? for MD80 Drivers

chperplt

Registered User
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,123
Total Time
.
Just read part of the NTSB report on AA1420 that went off the runway in Little Rock.

The report mentions that there is no visual (other than looking at the arming mechanism) or audible sound to let the crew know that the spoilers are not armed.

The NTSB had suggested that a detection system be installed, or that the system automatically arm itself.

Has anything been done to the aircraft yet to make either of those happen?
 

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
edited to change stupid wording,

We had to change our call outs relating to the spoilers, and now both pilots must make the "armed" call. No changes to the system, and no warnings. In the past, I flew Lears with auto spoilers. Even though they were "auto", we still called for manual deployement. I can't do that in the Maddog because it is not in our operating manual, but that would solve the problem.

Matter of opinion, it would make aborts easier, because the physical motions would be more practiced. In explanation, we don't arm the auto spoilers for takeoff, so an abort is concurrently power to idle and max brakes, then spoilers, then reverse. We could use the same motion for landing,( except the max brakes of course) and I think that we would be as safe as the operators who install a warning bell. Pilots are notorious for not hearing aural warnings.

I imagine that the changes to standard procedure will be all that we see. It would cost too much to engineer/retrofit some type of warning.

regards
8N

one more thing, If you've ever landed and the spoilers fail to deploy and it does happen occasionally, you really do have a warning system. When the aircraft bounces and doesn't slow, it is painfully obvious what is wrong. Normally the 80 just sags toward the concrete as soon as the wheels touch. If it doesn't you know something is wrong.
 
Last edited:

trainerjet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
507
Total Time
8000+
enigma said:


Pilots are notorious for ignoring aural warnings.

You must be working with the wrong group of pilots. I would think that by now there have been enough accident reports where a contributing factor were the pilots' disregard of aural warnings. No one in my cockpit disregards warnings. They are immediately dealt with and rectified, one way or another.

As far as the auto-spoilers not deploying, it is standard procedure at my airline for the PNF to verify spoiler operation, and verbally announce to the PF if they fail to deploy.

As a personal technique, I do as enigma mentioned. More or less follow the same procedure on landing that I would use for a rejected takeoff. Close the power levers, follow the speed brake handle back (or move it back if it fails to auto-deploy), then apply reverse thrust.
 

frenchy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
64
Total Time
8000
the pnf is suppose to verify after landing if the spoilers deployed , and to call it out in either case (twice if they didn't).
the no slowdown situation is obvious, so just manually do it.
 

enigma

good ol boy
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,279
Total Time
>1500
trainerjet said:


You must be working with the wrong group of pilots. I would think that by now there have been enough accident reports where a contributing factor were the pilots' disregard of aural warnings. No one in my cockpit disregards warnings. They are immediately dealt with and rectified, one way or another.

As far as the auto-spoilers not deploying, it is standard procedure at my airline for the PNF to verify spoiler operation, and verbally announce to the PF if they fail to deploy.

As a personal technique, I do as enigma mentioned. More or less follow the same procedure on landing that I would use for a rejected takeoff. Close the power levers, follow the speed brake handle back (or move it back if it fails to auto-deploy), then apply reverse thrust.
Yeah, that was poor wording. I was all wore out from debating PFT. Sorry. I should have said that pilots have been known to not hear aural warnings. I don't have time nor processor speed to research the databases for accident reports, but I've read transcripts where there was a horn going in the background and was never acted on. I've been in the sim when the instructor had to interject and say, "how long were you guys going to let that warning sound?" All humans have the ability/curse to blank out stuff and get tunnel vision, or tunnel attention. I didn't mean to imply that we intentionally ignore warnings; I just meant that we sometimes don't hear them. On the other hand, flashing red lights always seem to get ones attention.

What I was trying to relate is this: we don't need more warnings, we need better procedures.

When I was a newhire, our procedures were for the NFP to call out "spoilers" in a normal situation. Then our POI and someone in company decided to change that. There philosophy was that you needn't announce a normal situation. They came up with a procedure where the announcement was only made if the spoilers did not deploy, and the call is, "no spoilers, no spoilers". So now we do it the same as you do. We also had to quit calling thrust reverser light illumination.
Thanks for calling out that stupid phrase, you gave me a chance to fix it.
regards,
8N
 

njcapt

Freak power candidate
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,096
Total Time
>12K
Yeah, if the spoilers don't deploy on landing you know it. The plane skips like a stone on a lake and the anti-skids work like crazy. Vanguard just instituted a 'spoilers deployed' call on landing, and I have probably have never made it when the F/O was flying - just because it isn't habit yet.

