beau222 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 124 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5601 times:
Apologies if this has been posted before, I did a search and could not find anything.
In the video it shows a DL evacuation in progress and I noticed that in the ejection of the rear cowling cover it seemed to stay attached with a cable. I looked at other MD80 slide deployments and the cover usually falls away. Why would this be different on the aircraft and also why would the FD put suppressant inside the rear stair area and the back of number 2 engine when the fire seems to be completly in the main gear area.
cbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1607 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5489 times:
Well, I can't comment on the tail cone and why it is/isn't attached to the cord! The FD was probably spraying the rear and the ground to prevent the fire from spreading! If for some reason fuel was leaking out, it potentially could catch fire and rapidly spread! Just a guess as to the thinking of the FD!
Wingtips56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 567 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5467 times:
Interesting video ... such a rare sight captured.
Notice that while the tail cone popped, the slide didn't inflate, which should have been automatic....perhaps the dangling tail cone (which is supposed to drop and roll out of the way) was caught up in the defective slide? I would think that intentionally tethering the cone (possibly for quicker re-installation) would not be advised as it looks like it would impede the escape slide by hanging in the way. Also thought it odd the R1 door/slide wasn't used....yes, it's a low head-banger on a DC-9, but still, any door out is a good one in my mind.
The fire department spray into the tail initially looked like bad aiming. The spray on the engine was probably precautionary to cool any chance of fumes ignition.
But I was just a ticket/gate agent, so I'll wait for the experts to comment.
[Edited 2012-06-05 20:18:46]
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6057 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5096 times:
Quoting cbphoto (Reply 6): Might help a bit, though not FAA/NTSB related!
From that very article:
"The airplane stopped just past the hold short line and was evacuated through the left hand doors (the tail exit was opened but wasn't useable when the tail cone did not separate as intended), while responding emergency services foamed the gear and put the fire out."
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1408 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Based on the smoke pattern, I don't think evac through the tail cone would have been advisable anyway. Also - it may be that the crew knew the ARF were responding to the right side of the aircraft and that evac to the left would be safer. That would certainly be a concern for me if I were on the fire crew responding. Interaction between fire trucks/ff's and the public is a major safety concern at incidents. (yes, I am a fire fighter, no not ARF).
CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2545 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4719 times:
I am always amazed to see people evacuating an airplane and insist on carrying their cabin luggage with them. At 1:20 on the left side of the video you can see a passenger pulling his carry on luggage on wheels behind him. At 1:42 you can see someone sitting their carry on luggage on the ground.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
rcair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1408 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Most people in emergencies are relatively sane, but some.....
I recall the movie "The High and the Mighty". When they thought they were going to have to ditch, one of the passengers asked if he could take his important papers. Of course, no. But the thought was there back then.
In many places - most evacuations (wildfire) are not mandatory. It is your property and you have a right to be there. To make an evac mandatory takes a court order. Now, we can deny entrance to an area - if you are out we can stop you from coming in/back. But, if you meet the requirements for informed consent, you can decide to stay. Most people realize that when fire fighters with trucks, training and gear, are telling you they are not coming to get you because it is not safe, it probably is not - they leave. But not always.
They also wonder why we are asking for the names of their dentist. You figure it out.
Of course, that does not apply on an aircraft. It is not your property - you leave and leave your property.
I remember an incident a few years ago - cheeze, probably 15 years?. We had a major wildfire and my crews were doing evacuation - door to door. They came on a family who refused to leave. Mom, Dad, 2 kids. Were going to stay and defend the house. It was not a defensible house - we were not going to make a stand there. Because they were competent, we had to leave them.
About an hour later, one of my engines came upon the kids (10 and 12 or so) walking up the road. Asked them, "whatcha doin?" Mom and dad had sent them up the road to check on the horses. Well guess what kids - hop in the truck.
They were unaccompanied minors, we could (had to) take them out. That actually got mom and dad's attention and they left too.
Turned out the home survived - we kept the fire away from the area - but it was hardly a given.
Shamrock137 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4216 times:
Quoting beau222 (Thread starter): Why would this be different on the aircraft and also why would the FD put suppressant inside the rear stair area and the back of number 2 engine when the fire seems to be completly in the main gear area.
As others have said, I think the rear tailcone simply failed in this case. If you look closely right at the beginning of the video you can see the airstairs drop, which I don't believe is supposed to happen when using the slide, although I may be wrong. At first, I think spraying the inside of the tailcone was just bad aiming on the firefighters part. Those nozzles are extremely high powered, and can be difficult to aim with exact precision. You also have to remember we have a birds eye view of the situation. With the way the smoke was blowing and through the limited visibility of the fire truck cab, it may have looked like the smoke was coming from the engine and the tailcone area. Additionally a ARFF crew will never get questioned for using too much retardant on a fire, better to use too much than too little.
type-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4133 times:
Those passengers don't realize that their actions of trying not to inconvenience themselves and taking their luggage during an evactuation could put others at risk. One of those rollerboards could get stuck in an aisle causing a people jam but people think "Oh, I am so important that I can't stick around to wait for my crap to be offloaded from the aircraft when the emergency is over"
or "Who cares about everyone else? It's all about ME!!"
