Author Topic: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure  (Read 27156 times)

kea001

  • Guest
An American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-83, registration N979TW performing flight AA-1317 from Washington National,DC to Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA), diverted to Washington's Dulles Airport reporting engine trouble shortly after takeoff from Washington's National Ronald Reagan Airport. The airplane landed safely on runway 19L 11 minutes after takeoff.

The FAA reported, that there had been minor damage to the engine.


http://www.avherald.com/h?article=41b438a9&opt=0




Offline atcman23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2009, 09:45:21 AM »
American's  racking up the MD-80 engine failures lately.  Maybe it's time to retire the old TWA fleet.

Offline phil-s

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2009, 06:26:07 PM »
Are these still the original engines? Can they be rebuilt indefinitely?

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2009, 08:12:56 PM »
The chance of these being original powerplants is slim to none. Airlines will have a powerplant on a stand ready to go, and when a powerplant is due for MX, or has an issue, they swap them out to minimize downtime on the airplane. Airlines will sometimes try to have aircraft with common engine types, even on different aircraft. A good example of that is Northwest Airlines. NWA operated the DC-10-40 equipped with the P&W JT9D powerplants, having commonality with its' Boeing 747-100/200 fleet, and reducing the number of spare engines needed on-hand. Most DC-10 aircraft were equipped with GE Powerplants.

So...I don't think it has anything to do with the airplane being an ex-TWA bird... :wink:

Offline atcman23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2009, 09:37:35 PM »
Yeah nothing to do with TWA, but regardless, it's an older bird.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2009, 09:56:35 PM »
Yeah nothing to do with TWA, but regardless, it's an older bird.

But none-the-less a classic!   :wink:

Offline phil-s

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2009, 02:57:27 AM »
Joey - I kinda guessed you'd be the one to respond. So how about my second question? Are the powerplants rebuilt indefinitely? What I'm asking is whether after say 30 years, does anything remain of the original engine? I suppose part of the answer could be "they could, but they don't because at some point it's more cost effective to just upgrade the whole fleet of that type to a more modern engine".  - Phil 

Offline atcman23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2009, 07:12:56 AM »
Well Joey would be the best to answer the question, however, I do know that engines undergo a complete overhaul after so many hours of operation.  As to what is involved in that, I'm not sure.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2009, 07:43:59 PM »
Well, let's see here. There are several different inspections and overhauls that need to be done at various hour limits. The powerplants, much like virtually everything on the airplane, and the airplane itself, have hour limits. After X number of hours of operation, the powerplant, or pump, or whatever is considered expired. Unsafe. Unairworthy. In aviation, just about everything has a time limit. The expression "timed out" is used a lot. Think of it like this: Take a thin piece of metal in your hands and bend it back and forth...the question is how long can you do that before it snaps in two?? Time limits for aviation components are set with safety and performance in mind, best of both worlds, so to speak.

The life of a powerplant in plenty long. As for how long...well that depends on the manufacturer. The engine will be overhauled several times during it's life, and see service on many different airframes. As I said above, an aircraft comes in with an overhaul due on an engine, or has a problem, they will change the engine out and return the airplane to service, while the engine that needs service is placed on a stand for mx. Once it's green tagged, it will wait until the next aircraft with that type of powerplant needs a change.

Most MD-80s use a variant of the P&W JT8D powerplant. Here is a pic of a JT8D-219 "out of the box":

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=23540

The JT8D was used on several aircraft types, including the MD-80, DC-9 variants, B737-200, and 727 variants. Here is a JT8D powerplant on a Boeing 727-200F with the cowlings removed:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/9/4/1002494.jpg

And all cowled up on a B737-200:

http://urawa.cool.ne.jp/serippe/JapanTransOceanAir/NUB32JA8366OKAJT8D17EngineUp.jpg

Here is a spare JT8D ready to be installed on a needy aircraft:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2033/2071905553_2f0015993d.jpg?v=0

And here is another spare:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/JT8D-9A-071207.jpg

And I just like this pic. JT8D on the bird with the lower cowling open. I love the Super 80 logo on the upper cowling!:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/2/3/1019327.jpg


Just for kicks, here are some other powerplant types:
Here is a GE aircraft engine completely off the airframe and out of its cowlings:

http://blogs.aviation.ca/media/ge90+1.jpg

Here is a GE powerplant getting an inspection:

http://www.businessfacilities.com/blog/uploaded_images/GEengine-763893.jpg

And here is some powerplants...past useful life...

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11181800/Airplane_Jet_Engine_Scrap.jpg

Here is an uncontained engine failure on a Delta MD-80:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/DAL1288a.jpg

Probably a longer answer then you were looking for, but I hope it answers your question!  8-)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2009, 08:17:41 PM by joeyb747 »

Offline MathFox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 262
  • The Flying Fox
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2009, 08:38:39 PM »
joeyb747, that was porn!  :-D



All that engine nudity!  :-D :-D :-D

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2009, 08:45:15 PM »
joeyb747, that was porn!  :-D



All that engine nudity!  :-D :-D :-D

Glad you liked it!!  8-) :-D 8-) :-D :wink: :wink:

Offline Mittelos Bioscience

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2009, 09:49:29 PM »
Thanks for retrieving the audio kea001. Appreciate it. I had posted about the incident in the forum:
(http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/american-1317-dca-dfw-june-15th-emergency-landing/)

The interesting discussion brought about here has reminded me of a longtime question I've had. Out of all of the times I flew in MD80s, only only recall once ot twice that the pilots used reverse thrusters to push back from the terminal gate. Did they abandon this practice for fuel economy, safety, etc?

