Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

That was in June.

It's in the news today for some reason.

Perhaps she has been bollo*cked today by the powers that be.

This will go down well

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e1260a536665a425

AA191 had alot more altitude so was almost inverted when it hit.

The two things they needed they didn't have... Airspeed and altitude. The wings will always provide lift as long as there is air flowing over it. Removing thrust on one side causes a loss of airspeed over that wing. Less airspeed equals less lift. Likewise the yaw induced by the loss of balanced thrust further slows the unpowered wing causing more loss of lift. As the wing drops the aircraft will always roll to that side. Once the left wing touched the lift from the working wing finished the roll.

Not dissimilar to the Endeavour crash in Toronto earlier this year.

The position of the tail engine relative to the dynamic axis is less than ideal compared to the Tristar or other three engined aircraft. Where the centre line of the engine is almost aligned with the centre line of the aircraft.

That was in June.

I see they are frothing over today because one of their presenters used the expression "pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people".

Yep. Just seen this.

Martine Croxall apparently changed the script, using pregnant women instead of pregnant people......because apparently 'people' of both sexes can become pregnant.

This has happened before on a DC10

Do you mean This one?

If so you'd hope that the lesson of not fuŁking about with the manufacturer's maintenance procedures had been well learned! 

The only similarities are aerodynamic consequence. Erase that engine and it's thrust and the resultant roll is swift and catastrophic and will happen every single time.

Incidentally, not many operators own any and fleet utilisation is pretty low...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11_operators

The main issue with AA191's loss of control was retraction of the slats on the port wing and the consequent asymmetric stall due to hydraulic damage, an issue that was countered by an AD in response to the crash investigation.

There's no roll I can see on the videos of this crash, at least not until the port wing contacts something solid on the ground and the airframe cartwheels.

Aerodynamically, it's an engine failure, so possible to counter with control inputs assuming you still have a working system by which to make them.

Add a load of fire and a second engine failure and there is, of course, no hope.

I see they are frothing over today because one of their presenters used the expression "pregnant women" instead of "pregnant people".

This has happened before on a DC10

Do you mean This one?

If so you'd hope that the lesson of not fuŁking about with the manufacturer's maintenance procedures had been well learned! 

The only similarities are aerodynamic consequence. Erase that engine and it's thrust and the resultant roll is swift and catastrophic and will happen every single time.

Incidentally, not many operators own any and fleet utilisation is pretty low...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11_operators

It would take quite a bird strike to rip an engine off its pylon and dump it by the runway, but it's not impossible that one started the whole chain of events, I suppose.

By the time it's bounced over the airfield, the external gubbins would have been smashed to bits, the core is the heaviest part so no surprise that it's on its own.

The pylons have always been a week link on those. DC10/MD11s. The AD that came from the Chicago crash in the late seventies focused on maintenance practices rather than the aircraft. The engines themselves aren't actually held on by much.

Whilst the casing should be able to contain a fan blade failure, regardless if cause, the rotational force at take off power could have been enough to twist the pylon off.

Engine #2 probably ingested the fragments of #1 as it disintegrated., something more likely due to the relative tail position as the nose came up. By contrast, the engine in the Chicago incident simply became detached and missed the tail. In this case the engine coming away was a secondary event. As was the engine fire. Once the engine came away, the subsequent roll to the left was guaranteed.
#2 failing was actually a blessing as the aircraft never gained altitude.

FOD or mechanical failure.

All sorted now, thanks Mr DTM for your invaluable assistance