I flew the MD-80 for a major airline and this similar issue almost caused me to run off the runway once. Landing at National in D.C. on a wet, short runway. I deployed the thrust reversers on touchdown and one engine spooled up and the other one didn't. I had to stow them again and deploy them slower so they would both spool up together as the anti-skid is cycling on and off because it's a short runway coated with slippery, wet tire residue. . Finally got the aircraft stop. In another fifty feet we would have been swimming in the Potomac. The MD-80 had some other issues too but the one good thing about it was it had the quietest cockpit of any aircraft I've flown,
"In another fifty feet" There's a lot of conservatism applied to demonstrated flight test braking distances before generating the field length requirements seen in a flight manual. That's so experiences such as yours will remain in a TH-cam comments section, rather than getting their own video ; )
Probably a quiet cockpit because the engines are so far back. As a passenger, I always chose the tail of the plane because I smoked at the time and it was allegedly "safer" in the back. Sitting in the back was a very noisy experience, as the cowling for the engine was usually only a couple feet away from me.
@@eucliduschaumeau8813 I’m an aircraft mechanic and worked MD-80s and 727s , both rear engine aircraft. The 727s had a loud cockpit. Douglas (MD aircraft) were per flight crews very quiet.
N1002G was planned to be delivered to Swissair under its registration HB-INB, alongside N980DC, which was also planned to be delivered to Swissair as HB-INA, but both had their accidents, with N1002G in this video, and N980DC losing its empennage in a hard landing during a test flight on May 2, 1980. HB-INC “Thurgau,” later “Lugano” was the first MD-81 to ever be delivered, being delivered to Swissair on September 12, 1980.
A fews days after the accident, I was handed a printout of raw acceleration data from the AHRS unit onboard and told to develop a plot of the ground track. Though this video suggests there was one deviation to the left followed by a deviation to the right ending in runway departure, my plot showed a pattern of several deviations, each one larger than the last. It looked about like the classic exponentially-increasing sinusoid. After tracking straight during the time between MLG touchdown to NLG touchdown, there were a couple of small excursions to the left and right, the first one only about a five-foot deviation. But each one became successively larger, with the final two deviations (~ the third and forth since touchdown) being the ones talked about here which led to runway departure about 14 seconds into the landing at a speed of about 40 kt (IIRC -- I was looking at the plot about a year ago to answer a question involving this flight, but apparently didn't file it back where it's supposed to go). So beyond the causes brought up in the video regarding reverse thrust and so forth, it looks to me like the strong measures taken by the pilot during the latter part of the rollout may have been triggered by a sense that things were starting to get out of control (and then they did, thanks in part to overly-strong measures...). If the pilot had "turned down the gain" on his responses to the initial deviations they were experiencing, things might have worked out? Eratta: * The hull depicted in the video is the original production MD-80: Ship 909. The hydraulics-out test was done with the second one, Ship 917, painted in the new Swissair colors (dark brown stripe along its length). * MLG are designed to strip if the longitudinal load becomes large enough. That's to hopefully keep the fuel tanks from ruptering via a shock strut incursion. It has worked some times and not others (Continental 603), because for example a high vertical load could still compromise a tank without the shear pin's load limit being reached. Nothing you could do about that except design the airplane with no fuel tank in the vicinity of the MLG (= way less range). * I assume it was an FAA pilot at the controls for this flight, since it was a certification test and those (always?) use an FAA pilot when the subject is something involving handling qualities (not my area of expertise -- just an anecdotal impression).
I worked on the DC-9/MD-80 Family for many years and they were the best A/C in my opinion. Far simpler than comparable Boeings. The looks were way ahead of Boeing A/C. When they left our fleet my fun days with the airline were gone and it just became a job.
Rodger, back in the day , I also worked for the Airline's on both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. I will say I also enjoyed working on the DC-9's and MD-80's. I liked some of the engineering and design that Boeing did not have. Boeing made good aircraft but will have to side with McDonnell Douglas on this one.
very interesting that both of you have been MD-80 mechanics. I don't know if any of you have heard about Spanair JK5022, which crashed on takeoff in August 2008. It all started because when they were about to start their takeoff run, pilots noticed the air temperature indication was abnormally high, so they took the plane back to the apron and had mechanics take a look at it. One of the mechanics put some ice next to the air temperature probe to cool it down, and determined the problem was the probe heater was turned on when it shouldn't, so he disconnected it because according to the minimum equipment list, and if the captain considered it wasn't necessary, the plane could temporarily fly with that heater disabled. After that, the plane headed for the runway for a second time and started its takeoff roll, where it crashed because flaps and slats were not deployed. And they were not deployed because the takeoff warning system (tows) didn't work and therefore the pilots didn't notice the aircraft wasn't properly configured. And the tows didn't work because of a relay that also fed the probe heater that I talked about before. If I recall correctly that relay was used to switch between the ground mode and the flight mode, depending on if one of the landing gear struts had weight on it or not. Elements like the probe heater were supposed to work only during flight and not on the ground, whereas the tows was the opposite. What I'm not sure of is whether that relay was disconnected by the mechanic to turn the heater off, or it was just faulty (I think it's the latter, I think the relay just got stuck in flight mode and that's why the heater was on and the tows was off, but I'm not sure).
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor Capasau, it's been a while since I worked on MD-80s,, as I am retired now but from what I recall, the pitot tube in question is a no go item in the MEL. It has to work. However what you are saying then the MEL would have to mention about the TOWS system being deactivated. I have my doubts regarding the TOWS system is wired into the pitot tube . The pitot tube ( Airspeed ) is a simple system,, it either works or it doesn't and there is an accompanying light in the cockpit front panel to let the pilots know if it is working or not. I would have to do more research. I hope this helps.
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor I will amend my last comment. The probe in question is a Ram Air Temp. or RAT for short and can be deferred per the MEL provided you are not flying into any know icing conditions. I did some research and the investigation still could not determine why the TOWS system did not work. So sad the loss of lives,
@@70slandshark47 ok thanks a lot for the replies. In fact another MD-80 had a similar accident in the US around 1993 if I recall correctly. And around 2012 there was one which did takeoff without flaps but just barely, that was a lucky one
Not sure why you kept showing the overhead when mentioning hydraulics. The switches are on the bottom left of the FO’s panel and the indicators are near the engine panel
The “MD-UHB DEMO” plane in some photos was a completely different plane years later with an experimental engine. The plane that crashed had the “Super 80” livery.