Offline phil-s

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2009, 02:49:53 AM »
Joey -- Thanks for the great pictures. And, no that wasn't more info than i wanted. Still trying to get a feel for how long before an engine (like say a JT8D variant) must be retired. I gather the US allows more than 30,000 hrs and 20,000 cycles.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2009, 07:26:08 AM »
Thanks for retrieving the audio kea001. Appreciate it. I had posted about the incident in the forum:
(http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/american-1317-dca-dfw-june-15th-emergency-landing/)

The interesting discussion brought about here has reminded me of a longtime question I've had. Out of all of the times I flew in MD80s, only only recall once ot twice that the pilots used reverse thrusters to push back from the terminal gate. Did they abandon this practice for fuel economy, safety, etc?

Generally speaking, it is not a safe practice to use reverse thrust to back out of the gate area. In the proper circumstances, it can be done, but is not safe, in my opinion, to airplane or ground personnel. Rember Air Florida 90? A B737-200 with JT8D powerplants that used reverse thrust to back away from the gate at KDCA after the tug couldn't get traction in the new fallen snow. By using reverse thrust, they sucked snow and other debris into the engines, effectively freezing some of the indicating probes. Then, another incredible blunder, the crew never turned on the engine anti-ice system and took off with frozen probes. The gauges were reading takeoff power, so the crew pulled back on the stick. The airplane was only producing about 50% of the needed power to climb. The airplane stalled, and crashed into the 14Th Street Bridge, then into the Patomic River. Worst case scenario...I know...but none the less a prime example why it's not a good idea to use reverse thrust to back away from the gate.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2009, 08:07:48 AM »
Joey -- Thanks for the great pictures. And, no that wasn't more info than i wanted. Still trying to get a feel for how long before an engine (like say a JT8D variant) must be retired. I gather the US allows more than 30,000 hrs and 20,000 cycles.

Here is some great info on parts and inspections needed based on cycles:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/4641ad8147c5cb3f862571da005b0e47!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-3&Highlight=2006-17-07

And this:

"(b) The part has accumulated more than 100 cycles since the last piece part inspection, provided that the part is not damaged or related to the cause of its removal from the engine."


...from this:

http://www8.landings.com/cgi-bin/get_file?pass=12345&ADS/2005/2005-18-02.html

And P&W website with background info on the JT8D Series:

http://www.pw.utc.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=93cd34890cb06110VgnVCM1000004601000aRCRD

To find the exact limits, you would need a maintenance manual for the engine. That would tell you exactly when everything is due, and what the life limit of the power plant is.

Offline sykocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2009, 08:55:39 AM »
Thanks for retrieving the audio kea001. Appreciate it. I had posted about the incident in the forum:
(http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/american-1317-dca-dfw-june-15th-emergency-landing/)

The interesting discussion brought about here has reminded me of a longtime question I've had. Out of all of the times I flew in MD80s, only only recall once ot twice that the pilots used reverse thrusters to push back from the terminal gate. Did they abandon this practice for fuel economy, safety, etc?

Generally speaking, it is not a safe practice to use reverse thrust to back out of the gate area. In the proper circumstances, it can be done, but is not safe, in my opinion, to airplane or ground personnel. Rember Air Florida 90? A B737-200 with JT8D powerplants that used reverse thrust to back away from the gate at KDCA after the tug couldn't get traction in the new fallen snow. By using reverse thrust, they sucked snow and other debris into the engines, effectively freezing some of the indicating probes. Then, another incredible blunder, the crew never turned on the engine anti-ice system and took off with frozen probes. The gauges were reading takeoff power, so the crew pulled back on the stick. The airplane was only producing about 50% of the needed power to climb. The airplane stalled, and crashed into the 14Th Street Bridge, then into the Patomic River. Worst case scenario...I know...but none the less a prime example why it's not a good idea to use reverse thrust to back away from the gate.

To be fair, the engine placement on the tail of the MD-80 makes it much less susceptible to FOD then on the 737.

Offline joeyb747

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
  • Nothing Like A 747!
Re: American MD83 at Washington on Jun 15th 2009, engine failure
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2009, 07:22:57 PM »
Thanks for retrieving the audio kea001. Appreciate it. I had posted about the incident in the forum:
(http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/american-1317-dca-dfw-june-15th-emergency-landing/)

The interesting discussion brought about here has reminded me of a longtime question I've had. Out of all of the times I flew in MD80s, only only recall once ot twice that the pilots used reverse thrusters to push back from the terminal gate. Did they abandon this practice for fuel economy, safety, etc?

Generally speaking, it is not a safe practice to use reverse thrust to back out of the gate area. In the proper circumstances, it can be done, but is not safe, in my opinion, to airplane or ground personnel. Rember Air Florida 90? A B737-200 with JT8D powerplants that used reverse thrust to back away from the gate at KDCA after the tug couldn't get traction in the new fallen snow. By using reverse thrust, they sucked snow and other debris into the engines, effectively freezing some of the indicating probes. Then, another incredible blunder, the crew never turned on the engine anti-ice system and took off with frozen probes. The gauges were reading takeoff power, so the crew pulled back on the stick. The airplane was only producing about 50% of the needed power to climb. The airplane stalled, and crashed into the 14Th Street Bridge, then into the Patomic River. Worst case scenario...I know...but none the less a prime example why it's not a good idea to use reverse thrust to back away from the gate.

To be fair, the engine placement on the tail of the MD-80 makes it much less susceptible to FOD then on the 737.

True. The engines on the DC-9/MD-80/90 series and the B727 series are up higher then the B737 series. But those engines are pretty powerful. And while it lessens the chance of F.O.D. being sucked into the engine, it does not eliminate it.