User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:27 am

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]
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:29 am

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"
 
boeingfever777
Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:35 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:34 am

Fxramper... Jimbo send you those?

Nothing alittle Turtle Wax can't fix!
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:34 am

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?
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:46 am

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 avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:52 am

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
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:59 am

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.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:01 am

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 avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:06 am

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.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:15 am

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"
 
sideflare75
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:30 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:21 am

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 avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:38 am

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.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:42 am

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"
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:45 am

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."
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:46 am

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 avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:24 am

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...
 
nema
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:18 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:09 am

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!
 
N766UA
Posts: 7843
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:28 pm

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
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:05 pm

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.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6089
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:06 pm

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.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:07 pm

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
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:11 pm

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]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:20 pm

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.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:30 pm

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!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:22 pm

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 trijet.
 
airlinelover
Posts: 5287
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:03 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:41 pm

Quoting FXramper (Thread starter):
DC9 taking off from STL.

Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..
Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
 
777STL
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:22 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:54 pm

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 25):
Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..

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 MD80, "MD80" is a generic term used for the entire -8x series, i.e. the -81, -83, -87, and -88.

[Edited 2007-10-31 11:58:57]
PHX based
 
757drvr
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:52 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:01 pm

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 25):
Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..

MD80's are DC9's!

The original designation for this series of aircraft was DC-9-81,82,83 etc.
 
AA777ER
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:13 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:55 pm

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 a great job getting the 125 PAX back safety on the ground after Multi Problems with Eng FIRE, HYD Problems and Electric ........................

The FAA and the NTSB investigation continues into MX Programs at ALL US Airlines.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:55 pm

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 19):
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.

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 is to contain a few blades only, and not the whole wheel exploding. This picture shows the starter motor of a RR Trent 700.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l118/Jet-Mech/IMG_0838.jpg

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 22):
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.

It seems that in all the cases you have mentioned, that entire compressor, fan or turbine discs exploded. IIRC, the certification for the fan casing for instance, is the retention of a single liberated fan blade. I'm not sure if it is a case of the engineers failing to reach 100%, but more the case that an exploding disc, especially a fan disc is impossible to practically contain, and not a certification requirement in either case.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
access-air
Posts: 1576
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 5:30 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:31 pm

Quoting 777STL (Reply 26):
Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 25):
Am I the only one who saw that??? AA has no DC9's..

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 MD80, "MD80" is a generic term used for the entire -8x series, i.e. the -81, -83, -87, and -88.

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 official FAA Airworthiness certificate says...all the others are DC9s....

Access-Air
Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
 
xtoler
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:10 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:44 pm

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 once in a while. Unfortunately their jobs are to pinpoint anything and everything which went wrong and have to go over the same questions 20 times more. The reason being is how can something already safe be made more safe and for this particular incident not happen again. Remember, nothing is infallible and there are always room for improvement.
EMB145 F/A, F/E, J41 F/A, F/E, because my wife clipped my wings, armchair captain
 
Indio66
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:22 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:07 pm

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Reply 2):
Nothing alittle Turtle Wax can't fix!

Come on guys, its all ball bearings these days!
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:22 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 24):
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.



Quoting trijetsRMissed (Reply 24):
Shouldn't this have been an indication to the crew to not take-off and perhaps avoid the whole incident?

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 the CA's head --out of the field of view during takeoffs (and just about any other time as well).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:55 am

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 33):
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 the CA's head --out of the field of view during takeoffs (and just about any other time as well).

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 fly an MD-80 so I don't know where every light is. But when you say, light X was not illuminated when it normally is or should have been prior to departure, that led me to ask why the pilots took off.

If the non illuminated starter valve light led directly to the out of control starter and subsequent engine failure, than I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest if light X was noticed to be not illuminated, the crew may have foregone the take-off altogether, preventing the incident.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:05 am

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 unusually black but no smoke was coming out. That plane might have been the creepiest thing I've ever seen in the pattern. It was climbing, but not well. Not a day that I'd want to have.

Throughout the whole thing, whoever was NFP at that point was calm, cool and collected on the radio. They did a great job regardless of if the feds don't think their story adds up or not.
DMI
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13389
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:20 am

Quoting Indio66 (Reply 32):
Come on guys, its all ball bearings these days!

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Thu Nov 01, 2007 6:11 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 34):
If the non illuminated starter valve light led directly to the out of control starter and subsequent engine failure, than I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest if light X was noticed to be not illuminated, the crew may have foregone the take-off altogether, preventing the incident.

I believe that most indication light panels are designed to be "dark". Then, any light that is "on" would indicate a malfunction.
 
cubastar
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:48 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:22 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 24):
Not to nitpick, but I think the over-speed incident was National.