I remember that from reading Flying magazine. They were extraordinary looking black "props". I probably read or Googled somewhere why they never.. eh.. took off, but forgot. This was before 2000 era hush kits (see I does know somefink) and by then engines had evolved to be mostly fan generated thrust. (I'm winging it on that part) There were many photos of UHB equipped test planes over a period. I guess they were all of the DC9 / MD 80 configuration.
Do test pilots get hazardous duty pay, or do they volunteer just for the excitement? This is not a silly question, I really want to know. If I were the F/O and was told during flight to shut down all the hydraulics, I would reply; "Yes, sir... right after you land, sir!"
An aircraft company's engineering test pilots have been hired to do that job. Her/His pay reflects their proficiency. In some cases they may not be able to get personal insurance. If so, the company will provide for that.
I’m not sure I understand: everyone on the aircraft knew what tests were to be accomplished. Test pilots are involved in certification to include demonstration of various abnormal scenarios. Each flight has specific tests and methodologies and are briefed in advance. Most go well; some don’t and produce procedural and/or design changes.
Worked for MDC in mid 80s. Pilots are assigned test programs. Yuma was a test facility for MDC. Was one of the Flight Dispatchers and have dispatched many flights with Capt Hamilton. The left seat on this flight was an FAA Pilot, who was asigned by the FAA for these tests for certification. MDC pilots got bonuses depending upon the test program, for example like the Goshawk T45, Capt Hamilton was assign the first flight from LGB to YUM. He got an incentive check and a bonus check for making it to Yuma. Almost bailed out, had a small problem enroute. First flights were dispatched over non residrntial areas as much as possible. .
DC-9/ MD80-series was my favorite "shape" to see flying over (along with the Concorde & B2 Spirit). I imagine this scenario has happened with a planeload of passengers and what was learned may have saved lives. If so it was probably worth losing an airframe. It's not clear whether the captain called for the hydraulics to be turned back on or if the FO just did it. Anybody know?
My favorite overhead flights were the 727s owned by Braniff International when they were the jellybean airlines. The shape of the planes combined with the paint schemes was fantastic.
I absolutely agree. This was a very successful (albeit very dangerous) test flight. The purpose of the flight was to determine if there were any problems with a BO hydraulic system landing and potentially fatal flaws were uncovered.
So glad the crew survived. It was a live and learn lesson. The real test came nine years later on a DC-10 on UA Flight 232. R.I.P. Al Haynes, Denny Fitch and all who helped save 185 lives that day.
I’m not quite sure of the relevance. The DC-9/MD-80 series has cables leading to control tabs allowing the plane to be flown safely with no hydraulics; the DC-10 has no such reversion.
I am kind of confused how this aircraft was damaged beyond repair??? it rolled off the side of the runway in the Infield grass and soil. It did not say the landing gear collapsed did it ??? does anyone have more details on that???
The front end apparently did collapse. I found a report that said they brought two 50-ton cranes out to lift the front end off the ground, and one of the cranes broke and collapsed on top of the fuselage, thus damaging it beyond repair.
Another report I found said: "After the aircraft left the pavement, the left main gear collapsed and the right main gear and the nose gear separated from the aircraft. The aircraft came to rest on its lower fuselage about 50 feet beyond the right edge. Two 50-ton cranes then tried to lift the aircraft; one of the cranes broke and fell on top of the fuselage."
@@mrgreenjeens An Unducted Fan Engine is a very different type of engine, because, unlike a turboprop, UDF Type engines have the blades rotate around the outside of the cowling, while still producing thrust. This was being promoted as the next evolution of the jet engine, and NASA conducted a lot of flight tests to see how well it would function, and if it would be more efficient than a standard jet engine, but, engine manufacturers developed better, more efficient fan engines, that offered lower fuel consumption, than exsisting engines, plus, UHDs proved too difficult to be reliable engines. Also, turboprop engines are jet engines with a gearbox to drive a propeller, which is what a UHD doesn't use. Its blades are similar to fan blades in traditional jet engines, but, proved to have increased noise levels, so that's why the UHD is considered dead end technology.
Allec I really want you to look into a another plane crash that happened in New Orleans La to a reporter name Nancy Parker... she did a story on a stunt pilot before being killed in plane crash.. it was a small stunt plane... the NTSB stated the crash was undetermined..well the stunt pilot lost control for undetermined issues
I looked into that last year. Tragic story for sure. Seemed to be a combination of pilot not being quite "expert enough" for the stunt demo he was trying + engine malfunction. Whenever witnesses say: "the engine didn't sound right" - followed by a crash, theres a big clue. RIP to those 2 in Jesus name !
@Cold Hearted Basterd before Katrina because I live in Houston TX now .. I always saw her the news and she was such kind, caring woman.. and when I heard this happened I screamed to the top of lungs I was so upset.. because she definitely made an impact to community and the city of New Orleans..and she left young children behind and her husband.. it was just too much take in and I still can't believe that this happened to Nancy Parker and to the pilot that was with her..
The engine had exceeded its' suggested TBO. And the pilot was not as well qualified as was advertised. Dan Gryder's Probable Cause channel had a program on this mishap...
Susie, come on. There was no tech stuff hardly. You're better than that! If you do get a headache, I recommend taking a bit of medication, and getting into more tech. It's always worked for me. I do wish you the very best.
@@roderickcampbell2105 I'm 70 & have no desire to learn all that stuff. Most aren't all that difficult to follow. I just love watching the videos. Now, if it was anything medical...I could blow you away with info/facts since I'm a retired RN of 40 years & have a bachelors degree in nursing. 😘
@@susiesweet8003 Hello Susie. I have an appreciation for this perspective. But that's why I stayed away from anything medical! I'm no good at it. But if the need is there, goodness knows the medics, RNs are godsends. Someone very close to me was a retired RN.
OK, so what control surfaces does the hydraulic system on the MD80 control? Sounds like just the flaps and slats. Are all the other controls still manually powered by the crew?
