DL MD-80 Off Runway At LGA - Part 2

American 767 · Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:22 pm

Please continue the discussion here.

DL MD-80 Off Runway At LGA (by tommyy Mar 5 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Ben Soriano

catiii · Thu Mar 05, 2015 11:37 pm

Not to overdramatize, but historically is the tailcone evacuation slide a problem? In the photo here it isn't properly deployed: https://instagram.com/beyond_greatnes/

In the video here of another MD88 incident it fails to deploy properly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1bcZF3vAEk

NYPECO · Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:19 am

Quoting catiii (Reply 1):
In the video here of another MD88 incident it fails to deploy properly: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1bcZF3vAEk

It looks like it was deployed in that video. There are people sliding off it. Also, in today's' LaGuardia accident, it appears that the rear of the aircraft being low to the ground contributed to the evacuation slide not deploying properly.

[Edited 2015-03-05 16:23:22]

aa777lvr · Fri Mar 06, 2015 12:43 am

It was mentioned an A319 landing prior to this flight reported braking action as good. When I searched on flightaware earlier this afternoon the only 319's I could find were 2 UA ORD-LGA arrivals. (UA 462 - 1048am gate arrival and UA694 - 1052 gate arrival). The DL flight touched down a couple minutes after 11, right? It was mentioned at a press conference that an aircraft landing "just" prior reported BRAG. Any idea if it was the UA flight and how long between landings?

AA777LVR

twinotter · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:30 am

Untold numbers of people who don't know anything about aviation undoubtedly wonder whether the airplane's age could be a factor. What on earth is wrong with CNN addressing that question? You want to "put a bowling ball through your TV" because they are educating people? That I don't get.

TrijetsRMissed · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:36 am

An unfortunate end for DL's first true factory delivered MD-88. Anything but a write-off would be surprising.

The capacity will be absorbed by the 5 additional 717s DL will acquire from Blue1.

deltal1011man · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:39 am

Glad to hear everyone is safe.

Quoting twinotter (Reply 8):

Untold numbers of people who don't know anything about aviation undoubtedly wonder whether the airplane's age could be a factor.

Because if you don't know anything about aviation you are going to know how old the plane is?

Or do you think they get help from "experts" asking stupid questions like these?

Quoting twinotter (Reply 8):
What on earth is wrong with CNN addressing that question? You want to "put a bowling ball through your TV" because they are educating people? That I don't get.

CNN and educating people on airplanes?

These words don't make sense together.

A332DTW · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:47 am

The cranes are out. I wonder where they're going to move it to.

northwestEWR · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:56 am

The damage doesn't look too terrible. Something was said of a ruptured fuel tank and some nose gear damage. It depends on how the insurance decides to proceed--DL could likely repair the aircraft but it may be just as useful as spare parts.

Sounds like he landed long and didn't brake aggressively enough if the reports of BRAG are true. Glad no one was hurt!

Okie · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:03 am

Quoting A332DTW (Reply 11):
The cranes are out. I wonder where they're going to move it to.

I suspect they will use the cranes to reposition the aircraft to a cart/trailer/truck to support the nose and provide steering.
It looks from the pictures the MLG's are functional. They will just then tow it out of the way.
I would assume the aircraft has been defueled where it sits considering it had a reported fuel leak.
I am not sure what processes they will use to mitigate the fuel contaminated ground if there really was a leak.
I think they will have to repair lighting and provide security or repair the fence to get the runway back in operation.

If they have a crane already in position I am sure they have addressed the issues at hand and are proceeding as planned.
Sounds like a long cold night.

Okie

deltal1011man · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:04 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 9):
An unfortunate end for DL's first true factory delivered MD-88. Anything but a write-off would be surprising.

Oh i didn't even notice that it was the first 88. Good catch.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 9):
The capacity will be absorbed by the 5 additional 717s DL will acquire from Blue1.

Or those go to growth and a 900ER replaces it saving one 757?

anyone? anyone?

NWAROOSTER · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:04 am

This 27 year old MD-88 has flown it's last flight. Repairing this aircraft does not make good economic sense. The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport. The only good thing that happened is that there were no serious injuries.

deltal1011man · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:08 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):

This 27 year old MD-88 has flown it's last flight. Repairing this aircraft does not make good economic sense. T

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport

Damn you know all this without knowing any facts?

your good.

northwestEWR · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:10 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
This 27 year old MD-88 has flown it's last flight. Repairing this aircraft does not make good economic sense. The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport. The only good thing that happened is that there were no serious injuries.

