Continental, FAA investigate MD-80 emergency landing

February 22, 2000 Web posted at: 1:58 a.m. EST (0658 GMT)

SOUTH BEND, Indiana (CNN) -- Continental Airlines is conducting an investigation after an MD-80 with 145 people aboard made an emergency landing in Indiana following a sudden loss of altitude. Nobody was injured.

Flight 1416 was headed to Cleveland from Las Vegas carrying 140 passengers and a crew of five, Continental said. It landed at South Bend on Monday afternoon. Members of the crew said the emergency was caused by a trim problem with a wing flap.

The MD-80 series of aircraft has been subject to government-ordered safety inspections in the United States following the January 31 crash of an Alaska Airlines MD-83 off the southern California coast. All 88 people aboard Alaska Airlines Flight 261 were killed.

Tom Kenney, regional spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration in Chicago, said the crew of Monday's flight reported trim problems and asked for permission to land in South Bend.

Wing flap problem noted

The problem was with an aileron -- a movable wing flap that can be used to control the plane's rolling and banking movements.

"We'll do a complete inspection of the aircraft now and we'll report our findings to the FAA," said Continental spokesman Ned Walker in Houston.

Walker said the plane was "fully compliant with FAA airworthiness directives" issued following the January 31 disaster. Investigators are probing the possibility that a stabilizer malfunction caused that crash.

The Federal Aviation Administration has reported that during the inspections 23 aircraft have been found to have problems with the mechanism that operates their horizontal stabilizers.

MD-80 incident on day before Alaska Airlines crash

In a separate incident, officials for Spirit Airlines have confirmed that one of their MD-80s went into a steep dive while flying from Ft. Myers, Florida, to Detroit on January 30 -- the day before the disaster off California.

According to Spirit Airlines officials, the pilot of the plane attempted to climb from 31,000 to 35,000 feet but never made it to that altitude.

Instead, passengers said, the jet dove sharply, recovered, then dove again and recovered.

"I was noticing a vibration in the background that I've never felt before and was kind of wondering what it was in the back of my mind and it kept getting worse and worse," passenger Richard Aussicker said.

One aviation expert said such events are signs that point to a stall -- or the inability of the wings to maintain lift. The airline said the aircraft was too heavy to fly as high as it was.

Aircraft back in service

"Whether air traffic control gave the pilot that altitude, and he accepted it, or whether the pilot requested that altitude -- we don't know the answer to that yet," said Greg Van Brunt of Spirit Airlines.

The plane's pilot, whom the airline won't name, has been suspended with pay. The MD-80 aircraft involved in the incident is back in the air.

---

Okay, so this plane supposedly passed the inspection of the jackscrew assembly, yet it still had an incident with "a sudden loss of altitude."

Now, anyone who knows even just a little about planes knows that there is no way a problem with an aileron could cause the plane to suddenly drop nearly 1000 ft.(posted in another thread) unless it first caused the plane to go into an extreme bank. The passengers would have been alarmed, yet there is no mention of the plane banking.

I think what happened here was that the same faulty chip as Flight 261 was malfunctioning, causing the stabilizer to misbehave. Continental, because they feared the FAA would come down on them, perhaps for not doing as thorough of an inspection as they should have, immediately report that the problem was with an aileron.

After all, why would a spokesman for Continental even bother to make a statement like this, if it had nothing to do with the stabilizer?....

"Walker said the plane was "fully compliant with FAA airworthiness directives" issued following the January 31 disaster."

Seems a bit defensive, doesn't it?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 22, 2000

Answers

Hawk,

I think you are whipping a dead horse.... Look for someone to demand the part number, source code, and a link to a site that says it was Y2k related....... not gunna happen :-)

To me.. if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and flys like a duck, I'll look to see if it's a mallard before I shoot it down :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 22, 2000.

Yes Hawk, it does seem defensive. It was a defense against ignoramuses who will insist that a problem with an aileron is related to a problem with the stabilizer.

But I have no doubt that you will overcome their defenses.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 22, 2000.

You're right Casper, and I don't want to try to tell anyone else what to think. I already know what I think, and the reason I'm still posting this is because I'm showing the shills and trolls that trying to play the part of Thought Police isn't going to work around here.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 22, 2000.

Yay Hawk!!!! Don't let the thought police shut you down.

As a parody of yourself, you provide some much needed comic relief to this forum.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), February 22, 2000.

Poor little hawk, it appears that even your doomer mates are getting a little tired of your kooky theories and continual nonsense!

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 23, 2000.

Hawk.. keep-on-keeping-on..... It sure is looking like a duck to me.... and I don't need a DNA test to prove it :-)

Mikey...... no... forget it

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 23, 2000.

MS,

You need to work on your reading and comp. skills

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 23, 2000.

Keep thinking out loud Hawk, I'm still interested. Don't worry of the "gum" that stuck under your shoe and keep on keeping on.

-- Chris (*#$%^@pond.com), February 23, 2000.

Mr. Sane, are you including me in "doomer mates"?

That would be pretty neat if you are, being called a polly troll and a doomer all on the same day without changing my position.

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

Mikey, no I wasn't including you in that category. I was thinking of people more likeminded to the hawkster.

Actually I'm not sure what hawk is, he seems to have a one track mind, or maybe he's lost his mind too, seeing that he admitted his brain wasn't in his head. Maybe it's in his little finger.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 23, 2000.

.... or another part of his body.

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

Did you know that some of the chips that aliens embedded in abductees heads were not Y2K compliant? No offence intended to any one. I just cant resist an attempt at humour tonigh

-- Roy (bushwhacker@north woods.com), February 23, 2000.

One of the abductees must have been Hawk. Well, he seems to have non- compliant chips on the brain, wherever and ifever it's located.

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

Thanks Casper and Chris! BTW, that isn't gum on my shoe, it is sh!t. d:o)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 23, 2000.

And the baby-trolls.......and the wannabe-newbies come out in force.

Another thread shot to shit...... wonder what they are paying for fuel.......

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 23, 2000.

Guess they are only paying $.85 a gallon, for fuel... and the stock market is doing so well..... Sigh..

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 23, 2000.

I don't know what is causing all these airplanes to malfunction, but it sure as hell isn't normal! Every day there is a report of a mishap or emergency landing. Sheesh! Something is going on and I don't think Hawks scenarios should completely be dismissed. Why aren't the NTSB or the FAA giving us an explanation? I've been planning on going to Las Vegas,guess i'll get there the "old-fashioned way"!

-- dory (crtwheel@eburg.com), February 23, 2000.

HAWK, who are these groupees you seem to have following you all the time...it sure is hard to get an intelligent discussion going when all you invite are cadavres from the local morg! I'm outta here, hope to find less of the empty-headed ones on the next site. Oh dory! I'm not talkin about you....it seems that you got yourself involved in a place with a skid mark!

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 23, 2000.

There's nothing like a "spririted"Happy Family!! I wonder who owns all these near Cripples(Aircraft).Are they still beeing "leased"from some Junk Yard,owned by a big Fat Greaseball with a big Cigar in his Mouth??Who is employing and paying the Tech.Crews working on these Planes,the Airlines or the "Leasors"? What is their Attitude these days,regarding working conditions,pay etc?If their Attitude is bad,remember they were neither born or hired with that Attitude.AND,who is saving all that Money,training these Guys.:)

-- Hopeful (Questions@answers.comming?), February 23, 2000.