I really hope the A&P's who neglected checking the filters got canned. I was an AD in VR-52. We flew DC-9s and C-9Bs. I've personally seen, inspected, and replaced that filter (among others) on the engine. Pardon my language (I am a Sailor afterall), but fuck those guys. That's gross negligence.
@@jakem7838 You are correct, depending on the certified repair station that an Airline has contracted to do the C or D check, the FAA requires only a certain percentage of mechanics to be licensed. At the repair station, if the planners had done their job and given maintenance control the work that was required for that engine, the filter would have been replaced. It's the planners job to do the research prior to the arrival of the aircraft for maintenance. Of course they do coordinate with the air carrier.
Jeff Noe,, do you have an A and P ?? There are only two types of aircraft mechanics,, those who have their A and P and those who wished they had their A and P. And yes, I have had mine since 1982.
I agree with you in that the flight crew did a phenomenal job. Their workload was incredible. They were flying with very little information from their aircraft and that information was untrustworthy in the pilot's opinion. With all that, their decisions got the airplane safely on the ground with all passengers safe. The pressure must have been enormous. It appears that any lapses in judgment were not serious enough to add to the danger. Major props to the pilots.
The Devil lies in the Small details. A big modern plane in the air, and its survival was endangered by a small filter valve not being checked by a maintenance mechanic when the big bird was on the ground.
Additionally, they called in another pilot from among the passengers to help out with the workload which also shows, and I quote Mentour here, "excellent CRM". :)
@@vedranb87 I'll trust Mentour's word on that. It is nice to have a spare pilot available when things take a sudden turn into turdsville. Especially when half the electrical is out, one hydraulic system is failing and an engine is doing that burning thing, which can pretty much melt your tail section clean off. Would that they could have an awshit button to pause things while you try to collect your thoughts!
Did the pilot make some procedural errors? Yes. Did he get everyone down on the ground safely and without injuries? Yes. In MHO, that makes the pilots pros, because that is all that matters in the end.
that doesn't mean change shouldn't happen after something like this, other pilots trained in the same way who will make the same errors might not be so lucky when faced with a similar issue. this is why everything is scrutinized in the aviation industry, and why it's one of the safest ways of travel :)
The outcome does not always justify the means. It may have been somewhat fluke the flight went as well as it did. It's up to the pilot really to make an accurate assessment in real time if they have the ability to increase the safety of the flight moreso than what following procedure would do.
The captain did a great job! Any time you do a gear-up landing, there will be massive sparks created - especially from the where the nose gear doors are located. These will be thrown the length of the aircraft. If there was any residual fuel leaks (as was indicated after landing), the fire could be instantly made much worse. I don't know if this was part of his thinking, but in retrospect it turned out to be a critical consideration.
That’s not how it works - he can only make decisions based on facts. The facts were that he had cascading failures, and a single-engine go-around with an aircraft that just took off (or heavy) is marginal on a good day.
@@EstorilEm The crew was already severely overloaded. Dealing with gear up on top of that, with no time to prepare for it could also have gone very badly.
Yeah the captain did it all by himself... Never mind those two other pilots in the flight deck. The public is so ignorant when it comes to aviation. I guess you think the first officer just fetches the coffee.
@@CLR2TKF Ooh those stupid ignorant members of the public.. To mention only the captain like that is frankly unforgivable. The guy who made that comment should be dragged out into the street and shot for his ignorance.
Another well done investigation! The pilots made the right choices up to and including getting help from the other passenger pilot on board. Doubtless, their good choices saved lives. 👍
@@TurboMountTV land with a dodgy gear and unwarned cabin, you end up with injured or dead passengers. That's considered a bit of a faux pas... Apparently, passengers are beastly expensive to replace.
@@spvillano Blow up in the sky doesn't make a good headline either. Passengers dont like that. They had no idea on full extent of fire. LAND! Planes have landed with a wheel up several times.
@@spvillano youre riding at low altitude with a fire, no knowledge of what caused failre, one engine, and then hydraulic failure. Yeah, id just take it down with the main gears
I think the decision to go around was right. But how can you say that they made no errors? They made major errors, including letting themselves get so distracted that they never went through the most vital checklist.
Giving that everyone walked away unharmed after the landing I'd say the crew did a good job. What's more concering, though, is that AA seemed to have falsified their C-check documentation. I hope there was a thorough audit of AA's maintenance after that incident. (Edit - words are hard!)
Another amazing video 🙂 One thing I find missing is the reason why they lost electronics and then some of the hydraulics. I tried looking for it, but all articles focus on the engine fire cause and poor maintenance. I suspect this is somehow addressed in the NTSB report, however I don't have time to read it at the moment. -I can only guess that the left engine was responsible for supplying power to the electronic instruments and hydraulic lines got somehow damaged by the fire. That's why I don't particularly like the tail-mounted engines design. Still a wild guess though, if anyone has any reliable information on this then feel free to correct me / provide more details.- EDIT: Finally had some time to look into the original NTSB report and do some additional research. It seems like in this case the electrical / hydraulic system problems have nothing to do with the tail-mounted engines design. _____________________ 1. Loss of hydraulics NTSB report [section 1.6.3] indicates that the DC9 has two separate hydraulic systems, left and right, powered by corresponding engines. When the fire handle is pulled, a mechanically operated fire shutoff valve is also closed on the system to prevent hydraulic fluid loss. However, the same section indicates that the left hydraulic reservoir was found empty post-accident, while fluid level indicator on the reservoir showed that it was full. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] describes pilots' response to left engine fire warning and subsequent events. It indicates that Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist was interrupted multiple times, preventing pilots from executing critical items, including pulling the fire handle. This would mean that the fire shutoff valve was activated after a significant delay and probably at a point when there was no more hydraulic fluid in the left system due to damage (it's not explicitly stated in the report, but that's one logical conclusion). That's what caused the loss of hydraulics on the left side. NTSB report [section 1.6.3] also describes the operation of the hydraulic power transfer unit (PTU) that is able to mechanically transfer pressure from one hydraulic system to the other, in case of loss of power. However, the necessary condition to do so, is to have hydraulic fluid present in the receiving system. There was no hydraulic fluid in the left hydraulic system to work with. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] points out that the PTU was enabled the whole time, and that's what led to depressurization of the right system - the pressure was constantly transferred into the left system that could not be pressurized because of the lack of hydraulic fluid. There is a safety mechanism to prevent it - a shutoff valve should be automatically activated if the fluid level in the receiving system's reservoir is below a certain value. However, as stated before, the fluid level indicator on the left reservoir was broken and showed 'full', so the safety didn't kick in. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] concludes that: "[...] the pilots’ interruption of the emergency Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist at a critical point prolonged the fire and led to additional problems, including the loss of hydraulic pressure, which caused the nose landing gear to fail to extend." ________________________________________ 2. Loss of electrical / electronic systems NTSB report doesn't focus on this one, so it's really hard to figure something out. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] mentions a 'power transfer' occurring as the result of electrical anomalies. I managed to find DC9's electrical system's diagram in a coolsky's DC-9 classic Aircraft Operating Manual and some other sources to confirm it's correct. DC9's electrical system seems fairly similar to MD-80's schematics and based on some online descriptions of MD-80's system operation, I tried to figure out what could have happened. Similarly to hydraulics, DC9 also has two separate electric systems, powered by left and right engine generators, respectively. Similarly to PTU in case of hydraulics, there's a component in DC9's electrical system that allows both left and right subsystem to be powered by a single engine's generator - the AC Cross-Tie Relay (ACTR). When AC BUS X TIE switch is set to 'Auto' in the cockpit, the AC cross-tie will interconnect the two systems whenever one of the generators is offline. Initially I thought that's what the pilot meant by 'power transfer', and that's what NTSB report implies in [section 1.1], however when reading CVR transcripts, I found 'power transfer' and 'AC cross-tie' mentioned separately... Moreover, judging from the CVR transcript, the AC cross-tie actually failed and they got a 'AC cross-tie lockout' indication. From DC-9 Operating Manual, this means that the AC cross-tie got somehow locked in 'open' position and was inoperative... ... and after some more digging into the AC cross-tie lockout, I found out that it gets triggered by a high current draw - for example the AC bus being shorted to plane's GND. I think it's a plausible thing to happen during a major fire, but it's pure speculation on my part. And I can't really explain how it affected the APU deployment (maybe it works similarly to the AC cross-tie lockout, i.e. doesn't deploy APU if a relay is switched to power the AC line where a high current draw has been detected?). And why at some point the electrical power was lost to the whole cockpit (is it supplied only by the left system? because the right one should have remained unaffected...). So that's basically all I was able to find. Hope I managed to contribute something of value to the subject. Feel free to point out any mistakes. And if you have any knowledge / experience that could offer some more insight into what happened to that DC9's electrical systems, I'd love to hear it 🙂
@@eddiec4536 other companies used both engines - typically powering one side of the aircraft and cockpit. That last turns into meticulously paying attention to the checklists!
