American Flight 191 - Recovery Procedure

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Wanttaja writes:

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.

Are you saying anything you shouldn't?

It's common and public knowledge that one of NORAD's responsibilities
is to monitor missle launches.

www.norad.mil/about_us.htm

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

Jim Macklin wrote:
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.

Running both hydralic lines (allowing the slats to retract) within
inches of eash other was perhaps a questional decision.

-Robert

It was OK on the DC-9 and nobody considered the difference
on the DC-10. Yes it was a bad design as was not using
hydraulic fuses and not having essential power as is now
required on Part 25, perhaps because of what was learned
from 191.



"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| 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.
|
| Running both hydralic lines (allowing the slats to
retract) within
| inches of eash other was perhaps a questional decision.
|
| -Robert
|

Here's some more information on the accident...

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...hare-full.html

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.