It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) - which is investigating the crash - said they have recovered airport CCTV footage that shows the plane's left engine falling off from the wing during takeoff. The agency has also recovered the cockpit flight recorder and the flight data recorder, known as the black box, from the wreckage. The 38,000 gallons of fuel on board the MD-11 jet needed for the flight escalated the blaze, which quickly spread to several buildings beyond the runway and burned for hours.
Data from tracking website FlightRadar24 shows the plane began to taxi along the 17R runway at around 17:15 local time and managed to reach a top speed of 214mph. But verified footage shows that by the time the plane reached this speed a fire had completely engulfed its left wing and the aircraft struggled to climb away from the runway before the explosion.
The NTSB said the plane's engine was on fire as it was working to take off and then detached from the wing. The plane was able to climb to 175 ft and cleared a fence at the end of the runway before veering into buildings and businesses surrounding the airport. Analysts suggested that a dramatic failure of two of the engines may have been responsible for the disaster. The MD-11 transport plane uses three engines. Two are mounted under the wings, and a third is built into the tail at the base of the vertical stabilizer.
A senior lecturer in aviation operations said the footage appeared to show the third engine had been damaged because it expelled a burst of smoke. The damage could have happened while it was pelted with debris from the fire and the engine detaching: "The upper engine that expelled a puff of smoke appears to wind down almost immediately afterwards," he said. "That left only the right engine producing thrust, creating a severe power imbalance and leaving the aircraft unable to gain height. "Losing two engines during take-off leaves the aircraft with only a third of its power and little chance of maintaining flight, especially at maximum take-off weight.
Footage confirmed by BBC Verify showed a blaze engulfing the left wing of the plane, which then tilted to the left as it attempted to gain lift and take-off. Two experts independently suggested the left engine may have detached from the plane after suffering from a mechanical or structural failure. And the NTSB later confirmed that the left engine detached from the plane's wing during takeoff. A retired airline pilot and aviation safety expert told BBC Verify that it was "almost unheard of" for an engine to detach in flight. He also said the cargo plane would have been able to fly with just two engines but the damage caused by the fire on the left wing was likely so great it caused the plane's engine built into the tail to lose thrust.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
Comment: "It is not clear what work was done." That of course will be one of the most important and critical aspects of this tragedy.
It was a DC-10 that crashed just after departing O’Hare roughly 40 (?) years ago. The tail engine was a factor in that disaster. And ISTM another suffered hydraulic failure and was miraculously guided to a crash landing somewhere in the midwest by the crew (Oklahoma?) with many loss of life.
Thanks OJ. Great article. Could well have been a passenger jet. My heart goes out to the crew. Would have been horrific. There are investment implications if - as suggested - FedX & UPS ground these for any length of time. Would certainly impact the economy. As an aside … the nation has become so obsessed with ”Trump this” / “Trump that” / “Shutdown chaos” that very newsworthy stories like the plane crash receive little attention.
Not really needing to be said: Engines should not fall off planes. Should be an interesting investigation with hopefully some lessons learned that may make flying safer.
Is this thing simply too old? Hairline cracks, wear and tear? Metal fatigue? At some point, used cars become more trouble than they are worth, too.
As I recall the plane that @hank mentioned underwent a catastrophic engine failure due to a crack pylon. If that is the case here, on ground inspection would detect the hairline / stress cracks during refueling assuming the cracks are visible. In addition, older planes undergo a complete inspection and load bearing parts are replaced based on number of flight hours being flew.
https://simpleflying.com/how-engines-are-attached-to-aircraft/
Thought I was an avid flyer until I met a gal on a recent flight who flies often due to her work and is also a very nervous flyer. She knew a lot more about planes than I do. And had even read up ahead of time on various flight perimeters, including NOAA’s predicted wind-sheer along the rout! Geez. That’s taking it to a new level.
The DC-10? Hell of a plane. But everything I’ve seen says that the very similar L-1011 which came out around the same time and competed head to head with the DC-10 was a better quality plane. Problem was that it cost more to buy so never took off with the airlines.
With the DC-10, as I recall, pilots actually flew the thing. Today so much more automaton
Comment: More typical FAA: A day late and many dollars short. It's pretty sad when the manufacturer and operators of an aircraft ground the plane before the FAA gets around to it.
At least the FAA came to the conclusion that an engine falling off "could result in loss of continued safe flight and landing". I guess that's something.