Costly mistake
Delta flight attendant accidentally deploys emergency slide at airport

A Delta Air Lines crew member accidentally deployed an emergency slide at an arrival gate in Pennsylvania, potentially costing the airline thousands of dollars and derailing passengers’ plans.

The ordeal happened Saturday, Oct. 25 at Pittsburgh International Airport..

Delta did not confirm how much the ordeal would cost the company, but said the incident involved an Airbus A220-300. According to aviation news outlet Aviation A2Z, repairing emergency evacuation slides can be costly, and repairs for this type of plane typically cost between $50,000 and $70,000.

Ouch, too close to home. Just wondering what direction it was.
I use it to travel to Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
My next appointment is on the 12th.

Breaking News

Costly mistake
Delta flight attendant accidentally deploys emergency slide at airport

A Delta Air Lines crew member accidentally deployed an emergency slide at an arrival gate in Pennsylvania, potentially costing the airline thousands of dollars and derailing passengers’ plans.

The ordeal happened Saturday, Oct. 25 at Pittsburgh International Airport..

Delta did not confirm how much the ordeal would cost the company, but said the incident involved an Airbus A220-300. According to aviation news outlet Aviation A2Z, repairing emergency evacuation slides can be costly, and repairs for this type of plane typically cost between $50,000 and $70,000.

Either someone didn't disarm the door. Somone else didn't cross check.
A sign of poor compliance with the SOP.

Makes you wonder what other safety checks aren't being done/done correctly if something that basic isn't being done.


Or- there is an issue with the arming/disarming of the slide- time for a fleet check of all aircraft of that type, and all aircraft using the model of slide- that will cost way more than the replacement of the slide and the interruption to flights and passengers and the gate affected.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Ouch, too close to home. Just wondering what direction it was.
I use it to travel to Hinchingbrooke Hospital.
My next appointment is on the 12th.

Breaking News

Yeah, that came though on our news not long ago.
It's a seriously screwed up world.

Here they are reporting that LNER (London North Eastern Railway) has shut down it's network, not just the line the attacks occurred on.
If so, it shouldn't take long to re-open the network, but i can see the affected line being down for 6-24hrs. The station- 24hrs+

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Another Ouch.
I told the missus on Sunday, I'll lays odds on he got on at Peterborough Station.
Sure enough he did.
It's just been reported that he's from Langford Road, just up the road from the school where the missus works.

Now it's been reported that a WCML train was derailed by a landslide near Shap, Cumbria.
Train derailed

A MD-11F you say? Well that's a disaster just waiting to happen.

At least seven dead after UPS cargo plane crashes during take-off at Louisville airport in Kentucky.

The death toll from a UPS cargo plane crash in Kentucky has risen to at least seven and is expected to rise further, authorities say.

The crash occurred at Louisville International Airport about 5:15pm, local time, on Tuesday as the plane was departing for Honolulu, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said.

A massive fire was ignited, leaving a thick plume of black smoke over the area.

Video showed flames on the plane's left wing before it lifted slightly off the ground, crashed, and exploded in a huge fireball.

Three crew members were on board at the time......

There's a very good reason why they're not making that type of configuration anymore.

There's a very good reason why they're not making that type of configuration anymore.

I don't think the aircraft configuration has anything to do with this crash. There is debris, part of the engine cowl, alongside the runway, and the engine fell of close to the airport fence.
Suggesting an engine explosion, which probably caused damage to the wing and maybe the fuselage. Meaning, the plane was un-flyable.
Pilot Blog AKA Denis - UPS MD-11 Air Crash | Engine Explosion, Fire | Initial Analysis

First condolences to all those affected.

I want to see the preliminary report, maintenance history as well as the physical condition and location of found parts along the path.

The fire on the takeoff roll suggests fuel being pumped out at max thrust rates. Did fuel lines rupture and start the chain of events or were they torn away first?

Obviously it is going to be a long time before the metallurgy reports come back from the lab, so don't expect any fast conclusions for this accident, never mind the condition of the FDR and CVR. The most I would expect from the FDR is to point the investigation of the parts in one way or another. e.g. at tine X NG started to decline, fuel pressure dropped, TIT spiked ... . Indicating to check for A, B, C or D and Q and P are ruled out.

At least it wasn't the central engine that usually takes out the control functions of the tail.