Depends on how it's insured. The value of the airworthy aircraft may be pretty close to it's value in parts/scrap.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 14):
Or those go to growth and a 900ER replaces it saving one 757?

Oh please no. The 900ER is the absolute worst. The 737 should've died after the 900.

MesaFlyGuy · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:11 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport.

Are you going to say that about the other plethora of aircraft that landed successfully today?

deltal1011man · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:14 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 17):
Oh please no. The 900ER is the absolute worst. The 737 should've died after the 900.

exactly. All the more reason to keep an extra 757 around.

slcdeltarumd11 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:29 am

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...rport-New-York-Snow-295187641.html

NBC here in NY has some amazing live streaming videos of the crane work trying to get the plane moved

NWAROOSTER · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:35 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 17):

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
This 27 year old MD-88 has flown it's last flight. Repairing this aircraft does not make good economic sense. The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport. The only good thing that happened is that there were no serious injuries.

Depends on how it's insured. The value of the airworthy aircraft may be pretty close to it's value in parts/scrap.

This is not a relatively new 787 that Boeing had to repair to protect it's reputation. This is a 27 year old aircraft and I have seen younger aircraft with less damage written off rather than repaired. I do not know what the aircraft was worth before the accident, but with younger aircraft being retired, this aircraft's parts are worth more than the cost of repairing the aircraft.

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 18):

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
The pilot should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport.

Are you going to say that about the other plethora of aircraft that landed successfully today?

I am not talking about the other aircraft that landed before this one. The weather conditions could have changed making braking more difficult. The weather could of also caused the aircraft to land long and over shoot the runway.
If the aircraft would have diverted, the aircraft would not almost gone into the sea, as apparently the aircraft drifted off the runway. This is the second MD-80 series aircraft that was involved in an accident scenario within one week.

Moose135 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:41 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 21):
I am not talking about the other aircraft that landed before this one. The weather conditions could have changed making braking more difficult. The weather could of also caused the aircraft to land long and over shoot the runway.

Or there could have been a malfunction with the aircraft that effected stopping performance or ability to maintain directional control. Or an error by the pilots. At this point, it's too early to say they "should have never landed the aircraft under the conditions at the airport".

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 21):
This is the second MD-80 series aircraft that was involved in an accident scenario within one week.

I guess it's time to ground all of those dangerous old airplanes.

Boeing717200 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:46 am

Quoting twinotter (Reply 8):

Untold numbers of people who don't know anything about aviation undoubtedly wonder whether the airplane's age could be a factor. What on earth is wrong with CNN addressing that question? You want to "put a bowling ball through your TV" because they are educating people? That I don't get.

Delta needs to retire those DC-9s immediately!

Womack17 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:54 am

As a matter of curiosity, this question is directed to someone fairly familiar with Delta's recently retired MD-88/83/90 series aircraft.

Any aircraft come to mind as being the most "ready" to come back into service?

Would it likely be a MD-83 or does DL have any recently retired MD-88's?

Aren't there some MD-90's in transition from EVA/UNI? to Delta or is that process over?

Any info would be appreciated!

Web500sjc · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:55 am

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 21):
This is a 27 year old aircraft and I have seen younger aircraft with less damage written off rather than repaired.

We have also seen aircraft repaired that should have been written off in order to protect a reputation. Its up to Delta and the Insurance company what happens to the airplane. I wouldn't be surprised to see the airplane scrapped but Delta does like to operate old airplanes.

mm320cap · Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:18 am

NWAROOSTER please point out what conditions the pilots "shouldn't have landed under"? Was it the Braking Action Good report, the winds of 020/10, or the RVR 6000 that should have magically had them go around? I will tell you right here and now there isn't a commercial airline pilot flying that wouldn't have accepted a landing clearance for that runway with those reports. What exactly are you saying you would have gone around for? We have NO idea what happened. Could have been a mechanical failure. Could have been some radical change to the runway condition since the last braking report (though I doubt it), could have been a huge gust of wind, and yes it could have been simple pilot error. Stop speculating without facts. And to suggest the crew shouldn't have landed given the information they had is ludicrous.

