Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 10:40 am

Ive read up about how Turkish Airlines flight 981 crashed because of the cargo door falling and causing hydraulic loss, and that the DC-10 managed to pitch up somewhat in its final moments, but was too low to recover. Had the pilots tried to use the throttles like UAL 232 earlier, could they have had some degree of control to try to land the plane?
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 1:42 pm

Interesting question.

There are many differences between the two accidents.

Short answer: No, the aircraft could not have been saved utilizing the throttles.

The control surfaces on the tail were frozen due to a loss of hydraulic fluid and those control surfaces were frozen at a different angle of attack than those on UA232. The airplane had three fully-operational engines yet the pilots on TK981 only had full control of two of them.

TK981 was an airplane in a different phase of flight than UA232 (climb-out vs. cruise) and the accidents, whilst similar, were markedly different in root cause of failure.

You should invest some time in reading about the American Airlines Flight 96 DC10 cargo door failure; that accident is carbon-copy TK981.

Much of your hypothesis can be logically worked out if you read the accident reports. Consulting the armchair aviators here will result in nothing but uneducated responses by mostly children. If you’d like to know more, PM me.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 1:58 pm

Well, wasn't it proven that the saving of UA232 was almost a fluke? By that, I mean that most of the simulator attempts, after knowing how to do by trying to replicate UA232, ended up as crashing.

What the pilots did with UA232 is nothing short of a miracle.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 2:12 pm

What an unusual but interesting question!

I recommend that you find copies of MacArthur Job's books on Air Crashes, as TK 981 and AA 96 are analyzed in great detail. According to the CVR, the pilots tried many things, but virtually all of their controls were unresponsive. Mr. Job even points out that the pilots die push the throttles all the way forward and very nearly did level out the plane from its plunge to a much shallower angle - but the lack of sufficient altitude to try and enact a recovery prevented that.

It is also worth pointing out that one of the reasons mentioned for the loss of control in the Turkish DC-10 was the number of flight controls lost by the crew upon decompression and subsequent collapse of part of the passenger floor, for which McDonnell Douglas went back and fixed AND rerouted many flight controls away from. Nearly fifteen years after TK 981, United Airlines flight 811 lost its front cargo door and a huge portion of the business class section (nine people killed), but the flight controls were not severed and the plane landed safely. It all depended on WHERE that severing took place.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5589
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 4:15 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
What an unusual but interesting question!

I recommend that you find copies of MacArthur Job's books on Air Crashes, as TK 981 and AA 96 are analyzed in great detail. According to the CVR, the pilots tried many things, but virtually all of their controls were unresponsive. Mr. Job even points out that the pilots die push the throttles all the way forward and very nearly did level out the plane from its plunge to a much shallower angle - but the lack of sufficient altitude to try and enact a recovery prevented that.

It is also worth pointing out that one of the reasons mentioned for the loss of control in the Turkish DC-10 was the number of flight controls lost by the crew upon decompression and subsequent collapse of part of the passenger floor, for which McDonnell Douglas went back and fixed AND rerouted many flight controls away from. Nearly fifteen years after TK 981, United Airlines flight 811 lost its front cargo door and a huge portion of the business class section (nine people killed), but the flight controls were not severed and the plane landed safely. It all depended on WHERE that severing took place.


UA811 was a B747-200, despite earlier design, much better redundancy and separation of cable runs. Douglas really did a poor design.
 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 7:59 pm

ERAUMBA wrote:
Interesting question.

There are many differences between the two accidents.

Short answer: No, the aircraft could not have been saved utilizing the throttles.

The control surfaces on the tail were frozen due to a loss of hydraulic fluid and those control surfaces were frozen at a different angle of attack than those on UA232. The airplane had three fully-operational engines yet the pilots on TK981 only had full control of two of them.

TK981 was an airplane in a different phase of flight than UA232 (climb-out vs. cruise) and the accidents, whilst similar, were markedly different in root cause of failure.

You should invest some time in reading about the American Airlines Flight 96 DC10 cargo door failure; that accident is carbon-copy TK981.

Much of your hypothesis can be logically worked out if you read the accident reports. Consulting the armchair aviators here will result in nothing but uneducated responses by mostly children. If you’d like to know more, PM me.


Didnt UAL 232 had two engines remaining? I recall the pilots having to shut the tail engine off, but again what puzzles me if as you said using the throttles wouldnt have worked, why did using them in the final moments allowed the aircraft to slightly level off?
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 10:05 pm

With all due respect UAL 232 was a fluke. No one should be judging pilots that crash while trying to control a plane using asymmetric thrust alone. It's not something that any pilots is trained or expected to do. Once all flight controls fail if you can still get on the ground with survivors that's a bonus. The expectation is that everyone perishes. Sorry to be so grim but that's the reality.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Fri May 08, 2020 10:17 pm

Anonz263x wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:
Interesting question.

There are many differences between the two accidents.

Short answer: No, the aircraft could not have been saved utilizing the throttles.

The control surfaces on the tail were frozen due to a loss of hydraulic fluid and those control surfaces were frozen at a different angle of attack than those on UA232. The airplane had three fully-operational engines yet the pilots on TK981 only had full control of two of them.

TK981 was an airplane in a different phase of flight than UA232 (climb-out vs. cruise) and the accidents, whilst similar, were markedly different in root cause of failure.

You should invest some time in reading about the American Airlines Flight 96 DC10 cargo door failure; that accident is carbon-copy TK981.

Much of your hypothesis can be logically worked out if you read the accident reports. Consulting the armchair aviators here will result in nothing but uneducated responses by mostly children. If you’d like to know more, PM me.


Didnt UAL 232 had two engines remaining? I recall the pilots having to shut the tail engine off, but again what puzzles me if as you said using the throttles wouldnt have worked, why did using them in the final moments allowed the aircraft to slightly level off?


