Allegiant MD83: Rejected Takeoff / Loss Of Control

National757 · Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:07 pm

Yet another Allegiant incident. I am very curious to hear how the FAA investigations into Allegiant are proceeding. As an industry observer, I assume they meet FAA minimum standards yet clearly there is a pattern of incidents this summer from an airline that operates at a fraction of the schedule of US majors.

Out-of-Control Takeoff Try by Allegiant Jet Spurs FAA Probe
by Mary Schlangenstein and Alan Levin
August 26, 2015 — 6:50 AM GMT+10 Updated on August 26, 2015 — 8:47 AM GMT+10

U.S. air-safety investigators are looking into a mechanical failure that caused the nose of an Allegiant Airlines jet to rise off the ground prematurely before takeoff, defying the crew’s attempts to push it down.

Pilots abruptly halted their roll on the runway at 138 miles (222 kilometers) an hour to regain control of the Boeing Co. MD-83 in Las Vegas on Aug. 17, the Federal Aviation Administration said. Allegiant blamed a fault in the elevator, the part of the tail that helps an aircraft to climb or descend.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...t-by-allegiant-jet-spurs-faa-probe

[Edited 2015-08-26 14:18:30]

green12324 · Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:27 pm

Wow, that could have been serious. I'm not familiar with Allegiant's history of incidents, but one like this makes me seriously question their operation. A malfunctioning elevator is no light matter. I'm interested to hear their explanation as to why the aircraft made it to the runway.

777X · Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:30 pm

What happens if the nose rises and the plane does a wheelie down the runway until the speed is high enough to lift off? Even if the pilots are in control?

Caryjack · Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:37 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 2):
What happens if the nose rises and the plane does a wheelie down the runway until the speed is high enough to lift off?

If uncontrolled, I'd guess a stall.

Quoting 777X (Reply 2):
Even if the pilots are in control?

The pilots get fired.

Thanks,
Cary

Sooner787 · Wed Aug 26, 2015 9:42 pm

I'm assuming their takeoff was on 25R which is 14,500 feet long.
Good thing, sounds like they needed the extra length to safely
abort their takeoff roll

National757 · Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:27 pm

Quoting Green12324 (Reply 1):
I'm not familiar with Allegiant's history of incidents, but one like this makes me seriously question their operation.

Agreed. IMO G4's recurring operational problems are unacceptable. Their financial performance has led the industry yet recent events are a major concern for me personally. I have followed the airline for many years and taken over a dozen Allegiant flights without incident. I have booked tickets for friends and family and they've all had reliable transportation on Allegiant but I hesitate to use them again.

Here's a good write up of their recent troubles from SkyWriter Aviation:

JULY 30, 2015
Allegiant under “several regulatory investigations,” says FAA
http://www.skywriteraviation.aero/20...egulatory-investigations-says-faa/

Fargo emergency among a string of troubling incidents; maintenance issues have unfortunate parallels to ValuJet

Las Vegas-based low-cost carrier Allegiant Air is the subject of “several ongoing regulatory investigations” by the Federal Aviation Administration, SkyWriter Aviation has learned.

According to an FAA response to a freedom-of-information request by SkyWriter during a multi-month investigation, the FAA declined to produce documents requested because doing so would compromise multiple open investigations. An FAA source told SkyWriter in early July that the investigations are expected to last at least another six months.

MD95sOverATL · Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:20 am

I'm an aircraft n00b, but could this have anything to do with the infamous jackscrew assembly and it needing frequent lubrication and attention? Maybe it got jammed in one position?

[Edited 2015-08-26 17:21:18]

FLIHGH · Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:27 am

Quoting 777X (Reply 2):

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 3):

Not true. Planes do wheelies all the time down the runway when on soft runways. That's what we are supposed to do. Now, if the angle of attack is too high, a tail strike is very possible.

kcrwflyer · Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:53 am

Quoting FLIHGH (Reply 7):
Not true. Planes do wheelies all the time down the runway when on soft runways. That's what we are supposed to do. Now, if the angle of attack is too high, a tail strike is very possible.

