If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Last night I watched a fascinating documentary on the History Channel,
titled (I think) "Flight 191". This is the American Airlines DC-10 crash on March 25, 1979, in which 270+ were killed, after the No. 1 engine blew off its wing. (I was only eleven when this happened.) In the last part of the program, the subject turned to the recovery procedures used by the pilots. I'm not a pilot, so I'll have to paraphrase, but essentially the plane could have still been flown with its missing engine if the pilots recognized they were in a stall (the pilot in question didn't have a "stick shaker" to warn him of this). I don't doubt it's possible to still fly a DC-10 with one engine missing, but a lot of things have to go right to turn it around and land, yes? Can anyone recall a commercial aircraft recovery from a blown engine? -- Rick (www.snipurl.com/rickumali) Umali |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Rick Umali wrote: Last night I watched a fascinating documentary on the History Channel, titled (I think) "Flight 191". This is the American Airlines DC-10 crash on March 25, 1979, in which 270+ were killed, after the No. 1 engine blew off its wing. (I was only eleven when this happened.) In the last part of the program, the subject turned to the recovery procedures used by the pilots. I'm not a pilot, so I'll have to paraphrase, but essentially the plane could have still been flown with its missing engine if the pilots recognized they were in a stall (the pilot in question didn't have a "stick shaker" to warn him of this). I don't doubt it's possible to still fly a DC-10 with one engine missing, but a lot of things have to go right to turn it around and land, yes? Can anyone recall a commercial aircraft recovery from a blown engine? -- No stick shaker in a DC-10? I find that hard to believe, I thought all transport category jets built in the last 35 years had that system, but I'm not a jet pilot. I don't know that it IS possible to fly that plane with a missing wing engine considering there was probably a major hydraulic system failure when the engine tore off its mounts. Countering the asymmetric thrust condition without rudder would make that impossible I'd think. A similar thing happened in 1989(?) in Sioux City when Capt. Al Haines landed (more or less) a crippled DC-10 when the tail mounted #2 engine had an uncontained fan disk failure that took out all three hyd systems leaving differential engine thrust as the only method of control. The fact that anybody walked away from that crash was amazing - That the majority of passengers did qualifies as a miracle. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Kingfish wrote:
No stick shaker in a DC-10? I find that hard to believe, I thought all transport category jets built in the last 35 years had that system, but I'm not a jet pilot. Actually, one stick shaker came standard on the aircraft, the other one was an option... AA did not choose to avail themselves of that option though... When Flight 191 lost the left engine, it also lost the generator that provided electrical power to the stick shaker... The loss of the engine also took out both sets of hydraulic lines in the left wing... The slats retracted upon loss of hydraulic fuel in those lines... Procedures at that time were to go to V2, even if they were above V2 at that time... In this incident, they were already above V2... If they had stayed there, they would have most likely been able to land the plane safely... Slowing to V2 caused the left wing to stall, but the right wing did not due to the slats still being extended on it... Of course, it goes into a roll to the left and impacts the ground with significant force... Typical 3 links in the chain of events leading up to the accident... 1 -- Maintenance problems with the AA mechanics who used a procedure to change the engines on the aircraft that was not only not approved by the aircraft manufacturer, but the manufacturer had explicitly told them that they shouldn't be using... 2 -- No stick shaker on the other yoke... If they had known that they were starting to stall as they decreased to V2, they could have increased their speed and kept it from stalling and the roll developing... 3 -- Incorrect emergency procedures... Subsequent revisions to the emergency procedures said that if you are already above V2, don't decrease your speed... I don't know that it IS possible to fly that plane with a missing wing engine considering there was probably a major hydraulic system failure when the engine tore off its mounts. Countering the asymmetric thrust condition without rudder would make that impossible I'd think. Actually, it shouldn't be as bad as some aircraft since it has 3 engines and as such, the dissymmetry of thrust would not be as great... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
2 -- No stick shaker on the other yoke... If they had known that they
were starting to stall as they decreased to V2, they could have increased their speed and kept it from stalling and the roll developing... Not sure exactly how the stick shakers in the big planes work, only familiar with a C-172, which has only one port on the left wing to feed what essentially amounts to a kazoo to inform the pilot that the plane is about to stall. Did that particular DC-10 have a port on each wing, and if so, would both ports have fed both stick shakers? If not, I don't see how adding a second stick shaker would have necessarily helped to recognize a stall, especially if only one wing was stalling at the time. -- Guy |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Yes, a DC-10 at Tulsa had both wing mounted engines fail
after sucking up about 10,000 sparrows. Came around on just the tail engine. The problem with flight 191 was that the crew did not know the slat had retracted. Since lift varies by the sq.root of the speed, the wing would not be stalled at V2, but with the slat retracted, the effect was greater than the combined effect of rudder and aileron anti-roll command. At 300 feet they just wasn't time to figure it out. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P "Rick Umali" wrote in message ... | Last night I watched a fascinating documentary on the History Channel, | titled (I think) "Flight 191". This is the American Airlines DC-10 crash on | March 25, 1979, in which 270+ were killed, after the No. 1 engine blew off | its wing. (I was only eleven when this happened.) | | In the last part of the program, the subject turned to the recovery | procedures used by the pilots. I'm not a pilot, so I'll have to paraphrase, | but essentially the plane could have still been flown with its missing | engine if the pilots recognized they were in a stall (the pilot in question | didn't have a "stick shaker" to warn him of this). | | I don't doubt it's possible to still fly a DC-10 with one engine missing, | but a lot of things have to go right to turn it around and land, yes? Can | anyone recall a commercial aircraft recovery from a blown engine? | -- | Rick (www.snipurl.com/rickumali) Umali |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