Spoilers, flaps & slats are hydraulically operated. Stabilizer is electrically operated. Elevators, ailerons and rudder are cable operated and require no hydraulic inputs. Rudder and elevators have hydraulic boost that's not required for normal flight. Landing gear has a manual deployment but is normally hydraulically operated. When manually activated the I/B gear doors remain extended until hydraulics are applied again. Brakes and T/Rs normally use hydraulics but have an accumulator for basically a one-shot emergency activation.
@@rogerhuber3133 OK, makes a little more sense now. Most current planes couldn't even think of a maneuver like this because most of the control surfaces are hydraulicly operated... Was just comparing this to the tragedy on that United DC10 many years ago. I guess the important thing is that no one was hurt and valuable lessons were learned.
@@rogerhuber3133 "but have an accumulator for basically a one-shot emergency" Specifically, the two brake accumulators provide enough pressurized fluid for the equivalent of three complete press-and-release cycles of the brakes.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Having lived those years as a young adult that worked for a Computer Graphics company with McDonald Douglas one of our customers, I believe we lived in a more mature world, at that time. Definitely more, disciplined, thanks to the Greatest Generation.
I see a lot of fans of this series from the engineering side. As a passenger, I disliked this plane a lot. I'm 6 ft tall and fairly large, and I love with spinal injuries from the military. Getting crammed into sardine cans is a challenge for me. Even up front, the smaller the plane the more difficult it is, so I really do not like single aisle planes. This plane, being smaller than the 72, 73, 32 and so on was difficult for me. TBH I miss the days when twin aisle was the default for most flights, especially longer ones...
I flew on an MD80 in 2019, the last year AA had them. Seat 5A, first class. But danggg….. I never knew a prototype model would have such a disaster. 3 years after, I believe the S80 made its first flight 😅😧
No matter what I am glad no one had to die to change history. I guess planes are safer now (mechanically) thane ever before. However there is the problem of pilots being terrorists or drunk or suicidal. I would still like to be transported on a molecular level. If something goes wrong, you don't know it. Your atoms are disassembled rapidly and if they cannot be put back together you just become stardust. No crashes, injuries, blood. Just a nice neat trip or vanishing. Either way it is win win.
Agreed Joyce. Only God has the Patent on molecular disassembly / reassembly - one might say its His exclusive Providential Right. With man's track record fraught with mistakes, its a good thing we can't lol.
@@psalm2forliberty577 Assume crash positions from the movie Airplane. Hey I know the only one who disassemble me and put me back together is our Lord. I am looking forward to being gathered to Him in the clouds. Maybe sooner than later the way the world is right now. One minute to midnight again.
@@JJDigitalartStudio Yes indeed thats what I implied. Christ Jesus is the only one, right now, who's in His 100% Resurrected Body en toto. 100% re-assembled lol. My understanding from Scripture is every Saints body now waits to be reunited with their Souls, which are in Heaven currently. Which is why on "the Last Day" Christ is said to be coming both "with His Saints & for His Saints". With their Souls & for their bodies - on that far off Resurrection Day once He, Jesus, has finished making "all His enemies a footstool for His feet" Psalm 110:1 1 Cor 15 Rejoice God's Truth will Triumph over all evil. Including plane crashes !
Speaking of aviation safety improvements did you know that we had a full decade from 2009 - 2019 with 0 fatalities or major injuries in USA, in Commercial aviation ? TRUTH ! Amazing fact. When I was a kid in the 70s every summer whole planes full of people would plummet from the sky, nearly every month, so it seemed. Things are SO safe now the quasi romantic danger is all gone lol
That one was flown with the first production MD-80 (Ship 909). The landing was supposed to be done at close to the maximum design sink rate, but because the pilot violated the test card rules and made corrections to the approach below 100 ft (vs just go around), they ended up landing at a sink rate about 1 fps above the structural limit.
I had a similar problem driving my car up the driveway. First it swerved to the left and so I turned the wheel to the right and the car took out the right garage door post and totaled the car. I wonder what the cause was?
If you worked in the train industry, your solution would be to build stronger garage door posts*. In the aircraft industry, the solution would be "placard it". * The old train engineering joke being "If something breaks, double the dimensions and paint it black."
In the photo taken after the accident, it shows the jet in the field, off the left side of the runway, not the right side, as your text had said. Otherwise, another good video, Allec, keep up the good work.
I analyzed the flight recorder data -- it did exit to the right. Follow the runway skid marks in the photo and you can get a sense of how it spun around in the dirt such that by the time it came to rest the nose was pointed mostly back toward the way it had come.
@@johnosbourn4312 ... as do I, sort of. My first thought when I saw that photo in the video was "That's on the wrong side of the runway!" I had been given the accelerometer data from the flight recorder, but never saw any photos and had stopped my number crunching at runway departure. So it was news to me as well about the "spinout", until I saw that picture and eventually pieced it together.
Imagine, as a commuter, you go to the tarmac towards the stairs to the plane and read ''Bla Bla DEMO AIRCRAFT'', and you hear the intercom says ''We are, Capt Bla Bla with my Co-Pilot Bla Bla, the Test Pilots for your flight this morning''!
Yeah my next move would be to "test" the exit doors, proclaiming, "Ill grap a cup of coffee & enjoy YOUR test flight from the tarmac !" LOL PS: whole crews have been killed on 'test flights'
@ThatBritishGuy the taxiing part of the aiport.. you sometime hv to walk from the gate to the steps leading up to the aircraft. Who cares what its called
This was a certification flight involving aircraft handling properties, so wouldn't it have been the FAA's show? Their pilot, their test card and so on, with DAC of course providing whatever support was asked for.
In the late mid-80's to early 90's I was flying 12-14 times a year for business in the US, and most of my flights seemed to be on MD-80's. On the other hand, a flight on an L-1011 was one where I thought we'd die: extremely hard landing, hard bounce. Everyone screamed. Obviously, we didn't die - lol. I don't miss flying a bit, especially since any aircraft can crash either from crappy maintenance, crappy pilots, or someone in the cockpit with a death wish. Now that I'm retired, I'll drive - thank you very much. Although I'll need to mortgage the house to pay for gas.
