Probable Cause Delta @ LGA MD80

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
??

Sounds like one person is saying it was 1.3 EPR after this accident, and another saying it was already that before.

The NTSB pulled MD88 data and according to the report, 100% of flights exceeded 1.3 on a contaminated runway and that there was no callout for EPR value during rollout.

What's surprising is the touchdown at the 500 ft marker and nose down by the 1000 ft marker. It's not like a long landing and felt the need to go near max reverse?


Glad no one was hurt and that it was a learning experience was MD operators.
Click to expand...

When I was trained on the 88 I was taught 1.3 on Contaminated runway. Loss of directional control if you exceed 1.3 was emphasized. Anytime I flew into a contaminated runway I briefed CA to back me up on EPR values just in case I pulled too hard.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
??

Sounds like one person is saying it was 1.3 EPR after this accident, and another saying it was already that before.

The NTSB pulled MD88 data and according to the report, 100% of flights exceeded 1.3 on a contaminated runway and that there was no callout for EPR value during rollout.

What's surprising is the touchdown at the 500 ft marker and nose down by the 1000 ft marker. It's not like a long landing and felt the need to go near max reverse?


Glad no one was hurt and that it was a learning experience was MD operators.
Click to expand...

It takes almost zero effort to put one thrust reverser into over 2 EPR, while barely getting the other one into idle. It's a fine art to using the reverse on an MD-80 series. From what I've been told, the DC-9 was also touchy, but not as bad.
 
Ironic that this report came out the same week the NTSB is complaining about their portrayal in the Sully movie.

This investigation report is the middle schooler who didn't really read the book version of their reports. Anyone who has flown the maddog will tell you that when you pull those levers you never really know what you're going to get. Very little in the report seems to delve into the why... just scratches the surface and moves on.
 
mastermags said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't idle reverse the new recommended setting for normal landings?

They should add the thrust reversers on an MD80 to the list of the most useless things in aviation.
Click to expand...

They pretty much are.

They're basically a way to finish off the hearing loss for the passengers in the "non rev section" in the back of the airplane.
 
Cptnchia said:
The only problem with the TRs sucking is that the brakes suck too.
Click to expand...

It was so fun watching the new guys roaring up to the gate on a warm day…

"Just so you know, the brakes are…"

*GUH GUH. GAAAGUHGUHGUHGUHGUHGGGGGGGGGG…*

"Crap!"

"Yeah man, ease off just a little bit and just 'tickle' it until it starts grabbing…"

*GUH GUH. GAAAGUHGUHGUHGUHGUHGGGGGGGGGG…*
 
Screaming_Emu said:
But they sound cool!
Click to expand...
Whenever I brief that I'm going to use the thrust reversers on shorter runways (even though they don't seem to do crap on the Bro Bus) I say "because I don't want to go off the end and have the Federales ask why we didn't use them with 4900 feet of usable runway..... and I like loud noises that sound cool."
 
ASpilot2be said:
I vote for the SAAB. :)
Click to expand...

5130L.jpg
 
IMG_8556.PNG
6 minutes AFTER the evac announcement the first pax got out?!?!?
Good thing there wasn't a fire.
By the time the third evacuate command is given I'll be standing 30 feet away.
(With all my carry on baggage of course)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top