There's a very good reason why they're not making that type of configuration anymore.

I don't think the aircraft configuration has anything to do with this crash. There is debris, part of the engine cowl, alongside the runway, and the engine fell of close to the airport fence.
Suggesting an engine explosion, which probably caused damage to the wing and maybe the fuselage. Meaning, the plane was un-flyable.
Pilot Blog AKA Denis - UPS MD-11 Air Crash | Engine Explosion, Fire | Initial Analysis

Anyone remember American Airlines flight 191 that crashed just after takeoff from O'Hare Airport in May 1979, losing its reft engine?
The Deadliest Crash: Flight 191 and its Maintenance Legacy

All sorts of early noise on this one- along the lines of the crash aircraft was delayed for two hours while the left engine was worked on.

The engine came off the aircraft (apparently including the pylon) near the end of the take-off roll.
Even fully laden (which according to reports this aircraft was) it can still take off on the remaining two engines with a reduced climb rate.
Supposed footage from the dash cam of a truck parked near the accident site shows the plane rolling rapidly with the left wing going down as the nose was coming down.

Most likely cause- the severity of damage from the loss of the engine (it could very well have flipped back over the leading edge due to the thrust it was producing when it came free) physically damaging and weaking the wing, coupled with the fire, caused the wing to fail around the point the engine is mounted. Or if the flaps &/or slats are hydraulic, they would retract as the pressure drops in the event of damage to the hydraulic lines.

Not enough wing, not enough lift on that side of the aircraft, aircraft rolls and slams into the ground.
Flaps/slats retract, not enough lift on that side of the aircraft, aircraft rolls and slams into the ground.

Anyone remember American Airlines flight 191 that crashed just after takeoff from O'Hare Airport in May 1979, losing its reft engine?

That was the one that came to mind when i heard about the engine coming off before the crash.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

At least it wasn't the central engine that usually takes out the control functions of the tail.

And everything else.
Sioux City UA 232 comes to mind.
The DC-10 had 3 fully independent hydraulic systems, and when the tail engine fan disk failed catastrophically, it took out all 3 hydraulic systems.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Even fully laden (which according to reports this aircraft was) it can still take off on the remaining two engines with a reduced climb rate.

In theory.... Not on this fatal flight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmePrd7PkYI

Even fully laden (which according to reports this aircraft was) it can still take off on the remaining two engines with a reduced climb rate.

In theory.... Not on this fatal flight:

Not theory- fact.
A fully laden MD-11 can take off on 2 engines.


The reason this one didn't- as per the possibilities in my previous post.
Apparently the MD-11 was based on the DC-10-60 series, so the failure of the hydraulic system when the engine ripped off caused the slats to retract, reducing lift, causing the plane to roll to the left & lose altitude seems to be the most likely cause.
Until the aircraft reaches a minimum speed where the flaps & slats can be retracted, the loss of either makes it impossible for the aircraft to remain airborne.


Pure speculation-

If the engine had come off before V1, then they could have stopped before taking off and hopefully evacuated before the rest of the plane caught fire.
If it occurred after V1 but before Vr (Rotate, take off), all their training would have been to continue the take off, then return to the airport ASAP. From the time the engine came off to when they had to rotate
would have been less time than they would have had to think WTF!!!!!, let alone decide to ignore all their training and abort and just hope they survived over-running the runway.
Even more so if it had occurred just after rotating - being able to decide to ignore all their training, let the plane land hard, and hope to survive an even higher speed overrun.

But why would they? The MD-11 can take off fully loaded on only 2 engines- as long as it remains configured for take-off.


But with the failure of the hydraulics, there was no chance. The slats would have retracted early, lift lost, and down they went.
In this accident the aircrew never had a chance.

And here is the video from one of the luckiest people on the planet.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Let's continue; The engine was found before the end of the runway on the wrong side of the runway. Speculation is that points to a failure of the rear pylon attach point with the engine then swinging over the wing with unknown damage to the tail. Video indicates that the number 2 (center) engine was having compressor stalls likely due to FOD ingestion. There is clear video of one wing with the leading edge slats fully deployed and engine attached. All of this however is likely moot as the the root cause was earlier. There is an A/D for the pylon attach points. That A/D may need to be revised. Also until the wreckage is gone through and nothing that shouldn't be there is found, although remote, the possibility exists of a ground strike (things fall off ground equipment and stuff blows around)

With the compressor stalls on the center engine the aircraft would not be able to fly. Insufficient thrust. Nothing the crew could do as they wouldn't have known this in tine to attempt an over V1 abort. This is information overload.

