Talk:McDonnell Douglas MD-80/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Series

  • I believe the MD-90 and MD-95 were the only ones in the MD-90 series, so 'series' should be removed from the 'MD-90 series' and 'MD-95 series' section headers. Any arguement against this? Thanks.. -Fnlayson 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an entirely appropriate decision. I am even in favour of shortening down the whole MD-95 entry so that it basically refers to the Boeing-717 article and only says that the MD-95 was a drawing-board prototype of the B-717. No MD-95 ever flew under that designation, and the B-717 was in many respects (hyd and power systems etc.) a redesigned aircraft.Andeln 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The changes after it was renamed 717 in 1998 were minor overall. The MD-95 section has been shortened a couple times already. It's OK now. -Fnlayson 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Split?

The rationale at Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9#Split was that because the MD-80 and MD-90 were different generation aircraft to the DC-9, they should be split from that article. Given the MD-90 could likewise be argued to be a different generation to the MD-80, albeit one which didn't meet the same success, I think we should split this article, and have one for the MD-80, and one for the MD-90 (and move all but the basic description of the MD-95 to the Boeing 717 article).--Nick Moss 00:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't think there's enough on the MD-90 to warrant it's own article. The MD-95 is part of the 90 series so it should be briefly covered. -Fnlayson 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought the same originally, but there is not enough information on the MD-90. Andros 1337 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt there is enough to cover a second article.. I really think the MD-90 is just a sub type of the 80 series, and not differentiated enough to warrant its own article. --Cliffb 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • These aircraft are in the same series. If you look at the Boeing 737 and Airbus 320, you will find all of their variants under the same heading which is how this aircraft should be represented as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.3.38 (talk • contribs) .
  • Well there is a problem calling all of the aircraft in the same series, yes they share design elements, but the B707,B737, and B757 all share the same basic fuselage.. shouldn't they be in the same article? I think we need to generally follow the info that comes from the manufacturer when we have the content for it. I think we should keep the MD-90 info on this page because of the sparcity of information we have. Once we've got enough content to split the MD-90 into its own article I'm all for that, but right now, I think we need to stay with one article for the MD-80 and 90 --Cliffb 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Same basic fuselage for B707, B737 & B757? Maybe designed using similar methods but that's about it.. - Fnlayson 19:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, they share almost identical barrel sections. The 707, 727, 737 (but not 757) share a common fuselage cross section and were initially stretches/shrinks of each other. Notice that the cockpits and nose structures are identical as well. ericg ✈ 06:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Same basic fuselage sections for those, right. I knew the 757 was a newer design. -06:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the MD90 has a separate name is one factor to have a separate article. There are some passenger jets that have short entries. Archtrain 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

MD-85

Is there such a thing as a Douglas MD-85? I never heard of it before but there it is on my flight itinerary. Btyner 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks like they skipped that year (MD-83 to -87). I tried an internet search and can't find anything on it, except one that menat MD-95. Maybe the MD-85 was a typo by the airline or somebody (??). -Fnlayson 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there's never been any MD-85. Only DC-9-81/82/83 & 87, plus MD-88. --EuroSprinter 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Northwest As a Customer?

I thought that Northwest Airlines obtained all of its MD-80s from Republic Airlines. I believe now Northwest has retired its MD-80s and now operates DC-9s.

  • Get rid of generally newer planes and keep older ones? Sounds odd. -Fnlayson 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what they did. As far as I know, the -80s were too large for the routes nwa was flying them on, and they wanted to unify maintenance. The -9s fit the bill better, and apparently the mx costs were about the same. ericg ✈ 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. A bit unusual but makes plenty of sense. -Fnlayson 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • NW had only a few MD-80s. Large airlines often don't want a small fleet of a certain type. NW also owns a lot of their DC-9. The planes are already paid for. No need to pay lease payments or other monthly payments. I read an article where a NW corporate officer said the planes are cheap to keep, just some higher maintainance costs. Archtrain 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Northwest got nine MD-82 when it merged with Republic. One was lost in a take off accident in 1987, and the remaining eight were put into storage during the last quarter of 1999. The list should be renamed to something like "Major operators" to really include all major operators, or both Northest and Allegiant should be removed from it as they never ordered any MD-80s from the manufacturer --EuroSprinter 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Representative photography?

Shouldn't this page picture an MD-80 series aircraft in the AA livery? Since American operates a good chunk of the entire DC-9 series aircraft produced, it seems like a truly representative article ought to have a picture of this model aircraft in AA colors.

