MD-87 in flames in Houston field, all occupants apparently evacuated

Post on r/flying from u/htxflyer23:

"I'm based at TME and see this aircraft every time I'm there, I have never seen it fly or even move in the 6 months I've been based there."
 
Maybe its one of the contract aircraft working for USCIS/CBP?
 
The LLC address is the same as listed for Flair Builders in Spring, TX, run by J. Alan Kent, as published on their website.
 
The runway to TME is 6600ft. Seems a little short for a plan of this size based on what I am reading -- its probably enough runway to get to takeoff speed, but doesn't leave much room for error. Reports say the plan went another 1,000 feet past the end of the runway so a longer runway would be likely resulted in aborted takeoff with no incident -- thoughts ?
 
According to adsb, looks like it departed the country on 4/21/2021, returned 4/26/2021.
 
Jon Silberman said:
The runway to TME is 6600ft. Seems a little short for a plan of this size based on what I am reading -- its probably enough runway to get to takeoff speed, but doesn't leave much room for error. Reports say the plan went another 1,000 feet past the end of the runway so a longer runway would be likely resulted in aborted takeoff with no incident -- thoughts ?
Click to expand...
6600 feet should be plenty if planned properly. The MD-87 is not a huge airplane.
Heck, LGA is only 7000.
 
Kritchlow said:
6600 feet should be plenty if planned properly. The MD-87 is not a huge airplane.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's not a problem, even at heavier weights. We only had a few, but the -87 was always my favorite to fly because it had -219 engines on an airframe that was lighter than the -83/88 and therefore a much better performer.
 
kayoh190 said:
Yeah it's not a problem, even at heavier weights. We only had a few, but the -87 was always my favorite to fly because it had -219 engines on an airframe that was quite a bit lighter than the -83/88 and therefore a much better performer.
Click to expand...
I geuss my question is does that leave enough room to abort the takeoff -- I realize it can be done but is it safe/smart to do on a runway of that length in the event you need to abort ?
 
Why do they call it the Mad Dog?
 
^I would assume "yes" - given that it was commercially flown for decades to airports with similar, or even smaller, runways.
 
Jon Silberman said:
I geuss my question is does that leave enough room to abort the takeoff -- I realize it can be done but is it safe/smart to do on a runway of that length in the event you need to abort ?
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for that operation, but in part 121 we must be able to abort or we can’t go.
 
Another site stating pax were a group of friends and family of owner going to Boston to watch Astros game.
 
Jon Silberman said:
I geuss my question is does that leave enough room to abort the takeoff -- I realize it can be done but is it safe/smart to do on a runway of that length in the event you need to abort ?
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s a jet thing. I have worked for some very shady people and never been expected to operate without safe performance criteria. 6600 feet is not that short and the airplane in question isn’t really that big.
 
It brings forth a good feeling to read all evacuated safely. When I saw a brief video news report on this, complete with orange flames and huge billowing clouds of black smoke, the probability that outcome had occurred seemed to be remote.

It's a good day.
 
6,600 feet is usually fine for any narrow body airliners, maybe a few with weight restrictions but perfectly doable. MDW sees a lot of 737 and MD-80 type traffic, and it's longest is only 6500 feet.
 
On ramp at TME earlier this year.
 

Attachments

  • E0690014-C9FF-4461-816B-D6FB48C165D6.jpeg
    E0690014-C9FF-4461-816B-D6FB48C165D6.jpeg
    102.1 KB · Views: 107
Jon Silberman said:
The runway to TME is 6600ft. Seems a little short for a plan of this size based on what I am reading -- its probably enough runway to get to takeoff speed, but doesn't leave much room for error. Reports say the plan went another 1,000 feet past the end of the runway so a longer runway would be likely resulted in aborted takeoff with no incident -- thoughts ?
Click to expand...
Very possible that the abort was initiated after V1 because of some circumstance that we don’t know about (see speculation regarding misconfiguration). If that’s the case, brake energy for stopping may not have been adequate, and a longer runway wouldn’t have made much difference.
Kritchlow said:
I cannot speak for that operation, but in part 121 we must be able to abort or we can’t go.
Click to expand...
All of the Part 25 airplanes I’ve flown have it as a Limitation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Very possible that the abort was initiated after V1 because of some circumstance that we don’t know about (see speculation regarding misconfiguration). If that’s the case, brake energy for stopping may not have been adequate, and a longer runway wouldn’t have made much difference.

