How 3 AMAZING Pilots Made A Near Impossible Landing | Eastern Airlines Flight 935
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 апр 2022
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of eastern airlines flight 935, On the 22nd of september 1981 eastern airlines flight 935 was to fly from Newark to san juan in puerto rico. The plane that theyd be flying was lockheeds L1011, arguably one of the most sophisticated planes in the sky. You could even say that the L1011 was ahead of its time. On that day by about 10:57 am the plane got its taxi clearance and it began to taxi to runway 22L at newark, In a few short minutes the plane was airborne and climbing away from newark. So far so good nothing concerned them about the plane. But as they passed through 800 feet something caught the pilots eye, the fan of engine number two the one in the tail was vibrating a bit too much, the airborne vibration monitor or the AVM had activated momentarily. The flight engineer was checking to see if something was wrong with the engines as far as he could tell all the readings were in the green nothing to be worried about but as they hit 1000 feet they pulled back power on the tail mounted engine just to be safe as per procedure. Since the l1011 had three engines theyd have more than enough power to climb and fly on two engines. But shortly after that the pilots got another warning from engine number two, this time an oil filter pressure warning light, the plane was telling them that there was a big pressure differential between the two sides of a filter, this could happen if the filter was blocked by something. Taking no chances they pulled engine number two back to idle and the captain asked the flight engineer to carry out the procedures in the abnormal procedures section of the flight manual. As the flight engineer scanned the instruments everything still seemed okay, the oil pressure was 50 psi and they had 15 quarts of oil in the system, those values were exactly what the pilots were expecting. A few moments later the pilots reestablished climb power and began the climb from 2000 feet, up to this point they had been holding at 2000 feet. But as they passed through 10,000 feet an explosion rocked the L1011, there had been no prior warning and the cockpit panels lit up with warnings like a christmas tree. The flight engineer did not like what he was seeing, they had lost engine number two the one on the tail.But losing an engine is not a death sentence but they had also lost hydraulic systems A, B and D. Now this is a problem. You see the hydraulic systems move the huge control surfaces of the jet. If you lose the hydraulics you have very little control over your jet and the crew of flight 935 had just lost three of four hydraulic systems. In the cockpit the crew sprung into action shutting engine number two down and carrying out the multiple hydraulic system failure checklist . They discharged the fire bottles in engine number two as a precaution.
The pilots knew that they were in deep trouble they requested an immediate landing at JFK international. The controllers instructed the jet to dump fuel. Slowly the weight of the jet started to fall; it went from 393,000 pounds all the way down to 345,000 pounds. At this weight they would be able to make a safe landing but the weight of the plane was far from their only concern. The loss of the hydraulic system had crippled the plane so to speak. The captain and the first officer noticed that their rudder pedals were jammed in a neutral position. Moreover the control authority of the elevators and the ailerons were significantly impacted. This meant that to get the plane to do what they wanted it to they needed to use something known as differential thrust. For example if you wanted the plane to turn right then adding more power to the left engine would put the plane into a right bank and if you wanted to turn left then adding more power to the right engine would do that. This is not standard procedure, this is what you do when you have exhausted all other options and it is very hard. Somehow the pilots coaxed their wounded jet down and made a safe landing at JFK international. The interesting thing is that 
Наука
This one shares several things in common with United 232, except for one major difference - that being they still had partial hydraulics for flight control surfaces. It’s very apparent both flight crews were highly skilled in dealing with these catastrophic failures (the United crew having even less to work with), and that the difference in lives lost essentially hung on the existence of one remaining hydraulic system.
This was the first thing I thought of too. Captain Haynes said he didn't like being referred to as a hero as it was a group effort. A passenger, Dennis Fitch a training-check airman , had actually practiced flying a simulator using only the throttles before this flight and was the person controlling the throttles.
@@electronron1 sadly Captain Dennis Fitch passed away a few years ago. He succumbed to cancer if my memory serves me correct.
One of Captain Haynes heroic decision’s was to let Dennis Fitch onto the flight deck to assist. Captain Haynes, the FO and Dennis Fitch all worked together to get their plane onto the ground with as least loss of life as possible.
Yeah, and the weird thing is United 232 was a DC10 not the L1011, these 3 planes were probably rushed in service.
@@TheNewbie78 The L1011 was actually a really god plane. The DC10, on the other hand, had a few not so minor issues.