  • Good images can never hurt. But an AA one is not required. Different livery doesn't make it a different plane. -Fnlayson 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture from a past operator ? --EuroSprinter 16:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure. I'm not aware of images being limited to current operators. Some more flight images would be great. -Fnlayson 16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Name field in Infobox

There's not enough room to have 'McDonnell Douglas' with 'MD-80 and MD-90' in the Infobox name field. Project Aircraft guideline says For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers.. The MD planes does not fall in the only model number group. -Fnlayson 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

See also User talk:68.127.49.140, where I have placed a similar exp[lanation. Thanks. - BillCJ 03:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like that covered it. Thanks. -Fnlayson 03:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cargo and military versions

I am curious why user BillCJ made his 10 July edit of this article, removing my information about cargo and military versions MD-80 (which for various reasons are almost non-existent); he doesn't respond on his own talk page to my query about that. I am a most humble beginner in (English) Wikipedia, and will do my utmost to please everybody in here... Andeln 14:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK here's the entry that was removed.

  • Contrary to numerous other passenger aircraft types, including its predecessor, the DC-9, no MD-80 has ever served as an all-cargo aircraft. Neither has the MD-80 been converted for military use like the DC-9 - with one exception for an MD-83 VIP aircraft being operated for the Kuwaiti State by the country's air force in the 1990's.

The last sentence about the Kuwaitit MD-83 should be mentioned if a reference for it can be found. The rest is speculation. These planes were not really meant for cargo and there was not a good niche for them in military use with C-9s already in service. -Fnlayson 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Highest number operations entry

The entry below is currently in the Trivia section. The DFW Inter. article states the same thing without a source.

But I can not find a source for it and it's been unsourced since February. I'm going to remove the entry and the section (nothing else in it). Someone can add it back to the article with a source if one can be found. Thanks. -Fnlayson 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

End of MD-90 production

It looks like there is a discrepancy with when MD-90 production ended. The section for the MD-90 has 2001, but the box at the top of the article has 2000. --Jbaylor (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I've seen both 2000 and 2001 for end of production. The last ones were assembled in China. Will have to check on that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Grounding

We ought to mention this, see here for example. --John (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • A user added it to the Incidents section. I hid it because that's not an incident. If someone has a good idea proper placement speak up. It seems fairly minor to me. Each Delta plane was grounded for only a matter of hours to do the inspect. They were to do most of their fleet over last thursday and friday.[1] -Fnlayson (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines having to cancel over 1000 flights (as of April 9th) is not "fairly minor". There should be a small section created to mention the problems/ incidents that lead to the grounding. Eg. AA flt 862 needing to make an emergency landing a couple months ago in Miami. That incident made national headlines and the landing was featured live on CNN and other networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.34.158.66 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add an entry on emergency landing to Incidents and accidents section please do so. That'd be a good place for a sentence or two on the groundings due to the related servicing. Given the the short time for servicing/checking each plane it's still a minor thing in the history of the airliner. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
For three days running, American has canceled around 1,000 flights, that's minor? Pdbailey (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3 days? Delta got all theirs done in about a day. From what I've read AA has had to inspect/fix and then redo it. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

MD-81 July incident

On July 7, an MD-81 flying from Chicago to Charlotte, NC had a flight control issue and diverted for a landing in St. Louis. The crew said the airplane's controls felt heavy. Turns out the slide deployed within the tailcone. The MD-81 was charted by Senator Obama, who was onboard with 47 other passengers. Read about it at "In-Flight Malfunction On MD-81 Diverts Obama".
This is just a minor incident and does not seem to be notable, unless something funny turns up. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Also poorly written - I know a litte about aircraft, and I have no clue what "Turns out the slide deployed within the tailcone" is supposed to mean! I'm certain the average reader wouldn't understand it either. - BillCJ (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's my wording above. I did a quick summary of the article to provide context. The article does not explain the slide part much better though. That's got to be the emergency escape slide. Not sure how it affected the controls except for moving the CG. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Uh, sorry! I had heard on the radio it was a problem with the "stabilizer", so I wasn't even thinking about that part of the tail with the slide. Sorry about the mis-aimed criticism, as I honeslty thought the was someone's attempt to describe part of the tailplane controls! - BillCJ (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's alright. My wording was a bit misleading. Flightglobal.com's article similarly says the exit slide deployed within the tail cone during flight. The slide must have impended the workings somehow. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Article needs better description of the MD-81/MD-82/MD-83/MD-87

