Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA MD-80 Freezes After Takeoff  
User currently offlineFlyin5glow From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 67 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20851 times:

And when you thought that AA had everything under control with the inspections and grounding of the MD-80's now this. According to the article the plane look like Popsicle, that's a strange look.  Wow!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/08/griffin.landing.gear/index.html


Go Huskies
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21588 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20778 times:

We've had a very cold winter. There have been a lot of bizarre problems with freezing and icing we haven't seen for a while.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20711 times:

Not sure why AA has not started replacing the MD80s, not from a safety point of view but from the fact that many are old, not very fuel efficient, no IFE, 1980's technology, etc. AA CEO is still saying he will replace these birds whenever Boeing comes up w/a new generation narrowbody similar to 737NG or better like "Baby-787"...I am not sure Boeing is in any rush to develop a new type of jet especially w/all the trouble they are having w/787 production...Boeing's hands are full and AA yet hoping for a miracle. At this rate, Boeing will need between 5-10 yrs to develop a new narrowbody and AA will have one of the oldest fleets around by hanging on to those MD80s. AA should have replaced the MD80s w/a bunch of 737NG (737-700/800/900) and would be in a better position fuel wise and competitive. The MD80 is an old thing, get rid of it!!!

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20659 times:

Question: Why would a pilot who knows (hopefully) that non-retracted landing gear disables the de-icing systems choose to orbit the aircraft in freezing precip while diagnosing the problem?

It seems to me that it would be a better idea to move the aircraft out of the region of the precip and if necessary land at another airfield. Last time I checked, no-retract was not an immediate landing condition.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20494 times:

Excerpted from the linked article:

Within minutes, Mayer managed to bring the airplane safely back to the airport. But when he inspected the exterior of the aircraft, he says the MD-80 jetliner looked like a "popsicle." The malfunctioning nose gear disabled the plane's anti-icing systems, according to Mayer, who says the wings and tail of the plane were freezing over.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Question: Why would a pilot who knows (hopefully) that non-retracted landing gear disables the de-icing systems choose to orbit the aircraft in freezing precip while diagnosing the problem?

It seems to me that it would be a better idea to move the aircraft out of the region of the precip and if necessary land at another airfield. Last time I checked, no-retract was not an immediate landing condition.

Sounds like an air/ground sensing issue, with the aircraft airborne but thinking it was still on the ground, hence no *wing* anti-ice (*Engine* A/I OK), and no ability to pressurize the cabin, the latter also being a reason to return since continuing A to B at/below 10,000 feet would have entailed more fuel than planned, and even moreso for flying with the gear hanging out...

[Edited 2008-04-09 11:04:37]

User currently offlineTAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20378 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
Not sure why AA has not started replacing the MD80s, not from a safety point of view but from the fact that many are old, not very fuel efficient, no IFE, 1980's technology, etc

Money... They have 47 738's on order to replace the oldest models. The newest ones are the last ones delivered to TWA in 1999, not that old.

While they are not the most fuel-efficient , as far as I can recall they are paid-for. NO lease payments can free up dollars for fuel at this time. No IFE...oh well. Bring a good book, expand ones mind.

I'll fly on any MD-80 over some of airbuses at some carriers that felt like they were falling apart already. The MD-80 (DC-9-80) has a heritage of being built like a tank. I like strength, particularly in turbulance.

So, they will be a round for a while until Boeing come up with the new narrowbody replacement.


User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20377 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
Not sure why AA has not started replacing the MD80s

They have.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
many are old,

Some are old, some are new. Just like every other airlines' fleet. And some MD-80's are very new with AA.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
not very fuel efficient

They may burn a bit more fuel but that is not the only measure of efficiency in the business.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
no IFE,

Most domestic birds have no IFE, on all airlines in the US.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
1980's technology

And an amazingly well built aircraft that it is still in service. The 757/767 is 80's technology, should AA replace those too?

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
Boeing will need between 5-10 yrs to develop a new narrowbody

And how many MD-80's could AA really replace in that time? To replace the entire fleet in 10 years AA would need to take delivery of 2-3 a month for the entire 10 year span. They just arn't in a financial position to so this.

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
AA should have replaced the MD80s w/a bunch of 737NG (737-700/800/900) and would be in a better position fuel wise and competitive.

Most pax don't know the difference between AA's MD-80's and 737's. Neither have IFE. Sure the 737 may burn a bit less fuel but AA would also be paying lease payments on the planes, increased insurance costs, retrain all the pilots, ground crews, airport staff, ect on the 737, ect. It is quite expensive to replace these aircraft and in today's market it may not be the best time.


