Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Effect That The Crash Of AA 191, ORD, May 25, 1979  
User currently offlineMCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

So I happen to think of the horrific crash that is AA 191 the other day. And I know that the No. 1 engine fell off and such but i dont ever remember hearing a reason why it fell off? So what concluions did the FAA, NTSB, or any other agency come too?

Also other than not helping the DC-10 sales and image what other effects did the crash have? Did Douglas make any changes on the DC-10 after that?

Any information is appreciated, also thoughts on the crash are welcomed too.

Thanks

Tom

Also sorry if i should of used affect instead of effect but i can never remember when to use one and not the other.

R.I.P. to the 273 people who perished that sad day


"God bless catastrophe..."
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2544 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From what I know, or have heard is that a maintenance crew forgot to put all of the pins that secure the engine onto the wing and pylon after some work was performed on the engine. As the plane rotated for takeoff, the engine got torn off and went over the wing, destroying hydraulic lines and other important mechanical devices. They lost control of the aircraft, and the rest is history. I believe that the FAA grounded all DC-10s for a long while...
A terrible accident, my thoughts to the families of those who perished that day.

-AA777


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5028 times:

As you said, the main impact was the complete collapse in DC-10 orders thereafter. I do remember all the DC-10 operators scrambling to arrange alternate lift while the DC-10 was grounded. It probably killed the proposed stretch DC-10-60 which later morphed into the MD-11.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4488 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

From what I know, or have heard is that a maintenance crew forgot to put all of the pins that secure the engine onto the wing and pylon after some work was performed on the engine.

Not quite. Basically, the maintenance crews at AA, not used to the CF6 engine on the DC-10, used "standard" procedures for removal--removing both engine and pylon--instead of just removing the engine. Because of this, stress fractures developed in the pylon, and on that fateful day, they gave way.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5017 times:

Does anyone know what happened to the maintenance crew (were any charges brought against them?)

User currently offlineRockyRacoon From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 964 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

MCIB757-

Here's a link to the tech ops forum thread that was going on not long ago:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/74998/

There's lots of info and should answer most of your questions.


peace


User currently offlineTG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

I vaguely remember reading American's maintenance practises were not in line with what the manufacturer recommended. I think that rather than remove the engine and pylon seperately, they developed a time saving procedure to remove both at the same time, with tragic results. I also seem to remember the FAA copped a lot of criticism for not picking up that the procedure was potentially dangerous.


-
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4944 times:

The main problem with their maintenance is that, instead of using a crane and sling to lift the engine into place, they used a forklift to raise the engine into place. The result was that the pins used to hold the engine on the pylon were installed improperly and developed cracks. The forklift procedure was used to save time.

Here's a link to the report:
http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/aacrash.shtml


redngold



Up, up and away!
User currently offlineKlwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2017 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

I am glad you started this thread. The only picture of that accident I know exists is on this link. It is one of the most chilling disaster pics I have ever, ever seen. This article also mentions what my dad once told me about that accident. They attached the engine on with a forklift. A no-no. I think that might be the time saving procedure TG992 is talking about. But the article says it all, I didn't read it, just wanted to find the picture.

http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/Aviation/Disasters/79-05-25(Chicago).asp


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6280 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4939 times:

Continental used the same procedure, removing the engine and pylon in combinantion. I have a friend who worked for CO at the time and he told me about removing a pylon and finding a crack 10 inches long and about 1/4 inch wide. I've seen some large cracks but that would be a pepto bismol moment for sure.


Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineBobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

RednGold is correct about how they installed the engine, which was done at ORD. My dad has worked at ORD for 2 years now (came from DFW/AFW) and actually knows a guy that was on the crew that was appart of the crash. As far as a i know (from what guys at work tell my dad) the crew chief "offed himself" if thats a nicer way to put it. The supervisor left the country before charges where put against him.

The pictures of this accident are the most horrific plane crash i have ever (and hope) to ever see. Living and working here now i have meet 1 person that witnessed the accident, another that saw the fire ball. One person that had his family on board and didnt go with them because he was only 3 years old. This guy i have talked to alot and have became good friends with before he moved to californiaa That is actually where his family was going (AA 191 ORD-LAX) when the plane went down. RIP to all victoms....and i believe it was 279 SOB?

BTW: i have done several reports on this accident and find it painfully odd that i have meet the many people i have that have had life changing storys to tell about how this crash has effected them.


User currently offlineLax From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2290 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4665 times:



http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5460/crash4.html

[Edited 2004-01-12 10:57:38]

User currently offlineMCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

What a truly scary picture indeed, but correct me if im wrong but isn't there a video of the crash or im just imagining things?

Thanks

Tom



"God bless catastrophe..."
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

>>Also sorry if i should of used affect instead of effect but i can never remember when to use one and not the other.<<

You used the word correctly. The easiest way to remember... "Effect", as it is usually used, is a noun (although sometimes can be a verb). "Affect" is always a verb.

You could have rewritten the topic to say something like: How did AA191 crash AFFECT blah blah blah?



An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4121 times:

It probably killed the proposed stretch DC-10-60 which later morphed into the MD-11.

19 years later, although Boeing had already decided to halt production, the only fatal incident involving an MD-11, Swissair 111 off Halifax, Canada Sept 2,1998 effectively shut down the MD-11.

[Edited 2004-01-13 19:42:24]


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Crash Of AA 191 On July 25, History Channel posted Fri Jul 16 2004 22:34:58 by Mirrodie
The Crash Of Flight 191 On Tv posted Sun Feb 6 2005 03:43:58 by Hawk44
Crash Of AA Flight 191 Video On History Channel posted Sat Jul 24 2004 01:48:34 by Thrust
AA Week In The Life Of AA posted Sun Oct 29 2006 01:21:45 by YYZACGUY
The Crash Of Flight ZU522 (Helios Airways) posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:50:04 by D5DBY
The Future Of AA Trancons posted Tue Apr 5 2005 03:59:24 by ContinentalEWR
Where Was The Captain Of AA Flt. 587? posted Thu Oct 28 2004 10:42:26 by Fredadx
Crash Of AA Crash 11/2001 Blamed On Co-Pilot Error posted Tue Oct 26 2004 18:51:53 by THY747
The Nerve Of AA posted Sun Sep 26 2004 04:18:04 by Hz747300
Crash Of Flight 191...on History Chan. Now. posted Mon Jul 26 2004 02:06:47 by Jamesag96