All of the Part 25 airplanes I’ve flown have it as a Limitation.
Click to expand...

This accident is reminding me of the overrun at Willow Run in Detroit more recently. That MD had a pitch control failure that prevented rotation. They had no choice but a very high speed abort.
 
Does a mad dog have a takeoff config warning?
 
midwestpa24 said:
This accident is reminding me of the overrun at Willow Run in Detroit more recently. That MD had a pitch control failure that prevented rotation. They had no choice but a very high speed abort.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought, too.
 
aftCG said:
Does a mad dog have a takeoff config warning?
Click to expand...

Yes. Your post recalls the crash of MD-82 Northwest Flight 255 at Detroit Metro in 1987. The crew interrupted the taxi checklist, and when they resumed, slats and flaps were skipped. Somehow power to the configuration warning system was lost, and the crew didn't detect the issue. The plane lifted off, but almost immediately rolled inverted and crashed on a roadway.

All of the crew and pax were killed, with the exception of a four year old girl. She was found in the debris, still strapped in her seat.


https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870816-2
 
6600 ft would be plenty of runway. especially at sea level and in an executive configuration. Looked like the reversers were not deployed. However I believe the performance certification would have been without reversers for the stop distance. TO configuration? , it would have had a configuration warning horn. But did it work? one CB would deactivate it. As I remember, if the FO wasn't a bit careful releasing the shoulder harness, it could grab a CB and ultimately pull the breaker. B-737 can do the same. If it only flew occasionally, that leads me to wonder about crew proficiency. Flying takes practice. I think I still have my MD-80 flight manuals. But that was 1990 the last time I flew it. Cockpit was very quiet.
 
3393RP said:
Yes. Your post recalls the crash of MD-82 Northwest Flight 255 at Detroit Metro in 1987. The crew interrupted the taxi checklist, and when they resumed, slats and flaps were skipped. Somehow power to the configuration warning system was lost, and the crew didn't detect the issue. The plane lifted off, but almost immediately rolled inverted and crashed on a roadway.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870816-2
Click to expand...

That's the one that came to my mind. Friends of mine lost their father on that flight.
 
3393RP said:
Yes. Your post recalls the crash of MD-82 Northwest Flight 255 at Detroit Metro in 1987. The crew interrupted the taxi checklist, and when they resumed, slats and flaps were skipped. Somehow power to the configuration warning system was lost, and the crew didn't detect the issue. The plane lifted off, but almost immediately rolled inverted and crashed on a roadway.

All of the crew and pax were killed, with the exception of a four year old girl. She was found in the debris, still strapped in her seat.


https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870816-2
Click to expand...

Was that the one where the CVR recorded a cockpit discussion during taxi about another (recent) similar 121 accident, while they too forgot to configure and all died several minutes later in a similar manner? Whatever accident I'm thinking of, that was eerie.

Agree with the idea that there must be something not immediately apparent, whether that was wrong config, incorrect takeoff power setting, or just misinterpreted performance data......any of which could be disastrous, especially if combined with an engine failure (which is speculation I have heard). These airplanes weren't designed so that safety was a crap shoot in the event of an engine failure on the takeoff roll; they were designed to either stop or fly away if the performance numbers are adhered to. Something made them abort above V1 or they would have stopped, all other things being equal. Those seem to be historical top contenders for reasons people end up in that corner.
 
Last edited:
midwestpa24 said:
6,600 feet is usually fine for any narrow body airliners, maybe a few with weight restrictions but perfectly doable. MDW sees a lot of 737 and MD-80 type traffic, and it's longest is only 6500 feet.
Click to expand...
An MD-87 that light would fricken soar off of that runway…
21 vs 139+5 is a huge difference, even if an exec config would be slightly heavier with the hot tub full.

Someone on another board noted that it was likely fueled for a round trip, given that fuel cost in Boston is almost twice of what it is at home base. Still not a big deal for that airplane, especially if it was an LR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top