Well stated, AC!

The usual detailed info from Juan Browne:

https://youtu.be/mHW6HaS5mnc

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
The image of the engine, AI or not, does appear to be a GE CF6, which be correct for the aircraft. Still, you'd think if newscopter captured the cowling, they also would have seen the engine too.

That is correct it was a GE CF6C2 but the MD-11 can also can have PW4000’s.

The NTSB confirmed that the pic of the engine lying on the airfield is legit.

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

I don't know if it's always been the case, or if it was in response to this accident, but our procedure for an engine loss in the 737 during/after takeoff is to speed up to V2 if currently below it. Maintain current speed if between V2 and V2+20, or slow to V2+20 if above that. Also, again can only speak for the 737, the aircraft is designed to fly just fine with the loss of an engine. And by loss I mean it decides to abandon ship and detach. It is actually designed to do so in extreme cases to (hopefully) avoid further damaging the rest of the aircraft.

In the Embraer and Canadair regional jets our procedure was similar. Speed up to V2 if below that (not a likely scenario), maintain present speed if above V2 until reaching acceleration altitude (typically 1000 AGL), then maintain Vfs after that. That is all for an engine failure during takeoff, initial climb, or arrival/approach below 10,000. Above 10,000 the target speed would be present speed unless altitude cannot be maintained, in which case use minimum drift down speed. Engine failure after V1 but before gear retraction is the only time one might be below V2, and then only very briefly.

Idk what informed these procedures but they are logical and simple to execute.

I am not a big fan of the migration away from immediate memory action items in case of engine failure or fire. Pulling the fire handle will close the fuel and hydraulic shutoff valves. I am curious if that will be a factor in this accident.

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

quote:

I was a kid in the west suburbs when that happened. This one reminded me of it because the sudden loss of weight caused a hard roll.

Not actually true. In an ironic twist of fate it was rigid adherence to procedure that ultimately caused the rollover. When the engine broke away it severed the hydraulic line(s) on the left wing which caused the leading edge slats to retract from aerodynamic forces. This raised the stall speed of the left wing compared to the normally functioning right wing. ...

Very interesting.

I was a teen in the Chicago burbs when that crash happened and so had an interest in stories about it over the years. This is the first time I recall hearing this factor. In my recollection, the focus was always on the engine and pylon separation from the wing.

Thanks for taking the time to provide this information.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


I'm no pilot, but I would much rather take my chanes over running the runway while still on the ground than lose an engine on take off.

You would rather take a 500,000 pound missile off the end of the runway at 150 mph, loaded with 40-50 thousand gallons of jet fuel? Rejecting a takeoff after V1(incorrectly) had led to more crashes than taking a jet single engine into the air. It's what we train for. Your assumption goes against decades of research, training and knowledge. Nothing good comes from aborting a takeoff beyond the Takeoff Decision Speed.

They took off! Nothing good came of this airplane taking off either,did it??? I'm not a pilot. But the engine and wing was completely engulfed in flames, the engine fell off on take off, taking off is not going to put the fire out, so either way the wing is also probably falling off and this plane is falling out of the sky. In my mind the airport would have fire rescue on sight and if they could slow the plane down as much as possible before hitting things after the runway, the fire trucks could be there within a few minutes.

Jet fuel is not explosive like gasoline. Very flamable yes, but not like a bomb. Do you think one could successfully take off, fly, and land in an MD11 with the entire engine missing and weight of the engine not there even if the fire was put out?

Captain Sully didn't follow the manual either and saved everyone's life on his plane. Sometimes the rules only work 99% of the time.

Even if they could've maintained control and a positive rate, assuming #2 just had smoke and no structural damage, given the flames, how long before it could or would have started having the full TO power?

Increase the size of the video to full screen, you can see the wing was still attached after the engine came off, it looks like it was unable to gain altitude, clipped power lines and the top of a building before rolling.



https://x.com/Mrgunsngear/status/1986415174341849337

Damn, looks like had they had a clear path maybe they could of made it

The plane looks stable.

It's hard to tell on my laptop screen, but it looks like the tail hit something.

I saw a picture yesterday of a building where the roof was impacted. I can't find it now.
.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The plane looks stable.

