Happy Landings

SAS has some pretty good glider pilots too!

Accident Description:


Status: Final
Date:27 DEC 1991
Time:08:51
Type:McDonnell Douglas MD-81
Operator:Scandinavian Airlines System - SAS
Crew:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 7
Passengers:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 122
Total:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 129

Narrative:
The MD-81 arrived from Zurich at 22:09 and was parked at gate 2 overnight with temperatures of around +1 deg. C. Approx. 2550kg of fuel remained in each wing tank. The aircraft was scheduled to leave Stockholm for Copenhagen at 08:30 and the temperature had dropped to -0 deg C in the early morning. During the night and in the early morning clear ice had formed on the upper side of the wings, but this was not detected by the ground crew member who checked the forward part of the wing. The aircraft was fuelled with 1400kg of fuel and was ready for de-icing at 08:30, which was done using 850l of Type I fluid. After de-icing the mechanic didn't check whether there was any clear ice on the upper side of the wings, since he had previously found none. The flight was then cleared to taxi to runway 08 and the aircraft took off at 08:47. After 25 seconds (at 1124 feet height) bangs, vibrations and jerks were perceived in the aircraft. This was caused by a no. 2 engine surge. The engine was throttled down a little, but throttle control simultaneously changed to an automatic mode which increased throttle setting with altitude (Automatic Thrust Restoration - ATR). This in turn increased the intensity of the surging. The no. 1 engine surged 39 seconds later, but this was not noticed by the flight crew. An attempt to switch on the autopilot at 2616 feet failed. At 76 resp. 78 seconds into the flight both the no. 2 and no. 1 engine failed after breakup of the stage 1 stators of both engines (initiated by high loads from the surges). The aircraft was climbing through 3206 feet at that moment with a 196 KIAS. A no. 1 engine fire warning at 91 seconds into the flight made the crew activate the fire extinguishing system. A SAS captain traveling the passenger cabin realized that there were problems and hurried to the cockpit to assist the flight crew. The aircraft was in a gliding left turn at that moment. When descending through 420m, still in the clouds, the assisting captain gradually extended the flaps. The flaps were fully extended at 1100 feet (340m) and the plane broke through the clouds at 980-820 feet. A field in the direction of flight was chosen for an emergency landing. The wheels were selected down and Stockholm control was informed about the imminent crash-landing. The MD-81 contacted trees at 121 knots and a major portion of the right wing broke off. The plane then struck sloping ground tail-first and slid along the ground for 110m. The fuselage was broken into three pieces, but there was no fire.

CAUSES OF THE ACCIDENT: "The accident was caused by SAS' instructions and routines being inadequate to ensure that clear ice was removed from the wings of the aircraft prior to takeoff. Hence the aircraft took off with clear ice on the wings. In connection with lift-off, the clear ice loosened and was ingested by the engines. The ice caused damage to the engine fan stages, which led to engine surges. The surges destroyed the engines.
Contributory causes were: The pilots were not trained to identify and eliminate engine surging; ATR-which was unknown within SAS - was activated and increased the engine power without the pilot's knowledge."
Sources:
» Air Safety Week 01.11.93(1,2)
» ICAO Adrep Summary 2/92 (#16)
» ICAO Adrep Summary 2/94 (#19)
» NRC 271291
» NTSB Safety Recommendations A-92-11 through -15
» Scramble 152
 

Attachments

  • sas.jpg
    sas.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 414

Ron Earp

Admin
Be interesting to see what the outcome of the investigation is. The 777 has enjoyed an extremely good record and I like being a passenger on the aircraft due to room and features (as outfitted by American). Far better than the long haul 767s in my opinion, from a passenger perspective.

R
 
A good read Ron is Air International. They usualy had a section in the back on air accidents events and causes. Nice history, pictures and illustrations on all types of aircraft old and new.
Dave
 
Re: AVIATION - Fact or Fiction??

