MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3682 times:
Yes...
Filler
Filler
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7992 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3650 times:
MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3629 times:
I just looked it up.. Its going to be on July 25 at 8pm eastern and 8pm pacific time... Yes, it's the same one that was on a month or so ago. It was pretty good..
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3520 times:
Mario, you are the man! Thanks! I will be watching. I remember that crash I was young but I remember distinctly seeing that pic on the front page of the newspaper. Still is the deadliest single aircraft crash in our history.
Smcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Still is the deadliest single aircraft crash in our history.
How many times do people have to correct that AA191 is NOT the deadliest air disaster, but a JAL 747, flight JA123 suffered a massive decompression when the rear pressure bulkhead collapsed. It ruptured all 4 hydraulic lines and clipped one mountain, then flew into Mt. Osutaka killing 520 of 524 on board. The date of this accident is 12 August 1985.
Hey Obama, keep the change! I want my dollar back.
MD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3408 times:
Smcmac32msn,
I think what NIKV96 was referring to was in the US's history, not the world's history..
Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
JeckPDX From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 255 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3365 times:
I am also assuming NIKV69 was referring to US aviation history as there are other worse accidents than flt 191, other than the JAL 747 on Mt. Osutaka. In any case it was a tragedy but the modifications done after the accident have saved a similar disaster from occuring.
Look forward to seeing this special.
JeckPDX
"Beer is proof that God Loves us and wanted People to be Happy" - Ben Franklin
Womack17 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 465 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3260 times:
I have seen this special and I have to say the first ten minutes are the most difficult to sit through. Even though, it is a re-creation, my eyes were filling with tears. Those pilots fought so hard to keep her flying and though they didn't realize at the time - there was virtually no way to bring her in for an emergency landing. It ruined the reputation of the DC10 and she never really recovered. This particular accident permanently damaged the repution of a fantastic aircraft. I have only had the pleasure of flying a DC10 once in my life a first-class ticket from MSP to PHX. It was to this day my favorite flight. The cabin was so spacious - the food was great and the service was fantastic. Long live this wonderful bird and many apologies to the family and friends of those lost on Flight 191
Oh how I miss Midway Airlines. A class act right to then end.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3251 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3231 times:
Those pilots fought so hard to keep her flying and though they didn't realize at the time - there was virtually no way to bring her in for an emergency landing.
This is not true. There certainly was a way to bring her in for an emergency landing, as NTSB simulator tests showed. From the accident report:
"In many cases, the pilots, upon recognizing the start of the roll at a constant pitch attitude, lowered the nose, increased airspeed, recovered, and continued flight."
Not every pilot in the simulator was able to accomplish this, but you can see the NTSB itself says in "many" cases, they did.
The cause of the accident was not blamed on pilot error, and I'm not saying it should have been. It was a surprising situation and the pilots apparently followed their procedures for what they thought was happening, with little time to make any real decisions. But it's a continuing myth that the accident was inevitable. It was not inevitable; it was preventable. Many planes have lost engines (and I mean "lost", not just lost power) and landed safely afterwards. The most dramatic example I can remember is the Evergreen 747 up in Alaska, which lost not only an engine but also power on a second engine as well as most of its leading edge slats on that wing, but still managed to turn around and land safely. The difference is just the amount of speed - AA 191 did not have enough speed to prevent asymmetrical stall and the pilots did not take the actions they could have taken to gain speed and recover. They couldn't realistically have been expected to given the situation, but it was a preventable accident even after the engine came off the wing.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
SPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2096 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3037 times:
It was preventable before the aircraft ever left the ground. This was an example of how in aviation, you follow the rules, don't take shortcuts, and think, think, think, or people die.
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
Womack17 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 465 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
It's all well fine and good to seat back in a simulator and bring the aircraft around if you know going in exactly what will happen and when. The real test would be to put pilots in the simulator with no fore-warning at all. I truly believe that a very small percentage would be able to save this aircraft. There were so many things going on and all happening so quickly that even the best of pilots (and my understanding is that there pilots had impeccable service records and had flown the DC-10 for several thousand hours) would be unable to land the plane safely.
Oh how I miss Midway Airlines. A class act right to then end.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
I agree the DC-10 didn't diserve the bad rap it got after the series of accidents it experienced. AA was responsible for AA 191 for the way in which they removed the engines from the wing but the flying public didn't care they blamed the DC-10. Then in the same year the Air NZ DC-10 crash in Antarctica further damaged the reputation of this great airplane.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2836 times:
I have been on airdisaster.com researching all the crashes of the DC-10. The crash at ORD was a maintaining issue. I think the 10 was and still is a safe plane as it flies cargo as well.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2829 times:
Consider that the last major accident involving a DC-10 was United 232 in 1989(engine fault not the DC-10's fault)- and the 10 was in service right up until a couple of years ago, and still is in service with cargo carriers like FedEx it's pretty darn safe. So in the period 1979-1989 only 1 major accident and then 1989 up until present nil fatal accidents apart from Garuda in 1996.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
This is not true. There certainly was a way to bring her in for an emergency landing, as NTSB simulator tests showed.
Bringing in it on a sim, knowing what is going on AHEAD OF TIME, is a hell of a lot different than being presented with a catostrophic situation and having only seconds to figure out-correctly-what is wrong. To say this was preventable may be theoretically correct, but not very realistic, giving what happened, and how little time those pilots had to react to so many unknowns.
Under normal circumstances an aircraft losing an engine would be able to fly on the remaining power plants still functioning, so why was this accident different? When the engine separated, it took a 3 foot section of the wing with, it ripping out vital hydraulic and electric lines in the process. The starboard slats stayed extended but the port slats retracted because of the leaking fluid, causing a stall. The crew was unaware of the retraction due to the fact that the no.1 generator powered the Captain's instrument panel, and thus the slat disagreement system. The stick-shaker had also been disabled.
So maybe in theory, they can recover, but with that much damage, happening so close to the ground, with so little relative speed, they didn't have much ofa chance.
The cause of the accident was not blamed on pilot error, and I'm not saying it should have been.
No it shouldn't have been, as it was blmaed on faulty pylons, if I"m not mistaken.
...the DC10 had (arguably, rightfully) earned a bad rap well before this crash.
Right. An aircraft that few literally thousands and thousands and thousands of safe, uneventful flights, deserved a bad rep?
Mirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7419 posts, RR: 65 Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Great thread guys. I never really knew much about that crash except for that photo that I sometimes see of it, that famous pic of it rolling over.
I flew the DC-10 from JFK to HNL on CO in the 80's. It was a good trip.
I appreciate all the comments.
DOn;t miss the show, remember
This Sunday night,July 25, at 8 PM on the History Channel.
BTW, is this a new special or a rerun??
And re: the Concorde reference, any shows about that disaster?
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
Av8trxx From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 657 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
As far as flying out of it, sure you have a better chance to do it in the sim when you know what's coming. You also have to remember the proceedure the AA crew followed that sealed their fate.
After a loss of an engine the crew SLOWED (yes slowed) to a specified speed for engine out flight from the slightly faster speed they were climbing out at. If they had not done this, perhaps the stall could have been prevented but it was AA procedure at the time. They targeted their engine loss out climb speed which was too slow to keep the stall from happening. Ironically, Western Airlines had put out a memo about this topic stating that in an instance where if a pylon should fail and the engine falls away, the speeds should be faster for just that reason.
Thanks for the "TV GUIDE". I'll have to catch it next time.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7419 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 786 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