I was slightly disappointed by the MD-80 section as it had a lot of history about the family as a whole but did not distinguish between the MD-81/MD-82/etc models. I see there is a table at the end of the article that has statistics about each type, but I don't have an understanding of what the purpose was of having different MD-80 types. Can someone with some knowledge about this add some information introducing each type? -Rolypolyman (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I started expanding that section a while back. That's a good point about the differences. The main differences I know off the top of my head are MD-88 has a glass cockpit and the MD-87 is the shortened one. Will see what I can do over the next week or so. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks to MilborneOne, you, and anyone else who worked on it... the variants section is very clear. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article reorganization and expansion

This builds on the above discussion about expanding coverage on the MD-81/MD-82/MD-83/MD-87/MD-88 variants. I've moved the over-long fuel crisis material out of the "Operators" section, which is supposed to be basically a list, to a new "Operational history" section. I've also added a hidden section heading for "Variants". It will take some time, but I'd like to see the aritcle organized closer to the WP:AIR/PC guidelines, in line with other major airliner pages. This is not in any way a criticism of what has gone before (even the mis-location of the fuel crisis info), as the unique nature of the variants made following the usual pattern non-intuitive. I'd also like to re-propose the idea of splitting out the MD-90 section. That section is longer than it was the last time the issue was brought up, and now would be the right time to do it, rather than after an article reorganization. In most ways,the MD-90 is a different aircraft than the other variants, and IIRC is on a different TC. Also, it would allow us to simplify the naming of this aritcle, as some WP:AIR editors dislike having two variants in the title (MD-80/MD-90). - BillCJ (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

MilB1 added a Variants list. Thanks for that and your work BillCJ. I like the arrangement now. I don't think there's enough for a separate MD-90 article. I know there are differences from the MD-88 to MD-90, but I don't believe there's enough to warrant split. Maybe I'm missing something though...
If split, I will help with the MD-90 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont see why the article cant be just McDonnell Douglas MD-80 as that is the family name and none of the aircraft are actually called MD-80 as it is just a generic title. MD-90 could be a separate article it does have different engines. All DC-9s are on the same TC (A6WE) from the DC-9-11 to the 717 ! MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • TC = throttle control or what? -Fnlayson (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry FAA Type Certificate http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c1817d49c964876886256b1400759d25/$FILE/A6WE.pdf MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, got you. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Milb1, thanks also for the Variants list! I agree we should problaby rename the article as McDonnell Douglas MD-80, or perhps McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series / McDonnell Douglas MD-80 family (see also [[Airbus A320 family). As to the MD-90 split, I'm sorta for it, but can see both sides, and can live with either option. As above, if we are going to split it off, now is the time to do it when we're expanding/reworking the article. - BillCJ (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "McDonnell Douglas MD-80 series", but "McDonnell Douglas MD-80" works too. There's already a redirect for McDonnell Douglas MD-90 that could be converted to a separate article now or later. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've put together User:BillCJ/Sandbox/McDonnell Douglas MD-90 on my userspace, simply by keeping only the MD-90 info, and adding some photos. (The Specs table is the same - obviously it would need to be cut down, but I kept it as filler, since the cut-down version will be about the same length.) This will give us an idea of what we have to work with concerning the MD-90. I thinks it's a half-decent article as it stands, but it would certainly need more work. - BillCJ (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • There's more there than I would have expected when I first read this proposal. I say go with it.
      Also, how to proceed. Either work with your sandbox article and get it moved over the MD-90 redirect article. Or repeat your steps with at the MD-90 redirect and removal the MD-80 content. Either is fine, just want to know where to start. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I usually just copy the sandbox into the redirect's space anymore. I didn't make that many edits to begin with, but it was some work, such as tracking down and adding the pics. If you wouldn't mind trimming the specs table (you can leave both the MD-80 and -90 version on the sandbox till we make the final split), that would be good, and if the table format needs simplifying or changing, feel free to do that too. I was holding off on Milb1's final opinion on the MD-90 page before going live with it. We'll need an admin to move the MD-80 page to McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and he can do that since he's one now. - BillCJ (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hope its OK I have moved the MD-90 stuff over the redirect and labelled it as a split (so the history can be chased back). Put an in-use tag on it as it still needs to be sorted. MilborneOne (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Go to sleep for 3 hours, and look what happens! Looks great, guys. I'll give both articles a once-over a little later. I'll also try to check the interwikis, and see if there are any corrections ot be made.
One question on interwikis: Is there a guideline or policy on how to link article on separate pages in one wiki to others that are combined? Most of the other interwikis (maybe all) have the MD-80 and 90 on the same page, but some have just MD-80 in the titlem and others have MD-80/MD-90. So, do we have the same interwiki list on both pages, or only list those that cover only the MD-90 on the MD-90 page? - BillCJ (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate you checking what has been done just in case some obvious mistakes have been made! I removed the interwikis when I modified MD-90 as I didnt really now if they actally covered the MD-90, not sure if the onus is on us to look for interwikis. Perhaps an expert will be along soon. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know either, but the perfectionist in me checked the interwikis out anyway. I found 5 dedicated MD-90 pages, so I've added them. The rest cover both the MD-80 and MD-90. All the MD-90 pages only list the other MD-90 pages, so that seems pretty standard then. I've added the English page in to those pages, as our articles are generally the most thorough, and the pattern for some of the other interwikis follow, especially those of the smaller nations, such as Viet Nam. That one in particular seems to copy our format and layout pretty well. - BillCJ (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The interwiki bot(s) should help also. Hopefully in a good way. ;) Good work Milb1, BillCJ. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we did this move just in time. Can you imagine trying to work on it today, in the middle of the Spanair disaster edits? - BillCJ (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Skynews seems to take inspiration from this article

