LAS: G4 MD80 Engine Catches On Fire

ROCDLFAN · Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:17 pm

http://www.ktnv.com/news/allegiant-p...e-catches-fire-at-mccarran-airport

"Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) - An Allegiant Air plane engine caught fire Sunday afternoon at McCarran International Airport.

Around 1:20 p.m., Flight 516 was departing to Fresno, Calif., when officials reported a right engine fire while on the ground."

Flight Aware link: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAY516

Looks like G4's PR team is about to have another field day with this one.

[Edited 2015-10-11 14:19:37]

AA737-823 · Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:29 pm

There is nothing wrong with an MD-80.
There is nothing wrong with a JT-8D.

But either of them in the hands of Allegiant seems to be a bad recipe.

These things, of course, happen to all carriers, but Allegiant seems to be a magnet for incidents.

I steer clear.

nikeherc · Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:33 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):

I guess you would also steer clear of BA.

airportugal310 · Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:57 pm

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 2):
I guess you would also steer clear of BA

Nope. BA is a world class airline with a reputation as such; Allegiant, on the other hand, has no such reputation

Nice try, though

32andBelow · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:05 am

A series of one off events that seem to only happen at allegiant, on a fleet that flies like one turn a day.

iflykpdx · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:21 am

That explains the delay today. Wow...

UPNYGuy · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:32 am

the issues with G4 are getting out of hand. Lets face facts... if this were LUV, the public would be up in arms requesting an investigation.

D L X · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:37 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):

There is nothing wrong with an MD-80.
There is nothing wrong with a JT-8D.

But maybe a problem with LAS? J/k

wjcandee · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:50 am

Ugh. If the pax truthfully heard a "bang" before the pilot aborted the takeoff, then perhaps it wasn't just a faulty indicator.

From the passenger's obnoxious video, I don't see any indications of an "engine fire", however. Could be a compressor stall, which is something that produces amazing bangs, and some great flames blowing into view of the pax. At night, it's particularly exhilarating. Does it merit this much drama? Usually not.

Me, I will wait to see the report before I decide to join the "OMG, Allegiant is DANGEROUS!!!" crowd, thank you.

Remember that United almost planted a 747 into the side of a mountain due to poor FO/PF reaction to compressor stalls and poor CRM by the captain. And nobody outside United heard about it until almost a year later when the WSJ finally ran an article about it after all the facts were in. Nobody remembers that, though...

[Edited 2015-10-11 20:51:08]

[Edited 2015-10-11 20:51:39]

cbphoto · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:56 am

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 3):
Nope. BA is a world class airline with a reputation as such; Allegiant, on the other hand, has no such reputation

And in the last 10 years, how many hull losses has your world class airline had? How many have Allegiant had?

Just because you have a world class reputation, doesn't mean accidents can't happen. For every one incident Allegiant has, that the media jumps all over, 10 other incidents around the industry go unmentioned. Think about that!!

OB1504 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:06 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 9):
For every one incident Allegiant has, that the media jumps all over, 10 other incidents around the industry go unmentioned. Think about that!!

Allegiant has incidents more frequently than an airline of its size should, and many of those incidents are more serious than any airline of any size should have. Furthermore, the CEO was once at the helm of another airline with well-documented safety and maintenance issues which ultimately culminated in the loss of 110 lives.

RWA380 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:08 am

Another unfortunate bad press day for G4, I guess this is what happens when you fly old mad dogs vs the newest 737. Really not much to see here, planes have aborted take offs daily, there were no injuries & everyone is alive, not too bad.

DeltaMD95 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:50 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):

I don't think it's an equipment type issue. Delta flies an MD88 fleet of similar vintage and generally has strong reliability.

wjcandee · Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:19 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 10):
Furthermore, the CEO was once at the helm of another airline with well-documented safety and maintenance issues which ultimately culminated in the loss of 110 lives.

Which such maintenance issues caused ValuJet 592? Just curious.

cbphoto · Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:53 am

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 10):
Allegiant has incidents more frequently than an airline of its size should, and many of those incidents are more serious than any airline of any size should have. Furthermore, the CEO was once at the helm of another airline with well-documented safety and maintenance issues which ultimately culminated in the loss of 110 lives.

Does it really? Do you have statistics to back that up, or are you just going off what the media says? What is "your"acceptable rate for airline of this size? What is your definition of serious? Is a compressor stall serious? Lot's of talk here, with no real statistics or information to back it up.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 14):
Which such maintenance issues caused ValuJet 592? Just curious.