The Captain absolutely made the right call, and the proof is in the outcome. He didn’t panic, he used every resource at his disposal (including the off duty crew), made carefully considered decisions, and safely landed the plane. As a pilot, that’s some first-rate airmanship in my book.
These pilots ABSOLUTLY made right decision. They are heroes. I hope the techs/maintenance people faced charges for not performing proper care of the filter.
Kudos to the captain and the FO on this flight, their actions most likely saved everyone. What may seem stupid at first take often makes the difference in these situations. That captain not only saved everyone's lives on board, but he also prevented a much larger disaster from occurring. Aircrafts can be replaced and repaired. Human lives can't be replaced. Great video.
Has anyone else read this man’s description box where he includes his written summary of the incident/accident? Hate to call it a summary bc I feel like it almost minimizes it, but I highly respect the amount of work that is put into this channel. It really shows. I had forgotten the date this took place and didn’t want to rewind back, so checked there and damn that’s commitment!
"The right call" is the one that gets the plane on the ground safely with no injuries to passengers, crew or those on the ground.....so in this case I would say going around was the right call
Was there anything said about why their hydraulics and electronics failed? And why the landing gear didn't come down? The ending was a bit abrupt compared to your other vids where you clear up every part of the story that you mentioned.
Landing gear is lowered by hydraulics and electricity is generated by engines, and hydraulics are powered by engines. If engines fail, you can lose hydraulics and electricity. Most planes have backup electricity systems, I don't know much about the DC9 so I don't know if it has one, but it could have been inoperative at the time.
Engine 1 was down so power and hydraulics would be down. They may not have had a generator on the second engine but there would have been hydraulic pressure provided. There must have been some to get the gear down. I am pretty sure the primary flight controls were manually operated so a ram air turbine wasn't a part of the design so that mean no third back up of hydraulic pressure or electrical. Not sure why the APU didn't provide some power but I'm guessing the wiring probably was bundled and got scorched so the redundancy was gone. Remember this is a much older plane so having 3 redundant and separate systems on it wasn't crucial back then especially given the size of it. There's been later cases on newer planes where all the wiring was ran in one trunk and once the fire took it out it didn't matter which generator was operative since all electrical connections were severed. Same for mechanical controls where fires have melted and warped them as they all ran in one trunk. Freak accidents with a chain of events. That's how we learn
Yeah it's called fire from the engine could have damaged the hydroluc lines since the heat signature was hot by the airport fire crew that did the thermal scan
FYI There are no turbines "right up front (of the engine)," but there are rotors that with stators compress air for combustion! Other than that, GREAT VIDEO! 👍🏽
Semantics... Its a disk of blades that does work upon air, so I imagine with that definition you could call it a turbine. I know what you mean from an aviation terminology standpoint though.
The crew did their best under the most difficult of situations. However, i’m not sure I would have gone around with a fire. That plane could have fallen apart at any moment. I’d of definitely continued. Presumably the cabin crew were already briefed for an emergency landing. Their procedures would be the same regardless of if it was a fire or gear up landing. Having said that, they got a positive outcome so the captain was right on the day!
Procedures for go-around are still to be followed with a fire on board. Just like if a fire is detected on take-off, and you get past V2, you never abort the take-off. They are cases of "following procedure may result in an accident, but not following procedure WILL result in an accident!". That "Continue" will be the hardest call ever to make. But it MUST be made, it's the only way of staying alive !
@@nihlify really? Do you have any idea how quickly a fire can destroy an airplane? A fire is just about the worst thing in flight. The correct decision, IMO, would’ve been to land. They were already on final and should have committed to that. Fires don’t give you extra time to get “ready”. Oh and if you want to challenge my credentials: ATP with 12k+ hrs of flight time with multiple type ratings in jets and turboprops. 25 years of experience in commercial flight.
I always love your tech diagrams and explanations. CRM seems to have been shaky at first, but bringing in the off-duty pilot was a smart move to improve the situation.
@@Capecodham Most watching this kind of content are familiar with aviation acronyms. Just like people watching car videos know their BHP/MPG/KPH/EFI/RPM/ECU/TCS
As implied by that very significant question posed by the investigator to the Captain "why did you go around" is saying in a completely different, yet identical way, what 99.9% of people would think in their gut namely "Why didn't you get this on the ground ASAP?" With a major fire on board - by the way which has been demonstrated so so often before - quite simply you are doomed unless you can get down and get off in minutes. I can't remember the exact flight number but I recall explicitly a Swissair flight. Within minutes, pilots were overcome and by then, irrespective of what happens to the structural integrity of the plane after that, well..... So yet another way of paraphrasing the investigator could be, thinking aloud, with such absolutely fast-acting and dire consequences, why didn't you risk a few injuries to get down straight away just because of the extremely marginal contra-procedural action of "not having informed cabin crew". We can surely infer that everyone a) was seated and b) had on their seatbelts. The only thing we don't know from this clip is whether, due to the electrical issues, the Captain was able to tell everyone "brace brace". Perhaps this is not as marginal as I think... does anyone have stats on the relative survivability of air crashes depending on whether or not the brace position is adopted?
You actually are less likely to be severely injured in the brace position. My view is that the results are what matter most. Nobody. Died. Second guess him all you want, but his choice to take that risk paid off. Yes, it's arguably the absolute wrong choice, but it still worked.
Stats prove brace position does not improve chances of survival. It does save faces from injuries, so identification by dental records can be carried out. A very long post, with little aviation knowledge behind.
@@thefreedomguyuk the experiments I saw showed that the brace position does help with specific types of injury possible during a plane crash. However, given that a plane is a giant hunk of metal and people slamming into the ground, there is of course a point where the brace position does not help.
With the situation and information the crew had I would have made the same decision to go around. Here is a thing to remember. The caption has 2 seconds to make a decision and the public has years to tear it apart.
But why the electrics and right side hydraulics failed? How you put it it looks like the fire was serious but somewhat contained to N1 engine. I fail to see the other issues. Maybe the bleed air pressure in reverse to the small starter turbine fucked up every other line around, but the right hydraulic system is on the other side right?
Well, according to a report, "A Benefit Analysis for Enhanced Protection from Fires in Hidden Areas on Transport Aircraft," a flight crew has, on average, 17-minutes to get a burning plane on the ground, something to keep in mind when considering the risk of landing without gear.
Your report is great because it covers both sides. The captain made some errors regarding CRM. As you stated, he allowed the creep of non-critical tasks to impinge on critical tasks. Understandably. He was communicating the situation and the plan to the cabin crew. The best move made was to bring in an off-duty pilot to help manage the workload. THAT is resource management. And I absolutely agree with the decision to go around. I also agree that probably 90% of pilots would have neither the balls nor the big picture thought to get past “I’ve got a fire and my systems are dying.” There is a reason the NTSB investigators wanted to know that answer that we can all absolutely feel.
The fire and running on one engine, avionics malfunctioning, and THEN losing your nose gear is a tell-tale sign of "get the fucking thing on the geound asap!"
