SouthernAir

[dojetdriver]

The reason AA lost that DC-10 over Chicago had nothing to do with loss of thrust or drag. It had everything to do with their training. Their training specified that when you lose an engine, you're IMMIDEATELY to fly v2. They were approx 30-40 knots above v2 when they lost their engine- when the PF pulled up the nose to slow to v2, he stalled the wing.

Edited. Dang, ATR beat me to it!

You mean besides a faulty MX procedure as well as a shift change of mechanics during the engine swap coupled with the fact that when the engine came off it severed the hydraulic lines causing the leading edge devices to retract, giving it less lift.

Did AA, or any other DC-10 operator for that matter, have any training dealing with that exact scenario? I would think that somebody who puts the MF'n-10 on their info would know that.

The sad part is the mechanic that was held liable ended up committing suicide shortly after. We pilots only get one chance to kill people, mechanics get to kill people till they are caught. I heard that from a mechanic.

 

[Diesel]

AA was allowed by the DC to change it's mx procedures with or without the knowledge of DC. They used procedures that they had learned from the years of working on the DC-10. There wouldn't have had a problem but the shift change and a forklift that had a slight hydraulic leak ended up causing the engine to shift and put uneven stress on the bolt and mount.

 

[AAflyer]

The system's purpose is for the engine to shear off at random points in time? You lost me there.....



You're right, AA had a DC-10 loose an engine off the wing....with less than stellar results. And El Al lost one on a Classic 747 which promptly took out it's neighboring engine, causing it to crash into an apartment building in Amsterdam.



I'm going to say the loss of thrust, and drag from a whole engine mounted on the outbard of the wing might have some slight effect on flight.


The reason AA lost that DC-10 over Chicago had nothing to do with loss of thrust or drag. It had everything to do with their training. Their training specified that when you lose an engine, you're IMMIDEATELY to fly v2. They were approx 30-40 knots above v2 when they lost their engine- when the PF pulled up the nose to slow to v2, he stalled the wing.

Don't forget- transport category aircraft are certified to fly with a positive rate of climb even with the loss of an engine. Yes, even if it falls off. (Which, if you think about it, would lessen the drag coefficient)

Don't remember the El Al flight, but it seems that that was just bad luck, to have one engine fly into another.

The hydraulics were also severed causing the leading edge devices to slide back to a stowed position. That is what brought about the dramatic increase in the stall speed of one wing. In essence one wing flying with an engine producing max thrust, and another wing stalled with no engine.

The crew assumed the engine had failed, not fallen off. There was no indication in the cockpit that would indicate your engine has fallen off.

It would have been no problem to climb at V2 if the engine had failed and everything else had worked. Not sure if that V2 is accurate. The guys at the school house said it was V2+10. Will have to ask around, as it has been awhile since we were given the whole story and presentation.

Regards

AA

 

[gringo]

The real problem was that that original designers of the airplane never considered that particular scenario- i.e., an engine falling off with the slats extended (I knew I was missing something when I first posted). Nobody considered what would happen when all hydraulic pressure was lost- the slats would retract. No one considered what would happen if all 3 hydraulic lines were simultaneously cut, as well (UAL232). These things just happen- the fact that mainteance had a shift change or a forklift was leaking or Mrs Smith brough warm chocolate chip cookies only helped the problem along, but had there been safety blocks in the hydraulic lines, all we would have heard about was how an airplane lost another engine.

Humans design airplaines, and therefore are far from perfect. Even the new ones rolling off the factory floors right now have inherent design problems that aren't detectable, even with all the computer modeling available. Sooner or later, someone has to die or get seriously hurt for these problems to be made known.

As a side note, I didn't know that the mainteneance guy was held responsible, nor that he committed suicide. That's a shame, because in reality, there were no real culprits. Just plain, dumb, bad luck.

 

[ironspud]

Bump...uh...I mean, burp.

 

[Fins Up]

Anyone know what the minimum hours requirements are and if they do any sort of military conversion? I've tried calling HR to ask but noone ever answers the phone. Does anyone really work there? (This ain't bashing - just kidding around.)

