UPS Cargo Plane Crashes in Kentucky - Not Good

[fubar57]

Child among the 12 killed in UPS plane crash in Kentucky | CBC News

A UPS cargo plane's left wing caught fire and an engine fell off just before it crashed and exploded after takeoff in Kentucky, a federal investigator said Wednesday, offering the first official details about a disaster that killed at least 12 people, including a child.

www.cbc.ca

 

[SaparotRob]

Boeing can't even build MD-11s right.

 

[Jager52]

It probably was built before the merger of McDonnell Douglas and Boeing in August 1997. But was delivered to Thai Airlines before the merger as a passenger aircraft in June of 1991.
Jager

 

[SaparotRob]

I was expecting to be corrected by someone else.

 

[Gnomey]

Doesn't look good from the bits released so far.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A UPS cargo plane was nearly airborne when a bell sounded in the cockpit. For the next 25 seconds, the bell rang and the pilots tried to control the aircraft as it barely lifted off the runway, its left wing ablaze and missing an engine, and then plowed into the ground in a spectacular fireball, the chief investigator said Friday.

[...]

National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman said the cockpit voice recorder captured the bell that sounded about 37 seconds after the crew called for takeoff thrust.

[...]

"It occurred at a point in the takeoff where they were likely past their decision speed to abort the takeoff," Guzzetti told The Associated Press after Inman's news conference. "They were likely past their critical decision speed to remain on the runway and stop safely. … They'll need to thoroughly investigate the options the crew may or may not have had."

Investigators look into 'repeating bell' heard during takeoff of UPS cargo plane that crashed

Investigators say a repeating bell sounded as pilots tried to control a UPS cargo plane upon takeoff before it crashed in Louisville, Kentucky, this week.

apnews.com

 

[Malechite138]

This is close to us, so been following it (hour drive south of me). I've seen different videos. Number 1 engine was obviously on fire going down the runway, and was lost before takeoff. It got up, but not high enough. They were past V1 and committed sadly. It looked like it hit a powerline or transformer at some point, and the rest is history. I took a screen shot from the one video when they hit the electrical; right before everything was a fireball basically. I paused it at the giant electrical flash, and you can see the fire trailing behind as a result from the left wing. This was before it started to rotate with the left wing pulled down into the ground. So a lot for the NTSB to sort through, but at least they have more clues and help than in past crashes as a starting point.

 

[Art Medcalf]

Just a note, IIRC an AA flight that was one I used to use between Chicago and LA in 1980, had a similar DC-10 crash. Taking off from O'Hare the left engine departed the Plane after V1 and the ensuing crash killed all aboard. It was my flight , just not my day to fly. I believe the cause was found to be maintenance errors in an engine replacement. Just wondering if that ultimately be the cause of the current crash.

ArtieBob

 

[Malechite138]

I remember that one (well saw a video on it, I was 7 at the time it happened). This one reminded me of that one too. Glad I wasn't the only one. The DC-10's seem to have a reputation, and not in a good way.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just a note, IIRC an AA flight that was one I used to use between Chicago and LA in 1980, had a similar DC-10 crash. Taking off from O'Hare the left engine departed the Plane after V1 and the ensuing crash killed all aboard. It was my flight , just not my day to fly. I believe the cause was found to be maintenance errors in an engine replacement. Just wondering if that ultimately be the cause of the current crash.

ArtieBob

I don't know, but I'm doubtful. That flight, in the summer of 1979, crashed as a result of non-standard maintenance on the number 1 engine such that the last bolt on the pylon failed, causing the separation and crash.

I remember it clearly because it was only a week or two later that I flew on an American DC-10, and already an aviation enthusiast, had followed the news closely ... and yes, a little nervous.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I remember that one (well saw a video on it, I was 7 at the time it happened). This one reminded me of that one too. Glad I wasn't the only one. The DC-10's seem to have a reputation, and not in a good way.

Right. Although Flight 191 was caused by maintenance issues, the cargo door-locks (an entirely separate issue) were not just a headache, but caused a massive crash over France with 346 casualties and nearly caused one over Canada in 1972 (?).

Even in 1979 newspapers, that Turkish crash was mentioned, and the flight A Art Medcalf didn't take only further dimmed the plane's reputation. I think the DC-10's issues were one reason McDonnell-Douglas ended up being bought out.

The cargo doors were a design issue back then, before corrective retrofits. The Chicago crash was a maintenance issue. There's no telling what caused this, but if for whatever reason the engine caught fire on takeoff run (which it seems to have done) the heat from that fire could certainly have stressed attachments, burned through control wiring, etc.