User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1037 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20260 times:

For what it's worth, I'd rather take an MD80 any day over a 737, if for no other reason than the 2+3 seating. And I'm pretty confident in McDonnell Douglas's engineering, too Big grin

User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7438 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 20228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think what we're seeing is a fundamental breakdown in aviation maintenence as a whole. Previously, outsourcing was the focus for faulty maintenence practises, but now it looks as we're seeing the entire maintenence programme is a serious threat to air safety. With the testimony of the WN whistleblowers seems to support this theory. If you remember, one of the first whistleblowers was a mechanic at the now-defunct Eastern Airlines by the name of John King who went public about Eastern's use of jockeyed, uncalibrated/uncertified parts. He was fired for it, for which led to the whistlebowers protection act. He testified in front of the House and Senate for which it was then uncovered that it was happeneing at Continental and TWA. I think we're threatened with design flaws and subpar maintenence. And I think it's going to take a fatal mishap for us to stand up and take notice. And by that time, it maybe too late.


Made from jets!
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2266 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19997 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
no IFE, 1980's technology, etc

No IFE has nothing to do with it being an MD80. Carriers choice.

A320 series, and the B757/767 are all 80s tech. So what? Many upgrades have been added along the way. The 80s tech 757 is in high demand right now as there is no comparable airframe available right now. Many users are upgrading the cockpit to 2000 technology.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 8):
And I think it's going to take a fatal mishap for us to stand up and take notice.

The FAA is called the "tombstone agency" for a reason. Similar degradation is occurring in the ATC system as well.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19914 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
Sounds like an air/ground sensing issue, with the aircraft airborne but thinking it was still on the ground, hence no *wing* anti-ice (*Engine* A/I OK), and no ability to pressurize the cabin, the latter also being a reason to return since continuing A to B at/below 10,000 feet would have entailed more fuel than planned, and even moreso for flying with the gear hanging out...

I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with increased burn rate over loitering in icing conditions with an inop anti-ice.


User currently offlineFlyin5glow From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19898 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 2):
The MD80 is an old thing, get rid of it!!!

yes it is old, but it is a classic. If we want to get rid of old aircrafts why don't we start with the 747s, yeah I know that some of them are new, so are some of those MD-80s. After all the 747 is older than the MD-80.

 Wink



Go Huskies
User currently offlineBoeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19773 times:



Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 6):

Most pax don't know the difference between AA's MD-80's and 737's.

Our 738's have IFE.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 6):
And an amazingly well built aircraft that it is still in service. The 757/767 is 80's technology, should AA replace those too?

Maybe United,NWA,Jetblue and all the other A320 operators should replace those airplanes. And maybe all the 777 operators should replace those too since these airplanes where designed in the 80's too.

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):

Sounds like an air/ground sensing issue, with the aircraft airborne but thinking it was still on the ground, hence no *wing* anti-ice (*Engine* A/I OK), and no ability to pressurize the cabin,

Its sounds like the nose strut didn't extend, so like OPNLguy said causing a air/ground issue. I wonder if the pilots have a QRH procedure for this. I know you can pull the ground sense relay C/B's to make the airplane think it is in the air. (this is how we check the wing strobes).

David



Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19690 times:



Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
no *wing* anti-ice (*Engine* A/I OK), and no ability to pressurize the cabin, the latter also being a reason to return since continuing A to B at/below 10,000 feet would have entailed more fuel than planned, and even moreso for flying with the gear hanging out...

Ever had a crew try to press un under such circumstances, OPNL?  Wink



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineGSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3108 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19635 times:



Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 15):
Most pax don't know the difference between AA's MD-80's and 737's.

Our 738's have IFE.

I've often wondered about these kinds of things - inconsistency just bugs me. I TOTALLY understand if an airline as a company chooses not to invest in IFE at all. What kills me, is that most airlines that offer IFE (legacies for sure) don't offer it consistently across their fleets.

I would think consistency of product would be important to a company. I think passengers respect consistency more than the absolute cheapest price (at least, educated pax, not the ones who only fly for vacations and funerals).



Finally made it to an airline mecca!
User currently offline787seattle From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 19615 times:

BTW, on this CNN article, I noticed an error. The last sentence says that Boeing makes the Mad Dogs. That is not true. Although Boeing owns/owned McDonnell Douglas, they did not build the MD-80s (not including the MD-95/717). If Boeing did build MD-80s at some point in their ownership, it would be a continuity error because they say that Boeing builds the MD-80.


Student - KELN
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 19122 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with increased burn rate over loitering in icing conditions with an inop anti-ice.

