767AA From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6703 times:
Today I was on American Airlines flight 434 with service to Tulsa. We had 2 problems on the plane. The first one there was a tiny hole in the plane. Then once we were going to the runway then the inside of the plane goes dark. So the pilot try's to get the engine generators running but, no luck.So we think we are taxiing to the runway but we turn around. Then we go back to the gate and maintenance comes and said "We have to get off the plane." So we do and 1 hour later we are back on the plane. We make it to Tulsa safely. 3 hours late.
B757forever From United States of America, joined May 2010, 641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6719 times:
Yes. I would not hesitate to board any AA aircraft. Although the company may be struggling, the technicians working the line would not release an aircraft unless it was fit to fly. That is part of the "DNA" of us technicians. When an AMT puts his name on an airworthiness release, he is stating that the aircraft is airworthy. I do not question that.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4429 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6720 times:
You must be pretty brave with your first post being such a bold question poised at this community, I'm sure anyone responding, will be compassionate. That said, I agree with the above comments, AA would not be flying unsafe aircraft. We are better off than other parts of the world in terms of safe aircraft to fly in, not all countries and airlines are so fastidious. Happy A netting!!
[Edited 2012-11-18 18:30:03]
Next Flights: PDX-HNL-OGG-LNY-OGG-LIH-PDX On AS, WP & HA
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7804 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6712 times:
There is a big difference between an unsafe aircraft and one with minor problems.
Practically all aircraft, even the very newest, have some minor issues. Usually those issues won't send a plane back to the gate. They are logged and the standards of the regulators and the airline allow the aircraft to fly passengers with those minor issues. The problems will be fixed at regular scheduled stops for maintenance work.
There are some things which cannot be checked at the gate before the passengers board, and only become apparent on taxi. The plane has to go back to the gate for those to be evaluated.
The reason you became of two problems is the airline, and the pilots, and the techs/ mechanics are being extra cautious.
It's an old joke - but literally in a few thousand flights I have NEVER met a pilot who wanted to fly an unsafe airplane.
If the plane is not safe, the first people to refuse to fly on it will be the two in the very front seats.
Yes, sometimes people get caught in bad situations and have to make very quick decisions. Sometimes like US Airways Flt 1549 - the pilot(s) make the right decisions and have the luck for everything to work out right. Sometimes like Alaska Flight 261 - there isn't anything they can do.
You are safer flying on an AA MD-80 than you would be driving Tulsa to OKC.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6247 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6713 times:
For what it's worth, United's 787 flights have had many mechanical delays since they started flying earlier this month. The MEL book has come in very handy...
So, that to say, all airplanes have mechanical issues, both new and old. The nature of those issues changes with age, sure, but you can't really avoid it either way.
I DO have some personal beliefs about the age limit of operating aircraft, but that's related to wiring, rather than components themselves.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 8361 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6710 times:
Welcome to A.net
Quoting flymia (Reply 4): Exactly. Flying the airlines in the U.S. is the safest type of flying in the world. So to answer your question again yes they are safe.
Sure, AA has its work cut out for them on maintaining them, but these aircraft are still functioning. Such issues are quite normal for aircraft as they get older. Even younger aircraft have slight issues too.
jpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4600 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6713 times:
As with many older fleets, they can be more maintenance prone. I doubt it's worse than the AA 757 fleet which is very maintenance prone. Doesn't mean they are unsafe, and I have no hesitation flying on them. A lot of little things can go wrong, and none of these problems would necessarily pose a big danger, even if they were to occur in-flight.
AA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6713 times:
They are absolutely safe.
Earlier this year, I was about to board a JFK-MAD flight on an AA 757. The flight ended up being delayed nearly five hours (that's another story in itself).
We later learned that the reason for the lengthy delay was that one of the inflation tanks on an exit door was malfunctioning, meaning that the slide may not inflate had there been an emergency landing.
I'd rather have an aircraft go tech (as inconvenient as that is) than fly on an unsafe one, especially on an eight-hour flight across the Atlantic.
There's no question that AA's MD80s have seen better days (from an aesthetics point of view), but I would have no hesitation stepping onboard one of them today, tomorrow, or years into the future.
If you can't take the heat, you best get out of the kitchen
OB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3799 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
Quoting 767AA (Thread starter): Today I was on American Airlines flight 434 with service to Tulsa. We had 2 problems on the plane. The first one there was a tiny hole in the plane. Then once we were going to the runway then the inside of the plane goes dark. So the pilot try's to get the engine generators running but, no luck.So we think we are taxiing to the runway but we turn around. Then we go back to the gate and maintenance comes and said "We have to get off the plane." So we do and 1 hour later we are back on the plane. We make it to Tulsa safely. 3 hours late.
The fact that they kept delaying the flight to correct every conceivable problem with the aircraft is proof that it is safe. That airplane wasn't going to transport paying customers until it was in perfect working order. No airline employee would knowingly endanger the lives of passengers.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5): If the plane is not safe, the first people to refuse to fly on it will be the two in the very front seats.
gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6710 times:
Soak it up, you Americans. Nowhere else in the world will you see so many of these beautiful high-tailed, rear engined wonders. They are works of art to look at in the sky. Trust me, you'll miss them when they're gone.
mhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 797 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 17): Soak it up, you Americans. Nowhere else in the world will you see so many of these beautiful high-tailed, rear engined wonders. They are works of art to look at in the sky. Trust me, you'll miss them when they're gone.
Just got off one and looking forward to another exciting take off in one tomorrow, this time to DEN. Its going to be full so I'm betting I'll get stuck in the back right next to the mighty JT8D!