Statistically, very safe. New York Air was one of the first airlines to take delivery of the MD-80 in mid 1983 and I don't recall any problems. The -30s were inherited from Texas International and Continental, and because of age and high cycles needed TLC.
I was the chief Aviation Safety officer at the Helsinki Institute for about 40 years. Generally the MD range were so bad that 5 out of 4 flights resulted in fatal crashes. It reached a stage where MD pilots were told by their respective airlines to crash the plane into the boarding gate, hence reducing fatalities should the plane have gotten airborne.
I've been adamant all my 57 yrs about my trepidation of flying. I've had numerous nightmares (no lie) about my fear of getting on an airplane and having devastating outcomes. I've never been on an aircraft. I have no family nor business outside of driving distance. Giving me the safety stats about aircraft crashes vs. automobile crashes are of no concern to me. If I crash head-on into an 18 wheeler on a highway, a rescue unit will attend me within 15 minutes. If my cruise ship hits something that makes it start to sink, the US Coast guard and/or other water crafts in the area are there within minutes, and I am a strong swimmer, even with the threat of sharks, I'll take the chance. If, however, my airplane's engine fails at 35,000 feet, with or without the Captain's best efforts to recover, or it was the Captain's desire to commit suicide vis-a-vi his radical religion's mission for him/her to crash the aircraft; at least I won't be hitting the ground/ocean/target at 600+ mph with a zero survivor expectancy.
I used to have a fear of flying, just do some research on aerodynamics and how planes are built. I've flown over 150 times now and sometimes I get scared from mild turbulence, but it doesn't bother me anymore. It would be a quick death. Car accidents are scarier, you could become paralyzed from the neck down upon survival, and swimming with sharks in the ocean? NO THANK YOU. A plane crash would at least be a fun roller coaster before you splat.
I understand your fear, and many share it. However, there are simply so many redundancies on an aircraft that is is actually more safe than even starting your personal vehicle, much less driving it.
Quality? Try a hydraulics-out no-antiskid landing in any airliner and see how it goes. Probably good on some days, but not others. From the analysis of flight recorder data I did a few days after the accident, it appears the FAA's pilot had a few minor lateral deviations in the first several seconds after NLG touchdown (not talked about in the video) but overcontrolled, setting up the larger ones the video does cover. As for actual quality, FWIW a poster had who had apparently worked production/maintenance at Long Beach remarked how after the merger, when 737's started coming into Long Beach to get worked on, long-time DAC employees were surprised at how shoddy things looked once you got beneath the cabin interior panels. Things like tie-wraps to secure bundles, when DAC would have used an engineered metal bracket. An airline captain friend remarked that he liked the DC cockpits, but it seemed like there was always stuff in the 737's that he'd get cut on. More or less from the beginning, Boeing was producing 737's as cheaply as possible... unless you ask the internet ; )
I flew the MD-80 for a major airline and this similar issue almost caused me to run off the runway once. Landing at National in D.C. on a wet, short runway. I deployed the thrust reversers on touchdown and one engine spooled up and the other one didn't. I had to stow them again and deploy them slower so they would both spool up together as the anti-skid is cycling on and off because it's a short runway coated with slippery, wet tire residue. . Finally got the aircraft stop. In another fifty feet we would have been swimming in the Potomac. The MD-80 had some other issues too but the one good thing about it was it had the quietest cockpit of any aircraft I've flown,
"In another fifty feet" There's a lot of conservatism applied to demonstrated flight test braking distances before generating the field length requirements seen in a flight manual. That's so experiences such as yours will remain in a TH-cam comments section, rather than getting their own video ; )
DCA meant for DC-3s as the old joke goes. What airline? If you were 'Apple Air' hello from another Hangar 5 GO mouse.
Probably a quiet cockpit because the engines are so far back. As a passenger, I always chose the tail of the plane because I smoked at the time and it was allegedly "safer" in the back. Sitting in the back was a very noisy experience, as the cowling for the engine was usually only a couple feet away from me.
very interesting Jeep Man
@@eucliduschaumeau8813
I’m an aircraft mechanic and worked MD-80s and 727s , both rear engine aircraft. The 727s had a loud cockpit. Douglas (MD aircraft) were per flight crews very quiet.
N1002G was planned to be delivered to Swissair under its registration HB-INB, alongside N980DC, which was also planned to be delivered to Swissair as HB-INA, but both had their accidents, with N1002G in this video, and N980DC losing its empennage in a hard landing during a test flight on May 2, 1980. HB-INC “Thurgau,” later “Lugano” was the first MD-81 to ever be delivered, being delivered to Swissair on September 12, 1980.
A fews days after the accident, I was handed a printout of raw acceleration data from the AHRS unit onboard and told to develop a plot of the ground track. Though this video suggests there was one deviation to the left followed by a deviation to the right ending in runway departure, my plot showed a pattern of several deviations, each one larger than the last. It looked about like the classic exponentially-increasing sinusoid.
After tracking straight during the time between MLG touchdown to NLG touchdown, there were a couple of small excursions to the left and right, the first one only about a five-foot deviation. But each one became successively larger, with the final two deviations (~ the third and forth since touchdown) being the ones talked about here which led to runway departure about 14 seconds into the landing at a speed of about 40 kt (IIRC -- I was looking at the plot about a year ago to answer a question involving this flight, but apparently didn't file it back where it's supposed to go).
So beyond the causes brought up in the video regarding reverse thrust and so forth, it looks to me like the strong measures taken by the pilot during the latter part of the rollout may have been triggered by a sense that things were starting to get out of control (and then they did, thanks in part to overly-strong measures...). If the pilot had "turned down the gain" on his responses to the initial deviations they were experiencing, things might have worked out?
Eratta:
* The hull depicted in the video is the original production MD-80: Ship 909. The hydraulics-out test was done with the second one, Ship 917, painted in the new Swissair colors (dark brown stripe along its length).
* MLG are designed to strip if the longitudinal load becomes large enough. That's to hopefully keep the fuel tanks from ruptering via a shock strut incursion. It has worked some times and not others (Continental 603), because for example a high vertical load could still compromise a tank without the shear pin's load limit being reached. Nothing you could do about that except design the airplane with no fuel tank in the vicinity of the MLG (= way less range).