What kind of icing conditions? Rime? Clear? Mixed? How about intensity: Light? Moderate? Severe? There's a difference between engine A/I (which is not air-ground sensitive) and wing (or airfoil) A/I which is air-ground sensitive). The actual conditions may not have been as dire as inferred. But that's besides the point--if you can't pressurize the cabin and the gear is stuck down, that "increased burn rate" means you'll be landing well short of the intended destination, assuming there's one with good weather somewhere within the fuel range of the aircraft. Making a 180 and heading back to the takeoff airport is a viable option.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 14):
Sorry if that angers you.

Doesn't anger me in the least--just observing that a run-of-the-mill mechanical issue doesn't necessarily have global implications or is indicative of some kind of trend.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 16):
Ever had a crew try to press un under such circumstances, OPNL?

Nope, but check below....

Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 15):
Its sounds like the nose strut didn't extend, so like OPNLguy said causing a air/ground issue. I wonder if the pilots have a QRH procedure for this. I know you can pull the ground sense relay C/B's to make the airplane think it is in the air. (this is how we check the wing strobes).

ValuJet once had a similar deal on a DC-9 after takeoff ATL-BNA. IIRC, they pulled some CBs to get the gear up, but on approach to BNA's 02R, they put the CBs back in and darn if the ground spoilers didn't deploy while they were still a few hundred feet off the ground. Big sink rate develops and they hit the pavement so hard that they have tire damage, not to mention fuselage damage, and they lose VHF contact with the tower. They managed to get the thing airborne again, and came around in a right turn, NORDO, and landed on runway 31. (NTSB report is AAR 96-07, an interesting read..)

Gotta watch some of them CBs...  Wink


User currently offlineTAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1920 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18702 times:



Quoting 787seattle (Reply 15):
BTW, on this CNN article, I noticed an error. The last sentence says that Boeing makes the Mad Dogs. That is not true. Although Boeing owns/owned McDonnell Douglas, they did not build the MD-80s (not including the MD-95/717). If Boeing did build MD-80s at some point in their ownership, it would be a continuity error because they say that Boeing builds the MD-80.

Imagine that, CNN made an error!!! Wow that is news!

The media rarely gets aviation information correct the first time.or even the second time.

Boeing acquired McDonnel Douglas Corp. and thus now has responsibility for airworthiness, etc . BUT they were ALL built by craftsmen and women at Long Beach, California. Quite a few that were still there when the last MD-95 (AKA B717)
were there when the first DC-9-10's came down the line in the mid 1960's, and probably a couple were there when the first DC-8's were built. Note to critics of "old aircraft" , please note the number of DC-8's and DC-10/MD-10, MD11's flying cargo every day. Douglas built them tough!


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18608 times:



Quoting 787seattle (Reply 15):
Although Boeing owns/owned McDonnell Douglas, they did not build the MD-80s (not including the MD-95/717). If Boeing did build MD-80s at some point in their ownership, it would be a continuity error because they say that Boeing builds the MD-80.

Boeing merged with McDonnell-Douglas in 1997, and MD-80's were still coming off the line in Long Beach through 1999. So, some MD-80's were indeed manufactured by a unit of the Boeing Company, just as some MD-11's were as well.


User currently offlineJimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18560 times:

I would add a small correction to some posts here.

Several people said that the 757/767 are "80s tech."

I would argue that the aircraft are really 70s tech. The bulk of the engineering and design that went into the aircraft was done in the 1970s. (Obviously this still applies to aircraft like the 753 or the 764, but to a lesser extent.)


User currently offlineG4LASRamper From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 18546 times:

Regarding CBs and unanticipated aircraft configuration changes, that's why some airlines have a standing policy that states once a CB is pulled or pops it is not to be reset while in flight.  Smile


"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig." - Porco Rosso
User currently offlineSh0rtybr0wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 528 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18470 times:

AA needs new planes. when will they get them ? How long will this go on? With oil at $112 / bbl , it doesn't look good for the airlines and their future fleet plans. Oil will be $150 / bbl this summer. What then? They'll have less money to spend on MX. They're obviously doing just the bare minimum now.

User currently offlineFlybynight From Norway, joined Jul 2003, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17806 times:



Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 12):
And maybe all the 777 operators should replace those too since these airplanes where designed in the 80's too.

Maybe some of the early planning on the 777 was in the 80's, but Triple 7 is pretty much a 90's design.

