Following a public hearing the NTSB announced on Sep 13th 2016:
The NTSB investigation found that the probable cause of the accident – in which 29 of 127 passengers suffered minor injuries – was the captain’s inability to maintain directional control of the Boeing MD-88 due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane heading. The aircraft was substantially damaged.
NTSB Chairman Christoper Hart said: “The passengers and crew of Delta flight 1086 were fortunate to have survived this crash with no loss of life or serious injuries.”

http://avherald.com/h?article=482b659f/0003
--
Well, I found this quite interesting. I was unaware that excessive use of the reverse thrusters would lead to a decrease in control of the airplane.

17 minutes to evacuate !

Aesma wrote:

17 minutes to evacuate !

Yeah that is pretty bad, Air France was able to evacute its A340-313 at YYZ back in 2005 in only 90 seconds or something. And they had some inop. exits if I remember correctly!

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by a 17 minute evacuation? It was very cold outside, no fire. Wouldn't a reasonable person assess the bigger risk to health was the cold and potential run in with emergency crews.

Also, I don't get how the thrust reversers would reduce rudder effectiveness. The airspeed and ground speed ratio doesn't change. So as you lose rudder control, like normal, you are slower. I am sure there is a reason, I just don't get it

Thrust reversers disrupt airflow. Since the MD-80's engines are at the rear, this would put them very close to the rudder which is depending on airflow for control.

SuseJ772 wrote:

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by a 17 minute evacuation? It was very cold outside, no fire. Wouldn't a reasonable person assess the bigger risk to health was the cold and potential run in with emergency crews.

This is bothersome because it reflects a lack of urgency to evacuate the airplane. The aircraft could've developed a number of hazardous (but unknown) conditions during the excursion, and, generally speaking, it's better to have the passengers cold and out of danger than relaxing onboard.

Additionally, successful evacuations require a sense of urgency to leave the aircraft. The longer you sit onboard, the more complacent you become, and that sense of urgency begins to lessen. It can lull you into a false sense of security when in reality one still needs to be poised to move quickly.

" Lack of procedures for crew communications during an emergency or a non-normal event without operative communication systems. "

How is there not a procedure for this?

SuseJ772 wrote:

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by a 17 minute evacuation? It was very cold outside, no fire. Wouldn't a reasonable person assess the bigger risk to health was the cold and potential run in with emergency crews.

Remind me to NOT have you as my seat neighbour on a flight, if my plane gets involved in a incident/accident that necessitate an evacuation you can bet all you've got that I'm getting the heck out of the plane as QUICKLY as possible irrelavent of the weather situation outside! And this is from a guy who hates the cold...I agree with other members that your seemgnly lack of sense of emergency is very disturbing in such an industry.

SuseJ772 wrote:

Also, I don't get how the thrust reversers would reduce rudder effectiveness. The airspeed and ground speed ratio doesn't change. So as you lose rudder control, like normal, you are slower. I am sure there is a reason, I just don't get it.

Simple, if you look back at the cause of the Lauda Air crash it was because of how reverse thrusters work, they are designed to disrupt airflow around the engine (and in most cases wing). So in theory you are not overly wrong, on other planes (like the 737) the rudder would not loose its effectivness as quickly as on the DC-9 series because the engines are placed under and forward of the wing, where as on the DC-9 family (long live the Mad Dog) they are placed at the rear of the fuselage right next to, you guessed it, the rudder which means airflow around the rudder will be heavily disrupted by an overly powerful reverse thrust.

Typical A.Net overreaction hysteria by not reading the comment correctly. IF the FA calls for the evacuation, I am in agreement you evacuate. But what it sounds like from the report the FAs didn't even call for the evacuation. Which if the FAs didn't call for it, and the Pilots didn't dall for it, and there is no sign of immediate danger, I fail to see the "certainty" of a problem.

For those passive aggressively concerned about being my seat mate, I assure you if an evacuation was called for, I would, and leave my stuff.

AA94 wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

Am I the only one who isn't bothered by a 17 minute evacuation? It was very cold outside, no fire. Wouldn't a reasonable person assess the bigger risk to health was the cold and potential run in with emergency crews.

This is bothersome because it reflects a lack of urgency to evacuate the airplane. The aircraft could've developed a number of hazardous (but unknown) conditions during the excursion, and, generally speaking, it's better to have the passengers cold and out of danger than relaxing onboard.

Additionally, successful evacuations require a sense of urgency to leave the aircraft. The longer you sit onboard, the more complacent you become, and that sense of urgency begins to lessen. It can lull you into a false sense of security when in reality one still needs to be poised to move quickly.

17 minutes without fire still better than Singapore's 20 minutes on top of burning fire..

Although there was no fire, fuel tanks (especially in the wings) could have been damaged by stress on the structure of the plane, broken electrical lines could have set off leaking fuel and fumes. That is why there should have been a prompt evacuation of all but possibly those significantly injured. Likely this report will just add blame to Delta and help Plaintiff's greedy lawyers in lawsuits.