I'm curious too!!

National757 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:54 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 8):
Me, I will wait to see the report before I decide to join the "OMG, Allegiant is DANGEROUS!!!" crowd, thank you.

Just curious, how many Allegiant Air flights have you taken this year? How many have you ever taken? What about your friends & family, would you put them on Allegiant given everything that's been reported in the past few months?

I have taken 15 and I don't plan on taking another one any time soon, especially over the pacific.

cbphoto · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:02 am

Quoting National757 (Reply 16):
Just curious, how many Allegiant Air flights have you taken this year? How many have you ever taken? What about your friends & family, would you put them on Allegiant given everything that's been reported in the past few months?

I have taken 15 and I don't plan on taking another one any time soon, especially over the pacific.

Well..then don't fly BA or United or Southwest, as they all have had some pretty bad reporting on them as well. Name me an airline that hasn't had issues? No hull losses or fatalities for G4 and they fly those 80s into some pretty tough airports to begin with. I think you are over hyping everything. Then again, if you go solely on what the media says, then that could be your biggest problem!

National757 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:22 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 17):

I am flying United in November and I would not hesitate to take a flight on any of the domestic or international major carriers.

On these G4 threads there are always some that are quick to defend the airline. As a customer, I don't get the feeling Allegiant's invested enough in their operation and it's starting to show.

I want to see Allegiant get better and be successful but they need to improve before their luck runs out and they have a serious incident with fatalities. Just because the FAA has not taken action does not mean their current operation is safe.

[Edited 2015-10-11 23:23:38]

AA737-823 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:42 am

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 2):
I guess you would also steer clear of BA.

Um, what?
Dude. Seriously.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 4):
A series of one off events that seem to only happen at allegiant, on a fleet that flies like one turn a day.

Yes, precisely.

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
But maybe a problem with LAS? J/k

Ha! Now we're on to something!

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 8):
Me, I will wait to see the report before I decide to join the "OMG, Allegiant is DANGEROUS!!!" crowd, thank you.

Always good to give the benefit of the doubt and be fair to the victims of the media, however, I think I've seen enough to make my own judgement about this fly-by-night operator.
Or, one could simply ask their pilots, who seem to have some pretty dim views of the operation as well...

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 8):
Remember that United almost planted a 747 into the side of a mountain due to poor FO/PF reaction to compressor stalls and poor CRM by the captain. And nobody outside United heard about it until almost a year later when the WSJ finally ran an article about it after all the facts were in. Nobody remembers that, though...

I've not read about that one; can you provide a link for my own education?

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 9):
Just because you have a world class reputation, doesn't mean accidents can't happen. For every one incident Allegiant has, that the media jumps all over, 10 other incidents around the industry go unmentioned. Think about that!!

Of course incidents happen to all carriers. I mentioned that in my original post (how convenient of you to ignore). But Allegiant offers far more reading material on AVIATION INCIDENT reporting sites than United, Southwest, and Aeroflot COMBINED.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
Another unfortunate bad press day for G4, I guess this is what happens when you fly old mad dogs vs the newest 737.

NO, it is NOT. American and Delta fly huge fleets of MadDogs, with varying propulsion options, and seem to have far fewer issues than Allegiant's handful of planes. But then, according to CBPhoto, that's apparently due to a media conspiracy.

Keep dreaming, folks. That carrier needs to have their cert pulled.

cbphoto · Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:04 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19):
Of course incidents happen to all carriers. I mentioned that in my original post (how convenient of you to ignore). But Allegiant offers far more reading material on AVIATION INCIDENT reporting sites than United, Southwest, and Aeroflot COMBINED.

Umm..I wasn't even quoting or responding to you. I was talking to Airportugal310. Sheesh! You seriously are comparing Allegiant to Aeroflot? If that's the case, the rest of your post doesn't warrant a response. You can't tell me Aeroflot's 1000+ fatalities in it's career comes close to the few incidents that Allegiant has. If Allegiant was so dangerous, the FAA would be assessing fines to G4. Yet, Southwest gets slapped with fines left and right, but that must be ok, because the media barely covers those stories.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19):
But then, according to CBPhoto, that's apparently due to a media conspiracy.

