pin" not extended). A go-around was initiated and the subsequent emergency landing completed successfully (gear lowered by alternate means). FAA (individual?) is upset due to the go-around with an active fire indication (IMHO: Captain's Emergency Authority so FAA is upset they can do nothing legally... I think I would have just landed, but that is me talking about it and I wasn't the CA on this flight) and didn't evacuate the plane after stopping.

Possible (strong rumors) individual FAA person(s) upset because they may(?) have "tested" the landing gear WITHOUT company/union/manufacturer/etc. representatives present and claim there was no problem with the gear indications --even stronger rumors that such test was invalid as the plane was not configured as it was on the incident flight, but when found out what was going on and properly configured the same as the incident flight.... the same problems occured: No DC Bus-Tie, nose gear unsafe indication, etc. These "individual(s)" were "shown-up" by "others"???

Lots of "stories" floating around the AA pilot rumor mill, but that's the basics that seem to be repeated in ALL the stories I've heard so far. Along with rumors of whom one "FAA individual" may be and why he/she may be "out to get 'those AA' pilots."

In the end, a highly unusual multiple emergency situation where there are no specific procedures in any manual and the Captain used his discretionary authority to make decisions that ultimately led to a safe landing with no injuries. Some may disagree with his decisions, but that's why there is Captain' Emergency Authority... it was HIS decision(s) to make.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2353 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15565 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 23):
starter valve (placarded so a mechanic had to manually open/shut this valve) wasn't fully closed after start, the Start Valve Open light was not illuminated after engine start (should have been), therefore the starter spun essentially out-of-control during takeoff and "blew" shortly thereafter causing the fire.

Shouldn't this have been an indication to the crew to not take-off and perhaps avoid the whole incident?

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 22):
Engines are designed for containment in the event of a catastrophic failure. Some things can't be designed totally fail safe.

 checkmark  Not to nitpick, but I think the over-speed incident was National.



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
25 Airlinelover : Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..
26 777STL : Technically, an MD80 is a DC9-80. That's what the type certificate says anyway. EDIT: To be more specific, there is no specific model known as an MD8
27 757drvr : MD80's are DC9's! The original designation for this series of aircraft was DC-9-81,82,83 etc.
28 AA777ER : The starter valve/light on this AC was deferred for 10 days before it malfunction after Take Off and cause MAJOR problems for this crew. This crew did
29 Post contains links and images JetMech : Interesting. Many of the starter motors I have seen have a really thick ring of material surrounding the air turbine to contain failure. I guess this
30 Access-Air : Yes and No.....The DC9 series includes the 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 81, 82, 83 and 87.....The MD-88, MD-90, anmd MD 95-30 (B717) are what the what the off
31 Xtoler : Kudos on the crew for their actions. Just a reminder, though, the FAA and NTSB may not be hot under the collar, it's just they have to do their jobs o
32 Indio66 : Come on guys, its all ball bearings these days!
33 AAR90 : I should have CAPITALIZED the words "NOT ILLUMINATED"??? If the light was NOT on, how would the crew know not to take-off? FWIW, the light is above t
34 TrijetsRMissed : First off, calm the heck down. I am not the FAA, nor am I out to get you or your friends. This is a forum, we have discussions. Better? Okay. I don't
35 Pilotpip : I was sitting on the pad waiting for my gate to open up. I watched them do the go around with the mains down and the nose up. The left engine was unus
36 Post contains images EA CO AS :
37 Cubastar : I believe that most indication light panels are designed to be "dark". Then, any light that is "on" would indicate a malfunction.
38 Cubastar : You are absolutely right. My age is showing! Note the following: Airline: National Airlines Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 Location: over Albuq
39 Tdscanuck : Not really. The engines are designed to contain parts that they can contain (e.g. blades) but parts on the outside (like the starter) aren't containe
40 Higherflyer : The airworthiness certificate may say -88, -90 or -95/717, but the type ratings on pilot certificates show them as DC-9's.
41 Post contains images AAR90 : Sorry if you think I was upset... I was not. Just thought what I wrote made sense. I'll try again (see below). The START VALVE OPEN light simply indi
42 TrijetsRMissed : True, I should know better. I misinterpreted what was said earlier. Thank you for clarifying. Whatever happened to this crew? I assume at the very le
43 Neuroticdave : I congratulate the pilots on a job well done in getting that bird on the ground with no incidents.
44 FlagshipAZ : Is it too soon to know whether N454AA is repairable, or a write-off? Obviously the port engine is a total loss, but how did the fuselage & tail assemb
45 MrSTL : I was at Lambert today, I 'm pretty sure I saw this bird without its engine parked in front of the maintenance hangar. Seems like a long time (a month
46 PC12Fan : That's the one.
47 Litz : Remember the AA 762 some time back that blew an engine during a MX runup, whilst on the test stand? Pieces of that fragmented disk sailed clean over
48 FlagshipAZ : I just recently learned that the AA 762 in question, N330AA has been written-off and is now being prepped for dismantlement at LAX. I certainly hope t
49 EMBQA : Why would it...?? I'm sure it was back flying a few days later. That damage actually is pretty minor. A quick engine change, a new cowling and you're
50 Tdscanuck : That one was ugly. The disk split into three pieces, which is the worst possible configuration. One piece went up and over the whole airport. One wen
51 OPNLguy : I agree, and likewise with N654US at PHL a few years back. Once you get fire damage, the two big questions that come up are (1) can there be a cost-e
52 LASOctoberB6 : I forgot how bad that plane looked after it's accident. Why so?
53 Tdscanuck : Apparently, splitting in three gives you the maximum velocity of the pieces. Conservation of momentum ensures that the sum of the momentum vectors of
54 OPNLguy : Makes perfect sense if you think about, mathematics aside. Not unlike the MIRV warheads on missiles--multiple pieces with multiple potential targets,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA MD80 Lands Short At DEN posted Mon Nov 22 2004 15:55:41 by DB777
AA Adds A Few Flights At STL posted Wed Jun 23 2004 04:47:47 by LambertMan
AA MD80 Emergency Landing At IAD posted Thu Nov 30 2000 00:33:34 by Gocaps16
American MD-80 Lands At STL With Engine Fire posted Fri Sep 28 2007 21:27:40 by KPDX
AA And WN Have Signed New Leases At STL posted Fri Nov 18 2005 07:34:24 by MrSTL
AA MD80 Slides Off Runway At ORD posted Mon Jan 24 2005 18:51:27 by BALandorLivery
AA Slashes Fares At STL To Match DL posted Fri Jan 7 2005 15:15:52 by Thrust
Flames From MD80 Engine At PHX Yesterday posted Fri Jun 11 2004 17:10:53 by 22right
AA's Nov. 1 Changes At STL Very Noticeable posted Tue Nov 4 2003 16:07:11 by TWFirst
AA At STL Further Reductions... posted Fri Oct 3 2003 02:46:47 by LambertMan