I was referring to TK981 in that statement; the aircraft had three running engines, albeit the #2 engine was at or near idle thrust due to a throttle linkage being damaged.

UAL232 had two operable engines - the #2 engine on UA232 failed due to a manufacturing defect in a fan disk.

These accidents are only similar in the loss of control of the aircraft.

You should be reading about the American Airlines DC10 incident if you are searching for similarities with TK981.
 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 5:27 am

ERAUMBA wrote:
Anonz263x wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:
Interesting question.

There are many differences between the two accidents.

Short answer: No, the aircraft could not have been saved utilizing the throttles.

The control surfaces on the tail were frozen due to a loss of hydraulic fluid and those control surfaces were frozen at a different angle of attack than those on UA232. The airplane had three fully-operational engines yet the pilots on TK981 only had full control of two of them.

TK981 was an airplane in a different phase of flight than UA232 (climb-out vs. cruise) and the accidents, whilst similar, were markedly different in root cause of failure.

You should invest some time in reading about the American Airlines Flight 96 DC10 cargo door failure; that accident is carbon-copy TK981.

Much of your hypothesis can be logically worked out if you read the accident reports. Consulting the armchair aviators here will result in nothing but uneducated responses by mostly children. If you’d like to know more, PM me.


Didnt UAL 232 had two engines remaining? I recall the pilots having to shut the tail engine off, but again what puzzles me if as you said using the throttles wouldnt have worked, why did using them in the final moments allowed the aircraft to slightly level off?


I was referring to TK981 in that statement; the aircraft had three running engines, albeit the #2 engine was at or near idle thrust due to a throttle linkage being damaged.

UAL232 had two operable engines - the #2 engine on UA232 failed due to a manufacturing defect in a fan disk.

These accidents are only similar in the loss of control of the aircraft.

You should be reading about the American Airlines DC10 incident if you are searching for similarities with TK981.


Perhaps I misread that, but still for me the fact that the pilots on TK981 pushed the throttles forward in the final moments which again allowed the plane to pitch up somewhat, albeit not enough altitude, lead me to think what if they did this right after the cargo door falling off, couldnt they have like UAL 232 or even JAL 123 tried to use the engines to control and potentially attempt a landing or having some degree of control?
 
IWMBH
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 7:30 am

Anonz263x wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:
Anonz263x wrote:

Didnt UAL 232 had two engines remaining? I recall the pilots having to shut the tail engine off, but again what puzzles me if as you said using the throttles wouldnt have worked, why did using them in the final moments allowed the aircraft to slightly level off?


I was referring to TK981 in that statement; the aircraft had three running engines, albeit the #2 engine was at or near idle thrust due to a throttle linkage being damaged.

UAL232 had two operable engines - the #2 engine on UA232 failed due to a manufacturing defect in a fan disk.

These accidents are only similar in the loss of control of the aircraft.

You should be reading about the American Airlines DC10 incident if you are searching for similarities with TK981.


Perhaps I misread that, but still for me the fact that the pilots on TK981 pushed the throttles forward in the final moments which again allowed the plane to pitch up somewhat, albeit not enough altitude, lead me to think what if they did this right after the cargo door falling off, couldnt they have like UAL 232 or even JAL 123 tried to use the engines to control and potentially attempt a landing or having some degree of control?


JAL 123 did try to controle the plane using the engines, and they did figure it out. But, they flew in mountainous terrain and therefore had little chance in succeeding.

UAL 232 was a remarkable feat of flying. Other pilots shouldn’t be judged because they didn’t manage to do the same thing. Furthermore, the TK crew didn’t have a stable plane to begin with, they where still climbing. It would make it a lot harder to manage to control the plane with the engines, they also had less time because they where closer to the ground.

The TK was a terrible and preventable drama. But, the airliner was doomed due to bad decisions from McDonnell-Douglas not because of the crew.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2686
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 8:44 am

OO-DLL was hit by a SAM climbing through 8.000 ft. It caused the loss of all hydraulics and set the outboard wing on fire. That crew didn't just manage to regain control, bring the aircraft around and perform an approach. Finding themselves drifting away from the runway, they performed a go-around, brought the aircraft around once more and managed to land it on the runway. When the crew exited the burning aircraft, it was still standing on all 3 legs.

And they did all this in a war zone.

Not taking anything away from Al Haynes and his crew, but the gold standard is not him and his crew. It's Captain Eric Genotte, FO Steve Michielsen and FE Mario Rofail and a tank going by the name of A300B4-200F.

Could a more competent crew have saved TK? Yes, it's possible.
Signature. You just read one.
 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 11:00 am

IWMBH wrote:
Anonz263x wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:

I was referring to TK981 in that statement; the aircraft had three running engines, albeit the #2 engine was at or near idle thrust due to a throttle linkage being damaged.

UAL232 had two operable engines - the #2 engine on UA232 failed due to a manufacturing defect in a fan disk.

These accidents are only similar in the loss of control of the aircraft.

You should be reading about the American Airlines DC10 incident if you are searching for similarities with TK981.


Perhaps I misread that, but still for me the fact that the pilots on TK981 pushed the throttles forward in the final moments which again allowed the plane to pitch up somewhat, albeit not enough altitude, lead me to think what if they did this right after the cargo door falling off, couldnt they have like UAL 232 or even JAL 123 tried to use the engines to control and potentially attempt a landing or having some degree of control?


JAL 123 did try to controle the plane using the engines, and they did figure it out. But, they flew in mountainous terrain and therefore had little chance in succeeding.

UAL 232 was a remarkable feat of flying. Other pilots shouldn’t be judged because they didn’t manage to do the same thing. Furthermore, the TK crew didn’t have a stable plane to begin with, they where still climbing. It would make it a lot harder to manage to control the plane with the engines, they also had less time because they where closer to the ground.

