fubar57
General
Similar to the Gimli Glider but it was the fuel guys who short changed the airliner...'Gimli Glider' pilot recalls heroic landing of Air Canada 767 as famed plane put up for sale
Aircraft Disasters
- Thread starter davparlr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
COmpany MATerial. It's all kinds of stuff from mechanics tools, to admin paperwork, to galley supplies that travels "for free" on passenger flights. When we were affiliated with Piedmont, and then later TWA, we wound up carrying their crap all over the system. TWA particularly was notorious for trying to pawn off on us COMAT containing HAZMAT they knew they couldn't carry on their own flights, and hoped we were too dumb to realize. Led to some ugly baggage door standoffs and yelling matches between crusty cynical old baggage smashers and fuzzy cheeked young First Officers. I once had to take a delay, call the Ramp Supervisor and Security to deal with a smasher who was verbally assaulting and making threatening gestures at my 21 year old 5'3" female First Officer in front of a crowd of embarrassed and angry passengers. I had to save his sorry ass, as she was at the end of her rope and about to demonstrate her black belt karate on him, as she had done at another station and generated a lawsuit against the company. (Her name was Bobbi Jo, but she quickly became known behind her back as "Billy Jack")
I was later called into Dir of Ops and shown two letters from passengers on the flight criticizing me for not decking the guy on the spot. He said "For once you did the right thing. Fisticuffs Airways we're NOT!"
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I can think of one disaster that was almost certainly due to bad maintenance practice (American Airlines Flight 191 out of O'Hare), one directly due to bad design decisions (Turkish Airlines Flight 981 out of Paris), and several in which bad design decisions were contributory (including both Flight 191 and United Flight 232, which crashed at Sioux City).
There are a couple of near-disasters that may be illuminating, two of which are Eastern Flight 855, which lost all three engines (one was restarted, permitting a safe landing) when oil pressure switches were installed without o-rings (normally, the crib attendant would install the o-rings before the switches were given to the mechanics; the attendant was out and the mechanic didn't know the o-rings had to be installed), and a DC-10 that lost two or three engines during a takeoff at LGA in the early 1980s, which was traced to GE never actually doing birdshots on the CF-6
There are a couple of near-disasters that may be illuminating, two of which are Eastern Flight 855, which lost all three engines (one was restarted, permitting a safe landing) when oil pressure switches were installed without o-rings (normally, the crib attendant would install the o-rings before the switches were given to the mechanics; the attendant was out and the mechanic didn't know the o-rings had to be installed), and a DC-10 that lost two or three engines during a takeoff at LGA in the early 1980s, which was traced to GE never actually doing birdshots on the CF-6
IMHO the DC10 was nothing but a bundle of bad design decisions, most of which were "band-aided" but never really fixed throughout the life of the aircraft. I knew two different airline pilots who were involved in or present at DC10 mishaps, and both swore by the airplane as "the safest thing in the sky". I guess loyalty just isn't a rational thing.
Cheers,
Wes
Are you referring to the ONA DC-10 at JFK in 1975 that was almost exactly that scenario? Led to the determination that single frozen pigeons are not the equivalent of multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?
One of our local airport crowd was FO on that flight, and he had an Instamatic in his pocket. Once clear of the wreck he turned and snapped a dramatic scene of 138 people beating feet away from the fire. That picture lived on our local airport bulletin board for 30 years.
To his deathbed he swore the "Ten" was the safest thing in the sky.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Just curious- could you please clarify "single frozen pigeons and not the equivalent to multiple live seagulls when it comes to ingestion testing?" What was the cause of this accident involving a DC-10 in 1975 at JFK? Birds being sucked into the engine intake ports? Many thanks!! Hansie
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I wasn't directly involved in birdshot testing but the story I heard was that GE claimed that tests on the TF-39 engine, which was used on the C-5A, had birdshots done on it, and the CF6 was similar enough that it didn't need the shots repeated. Considering that the TF39 had a completely different (and much more complex) fan design, this was disingenuous.
As an aside, at the time the CF6 would have had its birdshots done, the FAA did not permit use of "frozen" birds; the birds had to be freshly killed. I was a test engineer on the ALF502 during that era (I was in charge of one of the 150 hr cert tests and babysat an engine through tests in an icing tunnel in Pyestock for the BAe146; I also did some of the early tests on Lycoming's QCGAT engine, even some early tests with a FADEC); the FAA requirements were spelled out in the test documents.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
I don't have a clue. The story I heard was that GE got the testing waived by a claimed similarity with the TF39, which had, among other things, a completely different fan. Despite this view of the FAA as a hideously intrusive regulatory threat, it basically trusts what the manufacturers tell it.
I worked at Lycoming (in Stratford, not Pennsylvania) and the general consensus is that had we or P&WA pulled that sort of crap, we'd see our type certificate pulled.
DC10 departing 13R JFK (one of the longest runways in US) ingested, at just below V1, a flock of seagulls in #3, which promptly started shedding fan blades and ingesting fancase liner fragments into the combustion section, which blew up the engine. This deprived them of half their braking/spoiler/reverser capability and sentenced them to a runway overrun. They tried to take the last taxiway turn at the end of the runway at 40 knots, collapsed the gear, and slid sideways into the localizer hut.
All 139 aboard (ONA employees returning to overseas stations from stateside recurrent training) escaped with only a few minor injuries.
It's been awhile since I read the NTSB report, but I remember something about the engine being certified for bird ingestion with a single smallish bird (frozen pigeon keeps popping up in my head), which the NTSB deemed sorely inadequate. When I get the time (and the bandwidth) I'll download it and read it again.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Thank you, I look forward to reading more data after you complete your download- Frozen pigeons? Why not live ones, or freshly killed. My grandfather used to drive into KY in the pre-WW11 days and shoot live trapped barn pigeons for $$-- private clubs offered this, in the pre-PETA era.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
My understanding was that the FAA, at that time, required fresh-killed birds; it did not, at least in the 1970s, permit once-frozen birds.
OMG imagine the rig needed and the protests from animal rights campaigners if you were launching live birds into an engine at 200MPH?
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
Some of the techs I worked with at Lycoming grew attached to the birds, and said they were upset with having to kill them.
They also really hated cleaning up after each shot
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
A real "Shit detail".. Hansie
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
More of a barf detail. The smell of the remains of a swan and its guts stuck in the smaller parts and crevices of the fan bypass duct of a DC-8 are definitely memorable even 50 years later.
Well I read the report and found that the ice slab, hailstone and bird ingestion testing was not performed on the CF6-50 for certification, as the tests done on the CF6-6 were deemed adequate, and the fan designs were similar. (As Swampyankee had said) There was no discussion of the details of the ingestion testing for certification, but lengthy reports on the post mortem testing of the -50 to determine the sequence of the failure. It seems they tested several engines to destruction before they were done, a pretty expensive process, if you ask me.
Cheers,
Wes
1900's are notoriously tail heavy. Everytime we brought them in the hangar, tail stand was the first thing to go on.
I flew Ryan Air out of there one time for a weekend trip to London. Never again...
fubar57
General
I wish I knew the name of the small commuter jet I flew from LA to Tuscon in. During the landing and still several thousand feet up, the aircraft leaned hard to the right and then all of a sudden it violently went the opposite way, almost standing on the left wing. Personal effects went everywhere, lots of screaming and my first thought was "I've seen enough Mayday episodes to know where this is going.......lawn dart". To you guys that know about this sort of thing, did the aircraft stall out or something similar to wind shear?