I find it odd that this crew didn't shut down No 1 immediately on a fire warning. I'm pretty sure an MD-11 can take off on two engines, so I wonder if something damaged the engine control-circuits such that it could not be shut down? This is speculation on my part.

There's no way to know right now, except to say this was not a cargo door falling off and causing decompression a la 1974.

 

[fubar57]

Related..... U.S. aviation regulator grounds all MD-11 cargo planes after deadly Kentucky crash | CBC News

 

[cvairwerks]

Couple of things....Not only did the engine depart the aircraft, but the pylon did too. In the video showing the landing gear catching the power lines, it's not there. The pylon gone would have sheared fuel, pneumatic, hydraulic and electrical as it went. That would mean that the fluid systems were now open to atmosphere and flowing, with no way to cut them off. The hydraulics might have flow fuses above the pylon, depending on how the system was designed, and those would have stopped.

As for the shutting down as soon as the fire warning went off, during a certain portion of takeoff and landing, they concentrate only on flying the aircraft. Once you make V1, there is no option but getting airborne. V1 is a calculated speed based on several factors and can change for every airfield and load condition. Until a positive rate of climb is established, the 2nd pilots' only job is to monitor airspeed and ROC indications and guard the throttles to prevent any retardation. Once positive ROC is established, then the fire boldface procedures would be followed.

There are indications that #2 engine was either FOD damaged or suffered a compressor stall about the time the a/c lifted off the runway. With their loading, loss of the 2nd engine meant they weren't going to fly for any length of time.

 

[special ed]

In my often faulty memory, I remember those engine/Pylon separations were because engine changes which were not as per Douglas instructions. I subscribed to Aviation Week in the 1980s and the investigators found the Airlines were using a fork lift to position the engine with pylon mounted because the time factor was much less. The fork lift, no matter how well handled, could not position the pylon accurately which stressed the rear bolt as it was installed first, then the other two positioned by forklift adjustment. I may remember that wrong, but as I remember, I was amazed that only three large bolts held the pylon/engine. Those of you with airline experience may be able to confirm or clarify.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In my often faulty memory, I remember those engine/Pylon separations were because engine changes which were not as per Douglas instructions. I subscribed to Aviation Week in the 1980s and the investigators found the Airlines were using a fork lift to position the engine with pylon mounted because the time factor was much less. The fork lift, no matter how well handled, could not position the pylon accurately which stressed the rear bolt as it was installed first, then the other two positioned by forklift adjustment. I may remember that wrong, but as I remember, I was amazed that only three large bolts held the pylon/engine. Those of you with airline experience may be able to confirm or clarify.

I have no airline experience, but multiple sources I've read about AA 191 specifies that the slipshod replacement was a direct cause.

 

[Warspite63]

Just a note, IIRC an AA flight that was one I used to use between Chicago and LA in 1980, had a similar DC-10 crash. Taking off from O'Hare the left engine departed the Plane after V1 and the ensuing crash killed all aboard. It was my flight , just not my day to fly. I believe the cause was found to be maintenance errors in an engine replacement. Just wondering if that ultimately be the cause of the current crash.

ArtieBob

I remember that one - it was featured in the TV show 'Mayday'. As I recall, the aircraft had its left engine removed for maintenance then reinstalled. The correct process was to detach the engine from its pylon. The maintenance organization in question discovered it was a lot easier to remove the engine AND pylon from the wing together - far fewer bolts involved. Unfortunately, the pylon was not supposed to be removed and reattached time and again. This was supposed to only be done in very specific circumstances, as it was easy to damage the connection. The maintenance group opted for the more 'convenient' option ........

 

[cvairwerks]

If I remember correctly, the removal of the engine and pylon as an assembly on the DC-10 was an approved, normal process, but required the use of a large and slow to use handling fixture. Someone at AA approved the bypass of using the fixture and using a forklift instead. That induced the pin and structure failure eventually.

 

[fubar57]

Knowing nothing about aviation mechanics but speaking as a former forklift operator, the machine is not made for fine adjustments no matter how careful the operator is

 

[Warspite63]

If I remember correctly, the removal of the engine and pylon as an assembly on the DC-10 was an approved, normal process, but required the use of a large and slow to use handling fixture. Someone at AA approved the bypass of using the fixture and using a forklift instead. That induced the pin and structure failure eventually.

Ahhhh ... that sounds right ... thanks for the additional detail.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was expecting to be corrected by someone else.

Wasn't going to waste my time…