Honestly, it sounded like the crew acted fast and in a reasonable way, the captain was the guy flying, he knew how it felt, I feel like he made the right decision, as you said, a rushed gear up landing would not have ended well, even informing the cabin to be ready to evacuate seems reasonable, he obviously felt like he could get her down, and wanted the cabin crew to be ready for when he did, overall I think they done well in a high-pressure situation with no instruments to help, a pilots skill takes over when all else fails, and they acted in the way they saw fit, thumbs up
Made the right call. He was close to Airport, engine fire outside of Aircraft. The hardest part was lack of instruments. He did good, if the plane was ablaze I'm sure he would have set it down with no Nose Gear, nose gear not a big deal you will just slide, but you don't need Nose Gear for steering, the rudders would have kept him straight down the centerline. Great job by both Pilots, they did exactly what you should and that's 1. Aviate 2. Navigate 3. Communicate
I really don’t think it was the correct call to go around. However, it’s easy for me to say as I sit at home in the comfort of my arm chair. The crew got the right outcome, so hats off to them!
Kudos to the crew. Got to say I would have landed the plane knowing what I know was going on. History says the crew got it right & everyone got home, thanks to them.
Came looking for this. A turbine is turned by the exhaust gas flow in a jet engine, the compressor and turbofan are turned by the turbine via a shaft or shafts (2 in the case of the JT8D).
From the perspective as a recently prior Air Force Egress technician, whenever we heard an IFE (In-Flight Emergency) called over the radio, I would always get my hopes up that I would finally see one of our jets eject in-person, but with these much larger civilian aircraft that rely solely on the aircraft and crew to escape horrible death, I commend the crew for getting her on the ground without any casualties. Those are some absolutely excellent cabin crew to get this plane down with unknown problems from the side effects of a massive engine fire and not have a single injury. Sure, you can nitpick at the individual crewmens' activities and what they *should* have done, but in the end - their combined effort lead to the lives saved of dozens of people and that should be the ends-justify-the-means of this investigation. The pilot wasn't under the influence of any intoxicants, nor were the fellow cabin crew making poor decisions themselves, so I for the most part see this as a total save from the crew. That maintenance production should be absolutely hammered for their negligence on the filter, and I'd put them responsible for this accident. Maintainer rant over.
Maybe you can do a video on the 1970 crash of Aeroflot Flight 1661? To my knowledge, it is the only fatal crash caused by a collision with a weather balloon. The instrument under the balloon (a radiosonde about 20 cm in size) hit the nose of the aircraft, causing the weather radar inside the nose cone to disintegrate. This, in turn, led to damage to the windshield. The pilots were incapacitated, and the plane crashed shortly after. All 45 occupants were killed, including all members of an ice hockey team from Novosibirsk, who were on their way to a tournament. This is such an unusual crash, and I am surprised that not a lot seems to be available about it on the internet. It deserves more attention.
Amazing presentation & analysis. Thank you! Disclaimer: I am not a pilot. Despite limited prep time I think the pilot should have not done the go around. But he did and luckily was able to demonstrate excellent airmanship. Swiss 111 set the rule that any fire meant immediate landing. While the risk of hydraulic pressure was not detected until go-around the effect could have been disastrous. Making that decision was risky but worked for them. Love how they pulled in a 3rd to assist, the way United pilots were supported by a flying passenger/pilot in Sioux Falls ‘89. Glad all ok. Great story, thanks!
5:50 On a turbofan, the front blades are the fan, they make the vast majority of the engine's thrust output. The next set of blades are compressor blades, there may be 2 different shafts driving the lower pressure compressor stages and the higher pressure stages. Then there's a combustor which looks like an expensive donut with a ton of fuel injectors machined into it. At the very back of a turbofan, there are turbines, sometimes mounted to a single shaft, sometimes they're mounted to different shafts to drive different stages of the compressor and the big fan in front. Sometimes these are known as a 1 spool, 2 spool, and 3 spool turbofan engines. I'm just an auto technician.
well James You have it correct. What amazed me was the starting fuel flow. You are pumping fuel through the engine faster then you can in buckets. Then watching the flow increase during a performance run. 16,000 pounds per hour on an RB211 at takeoff power.
Awesome video, as usual. I think all involved parties did a great job, other than the techs who bent the switch. I think that the captain made a very risky choice to go around, with only one engine and the plane's systemss falling to pieces. I'm glad it turned out great!
There's no way I would have gone around with a fire. A nose gear issue is in a different category of safety that can be handled much more easily than a fire that has not responded to two discharges of fire bottles. They were skilled, but also very lucky.
as a saint Louis resident, My father watched this flight as it flew directly over our house at around 200 feet, a really weird sight to see, as I live about 1-2 miles away from the airport, with a burning engine
IMHO the pilots did a fantastic job and it deserves incredible respect, the choice to go around, maybe this would have become a fatal incident if they landed on first attempt. I think an incredible feat by the pilots.... who is right to criticise pilots in such a situation, they did incredibly well. by managing to get the broken bird safely to the ground Insanely well done 😍
Sure, there's always something to learn in order to improve CRM but I think Captain and First Officer did extremely well in an extraordinarily difficult situation. If be curious to know how many hours they had flown together. Perhaps the Captain knew FO well enough and that FO would speak-up if he did not believe himself capable of fulfilling the assigned duties so believed it reasonable and prudent to personally brief Number One. (Someone get FO a wheelbarrow to carry that pair around. Does he need a special seat with a notch cut out so that he can sit in the cockpit? Flying, checklists AND radio during a MAYDAY. Wow!) As to the go-around with fire lamps illuminated, I can see arguments either way and, because he had a clearly thought out reasoning for making the decision, at worst, the company can issue new guidance if they wish. He did what he thought was best which means that he "thought." I'm not gonna cattle-class fly for him. Great video, thanks again!
@@nonna_sof5889 Good one, your 100% correct, I've yet to see a lawyer with a Soul. I bet he handed out his Business Card as people were being evacuated. As you slid down the slide he would be standing there with business cards for everyone
If I'm on that plane or worse someone I love, with an in-flight fire I want the captain to put it down gear or no gear. Statistics for in-flight fires show that every second can count. I'd rather risk a no gear landing than a go around in a burning plane. IMO ALLEGEDLY
That's not the correct way of viewing things. One might get away with a gear-up without fire breaking out. But with an aircraft already on fire, a gear-up is likely to end in a much bigger fireball incident. Stats are proving procedures to be correct. If stats were against procedures, those procedures would no longer be procedures.
@@thefreedomguyuk id rather have a fire on the ground with emergency fire crews on standby than in the air with multiple failing components. Engine fire, engine shutdown, avionics failure, and then nose gear failure all at low altitude is a sign to get the thing on the ground asap. These guys got lucky
Being a non-pilot, I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to land an airliner without a nose wheel (or even with one for that matter), but I initially questioned the go-around decision also; but hearing the captain's logic, it seems an impeccable decision to me.
An engine problem. It starting and only starting after two manual starts , um is definitely not long gone! No way should this plane even thought about leaving even with a mundane engine problem!
Sounds a lot like a “runaway diesel”. Pretty much what happens is air gets sucked into the engine, it gets compressed from the force of the other pistons, detonates (make fire), and then releases the exhausted air. That’s how diesels work, but a runaway diesel is when the pressure of the the crankshaft has more energy than it does for a detonation. This means that the engine keeps spinning, even if you don’t give it more throttle. Once it starts, it spins really fast, and blows up because the heat; unless you are able to suffocate it by blocking air flow (covering the air filter). This doesn’t happen on regular has cars because they require a spark to make it ignite; while diesels use the compression of the air.
the captain clearly made the right call as he got the plane down without any damage and all the passengers were safe. without nose gear who knows what could have happened.
I've taken that flight frequently, more so around that time, and I hadn't heard of this incident. Crazy. I can't think of another video covering an STL incident.
So, why did they lose their primary flight display, and what was the cause of the loss of hydraulics. Also, if you can't start an engine without tech support, what if they had an in-flight flame-out on that engine? How would they restart? No confidence in that carrier!
That captain knew what he was doing. Probably not his first "rough flight" by the way he handled things. As much as the peanut gallery, and the official report even, insist on ragging on the crew over "procedures," I'm NOT under the impression they even would have made it if they were sticking to the book as hard as some of the uninitiated want to play. The plane is sending curveball after curveball, and he masterfully dealt with some pretty integral stuff that folk love to overlook until they're in similar situation and either notice it's missing, or can attest to how the extra added care and assistance of the crew would have literally been the differentiator for them even being able to recount the experience. Procedures have their place, but sometimes experience and intuition are what gets everyone out in one piece, verses other instances where playing with the checklist literally netted them a smashing date with the ground.....
