FORECASTS FROM AVIATION EXPERTS Solicited Here

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

A CHALLENGE

After 2 more MD-80's made (safe) emergency landings yesterday, St. Valentine's Day, I reckon we've heard of about seven or perhaps eight planes of this series -- including AA Flight 261 -- making comparable emergency landings since January 30, 2000, when the first one was reported to have had trouble. That's about one every other day isn't it? Out of a rather large airborne class -- something like 238 "in service" MD-80's?

Without being at all experienced in avionics, I can presume this number of emergency landings so far this month is highly abnormal, as otherwise the FAA wouldn't have been so motivated to require every airworthy plane in this series to be inspected, at least as to the jackscrew assembly, etc. So -- okay, (bear with me) we have a statistical aberration. Planes not falling from the sky, but getting down for safety reasons, while the getting's good. A few MD-80s made emergency landings for stabilizer trim problems, one for problems with the "hydraulics" as I recall; some others lost to my memory, and now these two yesterday, for smoke in the cabin.

THE QUESTION IS:

For all you geniuses like MIKEY2K: if this is (these are) not a Y2K problem, and not caused by embedded systyems in the auto-pilot (or elsewhere throughout the aircraft) generating erratic electical signals and disrupting ordinary flight electronics and mechanics, then the statistical uptick of safety problems is ... presumably ... a pure freak of chance, and by all laws of probability should be over. In fact, it should have been over last week (or earlier) long before two more MD-80's made these latest safe, unplanned landings yesterday. Smoke .... probably those jackscrews heating up ....

SO ........

What's your prediction? Go out on a limb for the benefit of us losers/doomers/braindead forum watchers, pressing our snotty noses up against the windowplane of your expertise, watching the REAL MEN work. Give us your ironclad predictions of how many more MD-80's will be obliged by FAA regs to make emergency landings over the next two weeks of this month. If you are right, and these problems ARE NOT Y2K related, I'm betting you'll have the kahones and confidence in yor expertise to predict there will be no such failures (or perhaps one: as a comfort buffer) as all "your" science and the laws of probability dictate that WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR NECESSITATES (at least within terms of probability) a drop in the number of mechanical failures and safe skies for the MD-80 series over the next ___ months at least. Not so?

So far, much of your commentary I've read on "doomer" forum posts is anything but constructive -- and the constructive stuff is a bit marred by tone. But perhaps this will prove both constructive and instructional -- maybe even scientifically valid!! Make your best prediction then based upon your premises of the factors affecting this rash of MD-80 landings, as to how many more "your REAL science" dictates will, may or should occur over the next two weeks.

Like mine, for example. Not my science but my prediction: I believe the problems are Y2K related, and result from a problem like the buffer overflow of embedded systems. On that basis I PREDICT at least five emergency landings or aborted take-offs of MD-80s, before March 1. That is, unless the entire class is grounded by the FAA first.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 15, 2000

Answers

Mr. Squirrel, I think, I co-exist with one who is capable of doing some research, and tell the truth , from their small arena. Gotta remember their arena is a small pix.( I will smack him/her if they don't come home with an answer, Laymans terms, for us all to understand. Also got an earlier print out from Mr. Hawk and smoke filled cockpit. BTW, he/she (not Hawk, but co-exist) is still Polly. When I first see him/her in a.m., I will smack him/her for that! .-) Much Doomer here.

-- Gotta Wait (fortherese@rch.com), February 15, 2000.

---good for your squirrel blaster! showing some rather large acorns there. Ya, I concur, let's hear from the fabulous flying mensas, see whut they say. I'm a-guessing quite a few more NORMAL emergencies, groundings, and maybe a crash before months end also. I know THIS boy staying on the ground for the near future, at least in a car you can pull over to the side of the road at less than mach 1 full scream boogy speed. Of course, it's all NORMAL, there never was any of that whytookay stuff, all a figbar, just a scam, just made a lotta puter folks rich is all. All the mensas said so, dint they?

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 15, 2000.