Has anybody figured out yet that the reason the 777 crashed at Heathrow the other day was that the poor dumb bastards ran out of fuel? The official line is 'the engines failed to respond', which is generally the way engines behave when there's no more fuel in the tanks! The airplane crashed on short final, yet there wasn't a hint of a fire. Also a common occurrence when there's nothing left to burn!

It costs a lot of money to carry surplus fuel, and the airline bean counters are cutting back to ridiculous extremes. We call it "knat's ass" fuel planning. On a long leg like that, from China to the UK, a slight miscalculation of the headwinds, and perhaps some unfortunate vectoring by air traffic control agencies could easily combine to eat up whatever surplus fuel may have been on board.

The pilots are supposed to keep track of that sort of thing, and request priority (up to and including declaring a fuel emergency), but if they just flew blissfully along and failed to take stock of their fuel on board, it's easy to see how they could simply run out.

This is all conjecture on my part, by the way, but it seems fairly obvious to me. It will be interesting to hear how BA 'spins' it.

I use a very fat pencil when I'm fuel-planning on my flights. Sure, it costs more on a per-flight basis. But one 'aw shoot we don't have enough gas' will wipe out the savings of a thousand (or ten thousand) flights which were planned to the razor's edge. Heck, just last week I took off out of Afghanistan with a fair bit more fuel than was nominally required, then had a landing gear malfunction, and with all the additional drag from the gear hanging, we just barely made it to an intermediate destination for an emergency landing.
 
Pat,

All aircraft have whats called "unusable fuel" in the fuel tanks. This fuel is not able to be used by the engines due to its location/design/sumps of the respective tank/s. On an aircraft as large as a 777 this is a "significant amount" of fuel!

I do not know the exact figures as I have not been trained on the 777, but I would not be surprised if it is several hundred US gallons.

Regards,
Scott
 

Pat Buckley

GT40s Supporter
Thanks Scott - that makes sense.

Although the idea of being crisped after a wreck that was caused by running out of fuel is a little ironic! LOL.

I guess I was reading more into that than it deserved.

Pat
 
Looking at the pictures on English news its pretty obvious that the engine compressor fans were not rotating when it dug into the ground - they had stopped !!
 
I was on a BA flight out of Heathrow on Thursday. On my way to the airport on the Heathrow Express out of Paddington (train) the engineer announced that Terminal 4 was closed due to an incident. He said nothing else and I got off at Terminal 1, 2, 3 and then took the shuttle bus over to Terminal 4. They were stopping everyone who came into the terminal and asking where you were going, but not saying what was going on. When I told them New York, they said I should be fine and let me in. At the First Class desk, all they would tell me was that an aircraft had landed short of the runway. They were just starting to allow departing long haul out again and I got an earlier flight than originally planned. My 4:00 flight ended up leaving around 7:00. Anyway, once in the lounge it was all over the news with Sky providing the best coverage. We were shuttled out to the plane and you could see the 777 on the ground in the distance. It is a big plane with the largest engines I've ever seen. The fact that the main landing gear was torn off, both engines destroyed, and a 10 foot gap torn in the passenger cabin over the port wing (right through the windows), it is amazing that the plane didn't break apart, burst into flames, and more people hurt or killed.

It will be very interesting to hear what the cause is, if it is ever really made public. I for one, currently believe the lack of fuel theory is the truth. Initially, Boeing had a tough time getting this plane certified for ocean crossing with only two engines and installed multiple redundant and independent systems. That fact that both engines failed simultaneously is almost impossible.

One thing I can tell you for certain is that it scares the Hell out of you walking up the stairs to board your flight and looking over to the right and seeing a crashed aircraft on the ground. I remember how comforting it was to see that the aircraft I was boarding was a 747!
 
I had speculated, with supreme confidence, that the airplane ran out of fuel. That is actually a positive thought, because it's always nice when you can blame an incident on human error, and uptight bean-counters.

