UPS Cargo Plane Crashes in Kentucky - Not Good

Suggest FAA requisition all speed cameras from roads all across the country. That should be a good start.

Well, looks like they have grounded all MD-11, MD-10, and DC-10 in view of this mishap.

special ed said:

Suggest FAA requisition all speed cameras from roads all across the country. That should be a good start.

Click to expand...

Somehow we can monitor tens of thousands of ground-traffic intersections, but not a couple of thousand runways.

(NEXSTAR) — The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released new frame-by-frame images showing the moments before a UPS cargo plane crashed in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this month.

The plane had crashed about 5:15 p.m. on Nov. 4, after its left wing caught fire and an engine fell off as it was departing for Honolulu from UPS Worldport, the company's global aviation hub in Louisville.

The fiery images, seen below, show the engine and pylon on the Boeing MD-11F plane separate from the wing and fly into the air before crashing into the ground.



It looks almost certain that No2 engine got fodded as well.

Thumpalumpacus said:

(NEXSTAR) — The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released new frame-by-frame images showing the moments before a UPS cargo plane crashed in Louisville, Kentucky, earlier this month.

The plane had crashed about 5:15 p.m. on Nov. 4, after its left wing caught fire and an engine fell off as it was departing for Honolulu from UPS Worldport, the company's global aviation hub in Louisville.

The fiery images, seen below, show the engine and pylon on the Boeing MD-11F plane separate from the wing and fly into the air before crashing into the ground.

View attachment 857004

It looks almost certain that No2 engine got fodded as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I have heard that the no.2 engine went out as well

Some appropriate commentary here:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYZkZTdur1Q

cammerjeff said:

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

Click to expand...

My father worked in engine maintenance at AA's Tulsa facility where the DC-10s were worked on. He told me that the procedure of removing the engine and pylon as a unit had been previously done by two other airlines, I think perhaps Continental and TWA. It definitely saved time and effort, so American started doing it too. Worse, this procedure had been approved by the FAA (but not by the NTSB, since they don't have the authority to approve or disapprove anything--just make recommendations after the fact). In the case of Flight 191, it so happened that after the engine had been removed, it was quitting time, and the engine was just left there overnight, dangling from the lifting vehicle. This worsened the already substantial fatigue cracks in the pylon and engine mount. One of the fellows in AA's Tulsa facility that had worked on the engine removal committed suicide.

But there were other factors in the crash that are often not emphasized. The main cause of the crash was the aircraft's inability to maintain lift on the left wing, because the left wing forward slats had retracted when the forward hydraulic line was severed by the ripping off of the left engine. The only thing keeping the slats in place was the hydraulic pressure; when it was gone the slats retracted. The Lockheed TriStar, a very similar airliner, had double forward hydraulic lines, as well as automatic emergency locks on the slats. An engine ripping off a TriStar would probably not do any critical damage to the wing, allowing the aircraft to circle back to the airport for an emergency landing.

My father also commented that although he never worked on a TriStar, he had heard that it had a great deal more redundant systems than the DC-10. There were rumors that Douglas had greatly accelerated the design schedule for the DC-10, in order to get the airplane in the air before the TriStar, and non-vital components that would take more time to design and engineer were simply dropped.

Unfortunately It looks very much like the AA Chicago Crash. The engine is designed to flip up over the wing during separation from excessive vibration. But it is designed to separate from the pylon, not with the pylon.

cammerjeff said:

Unfortunately It looks very much like the AA Chicago Crash. The engine is designed to flip up over the wing during separation from excessive vibration. But it is designed to separate from the pylon, not with the pylon.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and it looks like another rear-bolt failure on the pylon as well.

More in this:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yztAtbIe3MA&pp=ygULYyB3IGxlbW9pbmU%3D

Instead of wildly underestimating the cost of runway cameras, consider the minimal areas/angles of coverage available and quality of images, the massive # of airports affected, and the miniscule number of airport accidents ... realistically consider the minimal extra benefits, and then the cost/benefit value. Paltry, IMHO!!

Most of all, I followed the O'Hare DC-10 investigation closely, in hearings and in AW&ST. I know a slat retraction lock was recommended, and back up routing for the LE controls. I'm surprised they were not incorporated in the MD-11 at least.

I believe that the MD11 locks the leading edge slats when it senses a drop in hydraulic pressure. Photos evidence shows them extended after the engine and pylon depart the airframe.

cvairwerks said:

I believe that the MD11 locks the leading edge slats when it senses a drop in hydraulic pressure. Photos evidence shows them extended after the engine and pylon depart the airframe.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I was under the impression from comments that they had retracted, enhancing the left roll. Two engines out in a full load would have been Kismet.

I am most bothered that with a known trouble area in pylon mountings, that they didn't get massive attention and increased inspections or a major redesign.

The actual NTSB prelim report for those interested