The TK was a terrible and preventable drama. But, the airliner was doomed due to bad decisions from McDonnell-Douglas not because of the crew.


I was saying wouldnt the throttles themselves at least allow the pilots to use differing engine power to allow TK 981 to atleast try to attempt a landing even if it involves crashing in a field, also I remember JAL 123 having a bulkhead rupture also whilst climbing yet they managed to atleast control, but crashed into mountains.
 
Anonz263x
Topic Author
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 10:35 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 11:05 am

B777LRF wrote:
OO-DLL was hit by a SAM climbing through 8.000 ft. It caused the loss of all hydraulics and set the outboard wing on fire. That crew didn't just manage to regain control, bring the aircraft around and perform an approach. Finding themselves drifting away from the runway, they performed a go-around, brought the aircraft around once more and managed to land it on the runway. When the crew exited the burning aircraft, it was still standing on all 3 legs.

And they did all this in a war zone.

Not taking anything away from Al Haynes and his crew, but the gold standard is not him and his crew. It's Captain Eric Genotte, FO Steve Michielsen and FE Mario Rofail and a tank going by the name of A300B4-200F.

Could a more competent crew have saved TK? Yes, it's possible.


Some of the other comments suggest otherwise, but it seems again that engine control was possible, as the TK crew pushed them forward which allowed it to lift somewhat, albeit being way too low for recovery, and the chances they may have had if they done this right after they had suffered the cargo door failure.
 
SpaceshipDC10
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 11:33 am

Anonz263x wrote:
Ive read up about how Turkish Airlines flight 981 crashed because of the cargo door falling and causing hydraulic loss, and that the DC-10 managed to pitch up somewhat in its final moments, but was too low to recover. Had the pilots tried to use the throttles like UAL 232 earlier, could they have had some degree of control to try to land the plane?


Since you have read about the crash, you probably know the folowwing:

The aircraft took off at approximately 12:30 and was cleared by Orly Departure to climb to FL60, which was reached at 12:34. The North Area Control Centre then cleared TK981 further to FL230. Three or four seconds before 12:40:00 hours, the noise of decompression was heard


https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19740303-1

When the door blew, the DC-10 was apparently at FL130 (page no. 4 of the report linked on Wikipedia)...

Seventy-seven seconds after the initial door hatch gave way, the plane crashed into the trees of Ermenonville Forest, a state-owned forest at Bosquet de Dammartin in the commune of Fontaine-Chaalis, Oise.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_A ... 1#Accident. The Wikiperia article cites the French Investigation Report

...and since it only took 77 seconds to crash, this gives you an answer to your question and how not comparable to UA232 it is with its low altitude, raising speed and the 20 degrees nose down attitude.
 
Flow2706
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:20 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 12:10 pm

There is also a relatively recent incident that has not been discussed in great detail. A Smartlynx A320 (ES-SAN) ended up in mechanical backup in pitch during a touch and go during base training, yet the pilots managed to control the aircraft to a survivable landing (even though the aircraft was written off due to the damages afterwards). As the aircraft hit the ground hard shortly after the failure before the crew figured out what was going on (and then bounced back into the air), one engine was on fire and shortly before the final touchdown both engines failed due to the damages sustained during the first impact. This shows that there is some chance of controlling aircraft even if severely damaged or without effective flight controls. The final report can be found here, quite an interesting read: https://www.ojk.ee/et/system/files/fail ... report.pdf
 
Sokes
Posts: 1257
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 2:42 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
... most of the simulator attempts, after knowing how to do by trying to replicate UA232, ended up as crashing.

What the pilots did with UA232 is nothing short of a miracle.

Are sims programmed to know how a plane in such exceptional conditions behave?
Air flow is influenced by the hole. Can the simulator know how it affects the plane?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 2:48 pm

The DC-10 was the first project completed by McDonnell-Douglas (as opposed to Douglas). Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Convair, and everyone else building civil airliners had all adopted the philosophy that killing your customers was bad for business, and hence anything you can do to make airliners safer was worth doing. McDonnell, however, had only built military planes, where once you have met specifications, you are done. Unfortunately after the merger McDonnell engineers shoved the Douglas engineers aside and did the DC-10 their way. The three resultant DC-10 crashes (TK981, AA191, UA232) all were caused by shortcuts in hydraulic line routing that the other airline manufacturers (including Douglas) would never have done. They all took great care in routing lines where they were protected and where a single event would be unlikely to affect them all. But to be fair, Boeing did make one huge oversight in the design of the 747. They designed it to survive an engine falling off in flight, but did not realize that if an inboard engine fell off it would strike the outboard engine, causing that one to depart as well. Two of them did that and crashed, while at least one had an outboard engine fall off and landed uneventfully.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 3:01 pm

SEPilot wrote:
But to be fair, Boeing did make one huge oversight in the design of the 747. They designed it to survive an engine falling off in flight, but did not realize that if an inboard engine fell off it would strike the outboard engine, causing that one to depart as well. Two of them did that and crashed, while at least one had an outboard engine fall off and landed uneventfully.


To be fair, your assertion is incorrect regarding the 747 and the associated engine pylon fuse design you are attempting to describe herein, futilely. The issue you poorly attempt to describe has nothing to do with design deficiencies of the airframe and everything to do with early and unanticipated fatigue cracking of engine pylon fuse pins - enough said.

This discussion was started with a question about the maneuverability, controllability and survivability aspects of Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Let us leave the discussion at that, shall we?
 
reltney
Posts: 615
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sat May 09, 2020 4:24 pm

Don’t forget about Delta flt 1080. A Lockheed 1011 with the jammed stab in 1977. Thru engine thrust, disabling some of the spoilers the pilots regained very limited pitch control and landed. Better yet is the Lockheed 188 Electra flt 8 in 1983. Engine/ prop failure caused the loss of all flight controls. Using thrust and autopilot pitch controls brought the plane in. Great videos on YouTube if the attempted landings and the touchdown. Great job!
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sun May 10, 2020 6:08 pm

Sokes wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
... most of the simulator attempts, after knowing how to do by trying to replicate UA232, ended up as crashing.