I don't know much about heavies or high stabilizer T-tail assemblies that might be interconnected with embedded chips that are going to teats-up but as a commercial pilot, I have had smoke in the cockpit 3 times since 68. Let me assure you that there's nothing that strikes fear quicker and gives you the desire to get on the ground falt than this situation. And all three were caused by burnt wiring under the panel. Serviceable fire extinguishers are a must!

-- John Thomas (cjseed@webtv.net), February 15, 2000.

Amen to that John!

-- Mello1 (mello1@ix.netcom.com), February 15, 2000.

Dear >"<

Want to hear something really scary? A lot of foreign airlines are not checking their MD-80s or similar planes with the same type of jackscrew and stabilizer assembly. According to the news the other night, Mexico is not checking, and a lot of Americanos fly in and around Mexico and other Central American countries. Do you want to factor in non-USA MD-80 plane problems/emergency landings? The estimates might increase quite a bit.

-- Snotty Nosed Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), February 15, 2000.



I'm experimenting a bit with HTML tags, apologies in advance if this doesn't format like I hoped. Squirrel Hunter: Just FYI, the jackscrew is in the tail of the aircraft and outside the pressurized part of the aircraft. It would really have to be blazing before smoke would get into the cockpit or passenger cabin (and then you'd have a loss of pressurization first). I'd be interested in your source of "238 in-service" MD-80's. The number I saw was over 1000 of these aircraft manufactured. Quite a disparity there, but no mattter. To the point. My predictions:
- The number of MD-80 emergency landings which will be caused by a Y2k computer failure in an airborne system --- 0
- The number of MD-80 crashes which will be caused by a Y2k computer failure in an airborne system --- 0
Restrictions and explanations: while this will be true indefinitely, for scorekeeping purposes stay with the time limit of March 1 on this. "Computer" above includes microprocessors, embedded systems, digital controllers. "MD-80" includes DC-9, MD-80/90 and B717 aircraft.
The real challenge will be the scorekeeping. The disappointed doomers desperately seeking justification for their over-preparation will continue to insist that every reported problem must be a Y2k computer problem. If the NTSB comes out with an explanation that doesn't fit their expectations, they will cry "cover-up!!!" Will there be more incidents with the MD-80 reported in the media? Yeah, probably. I'm surprised they don't have reporters at the end of the runway ready to report if an MD-80 comes in with a burned out navigation light. Perhaps the die-hard doomers could change my mind:
- Show me a paper by a recognized expert in the design of real-time computer control systems that agrees with the Paula Gordon overflowing buffer theory, and examples of non-compliant chipsets that force bad date data onto these buffers
and/or
- a paper discussing an algorithm involving a date used in the basic operation any of the following airborne systems: engine, landing gear, environmental control system, any device for controlling or actuating the deflection of any control surface (elevator, ailerons, rudder, flaps, spoiler), radios used by the crew to communicate with air traffic control, and systems used for the sensing, computation, and display of attitude, altitude, airspeed, and magnetic heading. Time-stamping of diagnostic data doesn't count, although I'd be interested in hearing about any of these systems known for a fact to timestamp diagnostic data with date/time rather than some other scheme.
Maybe even some interesting speculation as to why there haven't been more MD-80's reporting problems with the stabilizer system, if a Y2k computer problem is not involved. After all, AS261 crashed within the hour of the GMT rollover from January to February and since then almost another 1/2 month has elapsed. A bit more about the polly/doomer labels -- I've been called both by extremists on both end of the spectrum. I'm willing to consider possibilities but as my handle suggests I'm not going to swallow anything whole just because it's set in front of me. As far as the aircraft systems I discussed above, I know enough about them to disbelieve Y2k could effect them. I'm willing to consider the possibility of problems in other areas, but have been in Missouri recently enough to say "Show Me!!!" This forum has been entertaining, but long on speculation and short on facts.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 16, 2000.

I remember seeing once a cruisader woman on TV who said that all MD 80's ought to be reworked because of the insulation materials used in their wiring. The incidences of smoke therefore seem to fall into a different category than the jackscrew.

Jackscrew? All photos of the jackscrew seem to show an OK jackscrew. It looks to me like the ALUMINUM GIMBAL is the part that strips.