See http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madrid-Plane-Crash-MD-80-Series-Accident-History/Article/200808315083166?lpos=World%2BNews_6&lid=ARTICLE_15083166_Madrid%2BPlane%2BCrash%253A%2BMD-80%2BSeries%2BAccident%2BHistory

Notice the list of MD80 crashes? It seems to originate from Wikipedia, but reversed in latest to earliest and with many of the details stripped out. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration from here maybe. Does not seem to be a big deal. There's not too many ways to write the the basics Skynews listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I expect that in a few yesrs someone will post here claiming we took the accident list from SkyNews, and that our list is a copyvio! ; - BillCJ (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Compare the entries and notice that many of the same words are used - it is just that much of the Wikipedia text was stripped away in the Sky text. See [2] WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia text: "On November 30, 2007, MD-83 Atlasjet Flight 4203 crashed in the southwestern province of Isparta, Turkey, killing all 57 people aboard. The cause of the crash is unknown."
Sky text:"November 30, 2007 - MD-83 Atlasjet Flight 4203 crashed into the southwestern province of Isparta in Turkey, killing all 57 passengers."
Wikipedia text: "On September 16, 2007, an MD-82 One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 crashed at the side of the runway and exploded after an apparent attempt to execute a go-around in bad weather at Phuket International Airport. Eighty-nine of the 130 people on board were killed.[17][18]"
Sky text: "September 16, 2007 - MD-82 One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 crashed at the side of the runway and exploded at Phuket airport. More than 80 killed."
There are similarities, but many of the differences were formed by Sky News removing many of the details. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The difference is, our text is not copyrighted, but theirs is! - BillCJ (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ours may not be under a copyright per se, but it is still under a license called the GNU Free Documentation License. We need to see if Sky News is following this notice: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations - We need to see if it is properly using altered Wikipedia text. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm - it seems like Sky News is violating the GNU license as it is using a derivative of the Wikipedia content without saying it is from Wikipedia and without licensing the text under the GNU. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point now. I know the Foundation has a legal department (or at least consultants, but I don't know if anyone there or anyone elsewhere in WP hndles such issues. Probably need to start with a good admin, and they may be able to point you in the right direction. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt look like a real problem you can only say the same number facts in a number of ways and some of them if done by different people are going to look similar. Remember the wikipedia text was probably formed in the same way from some primary source like ASN. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

I included the following in the incidents and it was promptly deleted as non-notable. I do appreciate the link for policy. However when an emergency for a bizarre plane event involving a major Party President candidate occurs, common sense would seem to dictate that it is notable. Since I'm not up to revert wars, I include it here for the record.Americasroof (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, I appreciate the policy which keeps simple stuff out of the lists. But I really think you have to follow common sense when a bizarre event involves a Presidential candidate. And in the for what it's worth, the article I cited notes that it was more serious than first believed. Americasroof (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • True, a strange incident. It probably would not have been reported by the press if there was a regular group of passengers. But if any tampering is found, it should be listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
If tampering is ever proven, or if some other aspects of the investigation come out that build on what the source presented reported, then I'd have no problem listing it. It's very close at this point, but I don't believe it is quite there yet. Feel free to ask for other opinions at WT:AVIATION, as there are other eidtors there who have more experince working with accident articles and questions of notability. - BillCJ (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The incident is not reported on the Accident report website listed on every airport article. I probably would not have posted here if it weren't for the Spanish crash as there now seems to be a strange pattern. The incident is bizarre enough that it would have been reported by the press if regular passengers were involved (and the press found out). But it probably wouldn't have gotten the wider coverage. I suspect that we're going to hear more about this incident. Americasroof (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Just looks like a slide malfunction reading the NTSB report[3].MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I concur, an "incident" that is notable is one in which an airframe is substantially damaged or places the airframe and/or passengers and crew in jeopardy. FWiW, this event is barely a "blip". Bzuk (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC).