It will be a couple to a few weeks before we get a full prelim report laying out all the instantaneous facts. Then the pundits start eating crow. A couple of years from prelim to a full report.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

Unlike other aircraft designs, the DC-10 was not equipped with a separate mechanism that would lock the extended leading-edge slats into place, relying instead solely on the hydraulic pressure within the system.

...as Grant already explained... but:

The NTSB determined that the engine tore through hydraulic lines as it separated from the DC-10's wing, causing a loss of hydraulic pressure; airflow over the wings forced the left wing slats to retract, which caused a stall over the left wing.

In response to the accident, slat relief valves were mandated to prevent slat retraction in case of hydraulic line damage.

If this unique DC-10 deficiency was already identified after the crash of AA191 in 1979 all DC-10s of that era surely had been modified in the early 1980s... The crashed UPS plane was a more modern MD-11 from the 1990s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmePrd7PkYI

In the video I posted the plane runs straight down the runway, rotated, the front wheel already high above ground with an (as I would guess) abnormal high angle of attack. It simply does not take off for another 7...10? seconds.

So either the v2 speed wasn't reached due to insufficient thrust; engine #1 separated, #2 compressor stall.. Would pilots try to enforce a liftoff for many seconds before v2; instead of aborting the takeoff past v1?

Or the wings produced insufficient lift due to what? ...retreating slats/flaps as with AA191 in 1979?

The NTSB determined that the engine tore through hydraulic lines as it separated from the DC-10's wing, causing a loss of hydraulic pressure; airflow over the wings forced the left wing slats to retract, which caused a stall over the left wing.

In response to the accident, slat relief valves were mandated to prevent slat retraction in case of hydraulic line damage.

If this unique DC-10 deficiency was already identified after the crash of AA191 in 1979 all DC-10s of that era surely had been modified in the early 1980s... The crashed UPS plane was a more modern MD-11 from the 1990s.

It's also a question of where the valves are, and where the damage occurred. 1 valve per wing? 2 valves per wing (one inner one outer wing)? 1 valve per slat?


And if it's as Gary posted- compressor stalls on the tail engine- with a full load and fuel, there was no chance of the aircraft taking off even if all flaps and slats remained configured for take-off.
It seems there's general agreement an MD-11 could take off on one engine- if it were empty & with a minimum fuel load. But not with a full fuel load, let alone freight.


And there's a high chance that even if they had two engines, and even if their hydraulic systems were still working & the slats remained extended, that was one seriously intense fire. And even if they had time to shut down the fuel pumps to that engine, it's very probable the fuel would have continued to leak due to the damage to the wing, feeding the fire and very probably leading to structural failure of the wing before the aircraft could have returned to the airport.

Once it left the ground, they had no chance. Depending at what point the engine came off, even if they had stay on the ground, with the time it would take to make that decision, their chances would have only been slightly better than none at all...

---

Grant
Darwin NT

MD11 do tend to take-off at very high angles of attack, especially when heavily loaded, so nothing strange there.
BUT
The MD11 can take-off full laden on two engines, provided they are producing full thrust, it would appear that the number 2 engine was suffering compressor stalls, so was down on power.
Some reports are suggesting that the number 1 engine detached at about V1, so it was quite reasonable to continue the take-off roll. The number 2 engine started to stall, it was now too late for anything but "good luck" to come into play, and that card was still in the hanger.....

(Pilots will rarely attempt to abort take-off above V1 unless there is plenty of runway remaining, and by the looks of it they were running out of runway quite rapidly).

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

(Pilots will rarely attempt to abort take-off above V1 unless there is plenty of runway remaining, and by the looks of it they were running out of runway quite rapidly).

Uh, V1 means you are out of runway. Vr is the speed necessary to lift off the ground. V2 is the speed that gives a safety margin above Vr. Give a long enough runway and V2 comes before V1.

Many pilots do think that hitting the fence at 25 knots would be acceptable if things are bad enough to be sure of a crash if they continued. (Single engine pilots don't get a choice!) Assume you meant plenty of runway to slow down a lot.