What the pilots did with UA232 is nothing short of a miracle.

Are sims programmed to know how a plane in such exceptional conditions behave?
Air flow is influenced by the hole. Can the simulator know how it affects the plane?

UA232 did not have a giant hole in the fuselage; yet, sim attempts, and a lot of further "live" attempts, ended up tragically.
 
workhorse
Posts: 772
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sun May 10, 2020 7:15 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
UA811 was a B747-200, despite earlier design, much better redundancy and separation of cable runs. Douglas really did a poor design.


It has always boggled my mind how Douglas could do that. They had produced a great design a decade before (the DC-8) and another great design just five years before (the DC-9), how could they screw up this one so much? :shock:
 
dfwjim1
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sun May 10, 2020 11:10 pm

In regards to UA 232, it seems like the deadheading DC-10 instructor pilot who was enlisted to run the throttles was a big factor in helping the flying crew get the aircraft to the airport.
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Sun May 10, 2020 11:55 pm

dfwjim1 wrote:
In regards to UA 232, it seems like the deadheading DC-10 instructor pilot who was enlisted to run the throttles was a big factor in helping the flying crew get the aircraft to the airport.


Denny Fitch was the ONLY factor. He was the pilot flying.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3933
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 12:07 am

workhorse wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
UA811 was a B747-200, despite earlier design, much better redundancy and separation of cable runs. Douglas really did a poor design.


It has always boggled my mind how Douglas could do that. They had produced a great design a decade before (the DC-8) and another great design just five years before (the DC-9), how could they screw up this one so much? :shock:


As SEPilot wrote, the DC-10 was the first aircraft designed post-McDonnell merger. The legacy of taking shortcuts still lives on today with certain Boeing products.
 
crj900lr
Posts: 476
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:44 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 2:45 am

ERAUMBA wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
In regards to UA 232, it seems like the deadheading DC-10 instructor pilot who was enlisted to run the throttles was a big factor in helping the flying crew get the aircraft to the airport.


Denny Fitch was the ONLY factor. He was the pilot flying.



I thought he was along for the ride in the cabin and when the engine blew up he alerted the f/a to let the crew know he was on board If they needed any assistance. I don't seem to remember him being the one flying the flight.
 
ERAUMBA
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:08 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 3:52 am

crj900lr wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
In regards to UA 232, it seems like the deadheading DC-10 instructor pilot who was enlisted to run the throttles was a big factor in helping the flying crew get the aircraft to the airport.


Denny Fitch was the ONLY factor. He was the pilot flying.



I thought he was along for the ride in the cabin and when the engine blew up he alerted the f/a to let the crew know he was on board If they needed any assistance. I don't seem to remember him being the one flying the flight.


You should do some research.

Al Haynes was the Captain of the airplane. Bill Records was the co-pilot. All of the hydraulic fluid drained out of all three systems. No control authority via control yokes. Denny Fitch sits behind the throttle quadrant and manipulates the throttles to provide some degree of differential power to accomplish some sort of directional control. Denny Fitch was the pilot flying, neither Al Haynes or the NTSB Report dispute this fact. Read the report. Watch a documentary. Go on YouTube and watch the crew interviews.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1513
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 6:31 am

I recall comments at the time of the TK crash that were at best patronising and at worst racist. Along the lines that DC 10 technology was too advanced for third world countries like Turkey. That all disappeared after AA and UA, but similar arose last year regarding Indonesia and the MAX. Any plane needing superman piloting skills to be safe is not safe!
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7321
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 6:19 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
What an unusual but interesting question!

I recommend that you find copies of MacArthur Job's books on Air Crashes, as TK 981 and AA 96 are analyzed in great detail. According to the CVR, the pilots tried many things, but virtually all of their controls were unresponsive. Mr. Job even points out that the pilots die push the throttles all the way forward and very nearly did level out the plane from its plunge to a much shallower angle - but the lack of sufficient altitude to try and enact a recovery prevented that.

It is also worth pointing out that one of the reasons mentioned for the loss of control in the Turkish DC-10 was the number of flight controls lost by the crew upon decompression and subsequent collapse of part of the passenger floor, for which McDonnell Douglas went back and fixed AND rerouted many flight controls away from. Nearly fifteen years after TK 981, United Airlines flight 811 lost its front cargo door and a huge portion of the business class section (nine people killed), but the flight controls were not severed and the plane landed safely. It all depended on WHERE that severing took place.

Seriosly, everyone on this site should read MacArthur Job's books, he made accidents much easier to understand without dumbing down, do miss that gentleman. :checkmark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarthur_Job
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2366
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 6:58 pm

B777LRF wrote:
OO-DLL was hit by a SAM climbing through 8.000 ft. It caused the loss of all hydraulics and set the outboard wing on fire. That crew didn't just manage to regain control, bring the aircraft around and perform an approach. Finding themselves drifting away from the runway, they performed a go-around, brought the aircraft around once more and managed to land it on the runway. When the crew exited the burning aircraft, it was still standing on all 3 legs.

And they did all this in a war zone.


Don't forget the "in a minefield" part ... when the aircraft came to a stop, it had veered off the runway into an area of mined desert.

The US troops at the airport had to use a ladder stretched to a truck to get them out of the airplane safely.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2366
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 7:01 pm

Anonz263x wrote:
Didnt UAL 232 had two engines remaining? I recall the pilots having to shut the tail engine off, but again what puzzles me if as you said using the throttles wouldnt have worked, why did using them in the final moments allowed the aircraft to slightly level off?


232 did indeed only have two engines remaining, however it wasn't due to any action on their part shutting down the tail engine.