I think it's disrespectful to the F/A's who are yelling "Evacuate, leave your stuff behind!" over and over again.
The stairs don't drop what we see is the slide out of L4, I am amazed that after reading three articles about MD80's tail cone deployment that it is "common" for it to get caught up. How could it have been certified if this is a known issue?
nws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 982 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3978 times:
Quoting beau222 (Reply 14): The stairs don't drop what we see is the slide out of L4, I am amazed that after reading three articles about MD80's tail cone deployment that it is "common" for it to get caught up. How could it have been certified if this is a known issue?
There is a procedure where the flight attendant walks out onto the ramp and pulls a second handle to separate the tailcone if it gets caught up. From what I understand most airlines only have their FAs do this if the other exits are unusable because of the risk involved.
yeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3907 times:
Quoting beau222 (Reply 14): I am amazed that after reading three articles about MD80's tail cone deployment that it is "common" for it to get caught up. How could it have been certified if this is a known issue?
Its not an issue when the kevlar lanyard is routed correctly. Now I haven't worked on the Maddog for about five years, so I may miss a few details but here's what I can recall about the tailslide deployment.
There's three ways to release the tailcone. The rear bulkhead door when armed, a interior handle aft of the pressure bulkhead and a exterior handle. When triggered, tension is released from a cable that normally holds the spring loaded tailcone locks closed. The locks then rotate and the tailcone is released. There is a lanyard that is attached to the tailcone, with the other end attached to the slide cover. In the middle is a small loop that attaches to a spring loaded release mechanism on the left side of the fuselage opening. This is where the problems arise. The routing to the mechanism is not intuitive and the manual is somewhat difficult to decipher, so it is unfortunately not unheard of to mis-route the lanyard causing the tailcone to not fully release. When operating normally the lanyard which is connected to the release mech. will drop and then swing aircraft left. The weight of the tailcone will activate the release mech. and the tailcone will drop to the ground of to left of the aircraft. In doing so the slide cover is pulled out the back of the airplane, releasing the slide which then inflates.
Quoting nws2002 (Reply 15): There is a procedure where the flight attendant walks out onto the ramp and pulls a second handle to separate the tailcone if it gets caught up.
No, the external release handle operates the same release mechanism as the interior handle or the interior door when armed. If the slide does not deploy, the F/A can, from inside the plane, physically release the slide by pulling up on a strap on the fwd side of the slide cover which will release the cover locks and roll the cover and slide out the back.
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3813 times:
Those tailcone exits are a deathtrap IMO. I recall an incident in the early 90s or the late 80s where a F/A and one or two passengers died because the tail cone exit failed to work properly. Come to think of it I can't remember any accident where the tail cone exit actually worked as it was designed!
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
Quoting m11stephen (Reply 17): I recall an incident in the early 90s or the late 80s where a F/A and one or two passengers died because the tail cone exit failed to work properly
I remember that one. It seemed the cause of the fatalities (1 f/a 1 passenger) was that the F/A's shoulder belt on the jumpseat attached to the rear exit could not be attached to the lap belt or the seat assembly would interfere with the correct opening of the door to the tailcone. It was found that this was not adequately communicated to flight attendants in training on the aircraft nor during recurrency training. And in the case of this accident the shoulder belt was found attached to the lap belt later. The way the design set up was the lap belt is connected to the door itself while the shoulder belt is connected to the pressure bulkhead.
When the FAA looked at the training mockups of this exit the airlines used during training they found that the exit mockups usually didn't have seat belts or shoulder belts at all! It was all really a matter of time before something happened like this.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26639 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3140 times:
Quoting type-rated (Reply 18): AIr Canada once had a tailcone depart on of their DC-9's right after take off, it took the rear cabin door with it too. I imagine this was an eye opener for the passengers onboard.
As a sidenote, that aircraft had worse luck 4 years later. That was the aircraft that made the emergency landing at CVG on a DFW-YYZ flight in 1983 due to a fire in the cabin. 23 of the 46 aboard were killed before they could evacuate.
The wing of that AC aircraft was used to rebuild an Ozark DC-9 that had been seriously damaged in a collision with a snowplow at FSD (killing the snowplow driver). That ex-Ozark aircraft later spent many years with NW.
If you're referring to the aircraft mentioned in Reply 20, the Ozark Airlines aircraft that struck the snowplow at FSD in 1983 was this one, a DC-9-31 originally delivered to Northeast Airlines and inherited by DL when they merged in 1972. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19831220-0
It was later repaired (after Ozark had disposed of the wreckage) using the salvaged wing from the wreckage of the AC DC-9-32 (C-FTLU) lost in the fire/emergency landing at CVG in 1983 (the same aircraft that had the rear pressure bulkhead failure on a flight to BOS in 1979).
The repaired ex-Ozark aircraft was acquired by North Central and inherited by NW when they merged and spent another 20 years or so with NW.