AirTran does it Again - Multiple Electrical Malfunction

[tycoonjack]

Plane with smoke conditions safely lands at LaGuardia

Passengers aboard a Boeing 717 flying into La Guardia Airport were forced to evacuate the plane because of an electrical malfunction aboard the aircraft.

At about 10:45 p.m., the pilot aboard AirTran Flight 356, coming in from Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, notified authorities that the aircraft was experiencing multiple electrical problems, said Tad Hutcheson, a spokesman for AirTran Airways.

The pilot lost some electrical systems and computer screens in the cockpit malfunctioned. Lights in the plane's cabin went out, leaving passengers in darkness.

But the pilot managed to land the plane safely at La Guardia then opened the plane's emergency chutes.

[jetmech717]

Mr. Tycoon, What exactly did you want to prove by displaying that AirTran Airways (and it is AirTran Airways for everyone who puts Airlines) had an emergency landing in LGA. Why does it seem like everyone is sitting back and waiting to pounce on AirTran when something goes wrong, yet almost everyday there is an incident somewhere with other airlines and the public hears nothing of it. For the record the a/c that had to make the emergency landing was found to have several cooling ports for the left power conversion distribution unit (PCDU) plugged with factory installed plugs, its seems that somewhere in the assembly proccess they were not removed, therefore the unit overheated and dumped the L/H side electrical system. Last I heard Boeing is still trying to figure out why the R/H side went as well, but since the L/H controls so much I can only assume that the "no break transfer" (this is were if power is lost to one side the other side will pick it up and the crew would never know except for an alert) I suspect that the right side did not pick up power and the a/c computer screens went out. I believe the Capt said the screens were starting to come back on but all this happened just as he was about to drop his gear for landing but he didnt want to mess w/ anything he made the wise choice and just landed. I think that had he been at altitude and had more time it seems that the R/H side finally picked up and the screens were powering back up, but it takes about a couple of minutes for the plane to power up in the morning so it would be no different in the air. I want you and everyone who reads this to know that Maintenance at AirTran is top notch, we have some of the best mechanics I've seen. I have been here for over 3 years and prior to that I worked at an overhaul facility in Fl. for 2 years and prior to that I served in the US Navy and worked on F/A-18's. I challenge anyone who flys AirTran that if they come through Atlanta chances are you are going to see a mechanic envolved with that a/c. Whether it be a Daily walk-around inspection, an inbound discrepency or just talking to the pilots and making sure everything is good on the a/c. You see Atlanta is AirTrans main hub so this is were most of the planes come through everyday, and we work hard to keep them flying safe. I can assure you we do everything we can to keep it that way. Every morning there are meeting about the events of the day and in these meeting we invite the FAA, Boeing, Rolls Royce, and all maintenance stations. We are constently talking to Boeing about our 717's (and by the way we now have 62 717's and only 8 dc-9's). Keep in mind that nobody else had these a/c before AirTran, we were the first to take delivery, and there were alot of bugs to work out in it, but Boeing has been with us the entire way and has given us a SAFE and RELIABLE not to mention pretty fun to work on A/C. I just wanted to clear the air a bit on this, I hope everyone will be a little more understanding, especially any of you invloved in aviation, because you know how it is with A/C and that things happen all the time to all Airlines big and small. Thank you

[BovineOne]

Originally Posted by jetmech717

What exactly did you want to prove by displaying that AirTran Airways (and it is AirTran Airways for everyone who puts Airlines) had an emergency landing in LGA. Why does it seem like everyone is sitting back and waiting to pounce on AirTran when something goes wrong...

Indeed, other airlines occasionally have emergency landings as well, and they are mentioned in the press (and here) when they do. Why do you take offense when such emergencies are pointed out here for the convenience of our readers? Are you trying to promote a concealment of these reports from the public's eyes so that your company can continue its hazardous actions without objection or regulation from anyone else?

If indeed these types of events are "normal" and "regular" in the industry (as you claim) then there is nothing to be concerned about when they occur and are posted about, since they happen equally to all airlines. (which is of course not the case.)

However people rightfully take notice of when an airline with a history of failures, catastrophes, and emergencies has yet another event--since they seemingly occur at a higher frequency for Airtran than for some other commercial airlines that fly the same routes.

Originally Posted by jetmech717

I challenge anyone who flys AirTran that if they come through Atlanta chances are you are going to see a mechanic envolved (sic) with that a/c.

Or perhaps that's just because Airtran's aging fleet is in continual need for repair... Perhaps it's also noteworthy that you make an effort to point out the excessive attention that is needed to keep the A/C systems operational, BUT NOT routine inspections of any of the more vital systems (like say the engines, gear, or other essential flight systems). Obviously this is because the A/C is one of the most noticable things that vocal passengers might complain about when it is operating below normal efficiency, while dead passengers don't really complain about a whole lot...

