Airworthiness Case Study
American Airlines Flight 191
The air crash occurred in 1971, few moments after the plane had left the Chicago O’ Hare airport. The accident resulted in 273 casualties (Zumbach, 2019). Thorough investigations concerning the event reported that engine failure contributed significantly to the crash. During the build-up to the accident, the number 1 engine’s loss on the runway caused the plane to drop and burst into flames. Moments later, there were numerous causalities. The events of the day involving one of the American airline flights changed the airline industry’s course for both the company and the overall sector. The plane, which consisted of three engines, had barely taken off when one of the three engines disconnected and fell off. The aftermath of the crash was accompanied by numerous bodies that had been burnt beyond recognition. The plane, which was bound for Los Angeles Airport, had been cleared for takeoff a few minutes after three in the afternoon (Zumbach, 2019). Moments later, along the runway when the plane had attained the takeoff speed, the unexpected transformed into reality. Equally, the pylon that connected the engine to the left-wing, disconnected from the main body. Equally, the mechanical failures sequence resulted in an electrical fault, which caused the left wing to burst into flames.
Despite the continued communication from the air traffic controller, the flight team’s lack of response contributed to the disaster. Unable to notice the mechanical issues with the engine and the pylon, the pilot proceeded with takeoff. Ultimately, the aircraft flew up to about 300 feet off the ground before sudden banking due to the separation of the engine and the pylon from the wing. Consequently, the mechanical difficulties caused the plane to roll in the air though at a slower speed. Similarly, there was communication breakdown between the flight crew and the air traffic controllers due to the electrical failures caused by the detachment of the engine and the pylon. The cause of the accident, can thus be attributed to several factors relating to design and maintenance.
Poor Design
The occurrence of the accident can be attributed to the incompetency regarding the design of the engine-pylon assembly. While the assembly had been designed per the legal requirements of the (Federal Aviation Administration) FAA regulations, the implementation design did not account for the possibility of damage to the engine-pylon connection during maintenance (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). For instance, the clearances within the design were so tiny that the performance of adjustments was difficult to attain during maintenance. Ultimately, the nature of the construction of the structure was due to poor decision making by the designers. All along, pylons form a significant part of the aircraft maintenance process. However, the nature of the construction of the pylons of American airlines left little room for changes during maintenance. As such, the design resulted in insufficient clearance that would minimize contact during the repair.
Equally, the hydraulic system of the aircraft also posed severe threats to the flight members. The plane’s designers and manufacturers had omitted provisions that would allow the crew members to control the aircraft during emergencies. With the detachment of the engine from the left-wing, the hydraulic system was adversely affected, resulting in loss of hydraulic pressure. Equally, the poor design of the hydraulic components resulted in a decrease in the speed of the left-wing due to the low lift levels. Moreover, the disconnection also caused the power loss. There was a lack of coherent computer communication between the flight crew and the air traffic controllers. Thus, due to the inconsideration of the essence of the pylon and engine assembly’s proper design, the designer contributed significantly to the occurrence of the accident.
Lack of Proper Maintenance
According to the aircraft designers, the maintenance of the craft would initially involve the separation of the engine from the pylon before the subsequent detachment of the pylon from the wing. However, the maintenance procedure at American airlines opted for combined removal of the pylon and the engine. The advice by McDonnell Douglas was focused on minimizing the damage caused to the pylons through the removal of the engine first, followed by the latter Kurt and Fowler, 2020). While the FAA regulations allow for the maintenance procedures that slightly deviate from the manufacturers’ conventional processes, the choices implemented by American Airlines during the maintenance proved to be inefficient. Additionally, the company had developed the Engineering Change Order (ECO R-2963) standards meant to minimize the maintenance time (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). The company aimed to replace the pylon and engine assembly components within minimal time through the procedure. Equally, the process was also meant to reduce the number of disconnections made during the process. While the techniques were geared towards improving efficiency, the lack of thorough assessment concerning the methods resulted in damages to the pylon components.
Regulatory Challenges
The standard FAA regulations provided the airliners with the opportunity to implement a company-based maintenance procedure. As such, the laws did not focus on minor maintenance practices at the time of the accident. Equally, the regulatory body’s execution of significant repairs was conducted after authorized reporting from the airlines. Thus, a legal concern occurred due to a lack of proper investigations of the procedures implemented by American Airlines and Continental during maintenance. Due to a lack of guidance from the FAA, the weak maintenance procedures adopted by the airliners contributed significantly to the occurrence of the crush (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). Similarly, the regulatory agency’s lack of investigations also meant that some of the manufacturers’ inefficient techniques had to be adopted.