I love flying in the eighties and I fully trust the AA maintenance crew with my life, just as I would with any other carrier's aircraft.
aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 8075 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6708 times:
I love flying any of the MDs- doesn't matter who owns/operates them (except maybe Dana Air... ). I had a jumpseat on one from IGR-AEP and it was amazing. Yes you will miss them once AA is dominated by A32x series....
danielkandi From Denmark, joined Sep 2012, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
the poster shouldn't worry at all what hardcore US AA fans will say as a reply to his topic. Too many snobs outhere take things too personal, and anyone no matter what age, should be able to post this kind of post without getting bashed or answered in a dark tone. But on the safety-issue, I do hope they don't cut corners. Plus didn't all the MD80's get a major overhaul 3-4 years ago ? with new wiring and everything stripped away ? I remember seeing a docu about it, where the VP or something, was talking about how the MD80's were WELL taken care of.
Flown on : md80, md95, Avro RJ85/100, Q400, Atr42/72, a319/320/321, a332/a333, a343/346, b733 and up, 757, 747, 767 and
DTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 2325 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6707 times:
With all due respect I dislike the title of this thread. The implication is that they are NOT safe. All airplanes have things that go wrong with them--like one poster said about UA 787's is true--new models go through a "break-in" phase. I remember when the A320 came out we were on and off the gate because the pilots could not clear certain fault indicators on the FMC. It was just a part of the learning cycle.
In my 38 years of airline flying the only time I ever got hurt was driving to the airport.
THe MD80/90 series are tough birds--McDonnell-Douglas could really build great aircraft. Look how many DC-3's -4's, -6's, 7's, -8's and -9's are still working every day somewhere in the world. You won't see a lot of old 707's and very few 727's still left.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
: Unfortunately, they are just flat statistics--no fun to look at. We need to cross examine these by the number of flights/passengers flown. I'd be int
26 tan flyr
: Amen toi that DTW! for the younger ones one here, you have to remember that structurally everything designed by the Douglas boys had some military in
: Indeed, it's the same type of flying as airlines in the US. The safest kind.
: I dunno... I'm sure Douglas made great planes, but what about all the problems with the DC10? There weren't fail safes for the hydraulic systems on t
: I flew a lot as a kid and never had any fear of the aircraft until after some severe turbulence on a DC-10. I'd also been reading about recent flight
: Actually, I would take it a step further and argue that the vast majority of first tier carriers around the world are equally safe. Part of the stand
: I was once on an AA 777 that wound up going back to the gate at DFW, due to a hydraulic issue. Then, while at the gate, the a/c quit working. The mech
: I keep seeing this, but I'm not seeing to many posts to worry about here. Either we're just better than that, or, maybe, a lot have been deleted alre
: The Sioux City crash was a one-off incident. The catastrophic failure of the #2 engine threw schrapnel into the only place on the aircraft where all
: Think of it this way. Notorious crashes can and have rendered airlines out of business because of the publicity. Even if AA is in bankruptcy, and even
: I have never heard of a mechanic commiting suicide over the accident. That poor guy was just doing his job the way his boss told him to do it. The dec
: So true. That being said, there are DC-3s still flying for money. Douglass and later MD built what many consider to be the best built commercial avia
: It was N142US. Read more at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20001213X34445&key=1
: I agree. I'm so disappointed that AA stopped flying them into my home airport of MIA years ago.
: As long as we are talking about design flaws as opposed to human/MX erros causing accidents I thought I would toss in the cause of the Alaska Airlines
: Technically, ValuJet bought AirTran and kept the name, going on to become a successful company and eventually be bought by Southwest. It was only the
: The original poster stated there was "a tiny hole in the plane". Now correct me if I am wrong, but would a hole in the airplane not warrant more than
: And you'll find a very similar design on every 737 out there. One single jackscrew, moving the entire stabilizer. If the nut lets loose, watch out.
: Please tell me there is more than one nut holding the mechanism that moves the tailplane. I flew in a 737 yesterday lol
: And every 757 and every 767... It's really not an issue.
: It is true that accidents usually happen when the holes in the "swiss cheese" line up, i.e., due to multiple factors. However it is an undeniable fac
: Also have to consider the type of operation. MD-11 passenger operations have been very safe. Almost all fatal MD-11 accidents have involved freighter
: This is not an indictment of the safety of the MD but a lapse in the maintenance operations safety standards. Those figures are since 1945, in the US
48 American 767
: That's the airplane I'm the most fond of. I am fond of the DC-9/MD-80 series also, but not as much as I am fond of the 727. I will always remember he
: Considering most, if not all, large aircraft use a single jackscrew with a very large nut on one end safetied in place with very thick lockwire, and
: In fairness to the B747, it has been involved in a freakishly high number of non aircraft design related incidents such as bombings, runway collision
: Welcome to A.Net........hell of a first topic Many moons ago, I was flying AA from JFK to SJU on the A300. Now that aircraft was as reliable as an ash
: My friend, no more safer than the 757, 767, Scarebus or even Megabus . . . the point is . . . if you want safety . . . stay in your home . . . but the
: I actually said that; I don't know why a.net attributes that to DTWpurserboy... Anyway, I certainly don't disagree there. I was just pointing out tha
: I guess my question then would be on the 737, is the stabilizer capable of ripping up and off the way it did with the Alaska flight, or would the fra
: Just for the record, this is not a quote from my posting. I never said this. Please reread post #33. Don't know how this happened but I am the bigges