Just so no one thinks that stabilizer problems on this series of aircraft never happened before Y2K.

OK Hawk, have at it :^)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: http://aviation-safety.net/specials/asa261/stabilizer.htm

29 JAN 1981 DC-9-14 Texas International Airlines N1302T Inoperative stabilizer trim noted after takeoff. Returned to Birmingham, AL and replaced defective components.

16 SEP 1981 DC-9-14 Texas International Airlines N1302T Flight returned to St. Louis, MO due to stabilizer trim inoperative in nosedown. Maintenance lubricated dry bearing. Checked ok.

14 FEB 1985 DC-9-31 Eastern Airlines N8918E Runaway stabilizer trim stopped with brake. Uneventful landing at Chicago-O'Hare. Unable to duplicate problem.

4 APR 1996 MD-88 Delta Airlines N904DL Left captains auto pilot commanded an uncontrolled nose up trim during climb. Additionally, it commanded a climb when level at cruise. Found detent roller spring main horizontal stab trim relay upper spring missing. Replaced spring and ran stab, operation normal.

17 OCT 1996 DC-9-51 Hawaiian EI-CBH Hawaiian Flight 248 - During descent into Kailua, out of trim light came on. Stabilizer trim indicator full forward and loose. Could not move trim indicator forward or aft stabilizer was moving when trim was actuated. Manufactured and replaced cable run 129. Adjusted per MM 27-40-0. Ground ops check good following repairs.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000

Answers

Five in twenty years vs ten in two months?

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), March 04, 2000.

Kritter:

None of those stab problems caused a crash. It's also very likely that there were other stab problems that were fixed in the air and didn't generate an incident report.

Every time a commercial aircraft is involved in a crash due to apparent mechanical problems, the number of incident reports skyrockets for several months after the crash. The same thing happened with 737's after two crashed due to vertical stab problems.

Pilots tend to be very sensitive to any apparent problems after a crash, as well they should be. My point in posting the article is that there's nothing inherent in Y2K and horizontal stabilizer problems.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 04, 2000.

I've been following this and I remember seeing only 3 in-flight incidents in the last couple of months due to stab actuator problems. Yes there were other problems found in inspections and there were incidents due to problems with other systems. Also, I doubt that every such incident is in the data base Jim quoted.

Also of interest is the Sept 81 incident where a mechanical failure allowed motion in only one direction.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), March 04, 2000.

Jeeeez Jim, every time you post your credibility declines another notch.

You show us that there were 5 incidents over a period of 20 years. Can't you do the math? Okay I'll explain it you then. Jim, that means there was an average of one incident every 4 years.

This is supposed to convince us that several dozen incidents in one month is not out of the ordinary? Lol... I don't even need to debate you Jim, you're doing a great job by yourself!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 04, 2000.

There seem to be some steps missing in this progression. Let's see if I can reconstruct the steps here, filling in the blanks with appropriate assumptions as necessary...

1) Flight 261 crashed with a stabilizer problem

2) Depending on how you look at the data, there have/haven't been an unusual number of crashes over the last 2 months. So let's assume the number went way up, pending something impossibly definitive. Any indication that the actual number did NOT go up is impossible by definition.

3) Airplanes are known to contain digital logic. The relation of any digital logic to stabilizer control is unknown. Therefore, the *difference* in digital logic involvement between autopilot and manual operation is also unknown. So let's assume BOTH modes make critical use of this logic, and thus the stabilizer cannot be otherwise controlled by any means.

4) We have NO indication (doh!) that the unknown logic which may or may not have contributed to any of these various crashes/problem reports made any use of dates. Indeed, we have testimony that only the most primitive logic was involved in what is almost entirely a mechanical system. So let's assume this primitive logic used dates, for purposes totally irrelevant to the function of any such controls.

5) Now that we've assumed a trend, and assumed digital logic where it may not exist, and assumed dates are used where as yet nobody on earth can imagine any possible use for dates, and assumed that manual operation cannot avoid such dates, let's assume the dates in this logic were incorrectly programmed.

6) Finally, we assume that our assumed misprogrammed assumed dates were the primary contributing factor for all of this assumed increase of reported incidents.

7) THEREFORE, we have an epidemic of Y2K problems! You can't deny it! You might question the assumptions, if you're a moron. You might believe the false NTSB determinations if you're a gullible fool. You might even get half credit for believing Colonel what's-his-face who pops up after every crash to claim it was shot down by a terrorist missile. But if you believe him, you've bought into the WRONG set of arbitrary assumptions.

Hey, this is FUN! It's like playing tennis with the net down. You can't lose!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 04, 2000.

Hawk:

MY credibility goes down a notch! Pretty funny. And how many horizontal stab problems were reported? Where did you get those numbers?

Remember the challenge? I've been looking for your theory posted over in the airdisasters.com forum. I haven't seen it yet. I can only conclude there's some reason why you wouldn't want it seen by professional pilots.

Flint:

What can I say? Your credibility is now sinking along with mine :^)

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

That's what I mean Jim. Nothing you are talking about has anything to support it, thus you have ZERO credibility.

I went to the so-called "airdisasters.com" a week ago when you first asked me to check it out.

THERE IS NOTHING THERE JIM!!!

And you say you have been looking for my posts over there???