I have been in the cockpit of an old DC-9 that is up for display in the airport terminal. Not the entire plane, just the forward section. Wikipedia: N292L (cn 47174) - DC-9-32 nose section displayed inside Schiphol International Airport. Compared to other planes, it is incredibly cramped and I'm not a big person. So I guess that in case of emergency like multiple technical failures, the cramped space also adds to the stress and workload on the crew. Maybe that is why they couldn't do all the proper checks while also flying the plane. And like all smaller planes, it only has a flight crew of two, no tech officer. I know modern, larger airliners also have a flight crew of two but the DC-9 is from an earlier period, produced from 1965-1982. So the cockpit instrumentation are in the classic 'steam gauges' fashion. And that causes even more stress when an emergency occurs.
Very poor decision by the captain in my opinion. No one wants to land a plane without the nose gear, but you’ve got cascading failures including electrical and hydraulic; that ALWAYS means get the plane on the ground NOW. Everyone’s saying they did a great job because it worked out, but maybe you all should reference the crashes where a everyone died a few miles from the runway due to fires impacting controllability or structures. It ended up not being that bad, but they were getting every indication that it WAS that bad. Fire bottles not deploying? Eng fire light still on? Losing hydraulics? Loss of power and APU not starting? And you want to GO AROUND after you’ve made the runway? On one engine? With a heavy aircraft full of fuel that just took off? This worked, but could have also killed everyone. Landing without the nose gear would have also worked, and with no additional chance for a catastrophic crash off-field.
@@thetowndrunk988 Swissair 111 would never have made Halifax even if they didn’t do the checklist. This was determined by the accident investigators. They were too high and would have come in way too fast to make a safe landing
@@tomstravels520 apparently you haven’t read or studied it at all- it had nothing to do with a checklist. They decided to dump fuel before making the approach, and it was determined they had a chance had they just landed heavy.
@@thetowndrunk988 directly from the report: “By coincidence, the time at which an emergency descent would have needed to begin to achieve the optimum theoretical emergency descent profile to land at the Halifax International Airport coincided with the actual time of the Pan Pan radio transmission. Any delay in descending would mean that the aircraft would be above the ideal descent profile. During the Pan Pan transmission, the captain requested a diversion and suggested Boston. It was not until about 1 minute and 25 seconds later that the following events were completed: the controller offered Halifax as an alternative diversion airport, the pilots evaluated and accepted Halifax, and the pilots commenced a non-emergency but rapid descent. During that time, the aircraft was travelling in the general direction of the Halifax International Airport at a ground speed of more than 8 nautical miles (nm) per minute. From the actual descent start point, it would not have been possible for the pilots to position the aircraft for a landing on Runway 06, without some form of off-track manoeuvre to lose altitude and slow to the appropriate speed. In a best-case scenario, the extra manoeuvring would have added two or three minutes to the landing time. More likely, a manoeuvre such as a 360-degree turn would have been necessary, or they would have had to switch to a different runway. Either choice would have added several minutes to the earliest possible landing time, and the effects of the fire would have negated the possibility of completing a safe landing. At about 0125, when the fire condition became distinctly evident in the cockpit, the aircraft was about 25 nm from the airport, at an altitude of about 10 000 feet, and at an airspeed of about 320 knots. It was flying in a southerly direction, away from the airport. In optimum circumstances, from that point it would have taken a minimum of about six minutes to get to the runway. Theoretical calculations confirm that from any point along the actual flight path after the aircraft started to descend, it would not have been possible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a landing” Remember they thought they were dealing with air conditioning smoke, not a fire so had no reason to make emergency descent and the reason for dumping fuel instead of landing overweight. Dumping fuel required going through checklists which they TSB determined were too long
@@tomstravels520 there are literally 20+ aviation channels on RUclips that covered this, and every single of them agreed that the delay for fuel dumping cost lives, because the pilots should have taken the smoke far more seriously. Rules and training were actually changed over that accident, for any sort of smoke to be reason to declare an emergency. Even the air traffic controller was baffled how they were requesting vectors to land due to smoke from a possible fire, only to wish to vector back out to dump fuel first. Either way, in the case of the accident in this video, the example is still valid, only it was even worse here, because they knew they had a for certain fire.
![ATEEZ(에이티즈) - [GOLDEN HOUR : Part.2] Preview](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X4PfgRPBUVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Mad respect to the crew for putting this wounded bird safely on the ground
Outstanding Job
I really hope the A&P's who neglected checking the filters got canned. I was an AD in VR-52. We flew DC-9s and C-9Bs. I've personally seen, inspected, and replaced that filter (among others) on the engine.
Pardon my language (I am a Sailor afterall), but fuck those guys. That's gross negligence.
VR still alive and well!
Unfortunately, many facilities where C-checks are performed have 1 or 2 A&Ps. Most of the work is done by unlicensed workers.
@@jakem7838 You are correct, depending on the certified repair station that an Airline has contracted to do the C or D check, the FAA requires only a certain percentage of mechanics to be licensed. At the repair station, if the planners had done their job and given maintenance control the work that was required for that engine, the filter would have been replaced.
It's the planners job to do the research prior to the arrival of the aircraft for maintenance.
Of course they do coordinate with the air carrier.
Jeff Noe,, do you have an A and P ??
There are only two types of aircraft mechanics,, those who have their A and P and those who wished they had their A and P. And yes, I have had mine since 1982.
@@70slandshark47 turn off the elitism. Again, their acts are gross negligence.
I agree with you in that the flight crew did a phenomenal job. Their workload was incredible. They were flying with very little information from their aircraft and that information was untrustworthy in the pilot's opinion. With all that, their decisions got the airplane safely on the ground with all passengers safe. The pressure must have been enormous. It appears that any lapses in judgment were not serious enough to add to the danger. Major props to the pilots.
The Devil lies in the Small details. A big modern plane in the air, and its survival was endangered by a small filter valve not being checked by a maintenance mechanic when the big bird was on the ground.
Additionally, they called in another pilot from among the passengers to help out with the workload which also shows, and I quote Mentour here, "excellent CRM". :)
@@vedranb87 I'll trust Mentour's word on that. It is nice to have a spare pilot available when things take a sudden turn into turdsville.
Especially when half the electrical is out, one hydraulic system is failing and an engine is doing that burning thing, which can pretty much melt your tail section clean off.
Would that they could have an awshit button to pause things while you try to collect your thoughts!
@@spvillano Absolutely. :D
Or even better, restart mission. :D
Reload on the ground. Check settings.
Did the pilot make some procedural errors? Yes. Did he get everyone down on the ground safely and without injuries? Yes. In MHO, that makes the pilots pros, because that is all that matters in the end.
that doesn't mean change shouldn't happen after something like this, other pilots trained in the same way who will make the same errors might not be so lucky when faced with a similar issue. this is why everything is scrutinized in the aviation industry, and why it's one of the safest ways of travel :)
Worth a lot yes, but it doesn't excuse the error. We frown on setting your aircraft alight, particularly during a passenger flight.
Haven't got any manuals at hand, but seems like procedures were adhered to. Except from lighting up that oil burner.
The pilot did a great job, but I was thinking, Get The Plane on the ground. With a fire on board, that was an incredible decision to go around.
The outcome does not always justify the means. It may have been somewhat fluke the flight went as well as it did. It's up to the pilot really to make an accurate assessment in real time if they have the ability to increase the safety of the flight moreso than what following procedure would do.
The captain did a great job! Any time you do a gear-up landing, there will be massive sparks created - especially from the where the nose gear doors are located. These will be thrown the length of the aircraft. If there was any residual fuel leaks (as was indicated after landing), the fire could be instantly made much worse. I don't know if this was part of his thinking, but in retrospect it turned out to be a critical consideration.
That’s not how it works - he can only make decisions based on facts. The facts were that he had cascading failures, and a single-engine go-around with an aircraft that just took off (or heavy) is marginal on a good day.