 

[bombinha]

The system's purpose is for the engine to shear off at random points in time? You lost me there.....



You're right, AA had a DC-10 loose an engine off the wing....with less than stellar results. And El Al lost one on a Classic 747 which promptly took out it's neighboring engine, causing it to crash into an apartment building in Amsterdam.



I'm going to say the loss of thrust, and drag from a whole engine mounted on the outbard of the wing might have some slight effect on flight.



727....does it matter?

I fly old Boeings too, I'm not slamming Kalitta....I just can't follow the logic of your posts (every single one of them).

Hey T-gates I think you should do better research about fallen engines.
On american airlines case the mechanics invented (created) a new way to remove and replace engines not approved by the manufacturer and using a forklift.
FAA was to blame for that to allow mechanics that never had a degree create a new and revolutionary method that all engineers after so much schooling didn't think about it.
About the other one they lost they did lost one engine and also pneumatics that are used for slats and rolled and got uncontrolled after they selected flaps 1 w/o slats and not becuase they lost 2 engines on same side.
I don't know of any 747 classic came down for mechanical problmes other than bad operation or bad maintenance. Tell me one if you know.
And Kalitta has a nice maintenance a lot better than MESA and Mountain Air Cargo that a flew for if you really wanna know.
Plus nobody has classics better equiped than us.
I only can agree that PW engines are bad and that might be the reason PW is going to produce parts for GE engines from now on as they can't sale their bad products.

 

[1800rvr]

Hello from ANC.

This is a reply to several people who sent me some PM's on Southern Air hiring.

There is a class going on at this minute in MIA at Aeroservice with appx. 10 people.

The best way to get hired is to get your 747 type from Aeroservice and that alone will raise your application to the Chief Pilots office.

Southern hires allot of people from Aeroservice and if you have a clean background and the usual drug testing and FAA records check and some international experience, your most likely on the inside list for a job offer.

Right now the vast quanity of hired crews were all typed heavy jet transport guys with lots of international experience.

Allot of crews from the former Southern Air Transport, and a large mix of furloughed crews from Atlas/Polar, Evergreen, Kalitta, Air Atlanta, Emery and some TWA guys.

Another class of appx. 10 starts next week.

Again, I am not a sunshine pump, so take it for what it is worth, but right now with all the carnage in the passenger sector, air freight is not a bad place to be.

Southern is not the best, but it is far from the worst.

Best wishes.


1800rvr

 

[freightdogfred]

He stalled the wing because when the engine went over the top of the wing, the slats retracted on that wing due to hydraulic lines being cut.

Airplanes do not stall due to loss of an engine, or retracting slats...

AOA and insufficient airspeed causes a stall. That DC-10 pilot was flying "by the numbers" so when the slats retracted, that wing stalled.

Next time some old timer says "add a few knots fer momma and the kids" don't discount it.

 

[1800rvr]

Southern Air class and interview info.

Hello from Miami.

Here is a reply to some PM's I have received for infor on Southern Air interviews and class dates.....................here we go!

Southern Air started a class on March 21st with 12 people in it; all are students at Aeroservice getting there 747 types and/or FE ratings.

The students that have heavy jet time and international experience will get first dibs on most of the job offers.

The interview - be yourself------------very low stress and laid back.

Be prepared to explain the concepts of RVSM, RNP navigation rules in Europe and Asia, explain the ETP and where it is computed, read and explain a METAR and TAF, be able to make a ICAO/N. Atlantic/N. Pacific position report.

Also, be prepared for a B-737 sim ride. Nothing special, just a TKO, direct to a holding pattern entry, maybe a steep turn and a ILS to a landing.

The next aircraft, #5 is in heavy check as I type this and is expected to go to China Air and fly Shanghai-Anchorage and the lower 48 and return to Shanghai.

Aircraft #6 is about to be purchased and is enroute to a heavy check station
for inspection.

I think that is about it. Not a bad place to be right now with all the bloodletting in the passenger sector; again, not the best and far from the worst.

Best wishes to all the readers.


1800rvr.