That engine did that all on its own when it blew apart.
 
tnair1974
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 7:24 pm

Anonz263x wrote:
Ive read up about how Turkish Airlines flight 981 crashed because of the cargo door falling and causing hydraulic loss, and that the DC-10 managed to pitch up somewhat in its final moments, but was too low to recover. Had the pilots tried to use the throttles like UAL 232 earlier, could they have had some degree of control to try to land the plane?

At the risk of over repeating what others on this thread have stated, excellent question. The crew of ill-fated Flight 981 seemed to have the right idea in increasing thrust on the two workable engines as revealed by the black boxes. Seems likely 981's crew, along with virtually all DC-10 pilots at the time, would have known what had happened earlier to AA 96. Had 981 sadly not ran out of altitude, they might have had at least a long shot of landing if they had thought of using differential thrust.

I can't find where TK 981 lost its hydraulics after the cargo door blew open. But as mentioned, 981's control cables were highly likely jammed/severed due to the cabin floor's collapse. AA 96 (which barely landed safely back at DTW) still had working hydraulics, but the rudder was jammed to the right (apparently due only to the partial collapse of the cabin floor). BTW, a complicating factor with UA 232 was that when the #2 engine disintegrated, 232 was in a right turn thus the resulting loss of hydraulics left the plane's control surfaces at least partially "frozen" in that right turn.

As a side note, many of us know JAL 123 lost almost all of its vertical stabilizer when the rear pressure dome exploded. JAL 123 losing all hydraulics was bad enough, but that 747 was likely doomed the moment the vertical stabilizer separated even though the pilots somehow kept the plane in the air another 40 or so minutes. The plane was probably too inherently unstable to have done anything better than a slightly more controlled crash even if they had miraculously made it to an airport.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 7:29 pm

SEPilot wrote:
The DC-10 was the first project completed by McDonnell-Douglas (as opposed to Douglas). Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Convair, and everyone else building civil airliners had all adopted the philosophy that killing your customers was bad for business, and hence anything you can do to make airliners safer was worth doing. McDonnell, however, had only built military planes, where once you have met specifications, you are done. Unfortunately after the merger McDonnell engineers shoved the Douglas engineers aside and did the DC-10 their way. The three resultant DC-10 crashes (TK981, AA191, UA232) all were caused by shortcuts in hydraulic line routing that the other airline manufacturers (including Douglas) would never have done. They all took great care in routing lines where they were protected and where a single event would be unlikely to affect them all. But to be fair, Boeing did make one huge oversight in the design of the 747. They designed it to survive an engine falling off in flight, but did not realize that if an inboard engine fell off it would strike the outboard engine, causing that one to depart as well. Two of them did that and crashed, while at least one had an outboard engine fall off and landed uneventfully.


Well, I suppose if the inside engine fell off it could take the outside engine with it. But that's just one thing that could happen. I personally witnessed a 747 loose its inside engine in Anchorage. Engine 2 came off just a minute away from where I was. Evergreen 747-100 (later used in the movie Die Hard 2).
Here is the photo I snapped later that day after the retuned to ANC


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Evergreen-International-Airlines/Boeing-747-121-A-SF/136732?qsp=eJwtjDEOwkAMBP/imgYhUaSDD4SCD1h3K0hycJZtBKcof8ec6Eazq1kp1afj49cmoIEMrOlOOxJWfhgNKy1o76o5mJYZxVxfEger6ucWMrPjlBLEkf9%2B1Az9TbDUW7do7wOgl850OIbPk0nh3oDzVGjbvh/NMH8%3D
Heia Norge!
 
B737Captain1980
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 7:40 pm

ERAUMBA wrote:
Interesting question.

There are many differences between the two accidents.

Short answer: No, the aircraft could not have been saved utilizing the throttles.

The control surfaces on the tail were frozen due to a loss of hydraulic fluid and those control surfaces were frozen at a different angle of attack than those on UA232. The airplane had three fully-operational engines yet the pilots on TK981 only had full control of two of them.

TK981 was an airplane in a different phase of flight than UA232 (climb-out vs. cruise) and the accidents, whilst similar, were markedly different in root cause of failure.

You should invest some time in reading about the American Airlines Flight 96 DC10 cargo door failure; that accident is carbon-copy TK981.

Much of your hypothesis can be logically worked out if you read the accident reports. Consulting the armchair aviators here will result in nothing but uneducated responses by mostly children. If you’d like to know more, PM me.

winner winner chicken dinner
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 7:58 pm

flybynight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
The DC-10 was the first project completed by McDonnell-Douglas (as opposed to Douglas). Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Convair, and everyone else building civil airliners had all adopted the philosophy that killing your customers was bad for business, and hence anything you can do to make airliners safer was worth doing. McDonnell, however, had only built military planes, where once you have met specifications, you are done. Unfortunately after the merger McDonnell engineers shoved the Douglas engineers aside and did the DC-10 their way. The three resultant DC-10 crashes (TK981, AA191, UA232) all were caused by shortcuts in hydraulic line routing that the other airline manufacturers (including Douglas) would never have done. They all took great care in routing lines where they were protected and where a single event would be unlikely to affect them all. But to be fair, Boeing did make one huge oversight in the design of the 747. They designed it to survive an engine falling off in flight, but did not realize that if an inboard engine fell off it would strike the outboard engine, causing that one to depart as well. Two of them did that and crashed, while at least one had an outboard engine fall off and landed uneventfully.