[Edited 2015-03-05 19:20:08]

MesaFlyGuy · Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:23 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 21):
This is the second MD-80 series aircraft that was involved in an accident scenario within one week

Searching for a point.........

Especially since the first incident was because of icing on the taxiway as far as I know. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was an MD-80 series aircraft. It's too early at this point to speculate whether or not that fact has anything to do with this incident, so connecting the two incidents is a very premature and unnecessary action at this point.

northwestEWR · Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:34 am

As I said before, the decision to repair or scrap the frame will come down to insurance values. If the aircraft in airworthy condition after paying for repairs is $1,000,000 and they can continue to turn profitable revenue from the airplane, they should do it. If the parts are worth $1.2 million to DL, then obviously they should go that route. With the surplus of S80 parts on the market right now, they're going to be a very tough sell. The aircraft may just be worth more in flyable condition.

DeltaMD95 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:10 am

Glad that no one was seriously hurt and everyone survived. A pity of way for this MD88 to go though. Almost 28 years of service with no retirement in sight and then this?

I know the general consensus is that it will be scrapped. What are the odds that it is repaired and reactivated? 10-20%? Not 50/50?

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 9):
The capacity will be absorbed by the 5 additional 717s DL will acquire from Blue1.

Really looking forward to the Blue1 announcement.

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 17):
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 14):
Or those go to growth and a 900ER replaces it saving one 757?

Oh please no. The 900ER is the absolute worst. The 737 should've died after the 900.

How about they activate an EVA MD90 that is destined for parts?

I think about 10 or so have yet to be delivered, so still plenty of time for DL to coordinate putting one through mods.

Quoting Womack17 (Reply 24):
Any aircraft come to mind as being the most "ready" to come back into service?

Would it likely be a MD-83 or does DL have any recently retired MD-88's?

DL only has MD88s and aside from 3 leases that were rejected in bankruptcy several years ago, they have not retired or stored any.

[Edited 2015-03-05 20:25:13]

Polot · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:21 am

Aside from the 717s DL also has plenty of 739s coming online along with A321 starting early next year. They have plenty of slack in their domestic fleet, they can easily survive with one less MD-88 in the meantime. I would be shocked if it repaired and re-enters service. There is no need to repair it to save face like EK (345 at MEL) or QF (747 at BKK). DL has crashed and written off plenty of planes in its history already.

jetjeanes · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:51 am

probably load it on a barge eventually and hauled off ,its w/o

7673mech · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:00 am

Quoting DeltaMD95 (Reply 30):
I know the general consensus is that it will be scrapped.

Consensus not based on fact.
The engines were still warm and the wing wrapped in a fence and the experts here are saying its scrapped.
Until it is evaluated properly, it is simply an AOG out of service aircraft.

TrijetsRMissed · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:11 am

Quoting DeltaMD95 (Reply 30):
Really looking forward to the Blue1 announcement

Not to veer off topic, but it shouldn't be long before made official. DL outbid HA and QF. The fleet is now 93.

Quoting 7673mech (Reply 33):
Until it is evaluated properly, it is simply an AOG out of service aircraft.

Anything is possible. All I'm saying is I would be surprised. If the plane was younger and DL weren't stock piling scrapped MD parts, I think a repair would be more likely. I hope I'm wrong.

I'll tell you one thing, if DL repair this aircraft it'll say something about their dedication to the MD-88.

airtechy · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:14 am

I don't think any pics have been posted of the left wing damage. I do note that the nose gear appears to be intact....sheet metal damage around it. Maybe it rode up and over the berm and then landed on the "nose belly". Maybe we will get some "insider" pics like we did of the Southwest accident.....at LGA no less.

ikramerica · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:17 am

All this talk of how DL will make up the capacity. DL is a big airline. Replacing 150 seats isn't an issue. The lack of capacity is easily absorbed into the system in the short term and retirement/take up rate of other frames can be adjusted moving forward.

trnswrld · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:21 am

Quoting airtechy (Reply 35):

I don't think any pics have been posted of the left wing damage. I do note that the nose gear appears to be intact....sheet metal damage around it. Maybe it rode up and over the berm and then landed on the "nose belly". Maybe we will get some "insider" pics like we did of the Southwest accident.....at LGA no less.

That will great if true, but unless you are seeing pics that I haven't, it looks like the nose gear is completely gone as well as severe fuselage damage from the nose cone to behind the nose gear.

