America's Worst Accident | Plane Crashes After TakeOff in Chicago | American Airlines 191 | 4K
Video Statistics and Information
No captions available for this video.
Channel: TheFlightChannel
Views: 5,189,801
Rating: 4.5382357 out of 5
Keywords: flight simulator 2019, american airlines flight 191, american airlines 191, american airlines crash, american flight 191, american 191, american airlines flight 191 crash, dc-10 crash, dc10 crash, dc10 crash chicago, chicago plane crash, chicago crash 1979, mcdonnell douglas dc-10, mcdonnell douglas dc10 crash, chicago dc10 crash, o'hare plane crash, america plane crash, american airlines crash animation, theflightchannel, air crash investigation, fly simulator 2018, p3d 4.4
Id: QMIpXD46_eU
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 11min 45sec (705 seconds)
Published: Fri Dec 28 2018
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
If you're gonna watch the whole video do it at at least 1.5 speed
I found this extremely interesting and harrowing, that manufacturer recommendations can be flaunted so blatantly like this. As someone with absolutely no knowledge of aviation, this is terrifying.
from the wiki:
The NTSB determined that the damage to the left wing engine pylon had occurred during an earlier engine change at the American Airlines aircraft maintenance facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma, between March 29 and 30, 1979.[1]:68 On those dates, the aircraft had undergone routine service, during which the engine and pylon had been removed from the wing for inspection and maintenance. The removal procedure recommended by McDonnell-Douglas called for the engine to be detached from the pylon before detaching the pylon itself from the wing. However, American Airlines, as well as Continental Airlines and United Airlines, had developed a different procedure that saved approximately 200-man-hours per aircraft and "more importantly from a safety standpoint, it would reduce the number of disconnects (of systems such as hydraulic and fuel lines, electrical cables, and wiring) from 79 to 27."[1]:26 This new procedure involved the removal of the engine and pylon assembly as a single unit, rather than as individual components. United Airlines' implementation involved the use of an overhead crane to support the engine/pylon assembly during removal and installation. The method chosen by American and Continental relied on supporting the engine/pylon assembly with a large forklift.
It was learned that if the forklift was incorrectly positioned, the engine/pylon assembly would not be stable as it was being handled, causing it to rock like a see-saw and jam the pylon against the wing's attachment points. Forklift operators were guided only by hand and voice signals as they could not directly see the juncture between pylon and wing. Positioning had to be extremely accurate or structural damage could result. Compounding the problem, maintenance work on N110AA did not go smoothly. The mechanics started to disconnect the engine and pylon as a single unit, but there was a shift change halfway through the job. During this interval, although the forklift remained stationary, the forks supporting the entire weight of the engine and pylon moved downward slightly due to a normal loss of hydraulic pressure associated with its engine being turned off; this caused a misalignment between the engine/pylon and wing. When work was resumed, the pylon was jammed on the wing and the forklift had to be re-positioned. It is unclear whether damage to the mount was caused by the initial downward movement of the engine/pylon structure or by the realignment attempt.[1]:29–30 Regardless of how it happened, the resulting damage, although insufficient to cause an immediate failure, eventually developed into fatigue cracking, worsening with each takeoff and landing cycle during the eight weeks that followed. When the attachment finally failed, the engine and its pylon broke away from the wing. The structure surrounding the forward pylon mount also failed from the resulting stresses.[1]:12
Inspection of the DC-10 fleets of the three airlines revealed that while United Airlines' hoist approach seemed to be harmless, there were several DC-10s at both American and Continental that already had fatigue cracking damage to their pylon mounts caused by similar maintenance procedures.[1]:18 The field service representative from McDonnell-Douglas stated the company would "not encourage this procedure due to the element of risk" and had so advised American Airlines. McDonnell-Douglas, however, "does not have the authority to either approve or disapprove the maintenance procedures of its customers."[1]:26
What?! A corporate entity ignored the advice of engineers and went ahead with production of a shitty product?!
As a former Toyota technician I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!
It has been pointed out to me that this was a maintenance issue on behalf of the airline company and not the manufacturer.
Well, obviously they need to construct additional pylons
What a shitty video. Turns an article you could read in 2 mins into 11 mins with no narration, no relevant video and a jet engine idling in the background.
This video is so bad I couldn’t stand it even scrubbing through it. Seriously who is actually watching this swill and upvoting it? Auto generated news story videos are better done than this.
Put this in an article instead of just putting 1 line at a time over video game footage with zero source material.
The included video is highly inaccurate to actual flight trajectory before crash. If you look at the photograph, the plane is basically vertical.
What I'm wondering though, is why the pilots seemingly still went into a steep climb and kept following normal takeoff procedure after they suspected an engine failed?
I'm not saying this TIL is wrong, but a random YouTube video that appears to be nothing but video game footage is NOT a good source