* I assume it was an FAA pilot at the controls for this flight, since it was a certification test and those (always?) use an FAA pilot when the subject is something involving handling qualities (not my area of expertise -- just an anecdotal impression).
Great looking airliner.Rear engined made alot of sense for noise reduction inside the passenger cabin.Love the high stabaliser.
I worked on the DC-9/MD-80 Family for many years and they were the best A/C in my opinion. Far simpler than comparable Boeings. The looks were way ahead of Boeing A/C. When they left our fleet my fun days with the airline were gone and it just became a job.
Rodger, back in the day , I also worked for the Airline's on both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.
I will say I also enjoyed working on the DC-9's and MD-80's. I liked some of the engineering and design that Boeing did not have. Boeing made good aircraft but will have to side with McDonnell Douglas on this one.
very interesting that both of you have been MD-80 mechanics. I don't know if any of you have heard about Spanair JK5022, which crashed on takeoff in August 2008. It all started because when they were about to start their takeoff run, pilots noticed the air temperature indication was abnormally high, so they took the plane back to the apron and had mechanics take a look at it. One of the mechanics put some ice next to the air temperature probe to cool it down, and determined the problem was the probe heater was turned on when it shouldn't, so he disconnected it because according to the minimum equipment list, and if the captain considered it wasn't necessary, the plane could temporarily fly with that heater disabled. After that, the plane headed for the runway for a second time and started its takeoff roll, where it crashed because flaps and slats were not deployed. And they were not deployed because the takeoff warning system (tows) didn't work and therefore the pilots didn't notice the aircraft wasn't properly configured. And the tows didn't work because of a relay that also fed the probe heater that I talked about before. If I recall correctly that relay was used to switch between the ground mode and the flight mode, depending on if one of the landing gear struts had weight on it or not. Elements like the probe heater were supposed to work only during flight and not on the ground, whereas the tows was the opposite. What I'm not sure of is whether that relay was disconnected by the mechanic to turn the heater off, or it was just faulty (I think it's the latter, I think the relay just got stuck in flight mode and that's why the heater was on and the tows was off, but I'm not sure).
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor Capasau, it's been a while since I worked on MD-80s,, as I am retired now but from what I recall, the pitot tube in question is a no go item in the MEL. It has to work. However what you are saying then the MEL would have to mention about the TOWS system being deactivated. I have my doubts regarding the TOWS system is wired into the pitot tube .
The pitot tube ( Airspeed ) is a simple system,, it either works or it doesn't and there is an accompanying light in the cockpit front panel to let the pilots know if it is working or not. I would have to do more research. I hope this helps.
@@JustRememberWhoYoureWorkingFor I will amend my last comment. The probe in question is a Ram Air Temp. or RAT for short and can be deferred per the MEL provided you are not flying into any know icing conditions.
I did some research and the investigation still could not determine why the TOWS system did not work. So sad the loss of lives,
@@70slandshark47 ok thanks a lot for the replies. In fact another MD-80 had a similar accident in the US around 1993 if I recall correctly. And around 2012 there was one which did takeoff without flaps but just barely, that was a lucky one
Not sure why you kept showing the overhead when mentioning hydraulics. The switches are on the bottom left of the FO’s panel and the indicators are near the engine panel
I do like the DC-9 descendants. I don't see too many of them flying these days.
The “MD-UHB DEMO” plane in some photos was a completely different plane years later with an experimental engine. The plane that crashed had the “Super 80” livery.
Still nice to see the UHB proto-type.
@@gusbailey68 It is a fascinating plane.
I remember that from reading Flying magazine. They were extraordinary looking black "props".
I probably read or Googled somewhere why they never.. eh.. took off, but forgot.
This was before 2000 era hush kits (see I does know somefink) and by then engines had evolved to be mostly fan generated thrust. (I'm winging it on that part)
There were many photos of UHB equipped test planes over a period. I guess they were all of the DC9 / MD 80 configuration.
I was wondering about that one shot towards the end. Bizarre.
Do test pilots get hazardous duty pay, or do they volunteer just for the excitement? This is not a silly question, I really want to know. If I were the F/O and was told during flight to shut down all the hydraulics, I would reply; "Yes, sir... right after you land, sir!"
An aircraft company's engineering test pilots have been hired to do that job. Her/His pay reflects their proficiency. In some cases they may not be able to get personal insurance. If so, the company will provide for that.
I’m not sure I understand: everyone on the aircraft knew what tests were to be accomplished. Test pilots are involved in certification to include demonstration of various abnormal scenarios. Each flight has specific tests and methodologies and are briefed in advance. Most go well; some don’t and produce procedural and/or design changes.
Worked for MDC in mid 80s. Pilots are assigned test programs. Yuma was a test facility for MDC. Was one of the Flight Dispatchers and have dispatched many flights with Capt Hamilton. The left seat on this flight was an FAA Pilot, who was asigned by the FAA for these tests for certification. MDC pilots got bonuses depending upon the test program, for example like the Goshawk T45, Capt Hamilton was assign the first flight from LGB to YUM. He got an incentive check and a bonus check for making it to Yuma. Almost bailed out, had a small problem enroute. First flights were dispatched over non residrntial areas as much as possible. .
DC-9/ MD80-series was my favorite "shape" to see flying over (along with the Concorde & B2 Spirit).
I imagine this scenario has happened with a planeload of passengers and what was learned may have saved lives. If so it was probably worth losing an airframe.
It's not clear whether the captain called for the hydraulics to be turned back on or if the FO just did it. Anybody know?
Agreed the MD-80 had a GREAT PROFILE - shape.
B-727s were close behind imho
My favorite overhead flights were the 727s owned by Braniff International when they were the jellybean airlines. The shape of the planes combined with the paint schemes was fantastic.
I absolutely agree. This was a very successful (albeit very dangerous) test flight. The purpose of the flight was to determine if there were any problems with a BO hydraulic system landing and potentially fatal flaws were uncovered.
Well that test went well! Everyone survived, and they learned a lot about what not to do!
Sometimes the best lessons are those learned the hard way
A.J. Ibay, you are a Phenomenal conveyer of
aviation accidents! Crystal clear & great graphics! Michigan sends best regards.
So glad the crew survived. It was a live and learn lesson.
