UPS Cargo Plane Crashes in Kentucky - Not Good

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The AA DC-10 Crash was caused by a non approved Maintenance procedure, the MD approved procedure was to remove the engine from the Pylon, remove the Pylon, inspect the Pylon mounting brackets, reinstall the pylon if no issues were found, then install the engine on the pylon. AA and United both removed the engine and pylon as a unit for years. Both used fork lifts to do the procedure. The big issue was that the AA's engine change on the Chicago crash was a shift change during the engine/pylon re-installation. They had inspected the pylon mount brackets, and found no damage, then they started the installation, and installed the single rear bolt. And then the shift turnover occurred. During the hour or so the shift change took, the fork lift hydraulics sagged, and the rear pylon mount was damaged (this was after the mount was inspected for damage and can not be seen with the pylon partially installed)
So the next shift finished the installation starting with raising the engine back into position and installing the 2 forward Bolts. Unaware of the damage incurred during the shift change.
I worked with Mechanics that knew some of the individuals involved with this incident. A couple of them took there own lives after the cause was discovered. I was an engine change crew chief for NWA for 10 years, all that time was well after the AA accident and it was stressed during annual recurrent training the proper procedures to use, and what NOT to do during a DC-10 engine change. Our DC-10's were -40's that used PW JT9's unlike the AA & UA -10 or -30 models that used GE CF6 engines. But the procedures were almost identical for both models. We actually bought used -30 and -30ER models to replace our -40 models so I did a couple of engine changes on CF6 engines also, But most were on the PW JT9 powered DC-10's.
I don't have any experience on MD11's so I can't comment on this incident, but don't care for the speculation that happens before the final reports, and I find it disrespectful to the victims of the accidents, the flight crews and maintenance crews involved. Just my opinion others may vary.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago in the '70s, when I was an aircraft structural engineer in a large aircraft maintenance organization, the "floor" (maintenance personnel) approached me with a problem. The night before, an engine was replaced on a Boeing 707. Contrary to the instructions that required the use of a lifting apparatus with a load cell (to tell you the load inserted during the engine lift which the maintenance manuals told you exactly what it should be and not to be exceeded), the crew doing the replacement used a fork lift. The result was a buckled and cracked pylon that required the replacement of the pylon. In my case, the maintenance crew coming forward and telling what happened definitely saved the airplane and passengers. But sometimes maintainers are either reckless, afraid for their jobs or ignorant with the results being such as the UPS and AA accidents.
And as for the AA crash in Chicago - when the pylon separated, it knocked off the hydraulic system and thus the flight control system. As the MD-11 is a "refined" DC-10, I wouldn't be surprised if the cause of the accident was the same in both cases - pylon separation that caused flight control system failure.
 
You should never use a forklift to change an engine - there is no way that you can control the lift and it is very easy to over stress the pylons.
 
Big Jake said:
You should never use a forklift to change an engine - there is no way that you can control the lift and it is very easy to over stress the pylons.
Click to expand...
No argument from me, I never endorsed the practice, I just stated that UA & AA used that procedure for years. We never used it at NWA that I am aware of, but the DC-10's preceded my employment by about 8-10 years. If anyone is interested in the rear pylon mounting bushing and Bolt that were damaged by during the AA engine change. Here is a diagram.

source https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/f...arned/N110AA/lgChicagoDC-10_fig08_Bearing.jpg
 
Also the DC-10 (and I assume the MD-11) Leading edge slats are cable operated, when the AA's engine and pylon separated from the wing it also tore out the LE slat actuating cables on the left wing, so in addition to the loss of the #1 engine and the resulting asymmetrical thrust that it caused, when the cables were cut the Left wing leading edge slats retracted, causing a loss of lift on the left wing. And the the A/C became uncontrollable. Also the Hydraulic systems were damaged also.
It was extensively covered in our recurrent engine change training. That and the potential damage to the pylon mounts by improper procedures. I have been out of the aircraft maintenance business for over 20 years now. So I have no idea what the current procedures are now. But in my time we had a engine change cradle that was CinC controlled. We did not have this exact system in the link below. But it operated the same way.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIoi7lpWzR8&t=6s
 
I've often wondered why civil airports don't have a camera system similar to what the USN uses on carriers to record takeoffs and landings. I can't remember what it's called (PLAATS?) but surely a dozen or so HD (including day/night/poor weather capability) cameras located at strategic points around the airfield focusing on the runways and the recording system can't be THAT expensive to install, operate and maintain. Record every takeoff and landing and if there's an accident or other problem you've got some good visual evidence right there to help determine the possible cause(s) of an accident like this.
 
Great idea. If airports have security cameras everywhere else, why not?
 
cvairwerks said:
With an average of 45,000 operations a day in the US, that's a lot of disc space and cameras required.
Click to expand...

You don't need that much disk space. Save anomalous takeoffs, overwrite normal takeoffs every few hours, you're not talking that much storage.

As for cameras, LAX has four runways. Put five cameras on each runway, that's twenty cameras. My local Target has more cameras for its loss-prevention staff.

I think this is a splendid idea.
 
Yeah, but there are over 5200 active, public use airports in the US and approximately 14,000 private ones... DFW alone would need something like 40-50 cameras. Lots of other stuff that has to be considered as well, including exclusion zones, height limitations and so on. Not an easy task to implement and every airport will be different.
With the ASRS system, you would need to store a minimum of 180 days of video for every camera, to allow time for the report to be filed and any investigation to be completed. ASRS reports are no necessarily filed the day an incident happens, but can be up to about 21 days afterwards, I think.

It would also be a huge expense and we are already suffering from long delayed ATC systems and computer systems upgrades that have been needed for more than 30 years.
 

Target alone has 2000 locations ... 40,000 cameras right there. Walmart and other retailers also somehow manage to afford the cameras, storage, and personnel to analyze captured imagery, all in order to minimize material loss. Somehow a much smaller number of cameras, storage, and personnel to protect not only much more expensive material but potentially hundreds of lives is too difficult or expensive to manage?

Also, why would we require these video systems for airports which don't handle major pax traffic? That's where your complaints about cost-effectiveness are valid, absolutely.


This completely ignores my point about only storing anomalous takeoffs or landings.
every evolution can be captured on video, but if the takeoff or landing is routine, why must there be a requirement to store it?

cvairwerks said:
It would also be a huge expense and we are already suffering from long delayed ATC systems and computer systems upgrades that have been needed for more than 30 years.
Click to expand...

Right. But with about 1,600 passenger flights daily, how long do you think it would take for a small surcharge (say, one dollar per) on their tickets to cover the associated costs? Let's assume 150 pax per flight, that is $24,000/day. The first week alone will pay for the equipment and infrastructure.
 
Agree with all of your points, Thumps. Also, a program of this scope would start with e POC to flesh out the details and gain some insights into what is required to roll out and maintain such a system. Pic a high-traffic airport (or 5, or 10...), get the operating authority on board, and run a pilot. Cover different weather conditions, day/night operations, equipment access and maintenance, etc.

Once the lessons have been learned, go through the planned go/no-go decision process ... and then (assuming positive results, committed funding, yadda, yadda, yadda...), off you go. Simple
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

NOT LOOKING GOOD FOR AIRBUS
Replies
3
Views
319
SaparotRob
Boeing 747 Cargo Skids off Runway in Hong Kong
Replies
0
Views
285
fubar57
Azerbaijan Airlines plane crashes in Kazakhstan
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Retattack
R
M
TBM-2 Crashes In Indiana
Replies
3
Views
1K
Gnomey
M
HAwker Hunter crashes Off the CA Coast
Replies
5
Views
616
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register