[jetmech717]

Bovineone wrote:

If indeed these types of events are "normal" and "regular" in the industry (as you claim) then there is nothing to be concerned about when they occur and are posted about, since they happen equally to all airlines. (which is of course not the case.)

The only offense I take to this remark is the fact that you are as naive as you are. Do you actually believe that an airplane brand new from the factory (which is what our 717 fleet is) would act any different whether it has AirTran, Delta, United, or any other name on the side of it!

Bovineone wrote:

However people rightfully take notice of when an airline with a history of failures, catastrophes, and emergencies has yet another event--since they seemingly occur at a higher frequency for Airtran than for some other commercial airlines that fly the same routes.

Once again you are going only going to see and hear what you want too. Believe me when I tell you that all airlines have occurrences and you may or may not hear about it in the news or paper. There are politics in aviation just like any other business. Its like when I was in the Navy when we were out on a cruise planes crashed and people fell off of the deck, and the rest of the world knew nothing about it, but let there be a war and the media is ready to hype anything up, so let a plane go over the side of the boat or a marine fall off the deck while playing football and now all of a sudden the whole nation knows and thinks this is bad why are we crashing these jets or helicopers, and why are these guys falling off of the ship, yet they never even knew that these things happen on almost EVERY deployment during peace time and they never even heard about it. Just know that this is why commercial A/C have so many backup systems so that if one fails the A/C can still fly and land safely.


Bovineone wrote:

Or perhaps that's just because Airtran's aging fleet is in continual need for repair... Perhaps it's also noteworthy that you make an effort to point out the excessive attention that is needed to keep the A/C systems operational, BUT NOT routine inspections of any of the more vital systems (like say the engines, gear, or other essential flight systems). Obviously this is because the A/C is one of the most noticable things that vocal passengers might complain about when it is operating below normal efficiency, while dead passengers don't really complain about a whole lot...

If you were smart you would go back and erase this whole paragragh to avoid looking stupid. First of all I just wrote that AirTran now has 62 717's and yet another change we are down to 7 dc-9's. How in the world is this an aging fleet, Oh wait our oldest 717 is 3 1/2 years old your right they are getting up there. Second of all I cannot debate that it takes attention to keep A/C systems operational because it does (Though in most cases not as "excessive" as you describe). This is why all airlines have trained "FAA CERTIFIED" A&P Technicians. Third of all, and I cannot for the life of me even fathom where you got this idea from, but you actually in your mind believe that we dont inspect the "engines, gear, or other essential flight systems". As I said before.. we have a strict maintenance program and yes it does include a thorough inspection of the above mentioned items and a few other vital systems daily and weekly. As for your last sentence I will not comment on that, It happened before my time here and we all know the real reasons and I dont wish to hash up the past in respect for the families and all people involved. Just know that ALL AIRLINES learned from that tragedy.

[B717mech]

I have been sitting back and reading all these threads and reply's about AirTran Airways. I feel it's time for me to reply. I have been a mechanic for this airline going on 8yrs now. I agree with most that when our name was ValuJet we did have some problems, and needed improvement, Flight 592 was a a great loss to everyone involved. Lets look back and see the cause of that crash was a breakdown on several sides, ValuJet, SaberTech,and the FAA. Like Jetmech717 said ALL AIRLINES LEARNED from that crash. Now although our name has changed I don't believe we have in anyway tried to conceal it. So let me pose a question. Why would we as a company in any advertisement say "AirTran Airways formerly ValuJet Airlines" or any news article or press release? We wouldn't nor would any other company. When any person or passenger asked me where I work and then they ask was that ValuJet I always say yes. AirTran has made and is still making changes to improve our maintenance program. We all know that there is always room for improvement in any business. We have had major management changes upper, middle and lower. Our Training has improved greatly, and most of our mechanics take great pride in their work. I am not trying to toot our own horn, do things get over looked sometimes? Yes they Do but not as often as you think. Bovineone what industry do you work in? Not to insult anyones intelligence, but the general public and the media have no clue about the aviation industy. For example when the media reports an airplane is unairworthy, most people think the plane is falling apart, when actually it could be that, one VHF radio isn't working, or the radar isn't working and bad weather is in the area.

It does seem to me that a few people in this tread have personal hatred for AirTran why I don't know. So I ask that you fly our Airline and see for yourself how our planes are maintained. I welcome anyone to ask me any questions about the airplanes and Maintenance. Bovineone I personally invite you to come to Atlanta and see for yourself.

Thanks for everyones time.

[dbaker]

Since when does a single radio failure make a plane not airworthy?

Check the MELs and the POH for required items, placard it inoperative, disconnect it, and get on with life.

[jetmech717]

Well since you know so much about MEL's then you should know that an airplane cannot fly if the #1 & #2 comm radio's are inoperative (If the a/c only has 2 radios), this is a must fix, but I am pleased that you agree that there are some systems that can be placed on MEL's (Minimuim Euipment List) to be fixed at night and still fly safely.

