From what I saw of them over the last few years not all the 727’s had been upgraded with the winglets but most were. I’d been told that they did a complete avionics upgrade on their 727’s but I don’t know exactly what that intails.

http://www.flypanam.com/fleet.html

What’s the issue? Pan Am (incarnation #3) still operates, mainly with 727s – their base is up in the north east somewhere but most of their operations are charter and into Orlando/Sanford. FWIW, there was also a Pan Am 727 at Los Angeles last week, which I photographed taking off.

Andy

Still a bit odd as the last a lot of us heard they shut their doors last year but I guess they are back again. I saw a PA 727 just this last week (I can’t remember where) and I hadn’t seen one of their jets flying in over a year.

Ah the rarely seen Embraer 737. 🙂

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=53594

Great pictures BTW

Great pictures, thanks for sharing. What airline is behind the Pan Am 727?

Awesome. It would be really nice from JFK as it’s a real pain to get from JFK into the city.

Wikipedia has an entry for this flight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTran_Airways

July 13th, 2004
Airbus A320-233
executed an emergency landing, due to fan cowl doors of the engine separated from the airplane in flight.

Not a maintenance flight it seems:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040719X01004&key=1

The flight departed runway 27R, and immediately after takeoff, a passenger reported seeing a “cover” come off the No. 1 engine. The captain felt the airplane “shutter,” declared an emergency, and returned the airplane to the airport and landed without further incident. Examination of the airplane revealed both sides of the No. 1 engine fan cowl were separated. The inboard fan cowl door was found approximately 7.5 nautical miles west southwest of the airport, and the outboard fan cowl door was found beside the runway. Examination of the latching mechanisms on each cowl door revealed no evidence of failure or mechanical malfunction. A mechanic stated he opened the fan cowl for the No. 1 engine prior to the flight, and he could not recall if the cowl doors were fully latched. A review of data provided by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada revealed that, between 1991 and September 2000, there were ten similar cowl door separation events documented worldwide, and each involved the cowl doors having been opened prior to the flight. Examination of the incident airplane revealed it was equipped with the modifications outlined in Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-18-06 amendment 39-13297, which mandates the installation of a hold-open device for the cowl doors, as well as a modification of the latch handles to ensure that unfastened latch handles will hang down. A review of the operator’s A320/321 preflight checklist revealed it included for each engine, “Check the fan cowl doors.” During post-incident examination, a visual walk-around was performed with the undamaged No. 2 engine cowl in various unlatched configurations. Examination revealed unlatched cowl doors can appear closed flush when the hold-open device is overridden in preparation for latching, and unfastened latches that hang down may be obscured from view by the shape of the fan cowl. In response to this incident, Airbus Industrie issued an Operator’s Information Telex to “A319/A320/A321 V2500 operators.” The telex recommended that, in addition to mandatory compliance with AD 2003-18-06, operators consider the following: “… strictly adhere to AMM Task 71-13-00 for proper latching and closing of fan cowl doors after each maintenance action requiring cowl opening. … It is essential that a flight crew member visually inspects the fan cowl doors prior to each flight to ensure that they are closed and latched.”

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this incident as follows:
The failure of company maintenance personnel to secure the nacelle/cowl doors, which resulted in a separation of the doors during takeoff initial climb.