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.

[Edited 2012-11-18 18:58:42]

[Edited 2012-11-18 19:04:13]

They are certificated to operate in the United States by the FAA. They are not one iota more or less safe than any other certificated aircraft.

NS

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3): They are certificated to operate in the United States by the FAA.

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.

I see you are new and fairly young. I remember posting at your age too. Welcome to Anet and hope you learn nearly as much as I have from the members here. Don't take things personally too.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hey I was being compassionate and factual  

NS

Perfectly safe.

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...icians/493993-aa-md83-mx-loss.html

Oops.  

Depends when you ask the AA pilots 

A brave topic to launch on a.net. I lurked for nearly a year!

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 6): You are safer flying on an AA MD-80 than you would be driving Tulsa to OKC.

   The most dangerous parts of the journey are the travel to and from the airport.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 13): Depends when you ask the AA pilots

  

Quoting AA94 (Reply 10): There's no question that AA's MD80s have seen better days (from an aesthetics point of view),

The main issue is costs (fuel and maintenance). And interior noise in the aft of the aircraft... Aesthetics, they seem ok if not up to the newest aircraft. But certainly still ok.

Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 13): And interior noise in the aft of the aircraft

The classification of this "issue" is subjective - I find it to be positively musical!   

But yes, for the vast majority of the traveling public, they probably don't enjoy the rearmost rows.

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.

  

Quoting N243NW (Reply 14): But yes, for the vast majority of the traveling public, they probably don't enjoy the rearmost rows.

You can say that again! The engines seem to vibrate at different frequencies and so the sound is pulsating. The farther front you can sit, the better. I like row 7 the best  

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.

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.

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....

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.

Quoting flymia (Reply 3): Exactly. Flying the airlines in the U.S. is the safest type of flying in the world.

No, flying in Europe or Australia isn't any less safe.

Quoting flymia (Reply 3): Flying the airlines in the U.S. is the safest type of flying in the world.

That would depend on how the numbers are presented http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/geographical/worst_geo_loc.php

Quoting gasman (Reply 17): Trust me, you'll miss them when they're gone.

Yes you will, and I will miss them too. But if it is the T tail design and rear mounted engines that you really like, keep in mind that there will still be CRJ's around at most civilian airports.

Is an airplane safe to fly? Old doesn't mean it's not safe.

Ben Soriano

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.

Quoting zeke (Reply 22): Quoting flymia (Reply 3): Flying the airlines in the U.S. is the safest type of flying in the world. That would depend on how the numbers are presented http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/geographical/worst_geo_loc.php

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 interested to see it if anyone had deeper data. Also, just because a region hosted a disaster doesn't mean it was involved per se. Flight could have just been flying over or making a stop, right?

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 24): 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

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 influence..meaning they over designed, "just in case " type thinking. As I understood it the aluminum skin is a few mils thicker than a 737, spars a tad thicker, etc. There was a thred on this on here years ago with some insightful comments as I recall.

So, no do not fear, embrace the MD 80..for as gasman says it won't be too long and we will miss.

(bear in mind DL will be flying MD90's and MD95, errr B-717's for at least a decade yet. Plenty of time to enjoy the beauty of Douglas designed aircraft!

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): No, flying in Europe or Australia isn't any less safe.

Indeed, it's the same type of flying as airlines in the US. The safest kind.

Quoting tan flyr (Reply 26): 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 influence..meaning they over designed, "just in case " type thinking.

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 that, and of course it had the cargo door issue. You gotta think about the Alaska flight too. Wasn't a fail safe for the tail except the bolt. I guess it held out for a long time before going, which was amazing. Too bad they didn't make it to the airport.

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.

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 flights like 232 and 103, so that made the severe turbulence even more scary. Since then, I've grown comfortable with flying again, though it's taken some time. You shouldn't worry about the safety of the MD-80s.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 27): Indeed, it's the same type of flying as airlines in the US. The safest kind.