But MD-80's aren't out there doing soft field takeoffs. Nor are most other commercial jets.

solarflyer22 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:31 am

Quoting Caryjack (Reply 3):
If uncontrolled, I'd guess a stall.

Yeah I mean the pitch is not going to be correct and you're probably going to stall.

Quoting FLIHGH (Reply 7):
Now, if the angle of attack is too high, a tail strike is very possible.

That's what I was thinking at first. There is a video of one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD9cibXhCWI

You could actually do both. That would be a bad day.

TUSDawg23 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:03 am

At some point all of these incidents at G4 are going to affect the bottom line. The media is beginning to paint a picture of an airline that doesn't embody a very strong culture of safety and it's only a matter of time before the general public will start spreading news of these incidents like wildfire on social media. G4 only has itself to blame.

You could make the argument they fly older equipment, but so does DL and I don't see their MD-80's and 757's having the kinds of mechanical issues that are taking place lately at G4. The Fargo incident that happened recently is another incident that really makes me question if the director of flight operations knows what he's doing.

[Edited 2015-08-26 21:04:59]

rbavfan · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:13 am

Was it not elevator issues with improper maintenance on Alaska that caused tier MD80 crash. Someone was using the the wrong amount of lubricant on the jackscrew that controls the elevator. Hopefully the FAA catches this before it results in another crash. If its the same issue them both the FAA & Allegiant should be fined. Would be fun to see an agency fine itself.

INFINITI329 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:20 am

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 11):
If its the same issue them both the FAA & Allegiant should be fined

LOL, fine the FAA good one. You can't execute the executioner (Hopefully you catch my drift)

LAX772LR · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:34 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 12):
LOL, fine the FAA good one. You can't execute the executioner

Probably the worst that would happen is that the Secretary of Transportation fires the head of the FAA, or someone else in the Executive department does it, even up to the President himself.

I doubt anything would happen to the department itself.

I guess a criminal investigation (and ensuing consequences) could also occur, in some circumstances.

flyDTW1992 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:41 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 13):

Probably the worst that would happen is that the Secretary of Transportation fires the head of the FAA, or someone else in the Executive department does it, even up to the President himself.

I doubt anything would happen to the department itself.

I guess a criminal investigation (and ensuing consequences) could also occur, in some circumstances.

Well, at the first level, the PMI and/or POI for G4, as well as their leaders at the local FSDO would be investigated and/or disciplined. It would have to be quite the ordeal for the upper leadership of the FAA to be brought down.

lweber557 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:09 am

Allegiant you had one job!

wjcandee · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:39 am

Quoting TUSdawg23 (Reply 10):
You could make the argument they fly older equipment, but so does DL and I don't see their MD-80's and 757's having the kinds of mechanical issues that are taking place lately at G4.

Because those issues don't make the paper, and their pilots' union isn't obliging the media by helpfully furnishing them with detailed info on every operational hiccup.

flyDTW1992 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:44 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 16):
Because those issues don't make the paper, and their pilots' union isn't obliging the media by helpfully furnishing them with detailed info on every operational hiccup.

Nah. Delta Techops is a truly top-notch organization, and their completion rate and dispatch reliability will show it. Not to mention, with the difference in flight operations volume between G4 and DL, we would absolutely know it if Delta was having the same kind of frequency of mechanical and operational mishaps we're seeing from Allegiant. No doubt you're right about the G4 union, but that doesn't mean Delta or anyone else is in the same state Allegiant is.

F9Animal · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:59 am

The red flags have been raised at G4 for some time now. However, I am certain if the FAA found a serious problem that is contributing to these mishaps, the airline would have been grounded a long time ago. The FAA has not been shy about fining major airlines for safety violations, or poor maintenance practices. The FAA is also very aware that the CEO was a founder of Valujet, and I am sure they are watching G4 closely.