@@EstorilEm The crew was already severely overloaded. Dealing with gear up on top of that, with no time to prepare for it could also have gone very badly.
Indeed👍
Yeah the captain did it all by himself... Never mind those two other pilots in the flight deck. The public is so ignorant when it comes to aviation. I guess you think the first officer just fetches the coffee.
@@CLR2TKF Ooh those stupid ignorant members of the public.. To mention only the captain like that is frankly unforgivable. The guy who made that comment should be dragged out into the street and shot for his ignorance.
Another well done investigation! The pilots made the right choices up to and including getting help from the other passenger pilot on board. Doubtless, their good choices saved lives. 👍
If your plane is on fire you LAND.
He was just lucky he made it around again.
@@TurboMountTV land with a dodgy gear and unwarned cabin, you end up with injured or dead passengers. That's considered a bit of a faux pas... Apparently, passengers are beastly expensive to replace.
@@spvillano Blow up in the sky doesn't make a good headline either. Passengers dont like that. They had no idea on full extent of fire. LAND! Planes have landed with a wheel up several times.
@@spvillano youre riding at low altitude with a fire, no knowledge of what caused failre, one engine, and then hydraulic failure.
Yeah, id just take it down with the main gears
I think the decision to go around was right. But how can you say that they made no errors? They made major errors, including letting themselves get so distracted that they never went through the most vital checklist.
Giving that everyone walked away unharmed after the landing I'd say the crew did a good job. What's more concering, though, is that AA seemed to have falsified their C-check documentation. I hope there was a thorough audit of AA's maintenance after that incident.
(Edit - words are hard!)
AA?
@@Capecodham American Airlines
@@sexyguy3647 Why did you do with the time you saved not typing merican irlines?
@@Capecodham AA is the world renowned shorthand name identifier for American Airlines. Maybe you should lighten up a bit.
@@Capecodham American Airlines - you know, the owner of that plane ...
Another amazing video 🙂 One thing I find missing is the reason why they lost electronics and then some of the hydraulics. I tried looking for it, but all articles focus on the engine fire cause and poor maintenance. I suspect this is somehow addressed in the NTSB report, however I don't have time to read it at the moment.
-I can only guess that the left engine was responsible for supplying power to the electronic instruments and hydraulic lines got somehow damaged by the fire. That's why I don't particularly like the tail-mounted engines design. Still a wild guess though, if anyone has any reliable information on this then feel free to correct me / provide more details.-
EDIT: Finally had some time to look into the original NTSB report and do some additional research. It seems like in this case the electrical / hydraulic system problems have nothing to do with the tail-mounted engines design.
_____________________
1. Loss of hydraulics
NTSB report [section 1.6.3] indicates that the DC9 has two separate hydraulic systems, left and right, powered by corresponding engines. When the fire handle is pulled, a mechanically operated fire shutoff valve is also closed on the system to prevent hydraulic fluid loss. However, the same section indicates that the left hydraulic reservoir was found empty post-accident, while fluid level indicator on the reservoir showed that it was full.
NTSB report [section 2.4.2] describes pilots' response to left engine fire warning and subsequent events. It indicates that Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist was interrupted multiple times, preventing pilots from executing critical items, including pulling the fire handle. This would mean that the fire shutoff valve was activated after a significant delay and probably at a point when there was no more hydraulic fluid in the left system due to damage (it's not explicitly stated in the report, but that's one logical conclusion). That's what caused the loss of hydraulics on the left side.
NTSB report [section 1.6.3] also describes the operation of the hydraulic power transfer unit (PTU) that is able to mechanically transfer pressure from one hydraulic system to the other, in case of loss of power. However, the necessary condition to do so, is to have hydraulic fluid present in the receiving system. There was no hydraulic fluid in the left hydraulic system to work with.
NTSB report [section 2.4.2] points out that the PTU was enabled the whole time, and that's what led to depressurization of the right system - the pressure was constantly transferred into the left system that could not be pressurized because of the lack of hydraulic fluid. There is a safety mechanism to prevent it - a shutoff valve should be automatically activated if the fluid level in the receiving system's reservoir is below a certain value. However, as stated before, the fluid level indicator on the left reservoir was broken and showed 'full', so the safety didn't kick in.
NTSB report [section 2.4.2] concludes that: "[...] the pilots’ interruption of the emergency Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist at a critical point prolonged the fire and led to additional problems, including the loss of hydraulic pressure, which caused the nose landing gear to fail to extend."
________________________________________
2. Loss of electrical / electronic systems
NTSB report doesn't focus on this one, so it's really hard to figure something out. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] mentions a 'power transfer' occurring as the result of electrical anomalies. I managed to find DC9's electrical system's diagram in a coolsky's DC-9 classic Aircraft Operating Manual and some other sources to confirm it's correct. DC9's electrical system seems fairly similar to MD-80's schematics and based on some online descriptions of MD-80's system operation, I tried to figure out what could have happened.
Similarly to hydraulics, DC9 also has two separate electric systems, powered by left and right engine generators, respectively. Similarly to PTU in case of hydraulics, there's a component in DC9's electrical system that allows both left and right subsystem to be powered by a single engine's generator - the AC Cross-Tie Relay (ACTR). When AC BUS X TIE switch is set to 'Auto' in the cockpit, the AC cross-tie will interconnect the two systems whenever one of the generators is offline.
Initially I thought that's what the pilot meant by 'power transfer', and that's what NTSB report implies in [section 1.1], however when reading CVR transcripts, I found 'power transfer' and 'AC cross-tie' mentioned separately... Moreover, judging from the CVR transcript, the AC cross-tie actually failed and they got a 'AC cross-tie lockout' indication. From DC-9 Operating Manual, this means that the AC cross-tie got somehow locked in 'open' position and was inoperative...
... and after some more digging into the AC cross-tie lockout, I found out that it gets triggered by a high current draw - for example the AC bus being shorted to plane's GND. I think it's a plausible thing to happen during a major fire, but it's pure speculation on my part.
And I can't really explain how it affected the APU deployment (maybe it works similarly to the AC cross-tie lockout, i.e. doesn't deploy APU if a relay is switched to power the AC line where a high current draw has been detected?). And why at some point the electrical power was lost to the whole cockpit (is it supplied only by the left system? because the right one should have remained unaffected...).
So that's basically all I was able to find. Hope I managed to contribute something of value to the subject. Feel free to point out any mistakes. And if you have any knowledge / experience that could offer some more insight into what happened to that DC9's electrical systems, I'd love to hear it 🙂
Same, want to know this.
This looks like an old plane...
@@beckybradshaw3249 Typical of Douglas to use only one engine for hydraulics and electronics.
@@eddiec4536 other companies used both engines - typically powering one side of the aircraft and cockpit. That last turns into meticulously paying attention to the checklists!
6:12 - there is no turbine at the front of the engine it`s at the back. The fan and compressor are at the front.
Good job, Saves me typing this...
Its amazing how the investigators can figure this stuff out. Great video as always!
The DC-9 family was an absolute classic. I hope to see more of them converted into cargo configurations
How do you know
@@carnivaltriumphhh3604
Because I’m a doctor
You do a great job of explaining in a simple way just what has gone wrong (or right) in these situations. Really super.
This is the first time I've heard "suck, squeeze, bang, blow" in reference to anything but a four stroke ICE.
Usually pilots explaining the jet engine use bit more sophisticated terminology but in essence jet engine is ICE so this apply to it.
The Captain absolutely made the right call, and the proof is in the outcome. He didn’t panic, he used every resource at his disposal (including the off duty crew), made carefully considered decisions, and safely landed the plane. As a pilot, that’s some first-rate airmanship in my book.
Great Video, you seem to find these incidents I didn't know about and I watch every Airline incident. Great Work!!!
Great graphics add to your usual detailed narration. Thanks!
These pilots ABSOLUTLY made right decision. They are heroes. I hope the techs/maintenance people faced charges for not performing proper care of the filter.
Kudos to the captain and the FO on this flight, their actions most likely saved everyone. What may seem stupid at first take often makes the difference in these situations. That captain not only saved everyone's lives on board, but he also prevented a much larger disaster from occurring. Aircrafts can be replaced and repaired. Human lives can't be replaced. Great video.
