Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
802flyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 1:56 pm

DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:16 pm

http://avherald.com/h?article=4725e0eb&opt=0

]"A Delta Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-88, registration N992DL performing flight DL-886 from Atlanta,GA to New York La Guardia,NY (USA) with 118 passengers and 5 crew, was descending towards New York when the crew reported a hydraulic failure and decided to divert to New York's JFK Airport requesting runway 31L (length 14,572 feet/4,442 meters). The crew indicated they had lost all hydraulics fluid,...

The aircraft wound up rolling off the pavement at low speed, passengers deplaned via aft airstairs. It will interesting to find what caused the hydraulic failure. (Almost as interesting as the silly stories in press about the incident) There is something to be said for the "DC" in DC-9 (which is what the MD-80 really is) actually meaning "direct cable".  
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1465
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:33 pm

   Wow! They were rolling along without brakes or any way to stop, asking the fire crews to throw some chocks under the wheels.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3582
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Yikes - guess they didn't want to damage the EMAS at the end of the runway  
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
User avatar
cjg225
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:59 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:11 pm

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 1):
Wow! They were rolling along without brakes or any way to stop, asking the fire crews to throw some chocks under the wheels.

That's what I didn't get about the AvHerald write-up. So, they were expecting the fire crews to run under the aircraft or put up something in the path of the aircraft (like a non-tire-puncturing version of a nail strip that police might deploy in a chase)?
Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:13 pm

Time for new planes.
 
Ih8b6
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:38 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:48 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):

Yeah that will solve everything. There's a much newer plane missing somewhere in this World for the past 4 weeks. No one knows what happened to it or where the hell it is. Yep, newer is always better.
Over-moderation sucks
 
User avatar
cotparampguy
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:56 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:51 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):

The poor 787 has been breaking for quite some time, time for a new plane?

Mechanical incidents like this happen and they are not limited to older planes. I've seen 2 day old airplanes go out of service for varying reasons.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2746
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:07 pm

I don't see where it says they needed chocks to stop the aircraft during the rollout. I took it to mean that after stopping they wanted chocks since they didn't have any hydraulic pressure and therefore no parking brake. You don't want the aircraft to start rolling while passengers are deplaning or emergency responders are moving around the aircraft.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1465
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:22 pm

True, this could be a bit ambiguous:

Quote:
The aircraft touched down and slowed on the runway, the crew requested chocks repeatedly stating they had no brakes, both engines were shut down, fire brigades told the crew they would apply chocks as soon as the aircraft came to a stop.

I still like the imagery of pilots rolling along at low speed asking for someone to throw some chocks in the way, though.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:36 pm

Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 5):
Yeah that will solve everything. There's a much newer plane missing somewhere in this World for the past 4 weeks. No one knows what happened to it or where the hell it is. Yep, newer is always better.

Never said newer is ALWAYS better, but are you claiming that there's no correlation between incidents and age of frame ?
 
Ih8b6
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:38 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:21 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9):

I am - especially in present generation operations, for major airlines in developed countries with rigorous maintenance standards and schedules.

Think about it - when the last time that you can easily recall a mechanical failure (or at least partially mechanical) bringing down a plane in the US? Alaska in 2000, the a/c was 8 years old. USAir 427 a/c was only 6 years old. Both of those mechanical issues. Even American 191 was back in 1979 was only 7. Yes, there have been plenty of other aircraft issues since then thanks to birds, weather, or scummy terrorists.

UPS 1354, while still being investigated, was a 10 year old airplane that crashed and was probably not mechanical.

Jetblue 292, with the sideways gear, didn't crash but was a mechanical failure and the plane was 3.

So no, I don't think age of the airframe correlates to incidents. Those old DC9s served NW and DL fairly long and incident free as well as the current fleet of 88s.
Over-moderation sucks
 
User avatar
Tigerguy
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:27 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9):
Never said newer is ALWAYS better, but are you claiming that there's no correlation between incidents and age of frame ?

We don't even know what caused the failure yet. Perhaps it was a part that was recently installed. Sure, it may end up that age had something to do with it, but it's far too early to say. Besides, as has been pointed out above, the gremlins don't always care how old the plane is. Now, if all similar-vintage MD-88s start having the same problem, then you may have something there.
Good night, and keep watching the skis. Uh, skies.
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:02 pm

I'm NOT saying that these are in any way related, but this incident reminds me of the Northwest A319/DC9 incident at MSP in 2005:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20050510-1
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:04 pm

Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 10):

I am - especially in present generation operations, for major airlines in developed countries with rigorous maintenance standards and schedules.
Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 5):
There's a much newer plane missing somewhere in this World for the past 4 weeks.