Lets just say I have WAY more insider knowledge about G4 then you, most people on this sight or the Media. You can claim whatever you want, but in the end of the day, it's my ass that straps myself into the seat on a daily basis and I would be stupid to think for a minute I would ever risk my life for any company or plane.

Quoting National757 (Reply 18):
On these G4 threads there are always some that are quick to defend the airline. As a customer, I don't get the feeling Allegiant's invested enough in their operation and it's starting to show.

I want to see Allegiant get better and be successful but they need to improve before their luck runs out and they have a serious incident with fatalities. Just because the FAA has not taken action does not mean their current operation is safe.

Again..see my response above!!

wjcandee · Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:15 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 19):
I've not read about that one; can you provide a link for my own education?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB921735188918701336

(Google the title and enter the article through the Google link to defeat the paywall.)

I also understand the following: the Bunkies were losing their minds, screaming at the guy, and yet the Cap didn't take control until very late in the game. Nobody in the cockpit had ever experienced or simulated the effects of what the engines were doing, the banging through the airframe was intense, and all had serious concerns (some for the first time in their careers) about the structural integrity of the aircraft. As the article mentions, it was so violent that nobody initially perceived it as compressor stalls -- it had to be something far worse -- but they figured it out and shut down the engine.

Someone still has to fly the plane, and fly it properly, or it's going to crash. Which is why we have CRM, and why there was lots of retraining and policy changes after this. You never know how a person is going to react under pressure, and this one just cracked, slavishly flying the flight director rather than the engine-out procedure, and not putting in pedal, both of which changed instantly when the Cap took the controls. (And, FWIW, this wasn't an "experience" issue like you might find at an airline that has a cadet program. All 4 guys in that cockpit were experienced, as one might expect would be bidding a jaunt to Australia, and were captain-trained-and-rated, but not in the left seat solely due to the seniority list.)

In looking at that article again, I see they quoted Cecil on complacency. God bless that man; his methods doubtless saved many lives. Sad that what he was trying to teach 20 years ago is the opposite of what is virtually mandated now -- he wanted pilots to shut off the autopilot on a regular basis and fly the stick to maintain proficiency.

[Edited 2015-10-12 02:36:18]

[Edited 2015-10-12 02:37:22]

rbavfan · Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:00 am

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 8):
Remember that United almost planted a 747 into the side of a mountain due to poor FO/PF reaction to compressor stalls and poor CRM by the captain. And nobody outside United heard about it until almost a year later when the WSJ finally ran an article about it after all the facts were in. Nobody remembers that, though...

Links to info on this? Flight number? Dates? anything we can use to look it up?

rbavfan · Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:10 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 17):
Name me an airline that hasn't had issues? No hull losses or fatalities

Hawaiian Airlines
89 years of service.

0 deaths

0 hull losses.

No other airline comes close.

BTW I was An Aloha Airlines fan, not a Hawaiian fan. I miss Aloha.

[Edited 2015-10-12 03:20:40]

[Edited 2015-10-12 03:48:50]

HALtheAI · Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:13 am

Based on the article, the incident took place in summer 1998. I'm surprised he only went back a couple decades, if he really wants to make Allegiant look good, he should be comparing them to the airlines of the '60s and '70s.

AWACSooner · Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:34 am

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 23):
No other airline comes close.

Qantas?

rbavfan · Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:55 am

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 25):
Qantas?

Qantas had their first hull loss April 7th 1949. Their 2nd July 16 1951 was a hull loss lost the plane and 7 lives lost.

After the July 16 1951 flight to current there have been no fatalities and only one hull loss Aug 24 1960.

Otherwise good record.

There are others, but none I know of over 20 years old.

[Edited 2015-10-12 03:56:20]

HNLPointShoot · Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 23):
Hawaiian Airlines
89 years of service.

0 deaths

0 hull losses.

No other airline comes close.

To be fair, HA is extremely lucky they didn't have anything major happen during the 80s and early 90s, with all the corner-cutting on maintenance that was practically routine for them at the time.

jeffh747 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:48 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 20):
If Allegiant was so dangerous, the FAA would be assessing fines to G4.

Exactly!

BruceSmith · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:33 pm

I'm really surprised that nobody has pointed out that the common denominator between the BA incident and this one is that both happened at Las Vegas and we all know that the Trump has a casino in Las Vegas.