Actions were taken to address the accident.
The aftermath of the plane crash meant that strict regulations had to be enacted to minimize such events. Equally, the companies that had been involved in the event received hefty fines. For instance, American Airlines and Continental had to incur losses through regulatory penalties. The penalties charged were as a result of poor maintenance practices. Additionally, the two companies’ maintenance department was coerced to focus on the maintenance practices proposed by the manufacturers. The inspection of the engines through the set standards was crucial during the management of engine-related challenges.
Additionally, the body tasked with inspecting all airlines enacted further regulations to enhance proper maintenance procedures. Through the propositions, the airline companies were required to implement efficient tracking techniques and the reporting of mechanical challenges. The investigation body also required strict inspection procedures by the FAA to ensure that only eligible airlines could conduct the flight operations. The regulatory body and the airlines had not adopted appropriate policies to identify potential hazards during the use of the forklift in maintenance. As such, through efficient collaboration with the regulatory bodies, identifying potential risks would be made accessible.
Opinion
The events of 49 years ago resulted in several causalities. Equally, the air crash proved to be a milestone in the strict implementation of modern airline regulatory procedures. I believe that, while there were several challenges facing American and Continental Airlines concerning the adoption of maintenance practices, the strict adherence to manufacturer guidelines concerning the maintenance of engines was vital. Moreover, the incorporation of modern technologies in the manufacture of machines was also crucial. The production of technology-based engines, as well as pylons, was essential in the servicing process. Additionally, the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) also proposed better training methods for controlling staff. As such, through the adoption of advanced training procedures, the aircraft control process would be made more accessible by improving the forklift lifting.
Moreover, I also think that through reporting maintenance errors to the FAA, there was a likelihood of reduction of risks of occurrence of accidents. Equally, the timely reporting of potential maintenance risks to the concerned bodies has also significantly contributed to minimizing the potential of plane crashes. Ultimately, the formulations put forward by the regulatory agency and the NTSB have been crucial in reducing the number of plane crashes. Thus, while the American Airlines crash memories will less likely be erased from the affected families, the strict adherence to the aircraft standard has worked a great deal in minimizing the subsequent occurrence of fatal accidents.
References
Kurt, H. and Fowler, W.T. (2020), “The Crash of American Airlines Flights 191.” Spacecraft Design Archive.
Zumbach, L. (2019). The Legacy of Flight 191. Chicago Tribune. Available at: https://graphics.chicagotribune.com/flight-191-anniversary/index.html. (Accessed: 10 November 2020)
American Airlines Flight 191
The air crash occurred in 1971, few moments after the plane had left the Chicago O’ Hare airport. The accident resulted in 273 casualties (Zumbach, 2019). Thorough investigations concerning the event reported that engine failure contributed significantly to the crash. During the build-up to the accident, the number 1 engine’s loss on the runway caused the plane to drop and burst into flames. Moments later, there were numerous causalities. The events of the day involving one of the American airline flights changed the airline industry’s course for both the company and the overall sector. The plane, which consisted of three engines, had barely taken off when one of the three engines disconnected and fell off. The aftermath of the crash was accompanied by numerous bodies that had been burnt beyond recognition. The plane, which was bound for Los Angeles Airport, had been cleared for takeoff a few minutes after three in the afternoon (Zumbach, 2019). Moments later, along the runway when the plane had attained the takeoff speed, the unexpected transformed into reality. Equally, the pylon that connected the engine to the left-wing, disconnected from the main body. Equally, the mechanical failures sequence resulted in an electrical fault, which caused the left wing to burst into flames.
Despite the continued communication from the air traffic controller, the flight team’s lack of response contributed to the disaster. Unable to notice the mechanical issues with the engine and the pylon, the pilot proceeded with takeoff. Ultimately, the aircraft flew up to about 300 feet off the ground before sudden banking due to the separation of the engine and the pylon from the wing. Consequently, the mechanical difficulties caused the plane to roll in the air though at a slower speed. Similarly, there was communication breakdown between the flight crew and the air traffic controllers due to the electrical failures caused by the detachment of the engine and the pylon. The cause of the accident, can thus be attributed to several factors relating to design and maintenance.