Your example to justify old frames is a poor one since #370 has all the hallmarks of foul play rather than plane failure, while #214 was most probably a pilot error.
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:15 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):
Time for new planes.

I seem to recall some rather interesting video of a jetBlue A320 landing with its nose gear turned 90 degrees. See--they should have had a new plane.

Your hypothesis is seriously flawed. It has been repeatedly proven that the age of the frame is irrelevant if the maintenance is done correctly. McDonnell-Douglas built airplanes that will still be flying long after the last Airbus has been flown to the desert.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
User avatar
b727fa
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 8:21 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:50 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 14):
long after the last Airbus has been flown to the desert.

Or made into a Coke can.
My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:58 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 14):
Your hypothesis is seriously flawed. It has been repeatedly proven that the age of the frame is irrelevant if the maintenance is done correctly. McDonnell-Douglas built airplanes that will still be flying long after the last Airbus has been flown to the desert.

You're assuming maintenance done correctly is a given.

Wasn't a few weeks back some major wing component flew out mid-flight on another DL plane ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-lands-no-passengers-injured.html
 
LU9092
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:09 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:42 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 16):
You're assuming maintenance done correctly is a given.

Wasn't a few weeks back some major wing component flew out mid-flight on another DL plane ?

So what you're saying is that incorrectly done maintenance would be a problem only for older planes? That assertion is also untrue.
 
User avatar
Tigerguy
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:42 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 16):

You're assuming maintenance done correctly is a given.

Wasn't a few weeks back some major wing component flew out mid-flight on another DL plane ?

To be fair, maintenance can be done incorrectly on newer planes as well. In many cases, incorrect maintenance has brought down planes of varying ages. Besides, this scenario would mean that incorrect maintenance is the culprit, not the age of the airframe.
Good night, and keep watching the skis. Uh, skies.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:53 pm

Glad to hear that everything turned out okay!

Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 5):
There's a much newer plane missing somewhere in this World for the past 4 weeks.

That itself is sad... That something like this could happen...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:38 pm

All aircraft, no matter what their age, need proper maintenance. Older aircraft are just as safe and airworthy as newer aircraft, they just need to be checked for serviceability more often than newer aircraft that have had all their teething problems resolved such as the battery problems with the 787. You need qualified well trained mechanics and engineers working on all aircraft to keep them flying in an airworthy condition. Older aircraft need to be checked for corrosion and metal fatigue in a more intensive manner and any deficiencies need to be corrected. Three things that will lead to the parking of an older aircraft are, it's flight hours, the number of cycles on it and the availability and cost of replacement parts. The DC-3 is still flying as it has since the mid 1930s in a near perfectly safe manner. What may ground the DC-3 is that engine parts are now very hard to find and if you can, they are very expensive. There were several manufactures, but parts availability is a major problem. Some DC-3s have had newer turbo prop engines installed and will be flying long after current jet aircraft have been broken up.   
Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
 
wjcandee
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:47 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 4):
Time for new planes.

I will disagree without being disagreeable, athough that would be easy.

Fact is, a mechanical is a mechanical, and the MD88s still have excellent dispatch reliability. They are also relatively quick and easy to fix.
 
tockeyhockey
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:57 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:01 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 16):
You're assuming maintenance done correctly is a given.

Wasn't a few weeks back some major wing component flew out mid-flight on another DL plane ?

and you're assuming manufacturing done correctly is a given.
 
pipo777
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:52 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:23 am

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 1):
   Wow! They were rolling along without brakes or any way to stop, asking the fire crews to throw some chocks under the wheels.

The MD-80 has accumulators in the brake system as well as both reverses. If they lost all fluids they would still be able to use the brakes, however once you step on them you can't step off until you stop or you would lose all pressure.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 7):
I don't see where it says they needed chocks to stop the aircraft during the rollout. I took it to mean that after stopping they wanted chocks since they didn't have any hydraulic pressure and therefore no parking brake. You don't want the aircraft to start rolling while passengers are deplaning or emergency responders are moving around the aircraft.

According to the QRH you can set the parking break with this failure, provided you haven't lost all pressure un the accumulators. Also, the breaks might have been too hot to set the parking brake, without flaps and slats the touchdown speed would have been somewhere around 200 kts depending on the weight, and without spoilers it would take a lot of brakes to stop. But I think you're right that the chocks were for after they stopped.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:36 am

Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 22):

The only thing I know is that DL has the oldest fleet, and DL had 2 incidents in the past 3 weeks
 
Raventech
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:47 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 24):

Correlation does not equal Causation.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10580
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:15 am

Depending on the degree of correlation, it would certainly point in that direction.
 