The real test came nine years later on a DC-10 on UA Flight 232. R.I.P. Al Haynes, Denny Fitch and all who helped save 185 lives that day.
Awesome, now I don't have to watch the video
I’m not quite sure of the relevance. The DC-9/MD-80 series has cables leading to control tabs allowing the plane to be flown safely with no hydraulics; the DC-10 has no such reversion.
The switches for the hydraulics are not on the overhead panel
I am kind of confused how this aircraft was damaged beyond repair??? it rolled off the side of the runway in the Infield grass and soil. It did not say the landing gear collapsed did it ??? does anyone have more details on that???
The front end apparently did collapse. I found a report that said they brought two 50-ton cranes out to lift the front end off the ground, and one of the cranes broke and collapsed on top of the fuselage, thus damaging it beyond repair.
Another report I found said: "After the aircraft left the pavement, the left main gear collapsed and the right main gear and the nose gear separated from the aircraft. The aircraft came to rest on its lower fuselage about 50 feet beyond the right edge. Two 50-ton cranes then tried to lift the aircraft; one of the cranes broke and fell on top of the fuselage."
@@jdm3072 ok That makes more sense. Thanks Jdm
@@jdm3072 In the photo at 6:49, it looks like a crane fell on the left side. I wondered about that.
Interesting!! Excellent presentation and explanation!! Thanks, Allec!! Hope all is well with you!! 💖✈✈💖
Oops. I guess that's why there are test flights before passenger operations.
Some of the photos seem to show numerous vanes around the after part of the number one engine. Any idea what these are about?
Appears to be a test aircraft for an unducted fan (which I like to call a turboprop).
An engine design that never worked out as I recall.
@@mrgreenjeens An Unducted Fan Engine is a very different type of engine, because, unlike a turboprop, UDF Type engines have the blades rotate around the outside of the cowling, while still producing thrust. This was being promoted as the next evolution of the jet engine, and NASA conducted a lot of flight tests to see how well it would function, and if it would be more efficient than a standard jet engine, but, engine manufacturers developed better, more efficient fan engines, that offered lower fuel consumption, than exsisting engines, plus, UHDs proved too difficult to be reliable engines. Also, turboprop engines are jet engines with a gearbox to drive a propeller, which is what a UHD doesn't use. Its blades are similar to fan blades in traditional jet engines, but, proved to have increased noise levels, so that's why the UHD is considered dead end technology.
Allec I really want you to look into a another plane crash that happened in New Orleans La to a reporter name Nancy Parker... she did a story on a stunt pilot before being killed in plane crash.. it was a small stunt plane... the NTSB stated the crash was undetermined..well the stunt pilot lost control for undetermined issues
I looked into that last year.
Tragic story for sure.
Seemed to be a combination of pilot not being quite "expert enough" for the stunt demo he was trying + engine malfunction.
Whenever witnesses say: "the engine didn't sound right" - followed by a crash, theres a big clue.
RIP to those 2 in Jesus name !
@Cold Hearted Basterd before Katrina because I live in Houston TX now .. I always saw her the news and she was such kind, caring woman.. and when I heard this happened I screamed to the top of lungs I was so upset.. because she definitely made an impact to community and the city of New Orleans..and she left young children behind and her husband.. it was just too much take in and I still can't believe that this happened to Nancy Parker and to the pilot that was with her..
The engine had exceeded its' suggested TBO. And the pilot was not as well qualified as was advertised. Dan Gryder's Probable Cause channel had a program on this mishap...
LOVE YOUR WORK ALLEC THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO BIG SHOUT OUT ALL CAPITALS
That’s exactly why this type of testing is performed.
Another success story for the Mad Dog Airplane Company.
Well...all of that went over my head. 🙄 Sometimes...I get a headache reading all that tech stuff. 😵💫
Susie, come on. There was no tech stuff hardly. You're better than that! If you do get a headache, I recommend taking a bit of medication, and getting into more tech. It's always worked for me. I do wish you the very best.
@@roderickcampbell2105 I'm 70 & have no desire to learn all that stuff. Most aren't all that difficult to follow. I just love watching the videos. Now, if it was anything medical...I could blow you away with info/facts since I'm a retired RN of 40 years & have a bachelors degree in nursing. 😘
@@susiesweet8003 Hello Susie. I have an appreciation for this perspective. But that's why I stayed away from anything medical! I'm no good at it.
But if the need is there, goodness knows the medics, RNs are godsends. Someone very close to me was a retired RN.
@A. Melbs Hello AM. It was good advice. No Charge.
OK, so what control surfaces does the hydraulic system on the MD80 control? Sounds like just the flaps and slats. Are all the other controls still manually powered by the crew?
Spoilers, flaps & slats are hydraulically operated. Stabilizer is electrically operated. Elevators, ailerons and rudder are cable operated and require no hydraulic inputs. Rudder and elevators have hydraulic boost that's not required for normal flight. Landing gear has a manual deployment but is normally hydraulically operated. When manually activated the I/B gear doors remain extended until hydraulics are applied again. Brakes and T/Rs normally use hydraulics but have an accumulator for basically a one-shot emergency activation.
@@rogerhuber3133 OK, makes a little more sense now. Most current planes couldn't even think of a maneuver like this because most of the control surfaces are hydraulicly operated... Was just comparing this to the tragedy on that United DC10 many years ago. I guess the important thing is that no one was hurt and valuable lessons were learned.
@@rogerhuber3133 "but have an accumulator for basically a one-shot emergency" Specifically, the two brake accumulators provide enough pressurized fluid for the equivalent of three complete press-and-release cycles of the brakes.
You would think they would have used pilots who were properly trained for this scenario for this demonstration, but this happened instead.
Really. 🤦♀
@@susiesweet8003 Hello FH99 and SS. I agree with you, but it was 1980, and the world was young. So was I.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Shit, son...I'm 70. 😘
@@susiesweet8003 Hi Susie. Keep on Rockin' I am not quite there (Seven Zero) but I hope to. This was a hard report to figure out.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Having lived those years as a young adult that worked for a Computer Graphics company with McDonald Douglas one of our customers, I believe we lived in a more mature world, at that time. Definitely more, disciplined, thanks to the Greatest Generation.