According to RUclips this is my 5000th liked video! 👍 thanks for yet another fascinating video.
Has anyone else read this man’s description box where he includes his written summary of the incident/accident? Hate to call it a summary bc I feel like it almost minimizes it, but I highly respect the amount of work that is put into this channel. It really shows. I had forgotten the date this took place and didn’t want to rewind back, so checked there and damn that’s commitment!
"The right call" is the one that gets the plane on the ground safely with no injuries to passengers, crew or those on the ground.....so in this case I would say going around was the right call
That's an amazing piece of aviation. I'm always amazed at how pilots cope in this sort of situation -- I'd be a gibbering wreck. I live in awe.
Was there anything said about why their hydraulics and electronics failed? And why the landing gear didn't come down? The ending was a bit abrupt compared to your other vids where you clear up every part of the story that you mentioned.
Landing gear is lowered by hydraulics and electricity is generated by engines, and hydraulics are powered by engines. If engines fail, you can lose hydraulics and electricity. Most planes have backup electricity systems, I don't know much about the DC9 so I don't know if it has one, but it could have been inoperative at the time.
@@YHDiamond but also, their right hand engine at no point failed, so that makes it even stranger
@@MrXPeaceLP some avionics are powered by the left engine. So it may have been the ones that failed
Engine 1 was down so power and hydraulics would be down. They may not have had a generator on the second engine but there would have been hydraulic pressure provided. There must have been some to get the gear down. I am pretty sure the primary flight controls were manually operated so a ram air turbine wasn't a part of the design so that mean no third back up of hydraulic pressure or electrical. Not sure why the APU didn't provide some power but I'm guessing the wiring probably was bundled and got scorched so the redundancy was gone. Remember this is a much older plane so having 3 redundant and separate systems on it wasn't crucial back then especially given the size of it. There's been later cases on newer planes where all the wiring was ran in one trunk and once the fire took it out it didn't matter which generator was operative since all electrical connections were severed. Same for mechanical controls where fires have melted and warped them as they all ran in one trunk. Freak accidents with a chain of events. That's how we learn
Yeah it's called fire from the engine could have damaged the hydroluc lines since the heat signature was hot by the airport fire crew that did the thermal scan
Tough call to go around but glad they all made it back safe and sound
That had to be a tough call, an Aircraft fire is the worst case scenario, glad it happened right after takeout and near the Airport.
FYI There are no turbines "right up front (of the engine)," but there are rotors that with stators compress air for combustion! Other than that, GREAT VIDEO! 👍🏽
Semantics... Its a disk of blades that does work upon air, so I imagine with that definition you could call it a turbine. I know what you mean from an aviation terminology standpoint though.
It's called a compressor.
@@BobbyGeneric145 Nah...you can't call it a turbine, because it's NOT! Terminology means everything in this business!
@@BobbyGeneric145 Is not just semantics. Is like calling the ailerons rudder, or call fuel the oil. Completely different things.
@@michaeldavenport5034 Uh yeah, it has high & low stages! 🤨
The crew did their best under the most difficult of situations.
However, i’m not sure I would have gone around with a fire. That plane could have fallen apart at any moment. I’d of definitely continued. Presumably the cabin crew were already briefed for an emergency landing. Their procedures would be the same regardless of if it was a fire or gear up landing.
Having said that, they got a positive outcome so the captain was right on the day!
what happen if they over shot?
Procedures for go-around are still to be followed with a fire on board. Just like if a fire is detected on take-off, and you get past V2, you never abort the take-off.
They are cases of "following procedure may result in an accident, but not following procedure WILL result in an accident!".
That "Continue" will be the hardest call ever to make. But it MUST be made, it's the only way of staying alive !
@@adamjoseph4148 A manageable fire would instantly become a deadly fireball !
How would a plane fall apart by an engine fire lol? You don't sound like a pilot.
@@nihlify really? Do you have any idea how quickly a fire can destroy an airplane? A fire is just about the worst thing in flight.
The correct decision, IMO, would’ve been to land. They were already on final and should have committed to that.
Fires don’t give you extra time to get “ready”.
Oh and if you want to challenge my credentials:
ATP with 12k+ hrs of flight time with multiple type ratings in jets and turboprops. 25 years of experience in commercial flight.
I always love your tech diagrams and explanations.
CRM seems to have been shaky at first, but bringing in the off-duty pilot was a smart move to improve the situation.
CRM ?
@@Capecodham Crew Resource Management.
I liked the, "This part" ... "blocked this part."
@@mbvoelker8448 So why didn't you say that? Trying to show how smart you are by leaving out rew esource anagement?
@@Capecodham Most watching this kind of content are familiar with aviation acronyms.
Just like people watching car videos know their BHP/MPG/KPH/EFI/RPM/ECU/TCS
Going around is far better than going in, well done sir.
As implied by that very significant question posed by the investigator to the Captain "why did you go around" is saying in a completely different, yet identical way, what 99.9% of people would think in their gut namely "Why didn't you get this on the ground ASAP?" With a major fire on board - by the way which has been demonstrated so so often before - quite simply you are doomed unless you can get down and get off in minutes. I can't remember the exact flight number but I recall explicitly a Swissair flight. Within minutes, pilots were overcome and by then, irrespective of what happens to the structural integrity of the plane after that, well.....
So yet another way of paraphrasing the investigator could be, thinking aloud, with such absolutely fast-acting and dire consequences, why didn't you risk a few injuries to get down straight away just because of the extremely marginal contra-procedural action of "not having informed cabin crew".
We can surely infer that everyone a) was seated and b) had on their seatbelts. The only thing we don't know from this clip is whether, due to the electrical issues, the Captain was able to tell everyone "brace brace". Perhaps this is not as marginal as I think... does anyone have stats on the relative survivability of air crashes depending on whether or not the brace position is adopted?
You actually are less likely to be severely injured in the brace position.
My view is that the results are what matter most.
Nobody. Died.
Second guess him all you want, but his choice to take that risk paid off.
Yes, it's arguably the absolute wrong choice, but it still worked.
Stats prove brace position does not improve chances of survival. It does save faces from injuries, so identification by dental records can be carried out.
A very long post, with little aviation knowledge behind.
@@thefreedomguyuk the experiments I saw showed that the brace position does help with specific types of injury possible during a plane crash.
However, given that a plane is a giant hunk of metal and people slamming into the ground, there is of course a point where the brace position does not help.
I think this captain saved a plane full of lives that day.
"At those temperatures, what wouldn't burn?" Most metals and high temp materials used in things like, umm...jet engines...
Great explanatory illustrations!
Of course he made the right call! He walked away from it didn't he!!!
With the situation and information the crew had I would have made the same decision to go around. Here is a thing to remember. The caption has 2 seconds to make a decision and the public has years to tear it apart.
But why the electrics and right side hydraulics failed? How you put it it looks like the fire was serious but somewhat contained to N1 engine. I fail to see the other issues.
Maybe the bleed air pressure in reverse to the small starter turbine fucked up every other line around, but the right hydraulic system is on the other side right?
They're interconnected actually. The L1 engine not working probably disrupted the hydraulic system on board which in turn affected R1 engine.
Super fascinating details . Well done video.
Well, according to a report, "A Benefit Analysis for Enhanced Protection from Fires in Hidden Areas on Transport Aircraft," a flight crew has, on average, 17-minutes to get a burning plane on the ground, something to keep in mind when considering the risk of landing without gear.
Captains choice on the go around or go in. No injuries so he chose right.
They did a heroic , epic , awesome brave and wise JOB !!!
Your report is great because it covers both sides. The captain made some errors regarding CRM. As you stated, he allowed the creep of non-critical tasks to impinge on critical tasks.
Understandably. He was communicating the situation and the plan to the cabin crew.
The best move made was to bring in an off-duty pilot to help manage the workload. THAT is resource management.
And I absolutely agree with the decision to go around. I also agree that probably 90% of pilots would have neither the balls nor the big picture thought to get past “I’ve got a fire and my systems are dying.”
There is a reason the NTSB investigators wanted to know that answer that we can all absolutely feel.