Midwest Airlines termination of MD-80 operations

The article states that the MD-80 primarily served flights from Kansas City to the west coast. This is error. The Kansas City Business Journal stated that parking the MD-80s would affect flights to the west coast (a true statement), but it did not state where those flights originated. The contributor to this site then assumed that the flights actually originated from Kansas City, which is not the case.

Speaking from personal experience as an MD-80 pilot for Midwest who flew the routes until a recent (July, 2008) furlough, nearly all MD-80 flights originated in Milwaukee, to the west coast or to cities in Florida. The B-717 can and does operate from MCI to the west coast, whereas only the MD-80 has the range to reach cities such as LAX, SFO and SEA nonstop from MKE. Certain Milwaukee - San Francisco flights conducted an scheduled intermediate stop in Kansas City; these were the only scheduled Kansas City flights to the west coast operating MD-80 aircraft.

Midwest's situation remains in flux; as of September, 2008, there continues to be discussion of retaining three MD-80s as charter aircraft. It is too early to determine whether the airline will ultimately retain three MD-80s, dispose of all of them, or find another solution.

Mikepurves (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edited Mikepurves (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I simplified the wording there to what the reference actually states and considering your comment about the departure location not being stated. Thanks for bringing this up. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Pilot says fuse probable cause of Barajas crash"

An article under this headline appeared in the English edition of "El Pais" today. It relates the results of an investigation by James W. Hudspeth into similarities between the Barajas (Madrid) accident this year, and an incident on June 5th last year at Lanzarote involving an MD-83. Hudspeth believes that a fuse is "routinely removed by mechanics as a solution to fix gauge-reading problems". He links the Madrid and Lanzarote events with the 1987 accident in Detroit already mentioned here.

Has anyone else seen this report? The Lanzarote incident, in which the aircraft came within 10 metres of crashing into buildings while recovering from loss of attitude/altitude, shortly after taking off without its flaps extended, bears what the article calls "eerie similarities" to the other accidents. It seems that the fuse concerned is also involved in the Take-Off Warning System, which should alert the pilots to the fact that flats/slats are not in the correct position for take-off.

The Lanzarote incident is not currently mentioned in the article, although the MD-83 came close to a catastrophic acccident; the Hudspeth claims are not yet mentioned. I believe that both should be incorporated into the article, although it is still early days for the latter.

There is discussion of the report at www.pprune.org here. --TraceyR (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think most of this should be discussed at Spanair Flight 5022 as for the Lanzarotte accident we would need a reliable source that it was a notable accident came close does not appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I was basing the suggestion for inclusion on Bill Zuk's definition above that "an 'incident' that is notable is one in which an airframe is substantially damaged or places the airframe and/or passengers and crew in jeopardy." (my emphasis). The latter would appear to be the case; we could reference the El Pais article (which includes a graphic comparing the very similar flight paths of the two incidents). If the link to the other crashes were to be established, it would certainly be necessary to mention it. --TraceyR (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

propfan versions

There should be some coverage of the MD-91X and MD-92X propfans. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See McDonnell Douglas MD-94X. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

current configurations and capacity

According to SeatGuru (www.seatguru.com) no airline currently configures any MD-80 series plane for more than 150 seats. I inserted a citation needed marker in the first section of the article where it says typical configurations are 140 and 165. 68.165.204.148 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Manufacturer is Missing

Manufacturer is missing at the brief at right, it should be added:

No, as the MD-80 was developed after DOuglas merged with McDonnell. - BilCat (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, nowhere in the article does it state cruise altitudes for this airframe

Trennor (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Algerian MD83 crash 2014

No cause as yet determined

2507 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.118.89 (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on McDonnell Douglas MD-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McDonnell Douglas MD-80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ EXCLUSIVE: FAA Tapes Reveal Drama of Obama Jet Incident - abcnews.com - August 14, 2008
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_MD-80/Archive_1&oldid=1019659605"