-- W (me@home.now), February 16, 2000.


The other possibility, of course, is that since there was just a major crash which appears to involve the jackscrew assembly, pilots and everyone are (and should be) being extra careful and landing or aborting take-offs for any reason or no reason at all.

My guess is that you will be correct. With all the uncertainty that exists, if ther are only five emergency landings or aborted take-offs of MD-80s by March 1, I will be concerned that the airline industry is being less than cautious.

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.


SH:

Here is an great site for all things related to the MD-80:

http://surf.to/md80

It has an excellent list of all accidents and incidents involving the MD-80. If you take a look, I think you'll see that the number of incidents involving the MD-80 so far are really not more than would be expected given its past history.

BTW, the total number of MD-80 series aircraft produced is over 1100. If you add in the DC-9, it's over 2000. Of that number, about 1750 are still flying with over 1200 flying for US carriers.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), February 16, 2000.


Thanks for weighing in, Mikey. Any solid, integer-laden forecasts as to how many MD-80's or similar series/type craft of the numbers you mentioned will make emergency landings or crash landings by month- end, whether or not attributed to Y2K? Or simply NOT attributed to Y2K? I presume your answer would remain ---- 0 ------ but don't want to put words in your mouth.

I spoke tongue in cheek of course about the smokin' jackscrews.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelay.tower), February 16, 2000.



Thanks Mr. Cooke. Will check out yer link.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrealytower), February 16, 2000.

Dear sqirrelhunter, Do you realize how childish your remarks about Alaskan Air 261 seem???? These were real people that died. They had families that love them and in my opinion, you dishonor them. I spend much of my life in the cockpit of an MD-80, and I would refuse to fly if I thought that it was unsafe. I would do this for my family and for the passengers. Why don't you just focus your life on something else until the investigation is finished and then we might have enough info to have a reasonable discourse about this.

-- jim (jim@jim.com), February 16, 2000.

My prediction: There will be MD-80 incidents reported in the press.
The disappointed doomers will try to make each one fit the Y2k mold.
None of them will.


-- Mike2yk (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 16, 2000.

We can't close the beaches on 4th of July weekend. What would it do to tourism? It's the biggest weekend of the year.

NO WAY was that a shark. It was a boating accident, I'm sure of it!

-- Duke1983 (Duke1983@aol.com), February 16, 2000.


No apologies, jim, for my remarks, which were not intended for the hearing of families of victims, etc. but do not seem injurious to me anyway. Godspeed in all your air travels, especially -- excuse my presumption -- aboard the MD-80.

>"<

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), February 16, 2000.



Whats all this screeching for "EVIDENCE".In the first Place,if this is NOT Y2K related,does it not point to a much bigger Problem?? When You go to Church on Sunday,and hear the Preacher spewing forth,do you demand to see the "EVIDENCE"??

-- Busy (rrr@rrr.corn), February 16, 2000.

BILGEWATER!!!!!!! This is a mechanical problem. Sorry about that-- all you Y2K doomers. Take it from a F O R M E R Y 2 K D O O M E R.

Roberto De Avionico

-- Roberto De Avionico (mainman@iserv.net), February 17, 2000.


I thought it was time to put this back to the top, and get an update. I've seen some more MD-80 series incidents, and was wondering if we have the count to compare to Squirrle Hunter's prediction. (of course, we still have a week to go)

-- Duke1983 (Duke1983@aol.com), February 22, 2000.

As long as we're tracking predictions on this thread, Squirrel Hunter has made a new one on this thread. It is: The MD-80 fleet will be grounded no later than March 10, whether by FAA order or by pilot walkout.

While he may end up correct about the number of incidents (since he didn't say a Y2k bug would be at fault, and I haven't really been keeping track either), I believe that he'll be wrong on the second one. Grounding of the MD-80 fleet is in the realm of possibility, unlike the total lack of any possibility of the AS261 crash being related to a Y2k computer bug in one of the MD-80 airborne systems. But it's so low in the order of possibilities that I'd go for an even bet under the right logistical circumstances (not going to happen, though) of an amount I could afford to lose.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 23, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