As for the overall performance of the flight crews during these emergencies..... I think we can agree that the crews have demonstrated many times that they can evac a plane like pros. Someone hinted that the pilots are upset, and making all incidents newsworthy. If that is true, it is a pretty sad move. Not only do these stories hurt the company, but it certainly doesn't help them if the profits turn sour. No profits means no raises.

National757 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:59 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 16):
Because those issues don't make the paper, and their pilots' union isn't obliging the media by helpfully furnishing them with detailed info on every operational hiccup.

Yes, there are parties with ulterior motives at play here. However that does not take away from the fact there are documented safety incidents occurring at the present time with G4. Allegiant Travel Company has profit margins that are among the highest in the industry. Surely they have a vested interest in safe operations. Granted it's easy to jump to conclusions and every carrier has had a rough patch here and there but loss of elevator control is a matter of serious concern.

From a business perspective, how should the company move forward? Certainly a fleet wide inspection of all MD-80s was a logical and necessary first step. Allegiant is also transitioning away from the MD-80 towards more modern A319/A320 aircraft. I see better days ahead if the company can learn from these recent events.

[Edited 2015-08-27 00:02:29]

bourbon · Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:17 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 17):

Don't get so offended. The way he worded it, it was more of a question. Not everyone knows the difference between elevator and stabilizer.

jeb94 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:21 am

Quoting Green12324 (Reply 1):
A malfunctioning elevator is no light matter. I'm interested to hear their explanation as to why the aircraft made it to the runway.

The pilots wouldn't actually know until the aircraft did what it did. The elevator on any of the DC-9 family aircraft are aerodynamically controlled by a tab. If the tab is moving fine then the elevator could be in any position, even opposite of the other elevator, until airspeed gets high enough to bring them level and make them effective. The only exception being the stall recovery assist system that drives the elevators to full nose down hydraulically when the yoke is pushed full nose down. This one got jammed full up for some reason and the pilots responded correctly to the situation.

Quoting MD95sOverATL (Reply 6):
I'm an aircraft n00b, but could this have anything to do with the infamous jackscrew assembly and it needing frequent lubrication and attention? Maybe it got jammed in one position?

No, the jackscrew is pitch trim and moves the entire horizontal stabilizer not the elevator. The pilots would know if the h-stab was stuck and would never have attempted a takeoff.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 11):
Was it not elevator issues with improper maintenance on Alaska that caused tier MD80 crash

It was not. Alaska 261 went down because the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew failed.

rbavfan · Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:53 am

Quoting bourbon (Reply 21):
It was not. Alaska 261 went down because the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew failed.

Thanks for the answer as opposed to prior rude comment from other poster.

Max Q · Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:14 am

Possible the Stab Trim and / or CG was out of limits.

wjcandee · Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:23 am

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 17):
Nah. Delta Techops is a truly top-notch organization,

And AAR isn't? And AA wasn't?

(Referring to G4's current, and former, maintenance providers.)

[Edited 2015-08-27 02:44:00]

dashdrvr · Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:12 pm

Could be jammed jackscrew or aircraft loaded well outside CG limits. Improperly loaded and documented load was different than actual loading. It has happened to me only it was a FWD CG issue. In general aft out of CG issues are by far more serious.

Web500sjc · Thu Aug 27, 2015 9:44 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 24):
(Referring to G4's current, and former, maintenance providers.)

The airline is more important in maintaining the airplane. It is the owner/operators responsibility to ensure that the aircraft is properly maintained, the maintenance provider just does what is told to do by the owner/operator.