AF185
Posts: 293
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:58 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:19 am

During the overall deceleration process at landing, how much (in %) can be contributed by the thrust reversers?
How much can it help when the braking system is down?
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:56 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 16):

You're assuming maintenance done correctly is a given.

Wasn't a few weeks back some major wing component flew out mid-flight on another DL plane ?

DL maintenance folks are a proud bunch and tell you themselves that they would put their own families--and do--on ANY DL aircraft.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 24):
The only thing I know is that DL has the oldest fleet, and DL had 2 incidents in the past 3 weeks

Out of a fleet of over 700 aircraft that is a negligible statistic. The same thing happens every day to every airline in America. A panel falls off, an engine blows, windshields crack--they get used hard.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14837
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:06 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 29):
The same thing happens every day to every airline in America. A panel falls off, an engine blows, windshields crack--they get used hard.

If we are going to look at meaninglessly short periods of time, let's at least look at the real numbers. Here are accidents and incidents for 121 carriers for the past 10 days:

AMF: 1 (taxiway excursion at HSV)
B6: 2 (Bird strike at JFK, smoke in the cockpit resulting in an emergency landing at KIN)
G7: 1 (Windshield failure at LGA)
US: 1 (APU fire at EWR)
VS: 1 (Bird strike at MCO)
XE: 1 (APU fire at CID)
WN: 1 (Bird strike at DCA)
YX: 1 (Bird strike at DCA)

Is B6 twice as dangerous as anyone else? That's absurd.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:07 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 29):
A panel falls off, an engine blows, windshields crack--they get used hard.

Using hard or not, as a consumer I shouldn't be expecting DL, or any proper full service airline, to have "panel falling off" or "engine blowing" be the norm and business-as-usual. This is DL, not some former CIS carrier flying Soviet era props.

This is defeatist.

[Edited 2014-04-04 10:11:40]
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14837
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:18 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 31):
Using hard or not, as a consumer I shouldn't be expecting DL, or any proper full service airline, to have "panel falling off" or "engine blowing" be the norm and business-as-usual. This is DL, not some former CIS carrier flying Soviet era props.

Okay. I shouldn't be expecting B6 to have its APUs catching fire, which happened a week ago. What's your point?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 600
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:20 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 30):
XE: 1 (APU fire at CID)
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 30):
G7: 1 (Windshield failure at LGA)

I had no idea Cambodian International flew to Cedar Rapids. And Gandalf goes to La Guardia?

Seriously, that is not a lot of incidents given the amount of traffic around these days.
Never employ grandios verbiage when the utilisation of diminutive phraseology will suffice.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:39 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 32):
Okay. I shouldn't be expecting B6 to have its APUs catching fire, which happened a week ago. What's your point?

B6 does not attempt to justify this is acceptable behavior.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14837
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:42 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 34):
B6 does not attempt to justify this is acceptable behavior.

Did DL?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:45 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 35):
Did DL?

Officially no. Unofficially, see entire thread above.
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:25 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 36):
Officially no. Unofficially, see entire thread above.

In the entire thread above, all I see is you trying to make Delta look like an unsafe airline with little substantiated or relevant facts.

I had a towbar snap when pushing back on a Spirit a319 at LGA. That doesn't mean Spirit uses an unsafe ground handling service (if they don't use their own) and it doesn't mean I expect it to happen, yet when it does I don't give it much thought.
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
User avatar
Tigerguy
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:28 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 36):
Officially no. Unofficially, see entire thread above.

So...every airline that has an incident is somehow condoning those occurrences? Or just the ones with older planes? I'd better start investing in Virgin America, because that means there's about to be a lot less competition...

These are machines. They are designed and built by humans. They will break. They will be fixed. If the airline sees fit, they will stick around for two decades, give or take a few years. That does not make them inherently unsafe.
Good night, and keep watching the skis. Uh, skies.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:29 pm

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 37):

In the entire thread above, all I see is you trying to make Delta look like an unsafe airline with little substantiated or relevant facts.

Just like that USAir incident at PHL a couple weeks back. Technically casualty was zero, so it's "safe" in your definition.

Can you show that DL's competitors have equal or higher incident rate ?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14837
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:35 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 39):
Just like that USAir incident at PHL a couple weeks back. Technically casualty was zero, so it's "safe" in your definition.

Absolutely. The goal isn't for nothing to ever break, because that's unrealistic. The goal is that when things break, the failure occurs in a way that minimizes damage to the airplane and its occupants--and DL in this incident and US at PHL both accomplished that goal.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:43 pm

Quoting AF185 (Reply 28):
During the overall deceleration process at landing, how much (in %) can be contributed by the thrust reversers?
How much can it help when the braking system is down?

Depends on the airplane, but it can be pretty significant, particularly with the clamshell reversers that the MD-88 has.