DeltaMD95 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:34 am

Quoting 7673mech (Reply 33):
Consensus not based on fact.

Ok, I agree... So tell me, what do you think? Better than 50/50 odds? A sure bet? Your profile says you're qualified to say... I would like to hear your opinion.

Quoting airtechy (Reply 35):
I don't think any pics have been posted of the left wing damage. I do note that the nose gear appears to be intact....sheet metal damage around it.

If landing gear, engines, and wing are minor/moderate at worst, then maybe there is a chance of avoiding a W/O...

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 36):
All this talk of how DL will make up the capacity. DL is a big airline. Replacing 150 seats isn't an issue. The lack of capacity is easily absorbed into the system in the short term and retirement/take up rate of other frames can be adjusted moving forward.

Yes, it should be easy to absorb, with the large fleet and many deliveries on the way. But it is not going to be swept under the rug and will most definitely be accounted for by management. Therefore, it's perfectly valid to discuss how it will be addressed in this thread.

[Edited 2015-03-05 21:35:11]

ltbewr · Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:01 am

As I cited at the end of the previous part, fortunately no one died, only a few injured to the level of needing hospitalization. I bet most injuries were from the final stop and the dislodging of overhead bins.

The weather, perhaps some slippery spots, the relatively short runways with little run-off space, misjudgment of the pilots during landing, all will be part of the investigation along with mechanical, ATC, weather info and more will be factors in the investigation. As the a/c is relatively intact, the 'black boxes' will be accessible quickly, if not already removed. Along with the several previous similar landing crashes at LGA over the last 20 years and this landing incident, I suspect some changes will have to be made to assure enough margins for error for weather conditions at LGA.

As to the likelihood of this a/c ever flying again, like others who have said, I doubt it. Despite it being a Mad Dog, it's hours, cycles, overall years of age, damage to at least one fuel tank, the portside wing, the nose and likely accumulation of other damage will likely lead the accountants at DL and the insurers to scarp/part out this aircraft.

Until this a/c is removed, I suspect there will be reduced capacity at LGA, which will have affects on passengers, especially at peak times.

Passedv1 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:22 am

Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 12):
Sounds like he landed long and didn't brake aggressively enough if the reports of BRAG are true. Glad no one was hurt!

Look at the Google Maps overview from avherald: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=482b659f&opt=0

If the final position noted is correct, then at least as the primary cause, this is not an overrun accident. They still had 1500 feet of pavement length left. This accident is about the airplanes loss of lateral control. That could either be mechanical or pilot aptitude, or a combination of both. All of this talk of BRAG or not, tailwinds or not, may end up being contributing factors, but at least as far as the primary cause...I think they are all moot. I think a more analogous accident is going to be AA in KLIT in 1999.

Logos · Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:48 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 6):
CNN and educating people on airplanes?

Remember how wrong they are about this the next time you hear them pontificate about a subject with which you're less familiar than aviation. Their arrogant incompetence isn't limited to this subject.

Cheers,
Dave in Orlando

jfklganyc · Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:50 pm

As usual the NY tabloids are providing the headlines

Post

nypost.com/cover

News

nydailynews.com/news/the-week

I think the Post wins for creativity.

As I flew out of JFK yesterday (and we delayed our flight several hours at captain discretion due to runway and wind conditions) I realized how ridiculous this industry could be

The thought that dozens of aircraft from around the world were trying to fly in an around JFK yesterday with a snow covered runway and a crosswind is mind numbing.

What are we doing in the airline industry anyway? Is it time sensitive surgery?? No.

It is transportation. For most people leisure for some people business.

It can wait one day.

If you are a pilot...be careful

Be mindful that at the end of the day it is your ticket on the line.

Not the chief pilot pressuring you to fly
Not the crew scheduler pressing you to fly
Not the system operations center which refuses to cancel the flight
Not the passengers who are moaning " but other flights are leaving"

When all this went down, those two pilots in that DL MD88 were in a cold dark cockpit hanging over Flushing Bay (like several aircraft before them through the years) and none of those pre departure pressures or the people providing them were on the snowy runway with them.

But what is with those pilots now are world headlines, lots of speculation, and assumed guilt and negligence

I say this to all the young, eager RJ pilots on here that are still in the head over heels gaga phase with aviation:

This could be a very ugly industry and that ugliness can appear very quickly. Always always always CYA. Period.

eaglepower83 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:17 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 17):
This is the second MD-80 series aircraft that was involved in an accident scenario within one week.