That accident was almost a successful landing, right up to
the point that they dropped the gear. They had a stabilized approach to a belly landing, the change in drag with the gear dropping required major adjustments to power. Had they landed gear up and there was one death, you can expect that the lawyers would have sued the pilot and airline. When you get a first time event, with not previously flight test procedure, the pilot should be given a medal and a writ that bans a suit against the pilot, no matter what happened. "Kingfish" wrote in message oups.com... | | Rick Umali wrote: | Last night I watched a fascinating documentary on the History Channel, | titled (I think) "Flight 191". This is the American Airlines DC-10 crash on | March 25, 1979, in which 270+ were killed, after the No. 1 engine blew off | its wing. (I was only eleven when this happened.) | | In the last part of the program, the subject turned to the recovery | procedures used by the pilots. I'm not a pilot, so I'll have to paraphrase, | but essentially the plane could have still been flown with its missing | engine if the pilots recognized they were in a stall (the pilot in question | didn't have a "stick shaker" to warn him of this). | | I don't doubt it's possible to still fly a DC-10 with one engine missing, | but a lot of things have to go right to turn it around and land, yes? Can | anyone recall a commercial aircraft recovery from a blown engine? | -- | | No stick shaker in a DC-10? I find that hard to believe, I thought all | transport category jets built in the last 35 years had that system, but | I'm not a jet pilot. | I don't know that it IS possible to fly that plane with a missing wing | engine considering there was probably a major hydraulic system failure | when the engine tore off its mounts. Countering the asymmetric thrust | condition without rudder would make that impossible I'd think. A | similar thing happened in 1989(?) in Sioux City when Capt. Al Haines | landed (more or less) a crippled DC-10 when the tail mounted #2 engine | had an uncontained fan disk failure that took out all three hyd systems | leaving differential engine thrust as the only method of control. The | fact that anybody walked away from that crash was amazing - That the | majority of passengers did qualifies as a miracle. | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:24:54 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote: That accident was almost a successful landing, right up to the point that they dropped the gear. Wrong accident...you're thinking of United 232 in Sioux City. American 191 is the one in Chicago where the engine pod physically broke free of the wing right after takeoff. 271 dead, no survivors. I have my own strange connection to the Chicago accident. I was an on-duty operator for a USAF missile launch detection satellite which operated in the IR spectrum. We detected the heat from the crash. Ron Wanttaja |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Here's some more information on the accident...
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...hare-full.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
Rick Umali wrote:
In the last part of the program, the subject turned to the recovery procedures used by the pilots. I'm not a pilot, so I'll have to paraphrase, but essentially the plane could have still been flown with its missing engine if the pilots recognized they were in a stall (the pilot in question didn't have a "stick shaker" to warn him of this). The problem was not that they stalled. The problem is that when the wing departed it caused the leading edge slat on that side not to extend. When they slowed down to the single engine best rate of climb speed (which was the proper official procedure), the ONE SIDE stalled. I'm not sure a stick shaker or other stall warning would have helped here unless there was a specific design for the assymetric configuration that happened. Had they symmetrically stalled, they would have just controllably lost altitude and might have even recovered. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure
"Guy Elden Jr" wrote:
2 -- No stick shaker on the other yoke... If they had known that they were starting to stall as they decreased to V2, they could have increased their speed and kept it from stalling and the roll developing... Not sure exactly how the stick shakers in the big planes work, only familiar with a C-172, which has only one port on the left wing to feed what essentially amounts to a kazoo to inform the pilot that the plane is about to stall. Did that particular DC-10 have a port on each wing, and if so, would both ports have fed both stick shakers? If not, I don't see how adding a second stick shaker would have necessarily helped to recognize a stall, especially if only one wing was stalling at the time. As I recall, the problem wasn't that there was only one stick shaker motor, but that the stick shaker motor, the captain's instruments, the slat disagreement alarm and the two stall warning computers were powered from a generator on the engine that was lost. There was no redundancy. The backup power switch was located in the panel over the captain's head, and to the rear, also out of reach of the flight engineer, so in the heat of the moment, it was not used. Further, only the outboard slats had retracted on the left wing, with the inboard properly deployed, so there likely was no tell-tale buffeting of the tail to give the crew any clue that the wing was stalling. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
FLIGHT SIMULATOR X DELUXE 2006-2007 (SIMULATION) 1DVD,Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, and Addons, FLITESTAR V8.51 - JEPPESEN, MapInfo StreetPro U.S.A. [11 CDs], Rand McNally StreetFinder & TripMaker Deluxe 2004 [3 CDs], other | T.E.L. | General Aviation | 0 | October 14th 06 11:38 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
FAA Investigates American Flyers | SFM | Instrument Flight Rules | 57 | November 7th 03 09:33 PM |