Well, I suppose if the inside engine fell off it could take the outside engine with it. But that's just one thing that could happen. I personally witnessed a 747 loose its inside engine in Anchorage. Engine 2 came off just a minute away from where I was. Evergreen 747-100 (later used in the movie Die Hard 2).
Here is the photo I snapped later that day after the retuned to ANC


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Evergreen-International-Airlines/Boeing-747-121-A-SF/136732?qsp=eJwtjDEOwkAMBP/imgYhUaSDD4SCD1h3K0hycJZtBKcof8ec6Eazq1kp1afj49cmoIEMrOlOOxJWfhgNKy1o76o5mJYZxVxfEger6ucWMrPjlBLEkf9%2B1Az9TbDUW7do7wOgl850OIbPk0nh3oDzVGjbvh/NMH8%3D

Interesting, I was unaware of that one. I do know off 2 747s that had an inboard engine fall off, strike the outboard engine and cause that one to fall off too, resulting in the plane crashing. I know at least one survived losing an outboard engine. I did not realize that one had survived after losing an inboard engine.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 9:21 pm

SEPilot wrote:
Interesting, I was unaware of that one. I do know off 2 747s that had an inboard engine fall off, strike the outboard engine and cause that one to fall off too, resulting in the plane crashing. I know at least one survived losing an outboard engine. I did not realize that one had survived after losing an inboard engine.



I was a little surprised by this too. The airflow should want to push things outward, even under the wing. It is not an unknown hazard to quad engine, swept wing aircraft. I guess we all learned something new today. . .
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."
 
tnair1974
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 9:27 pm

ERAUMBA wrote:
crj900lr wrote:
ERAUMBA wrote:

Denny Fitch was the ONLY factor. He was the pilot flying.



I thought he was along for the ride in the cabin and when the engine blew up he alerted the f/a to let the crew know he was on board If they needed any assistance. I don't seem to remember him being the one flying the flight.


You should do some research.

Al Haynes was the Captain of the airplane. Bill Records was the co-pilot. All of the hydraulic fluid drained out of all three systems. No control authority via control yokes. Denny Fitch sits behind the throttle quadrant and manipulates the throttles to provide some degree of differential power to accomplish some sort of directional control. Denny Fitch was the pilot flying, neither Al Haynes or the NTSB Report dispute this fact. Read the report. Watch a documentary. Go on YouTube and watch the crew interviews.

:checkmark:

I also second readytotaxi's remark about MacArthur Job's books. I did not know Job had passed away (in 2014) until last year, was disheartening to finally learn of this news.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

As an instructor, Fitch reportedly studied various flying scenarios on the big simulators that weren't necessarily part of the teaching curriculum. IIRC, this included the ill-fated JAL 123 losing all its hydraulics. But it wouldn't be surprising if he also included AA 96 as well as TK 981 (somebody feel free to confirm all this). Anyway, this extra work by Fitch paid off during UA 232. This said, Fitch (who among other injuries had several of his teeth knocked out) was probably the most vulnerable of the pilots as he was straddled unrestrained behind the throttles where as the other three pilots were at least strapped into their seats.

After the loss of hydraulic pressure and upon Records stating that the control column was ineffective, it was Haynes that initially used differential thrust to save 232 from rolling out of control at cruise altitude; only later did Fitch enter the cockpit to help out with the throttles. Haynes and Records reportedly tried using the control yoke one last time before impact, as the right wing was dipping and their sink rate was high. Their efforts were probably futile, but very understandable of them trying the control column again in such a desperate situation.

UA 232 is regarded as a good example of the effectiveness of Cockpit/Crew Resource Management. CRM enabled all UA 232 crew (the three main pilots, Fitch, and as Haynes himself would later credit, the flight attendants) to work together as a team with good communications and a high degree of situational awareness. Before CRM, crews having lessor degrees of situational awareness, poor communications, and/or a captain being more like a "dictator" with lower ranking pilots reluctant to challenge the pilot in the left seat, led to many a disaster.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 9:30 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Interesting, I was unaware of that one. I do know off 2 747s that had an inboard engine fall off, strike the outboard engine and cause that one to fall off too, resulting in the plane crashing. I know at least one survived losing an outboard engine. I did not realize that one had survived after losing an inboard engine.



I was a little surprised by this too. The airflow should want to push things outward, even under the wing. It is not an unknown hazard to quad engine, swept wing aircraft. I guess we all learned something new today. . .


We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.
Heia Norge!
 
GDB
Posts: 13662
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 9:45 pm

In 1987, Channel 4's science series, Equinox, aired 'The Air Fix', fronted by a former LHR maintenance engineer, from 1969-77, who later became a actor.
It was a stage like production that centered on his own experience with the DC-10.
He cited UA 232, calling the Capt an American hero, he had caustic comments about the DC-10, more still about the whole FAA process with that cargo door.

I would love to link it, but another recent search, for this thread, has drawn a blank.
It did note how short the training time TK had for this, their first wide-body, compared to other carrier, also noting the management of the airline was based on patronage.

33 years on, it remains a powerful program, with disturbing testimony from emergency services and relatives, read by the host.
Sadly lost, Channel 4's own site only has two of the many Equinox programs it aired, not on any unofficial platforms, I did VHS it at the time, cannot find it either.
Anyone else remember it?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5589
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 9:53 pm

ElAl 747 freighter at AMS was one of the two, don’t remember the other. The El Al crew might have saved the night IF configured the aircraft differently rather than as per the 2-engine out checklist. Problem was with the loss of #3and #4 engines, which the crew didn’t comprehend we’re gone, not failed, they lost those hydraulic systems. Assuming the windmilling engines would power the hydraulic systems 3&4, the pilots started configuring for return, got into a asymmetrical slat/flap situation, only then understanding the loss of RH hydraulics, leading to LOC with the reduced power on the flight spoilers. Had they used the ELEC ALTN FLAP EXT first, they might have been able to maintain control for landing. Still a very dicey situation.
Last edited by GalaxyFlyer on Mon May 11, 2020 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
tnair1974
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Mon May 11, 2020 10:01 pm

SEPilot wrote:
flybynight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
The DC-10 was the first project completed by McDonnell-Douglas (as opposed to Douglas). Douglas, Boeing, Lockheed, Convair, and everyone else building civil airliners had all adopted the philosophy that killing your customers was bad for business, and hence anything you can do to make airliners safer was worth doing. McDonnell, however, had only built military planes, where once you have met specifications, you are done. Unfortunately after the merger McDonnell engineers shoved the Douglas engineers aside and did the DC-10 their way. The three resultant DC-10 crashes (TK981, AA191, UA232) all were caused by shortcuts in hydraulic line routing that the other airline manufacturers (including Douglas) would never have done. They all took great care in routing lines where they were protected and where a single event would be unlikely to affect them all. But to be fair, Boeing did make one huge oversight in the design of the 747. They designed it to survive an engine falling off in flight, but did not realize that if an inboard engine fell off it would strike the outboard engine, causing that one to depart as well. Two of them did that and crashed, while at least one had an outboard engine fall off and landed uneventfully.