I'm a pilot for the USAF reserves and also American Airlines; I just got a safety warning blast from AA stating that the airplane had 20,000 pounds of fuel on board when the engines quit--much more than necessary to do the job.

This is actually rather more scary, because now instead of a simple human error, it seems likely that it was a systemic problem of some sort--queertrons in the fly-by-wire system? This has implications across the 777 fleet, and perhaps across the entire Boeing fleet.

That is much more scary.

As a precaution, it seems the AA 777 fleet at least will takeoff and land with the Aux power units running. This won't give any thrusties if the main engines quit, but at least it will provide electrical and hydraulic power, so the pilots will be able to control the airplane in its inevitable glide down to earth.

Hopefully an investigation will reveal an anomoly specific to this particular aircraft. The implications if it was a fleet- or manufacturer-wide problem are horrifying to contemplate.

Then again, I remember a line told to my Air Force pilot training class on one of our first days of training: "If people don't want airplanes to crash into their houses, they shouldn't choose to live on the ground!" :)
 
Mike,

Thats really something.

The P&W 308C's I work on have dual channel FADEC's. If there was a total electrical loss from ALL sources, the engines would continue to operate because each eng has its own electrical generator driven off the same drive pad as the fuel control itself. This gen. is only for supplying the FADEC and its associated controls, this is how it is able to function in exactly this type of circumstance.

I wonder how the 777 FADEC'S operate?

I can't believe that a biz jet is more advanced than a current generation airliner, although my Falcon 2000EX is only 1 year old.

Regards,
Scott
 
The BA 777s run GE90s. Most of the rest of their fleet runs Rolls Royce engines. PW never bid on these, instead focusing mainly on military applications although they did have a bid on the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner. It would be interesting to know how the GE engines are configured for back up power.

My father in law is the GM of Pratt's engine tooling division and when it comes to failures in jet engines he has some pretty amazing stories that no engineer ever thought could happen.
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Aircraft Type and Registration: Boeing 777-236, G-YMMMNo & Type of Engines:2 Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 895-17 turbofan engines.

Boeing 777 is the aeroplane type, 236 is the BA customer ident, G-YMMM is the UK civil registration, and Type of Engines: Rolls Royce Manufactured them and they are Trent 895-17 derivative of the RB211. Thats what the AAIB initial report says and thats what I saw this evening up at Heathrow.
It was hoisted up on two cranes and being sat on steerable axle trollies.
I expect it will be in the eastern base hangars by tomorrow and LHR will get back to full steam.
 
Last edited:

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Mike Drew
- would you not dispatch then if the APU was tech even though the MEL and ADD
maybe allows it ? After I saw what the techies got up to fiddling the ADD's
and I was presented with a 757 which had an APU on a 10day ADD and this was day 11 and the books were cooked, I refused refused to dispatch from that day on.
I'll wait for the next AAIB bulletin as I've seen bullshit in every guise possible and once the AAIB have said there was sufficient fuel on board, then ,IMHO, the shit really hits everywhere.


What was the (pnh) non handling subsequent action after announcing an Engine malfunction - Start the APU - always. Its about time the APU was left running up to and down from the 10,000 cross check and it also becomes MEL.
 
David, thanks for the correction on the engine type. I'm glad to hear things will be back to normal. I am flying out to Heathrow from JFK on Monday and then up the Edinburgh, returning on Friday. With all the travelling I do, the words delay and cancelled have special meaning!
 
Interesting David - Please tell me that the 'cost index' function displayed near top right of image is nothing to do with financial cost of running the aircraft :confused:

I'd have thought that aircrew have more important matters to deal with than 'how many pounds, shillings and pence is this going to cost'....

Please explain.
 
Last edited:

RichardH

AKA The Mad Hat Man
Is it just me - or is there an overwhelming desire to want to click one of the buttons to see the next screen? :eek:
 
Back
Top