Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Crash Of AA 191 On July 25, History Channel  
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just read that a 1.5 hour long special about the AA 191 accident in Chicago will air on Sunday evening, July 25 at 8 PM.

Just FYI




Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 859 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5887 times:

The crash n burn of the DC-10 that lost an engine and rolled over?

Mike



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Yes...

Filler
Filler



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8366 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Will this be the same show they aired last month?


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5798 times:

8pm what time?

Is it on History Channel East too?



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5779 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..  Big grin


Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5670 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.

User currently offlineSmcmac32msn From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5645 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.
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5558 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.
User currently offlineJeckPDX From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5515 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
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5498 times:

JeckPDX & MD11Luxurylinr,

Thank you both, I am glad someone read my post to the end.

Smcmac32msn, read the whole post before you correct someone. I said OUR history. I am well aware of the JAL 747.


User currently offlineWomack17 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 490 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3669 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5381 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!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Somewhat ironically, the date of this airing also marks the 4th anniversary of the Concorde crash outside Paris. Very sad  Crying

User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5187 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.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

So true! I don't think it is fair for the DC10 to get a bad rap from this crash it was a pretty safe aircraft.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5139 times:

This was an example of how in aviation, you follow the rules, don't take shortcuts, and think, think, think, or people die.

Therefore also being an example of why the aviation/automotive/locomotive industries are well known for their "tombstone mentality"



I don't think it is fair for the DC10 to get a bad rap from this crash it was a pretty safe aircraft.

...the DC10 had (arguably, rightfully) earned a bad rap well before this crash.


User currently offlineWomack17 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 490 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5035 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5033 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.

User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4986 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.

User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4979 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.

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4955 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.

Read this article on the accident. http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/aacrash.shtml

Here's one paragraph from that article:

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?

Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7444 posts, RR: 62
Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 4814 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineAv8trxx From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 657 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (10 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 4754 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.


User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (10 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 4759 times:

Hey

cant wait to watch. Acording to Jet Blue in New York it is showing at 7 not 8. It is also being shown on Jet Blue. Bad choice. But hey thats life.



No Vueling No Party
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...
Effect That The Crash Of AA 191, ORD, May 25, 1979 posted Mon Jan 12 2004 04:55:01 by MCIB757
Crash Of Flight 191...on History Chan. Now. posted Mon Jul 26 2004 02:06:47 by Jamesag96
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 191 On History Channel posted Mon Jul 26 2004 02:08:37 by PilotNtrng
Crash Of AA Crash 11/2001 Blamed On Co-Pilot Error posted Tue Oct 26 2004 18:51:53 by THY747
UAL Routing Of A Few Flights On 07/25/06 posted Sun Jul 30 2006 21:12:35 by PETERMAX777
End Of Redemption Of AA Miles On Taca! posted Wed Jun 7 2006 14:13:21 by Ruslan
JAL Will Start Use Of B773 ER On July 1 posted Wed Jun 16 2004 20:27:52 by Adriaticus
Crash Of United 232 On NBC Dateline Tonight posted Mon May 31 2004 03:23:58 by Ken4556