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 standardization initiative came from the ICAO....but the real engine behind enhanced safety standards has been the rise of global alliances. Regional and national variances have improved ALLOT since the 1990s.

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 mechanics couldn't fix the hydraulic issue at the gate, so were put onto another 777 that had just arrived from LHR.

You assume that in 2009, that 777 was 10 years old, at the most (AA got its first 777 in 1999). So, aircraft of any age can have problems.

Quoting danielkandi (Reply 20): 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.

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 already?

Quoting American 767 (Reply 23): Is an airplane safe to fly? Old doesn't mean it's not safe.

They got old for a reason, right?  

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 28): 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 that, and of course it had the cargo door issue.

The DC-10 is actually one of the best planes you can ride, where safety is concerned. We have to keep in mind a few things. Part of why the A340s, 777s, 787s and soon the 350s of the world are considered great in their safety, and the DC in DC10 stands for "Death Cruiser" is that the -10 came from a different era entirely. That trijet, along with the 1011, blazed a lot of new trails for modern aviation, and virtually everything that happened to/with them absolutely would have happened with the 777, 340, etc, had they not gone before to learn a lot of these lessons.

We also have to bear in mind that the -10 was subject to enough AD's to level the Black Forest, and is generally credited with being the "most improved" airliner in history. For what that's worth.

If you really want to a widebody with a safety record to cringe at, we can always look up the 747.

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 28): 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 that, and of course it had the cargo door issue. You gotta think about the Alaska flight too. Wasn't a fail safe for the tail except the bolt. I guess it held out for a long time before going, which was amazing. Too bad they didn't make it to the airport.

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 three hydraulic systems were close to each other. The cargo doors were mostly human failure--the guys closing them failed to follow established procedures and forced them closed. And as far as Sioux City goes anyone who has seen the video of that horrible mess has to be amazed that over 150 people walked away from that accident because the DC10 is as strong as a tank. It even cartwheeled down the runway--and the controlled landing was due in large part to outstanding airmanship and one tough airplane.

The DC10 tragedy in ORD in 1979, again, was due to human failure. Did not follow established procedures. McDonnell-Douglas had never approved removing an engine and pylon and then reattaching them with a forklift! There is one guy out there (I won't mention his name here) that has the nickname in the airline industry as "Old Forklift ______." He was the bright light that thought that one up. And he went on to careers (I won't say successful) at several other carriers. Go figure.

Accidents never happen because of one error. They are the culmination of a series of errors.

The DC10 went on to a long career as a safe, reliable machine. I personally was sorry to see our last one flown off to the desert. But a lot are still in service both as passenger airplanes and freighters and will be for many years. It had its quirks (a TERRIBLE lavatory system!) but I was working on them on two occasions where we blew an engine and the old girl didn't even breathe hard on two engines.

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 if you think the worst of corporate bosses, do you think they'd risk cutting corners and then having the 24/7 US news cycle crush them like so many tin cans?

Plus the pilots want to live too, and the mechanics, don't think they'd want that on their consciences? In fact I read (might have been here) that a mechanic from AA felt so guilty after the Chicago DC-10 crash that he committed suicide.

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 decision to use the forklift came from a much higher level in the company.

The only crash I can think of that drove an airline out of business was Valujet. That, again, was as a result of human error and a failure to follow established procedures. Not the fault of the airline but rather the subcontractor that packed the O2 cannisters without the safety caps in place.

Years ago NW had a DC-10-40 leased to American Trans Air. A seat row had come loose and rather than fix it, they tossed it into the aft baggage compartment. On the 10 the O2 was housed in the seat backs. They are oxygen generating cannisters that heat up to over 500 degrees F. During the night, while the cabin was being cleaned, someone noticed that the rear cabin was getting rather warm. Turns out the airplane was on fire because of the careless stowing of the seat row with the oxygen cannisters. The entire airplane was burned out on the interior--only the engines and landing gear were salvagable. Thankfully, no one was hurt but the airplane was destroyed. (I think it was N142US or N143US). I'll have to takealook at the data base to see if there is a photo--I'll bet there is.