N766UA · Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:07 pm

Allegiant... the new ValuJet.

n471wn · Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting N766UA (Reply 27):
Allegiant... the new ValuJet

hardly.....spoken by a true legacy

flyDTW1992 · Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:14 pm

Quoting n471wn (Reply 28):
hardly.....spoken by a true legacy

Care to elaborate? There are a number of parallels to be drawn between the two. Not the least of which being they have same CEO...

cbphoto · Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:44 pm

Apparently the left elevator boost actuator had become disconnected. It's entirely possible and likely it came out of contract maintenance on a heavy or light check, and hadn't been attached properly. Aircraft was back in service a few hours later and an inspection on the entire fleet was completed with no issues found! Granted, you get what you pay for, but there is often more to the puzzle when you have contract maintenance thrown into the picture, as opposed to doing your maintenance in house!

n471wn · Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:17 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 30):
Apparently the left elevator boost actuator had become disconnected. It's entirely possible and likely it came out of contract maintenance on a heavy or light check, and hadn't been attached properly. Aircraft was back in service a few hours later and an inspection on the entire fleet was completed with no issues found! Granted, you get what you pay for, but there is often more to the puzzle when you have contract maintenance thrown into the picture, as opposed to doing your maintenance in house!

Thanks for this update and about the only parallel with ValuJet are the people who do contract maintenance sometimes do not get it right

KC135Hydraulics · Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:21 am

I suspect a cotter pin wasn't installed and a castellated nut spun off. Most flight control attaching clevises are attached with castellated nuts and cotter pins to allow free movement.

DeltaMD95 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:00 pm

Really wish G4 still used AA for their maintenance. If it indeed was the fault of the contract maintenance, this kind of thing is unacceptable.

sandyb123 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 30):

Apparently the left elevator boost actuator had become disconnected. It's entirely possible and likely it came out of contract maintenance on a heavy or light check, and hadn't been attached properly.

I'm not a (commercial) pilot but isn't this the kind of thing that gets caught in the pre-flight checks?

Sandyb123

AR385 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 12:55 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 2):
What happens if the nose rises and the plane does a wheelie down the runway until the speed is high enough to lift off? Even if the pilots are in control?

Regarding your question, this case below probably provides a good idea of what could happen. It does depend on the speeds. It is an AM 767 whose crew rotated it at 118 knts on a MAD-MEX flight when rotation speed should have been 156 knts. It was one scary wheelie (and a writeoff):

http://avherald.com/h?article=460db38a&opt=0

INFINITI329 · Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:15 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 34):
I'm not a (commercial) pilot but isn't this the kind of thing that gets caught in the pre-flight checks?

You can't catch everything with preflight checks, it is impossible.

jfklganyc · Fri Aug 28, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting National757 (Thread starter):
138 miles (222 kilometers)

It's funny...

Pilots use neither mph or kph when referencing any sort of speed (Indicated Airspeed, Ground speed, True Airspeed, Static Airspeed, Calibrated Airspeed)

I hate the media

Stepping down from soap box

badgerguy · Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:06 pm

Did I not hear several months ago, the FAA told G4 no new planes or routes. Yet there was a thread regarding them posting new routes. I thought this was because of the maintenance/operational mishaps happening. Does anyone else remember this? What ever happened to that decision?

spacecadet · Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:23 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 37):
Pilots use neither mph or kph when referencing any sort of speed (Indicated Airspeed, Ground speed, True Airspeed, Static Airspeed, Calibrated Airspeed)

The article wasn't written for pilots, and there's nothing to indicate that the speed given was inaccurate. 138mph and 120 knots are the same thing in reality. The only difference is who you're writing for.

wjcandee · Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:29 pm

Quoting badgerguy (Reply 38):
Did I not hear several months ago, the FAA told G4 no new planes or routes. Yet there was a thread regarding them posting new routes. I thought this was because of the maintenance/operational mishaps happening. Does anyone else remember this? What ever happened to that decision?

The FAA gave them a white glove inspection and found no major issues and let them resume adding routes.

[Edited 2015-08-28 08:30:12]

n471wn · Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:39 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 40):
The FAA gave them a white glove inspection and found no major issues and let them resume adding routes.

And indeed today they just added another 320 to the fleet

badgerguy · Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:30 pm

Gee, maybe the FAA should have used a cleaner glove!!

wjcandee · Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting badgerguy (Reply 42):
Gee, maybe the FAA should have used a cleaner glove!!