The need for spoilers is so much more important in the MD-80 over the 737. A number of Captains would use manual spoilers on the 737 to make for smoother landings, but on the MD-80 I have never heard of anyone using the same technique.

During PC's in the 737, Check Airmen would love to give auto-spoiler failures on landing to see if the pilot would catch it. I invariably failed to notice the loss of braking, and would buy numerous beers at Hooters after the ride in compensation. In the two PC's I've had in the MD-80, I have yet to miss the use of manual spoilers on an abort or landing.

I agree with trainerjet in that any warnings in my cockpit get serious attention. One problem with the MD-80 is that there are way too many gear up warnings when under normal operating conditions.
 

AAflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,493
Total Time
9000+
If you transitioned from the 727, you will always remember to look, as they were manual, but boy slow smooth deployment could make for some sweet lanings.

IN two of the fleet types here at AA (not sure about the others, although told they do the same), after LIT, the PNF announces "deployed" or "not deployed" on each leg, regardless of if they are auto or not.

AAflyer
 

trainerjet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
507
Total Time
8000+
AAflyer said:


IN two of the fleet types here at AA (not sure about the others, although told they do the same), after LIT, the PNF announces "deployed" or "not deployed" on each leg, regardless of if they are auto or not.

First of all, let me say this is in no way meant to be a comment on AAs procedures..this is just my humble opinion. But, I have been convinced over the last few years, that I like hearing callouts when something is "abnormal", not for normal situations. Kind of like the Boeing dark cockpit theory. No lights for normal situations, annunciator lights (or EICAS message) when there is a non-normal situation. If the spoilers deploy, like they are supposed to, I see no reason to announce that fact. However, if they do not, then I would like to know.

At the end of a long day, like the one at LIT, if the PNF announces "deployed" or "not deployed", chances are all I hear is the word deployed.....now, was that deployed or not deployed....did they deploy?? However, if you only call out non-normal conditions, and I hear "spoilers", I know exactly what that means.

Again, just my $.02 worth, and how we do things where I work.
 

justApilot

Dawn Patroller
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Posts
346
Total Time
13K
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the correct callouts on the 80 at AA are either...."deployed" or "no spoilers"
 

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
6,525
Total Time
11000+
On the B717, which is basically a 21st Century DC9/MD95, we look for a green box that appears on the EAD (Engine and Alert Display). That green box tells you that you are configured for takeoff or landing. The best part- no nuisance horn!

On landing, the green box means that the flaps are set, the spoilers armed, the gear down, and radar altimeter alive. Our procedure is if no spoiler deployment, the NFP calls "No spoilers". If the FP does not raise them, then the NFP is to reach over and deploy them himself.

On takeoff, there is an aural warning if the thrust levers are advanced without being configured for takeoff- flaps, slats, spoilers, etc., and Betty says the item missing- "Slats, Flaps, Brakes, etc". The missing item also appears on the EAD. The green box is a line-up item.
 
Last edited:

AAflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
1,493
Total Time
9000+
Correction

Justapilot was correct, I miss wrote, sometimes typing and thinking do not alway produce the statement you were wishing to get a cross.

Second, I undertand the concept of I do not want to hear more garbage than I have too, but I believe the verbage to change to those callout came after LIT. As a pilot I agree, but throw in a legal team, or people at training academy that do not always fly the line, and you will end up with callouts that may look good on paper, but are backwards in the cockpit.

AAflyer
 

Anaconda

FLY ARMY!
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
594
Total Time
Low!
another ??? for you mad dog drivers...

concerning the md that had an engine problem the other night in nashville. any thoughts on why the crew chose to fly around for 2.5 - 3 hours single engine (according to the local news)? of course, to burn fuel and get below mlw i guess, but doesn't this aircraft have the capability to dump fuel? seems kinda risky to fly around single engine as opposed to landing above mlw. any thoughts or ideas on what happened?
 

flx757

I gotta have more cowbell
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Posts
1,356
Total Time
15000
Anaconda,

I won't speculate on anything or second guess the decisions the crew made, but I will answer one of your questions.

No, the MD-80 has no fuel dump capability.
 
Last edited:

justApilot

Dawn Patroller
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Posts
346
Total Time
13K
That is correct the MD80 has no fuel dump capability. Assuming a max gross T/O at 149.5K and landing at 130K that's 19.5K of fuel to burn off. Flying around at low altitude for 2-3 hours or so sounds about right to burn down the weight. Yes there are provisions for overweight landings but it was just a failure of one of the engines, not a life threatening reason to get the plane on the ground immediately. I wasn't there, it wasn't my call. Anyway we get paid by the minute don't we.
 
Top