Very windy day here in Michigan, thankfully everyone aboard is safe.

Here is what was posted to the team's twitter.



https://twitter.com/umichbball/status/8 ... 3266231302

Aircraft involved was an Ameristar MD-83 - N786TW



https://twitter.com/ShepMatt/status/839575831039078401

"The team is making alternate travel plans." I would say they would have to at that point.

What happens if the case of a chartered flight being canceled like this? Does the charter company send out another plane? Or is everyone just refunded and they are left to fight for themselves?

Wow!!

That plane ain't going anywhere for a while.

Looks like an old TW MD-83.

D L X wrote:

Wow!!

That plane ain't going anywhere for a while.

Looks like an old TW MD-83.

Ex Avianca

Lucky here folks aircraft went thru an airport fence and over a boundary road and ditch.,

More pictures of the aircraft



[imghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6bUuzJXEAAYibm.jpg][/img]



https://twitter.com/CampSanderson/statu ... 8549527571

Let me be the first. Is it a write off?

This could easily have been a terrible tragedy. Lucky.

My sisters friends fiancé was on board. Probably a fun ride. It is quite windy out.

My concerns are as follows;

1. The rippling on the nose.
2. The unsupported fuselage in the second picture.

Also it is 25 years old.

Darn, I'm sorta sad to see a nice ex-TWA jet go down like that. Well I guess it was that or the scrapper sooner or later lol.
When did AA get rid of this one? It seems like the majority of the MD aircraft left flying in the AA fleet are TW jets now.

[*]

trnswrld wrote:

Darn, I'm sorta sad to see a nice ex-TWA jet go down like that. Well I guess it was that or the scrapper sooner or later lol.
When did AA get rid of this one? It seems like the majority of the MD aircraft left flying in the AA fleet are TW jets now.

Never flew for TWA, ex Avianca.

bennett123 wrote:

My concerns are as follows;

1. The rippling on the nose.
2. The unsupported fuselage in the second picture.

Also it is 25 years old.

What exactly do you mean, and why is it concerning to you? The airplane basically crashed, of course there is gonna be damage. The rear of the fuselage is supported more on the ground now than it is when it's suspended in the air when it's on its main landing gear lol.

AFAIK, this is Ameristar's only passenger airframe. I wonder if they will replace it or get out of the passenger charter business.

Delivered April 1992 to Avianca and December 2010 to Ameristar. They have a pretty cool fleet of a 737-200, now down to one MD-83, and four DC-9-10's.

ikolkyo wrote:

[*]

trnswrld wrote:

Darn, I'm sorta sad to see a nice ex-TWA jet go down like that. Well I guess it was that or the scrapper sooner or later lol.
When did AA get rid of this one? It seems like the majority of the MD aircraft left flying in the AA fleet are TW jets now.

Never flew for TWA, ex Avianca.

Oh whoops my bad. I saw the TW and just assumed it was. I suppose just a coincidence then. Any MD83 with the registration ending in TW I would automatically assumed would have been a TWA/AA jet. Then again I do suppose all their jets start in N9xxTW. Ahh well anyway sad to see an MD80 reach he end of its life.
Thanks for the clarification.

trnswrld wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

[*]

trnswrld wrote:

Darn, I'm sorta sad to see a nice ex-TWA jet go down like that. Well I guess it was that or the scrapper sooner or later lol.
When did AA get rid of this one? It seems like the majority of the MD aircraft left flying in the AA fleet are TW jets now.

Never flew for TWA, ex Avianca.

Oh whoops my bad. I saw the TW and just assumed it was. I suppose just a coincidence then. Any MD83 with the registration ending in TW I would automatically assumed would have been a TWA/AA jet. Then again I do suppose all their jets start in N9xxTW. Ahh well anyway sad to see an MD80 reach he end of its life.
Thanks for the clarification.

Oh I don't blame you, thought it was ex TWA as well.

Now arriving, gate 3.... gate 7... gate 10.... gate 35

Maybe Baltia could give them a tow.

I believe they are getting a DL757 out of DTW this evening

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL8947

nikeherc wrote:

Let me be the first. Is it a write off?

With all landing gear forcibly removed from the fuselage? Yep. Hell, repacking the tail slide is probably more expensive than pulling another out of the boneyard.

Or are we of the "with enough bondo, anything is possible" school?

Looks like they were departing from runway 23L to the southwest. 23L is about 7,500 ft.
Winds this afternoon were gusting 40-50+ mph.

The aircraft went about 1000 feet off the end of the runway, through the fence and across Tyler Rd.
Another 500 feet beyond there is a creek.
They were lucky to left of center and not plow through the approach lighting

I'm surprised they made it that far off the runway, considering how wet and saturated the ground is I'm surprised the gear didn't sink or auger into the ground more.

tys777 wrote:

I believe they are getting a DL757 out of DTW this evening

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL8947

The program claims they're flying in tomorrow as they can't find a flight tonight. Though that flight does seem to make sense as to its passengers.