Well, it's losing altitude, so...

And that's a long ways from the airport. Not in air miles, but not right at the end of runway.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Damn, looks like had they had a clear path maybe they could of made it

Loss of #1, coupled with compressor stall on #2, gear down, and (unknown) operation/configuration of secondary flight controls no way they could have maintained positive rate of clime, or even sustained what the had.

I believe they did all they could in the short time they had.

And, taking off was their best option when understanding "what did the know, when did they know it, and what did they do about it".

Or maybe they should have flown with their seatbelts off, so they could be thrown clear from the crash... Eh, Jimmy?

"...I'm not a pilot. ..."
First correct thing you've stated in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


They took off! Nothing good came of this airplane taking off either,did it??? I'm not a pilot. But the engine and wing was completely engulfed in flames, the engine fell off on take off, taking off is not going to put the fire out, so either way the wing is also probably falling off and this plane is falling out of the sky. In my mind the airport would have fire rescue on sight and if they could slow the plane down as much as possible before hitting things after the runway, the fire trucks could be there within a few minutes.

Jet fuel is not explosive like gasoline. Very flamable yes, but not like a bomb. Do you think one could successfully take off, fly, and land in an MD11 with the entire engine missing and weight of the engine not there even if the fire was put out?

Captain Sully didn't follow the manual either and saved everyone's life on his plane. Sometimes the rules only work 99% of the time.

Here's the thing - this was a very unusual failure. Though we don't know exactly what happened with any detail to disable the aircraft, this was not a run of the mill engine failure.

Engine failures happen, though rarely. An engine failing to provide any thrust at or after V1 in the takeoff roll is an easily managed situation. It is considered an Abnormal situation, not an Emergency situation.

All the crew knew was that they'd already passed V1, and they had some kind of engine loss of thrust. Possibly they had a fire bell. That is all they knew about what was happening.

They also knew that attempting to reject the takeoff would be a guaranteed crash off the end of the runway at probably a substantial speed. The energies involved are immense, increasing with the square of the speed for an extremely heavy object.

As you say, the procedures are good in nearly every situation. The crew had no way to know this was a very rare outlier. Trying to diagnose the problem while moving along the runway about 200 mph towards buildings? You will rapidly have no options at all, with insufficient runway to either takeoff or stop.

I've been the flying pilot on several aircraft with turbine engine failures. Yeah, lucky me got 3 in a career. The safest bet, and yes it is a bet, is to follow the procedures. They've been developed and proven because people died doing something different before.

Sometimes, though, the die is cast and there's nothing you can do. The Concord accident is an excellent example.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
It's hard to tell on my laptop screen, but it looks like the tail hit something.

I saw a picture yesterday of a building where the roof was impacted. I can't find it now.
.

Screen cap:


Roof by kpkina, on Flickr

Three angles in this X post, check out the video on the top right, you can see that they actually flew quite a bit of distance with the left wing on fire, nose up, and the plan descending.

That's why it made it half a mile or so before hitting the ground, it never had a chance of going around.

https://x.com/ahmed_baokbah/st.../1985915661252772036

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The plane looks stable.

Well, it's losing altitude, so...

And that's a long ways from the airport. Not in air miles, but not right at the end of runway.

Yeah, but it’s doing so smoothly. In a video, Captain Steeeve said it went so far because it came in on a knife edge because losing the left engine caused it to roll blah, blah, blah…. It’s not doing any of that.

He starts talking about it around 5:10:

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

Not actually true. In an ironic twist of fate it was rigid adherence to procedure that ultimately caused the rollover. When the engine broke away it severed the hydraulic line(s) on the left wing which caused the leading edge slats to retract from aerodynamic forces. This raised the stall speed of the left wing compared to the normally functioning right wing. Initially the airplane was flying above that speed, however following procedure for an engine failure the crew slowed towards V2, which is/was the target for such an occasion. This brought them below the increased stall speed at which point the left wing stalled and the airplane subsequently uncontrollably rolled over.

This a pretty good concise summary of the NTSB report.
The DC-10 and the MD-11 can fly with two engines, if the 3rd engine just quits or is shut down. The problem is the damage it can cause to other systems when it and the pylon depart the aircraft in an unplanned manner.