I personally like flying on DC9's/MD80/88/90's since I find them quiet with excellent performance. I wish UA flew them instead of the 733/735. Having said that, the US airline industry better start figuring out to afford new planes because a good portion of the fleets are getting up there in age. Putting new interiors can fool the general public, but it doesn't hide the fact that a lot the heavily used fleet for the US domestics is over 20 years old. Airlines can cry all they want about not being able to afford new planes, but frankly that is a problem they have to solve. All it will take is a 1 or 2 major accidents on older planes before a combination of the press, the government and the general public demands new planes. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing the airlines can't afford new planes. Well, figure it out.
I fly UA a ton and it does make me raise an eyebrow that UA does not even have a plan to buy new planes (at least as far as I know). The newest plane in UA's fleet is an A319 delivered in 2001 or 2002 (there might be some newer regional jets).
This is just the tip of the iceberg.



Heia Norge!
User currently offline787seattle From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 17330 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 18):
some MD-80's were indeed manufactured by a unit of the Boeing Company

thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that Boeing (sort of) was still building Mad Dogs after the merge.



Student - KELN
User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 995 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15950 times:

And the video says that the MD-80 circled the airport dumping fuels. Since when do MD-80s have fuel dump capabilities?

Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
25 ConcordeBoy : they have, just not with the intent of replacing the whole fleet Our 738's have IFE. ...which doesn't address FutureCaptain's quote in the least.
26 OPNLguy : They don't--iit's just the media's default assumption....
27 Glbltrvlr : Easy. Figure out how much the cost of money is for financing $150M per a/c per day. Assuming AA could even get financing in this environment, that's
28 TUNisia : I'd take a 727 over any of those two anyday But seriously the MD80 is a great plane and really solid!
29 Boeing767mech : Is this better
30 Stratosphere : You are right about that Jack..... You are flying on the worst of it but because of politics nwa escapes unscathed. Nwa is so politically connected i
31 KochamLOT : The MD-80s are great aircraft and as someone else mentioned, they are paid for.I spoke with some AA pilots and mechanics as they visited a flight scho
32 Max Q : The MD80 is obsolete in every respect, it was a poorly designed warm up of the DC9 in it's day with some severe design deficiencies (self generating w
33 UAL777UK : UA like AA have stated that they want to see the Next Generation of narrow bodies produced by A & B, hopefully within the next decade, before they pl
34 Dragon6172 : Depending on how quickly the ice was building on the wings, I think I would choose an overweight landing over trying to fly it to somewhere clear. Es
35 AAJFKSJUBKLYN : Ever feel like a broken record: You will see MD80's in AA's fleet well into the Year 2020.. 12 Years more on some of the later versions of the Mad-Dog
36 Frequentflyer : As it seems you flew it, can you share what you most liked and hated about it? Also: can you share how it handles in windy/rainy/snowy conditions? (c
37 Highflier92660 : Everyone loves shiny new airplanes but American Airlines is not going to place an order for an MD-80 replacement until airframe (and to a larger exten
38 Litz : Don't forget the lag time .... if you ordered those planes today, it would be quite a ways down the road before you'd see the first one, and quite a
39 AAR90 : No better or worse than any other airliner I've flown (727, DC10, MD82/83, 757, 767, F100, MD90, 738). Sure. If the air/ground sensor thinks you are
40 Max Q : Yes, Frequent flyer. Flight controls on the -80 are not hydraulically boosted, with the exception of the rudder and an overide system for the elevator
41 PRAirbus : Toss the MD80s, get rid of them...a 737NG is way more comfortable than the MD80 at least on AAs configuration...have you ever been stuck on a line for
42 Futurecaptain : Your opinion. I would rather have a window seat on the side of the MD-80 with 2 seats than any window on a 737. Climbing over one person to get to th
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...
Today AA MD-80 BUR-ONT posted Thu Aug 2 2007 20:04:00 by MDW22L31C
UA 747 Hits AA MD-80 @ ORD posted Thu Jun 28 2007 00:12:47 by Piercey
AA MD-80 Engine Change In PHL posted Sat Jun 16 2007 00:02:34 by UAL Bagsmasher
Longest Flight On AA MD-80? posted Wed May 9 2007 21:32:43 by Ghillier
Painted AA MD-80? posted Sun Apr 29 2007 05:39:52 by AirTranTUS
Looking For An AA MD-80 Reg - Fleet Number Is.. posted Fri Mar 23 2007 15:28:15 by Clickhappy
AA MD-80 ORD Aborted Apprch. posted Thu Jan 25 2007 05:55:46 by Chi-town
AA MD-80 Interior Makeover Possible? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 17:34:48 by 1337Delta764
AA's MD-80 Fleet and its future, thoughts? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 00:48:34 by Thering
DCA AA MD-80 Question posted Mon May 1 2006 23:22:55 by Positiverate