Wow, looking at that drainage ditch its impressive there wasn't more damage to the nose and that the fuselage stayed fully intact.

shamrock137 wrote:

Wow, looking at that drainage ditch its impressive there wasn't more damage to the nose and that the fuselage stayed fully intact.

By the time the center of gravity went over the ditch, the nose was already resting on the other side.

It's a very steep drop off just another few hundred feet. They did a huge amount of improvement to that area a couple years ago, it could have been a lot worse.

TW is for Tom Wachendorfer, the owner of Ameristar.

b747400erf wrote:

Now arriving, gate 3.... gate 7... gate 10.... gate 35

I think we all wish Otto would just fly it out, but it doesn't look like that will happen

Good to hear everyone was safe. That had to be a rough ride. Good thing it wasn't any worse.

Here is the report on Av Hearld:

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5ecf6a&opt=256

That's pretty bad. 35G50 almost on the nose and you still couldn't stop. There ground speed would have been almost 25% slower than "normal" and they still couldn't stop. Short of brake/hydraulic failure I wonder what could have caused this. Even brake or hydraulic it makes you question why not take to the air at V1

They're flying out of DTW tomorrow morning.

Went and saw it after a coworker texted me. Said they could hear it from inside the Kalitta building just down the street, he heard the thrust reverse followed by a loud bang/crash.

Definitely was a bit surreal seeing the aircraft sitting there across the road from the airfield. Extremely fortunate there was no fire or more serious damage, it obviously could have been far, far worse.

flyDTW1992 wrote:

Went and saw it after a coworker texted me. Said they could hear it from inside the Kalitta building just down the street, he heard the thrust reverse followed by a loud bang/crash.

Definitely was a bit surreal seeing the aircraft sitting there across the road from the airfield. Extremely fortunate there was no fire or more serious damage, it obviously could have been far, far worse.

So, is the Yankee Air Museum getting a new exhibit with the hulk?

SuseJ772 wrote:

That's pretty bad. 35G50 almost on the nose and you still couldn't stop. There ground speed would have been almost 25% slower than "normal" and they still couldn't stop. Short of brake/hydraulic failure I wonder what could have caused this. Even brake or hydraulic it makes you question why not take to the air at V1

Also, 35g50 on the nose and it couldn't get airborne? Sounds similar to US at PHL a couple years ago, where they preliminarily thought a gust pushed them over vr, but then calmer winds following were below vr.

D L X wrote:

SuseJ772 wrote:

That's pretty bad. 35G50 almost on the nose and you still couldn't stop. There ground speed would have been almost 25% slower than "normal" and they still couldn't stop. Short of brake/hydraulic failure I wonder what could have caused this. Even brake or hydraulic it makes you question why not take to the air at V1

Also, 35g50 on the nose and it couldn't get airborne? Sounds similar to US at PHL a couple years ago, where they preliminarily thought a gust pushed them over vr, but then calmer winds following were below vr.

I would definitely believe the weather today to be a contributing factor, I've never seen winds like that around here except for brief periods right as storms are rolling in.

This could so easily have been a fireball. Everybody is very fortunate.

I have long been concerned about the carriers that the NCAA contracts with for student transportation. Many of the crappiest of those carriers are gone now, but were it my kid traveling, I would vastly prefer it be with a crew from a major carrier, or at least a top-tier charter carrier (and most people know who those are).

You can tell me all day about how they all have "licensed pilots", but, sorry, I'm not buying it. Different carriers unquestionably have different safety cultures. Different carriers have different safety policies, particularly regarding things like maximum permissible winds for takeoff. (One of my favorite anecdotes from a UA pilot friend regarded him sitting in his cockpit in DEN unable to depart because the wind gusts exceeded UA's maximum. He watched a 737 from a small Part 121 carrier (the one with Marge Simpson on the tail) take the runway, because that carrier allowed takeoffs in these conditions. Just as the aircraft rotated, he took a huge wind gust up the tail and nearly departed from controlled flight. My pal said it was as close as he's ever seen an aircraft come to a crash, and it was totally-preventable.

I hope that this incident is investigated as if a massive loss of life occurred, because that would be the expected outcome from the description of the accident sequence. And if "get-there-itis" or similar departures from good judgment (and/or company policies) are involved, heads should roll straight to the top.

The NCAA needs to reevaluate its charter program. In my view, something like this was only a matter of time in coming.

One "We Are Marshall" is enough.

The NCAA doesn't manage charters, the school does.

But I'm surprised Michigan was flying Ameristar.