I see a lot of fans of this series from the engineering side. As a passenger, I disliked this plane a lot. I'm 6 ft tall and fairly large, and I love with spinal injuries from the military. Getting crammed into sardine cans is a challenge for me. Even up front, the smaller the plane the more difficult it is, so I really do not like single aisle planes. This plane, being smaller than the 72, 73, 32 and so on was difficult for me. TBH I miss the days when twin aisle was the default for most flights, especially longer ones...
Could you do that one incident where a MD-80 stalled on the runway and it’s tail broke off?
6/19/1980
Names: George Lyddane, Fred Hamilton
Age: 40 (George), 42 (Fred)
Flying Time: 11.23286 months (George), 4.382187 months (Fred)
Plane Age: 1 year
Status: Runway Excursion
On Board: 3
Survivors: 100%
Thanks!
ngl as a future pilot and a long time flight simmer of fsx, fs9 and p3d i salute your hard work and dedication in these videos!
also oof
I flew on an MD80 in 2019, the last year AA had them. Seat 5A, first class. But danggg….. I never knew a prototype model would have such a disaster. 3 years after, I believe the S80 made its first flight 😅😧
It's been a long time since I watched you
Another cocktail can't hurt
Hi D G. "Another cocktail can't hurt". That's what I said last night.
@@roderickcampbell2105 while at 30,000?
No matter what I am glad no one had to die to change history. I guess planes are safer now (mechanically) thane ever before. However there is the problem of pilots being terrorists or drunk or suicidal. I would still like to be transported on a molecular level. If something goes wrong, you don't know it. Your atoms are disassembled rapidly and if they cannot be put back together you just become stardust. No crashes, injuries, blood. Just a nice neat trip or vanishing. Either way it is win win.
Agreed Joyce.
Only God has the Patent on molecular disassembly / reassembly - one might say its His exclusive Providential Right.
With man's track record fraught with mistakes, its a good thing we can't lol.
@@psalm2forliberty577 Assume crash positions from the movie Airplane. Hey I know the only one who disassemble me and put me back together is our Lord. I am looking forward to being gathered to Him in the clouds. Maybe sooner than later the way the world is right now. One minute to midnight again.
@@JJDigitalartStudio
Yes indeed thats what I implied.
Christ Jesus is the only one, right now, who's in His 100% Resurrected Body en toto.
100% re-assembled lol.
My understanding from Scripture is every Saints body now waits to be reunited with their Souls, which are in Heaven currently.
Which is why on "the Last Day" Christ is said to be coming both "with His Saints & for His Saints".
With their Souls & for their bodies - on that far off Resurrection Day once He, Jesus, has finished making "all His enemies a footstool for His feet"
Psalm 110:1
1 Cor 15
Rejoice God's Truth will Triumph over all evil.
Including plane crashes !
@@psalm2forliberty577 Amen to that.
Speaking of aviation safety improvements did you know that we had a full decade from 2009 - 2019 with 0 fatalities or major injuries in USA, in Commercial aviation ?
TRUTH !
Amazing fact.
When I was a kid in the 70s every summer whole planes full of people would plummet from the sky, nearly every month, so it seemed.
Things are SO safe now the quasi romantic danger is all gone lol
What's the upside of being a test pilot ?
Rough day at the office!
Very good
Why are we still on PlayStation 2 graphics
So they got an "F" I guess.
F -
But flawed procedures played a role too.
Cost of plane deducted from their lunch per diem.
is this the crash involved in a recorded video of an MD-80's tail snapping off after the plane landed
No
No, but I was thinking exactly the same thing at first. I know which video you’re referring to - the landing that was so hard the tail snapped off
That one was flown with the first production MD-80 (Ship 909). The landing was supposed to be done at close to the maximum design sink rate, but because the pilot violated the test card rules and made corrections to the approach below 100 ft (vs just go around), they ended up landing at a sink rate about 1 fps above the structural limit.
Damaged beyond repair? That's how you learn. Shut off all the hydraulics, bleed the system 🤞😳
I had a similar problem driving my car up the driveway. First it swerved to the left and so I turned the wheel to the right and the car took out the right garage door post and totaled the car.
I wonder what the cause was?
Must have been wind sheer.
Bad ball joints?
To many Budweisers?
@@floydbryant8711 We need an NTSB investigation.
If you worked in the train industry, your solution would be to build stronger garage door posts*. In the aircraft industry, the solution would be "placard it".
* The old train engineering joke being "If something breaks, double the dimensions and paint it black."
More buffoonery in that cockpit than a barrel of monkeys!
There were two Keystone Air crashes in Winnipeg..could you do a video on them. This was about 10 years ago
Please don't take chances like that anymore 😏🤦♂️
An expensive test run
If I wanted to read I would buy a book
Then find another airplane channel that will read to you. Simple.
MD-80 is a good airplane..
Ooooppppsss.
Seems to me that this is the aviation equivalent of diving into a piranha pit wearing a bologna bikini!!
Lol.....
Untested Pilots, Untested Aircraft | MD-81 Prototype Runway Incident
Untested Pilots, Untested Aircraft | MD-81 Prototype Runway Incident
We’ll let you be like that.
@@petuniaskunk2316 Untested Pilots, Untested Aircraft | MD-81 Prototype Runway Incident
@@FabJK4 you too
@anandguruji83
As always the eternal spam bot parrot. Reported.
In the photo taken after the accident, it shows the jet in the field, off the left side of the runway, not the right side, as your text had said. Otherwise, another good video, Allec, keep up the good work.
I analyzed the flight recorder data -- it did exit to the right. Follow the runway skid marks in the photo and you can get a sense of how it spun around in the dirt such that by the time it came to rest the nose was pointed mostly back toward the way it had come.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Okay, I stand corrected.
@@johnosbourn4312 ... as do I, sort of. My first thought when I saw that photo in the video was "That's on the wrong side of the runway!" I had been given the accelerometer data from the flight recorder, but never saw any photos and had stopped my number crunching at runway departure. So it was news to me as well about the "spinout", until I saw that picture and eventually pieced it together.
I hope they fired the two clowns who claimed to be test pilots.
For some reason, this re recreation has me really tense.
This would be a great channel if the text was readable.
That AC at the end had un-ducted turbo fan engines.