Or maybe they saw and know things that we don't.

Max Q · Fri Aug 28, 2015 8:31 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 30):
Apparently the left elevator boost actuator had become disconnected. It's entirely possible and likely it came out of contract maintenance on a heavy or light check, and hadn't been attached properly. Aircraft was back in service a few hours later and an inspection on the entire fleet was completed with no issues found! Granted, you get what you pay for, but there is often more to the puzzle when you have contract maintenance thrown into the picture, as opposed to doing your maintenance in house!

Yes, but you can't blame this incident on Contract maintenance, outside work should still be monitored and checked by
the purchasing carrier.

Mir · Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:08 pm

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 34):
I'm not a (commercial) pilot but isn't this the kind of thing that gets caught in the pre-flight checks?

The larger the plane, the more stuff gets hidden internally with no easy way of looking at it from the ground, especially in an aircraft with the horizontal stabilizer at the top of the tail as the MD-80 has. It may have looked perfectly normal to someone doing a walkaround.

-Mir

jeb94 · Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:22 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 44):
Yes, but you can't blame this incident on Contract maintenance, outside work should still be monitored and checked by
the purchasing carrier.

The work scope and paper work is reviewed by the one or two reps the carrier would have on site. They also have the job of keeping the airline maintenance department aware of the state of the check as well as problems found and to inform the provider of what is to be done. They can't physically check everything and have to trust that the MRO's mechanics and inspectors are doing the job assigned correctly. There is a lot of work being done and not a lot of time to do it.

Quoting Mir (Reply 45):
Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 34):
I'm not a (commercial) pilot but isn't this the kind of thing that gets caught in the pre-flight checks?

The larger the plane, the more stuff gets hidden internally with no easy way of looking at it from the ground, especially in an aircraft with the horizontal stabilizer at the top of the tail as the MD-80 has. It may have looked perfectly normal to someone doing a walkaround.

Without going up in a basket and physically trying to move it by hand there would be no real way of knowing it was jammed before attempting takeoff. Nothing would look unusual from the ground. Next time any of you are at the airport and you see one of the DC-9 family of aircraft sitting or even taxiing by, make a note of the elevator positions. You'll often see them one up and one down and might even be lucky enough to see them flip flop with the wind. The elevators themselves just float except when the yoke is pushed full forward.

wjcandee · Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:35 am

I think we're getting a little deep into the contract maintenance issue without knowing when the aircraft last actually had the stabilizer and/or elevators fiddled with by contract maintenance, and/or when was the last time co maint touched those same areas, and/or what was the actual cause of the failure, if determinable.

Max Q · Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:23 am

You get what you pay for.

National757 · Sun Aug 30, 2015 7:39 am

Here's a write up featuring the MD-80 August 17th incident from today's Las Vegas newspaper:

Unusual incidents rock Allegiant Air's profitable course
http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...k-allegiant-airs-profitable-course
Posted August 29, 2015 - 3:41pm Updated August 29, 2015 - 3:51pm

By Richard N. Velotta
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Quote:
.....a recent rash of emergency landings and unusual flight incidents have put Allegiant in the spotlight and have left many observers asking if the company's old fleet has worn out its welcome.

Since the beginning of 2015, there have been 16 reported incidents involving Allegiant flights that resulted in emergency landings, flight diversions, aborted takeoffs or, maybe the most bizarre of all, a passenger-initiated evacuation.

The most serious incident occurred in Las Vegas on Aug. 17 when the nose of a twin-engine MD-80 jet on its takeoff roll began rising prematurely, defying the flight crew's attempts to keep it down. When the plane reached 138 mph, the pilot aborted the takeoff, bringing the jet to a halt, according to a report filed with the Federal Aviation Administration.

A preliminary FAA investigation found that a nut on a component that moves the left elevator had fallen off, causing the control surface to become jammed in the up position. A similar circumstance led to the crash of an Alaska Airlines MD-80 over the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 31, 2000.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net