|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : dfw.airport|
|Controlling Facilities||tracon : d10.tracon|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||MD-80 Super 80|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||descent : approach|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : first officer|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : critical|
non adherence : published procedure
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||flight crew : diverted to another airport|
flight crew : declared emergency
flight crew : landed in emergency condition
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
ATC Human Performance
|Primary Problem||ATC Human Performance|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
We had an elevator control problem during takeoff. We declared an emergency and asked to return for landing. The clear gave us a turn and then asked if we required any assistance. The first officer stated no, since the aircraft was flying ok at the time. However, the controller failed to roll the equipment and kept canceling our emergency. I believe we had to tell him at least 4 times over the next several mins that we were declaring an emergency. He continued to ask if we needed any assistance, and we would say no. In the end, we responded that we didn't know and wanted the equipment available. The arff crew was finally notified when we were about 30 seconds from touchdown and didn't appear until we were completing rollout and turning off the runway. The controller's question was confusing because we felt the situation would probably be uneventful and not require any assistance. We both thought that declaring an emergency would roll the equipment. I would recommend that, if the crew fails to say 'have the arff equipment standing by' which we did fail to do in the heat of the moment, the controller's question should ask exactly that question. Something like 'would you like to have the arff equipment standing by.' perhaps followed by 'will you require any specific assistance,' would seem to avoid confusion. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: regarding the mechanical problem with the aircraft: the aircraft had several previous problems noted in the log with the elevator control. Problem with the elevator was noted during the takeoff roll. A rejected takeoff was considered. Maintenance replaced the ctring and feel spring mechanism to correct the problem. The stabilizer trim motor was also replaced, however it is unknown whether or not this need was related to the problem or found during the course of maintenance troubleshooting. Regarding flight handling: the takeoff was from runway 18 followed by landing on runway 13R. The total time in the air is estimated to be 8-10 mins. The maximum altitude reached was 3000 ft in the traffic pattern. The aircraft following in the traffic pattern performed a go around since the arff apparently did not release the runway in time for it to receive landing clearance. The reporter stated that the controller was trying to minimize the effect this incident was going to have on other traffic. Regarding communication: the reporter did not recall if all communication was with the ATCT local controller or if they were handed off to departure control. ATCT seemed confused by a request to have them notify the company dispatch. There were multiple requests to the crew about their need for assistance ie, 'do you require assistance?' there was difficulty initially communicating with arff since there was no discrete emergency frequency (def) assigned by ATC. ATC communication in the aircraft was handled by the first officer. Regarding arff service: after the event the chief noted that his crew was at dinner when the call came in. They were notified that the aircraft was 30 seconds from touchdown.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: DURING TKOF AN MD80 HAS A FLT CTL PROB. A RETURN TO THE ARPT IS REQUESTED AND AN EMER DECLARED. THE RPTR COMPLAINS THAT THE EMER WAS CANCELED SEVERAL TIMES BY THE CTLR.
Narrative: WE HAD AN ELEVATOR CTL PROB DURING TKOF. WE DECLARED AN EMER AND ASKED TO RETURN FOR LNDG. THE CLR GAVE US A TURN AND THEN ASKED IF WE REQUIRED ANY ASSISTANCE. THE FO STATED NO, SINCE THE ACFT WAS FLYING OK AT THE TIME. HOWEVER, THE CTLR FAILED TO ROLL THE EQUIP AND KEPT CANCELING OUR EMER. I BELIEVE WE HAD TO TELL HIM AT LEAST 4 TIMES OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MINS THAT WE WERE DECLARING AN EMER. HE CONTINUED TO ASK IF WE NEEDED ANY ASSISTANCE, AND WE WOULD SAY NO. IN THE END, WE RESPONDED THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW AND WANTED THE EQUIP AVAILABLE. THE ARFF CREW WAS FINALLY NOTIFIED WHEN WE WERE ABOUT 30 SECONDS FROM TOUCHDOWN AND DIDN'T APPEAR UNTIL WE WERE COMPLETING ROLLOUT AND TURNING OFF THE RWY. THE CTLR'S QUESTION WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE WE FELT THE SIT WOULD PROBABLY BE UNEVENTFUL AND NOT REQUIRE ANY ASSISTANCE. WE BOTH THOUGHT THAT DECLARING AN EMER WOULD ROLL THE EQUIP. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, IF THE CREW FAILS TO SAY 'HAVE THE ARFF EQUIP STANDING BY' WHICH WE DID FAIL TO DO IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT, THE CTLR'S QUESTION SHOULD ASK EXACTLY THAT QUESTION. SOMETHING LIKE 'WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE ARFF EQUIP STANDING BY.' PERHAPS FOLLOWED BY 'WILL YOU REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ASSISTANCE,' WOULD SEEM TO AVOID CONFUSION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REGARDING THE MECHANICAL PROB WITH THE ACFT: THE ACFT HAD SEVERAL PREVIOUS PROBS NOTED IN THE LOG WITH THE ELEVATOR CTL. PROB WITH THE ELEVATOR WAS NOTED DURING THE TKOF ROLL. A REJECTED TKOF WAS CONSIDERED. MAINT REPLACED THE CTRING AND FEEL SPRING MECHANISM TO CORRECT THE PROB. THE STABILIZER TRIM MOTOR WAS ALSO REPLACED, HOWEVER IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER OR NOT THIS NEED WAS RELATED TO THE PROB OR FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF MAINT TROUBLESHOOTING. REGARDING FLT HANDLING: THE TKOF WAS FROM RWY 18 FOLLOWED BY LNDG ON RWY 13R. THE TOTAL TIME IN THE AIR IS ESTIMATED TO BE 8-10 MINS. THE MAX ALT REACHED WAS 3000 FT IN THE TFC PATTERN. THE ACFT FOLLOWING IN THE TFC PATTERN PERFORMED A GAR SINCE THE ARFF APPARENTLY DID NOT RELEASE THE RWY IN TIME FOR IT TO RECEIVE LNDG CLRNC. THE RPTR STATED THAT THE CTLR WAS TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECT THIS INCIDENT WAS GOING TO HAVE ON OTHER TFC. REGARDING COM: THE RPTR DID NOT RECALL IF ALL COM WAS WITH THE ATCT LCL CTLR OR IF THEY WERE HANDED OFF TO DEP CTL. ATCT SEEMED CONFUSED BY A REQUEST TO HAVE THEM NOTIFY THE COMPANY DISPATCH. THERE WERE MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO THE CREW ABOUT THEIR NEED FOR ASSISTANCE IE, 'DO YOU REQUIRE ASSISTANCE?' THERE WAS DIFFICULTY INITIALLY COMMUNICATING WITH ARFF SINCE THERE WAS NO DISCRETE EMER FREQ (DEF) ASSIGNED BY ATC. ATC COM IN THE ACFT WAS HANDLED BY THE FO. REGARDING ARFF SVC: AFTER THE EVENT THE CHIEF NOTED THAT HIS CREW WAS AT DINNER WHEN THE CALL CAME IN. THEY WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ACFT WAS 30 SECONDS FROM TOUCHDOWN.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.