Well, I suppose if the inside engine fell off it could take the outside engine with it. But that's just one thing that could happen. I personally witnessed a 747 loose its inside engine in Anchorage. Engine 2 came off just a minute away from where I was. Evergreen 747-100 (later used in the movie Die Hard 2).
Here is the photo I snapped later that day after the retuned to ANC


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Evergreen-International-Airlines/Boeing-747-121-A-SF/136732?qsp=eJwtjDEOwkAMBP/imgYhUaSDD4SCD1h3K0hycJZtBKcof8ec6Eazq1kp1afj49cmoIEMrOlOOxJWfhgNKy1o76o5mJYZxVxfEger6ucWMrPjlBLEkf9%2B1Az9TbDUW7do7wOgl850OIbPk0nh3oDzVGjbvh/NMH8%3D

Interesting, I was unaware of that one. I do know off 2 747s that had an inboard engine fall off, strike the outboard engine and cause that one to fall off too, resulting in the plane crashing. I know at least one survived losing an outboard engine. I did not realize that one had survived after losing an inboard engine.

Seeing that Evergreen 747 survive an inboard engine separation is new to me as well. But notice the extensive wing damage. The EL AL 747 disaster at Amsterdam resulted when the plane lost an inboard powerplant which not only knocked off the outboard engine but also destroyed much of the leading edge slats. Thus as the plane slowed, the affected wing sadly suffered an aerodynamic stall but the other wing continued generating lift. I don't know of the second 747 disaster SEPilot is referring to, but EL AL at Amsterdam seems frighteningly similar to PSA 182 (impact with the Cessna destroyed much of the 722's right wing slats) and AA 191 (loss of hydraulics caused the plane's left wing slats to "blow back" into the retracted position as there was no back up mechanical lock yet the right wing slats remained extended).

I've heard of 707s and maybe DC-8s having engines separate and the planes landing safely but don't recall if they were outboard or inboard engines.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 11:56 am

flybynight wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
Interesting, I was unaware of that one. I do know off 2 747s that had an inboard engine fall off, strike the outboard engine and cause that one to fall off too, resulting in the plane crashing. I know at least one survived losing an outboard engine. I did not realize that one had survived after losing an inboard engine.



I was a little surprised by this too. The airflow should want to push things outward, even under the wing. It is not an unknown hazard to quad engine, swept wing aircraft. I guess we all learned something new today. . .


We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.

The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
IWMBH
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 1:05 pm

SEPilot wrote:
flybynight wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:


I was a little surprised by this too. The airflow should want to push things outward, even under the wing. It is not an unknown hazard to quad engine, swept wing aircraft. I guess we all learned something new today. . .


We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.

The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.


Makes you wonder if the El-Al crash could've been prevented if the findings of the China airlines crash where known to El-Al.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1356
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 1:12 pm

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
What an unusual but interesting question!


It is also worth pointing out that one of the reasons mentioned for the loss of control in the Turkish DC-10 was the number of flight controls lost by the crew upon decompression and subsequent collapse of part of the passenger floor, for which McDonnell Douglas went back and fixed AND rerouted many flight controls away from. Nearly fifteen years after TK 981, United Airlines flight 811 lost its front cargo door and a huge portion of the business class section (nine people killed), but the flight controls were not severed and the plane landed safely. It all depended on WHERE that severing took place.


United 811 was a 747-100 (NOT a DC10).
 
SkyLife
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 1:23 pm

AA96 over Windsor was the precursor to TK981 and several have noted that it was a miracle AA96 made it back on the ground as she did. However the decompression and floor collapse were not as severe on AA96, they still had some pitch control albeit sluggish. When the cargo door blew out on TK981 the subsequent decompression collapsed the floor (something Dutch certification experts were concerned about early on) and severed all of the control cables. The magnitude effect of decompression was unappreciated by Douglas in the early days of widebody aircraft and had to be reworked (leading to disputes between Convair and Douglas, Convair made the door). Basically the door was designed as fail-safe when in reality it failed several times (including during a pressure vessel test in May 1970 because the door had not been fully locked due to incomplete spool movement). It was also the first electric cargo door closing mechanism to my knowledge for Douglas. This was significant because investigators believed hydraulic actuators would ‘oooze’ open when unable to contain the pressure load. Electric actuators would hold until they failed and then release the door completely, which happened.

The crew was doomed when that door left the airframe because the subsequent collapse of the floor to my knowledge led to a severing of all control cables. AA96’s flight crew actually did discover using electric trim worked although the indicator had broken and they didn’t realize this during the incident. They also only had partial control cable loss as their floor collapse was not as severe.

I don’t believe TK981 could of saved the frame due to the level of decompression in the aircraft and the total severing of the cables. The climb phase of flight doesn’t help either. In all honestly the review of Douglas in hindsight smells a lot like the MAX. The company knew the door could fail and knew that venting in decompression was an issue but said the chances were so low that they didn’t address it (they were also under pressure to deliver on time to UA/AA). I just finished ‘The Last Nine Minutes’ by Moira Johnston which is all about TK981 and the settlement following, one of the largest at the time. The whole shame and irony of it was also that TK981 was never supposed to be full! A BEA strike on the same date led to massive rebookings from Paris-London leading to the full flight.
 