This has to be an attempt by the far-left libero-right-wing Republicrats to discredit the current administration's handling of airports by the FAA in order to make sure that nobody votes for Trump. It's obvious.

wjcandee · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:38 pm

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 22):
Links to info on this? Flight number? Dates? anything we can use to look it up?

Look at reply 21. And check your tone.

ThirtyEcho · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:46 pm

You can't trust anything the MSM puts out about aviation related topics. First of all, they overdramatize and use loaded words like "plunged," "exploded" and "extreme." This verbal assault on reason causes them to use antiquated terms straight out of 1930s movies like "co-pilot," "tarmac" and "stewardess." Perhaps the most egregious distortion is the incessant use of "small plane" to describe anything smaller that an A380.

We all know that TV networks employ a small army of "aviation experts" who came at you with funky nomenclature like "tail wing," "propeller plane" and "tail rudder." Having taken a Cessna familiarization flight in 1975 does not qualify one to be introduced as "a pilot."

It helps the drama quotient a whole lot if you can depict passengers as "terrorized" and "screaming." The gold standard is to include a description of Flight Attendants as "ashen faced" or, even better, "crying."

milemaster · Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):

There is nothing wrong with an MD-80.
There is nothing wrong with a JT-8D.

But either of them in the hands of Allegiant seems to be a bad recipe.

These things, of course, happen to all carriers, but Allegiant seems to be a magnet for incidents.

rbavfan · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm

Quoting HNLPointShoot (Reply 27):

True, but they still were tight on maintenance and 86 years shows they are good at it.

[Edited 2015-10-12 08:07:14]

JetBuddy · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:07 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
There is nothing wrong with an MD-80.
There is nothing wrong with a JT-8D.

I know. When SK sold their MD-80s to Allegiant with fresh heavy maintenance, they were some of the best kept MD-80s in the world. AA and DL still fly their Mad Dogs without incidents like these happening this often.

What's going on at Allegiant?

WesternDC6B · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:24 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 7):
But maybe a problem with LAS? J/k

Operations there can be a real gamble.

nikeherc · Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:53 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 18):
Quoting nikeherc (Reply 2):I guess you would also steer clear of BA.
Um, what?
Dude. Seriously.

Dud! Yes, seriously.

Viper911 · Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:30 pm

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 22):
Hawaiian Airlines
89 years of service.

0 deaths

0 hull losses.

No other airline comes close.

The other one that comes close is Finnair.

AirlineCritic · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 25):
There are others, but none I know of over 20 years old.

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 22):
No other airline comes close.

As noted by Viper911, AY also has a long record of safety. They lost DC-3s in 1961 and 1963, but since then no hull losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnair

That is not 89 years, but still a decent record.

TheRedBaron · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 8):
Remember that United almost planted a 747 into the side of a mountain due to poor FO/PF reaction to compressor stalls and poor CRM by the captain. And nobody outside United heard about it until almost a year later when the WSJ finally ran an article about it after all the facts were in. Nobody remembers that, though...

This one: http://www.adversity.net/united/1_UAL_incidents.htm

BUT
was that the one on SFO (old Pan Am) when the 747 was spanking new (back in the 70´s)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl_wXfSwRzM

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 20):

I agree, automation is killing airmanship. (sadly)

TRB

luv2cattlecall · Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:34 pm

Given the large number of daily flights, I'd say WNs record of zero passenger (well, aircraft passenger) fatalities is among the top as well.

Are G4's dispatch reliability numbers and/or non-weather delays public information?

Redd · Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:23 pm

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 13):
Which such maintenance issues caused ValuJet 592? Just curious.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 14):
I'm curious too!!

He said "Safety & Maintenance" issues & 592 was brought down by a "Safety" issue. Transporting hazardous goods in an improper manner. Has your curiosity now been satisfied?

wjcandee · Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:33 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 40):
Transporting hazardous goods in an improper manner. Has your curiosity now been satisfied?

No, because they didn't intend to transport hazardous goods. They didn't plan to transport hazardous goods. The idea that when someone lies about what's in a box and then you get penalized because what's in the box turns out to be something else and you don't have a license to transport that is absurd, and grasping at straws to pin something on the aiirline.

There was nothing about the "manner" in which the goods were transported that was an issue; it was that the goods were hazardous and they didn't have a license to transport them. Which they wouldn't have done if they had known what was in the box.

Once again, comments are being made based upon what people think they know about what happened rather than about what happened.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net