Dl/nw Dc-9

[n6604f]

Coming from the 88 it would be a differences course, right?

Systems are the same or similar for the most part between the DC9/MD88-90 and 717. The primary difference is the level of automation in the flight deck.

DC9 - Wing leveler, VSI selector (alt hold), Heading selector (capt only) and mostly manual F/D, no auto throttle. Steam gauges with acars (yes old fashion NDB too). Cat 2 only.

MD88-90 - Lnav, Vnav guidance (no fl chng), FMS, Quirky Auto Pilot with alt cap/hold, finiky auto throttles, partial glass (pfd & mfd), digital engine instrumetation. Cat 3a.

717 - Full Glass Cockpit similar size as the DC9-40

The training by FAA requirements will be differences only. The only question mark is the intergration of operational policies which should not be too hard to transition which ever they decide to use.

Bottom line it maybe old technology but it still fun flying the DC/MD product unless you don't like a challenge and prefer to be board or read your paper. Then boeing/airbus is your answer. Hope this answered some of your questions about the differences between these aircraft.

 

[~~~^~~~]

nevermind

 

[Browntothebone]

Would newhires (whenever they hire again) have to start out in the DC-9?

 

[NuGuy]

What I don't like about the DC9 series is the lack of a EICAS. The system in the 88 is really a joke in comparison. There are several systems where your ability to detect a failure is diminished by not having a system to monitor a switch / system disagreement. Other systems use subtle handle position differences (outflow valve, GLD's, etc...).

Other gripes, the aux transfer pump. Why couldn't they just put a relay on the the thing, or leave it constantly on like Boeing did? Everyone says "I'll never forget it" but then you read several times a year where operators lose hydraulics, typically because of some ATC related high altitude let down distraction before the descent check was run.

I don't know if the other versions have the brake chatter issues.

If you just think back about the history of the type, particularly the 80 through 88's, how many of these "quirks" have been involved in incidents and accidents? Of course these are then blamed on the pilots, because there was a procedure, but maybe they were too busy over riding the throttle burst, while turning the ignition on before the ice and timing the minute for the tail to forget to lock the spoilers in the armed position....

I'm not at all impressed with Douglas's "let the pilots just learn a new technique to deal with our engineering laziness." Boeing really improved the state of the art with the 767/757 in the early eighties and aircraft design has never gone back to the cable and switch position world.

It is also really nice to enjoy a wing that has generous lift, engines with lots of power and good brakes.... say what you want about the Douglas jets, I'm going to miss the Boeing.

Heyas Fins,

Dunno. There isn't much to monitor. As long as the engines are spinning, you're flying. You can lose electrics AND hydraulics and still have an airplane.

If you put the gear down, and you don't hear anything because you forgot to put the hydraulics back to high, then you're NOT paying attention....I mean, it's a really loud silence.

Brake chatter must be a -88 thing, because I've never seen it on the -9.

At least MD made significant changes with the 717. Boeing left the same old same old even in the NG 737s because SWA didn't want it.

FWIW, I flew home the other day, first on the -9, then on a 757. The ride on the -9 was MUCH nicer. The airplane just rides better, and the back is more comfortable.

Nu

 

[Sinca3]

Is that when you were hired? It may be a while for you.

Bye Bye--General Lee

No I am a newbie happy to have a job.....I was referring to your DOH.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Everyone who flew the 9 loves it. The MD88, not so much.

I plan on bidding the 9 if it comes to ATL.

 

[FBN0223]

Everyone who flew the 9 loves it. The MD88, not so much.

I plan on bidding the 9 if it comes to ATL.

So how good are the ground crews in ATL about expeditiously hooking up the external air? OAT over 75F, the APU on it's own will not keep the cabin comfortably cool in most cases.

The DC-9 is a great airplane and that was my only complaint that it tended to get a lot on the hot side in cockpit during the summer.

 

[~~~^~~~]

APU? What's that?

The ground crews are pretty good about getting power and air to you. Delta has a big save gas by not running the APU push, complete with an "APU Sheriff" to investigate complaints.

Overall, it is a good program and the APU Sheriff is usually a pilot who is there to help get you what you need.

 

[FBN0223]

APU? What's that?

T. Delta has a big save gas by not running the APU push, complete with an "APU Sheriff" to investigate complaints.

"APU Sheriff"????? We all understand that APUs burn fuel but that it can also be an operationally necessity/preference, so do we really need some micro-manager running from airplane to airplane? Seems kind of silly, IMHO.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas FBN,

I agree with you that the DC-9 can heat up enough to roast chickens in a nanosecond. However, if you are agressive in managing the envrionment, it's not too bad.

1) Run the apu ANYTIME on the ground when the external air is not hooked up. That means running it as you pull in, park and until the ext air is actually blowing.

2) Leave it run it on the taxi out. Idle power on the ground with no APU, and you'll roast. 3 bleeds + 2 packs = reasonable airflow.

3) OPEN the @#@(*# overhead cockpit vents. Too many guys say "its too noisy". You don't have to open them all the way, but crack them so there is SOME airflow. Goes for the wintertime, too. How hard is it to reach up and close them for TO, as opposed to roasting on a 30 miniute taxi in DTW?

3) Use the sun shades. They work amazingly well, and I would recommend them to our MD-88 comrades (NWA Tech Ops makes them).

4) Don't let the airplane get hot. Pre-cool pre-cool pre-cool.

My last 2 summers on the -9 have been OK following the above rules.

Nu