MCIB757 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 280 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5916 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.
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
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2557 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5836 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. 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.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16456 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5814 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.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4498 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5812 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.
TG992 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2001, 2910 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5780 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.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5730 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.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2256 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5732 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.
IMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6462 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5725 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.
I am glad I was around to fly before de-regulation.
Bobs89irocz From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5578 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.