Pilot should _not_ have gone around. Plane is on fire -- that trumps loss of nose landing gear every time.
The fire and running on one engine, avionics malfunctioning, and THEN losing your nose gear is a tell-tale sign of "get the fucking thing on the geound asap!"
Favorite quote ever "Give it enought time and it will have the engine running in no time."
What a well done video. A terrible accident but how fascinating to watch.
Honestly, it sounded like the crew acted fast and in a reasonable way, the captain was the guy flying, he knew how it felt, I feel like he made the right decision, as you said, a rushed gear up landing would not have ended well, even informing the cabin to be ready to evacuate seems reasonable, he obviously felt like he could get her down, and wanted the cabin crew to be ready for when he did, overall I think they done well in a high-pressure situation with no instruments to help, a pilots skill takes over when all else fails, and they acted in the way they saw fit, thumbs up
The air crew earned their pay and more that day....👏👏👏
my day is made! thanks so much for all the great content! ❤
Thank you for making these videos.
Made the right call. He was close to Airport, engine fire outside of Aircraft. The hardest part was lack of instruments. He did good, if the plane was ablaze I'm sure he would have set it down with no Nose Gear, nose gear not a big deal you will just slide, but you don't need Nose Gear for steering, the rudders would have kept him straight down the centerline. Great job by both Pilots, they did exactly what you should and that's 1. Aviate 2. Navigate 3. Communicate
I really don’t think it was the correct call to go around.
However, it’s easy for me to say as I sit at home in the comfort of my arm chair. The crew got the right outcome, so hats off to them!
Kudos to the crew. Got to say I would have landed the plane knowing what I know was going on. History says the crew got it right & everyone got home, thanks to them.
Good call by the Captain.😊
6:15 It’s a compressor; turbine is the part that gives power to drive the compressor and of course produce the thrust and so on
Came looking for this. A turbine is turned by the exhaust gas flow in a jet engine, the compressor and turbofan are turned by the turbine via a shaft or shafts (2 in the case of the JT8D).
It was a DC-9-82 (certificate name), or MD-82 (marketing name), or MD-80 (generic name).
Interesting, descriptive, you really put some time into it. Thanks.
From the perspective as a recently prior Air Force Egress technician, whenever we heard an IFE (In-Flight Emergency) called over the radio, I would always get my hopes up that I would finally see one of our jets eject in-person, but with these much larger civilian aircraft that rely solely on the aircraft and crew to escape horrible death, I commend the crew for getting her on the ground without any casualties. Those are some absolutely excellent cabin crew to get this plane down with unknown problems from the side effects of a massive engine fire and not have a single injury. Sure, you can nitpick at the individual crewmens' activities and what they *should* have done, but in the end - their combined effort lead to the lives saved of dozens of people and that should be the ends-justify-the-means of this investigation. The pilot wasn't under the influence of any intoxicants, nor were the fellow cabin crew making poor decisions themselves, so I for the most part see this as a total save from the crew. That maintenance production should be absolutely hammered for their negligence on the filter, and I'd put them responsible for this accident. Maintainer rant over.
Maybe you can do a video on the 1970 crash of Aeroflot Flight 1661?
To my knowledge, it is the only fatal crash caused by a collision with a weather balloon. The instrument under the balloon (a radiosonde about 20 cm in size) hit the nose of the aircraft, causing the weather radar inside the nose cone to disintegrate. This, in turn, led to damage to the windshield. The pilots were incapacitated, and the plane crashed shortly after. All 45 occupants were killed, including all members of an ice hockey team from Novosibirsk, who were on their way to a tournament.
This is such an unusual crash, and I am surprised that not a lot seems to be available about it on the internet. It deserves more attention.
Man, I’m in a serious work meeting discussing all the nurses who work for me and I am just thinking ‘I want to watch this new episode!’ 😂
Amazing presentation & analysis. Thank you! Disclaimer: I am not a pilot. Despite limited prep time I think the pilot should have not done the go around. But he did and luckily was able to demonstrate excellent airmanship. Swiss 111 set the rule that any fire meant immediate landing. While the risk of hydraulic pressure was not detected until go-around the effect could have been disastrous. Making that decision was risky but worked for them. Love how they pulled in a 3rd to assist, the way United pilots were supported by a flying passenger/pilot in Sioux Falls ‘89. Glad all ok. Great story, thanks!
"at those temperatures, what WOULDNT burn?"
me (high af) : WATER!
Technically the truth!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation AYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation no but seriously I love your videos
plz keep it up
Smooth landing you made
5:50 On a turbofan, the front blades are the fan, they make the vast majority of the engine's thrust output. The next set of blades are compressor blades, there may be 2 different shafts driving the lower pressure compressor stages and the higher pressure stages. Then there's a combustor which looks like an expensive donut with a ton of fuel injectors machined into it. At the very back of a turbofan, there are turbines, sometimes mounted to a single shaft, sometimes they're mounted to different shafts to drive different stages of the compressor and the big fan in front. Sometimes these are known as a 1 spool, 2 spool, and 3 spool turbofan engines.
I'm just an auto technician.
well James You have it correct. What amazed me was the starting fuel flow. You are pumping fuel through the engine faster then you can in buckets. Then watching the flow increase during a performance run. 16,000 pounds per hour on an RB211 at takeoff power.
Another great video, well done and thank you.
The captain got the plane on the ground as safely as possible. That's worthy of respect.
Awesome video, as usual. I think all involved parties did a great job, other than the techs who bent the switch. I think that the captain made a very risky choice to go around, with only one engine and the plane's systemss falling to pieces. I'm glad it turned out great!
There's no way I would have gone around with a fire. A nose gear issue is in a different category of safety that can be handled much more easily than a fire that has not responded to two discharges of fire bottles. They were skilled, but also very lucky.
In the Description is a Typo, it is written, that the plane was an DC-8 instead of an -9
as a saint Louis resident, My father watched this flight as it flew directly over our house at around 200 feet, a really weird sight to see, as I live about 1-2 miles away from the airport, with a burning engine
Today, the captain was in charge. Um, the captain is always in charge. I think you meant he would be the PIC, or that he'd be flying the plane.
I got addicted to this program
So glad they landed safely 🙏
IMHO the pilots did a fantastic job and it deserves incredible respect, the choice to go around, maybe this would have become a fatal incident if they landed on first attempt.
I think an incredible feat by the pilots.... who is right to criticise pilots in such a situation, they did incredibly well. by managing to get the broken bird safely to the ground
Insanely well done 😍
You've done another great video. Thank you.
Love these. Good job again!
@mini air crash investigation, you are magic mate , how you found this incident and the research to go with it , great stuff mate
Easy to criticize but it was a difficult decision He did a great job no one hurt
Sure, there's always something to learn in order to improve CRM but I think Captain and First Officer did extremely well in an extraordinarily difficult situation.
If be curious to know how many hours they had flown together. Perhaps the Captain knew FO well enough and that FO would speak-up if he did not believe himself capable of fulfilling the assigned duties so believed it reasonable and prudent to personally brief Number One. (Someone get FO a wheelbarrow to carry that pair around. Does he need a special seat with a notch cut out so that he can sit in the cockpit? Flying, checklists AND radio during a MAYDAY. Wow!)
As to the go-around with fire lamps illuminated, I can see arguments either way and, because he had a clearly thought out reasoning for making the decision, at worst, the company can issue new guidance if they wish. He did what he thought was best which means that he "thought." I'm not gonna cattle-class fly for him.
Great video, thanks again!
Going around was absolutely the best option
VERY GOOD!!! THANKS!
🙂😎👍
144 people on board, one didn’t have a soul😂
The company lawyer was on board. *Not meant to be a factual statement.
Must have been a ginger onboard
@@nonna_sof5889 Good one, your 100% correct, I've yet to see a lawyer with a Soul. I bet he handed out his Business Card as people were being evacuated. As you slid down the slide he would be standing there with business cards for everyone
If I'm on that plane or worse someone I love, with an in-flight fire I want the captain to put it down gear or no gear. Statistics for in-flight fires show that every second can count. I'd rather risk a no gear landing than a go around in a burning plane.