Sounds to me like you are flat out lying, and pretty much everything that you post is a bunch of horseshit. Admit it Jim, you're just a troll trying to get an argument going by making stuff up, because you know absolutely nothing about anything.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

Admit it Jim, you're just a troll trying to get an argument going by making stuff up, because you know absolutely nothing about anything.

Anybody else see the, umm, irony in this statement?

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), March 05, 2000.

What's strange is that people attempt to provide serious refutation to such an absurd proposition. Like earnestly trying to build a case that night is dark because the sun is on the other side of the earth. Why make such an effort? Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

And then of course in addition to the liars and name callers we have the arrogant critics such as Flint, Hoff, and Decker. Hey Flint, what is this all about?...

"What reasonable participants? None of these fora exist to discover the truth, they exist to create and promulgate one. Admit it, your underlying motivation was the same as mine -- to kick the anthill and watch the reactions. And you also recognized that reasonable analysis was the most effective boot to kick with. The CPR screaming attacks, for all they preached a different doctrine, were not qualitatively different from the TB2K approach in general.

But hell, you and I chimed in at least partially to feel superior in our own idiosyncratic way. It was fun. Surely we harbored no delusions of making converts."

Having a bit of a self-esteem problem there pal? Think it's fun to go around "kicking" others to make yourself feel high and mighty?

I can see why you are whining like a baby because you can't get into the new forum. You're not going to have anyone on this forum that will put up with your condescending ridicule, and no one to kiss your ass because you impress them with your arrogance.

Guess you'll probably end up beating your dog or something to make yourself feel superior.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

No Hoff, you're not the only one. I think the sentence in Hawk's post just prior to the one you quoted was ironic also.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), March 05, 2000.

Hawk:

OK, Ill try and make this easy for you. Go to http://airdisaster.com/ and click on the first button on the left side of the page. It's called "Air Safety Forum". Is this the one you couldn't find? Should be easy for a digital systems guy like you.

Now, post your MD-80 UTC rollover digital interface to the horizontal stabilzer theory there. You can just cut and paste some of your old TB2000 messages to make it easy - minus the profanities of course, since it won't help your image.

The forum has lots of commercial pilots including MD-80 series jocks. I'm sure you'd be doing them a service letting them know of the imminent peril you've discovered. Heck, it's almost like a public service.

I'll be watching, Hawk. If you truly believe you've discovered something here, you'll post it where the professionals can review your ideas.

BTW, aren't you the guy who posted over on the new board about civilized discourse? If so, how come you're the only one in this thread with such crude language?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.

LOL!! Now I KNOW everything is back to normal, with Hawk & Mikey 2k having a go at it!!

-- Daisy Jane (deeekstrand@access1.com), March 05, 2000.

Haaa haaa, that's a good one Jim, trying to make it sound like it's my fault I couldn't find it! You're so dumb you posted the wrong URL! On at least three separate posts you said it was airdisasters.com you moron!

"Tell you what...go to http://airdisasters.com and go to the Air Safety forum."

"I've looked over at airdisasters and haven't seen anything from you yet."

"I've been looking for your theory posted over in the airdisasters.com forum."

Lol... you must be related to Robert Cook, you're both dumber than a freakin mule!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

Who was it that said something recently about not being able to read? Oh yeah, it was Hawk.

Hawk, you went to the wrong site. Since you can't read, here is a hot-link that's airdisaster.com singular, not airdisasters.com plural

And no, Jim Cooke did not mention the plural spelling. Hawk just can't read. So, who's dumber than the mule? Oh yeah, it's Hawk.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), March 05, 2000.

Oh here comes Mickey to the rescue, sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong, and who obviously doesn't know what the hell he is talking about again.

See for yourself...

The site address is spelled a i r d i s a s t e r s . c o m (see the "s" yet Mickey?) by none other than Jim Cooke.

Just another example of how polly trolls read, but they don't SEE what they DON'T WANT to see! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 05, 2000.

Hawk, you have but 5 messages back from this one to see that it is spelled in the singular. And 2 messages back you have a hot link to that site.

So are we going to read more rumbling and name calling from you on this forum? Or are we going to read your inane theories on airdisaster.com's forum?

In the end, it's not you who decides where my nose does or doesn't belong.

Good to see you're still igoring me.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), March 05, 2000.

Did any of you check out Malcolm's thread on the old TB2000 relating to the Bermuda triangle wherein he posted a link to airline incidents for the past XX years BY MONTH? I clicked on January, 1990 and the number of crashes with fatalities in THAT month led me to wonder why I ever flew that year. Of course I had NO IDEA which of the planes were of a particular type.

Perhaps we should post that link here and some of you "in the know about types" folks could explain which types failed?

Regarding the 's' or lack of 's', I found one reference in a Jim post WITH the 's' and two without the 's'. So...looks like everyone's right about THAT one. By golly, I sure hope I never make a typo. It could haunt me for YEARS.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 05, 2000.

Sheesh. Shouldn't we be debating whether the earth is flat and rests on the back of a turtle? At least you could build a stronger case for it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

Hawk:

Sorry for posting the Airdisaster site with the extra "s" on occasion and confusing you. Of course, I also posted the site name correctly most of the time - and you still haven't posted your theory there yet. This thread should have removed all confusion thanks to those "sticking their noses in" to help.

So, Hawk, are you preparing your post now? When can we expect to see it there? I was just over there and don't see it yet. Think of all those poor pilots who are risking their lives without your much needed information, Hawk.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 05, 2000.