You are absolutely right. My age is showing! Note the following:


Airline: National Airlines
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10
Location: over Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Registration: N60NA
The aircraft's no.1 engine exploded after overspeeding caused by the crew's experimenting with the auto-throttle system. Shrapnel from the engine struck the fuselage, breaking a window, and leading to an explosive decompression in which one passenger was ejected from the aircraft. The plane landed safely at ABQ after an emergency descent.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18):
But aren't the engines specifically designed so that an engine blowout points "away" from the aircraft?

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 contained or oriented in any particular direction. In this case, it's unlikely that the starter had enough energy to thrown anything through the nacelle and fuselage, even if it went in the right direction. The rest of the mess (fire, generator down, etc.) is primarily a systems issue, not a containment problem.

Engines do not contain burst disks, nor is there any requirement to do so. The energy of a disk is far too high to be practically contained. You assume that a burst disk will go in a straight line from the engine through everything in its path and just try to avoid putting critical and redundant systems in the burst zones.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 29):
IIRC, the certification for the fan casing for instance, is the retention of a single liberated fan blade. I'm not sure if it is a case of the engineers failing to reach 100%, but more the case that an exploding disc, especially a fan disc is impossible to practically contain, and not a certification requirement in either case.

Bingo.

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 37):
I believe that most indication light panels are designed to be "dark". Then, any light that is "on" would indicate a malfunction.

Correct. All MD/Boeing (and Airbus as well, I think) use "dark cockpit" philosophies. If everything is working right, you should see no lights.

Tom.
 
higherflyer
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:14 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:58 am

Quoting Xtoler (Reply 31):
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 official FAA Airworthiness certificate says...all the others are DC9s....

The airworthiness certificate may say -88, -90 or -95/717, but the type ratings on pilot certificates show them as DC-9's.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 34):
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 fly an MD-80 so I don't know where every light is. But when you say, light X was not illuminated when it normally is or should have been prior to departure, that led me to ask why the pilots took off.

Sorry if you think I was upset... I was not. Just thought what I wrote made sense. I'll try again (see below).

Quote:
If the non illuminated starter valve light led directly to the out of control starter and subsequent engine failure, than I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest if light X was noticed to be not illuminated, the crew may have foregone the take-off altogether, preventing the incident.

The START VALVE OPEN light simply indicates if the starter valve is open (illuminated) or close (not-illuminated). The light should be on ONLY during actual engine starting. Before starting or after start, the light should be off. Reportedly the crew said the light was NOT illuminated prior to takeoff which would indicate a NORMAL condition.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 39):
Correct. All MD/Boeing (and Airbus as well, I think) use "dark cockpit" philosophies. If everything is working right, you should see no lights.

STARTING with the late 1970's designs... this is true. The MD82/83 series is a continuation of the DC-9 which was designed in the 1960's. There are a LOT of blue "advisory" and yellow "caution" lights on during NORMAL operations. Sad, but true. Sad
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:30 am

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 37):
I believe that most indication light panels are designed to be "dark". Then, any light that is "on" would indicate a malfunction.

True, I should know better. I misinterpreted what was said earlier.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 41):
The START VALVE OPEN light simply indicates if the starter valve is open (illuminated) or close (not-illuminated). The light should be on ONLY during actual engine starting. Before starting or after start, the light should be off. Reportedly the crew said the light was NOT illuminated prior to takeoff which would indicate a NORMAL condition.

Thank you for clarifying.

Quoting Cubastar (Reply 38):
The aircraft's no.1 engine exploded after overspeeding caused by the crew's experimenting with the auto-throttle system.

Whatever happened to this crew? I assume at the very least they were fired?
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
neuroticdave
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:50 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:44 am

I congratulate the pilots on a job well done in getting that bird on the ground with no incidents.
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:48 am

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 assembly fared? Anyone here know?
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
mrstl
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 9:58 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:55 am

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 now) to keep the plane out of service, I assume the investigation is still in progress. Will it go back into service?
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 pm

Quoting MrSTL (Reply 45):
I was at Lambert today, I 'm pretty sure I saw this bird without its engine parked in front of the maintenance hangar.

That's the one.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:06 pm

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 39):
Engines do not contain burst disks, nor is there any requirement to do so. The energy of a disk is far too high to be practically contained. You assume that a burst disk will go in a straight line from the engine through everything in its path and just try to avoid putting critical and redundant systems in the burst zones.

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 something like 2 runways/taxiways, other pieces knifed clear through the bottom of the airplane's fuselage and ended up embedded in the other engine's nacelle.

And for the engine itself? It was sundered completely in two at the point where the disc failed.

A previous accident with a (I think) USAir 762 send pieces of blown disc clear over the top of the airplane's fuselage, across airport properly, into a nearby river.

Blown discs, needless to say, are an incredibly high energy event ...

- litz
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:55 pm

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 the same fate does not happen to MD-80 N454AA at STL.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7795
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: AA MD80 Blown Engine At STL. (pics)

Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:58 pm

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 48):
I certainly hope the same fate does not happen to MD-80 N454AA at STL.

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 back in the air. 6-8 hours.

[Edited 2007-11-03 12:06:37]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"