@@cheese515 I know, but the L1011 still had some issues, overall I agree, the DC10 is actually just trash in maintenance and safety.
This incident has more similarities to United Airlines Flight 232 than I'm comfortable with. They were very lucky that one of the hydraulic systems survived, otherwise they could have been absolutely screwed.
Mind reader...
I thought so too
Apologies! Without being able to recall the details (except the captain's incredible humour right up to the last seconds of the impact ) I referred to what you had already far more accurately identified!
The one difference is United 232 didn't have any warning before their engine exploded and they lost all hydraulic systems.
That's not the only thing they were lucky about. The video says that when the engine failed, and took its unscheduled journey to its new location 12 feet farther forward on the aircraft than it was supposed to be, it jammed up against the elevator control components in such a way that it jammed the elevator in the neutral position. Suppose it had jammed the rudder in something other than the neutral position, such as a starboard turn! I am guessing that this was a feature of the way the aircraft was designed, and that it just so happened that such a jamming of the rudder was probably going to be neutral instead of to one side. Perhaps we should praise Lockheed's design. Or perhaps it was just dumb luck. But either way, good thing it happened!
At least the rudder was stuck in a neutral position.
Otherwise this would have ended much differently.
737
Kinda like Northwest Airlines Flight 85 Where the rudder was stuck onto Full Left
Hmmm... not want to play wisecrack here but... Engine vibration combined with an oil pressure warning imho call for an _immediate_ engine shutdown. Internal failures quite often do not show in over all engine performance like EPR, EGT, RPM, etc. at first - only when it's too late, like in this case here. It's these insidious lubrication failures which quite often cause uncontained engine failures . Been there done that (ex ATP here). Thanks for another very interesting case study!
I can tell I'm not the only one thinking of UA Flight 232 when I see the tail engine & hydraulic failures.
That (UA 232) is the far more famous incident. This one, everybody survived unhurt, so it didn't get famous. I must admit I hadn't even heard of it tilI I saw this video.
Engineer: Let's keep the hydraulic lines a good distance from possible problems. Twelve feet from the engine should be enough.
Engine: You have no idea of my power.
or... Engine: "Hold my beer!" LOL
@@pjmooney8800 yes
@@pjmooney8800 Engine: hold my fuel.
Amazing work, as usual!
Suggestion for Mini: United flight 854. It was mentioned by Patrick "Ask the Pilot" Smith in an article some years ago:
"I give you Capt. Brian Witcher and his crew aboard United Flight 854, a 767 flying from Buenos Aires, Argentina, to Miami in April 2004. They never made the news cycle, but what they had to deal with was almost unthinkable: a complete electrical failure over the Andes at 3 o'clock in the morning. Under darkness, with their cockpit instruments dead or dying fast, including all radios and navigational equipment, they managed a successful emergency landing in mountain-ringed Bogotá, Colombia."
Like on the DC-10, one wonders how the hydraulic systems could be considered "redundant" if one engine failure could take them all out
Losing the power to run them is accounted for. Being physically damaged in an explosion, not so much.
The four hydraulic systems on the L-1011 are designed so that most critical systems are controlled by only 2 or 3 of the hydraulic systems. So in the event of a single failure, you're highly unlikely to lose all 4 systems. That's how you get redundancy. You're not trying to keep every system powered in the event of a failure. You're trying to prevent a failure from one system cascading into a failure of other systems. So you don't run all 4 hydraulics to every system; you send a mix of 2 or 3 hydraulic systems to each individual system.
The DC-10 was similar in that only 2 of the 3 hydraulic systems went to the #2 engine. But in UAL 232, shrapnel from the disc failure severed a line to the third hydraulic system to the elevators. 3 hydraulic systems provides less redundancy than 4. You're trying to reduce the odds of a total failure, not eliminate the odds entirely.
@@solandri69 The failure of one engine reduced the control capabilities of two aircraft to "differential thrust". I don't see how anyone can claim that's redundancy
@@jamesstuart3346 Redundancy doesn't give you perfect safety (nothing does). Redundancy just reduces the odds of a failure becoming catastrophic. If you have a backup of your data and your computer fails, there's a chance the backup will be corrupted. If you have two backups, there's still a chance both backups will be corrupted. So redundancy doesn't guarantee protection. But the odds of that happening are much smaller than the odds of one backup failing. That's the benefit redundancy gets you.
@@solandri69 The way I think about it is using the Swiss cheese model. Each redundancy adds another slice between a fault/error and disaster. It can often be the one thing that keeps something from going to disaster, but you can never stop everything.
This reminds me of the famous United 232 crash in 1989 where all of the hydraulics were blown out from a tail engine disintegration.
In the weeks that followed United 232 crash at the airport, over 30 crews tried to make that same crash landing in simulators, not a single crew was able to get within 5 miles of the airport. This tells you how good the United crew was that day!!! It helped to have the extra pilot on board that day that gave the crew a hand. I'm not sure if any crew ever has made it to the airport in simulators to this day!!!!
UA 232 was a DC10. This was a L1011, had four hydraulic systems to the DC10's three. Guess which I'd rather be on :)
To answer your question, it seems inconceivable they'd have managed it with all four hydraulic lines out. I don't remember the details of another clip I ve seen on this site - all I can say was it was an American captain and I'm sure landing somewhere in the USA - but it does remind me of one where, even though he has almost zero control of the plane, he still manages humorously to say to a request from the tower to land on such and such runway "oh, you want me to land on a particular runway?" knowing he was going to be lucky even to get it anywhere near the airfield, never mind a specific runway! I also recall there was a considerably less happy outcome than in this instance, the point being that had all four hydraulic lines been blown out, it seems far likelier the outcome would far more likely have resembled the flight described above...
NB It seems I should take the trouble to read the other viewers' responses as I now look somewhat late to the party! Apologies in particular to Mr Zimmerman who accurately identified what I was thinking and was only able to describe clumsily! However, I guess interesting that the parallels between the two seem to have almost universally been considered....
You're thinking of UA232 at Sioux City. That was a DC10. They lost all three hydraulic systems (which is all the DC10 had) and they made a half-successful crash landing (in that half the pax survived).
There was a DHL freighter at Bagdad in 2003 - an Airbus A300 twin - that was hit by a missile, blew a huge chunk out of the trailing edge of the wing and they lost all hydraulic controls, all they had was the throttles. They managed to land back at the airport using *only* engine power, ran off the runway and ended up in a minefield (luckily without hitting any mines). The aircraft was actually repaired and offered for sale (but no-one bought it. The A300 was quite an old model by then).
There was also the Windsor Incident (American 96) that had the DC10 cargo door / collapsing floor issue, tail engine dropped back to idle, rudder controls jammed hard right, but they didn't lose any hydraulics, managed to land using the two remaining engines and the ailerons to 'steer' (hard over rudder is no fun, it crashed a couple of 737's back in the day).
So, it can be done, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
Why so many I did read all of you 2 and it took me idk how many
Better than losing 3 out of 3 hydraulics on a DC 10
Did they received airmanship award? The crew did exceptional job.
I'm not an engineer, but having all critical hydraulic lines in the same place seems like something that should be taught in Engineering 101.
I'm neither an engineer nor a pilot myself, and while I conceptually agree with you I don't think it's that simple. The tail is where the rudder and elevators are, so hydraulic lines have to go there. If you put an engine there, and since there's not a lot of room back there, having them in proximity is unavoidable. Also, other aviation channels stress the importance of center of gravity so I don't think you can really put that much of an armored shell around the engine to catch shrapnel, either. I guess the engineers do a pretty good job since these engine failures don't usually substantially damage the aircraft's structure when they happen, but I think an engine failure there is always going to potentially impact the plane more than an under-wing one will just due to the nature of the design.
@@joeb5316 ALSO not an engineer...but to me, maybe that's an argument not to put an engine there.
They don't need to have all four hydraulic lines in the tail. There shouldn't ever be a full convergence.
@@CounterFleche if they dont and you end up in a 3 of 4 systems lost situation, you wouldnt have rudder control.
It is now. Back then they had other ideas about how to protect it.
I have become addicted binge watching these.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that with United 232, either McDonnell Douglas, the pilots, and/or the investigators had considered it practically impossible for all of the DC10's hydraulic systems to fail simultaneously. But this seems like they had an 8 year heads up.
This could have been so much worse if they lost the last hydralic system or the rudder had been disabled off-centre. Redundant systems are great, but they do no good at all if they have a common point of failure.
Unfortunately, tail control is vital for an aircraft, and there isn't really a way to design a hydraulic system that isn't vulnerable to a tail engine disintegration for that reason. Even if you have a line that avoids the tail entirely, you'd effectively lose your horizontal stabilizer and elevator anyway, which would leave the plane similarly uncontrollable. It's a flaw in Trijet and Tailjet designs at a fundamental level.
Check 'Windsor incident' (American 96). DC10, cargo door, floor collapsed, the usual. The rudder jammed hard over, they lost the tail engine, lost the left-hand elevator, still had the right-hand elevator (but very stiff, they had to pull with full strength to work it), still had the hydraulics and wing engines, had to compensate for the rudder with ailerons and engine power settings. Rudder hard over is no fun, I think it killed a couple of 737's way back when.
Yeah, when he mentioned "rudder stuck in the neutral position" I was like "thank god," because off-neutral rudder = bad time. Like, if you have an otherwise mostly functioning plane, you might be able to compensate for it, but it's still a bad time. And if you don't have a fully functioning plane, I hope that luck is on your side.
I personally loved the L1011. I think it was an awesome jet, that should've had a sequel been made.
It was a favorite of my childhood for sure. It was so exciting seeing a tristar at the airport as a child. I remember my Grandfather showing us and telling us about the plane. It looked super modern with that 3rd engine in the tail
My USA to England and return flights in the 90s were always on a Delta L1011. Cincinnati used to have a night flight departing around 8:00 PM that flew nonstop to London’s Gatwick, arriving around 6:00 AM London time. Loved that aircraft!
@@drt1605 It failed because Lockheed and Douglas Aircraft both saw there was a market for a plane this size, and each began designing a plane to meet that market demand (L-1011 and DC-10). They both figured one plane would outshine the other, leaving one as the victor and the other withdrawn from market. Unfortunately, both planes performed and were priced closely enough that they split the market. And neither plane was profitable. Lockheed (which didn't have other commercial models to absorb their losses like Douglas did) lost so much money on it that they abandoned the commercial airliner business entirely. (Source: Manager at Lockheed whom I interned under.)
The L-1011 was truly an engineer's aircraft - well ahead of its time.
I never had the pleasure of ever riding on an L1011! I did ride a DC-10 from Baltimore to London! Very smooth ride all the way!
There was the famous incident where a DHL Airbus lost all hydraulics after being hit by a missile over Iraq. They made it back safely.
I was a Pilot on that plane, we were able to land safely by performing a corkscrew Landing.
2003 Baghdad DHL Attempted Shootdown Incident
@@trentcruise3084 doubt
@@trentcruise3084 The crew on the DHL A300 were Éric Gennotte, Steeve Michielsen, and Mario Rofail. Which of those three was you, sunshine?
@@cr10001 I wasn't actually flying the plane, I was deadheading to Bahrain International Airport. I was invited to the cockpit by the flight crew. After the RPG hit us, I was involved in the CRM (Crew Resource Management) And the rest is History😊
"if it had not been for those three men, this video would have been a lot more somber." Hate to break it to ya... But you are _always_ somber. ;-) It's one of the reasons I like watching your videos. Your tone through out is even and conveys the information well. At no point does your inflection get heated or overly emotional.
Had they also lost that last hydraulic system, it would have been United 232, except eight years earlier. Shame they didn't implement the cut-off valves that were installed in planes after this incident to at least give pilots partial control of their plane in case of a catastrophic failure, that would have prevented UA 232. Props to this crew though, landing a stricken plane like this safely is all that matters.
As to United 232, the captain of that flight, Al Haynes, survived the crash landing, and he gave a lecture about what they did that day and general safety procedures in an aircraft that's on RUclips. It's an hour and fifteen minutes long, and I highly recommend you look it up, I was hanging off of his every word throughout the entire thing. Can't get a more accurate version of events than the guy who was flying the plane. But he's very humble about it, and even attributes things to luck that probably should be attributed to the skill of himself and his crew.
It's even more surreal when you visit the museum at Sioux City airport, they have a special 232 display with Captain Al Haynes seat, and some other things from that plane. Highly recommend visiting for anyone who gets the chance!
It took an engine disintegrating to do that and not a cargo door latch failing.
Mate, I have to say that I love your videos. I found your channel about a week or so ago and I have now watched everything on your channel. All your videos are good but I must say as time has gone by you have been constantly improving. You have done a great job, it’s been a real pleasure watching your videos. My only one sort of request / criticism would be the sound effects that were on some of the videos when the subscribe thing came across the video (the bell sound was a little jarring). Overall this is now one of my favourite channels. Thank you for the amazing videos :)
Thanks for the feedback!
This is why pilots earn so much money... For the one time in their career that an issue requires so much more than "running through a checklist". Seems unlikely a safe landing could have been achieved if the last hydraulic seems had failed totally as well.
With the skill of the pilots, it may have turned into a second United 232 (though actually, 232 happened *after* this horrifying situation).
@Alfred Weber So true. Pilots sometimes earn less than FAs in the beginning of their careers, which is so wrong...
My Christmas tree lights up like the instrument panel of an L-1011. 🤪
Flew on an Air Canada L-1011 from Manchester to Vancouver in 1981. Beautiful aircraft!
Thanks so much for explaining about the S-duct. I had always wondered how the intake and exhaust of the Tristar engine No2 could function given that they are at different levels but that makes total sense....even on the DC-10 they are at the same level....and speaking of DC-10s, like many others this really reminded me of United 232....thank goodness this EA flight had at least ONE hydraulic line still working!
That engine has hard to manufacture too.
Mustard did a great video on the Tristar.
You should check it out.
727 is also ducted
Well it had one more to start with :)
@@38911bytefree
Ah yes.
Thanks for the reminder.
Controllers never instruct pilots to dump fuel. Great video.
Awesome video man.. Really enjoyed watching your video ..Thanks for the awesome video man
Amazing video and great work by the pilots!
Gorgeous L1011!!!
This also happened to a Trident (think of it as a small B727!) over Hatfield in England in the 60s. Luckily, it was already set up to land.
4:14 big ooof on that biz-jet landing on the other runway
There was a DC-10 that had a problem like this, but they lost all hydraulic systems.
The plane crashed but the crash was just barely survivable. Some of the passengers died in the crash but more than half survived.
The DC-10 had damage to the tail that gave them a yaw input making flying the plane with deferential power harder.
I was probably not possible to make a safe landing with that DC-10, but they did extremely well all things considered.
Very nice vid, thank you!
Great job on this video.
yay another video!!! I love these.
Hi. Watching this video reminded me of an incident that happened to a Pan Am 747 N747PA flight 845 back in July 1971. After taking off very late, the belly of the plane hit the lights at the end of the runway. The pilots got the plane in the air, but she lost three of her four hydraulics. Two hours later, after dumping fuel they landed, but the plane bounced. When she came to a halt, the plane tried to see on her tail, these film of passengers walking under the nose gear which is in the air.
N747PA was late repaired and serviced Pan Am until 1992. 🇺🇦🇬🇧
I love what you do!
Good thing it was an L-1011 and not a DC-10!
Amazing save!!
The pilot did good, very skilled
8:20 if they are as skilled as the pilots of UA 232, maybe, just maybe.
Accidents like these help me understand why we don't make tri engine planes anymore!
Amazing video
Amazing insight.
Air Traffic Control never orders an airplane to dump fuel. That is always a pilot in command decision. ATC will have some input on *where* the fuel dump is to be performed, though a captain's emergency authority allows that to be overruled.
ATC has ZERO authority when an emergency is declared. So many people get this simple fact wrong.
The crew did very well indeed. However I wonder if some basic engineering training might of helped. If I had been flying and got two warnings on the same engine involving vibration and oil pressure fluctuations I would have shut down No 2 and landed asap. I work with engines. ANYTHING to do with oil is SERIOUS with an engine. In this case the plane told them that N0 2 had a problem of SOME kind with oil and vibration. Those two do not go well together. If I wasn't a mechanic ? Well I guess I would have carried on and kept my eye on it like these guys did. No blame to them. Training is expensive and their job was to fly planes not service them.
I don't really agree that it's reasonable to keep the engine running because you just fly the plane and know no better.
I'm not an engineer. To me, the warnings were sufficient to pull back to idle, removing the engine as a source of thrust for flight. So you know the engine is damaged. Running a damaged engine can only damage it further. Even if they didn't think it could explode, they should have cut the fuel and remove the risk of fire.
@@gasdive Correct. IF they had been told how serious an oil warning was.
I couldn't agree more. Multiple warnings on the same engine, shut it down and return to the airport.
@@gregorcutt1199 Considering an airplane is designed to be able to continue to fly on a single engine, and work as a glider for some time with no engine, no, I'm not quite sure "Hmm maybe 1 engine might go" is by itself enough of a reason to return to the airport. If the magic mechanic's knowledge pilots should have gotten was that the engine might combust if they kept using it? They could have proceeded just fine without it. It was the hydraulics' loss that was the issue.
@@annedavis3340 they are DESIGNED to fly on two enginess, but that doesn't mean that you continue normal operations if you lose an engine, especially on an overseas route
All commercial aircraft with engines in the tail have faced this sort of situation. Both the DC-10 and L-1011 shown here were disasters looking for a place to happen. It is a good thing that these designs are behind us.
Why?
@@ZaHandle bc you're essentially carrying a bomb inside the empennage.
Loss of the vertical stab causes skidding/spinning, and loss of the horizontal puts you into an immediate dive.
Not to mention there's not really a way to keep hydraulic lines "redundant" if they all have to go to the same place.
You also have the MD-11. The DC-10-10 (and related -15) are no longer in service. FedEx operated the final DC-10-10 flight in fact in the spring of 2021. Naturally, no 3-engined wide-bodies are in passenger service anymore, and all remaining MD-11s are on the USA registry.
Yea, running all the lines in the same place is kind of an issue with all modern jets though. (or I think that's usually how it all runs) The DC-10 had many more issues in that regard than the lockheed.
@@232K7 - Having the hydraulic lines meet in the tail is a design necessity for all airliners requiring hydraulic controls. The worst single accident in the world was JAL123 in 1985 - a B747 (not a trijet) which suffered a catastrophic structural failure of the rear pressure bulkhead which blew off most of the vertical stab and destroyed all four hydraulic lines.
Thank you Mini for recreating and analyzing a lesser known incident with similarities to a far better known one. I appreciate your attention to detail and your clear explanations. I flew on EA L1011s JFK-MIA before their demise (worked on their ad account) and always liked the aircraft.
Was it a hull loss, and what happened to the flight crew?
The aircraft, N309EA, was repaired and returned to service until it was retired in 1988. In 1989, the aircraft was sold to Air Transat and re-registered as C-FTNB. The aircraft was scrapped in 2001. - Wikipedia
(doesn't say what happened to the crew. I hope they were suitably honoured).
@@cr10001 Thank you!
Cool been waiting for a video, hello mate Andrew in Sydney here
Pretty lucky. UA 232 was in a similar situation but had only the use of the #1 and #3 engines and zero HYD pressure. They Great video as always!
Very good quality 👍
7:47 anyone else notice that plane crash landing in the right ? 😂
Uhhhhhh... Yea I just noticed that when u put this comment. And also the plane bounced which is kinda...
If you watch the whole video carefully you will see some planes in the sky and some blinking lights that seem detached from the Tristar. I assume that the simulator has some quirks.
Brave people.
7:45 , anyone else notice the plane smash off the deck at the airport? XD
I keep hearing "twelve feet", that can't be right.
8:15--they would have made it back.But,it would have looked like the Wright Bros 1st flight.(or an episode of the 3 Stooges) LOL
A quick question they used differential thrust to turn left and right but how did they reduced there alltitude???
Reducing both thrusts simultaneously, or increasing them? ;)
(also, not _all_ control surfaces were taken out of action)
Great job! Have you ever considered doing a video on Eastern 66?
🇺🇸💙🤍 I’m blown away by how good the classic Eastern Airlines livery was (this one, not the endless variations, narrower cheatline, silver instead of white etc)
If they lost line C, they would have been toast. The crew of this airplane were heroes. Nothing less.
Again superb video and awesome sim! Just a minor thing, you forgot the 5 in the opening screen of flight nr 935. But that is just a mini minor thing...
The graphics look amazing! Did you change flight simulators for the videos? What are you using?
At first I thought it was Flight Sim 2020, but I don't think this plane is available in the game yet. Could be Xplane with some graphic mods?
Great 👍
So unexplained engine vibrations should be a warning to shut down the engine in question, even if they tremors disappear as sudden as they appeared?
Was United 232 the Sioux City crash in the 70’s? That flight was a DC10 that lost all hydraulic lines and had to use a downward circling movement to try and line up with the runway. Unfortunately they lined up with one they hadn’t chosen to land on instead and the rescue crews had to run fast to get out of the way. There were fatalities, but it was amazing that so many survived.
I would really appreciate (and others for sure) if you will mention the distances and other similar values in metric also. I know that imperial make sense on this field, but we're not all professionals which are watching your videos. Thanks in advance.
10/10 pilot
4 is better than 3 in this case as flight 232's DC-10 only had 3 hydraulically systems. The L-1011 really was quite advanced, all things considered at the time.
If they had taken this as a warning to all trijets, it would've likely saved United 232.
No. It might have been a warning for future designs, but there was no way Douglas would have put a fourth hydraulic system into the DC10 at that point.
Completely different failure points, and 2 different planes, this one was a Lockheed, flight 232 was a Douglas DC10. On the DC10, it was a fan disk failure, on this L1011, it was the engine shaft that failed. Only coincidence that they are both tri-jets.
@@mattcat231 You're misunderstanding my point. What I am saying here is that they could've seen the risk bundling so many hydraulic lines without some sort of bleed-out protection in the tail could've caused or other backup system.
They DID retrofit the DC-10 to help in this eventuality after United 232, and my point is that if they had examined this risk they could've implemented a fix and combined it with an AD to specify rectification at the next major scheduled work to prevent it from interfering with airline operations and minimize cost.
@@cr10001 I didn't say a fourth hydraulic system. There are other options besides adding an entire other system. Electric motors, bleed-out protection systems, etc.
@@ncc74656m Given the way that Douglas fought tooth and nail against doing any proper fix of the cargo doors / cabin floor, even after the Windsor Incident demonstrated exactly what could happen, until the Paris crash forced it on them, I very much doubt if they would have been amenable to expensive mods to their DC-10 in the light of a problem with a competing aircraft type.
I thought this was about United 232 at first. This flight definitely got lucky.
This somehow reminded me of the worst single plane aviation disaster. Lost all hydraulic power.
I am not an aricraft mechanic so airplanes aren't my strong point. However engines and systems like this are my background and something you said at the very first of the video really stood out to me and you never mentioned it again.
You said they had a differential pressure indication or warning on an oil filter for that engine.
I can tell you if I had that on any engine that would be a red flag to shut that equipment down if that was possible.
Im an auto/truck mechanic, and I relate this to an engine that's about to throw a rod out the block, vibrations and low oil pressure are the biggest red flags there are, even moreso than overheating
This is one of those stories that I personally like a lot. The pilots did everything right, but if that last line had been fractured, I am not sure they would have been able to do anything like they did.
The aviation advancement make the travel much safer nowadays 🙂
I liked the Tristar, but it seems that putting an engine in the tail adds risk because of the importance of flight controls in the tail. Twin jets are just as safe as trijets.
Now that they have the larger more powerful engines, but when these planes were first made, for overseas flights, the regulations were at least 3 engines for long over seas flights.
@@Jman531 I think more importantly, now that engine reliability has improved (which it has).
Though personally I really like having four engines when 1000 miles from land :)
Thank God that they didn't lose the fourth hydraulic line.
When will the 'Carter Lake 2' (or any flight) live-streamed video be planned?
“Eastern Airlines thanked me for flying United”- Rodney Dangerfield
An oil press warning can be the result of a clogged filter which can be caused by metal particles from the failing engine bearings. It depends on the manual what is the right thing to do, but if you have to return for each minor failure, aviation will become imposible.
Would the crew survive with al hydraulics failed ? NO WAY !!!!
Unless exceptional experienced in abnormal training like Dennis Fitch and Al Haynes on UA-flight 232 or Eric Genotte on the 2003 DHL flight from Bagdad.
I tried this myselve on a 767 FFS (shutting down hydraulics) it is verry hard but it can be done.
However you really need a lot of experience in abnormal handling and each change of direction or altitude takes a real lot of time.
Also keep in mind that with loss of hydraulics you also lose gear, flaps and slats requiring to land with a verry high speed without a landing gear, meaning total loss of any control when touching the ground !
Loss of all hydraulics just is no fun !
Have you covered the no-hydraulics landing that DHL pilot pulled off after getting shot by a missile in Iraq?? That was some AMAZING airmanship.
4:04 There's an aircraft crossing the approach path, go around! Go around!
This episode of "mini NOT air crash investigation" you mean haha
You wrote 93 in the title screen bit, not 935
Oops my bad. Finals month was rough mani
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation - Good luck on your finals!!!
HEY AIRCRASH GUY
From my perspective, had the hydraulic system malfunctioned completely, it would have ended up way differently and a lot more tragically. I'm grateful that the flight crew got everyone to the ground safe and sound.
This is the reason I will never fly in a plane with a tail engine! ...... I personally hate that engine positioning.
Very strange decision to taxi to the gate under such circumstances.
A Low Oil Pressure warning, especially after having High Vibration in the same engine, would require, and should have prompted an Immediate Engine Shutdown! If it was a case of just High Oil Temperature, then the procedure of reducing power on the affected engine would have been pertinent. Had the crew shut the engine down, it wouldn’t have exploded and totally destroyed the engine. Nor would of any of the Hydraulic Systems been damaged. It’s not just what’s in the QRH (Emergency Checklist), good Airmanship would have determined that the affected engine be shut down. Low Oil Pressure is a very dangerous situation as far as Jet Engines go. Hot oil could be leaking outside the engine cowling and spraying onto the wing or the tail, which could ignite and so causing a major fire risk. I’m surprised the Flight Engineer didn’t advise the Captain that an immediate shutdown was required. They were lucky in this instance. Had all three hydraulic systems failed, there could and probably would have been a repeat of the Turkish Airlines Flight 981 involving a MD DC-10. This horrific crash which occurred on the third of March 1974, happened just North East of Paris in the Forrest of Emenonville killing all 346 people onboard. Different aircraft and different causes, but the result could have been the same! Retired former Boeing 747-400 Pilot with Virgin Atlantic.
Without the last system, they would’ve had as good of a chance of UA232… aka slim to none. Really was sheer luck
Can you do a video on the South African Convair CV-340 crash please?
united flight 232 in sioux city iowa is history of no hydraulics at all--DC-10 i think
Engine/ Hydraulic system design was the death of the L1011 and DC-10.
Today, these pilots would most-likely be reprimanded or even worse, be fired, knowing what we know today by way of United 232. Back then, we didn’t have the same ideas of crew resource management that we do today. I think that if Capt Al Haynes of United 232 had those warnings, they would’ve returned to Denver.
Airborne Vibration Monitor. Add it to the massive acronym list....
Pilots must be required to think instead of acting according to stupid instructions. It would not have been surprising if oil deprived and vibrating engine would self destruct if operated.
The pilots could have avoided blowing up the engine with all its consequences
All about the cost of a failed flight and landing somewhere that will cost the airline. At the end of the day it is a business and if they landed every time 2 alarms went off they would get fired
Explain how you came to this ridiculous conclusion
So they could have shut the faulty engine off and flown with remainint 2 eignies at a lower altitude towards the destination. I'm not saying they are only ones to blame.
They must be required to use their grey matter instead of stupid (at times) manuals. They must be required to do so by their supervisors and FAA or any appropriate authority agency.
It is business and it is a vicious a system.
I did not :D:D:D:D
The story development came to that conclusion by itself. I just plagiarize :)
@@lashamartashvili Again, none of what you're saying makes any sense. All engine parameters seemed completely normal, so how can you possibly expect them to know that their engine was about to tear itself apart? No flight crew would shut down what they think is a perfectly good engine, that would make no sense at all. Also, your idea that pilots should be required to not follow procedures is just stupid and completely disregards how humans work in stressful situations. We can make very irrational decisions under stress, and that is just part of being human. Checklists encourage us to assess the situation and help us make logical decisions to deal with a fault, and are also used during normal operation because even the most experienced crews would occasionally forget to set the flaps for takeoff or arm the speedbrakes for landing. Going through a checklist makes forgetting these things far less likely
“There was an explosion without warning,..” Excuse me, they had ample warning, they just decided to continue the flight.
I don't think I will ever get on a plane again.
it's like having the engine in the tail is bad news.
I reckon they would have been able to control the plane somewhat, and possibly made a somewhat successful landing without any hydraulics. Not forgetting the A300 over Afghanistan that lost all its hydraulics and made a successful landing, of course along with united 232 (not so successful but better than how it could've turned out.)
It's no easy thing to say or judge for any aircrew involved in these sorts of incidents. They're not "heroes" but masters of their machines and great people.