BURN ALL THE MD-80s in the skies!
Grab your torches and pitchforks!

roseflyer · Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:52 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 38):
But what is with those pilots now are world headlines, lots of speculation, and assumed guilt and negligence

I say this to all the young, eager RJ pilots on here that are still in the head over heels gaga phase with aviation:

This could be a very ugly industry and that ugliness can appear very quickly. Always always always CYA. Period.

Flying into LGA is tough on a day with good weather (I am thinking of the visual expressway approach which has a final approach under 2 miles). The approaches are not particularly easy. Depending on direction, the final approach is one of the shortest in the United States. Some GA airplanes fly bigger patterns. With poor visibility, less than ideal braking action, crosswinds or tailwinds, and a short runway, it is one of the most difficult approaches to make.

I think it is important to recognize how tough it is on the pilots. In a day where there are pilots flying that struggle with a 10 mile visual approach on a sunny day, flying in to LGA with 1/4 mile visibility proves that there are pilots that fully earn their pay.

gbrazil · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:16 pm

This makes me think DL should speed up the replacement of their old MDs.

casinterest · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:24 pm

Quoting Passedv1 (Reply 36):
If the final position noted is correct, then at least as the primary cause, this is not an overrun accident. They

I saw that yesterday, It will be interesting to find out what happened. Did they slide off the runway by accident, or did the left gear find more traction at some point during the trip down the runway? Either way, it looks like they hit that embankment rather hard. I will be surprised if there are not some serious structural issues in the left wing and fuselage that put this plane out of the cost -effective repairable category.

catiii · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting gbrazil (Reply 41):
This makes me think DL should speed up the replacement of their old MDs.

Why?

DTWPurserBoy · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:38 pm

Every major airline has extra aircraft ready for assignment to replace frames down for maintenance. Finding another MD88/90 to replace the LGA aircraft will take aircraft routing about 30 seconds.

I love these armchair aviation "experts" telling us how things got where they did. And that includes the talking heads on CNN. The boxes have not even been pulled yet, the airport was well above minimums, the NTSB has just begun its examination of the airframe and, as always, people are screaming for the replacement of the airplane type. Please feel free to grab your checkbook.

909 will (in all probability) be stripped for usable parts and the basic frame scrapped. I see they already painted over the airline name (usual in an incident such as this). It is fascinating watching the cranes lift the airplane and move it to the hangar for investigation.

Spacepope · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:41 pm

Quoting casinterest (Reply 42):
Either way, it looks like they hit that embankment rather hard. I will be surprised if there are not some serious structural issues in the left wing and fuselage that put this plane out of the cost -effective repairable category.

I'd actually eat a plate of vegetables if this aircraft is put back in service in any form other than parts for the remaining fleet.

vikkyvik · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:49 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
Flying into LGA is tough on a day with good weather (I am thinking of the visual expressway approach which has a final approach under 2 miles). The approaches are not particularly easy. Depending on direction, the final approach is one of the shortest in the United States. Some GA airplanes fly bigger patterns. With poor visibility, less than ideal braking action, crosswinds or tailwinds, and a short runway, it is one of the most difficult approaches to make.

With poor visibility, though, you're probably not going to be flying a visual approach with a 2-mile final.

According to the AvHerald article, they were doing an ILS approach.

catiii · Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:58 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
a short runway

Is a 7000' runway really that short though? Or does it just seem shorter because it is hemmed in by water?

roseflyer · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:06 pm

Quoting catiii (Reply 47):

Is a 7000' runway really that short though? Or does it just seem shorter because it is hemmed in by water?

7000ft is not extremely short, but it is shorter than most airports where MD80/737/A320s are flying.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 46):

With poor visibility, though, you're probably not going to be flying a visual approach with a 2-mile final.

According to the AvHerald article, they were doing an ILS approach.

Yes I know they weren't doing a visual approach, but I was commenting on LGA in general.

SunsetLimited · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:11 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 48):
7000ft is not extremely short, but it is shorter than most airports where MD80/737/A320s are flying.

1/19 @ MSY is 7001ft and it sees M80/737/32S ops all day every day. For an airport at/near/slightly above sea level (such as these two), it's a good length.

UA444 · Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:12 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 44):

Where did you see they already painted over the name?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net