Replacement flight is a Delta 752 out of DTW

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL8 ... /KDTW/KIAD

My first impressions was.. wow, this could easily have resulted in a busted fuel tank and eruption into flames. Glad to see this outcome.

I have to admit, I've had plenty of opportunities over the past 3 years to fly on Mad Dogs but instead opted for 737 or A320 flights. Juts something about the MD's I don't feel as good in...maybe their age.

I know landing in heavy winds is tough, especially crosswinds. I don't recall hearing about an aborted takeoff due to winds? I always thought a strong headwind even gets the plane off the ground faster. Would this accident be the result of a sudden gust coming up from behind and causing the plane to lose lift?

smokeybandit wrote:

The NCAA doesn't manage charters, the school does.

But I'm surprised Michigan was flying Ameristar.

Typically, the schools use an intermediary, such as a charter broker. They would not directly select the carrier.

tb727 wrote:

It's a very steep drop off just another few hundred feet. They did a huge amount of improvement to that area a couple years ago, it could have been a lot worse.

TW is for Tom Wachendorfer, the owner of Ameristar.

.
.
Steep slope, and trees.
.
.

I have tickets to go see them today. I would not be surprised to see the team play poorly. It would be more than reasonable to be very rattled by this experience, considering how close to disaster they were.

zrb2 wrote:

I have to admit, I've had plenty of opportunities over the past 3 years to fly on Mad Dogs but instead opted for 737 or A320 flights. Juts something about the MD's I don't feel as good in...maybe their age.

Follow your feelings--more seats for the rest of us.

Did U of M select the charter or the Big Ten Conference? Considering that you had 4 teams starting tournament play yesterday, 6 teams start today, and the top 4 finishers start tomorrow, I could see the conference handling charter arrangements. Remember that there was a 4-way tie for 5th that needed several tie-breakers to sort out the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th seeds.

I know that U of M football flies DL, and before that NW, because of the DTW hub being less than an hour from Ann Arbor. (Back in the early 80s, the team flew UA, because UA had a much larger operation at DTW.) I assumed that the men's basketball team also flew DL. The fact that there is a Delta tab on the Athletics Department web site, MGoBlue.Com, leads me to believe that DL is the official airline of U of M athletics.

wjcandee wrote:

This could so easily have been a fireball. Everybody is very fortunate.

I have long been concerned about the carriers that the NCAA contracts with for student transportation. Many of the crappiest of those carriers are gone now, but were it my kid traveling, I would vastly prefer it be with a crew from a major carrier, or at least a top-tier charter carrier (and most people know who those are).

You can tell me all day about how they all have "licensed pilots", but, sorry, I'm not buying it. Different carriers unquestionably have different safety cultures. Different carriers have different safety policies, particularly regarding things like maximum permissible winds for takeoff. (One of my favorite anecdotes from a UA pilot friend regarded him sitting in his cockpit in DEN unable to depart because the wind gusts exceeded UA's maximum. He watched a 737 from a small Part 121 carrier (the one with Marge Simpson on the tail) take the runway, because that carrier allowed takeoffs in these conditions. Just as the aircraft rotated, he took a huge wind gust up the tail and nearly departed from controlled flight. My pal said it was as close as he's ever seen an aircraft come to a crash, and it was totally-preventable.

I hope that this incident is investigated as if a massive loss of life occurred, because that would be the expected outcome from the description of the accident sequence. And if "get-there-itis" or similar departures from good judgment (and/or company policies) are involved, heads should roll straight to the top.

The NCAA needs to reevaluate its charter program. In my view, something like this was only a matter of time in coming.

One "We Are Marshall" is enough.

I understand that we don't have all the facts to clearly know what happened at this time, and that accidents have happened at Delta, United, Southwest, etc., but I couldn't have said it better myself. I have always wondered if universities have some type of criteria they follow when selecting charter companies, or if it's simply the operator with the cheapest bid and the best availability.

b747400erf wrote:

Now arriving, gate 3.... gate 7... gate 10.... gate 35

^ Comment of the day!

MO11 wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

The NCAA doesn't manage charters, the school does.

But I'm surprised Michigan was flying Ameristar.

Typically, the schools use an intermediary, such as a charter broker. They would not directly select the carrier.

Regardless of whether they use an intermediary, they are entitled to set the criteria. Just because you use a travel agent doesn't mean you can't tell them what airline(s) you want to be booked on. And that's usually just because of miles or service or whatever.

Michigan has used Ameristar in the past, as recently as their last away game to KLNK.

Basketball teams typically use the same charter carrier throughout the season, much like the football programs do.

wjcandee wrote:

The NCAA needs to reevaluate its charter program. In my view, something like this was only a matter of time in coming.

One "We Are Marshall" is enough.

The Marshall accident wasn't the only one, here's another:

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wi ... 80109.html

Coincidentally, I'd seen the chartered planes at Stapleton during their refueling.