Jump to content

MD87 Down near Houston


Moon The Loon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not a lot of runway …..  6100’……I thought the trust reversers would be deployed unless stowing them is part of evac drill.

I had a look on Google Earth, and there were 2 MD 80 series of jets on the ramp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, st27 said:

I thought all dc9/md 80 ac had leading edge devices.

Not all, AC's first six aircraft were -15s and had no slats.

Subsequent deliveries were -32s and had LE slats.

The -15s came in late 1966 and the -32s came in June 1967 and so on.

I would be surprised if the accident aircraft did not have slats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the -32 at AC the preferred T/O flap option was slats/ flap 15 degrees followed by slats/flap 5 and then slats/ flap 0, in that order as required by WAT limits.

The slat/flap selector was operated as a single lever, (first detent slats only),  but could be split by removing the bolt that combined the two.

Slats/flaps 0  T/O was only needed at close to MTOW and high temps and needed a long runway, the T/O speeds were  pretty high.

I can't really see from the images if the slats were extended but if not I believe they should have got a config warning.

 

Edited by Innuendo
Add comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More info …..

Quote

The exact cause of this accident remains to be determined. But the basics are that the crew of the corporate-configured MD-87—an aircraft that had not flown for at least nine months—tried to abort their takeoff from 6,610-foot Runway 36 at Houston Executive Airport, skidded over a road, then spun around after hitting power lines and trees. The flight mechanic on board opened the left front cabin door and initiated the evacuation via an inflatable slide. All 18 passengers and three crew members got out quickly. 

Not specific if it was down for Mtc….but wow, that a long time for an a/c to sit!! And then go flying with pax on board…imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, st27 said:

More info …..

Not specific if it was down for Mtc….but wow, that a long time for an a/c to sit!! And then go flying with pax on board…imo.

it may seem like a long time but if the maintenance requirements for shor / long term storage and return to service were followed there should be no issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, boestar said:

it may seem like a long time but if the maintenance requirements for shor / long term storage and return to service were followed there should be no issues.

That’s a pretty big “if” …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2021 at 9:09 AM, J.O. said:

That’s a pretty big “if” …

oh I do agree.  Extended downtime should be a non event for an aircraft when the recommendation are followed correctly.  Problem is that in many cases those recommendation are not properly followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2021 at 12:15 PM, boestar said:

oh I do agree.  Extended downtime should be a non event for an aircraft when the recommendation are followed correctly.  Problem is that in many cases those recommendation are not properly followed.

Well as someone with first hand knowledge of aircraft storage, I'll tell you this. We followed the manufacturers recommendations to the letter and were still surprised by quite a few things, nothing unsafe really just more labour and costly intensive than expected. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

We followed the manufacturers recommendations to the letter and were still surprised by quite a few things, nothing unsafe really just more labour and costly intensive than expected. 

Long term storage procedures by their very nature are always a work in progress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is the release from storage that is where the rubber hits the road.  Storage checks are just upkeep.  The release from storage is the functional and operational testing.  That needs to be done properly and perfectly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an unofficial source……..looking like a flight control problem. Source reports that as a/c accelerated down runway, at Vr, control inputs were applied and aircraft did not rotate! Reject carried out and went off the paved portion……reverse thrust was used, but buckets stowed when a/c stopped “out of habit”.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A preliminary report has been released and raises concerns about the FAA part “rules” the a/c was being operated and I assume, maintained under.

The on site inspection of the aircraft indicated the elevators could not be moved….skip to the 11 min mark on the link.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...