kl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5128 posts, RR: 12 Posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6130 times:
I just read this on Avherald. Two incidents with MD83's in a row.
Nov 19: AA2258, DFW - PIT , Engine flame out due to fuel starvation, needed to be shut down. N9677W
Nov 20: AA2266, PVR - ORD, Cabin pressure lost, emergency descent and diverted to Monterrey. N9405T
I am just wondering till what age its worth maintaining aircraft, no matter how well you maintain them, age will show sooner or later. Are the MD83's the ones being replaced by the new A319/321 order? How is the MD83 dispatch rate?
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9595 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5965 times:
Some on here claim that an airplane can be maintained almost indefinitely. While there is no limit on airplanes in the United States, they do approach their design life as many AA MD80s are. Airplanes are designed for a certain lifetime. I don’t know what it is on the MD80, but I believe it is about 75,000 cycles. In the US maintenance programs can extend life beyond that but many of the systems start having degrading reliability since components that were designed to last the life of the airplane start failing more and more often. I also don't know AA's dispatch rate and it is really hard to provide a dispatch rate that is comparable to other airlines since each airline calculates it differently as there are different delays and weather, airport operations, boarding/baggage etc usually don't count in dispatch reliability.
AA has been quickly retiring MD80s as 737-800s are being delivered. Retirement rates are around 2 per month in line with 737 deliveries. AA is up to about 1988 build MD80s and newer, so the ones from the early 1980s have already been retired. The A319s will replace MD80s as well. AA is down to about 200 MD80s from about 360 when the merger with TWA was completed.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Burner71 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5662 times:
AA's Super 80's were always one of my favorites.
But the last 9 trips in a row for me have been delayed for one mechanical after another.
Last week I decided to take a quick vacation to the Poconos and took DFW-PHL......I knew when the front door never closed it was going to happen.
Sure enough the captain came on with the speech I'm getting used to now.
"Well we are all ready to go up here in the front, but unfortunately we have an indication that needs to be looked at. Sit back and we will let you know something in about 45 minutes."
Ugh, can't do it anymore. No more Super 80's for me.
kl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5128 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5049 times:
Quoting lhr380 (Reply 1): They have over 80 of them, and a plane will go tech now and then no matter if its new or old.
Again one, have a look at Avherald, and you will see what I mean. I think AA has ordered the replacements too late and kept on flying the MD's for too long.
17 Nov AA1166 YYC - DFW , Tower observed sparks from the tailpipe of the left engine (JT8D). The crew declared emergency but kept the engine running, levelled off at 7000 feet and returned to Calgary's runway 34.
The Canadian TSB reported that an examination of the engine revealed internal metal debris. The engine is being replaced and will be stripped for thorough examination. A report is to follow.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 809 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
All of these incidents sound like engine system problems rather than airframe related. The inflight shutdown after starvation, could be caused by frozen or otherwise fouled fuel lines, the pressurization loss could be a result of a bleed problem, and the last incident is a relatively common problem in any engine, heck helicopters have a warning light devoted to the problem. So the MD-82/3 is still a viable airframe, just AA's maintenance practices may need to be reviewed.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Quoting kl911 (Thread starter): Nov 19: AA2258, DFW - PIT , Engine flame out due to fuel starvation, needed to be shut down. N9677W
This had NOTHING to due with the age of the airplane or the type of airplane. It had more to do with maintenance issues and in my opinion the person that last worked on the component or area that caused this incidents should loose there A/P ticket and be fined the cost of repair to this airplane. There is NO excuse for what happened to this airplane
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1266 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 3657 times:
Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 14): It had more to do with maintenance issues and in my opinion the person that last worked on the component or area that caused this incidents should loose there A/P ticket and be fined the cost of repair to this airplane. There is NO excuse for what happened to this airplane
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 5 hours ago) and read 3238 times:
Quoting yeelep (Reply 16): So you don't know the component or area the caused the fuel starvation, but your'e ready to hang a mechanic. Please don't get a job with the Friendly Aviation Administration.
erm; he works for AA MX.... probably has access to internal information; we don't.
Quoting boeing767mech (Reply 14): the person that last worked on the component or area that caused this incident
Doesn't read like he knows to me if it isn't even narrowed down to a component or area. Of course he could be purposely vague. Unless he states he knows the reason but cannot discuss it, I will stick to not blaming a mechanic without substantiation.
boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
Quoting yeelep (Reply 20): Unless he states he knows the reason but cannot discuss it
Bingo....... Sometimes my little employer takes action to people airing the dirty laundry for a incident that is still being looked at by the FAA and NTSB. And yes it was caused by a mechanic. There is NO excuse for this to have happened besides someone being lazy and not doing a COMPLETE look in a area before is was closed and sealed up.
Dalmd88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2540 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months ago) and read 2823 times:
Two incidents on two days for a carrier the size of AA isn't abnormal. They must fly 2500 flights a day. With their huge fleet of MD80's you are going to see engines with metal in the tailpipe once and a while. I bet they have on average 3-4 operational difficulties a day. That is engine shutdowns, mechanical diversions , emergency landings. Almost all of those don't make the news. Some are only indication problems, others are the metal in the tailpipe.
All airlines have these incidents. We all strive to keep the rate as low as we can, but airplanes stop working sometimes. You can't catch everything before it fails, and as one instructor in school always said, "there are people in aviation, and you know how people are". He usually was referencing getting ripped off, but it holds true for mistakes also. The people involved can make mistakes. None of us are perfect all the time, we try to be, hopefully the system catches those mistakes before we become the news story.
I can't see the incident rate for AA, but I bet the MD80 fleet is about average for the AA domestic fleets. I would have no problem flying around on one for the next year straight.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2658 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Western727 (Reply 7): An AA without MD-80s...that will definitely take some getting used to after decades of being overdosed with such.
The same used to be said about the 727. Back in the old days when the US major airlines had large fleets of 727s, people could not imagine getting used to the US airline industry without the 727. AA flew the 727 for 38 years, from 1964 to 2002, and they will have flown the MD-80 for about the same, from the mid 80s to the late 10s. But yes I somehow agree, it will feel weird in the beginning of next decade to see DFW without Super 80s, but afterward we'll get used to see DFW with A319s and A321s.
dirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 190 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2320 times:
I fly on AA almost every week and have had my fair share of flights on MD-80s. I have to say, my experiences on the MD-80s are mostly positive. First of all, the sound of those Pratt & Whitney's at full thrust is nothing short of sublime. Also, the MD-80s are FAR more comfortable than the AA 737s, especially the 737s in new configuration.
I know this has pretty much absolutely nothing to do with the OP's post, which was completely valid, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents.
: Outside of AA, there is NO similarity to the 727 retirements we saw 8-9 years ago. Unlike 2002 and 2003 when the beloved 727 disappeared from US Pass
: There are actually some frames from '85-'86 that are still in service. At the current retirement rate, it will take AA another 8+ years to phase the
27 American 767
: In the late 80s, they had 164 of them. 125 of the 200 Series and 39 of the 100 Series. But I do believe that at one time they had more than 39 of the
: I show 184 total 727s operated by AA. 59 -100s and 125 -200s.
: Can you confirm when the 727-200 entered service with AA? I believe it was 1968 or '69. How about the 200ADV? If we compare MD-82/727-200 and MD-83/7