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

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 aviation airlpanes ever constructed. Add then there is the F-15, a work of art. They knew what they were doing.

Maintenance in the US is to be trusted, verified by the right people sure, but trusted.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 35): Thankfully, no one was hurt but the airplane was destroyed. (I think it was N142US or N143US).

It was N142US. Read more at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...ef.aspx?ev_id=20001213X34445&key=1

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.

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 crash in 2000. It was indeed the jack-screw that failed in the tail causing the horizontal stab to just "FLOAT" causing the plane to porpoise and ultimately become uncontrollable. As we remember it was AS MX that took the fall for that one, failing to properly lubricate the jack screw assembly as per MDC guidelines. This uncovered systematic MX failings at their OAK MX base that have, obviously been addressed and solved. But that crash was not due to a design flaw.
About the only MDC crashes that can, at least somewhat be blamed on poor design are several accidents involving the MD-11. Its been widely discussed that the MD-11 is a handful upon landing due to its small vert-stab relative to its stretched fuselage as well as mostly the identical wing as the DC-10-30/40. The MD-11 is not at all unsafe but it does take perhaps, extra care in handling. It could be called unique handling characteristics that must be learned and perfected due its different design compared to just about every other plane out there. Tri-jets handle differently than other designs with all wing mounted engines, heavier tail. When the 727 first started commercial flying in the mid 1960s there were a number of alarming fatal accidents that were attributed to pilot error and failure to be adequately trained on the handling characteristics of a plane that was so tail heavy. A design flaw? No, a design and handling difference? Yes.

As far as the Sioux City DC-10 crash, you can also note that since the time of the DC-10's design there have been much stronger materials developed for engine housings that mostly* can contain an engine failure most* of the time as compared to older designs. Its quite possible that is the DC-10s rear/high mounted engine has been encased in a carbon fiber nacelle, we would never have had that crash but thats just the progression of technology over time.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 35): The only crash I can think of that drove an airline out of business was Valujet. That, again, was as a result of human error and a failure to follow established procedures. Not the fault of the airline but rather the subcontractor that packed the O2 cannisters without the safety caps in place.

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 brand and not the airline that was destroyed.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 38): I agree. I'm so disappointed that AA stopped flying them into my home airport of MIA years ago.

We used to see them once or twice a year on a rare equipment substitution, but now that the new 737-800s have started pouring in, I think they're gone for good. The ATR 72 stopped serving MIA last Thursday; American Eagle at MIA is now all-jet.

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 a return to the gate, more like a return to the MX facility followed by an investigation on how a hole got there in the first place. Which if it was a hole I am sure that would of happened.

But I agree, AA is as safe as QF are (for example) and that's down to the people at all levels taking safety as an absolute priority! As the consequences are too awful and far reaching.  

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 28): You gotta think about the Alaska flight too. Wasn't a fail safe for the tail except the bolt.

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  

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33): 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 three hydraulic systems were close to each other. The cargo doors were mostly human failure--the guys closing them failed to follow established procedures and forced them closed. And as far as Sioux City goes anyone who has seen the video of that horrible mess has to be amazed that over 150 people walked away from that accident because the DC10 is as strong as a tank. It even cartwheeled down the runway--and the controlled landing was due in large part to outstanding airmanship and one tough airplane. The DC10 tragedy in ORD in 1979, again, was due to human failure. Did not follow established procedures. McDonnell-Douglas had never approved removing an engine and pylon and then reattaching them with a forklift! There is one guy out there (I won't mention his name here) that has the nickname in the airline industry as "Old Forklift ______." He was the bright light that thought that one up. And he went on to careers (I won't say successful) at several other carriers. Go figure. Accidents never happen because of one error. They are the culmination of a series of errors. The DC10 went on to a long career as a safe, reliable machine. I personally was sorry to see our last one flown off to the desert. But a lot are still in service both as passenger airplanes and freighters and will be for many years. It had its quirks (a TERRIBLE lavatory system!) but I was working on them on two occasions where we blew an engine and the old girl didn't even breathe hard on two engines.