SkyLife
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 1:35 pm

I found the book highly intuitive to an engineer like myself and find some of the issues still at the forefront (aircraft certification). The FAA knew of the door latching issue and didn’t issue an AD. Douglas recommended a SB but ironically when this airplane was built (after the SB was placed into affect) the missing plate on the cargo door was not installed. This plate was critical as it prevented ground/baggage handlers from using their knee to force the door closed when it wasn’t properly latched. It has been pencil whipped by an inspector and approved for service. Lots of issues with the relationship between Douglas and the FAA to this incident...

2 weeks after Paris the FAA issued an AD mandating that the doors be reworked to have a vent open (not allowing pressurization) until the door was completely closed and latched. This fixed the issue.
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 2:49 pm

superjeff wrote:
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:
What an unusual but interesting question!


It is also worth pointing out that one of the reasons mentioned for the loss of control in the Turkish DC-10 was the number of flight controls lost by the crew upon decompression and subsequent collapse of part of the passenger floor, for which McDonnell Douglas went back and fixed AND rerouted many flight controls away from. Nearly fifteen years after TK 981, United Airlines flight 811 lost its front cargo door and a huge portion of the business class section (nine people killed), but the flight controls were not severed and the plane landed safely. It all depended on WHERE that severing took place.


United 811 was a 747-100 (NOT a DC10).


I went back and re-read my original post, confident that I had mentioned that. Nope, it slipped my mind completely. Thanks for correcting me.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810922-0

An Eastern Airlines L-1011 also suffered an engine and hydraulic loss similar to UA 232; however, a back-up fourth hydraulic system saved the day. As I have read (and I believe it was in MacArthur Job's story on United 232), the fourth system was deliberately routed away from the tail system.
 
User avatar
flybynight
Posts: 1532
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 5:39 pm

SEPilot wrote:
flybynight wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:


I was a little surprised by this too. The airflow should want to push things outward, even under the wing. It is not an unknown hazard to quad engine, swept wing aircraft. I guess we all learned something new today. . .


We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.

The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.


A 747 should be able to fly with 2 engines, even if they are on the same wing only. At least I think so. Should be sufficient power, but I think the El Al crash was due also to wing damage, which of course makes sense if an engine (or two) have separated from wing.
But flying a 747 with engines on only one wing must be extremely difficult.
Heia Norge!
 
FGITD
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:44 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 5:53 pm

flybynight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
flybynight wrote:

We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.

The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.


A 747 should be able to fly with 2 engines, even if they are on the same wing only. At least I think so. Should be sufficient power, but I think the El Al crash was due also to wing damage, which of course makes sense if an engine (or two) have separated from wing.
But flying a 747 with engines on only one wing must be extremely difficult.


The El Al crash was exactly due to the wing damage. As they slowed for landing and increased pitch, the damaged wing was causing the airplane to roll right and eventually (I believe, it's been awhile since I read about it) stalled, leading to the aircraft completely rolling right and out of control. Prior to that however the crew had done a considerable amount of flying, considering they'd literally lost half their engines and most of the leading edge surfaces on one side
 
Antarius
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 6:04 pm

flybynight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
flybynight wrote:

We probably should open a separate topic on this, but which 747's crashed because it lost both engines on the same wing? I am curious to read up on those accidents.

The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.


A 747 should be able to fly with 2 engines, even if they are on the same wing only. At least I think so. Should be sufficient power, but I think the El Al crash was due also to wing damage, which of course makes sense if an engine (or two) have separated from wing.
But flying a 747 with engines on only one wing must be extremely difficult.


No more difficult than flying a 77W with one engine. Or any twin really due to asymmetric thrust
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5589
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Could TK 981 have been saved like UAL 232

Tue May 12, 2020 6:39 pm

Antarius wrote:
flybynight wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
The first was on Dec. 29, 1991, when China Airlines Fligt 358 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei after losing the #3 and 4 engines. The second was on Oct.4, 1992 when an El Al freighter crashed in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, severely damaging the leading edge of the wing (which is what actually caused the crash). The El Al crash received a lot of publicity, perhaps because it crashed into an apartment building, but the China Airlines one received almost none. I believe the cause of the engines falling off was traced to unexpected corrosion of one of the pins holding the engine, and an AD was issued to change them.


A 747 should be able to fly with 2 engines, even if they are on the same wing only. At least I think so. Should be sufficient power, but I think the El Al crash was due also to wing damage, which of course makes sense if an engine (or two) have separated from wing.
But flying a 747 with engines on only one wing must be extremely difficult.


No more difficult than flying a 77W with one engine. Or any twin really due to asymmetric thrust


How much 4-engine flight time do you have? It’s more complicated than just having power on one side. The twin OEI has more excess power than the quad with two engines INOP due to the certification standards. They took off near 833K, so very heavy.

While the right wing slats were damaged and only one set extended while the full left side set extended upon selecting Flaps 1. The “killer” was not clearly identifying the loss of both #3 and #4 hydraulics; that related in only the inboard TE flaps extending. With the outboard flaps retracted, the outboard aierons were locked in; leaving only two spoiler panels and the inboard ailerons for roll control. Upon selecting Flaps 5, the FE told the pilots, FLAP ASYM and loss of both right hydraulic systems. Pilots started using the ELEC ALTN FLAP EXTD, but it was too slow to extend the outboard flaps, unlock the outboard ailerons giving the needed roll control. They had slowed to Flaps 5 speed, no roll control, no outboard flaps, right wing stalled, they crash. As I mentioned above, IF “Loss of #3 and #4 HYD” and ELEC ALTN FLAP EXTD had started the evolution, likely a safe landing. At least, in the sim.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos