FAILURE TO MAKE TAKE OFF POWER

[FURP3]

After reading this clip about the Spanair crash.......The newspaper El Pais, quoting sources close to the crash investigation, said it is focusing on the possibility that the Spanair jet lacked proper engine power as it tried to take off. The plane struggled to get airborne, veered to the right and crashed, burning and largely disintegrating.El Pais said airport video of the takeoff shows that the plane used up much more of the runway than it normally should as it tried to take off for the Canary Islands, which suggested insufficient thrust.


At DFW Maintenance Dept. we always get these inflight discrepencies saying "aircraft failed to make take off power", and the majority of them are always coming from an out station. Can you imagine what the flying public would saying knowing there planes engines didn't make TAKE OFF POWER, but the Capt. tried to take off anyway. But of coarse the crew is at an out station and does not want to get stuck there. ITS JUST A MATTER OF TIME...........

Maybe this Spanair crash might wake them up......

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

With all the "pencil whipping" going on at AA powerplant engineering,especially at TAESL, I'm not suprised a lot of our engines won't make take off power.

 

[eolesen]

It could very well suggest insufficient thrust, but using too much runway and being slow to climb also suggests insufficient lift.

Per one of my sources at ALPA, the MAD accident sounds a lot like what happened with NWA a number of years ago at DTW -- in that crash, the crew pencil whipped the checklist, failed to actually verify that the flaps were set, and took off with them retracted. FDR showed that the engines spooled up just fine, but there simply wasn't enough lift to get airborne.

 

[FWAAA]

Last week, I was on a super80 flight LAX-DFW. Just as we neared the end of the runway to takeoff from LAX, we made an abrupt U-turn and parked near the UAL cargo area. After a few minutes, the pilots came on the PA and told us that there was a disgreement in the flaps indicator and that they were cycling the flaps to see if the problem could be remedied, but that so far, that procedure had not fixed the problem and we would have to return to the gate so the mechanics could look at them. After a few more minutes, the pilots told us that cycling thru the flaps sequence had solved the problem. My only concern was whether the pilots had confidence that the flaps were in proper position (since the indicators had failed up to that point).

 

[L1011Ret]

Last week, I was on a super80 flight LAX-DFW. Just as we neared the end of the runway to takeoff from LAX, we made an abrupt U-turn and parked near the UAL cargo area. After a few minutes, the pilots came on the PA and told us that there was a disgreement in the flaps indicator and that they were cycling the flaps to see if the problem could be remedied, but that so far, that procedure had not fixed the problem and we would have to return to the gate so the mechanics could look at them. After a few more minutes, the pilots told us that cycling thru the flaps sequence had solved the problem. My only concern was whether the pilots had confidence that the flaps were in proper position (since the indicators had failed up to that point).

The old solution to that one is that the cockpit leisurely strools through the cabin looking at nothing in particular but actually being acutely aware of the positioning of the leading edge and trailing flaps.

 

[1Conehead]

Last week, I was on a super80 flight LAX-DFW. Just as we neared the end of the runway to takeoff from LAX, we made an abrupt U-turn and parked near the UAL cargo area. After a few minutes, the pilots came on the PA and told us that there was a disgreement in the flaps indicator and that they were cycling the flaps to see if the problem could be remedied, but that so far, that procedure had not fixed the problem and we would have to return to the gate so the mechanics could look at them. After a few more minutes, the pilots told us that cycling thru the flaps sequence had solved the problem. My only concern was whether the pilots had confidence that the flaps were in proper position (since the indicators had failed up to that point).

If I forgot to set the flaps properly I would blame the indicator too
How long did maint. work on it.

 

[FWAAA]

The old solution to that one is that the cockpit leisurely strools through the cabin looking at nothing in particular but actually being acutely aware of the positioning of the leading edge and trailing flaps.

That's what I would have expected, but no sign of either one of them. Sitting in 6E, they would have tripped over my legs if they had come from the flight deck for a visual confirmation of the flaps.

1Conehead: We didn't return to the gate; after cycling the flaps some more, the pilots said the problem had solved itself. Earlier, they claimed they were on the phone to maintenance and that a return to the gate would be necessary. Fortunately, we didn't have to return to the gate and we were off the pavement prior to passing by T-4 (so no problem with lift).

 

[Crapdog]

If the RAT (Ram air temp) probe was inop or giving an erroneous reading then the TRI (Thrust Rating Indicator) would be wrong which would cause the DFGC (Digital Flight Guidance Computer) to calculate an incorrect take off thrust and the pilots to use a lower throttle setting. There was a report of a RAT problem.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I posted this in the 'Foreign' forum, but will stick it here too.....seems that media reports are now saying that one thrust reverser was found deployed.

AvWeek Article

Jim

 

[eolesen]

Thanks, Jim....

Considering that AA's the largest operator of MD80's, maybe the moderators will cut a little slack on the dual posting...

 

[1Conehead]

.

We didn't return to the gate; after cycling the flaps some more, the pilots said the problem had solved itself. Earlier, they claimed they were on the phone to maintenance and that a return to the gate would be necessary.

You actually believed that?
They didn't want to have to say OOps to the AMT that showed up.
If true would you really want to fly on a plane that you had to try multiple times to get it to work once?

 

[frontline]

ITS JUST A MATTER OF TIME...........

Of course it's not like you have any agenda in posting this, FURPster. :down:

I'm damn proud of the job my team and I do, and you are insinuating that it's not a good one.

 

[3DUB]

Of course it's not like you have any agenda in posting this, FURPster. :down:

I'm damn proud of the job my team and I do, and you are insinuating that it's not a good one.

Thay's not the point! The point is, we have inbound items coming from stations with no maint. that one engine won't make take off!!! Now, how in the world does a MD-80 take off and fly all...... the way to DFW if it won't make t/o??????? That is just one of many examples!!! :down:

 

[phlgreaser]

What type of engines are on AA super 80,s?
JT8-217?

 

[Mach85ER]

Thay's not the point! The point is, we have inbound items coming from stations with no maint. that one engine won't make take off!!! Now, how in the world does a MD-80 take off and fly all...... the way to DFW if it won't make t/o??????? That is just one of many examples!!! :down:

Ok Sport,

My humble suggestion is for you and your like minded buddies just let this thread die. I've been in the back on plenty of flights where there have been "issues", including many A/C that I've been type rated on. Nearly every time, my preconceived "back seat driver" opinions have been dead wrong. Picking out the real story from a 4 line logbook entry is just about impossible, and you don't see the ASAP report that may go along with it.