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 fact that design flaws in the DC-10 accounted for several of the holes in the cheese, so that the same accident in another aircraft wouldn't have brought it down. The hydraulics was always known to be the 10's achilles' heel. What braniac designed all three circuits to come together in a location where an un-contained engine failure would knock all out at once?

Similarly, the slat retracting mechanism (cable/drum instead of screw jack which is self-locking), and the routing of hydraulic lines ahead of the spar ensured that the physical loss of an engine would cause the slats on one side to retract leaving the other side deployed; and with no slat asymmetry indicators in the cockpit the result was inevitable.

Then there was the unvented floor design that, in an explosive decompression from the cargo compartment, would buckle the floor and jam control cables.

The "Death Cruiser" monicker was well deserved as any reading of the statistics would show, especially compared to its contemporary, the L1011:

L1011 accident rate per million, 0.91; fatal events, 5; 5.5 Million flights, rank 11
DC10: 1.97, 15, 7.6 Million, 15
MD11: 5.71, 4, 0.7 Million, 18

Removing the Concorde from the stats (which is a statistical blip due to so few flights flown), the MD11 is dead last in safety statistics, and the DC-10 third from last among jetliners (just ahead of the F28, and though not a jet, the Embraer Bandeirante).

Ironically, for this thread, the safest jetliner is the MD80! Ranks second overall, the Saab 340 ranking first. Actually first is the 777, not even on the charts, since no fatal events, a remarkable record! Also remarkable is the 767 in 3d place overall (source: www.airdisaster.com)

Pilot's perspective from a pilot who flew the DC10, the MD11 and the L1011:

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/te...-dc-10-vs-l-1011-a.html#post749849

While it's popular to affirm that the DC10 is safe and has been the victim strictly of human error, the truth is rather more prosaic. It was a hasty design with many shortcomings. The MD11 was not only no improvement, but is measurably worse.

Beech

Quoting beechnut (Reply 45): While it's popular to affirm that the DC10 is safe and has been the victim strictly of human error, the truth is rather more prosaic. It was a hasty design with many shortcomings. The MD11 was not only no improvement, but is measurably worse.

Also have to consider the type of operation. MD-11 passenger operations have been very safe. Almost all fatal MD-11 accidents have involved freighters.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 11): Perfectly safe. http://www.pprune.org/engineers-tech...icians/493993-aa-md83-mx-loss.html Oops.

This is not an indictment of the safety of the MD but a lapse in the maintenance operations safety standards.

Quoting zeke (Reply 22):

Those figures are since 1945, in the US which has more people flying than any other country in the world. I would fly them any where compared to say the airlines in Russia, or Africa.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 24): very few 727's still left.

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 her all my life.

There are still quite a few 727s flying as freighters, if you talk about passenger 727s then I would agree with your statement.

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 39): 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 crash in 2000. It was indeed the jack-screw that failed in the tail causing the horizontal stab to just "FLOAT" causing the plane to porpoise and ultimately become uncontrollable. As we remember it was AS MX that took the fall for that one, failing to properly lubricate the jack screw assembly as per MDC guidelines. This uncovered systematic MX failings at their OAK MX base that have, obviously been addressed and solved. But that crash was not due to a design flaw.

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 a drive mechanism on the other I'm going to say that the jack-screw on the MD-80, (and all DC-9 family aircraft for that matter) have been and continue to be safe. Considering there has been exactly one crash attributed to a failure of the jackscrew, after the pilots messed with it after it exhibited a problem, I would hardly call it a flawed design. Pilot error? Yup. Maintenance error? Certainly, to the point of criminal. Flawed design? No way. Are American's Mad Dogs safe? I don't work for them but I am an A&P very familiar with the MD80 and without question those AA planes are safe. They, along with Delta's, are probably the best cared for MD80s out there in my opinion.

[Edited 2012-11-19 21:33:48]