I had not seen this. Anyone have any additional info? It appears by looking at Flightaware that it was an MD-88.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/07/2 ... rning.html

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

Quotes like this kind of tick me off. Completely uneducated about aviation. These things happen and Delta has one of the best maintence teams there is.

Kerry Walters, an employee with Nashville Rubber and Gasket, told WSMV. "It's very concerning that planes are maybe not inspected the way they should be before takeoff."

Yup, DL2599 was indeed an MD-88.

I love how the article shows an A320

fpetrutiu wrote:

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

"Unconstrained?" Do you mean uncontained?

danman132x wrote:

Quotes like this kind of tick me off. Completely uneducated about aviation. These things happen and Delta has one of the best maintence teams there is.

Kerry Walters, an employee with Nashville Rubber and Gasket, told WSMV. "It's very concerning that planes are maybe not inspected the way they should be before takeoff."

Come on man it is not like she made that comment on a.net. You may be knowledgeable because you travel a lot or work in aviation but for every day people this is an exceptional event.

catiii wrote:

fpetrutiu wrote:

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

"Unconstrained?" Do you mean uncontained?

Darn autocorrect. Yes that is what I meant.

this was (apparently) very much a contained failure ... everything inside stayed inside, other than what was ejected out the tailpipe as very small chopped up bits.

Uncontained is what happens when you eject pieces of engine that smack against the side of your fuselage (or penetrate it).

Can’t retire those MD88s fast enough. Showing their age big time...

I knew before I clicked to open that this was going to be an MD-88. Those old rust buckets need to go.

N776AU wrote:

I knew before I clicked to open that this was going to be an MD-88. Those old rust buckets need to go.

Some of the stupidest comments on here

if we're gonna rush to retire every type that has experienced an engine failure, none of us are gonna be doing a lot of flying.

fpetrutiu wrote:

catiii wrote:

fpetrutiu wrote:

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

"Unconstrained?" Do you mean uncontained?

Darn autocorrect. Yes that is what I meant.

Doesn't sound like it is uncontained to me. The engine contained the failure.

flyfresno wrote:

Can’t retire those MD88s fast enough. Showing their age big time...

Go look up the engine failures by type, and then see if they're showing their age.

Everyone's an expert huh?

jfern022 wrote:

N776AU wrote:

I knew before I clicked to open that this was going to be an MD-88. Those old rust buckets need to go.

Some of the stupidest comments on here

Seems like a fair statement since the aircraft very likely is 30 years old. Really stupid comment, though.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_fleet
Delta is known for its policy of generally buying older generation or used aircraft and for continuing to fly aircraft for 20-30 years, much longer than most other major airlines. As such, it has one of the oldest fleets of any American airline, with an average fleet age of 16.7 years as of 31 December 2017.

catiii wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Can’t retire those MD88s fast enough. Showing their age big time...

Go look up the engine failures by type, and then see if they're showing their age.

Everyone's an expert huh?

It’s not just about engine failures. Unless someone is willing to provide (proprietary) MX/MEL data, neither of us is going to win this arguement, but I would be willing to wager that the MD-88s have more mx issues than any of the newer DL aircraft (737-900s, A321s, etc). There are plenty of public articles talking about how DL is being forced to spend a lot of money to keep them around longer than planned on account of the whole A-220 delay, although some of that is on routine checks.

stratclub wrote:

jfern022 wrote:

N776AU wrote:

I knew before I clicked to open that this was going to be an MD-88. Those old rust buckets need to go.

Some of the stupidest comments on here

Seems like a fair statement since the aircraft very likely is 30 years old. Really stupid comment, though.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_fleet
Delta is known for its policy of generally buying older generation or used aircraft and for continuing to fly aircraft for 20-30 years, much longer than most other major airlines. As such, it has one of the oldest fleets of any American airline, with an average fleet age of 16.7 years as of 31 December 2017.

Except those who know also know that age isn't an indicator of the aircraft's fitness or reliability.

Good gosh, the comments on this thread are atrocious even for a.net.

I hope you all realize this is more of an issue associated with the engine, a JT8D, than anything necessarily specific to the MD-88.

Secondly the age of the aircraft doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it, but age of specific engine components and timing since maintenance intervals may certainly be a factor.

Also note all of said engine issues on much newer engine models so it’s not necessarily the outright age of the airframe.

Que all the A.Net drama queens and Delta haters...

FlyHappy wrote:

if we're gonna rush to retire every type that has experienced an engine failure, none of us are gonna be doing any flying.

Fixed it so that it reads correct...

Is there even a single engine type that has not had a failure in flight?

Have a great day,

flyfresno wrote:

catiii wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Can’t retire those MD88s fast enough. Showing their age big time...

Go look up the engine failures by type, and then see if they're showing their age.

Everyone's an expert huh?

It’s not just about engine failures. Unless someone is willing to provide (proprietary) MX/MEL data, neither of us is going to win this arguement, but I would be willing to wager that the MD-88s have more mx issues than any of the newer DL aircraft (737-900s, A321s, etc). There are plenty of public articles talking about how DL is being forced to spend a lot of money to keep them around longer than planned on account of the whole A-220 delay, although some of that is on routine checks.

Based on? Those older AC are actually likely to be easier to maintain due to their lower complexity and over engineering. Older frames were built with larger tolerances on almost every part because the tech wasn't where it is today. There is also no FBW or other "tricky" systems.

The DC9 (aka md80 aka 717) frames are just workhorses and have been for decades. I would expect a MadDog to have better dispatch reliability rather than worse.

Also as someone else pointed out, look at all the engine issues grounding 787s and 320s right now.Those old engines don't have those issues.

Delta is having to spend money not due to reliability issues but due to heavy checks that come with n cycles. Airlines usually try to avoid those wherever they can.

fpetrutiu wrote:

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

What are you actually talking about?

fpetrutiu wrote:

Unconstrained engine fail probably a blade got lose or broke. Glad everyone is safe. These can be very dangerous, especially on an MD88 with the engine's close proximity to all hydraulic lines and cork screw that actuates the elevator on this aircraft.

Wow, blades don't just get loose.They crack and break, or something hits them (FOD). The engines on the MD are not in any closer proximity to the hydraulic lines than any other type. Every engine has hydraulic lines going to it. The pump that powers the system is on the gearbox. Yes, there is an electric pump back up on the airframe, but every plane has engine driven pumps as it's primary. As for the "corkscrew that actuates the elevator", pretty much way off here. Elevators, like all Douglas planes, uses good old cables. No hydraulic system at all. Just a cable moving a tab on the elevator. I think what you might be thinking of is the jackscrew that moves the horizontal stab for trim. BTW it is very much like the jackscrew on most Boeings and Airbus.

So, is the failure rate of the MD higher than others. I don't know the numbers, but I would bet yes. I think it has always been higher. It is just older tech. The engines just don't last as long on wing. Is it safe? I have no problem flying on a DL MD88. I was on one last week and will be on two next weekend.