Wasn't there a situation not too long ago when an Allegiant Airlines MD-80 made an emergency landing. The captain ordered an evacuation and was subsequently fired for doing so. His order to evacuate was deemed a bit of an overreaction by Allegiant management, and was fired for his actions.It almost seems like damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

ltbewr wrote:

Although there was no fire, fuel tanks (especially in the wings) could have been damaged by stress on the structure of the plane, broken electrical lines could have set off leaking fuel and fumes.

This is true, but this does not mean that the crew would necessarily order an evacuation. At my carrier, flight attendants were trained to order an evacuation only if they thought their life was threatened. In practice, that would mean looking for significant smoke, fire, or recognizing high G-forces that would bend metal and cause the damage to which you refer. This deceleration may simply not have been noticeably abrupt, and thus not produced any kind of information for the crew that would have indicated a life threatening situation (since one did not occur - as there was no fuel or electrical fire).

I am surprised about no procedure for communication failure. We didn't train on it every year, but our procedure would be to communicate via the battery powered megaphones. If I were the lead flight attendant, I would have opened the cockpit door the second we stopped, and then asked the captain to advise on evacuation. Either way, I would then make a megaphone announcement either "remain seated" or with my carrier's initial evacuation command. The flight attendants in the tailcone would wait for that signal and react accordingly.

SuseJ772 wrote:

For those passive aggressively concerned about being my seat mate, I assure you if an evacuation was called for, I would, and leave my stuff.

It doesn't sound like an evacuation was called for by the crew, at least not until significantly after the airplane came to a stop. If your passive-aggressive would-be seatmate decided on his own that he needed to evacuate immediately, I would recommend you provide some "Go Man Go" type of encouragement. Then sit back and watch the show.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the captain calls for the evacuation not flight attendants. From what I've seen in training at airlines, the FA's wait for the captain's command for evacuation. The report states that the FA's were faced with lack of urgency from the captain to evacuate the aircraft.

People get injured every time an airplane is evacuated. If the case warrants an evacuation, do it. But if it looks like you're just rolled into some snow on the side of the runway, it's prudent to withhold an evacuation and the inevitable injuries that will incur.

There's no use sending people to the hospital if it's not worth it. Manufacturers will go to great lengths to avoid evacuation tests on airplanes because of the inevitable injuries.

I did read some of the reports and from memory there were issues with communications due to damage. It does sound like this delayed clear instructions on evacuation. The thing that surprised me wasn't the overall time taken but the time taken from when an evacuation was ordered. That seems excessive.

Isn't it standard procedure on at least some airlines that if the fuselage is not level when you come to a stop, evacuate?

Wasn't this guy tilted to one side when it rested on the snow bank?

A332DTW wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the captain calls for the evacuation not flight attendants. From what I've seen in training at airlines, the FA's wait for the captain's command for evacuation. The report states that the FA's were faced with lack of urgency from the captain to evacuate the aircraft.

In most airlines, the FA can call for evacuation if they see an immediate threat.

A332DTW wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the captain calls for the evacuation not flight attendants. From what I've seen in training at airlines, the FA's wait for the captain's command for evacuation. The report states that the FA's were faced with lack of urgency from the captain to evacuate the aircraft.

Nope, I depends very much on the individual airline. During my initial training at one of the US big 3 airlines (with a hub in ORD), we were instructed that ANY flight attendant could initiate a full evacuation should he or she deem it necessary to save lives. One would activate the evacuation by activating the evac command button. This audible alarm would ring at every flight attendant station/galley and in the cockpit to indicate to immediately begin yelling commands to the passengers and opening all usable doors. Once the evac command was activated, a full evacuation was executed without any questioning or debate....as in a 90 second evac/with full urgency.

We were told that the rational for allowing flight attendants to call for a full evacuation was due to past accidents in which the pilots were incapacitated and unable to communicate with flight attendants and the inability of FAs to access the cockpit in some situations. Also, flight attendants often have the ability to rapidly assess many parts of the aircraft that pilots may not. Any wasted time can cost lives.

I have heard that at some other airlines that their SOP is for FAs to wait for the pilot to give a evacuation command, except for extreme situations. I know some of these airlines have a 'code' word that the pilots will call out on the intercom to begin a full evacuation, particularly a low cost airline (with a hub at JFK). I don't think this is the safest option and could lead to FAs second guessing themselves or waste valuable time in conversation with pilots versus saving lives. I am not sure which of these policies DL follows.

11 minutes to evacuate all passengers once the decision was made... makes me wonder whether 95% were off in 2 minutes and 10 minutes was spent wondering whether to send someone in a wheelchair plummeting down the slide into the snow.

ssteve wrote:

11 minutes to evacuate all passengers once the decision was made... makes me wonder whether 95% were off in 2 minutes and 10 minutes was spent wondering whether to send someone in a wheelchair plummeting down the slide into the snow.

I had the same thought.

ltbewr wrote:

Although there was no fire, fuel tanks (especially in the wings) could have been damaged by stress on the structure of the plane, broken electrical lines could have set off leaking fuel and fumes. That is why there should have been a prompt evacuation of all but possibly those significantly injured. Likely this report will just add blame to Delta and help Plaintiff's greedy lawyers in lawsuits.

How are the plaintiffs being greedy if you essentially agree with their point?