So glad the Mad Dog’s are gone. Total piece of garbage.
Hi fg. Pilot? And the Mad Dogs are not gone.
@@roderickcampbell2105 FG is no pilot,,,,,,,,, and they are still flying as you said many cargo, with great safety records......
Imagine, as a commuter, you go to the tarmac towards the stairs to the plane and read ''Bla Bla DEMO AIRCRAFT'', and you hear the intercom says ''We are, Capt Bla Bla with my Co-Pilot Bla Bla, the Test Pilots for your flight this morning''!
Yeah my next move would be to "test" the exit doors, proclaiming, "Ill grap a cup of coffee & enjoy YOUR test flight from the tarmac !"
LOL
PS: whole crews have been killed on 'test flights'
@ThatBritishGuy
Runway surface.
Pavement.
Look at the disastrous Air New Zealand "Acceptance Flight" in France plane & crew of 7 all lost.
Tiny mistake & wham its done.
@ThatBritishGuy
Yes its a casual term.
I know they're concrete not asphalt.
Asphalt deforms in heat.
Concrete does not.
@ThatBritishGuy the taxiing part of the aiport.. you sometime hv to walk from the gate to the steps leading up to the aircraft. Who cares what its called
I think that test was a failure with a big F
Seems McDonald Douglas was testing the test pilots!! What a waste of a perfectly good mad dog!
When test becomes toast.
We need some accidents that resulted in passenger deaths that changed the industry. Thanks for something unique.
Hello J L. That's an interesting comment. I can't figure out if it's cynical or innocent. I did like it.
As a passenger, and a 35 year ex flight attendant... This was the most horrible plane to have ever had to work.
I thought it was the hard landing😅😅😅
Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. Apparently this organization had never heard of this concept.
This was a certification flight involving aircraft handling properties, so wouldn't it have been the FAA's show? Their pilot, their test card and so on, with DAC of course providing whatever support was asked for.
After the accident it doesn’t even looks like 👍 a DC-9.
The McDonnell Douglas MD range were all basically crash prone flying coffins
In the late mid-80's to early 90's I was flying 12-14 times a year for business in the US, and most of my flights seemed to be on MD-80's. On the other hand, a flight on an L-1011 was one where I thought we'd die: extremely hard landing, hard bounce. Everyone screamed. Obviously, we didn't die - lol. I don't miss flying a bit, especially since any aircraft can crash either from crappy maintenance, crappy pilots, or someone in the cockpit with a death wish. Now that I'm retired, I'll drive - thank you very much. Although I'll need to mortgage the house to pay for gas.
That is factually incorrect. They're actually some of the safest planes ever to fly, statistically speaking.
Statistically, very safe. New York Air was one of the first airlines to take delivery of the MD-80 in mid 1983 and I don't recall any problems. The -30s were inherited from Texas International and Continental, and because of age and high cycles needed TLC.
The big issues seemed to relate to aged electrical systems that should have been completely overhauled or replaced.
I was the chief Aviation Safety officer at the Helsinki Institute for about 40 years. Generally the MD range were so bad that 5 out of 4 flights resulted in fatal crashes. It reached a stage where MD pilots were told by their respective airlines to crash the plane into the boarding gate, hence reducing fatalities should the plane have gotten airborne.
I've been adamant all my 57 yrs about my trepidation of flying. I've had numerous nightmares (no lie) about my fear of getting on an airplane and having devastating outcomes. I've never been on an aircraft. I have no family nor business outside of driving distance. Giving me the safety stats about aircraft crashes vs. automobile crashes are of no concern to me. If I crash head-on into an 18 wheeler on a highway, a rescue unit will attend me within 15 minutes. If my cruise ship hits something that makes it start to sink, the US Coast guard and/or other water crafts in the area are there within minutes, and I am a strong swimmer, even with the threat of sharks, I'll take the chance. If, however, my airplane's engine fails at 35,000 feet, with or without the Captain's best efforts to recover, or it was the Captain's desire to commit suicide vis-a-vi his radical religion's mission for him/her to crash the aircraft; at least I won't be hitting the ground/ocean/target at 600+ mph with a zero survivor expectancy.
I used to have a fear of flying, just do some research on aerodynamics and how planes are built. I've flown over 150 times now and sometimes I get scared from mild turbulence, but it doesn't bother me anymore. It would be a quick death. Car accidents are scarier, you could become paralyzed from the neck down upon survival, and swimming with sharks in the ocean? NO THANK YOU. A plane crash would at least be a fun roller coaster before you splat.
I understand your fear, and many share it. However, there are simply so many redundancies on an aircraft that is is actually more safe than even starting your personal vehicle, much less driving it.
@@Widderic I gave you a like because your reply made me laugh. Thank you just the same.🙂
@@evee388 Thank you for the favor of your reply. However, you just restated what I stipulated in about the fifth sentence in my comment.
Honestly, you shouldn’t worry about that. Im still scared when i fly, but it’s normal, Thousands of people out there have the same feeling like us.
Then McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing and brought this kind of airplane quality to them.
Quality? Try a hydraulics-out no-antiskid landing in any airliner and see how it goes. Probably good on some days, but not others. From the analysis of flight recorder data I did a few days after the accident, it appears the FAA's pilot had a few minor lateral deviations in the first several seconds after NLG touchdown (not talked about in the video) but overcontrolled, setting up the larger ones the video does cover.
As for actual quality, FWIW a poster had who had apparently worked production/maintenance at Long Beach remarked how after the merger, when 737's started coming into Long Beach to get worked on, long-time DAC employees were surprised at how shoddy things looked once you got beneath the cabin interior panels. Things like tie-wraps to secure bundles, when DAC would have used an engineered metal bracket. An airline captain friend remarked that he liked the DC cockpits, but it seemed like there was always stuff in the 737's that he'd get cut on.
More or less from the beginning, Boeing was producing 737's as cheaply as possible... unless you ask the internet ; )
Who the F cares who the crew was before they died?
“F”??
@@justinlane1980 Figure it out.
dollar store The Flight Channel
Five-and-dime comment.
@@kurtkensson2059 more than you can afford pal
And what even is that?
@@EazyDuz18 Now you're down to penny ante.
@@kurtkensson2059 nou