But if I'm not mistaken, they're run off the hydraulic system and don't have a backup the way the brakes do, so if you lose all your hydraulics they're not going to be effective at all.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
MesaFlyGuy
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:36 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:54 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 39):
Technically casualty was zero, so it's "safe" in your definition.

I think it's a good thing that nobody was killed in the US incident and it is the goal that, if something like that happens, damage is minimal.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 39):
Can you show that DL's competitors have equal or higher incident rate ?

Can you show that they don't? I'm not spending any significant amounts of time with such a thin argument, built on a flawed opinion. Sorry.
The views I express are my own and do not reflect the views and opinions of my company.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:29 am

C'mon fellas, surely y'all see that he dislikes Delta. I've seen it in other threads. You know how JetBlue likes to tout their 'new planes', well his way of going the long way around the barn highlights the fact that Delta squeezes as much value out of their planes in order to hit profit numbers other airlines can only dream about.
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
pipo777
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:52 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:15 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 41):
But if I'm not mistaken, they're run off the hydraulic system and don't have a backup the way the brakes do, so if you lose all your hydraulics they're not going to be effective at all.

They are hydraulically operated and, like the braking system, have accumulators in case of emergency. When we train for a total hydraulic failure you step on the brakes and use the reverses until the aircraft stops! In a normal situation we use the reverse until the aircraft decelerates to about 80 kts.

Hope this helps!
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:58 am

This is a surprisingly rare incident for the MD-80. But it has happened before with AA, albeit just as uncommon. History and notes should be reviewed to help prevent further occurrences.

A loss of all hydraulics could be a lot worse for the MD-90, if it were ever to happen in-flight. This is something DL should be aware of.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 21):
Fact is, a mechanical is a mechanical, and the MD88s still have excellent dispatch reliability

Reportedly the MD-88 also has a better dispatch reliability over other members of the MD-80 family... Particularly, older MD-81/82 variants.

The MD-88 is really the creme of the crop. At this point in the 727's lifecycle, MX issues were a lot more common.... And the 727 wrote the book on extended life operation. Numbers were respectable for the beloved trijet until fleet size dropped below critical mass. From what I hear, the MD-88 wipes the floor with the numbers. Which is the primary reason for DL's future investment in the type. Low MX cost + high dispatch reliability = strong profitability.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 24):
The only thing I know is that DL has the oldest fleet, and DL had 2 incidents in the past 3 weeks

It's been a bad couple of weeks by DL's standards; no denying that. But one must judge it's mature fleet by the other 50 weeks in a year...

The fact is DL's MX and TOC are second to none in knowledge, skills, and abilities for both the 757 and MD-80 series.    I think the 717 will inevitably join this company.
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:23 am

Quoting 802flyguy (Thread starter):
There is something to be said for the "DC" in DC-9 (which is what the MD-80 really is) actually meaning "direct cable".

Very clever. Though technically, the MD-88 is the one variant that is not a DC-9-8X  
There's nothing quite like a trijet.
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:56 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 31):
Using hard or not, as a consumer I shouldn't be expecting DL, or any proper full service airline, to have "panel falling off" or "engine blowing" be the norm and business-as-usual. This is DL, not some former CIS carrier flying Soviet era props.

This is defeatist.

Airplanes are machines. They are built by humans. They are flown by humans. They are maintained by humans. As such, they are subject to the same foibles as human beings. Blown engines, cracked windshields, bird strikes, flat tires, ice skids, snapped tow bars (which makes an INCREDIBLY loud noise!), jammed doors, inoperative instruments and sometimes coffeemakers that just quit working are a routine part of the business. Consumer or no consumer--if it too much for you to take....drive.

BTW--take a look below at all of the aircraft types that I have been qualified on over the past 40 years. And I have had something go mechanically wrong on every single one of them. And the only time in all those years that I ever got hurt was driving to the airport.

[Edited 2014-04-05 09:00:16]

[Edited 2014-04-05 09:01:49]
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:47 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 44):

A loss of all hydraulics could be a lot worse for the MD-90, if it were ever to happen in-flight.

How so?
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3693
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:24 am

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 42):

That's rich coming from one of the biggest DL fanboys on this site lolllzzz
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
captainstefan
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:53 am

RE: DL MD-88 Incident At JFK

Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:26 am

Quoting ih8b6 (Reply 10):

So no, I don't think age of the airframe correlates to incidents.

See Delta 1288, from 1996 - PNS-ATL. The MD-88 was less than 9 years old and killed two people.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 45):
Though technically, the MD-88 is the one variant that is not a DC-9-8X

This one wasn't, correct. Had it been 902-907DL, which were delivered as DC-9-82s, someone could argue you on it.   
Long Live the Tulip!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos