ANOTHER ALASKA AIRLINES JET HITS TROUBLE ON PUERTO VALLARTA TO SEATTLE ROUTEgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Alaska Airlines Jet Forced To Land
The Associated Press, Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2000; 1:35 a.m. EST
SAN FRANCISCO Sparks were seen flying from an engine on an Alaska Airlines jetliner, moments after taking off from San Francisco International Airport, according to airline and airport officials.
The pilot declared an emergency in order to get first priority to land, said Alaska Airlines spokesman Jack Evans. The flight originated in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and was on-route to Seattle.
Fire trucks met the airplane after it landed safely about 7:45 p.m. PST Monday, said airport duty manager Chris Ludwell. No injuries were reported among the plane's 83 passengers and five crew members.
"It was a totally safe landing," said Ludwell.
The sparks, which were seen by airline personnel on about three other aircraft and by San Francisco air-traffic controllers, did not cause any apparent problems within the aircraft, said Ludwell and Evans.
The circumstances of Monday's problems bore a resemblance to a disastrous Alaska Airlines flight a week ago, which killed all 88 people aboard in a crash off the California coast.
Both planes had problems while on planned flight paths from Puerto Vallarta to Seattle, via San Francisco.
Both planes were part of the MD-80 series aircraft. The fatal flight was an MD-83; the flight Monday was an MD-80. Both were made by McDonnell Douglas, now owned by Boeing.
Investigators suspect a problem with the horizontal stabilizer a part at the rear of the plane caused the fatal crash. It was unclear what caused Monday's problems in the left engine of the plane, located in the tail area. Evans speculated that something, such as a bird, may have been sucked into the engine.
Pilots had no indication on their gauges that there was anything wrong with the engine, said Evans.
Passengers on Monday's flight 289 were put on another plane to Seattle. The plane stayed in San Francisco, where engineers examined it.
"The pilot would not have declared an emergency if not for air traffic control issues in San Francisco," said Evans. He said the MD-80-series aircraft and Alaska Airlines are safe.
"I think the thing that people need to keep in mind is that this aircraft is one of the safest aircraft ever built in the history of aviation," Evans said.
-- DrudgeReport (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000
Not any more.
-- the lawsuits if it happens again (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.
Tuesday February 8 12:17 AM ET
Piece of Alaska Jet Fell Before Crash - Post
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Radar data show what may be a piece of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 falling about 4 miles southeast of where the plane plunged into the Pacific Ocean, killing all 88 people on board, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, quoting sources close to the investigation.
The Post said there was no information on what the piece might be or whether it could explain why the airliner crashed last week.
But it said a preliminary analysis showed an object on radar without the usual markings of an aircraft that appeared to move with the prevailing winds as it fell. That suggested the object may have been part of an aerodynamic surface such as a wing or tail section, according to the Post report.
If the radar data are correct, National Transportation Safety Board investigators will have to consider whether some part of the tail fell off and caused the plane to fall into the Pacific Ocean because of too much stress on the tail surface or because of a defect or corrosion, the Post said.
It said investigators did know that the aircraft had not been checked for possible corroded bolts in the tail section. The Federal Aviation Administration has required such inspections, but gave airlines 18 months to accomplish the inspections.
Alaska Airlines Flight 261, an MD-83 model, crashed on Jan. 31 on a flight from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to San Francisco and Seattle.
The crew reported problems with the plane's horizontal stabilizer, the wing-like structure at the top of the tail that keeps the plane in steady flight and assists in up and down movements.
None of the 83 passengers and five crew survived the deadly plunge from 17,000 feet, which ended in the Pacific 7.5 miles off Point Mugu, a promontory jutting into the ocean about 60 miles north of Los Angeles.
Investigators and other pilots are reluctant to second-guess a pilot involved in a crash. But a number of them have questioned whether Flight 261's pilot should have spent so much time attempting to trouble-shoot a problem rather than simply land as quickly as possible, the Post wrote. The crew bypassed several airports between San Diego and Los Angeles as it tried to correct the stabilizer problem, it noted.
Boeing Co., the manufacturer of the MD-83, issued recommendations on Monday, instructing any pilot with a stabilizer problem to complete the flight crew operating manual checklist but to forego additional trouble-shooting if that did not work.
-- ? (firstname.lastname@example.org?), February 08, 2000.
Ground the MD-80 series aircraft.
-- halt (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.
I don't think the problem with airplanes has anything to do with y2k. I have been on a few an I think it might be because of the hurry up that is put on people, hurry up get this done ,hurry up get that done until they don't know if they are coming or going.
-- ET (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000.
To: ET I think that blaming the mechanical staff regarding these incidents is simplistic. First, Alaska Airlines had a sterling reputation for safety. Second, the sheer number of incidents lately negate the possibility of coincidence. Third, I have a relative who IS a mechanic at Alaska Airlines in Seattle. Why would his professional performance be suddenly different from what it has been for the past ten years he has been with the company? Or the past twenty he was employed by another major airline?
-- George (George10@webtv.net), February 08, 2000.
"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times indicates there is a pattern."
Time to start seriously investigating their maintenance staff...
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), February 08, 2000.
To: ET I think that blaming the mechanical staff regarding these incidents is simplistic. First, Alaska Airlines had a sterling reputation for safety. Second, the sheer number of incidents lately negate the possibility of coincidence. Third, I have a relative who IS a mechanic at Alaska Airlines in Seattle. Why would his professional performance be suddenly different from what it has been for the past ten years he has been with the company? Or the previous twenty! during which he was employed by another major airline?
-- George (George10@webtv.net), February 08, 2000.
It is simple: STAY OFF THE DAMN PLANES!!!!!!
-- Kyle (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.
"one of the safest aircraft in history?" maybe it`s time to ground them all! sure would help the pollution levels...:}
-- mutter (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000.
And Alaska is/was one of my favourite airlines. Now I'll have to make sure it's one of their Boeings to fly rather than MD-80.
-- A (A@AisA.com), February 08, 2000.
Yes, I know they're all Boeing, NOW -- but the MD-80 is from McDonnell Douglas, pre-merger.
-- A (A@AisA.com), February 08, 2000.
Just a reminder, there is no backup system for the old tail control on the 747. If she goes, so do you!
-- Scotty (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.
Look at the bright side. By flying on an MD-80, you can almost be sure that it won't be hijacked.
-- Steve Baxter (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000.
That comment was priceless. This is a serious situation, but your post made me smile. :) Thanks much.
-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), February 08, 2000.
Definitely Y2K related. I bet these aircraft weren't even tested because they are one of the smaller type passenger planes.
-- Hawk (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.
Heard about this on the news this morning. Birds, schmirds. I think they better check out those flying squirrels instead!
-- Brooks (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000.
-Definitely Y2K related. I bet these aircraft weren't even tested because they are one of the smaller type passenger planes.
-- Hawk (email@example.com), February 08, 2000-
And your proof would be what?
-- Rob (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 08, 2000.
Gee Rob, do YOU have *proof* that it's NOT Y2K related???
-- (jeffDD@ticon.net), February 08, 2000.
Hey there-Hawk- Rob would like to see some proof along with a few other people. I really think you are a pilot wanna-be. There's a hint of that in your E-mail address. I don't want to upset you too much because then you become a potty mouth which is not very thoughtful to people that find that language disturbing. You need to learn how to do this without all the profanity. I bet when you were little somebody sat on your plastic P-51 and you haven't been right since!
-- Liberal Hater (email@example.com), February 08, 2000.