[B717mech]

Check any MEL book and you will see aircraft equipt with just 2 VHF radios have to have both working to dispatch. Thus aircraft is unairworthy. Same goes for nav radios .

[dbaker]

Originally Posted by B717mech

Check any MEL book and you will see aircraft equipt with just 2 VHF radios have to have both working to dispatch. Thus aircraft is unairworthy. Same goes for nav radios .

Okay, I checked the POH on my desk.

23-02-S NAV/COM #1 INSTALLATION - NO G.S.
23-03-A NAV/COM #2 INSTALLATION - WITH G.S

If you look up the "-A," it says "optional equipment items which are in addition to required or standard items"

See FAR 91.213 for more information.

And you claim to be an airframe and powerplant mechanic? Perhaps you should avoid making such wide generalizations.

[jetmech717]

While what you stated may be an option in the POH, that applies to general aviation. In the big boys world of flying ie... Commercial Aircraft they have a slightly different set of rules. If an a/c only has (2) VHF comm radios then they must both be working, but if there are (3) installed then you may INOP (1) of them (place on MEL). And you claim to be a ????what do you claim to be anyways? Look Mr. Baker your nit picking now, If you cannot prove that we are unsafe then I ask you to remove your warning page on AirTran. Thank you for your time.

[B717mech]

Mr. D

As my counterpart has already replied to you, I will as well. Maybe I should have been more clear on the the type and size of aircraft I was refering to. I thought you might be able to remember we were and still are talking about large transport aircraft. The big boys fly far part 121 not part 91 so in this case 2 comm/nav radios are required. So by the way, why would you have a POH on your desk?? What do you do???

[dbaker]

I better double-check everything you guys say to make sure there aren't any technicalities or qualifications that I'm not aware of. You originally say:

Originally Posted by B717mech

Check any MEL book and you will see aircraft equipt with just 2 VHF radios have to have both working to dispatch. Thus aircraft is unairworthy. Same goes for nav radios .

So I check my POH and the MEL doesn't require COM2.

Now I'm told that the "any MEL book" statement only refers to large, commercial jets being uperated under FAR121.

[B717mech]

Like I said before, I thought we were talking about transport catagory aircraft. I will say you are right General aviation aircraft flying VFR can fly on 1 comm but any IFR rated aircraft including G/A 2 required. So are you ever going to answer the question about what do you do? It has been asked by two of us now.

[yyzray]

All those who feel that Air Tran is the current whipping boy raise their hands......As one who does not work for an airline but works at the airport (YYZ) and also sells travel, I would like to pass on my 2 cents worth.
Bovineone writes that all emergency landings make the media. While the more newsjuicy (not to be confused with newsworthy) aircraft events are displayed on the evening news i.e. US Air making a landing with one of the main gear not down and locked and many other events, I know of many cases where aircraft have been diverted to YYZ, because of inflight problems that required immediate attention and have not made it to the media. It is very impressive to see all the emergency response vehicles waiting alongside the runway while a 767 with one engine shut down lands. But as long as nobody is injured, or there is no smoke pouring from the engine or cabin, it will never make the news. These airlines include UA, DL, AA, CO and others. Many a time I have arrived at the airport in the morning to see BA still sitting at the gate, knowing full well it should have departed 12 hours earlier.
Every airline has it's events - if the airlines changed names every time there was an accident AA, DL, UA, US, and others would have been renamed many times over by now. The airline business is in a serious jam and it all can't be blamed on 9/11...so throw a bucket of cold water over yourselves and realize that inspite of best efforts, not everything can be prevented.

[yyzray]

All those who feel that Air Tran is the current whipping boy raise their hands......As one who does not work for an airline but works at the airport (YYZ) and also sells travel, I would like to pass on my 2 cents worth.
Bovineone writes that all emergency landings make the media. While the more newsjuicy (not to be confused with newsworthy) aircraft events are displayed on the evening news i.e. US Air making a landing with one of the main gear not down and locked and many other events, I know of many cases where aircraft have been diverted to YYZ, because of inflight problems that required immediate attention and have not made it to the media. It is very impressive to see all the emergency response vehicles waiting alongside the runway while a 767 with one engine shut down lands. But as long as nobody is injured, or there is no smoke pouring from the engine or cabin, it will never make the news. These airlines include UA, DL, AA, CO and others. Many a time I have arrived at the airport in the morning to see BA still sitting at the gate, knowing full well it should have departed 12 hours earlier.
Every airline has it's events - if the airlines changed names every time there was an accident AA, DL, UA, US, and others would have been renamed many times over by now. The airline business is in a serious jam and it all can't be blamed on 9/11...so throw a bucket of cold water over yourselves and realize that inspite of best efforts, not everything can be prevented.