IMO ALLEGEDLY
That's not the correct way of viewing things.
One might get away with a gear-up without fire breaking out. But with an aircraft already on fire, a gear-up is likely to end in a much bigger fireball incident.
Stats are proving procedures to be correct. If stats were against procedures, those procedures would no longer be procedures.
@@thefreedomguyuk id rather have a fire on the ground with emergency fire crews on standby than in the air with multiple failing components.
Engine fire, engine shutdown, avionics failure, and then nose gear failure all at low altitude is a sign to get the thing on the ground asap.
These guys got lucky
@@mikeyorkav4039 no nose gear can generate sparks, very bad when there's an uncontrolled fire
Being a non-pilot, I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to land an airliner without a nose wheel (or even with one for that matter), but I initially questioned the go-around decision also; but hearing the captain's logic, it seems an impeccable decision to me.
Salute to the crew!
He sure did make the right decision too go around evidenced by no deaths
Why no livery on this one? Great video as always just curious 👍🏻🍻
Yes I respect the Captain's decision to go around (TOGA).
An engine problem. It starting and only starting after two manual starts , um is definitely not long gone! No way should this plane even thought about leaving even with a mundane engine problem!
Sounds a lot like a “runaway diesel”. Pretty much what happens is air gets sucked into the engine, it gets compressed from the force of the other pistons, detonates (make fire), and then releases the exhausted air. That’s how diesels work, but a runaway diesel is when the pressure of the the crankshaft has more energy than it does for a detonation. This means that the engine keeps spinning, even if you don’t give it more throttle. Once it starts, it spins really fast, and blows up because the heat; unless you are able to suffocate it by blocking air flow (covering the air filter).
This doesn’t happen on regular has cars because they require a spark to make it ignite; while diesels use the compression of the air.
Yeah def right call to go around at first I was like no but think abt it fuel was leaking so sparks from a no gear landing and no prep time = fire
the captain clearly made the right call as he got the plane down without any damage and all the passengers were safe. without nose gear who knows what could have happened.
I've taken that flight frequently, more so around that time, and I hadn't heard of this incident. Crazy. I can't think of another video covering an STL incident.
This time he did make the right call.
They lived, thats where my armchair quarterbacking ends.
So, why did they lose their primary flight display, and what was the cause of the loss of hydraulics. Also, if you can't start an engine without tech support, what if they had an in-flight flame-out on that engine? How would they restart? No confidence in that carrier!
You only need 1 engine, the plane flies perfectly fine with 1
Starting an engine in the air is a lot different. With enough speed, the ATS isn’t needed. The airflow through the engine keeps it rotating.
All commercial aircraft that I've worked on can be dispatched with an engine start valve that must be manually opened.
@@thetowndrunk988 Your right,, with ignition set to flight mode ( high jewel ) and about 19 percent N1, it should light right off.
Good decisions, good job.
GOOD SHOW
Crew did the right thing
The picture of the burnt engine was a huge clue: This time the plane won't crash severely.
That captain knew what he was doing. Probably not his first "rough flight" by the way he handled things.
As much as the peanut gallery, and the official report even, insist on ragging on the crew over "procedures," I'm NOT under the impression they even would have made it if they were sticking to the book as hard as some of the uninitiated want to play.
The plane is sending curveball after curveball, and he masterfully dealt with some pretty integral stuff that folk love to overlook until they're in similar situation and either notice it's missing, or can attest to how the extra added care and assistance of the crew would have literally been the differentiator for them even being able to recount the experience.
Procedures have their place, but sometimes experience and intuition are what gets everyone out in one piece, verses other instances where playing with the checklist literally netted them a smashing date with the ground.....
A gear up landing with that engine fire could have turned into a fireball.
Very easily, even very likely. That's why procedure is to not continue the landing
That's utterly CRIMINAL that a filter got so deteriorated that a post of it blocked the airflow
I have been in the cockpit of an old DC-9 that is up for display in the airport terminal. Not the entire plane, just the forward section.
Wikipedia: N292L (cn 47174) - DC-9-32 nose section displayed inside Schiphol International Airport.
Compared to other planes, it is incredibly cramped and I'm not a big person.
So I guess that in case of emergency like multiple technical failures, the cramped space also adds to the stress and workload on the crew.
Maybe that is why they couldn't do all the proper checks while also flying the plane.
And like all smaller planes, it only has a flight crew of two, no tech officer. I know modern, larger airliners also have a flight crew of two but the DC-9 is from an earlier period, produced from 1965-1982. So the cockpit instrumentation are in the classic 'steam gauges' fashion. And that causes even more stress when an emergency occurs.
Very poor decision by the captain in my opinion. No one wants to land a plane without the nose gear, but you’ve got cascading failures including electrical and hydraulic; that ALWAYS means get the plane on the ground NOW.
Everyone’s saying they did a great job because it worked out, but maybe you all should reference the crashes where a everyone died a few miles from the runway due to fires impacting controllability or structures.
It ended up not being that bad, but they were getting every indication that it WAS that bad.
Fire bottles not deploying? Eng fire light still on? Losing hydraulics? Loss of power and APU not starting? And you want to GO AROUND after you’ve made the runway? On one engine? With a heavy aircraft full of fuel that just took off?
This worked, but could have also killed everyone. Landing without the nose gear would have also worked, and with no additional chance for a catastrophic crash off-field.
I agree. SwissAir 111 is a prime example.
@@thetowndrunk988 Swissair 111 would never have made Halifax even if they didn’t do the checklist. This was determined by the accident investigators. They were too high and would have come in way too fast to make a safe landing
@@tomstravels520 apparently you haven’t read or studied it at all- it had nothing to do with a checklist. They decided to dump fuel before making the approach, and it was determined they had a chance had they just landed heavy.
@@thetowndrunk988 directly from the report:
“By coincidence, the time at which an emergency descent would have needed to begin to achieve the optimum theoretical emergency descent profile to land at the Halifax International Airport coincided with the actual time of the Pan Pan radio transmission. Any delay in descending would mean that the aircraft would be above the ideal descent profile. During the Pan Pan transmission, the captain requested a diversion and suggested Boston. It was not until about
1 minute and 25 seconds later that the following events were completed: the controller offered Halifax as an alternative diversion airport, the pilots evaluated and accepted Halifax, and the pilots commenced a non-emergency but rapid descent.
During that time, the aircraft was travelling in the general direction of the Halifax International Airport at a ground speed of more than 8 nautical miles (nm) per minute. From the actual descent start point, it would not have been possible for the pilots to position the aircraft for a landing on Runway 06, without some form of off-track manoeuvre to lose altitude and slow to the appropriate speed. In a best-case scenario, the extra manoeuvring would have added two or three minutes to the landing time. More likely, a manoeuvre such as a 360-degree turn would have been necessary, or they would have had to switch to a different runway. Either choice would have added several minutes to the earliest possible landing time, and the effects of the fire would have negated the possibility of completing a safe landing.
At about 0125, when the fire condition became distinctly evident in the cockpit, the aircraft was about 25 nm from the airport, at an altitude of about 10 000 feet, and at an airspeed of about
320 knots. It was flying in a southerly direction, away from the airport. In optimum circumstances, from that point it would have taken a minimum of about six minutes to get to the runway.
Theoretical calculations confirm that from any point along the actual flight path after the aircraft started to descend, it would not have been possible for the pilots to continue maintaining control of the aircraft for the amount of time necessary to reach the airport and complete a landing”
Remember they thought they were dealing with air conditioning smoke, not a fire so had no reason to make emergency descent and the reason for dumping fuel instead of landing overweight. Dumping fuel required going through checklists which they TSB determined were too long
@@tomstravels520 there are literally 20+ aviation channels on RUclips that covered this, and every single of them agreed that the delay for fuel dumping cost lives, because the pilots should have taken the smoke far more seriously. Rules and training were actually changed over that accident, for any sort of smoke to be reason to declare an emergency. Even the air traffic controller was baffled how they were requesting vectors to land due to smoke from a possible fire, only to wish to vector back out to dump fuel first. Either way, in the case of the accident in this video, the example is still valid, only it was even worse here, because they knew they had a for certain fire.