Poor Design
The occurrence of the accident can be attributed to the incompetency regarding the design of the engine-pylon assembly. While the assembly had been designed per the legal requirements of the (Federal Aviation Administration) FAA regulations, the implementation design did not account for the possibility of damage to the engine-pylon connection during maintenance (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). For instance, the clearances within the design were so tiny that the performance of adjustments was difficult to attain during maintenance. Ultimately, the nature of the construction of the structure was due to poor decision making by the designers. All along, pylons form a significant part of the aircraft maintenance process. However, the nature of the construction of the pylons of American airlines left little room for changes during maintenance. As such, the design resulted in insufficient clearance that would minimize contact during the repair.
Equally, the hydraulic system of the aircraft also posed severe threats to the flight members. The plane’s designers and manufacturers had omitted provisions that would allow the crew members to control the aircraft during emergencies. With the detachment of the engine from the left-wing, the hydraulic system was adversely affected, resulting in loss of hydraulic pressure. Equally, the poor design of the hydraulic components resulted in a decrease in the speed of the left-wing due to the low lift levels. Moreover, the disconnection also caused the power loss. There was a lack of coherent computer communication between the flight crew and the air traffic controllers. Thus, due to the inconsideration of the essence of the pylon and engine assembly’s proper design, the designer contributed significantly to the occurrence of the accident.
Lack of Proper Maintenance
According to the aircraft designers, the maintenance of the craft would initially involve the separation of the engine from the pylon before the subsequent detachment of the pylon from the wing. However, the maintenance procedure at American airlines opted for combined removal of the pylon and the engine. The advice by McDonnell Douglas was focused on minimizing the damage caused to the pylons through the removal of the engine first, followed by the latter Kurt and Fowler, 2020). While the FAA regulations allow for the maintenance procedures that slightly deviate from the manufacturers’ conventional processes, the choices implemented by American Airlines during the maintenance proved to be inefficient. Additionally, the company had developed the Engineering Change Order (ECO R-2963) standards meant to minimize the maintenance time (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). The company aimed to replace the pylon and engine assembly components within minimal time through the procedure. Equally, the process was also meant to reduce the number of disconnections made during the process. While the techniques were geared towards improving efficiency, the lack of thorough assessment concerning the methods resulted in damages to the pylon components.
Regulatory Challenges
The standard FAA regulations provided the airliners with the opportunity to implement a company-based maintenance procedure. As such, the laws did not focus on minor maintenance practices at the time of the accident. Equally, the regulatory body’s execution of significant repairs was conducted after authorized reporting from the airlines. Thus, a legal concern occurred due to a lack of proper investigations of the procedures implemented by American Airlines and Continental during maintenance. Due to a lack of guidance from the FAA, the weak maintenance procedures adopted by the airliners contributed significantly to the occurrence of the crush (Kurt and Fowler, 2020). Similarly, the regulatory agency’s lack of investigations also meant that some of the manufacturers’ inefficient techniques had to be adopted.
Actions were taken to address the accident.
The aftermath of the plane crash meant that strict regulations had to be enacted to minimize such events. Equally, the companies that had been involved in the event received hefty fines. For instance, American Airlines and Continental had to incur losses through regulatory penalties. The penalties charged were as a result of poor maintenance practices. Additionally, the two companies’ maintenance department was coerced to focus on the maintenance practices proposed by the manufacturers. The inspection of the engines through the set standards was crucial during the management of engine-related challenges.
Additionally, the body tasked with inspecting all airlines enacted further regulations to enhance proper maintenance procedures. Through the propositions, the airline companies were required to implement efficient tracking techniques and the reporting of mechanical challenges. The investigation body also required strict inspection procedures by the FAA to ensure that only eligible airlines could conduct the flight operations. The regulatory body and the airlines had not adopted appropriate policies to identify potential hazards during the use of the forklift in maintenance. As such, through efficient collaboration with the regulatory bodies, identifying potential risks would be made accessible.
Opinion
The events of 49 years ago resulted in several causalities. Equally, the air crash proved to be a milestone in the strict implementation of modern airline regulatory procedures. I believe that, while there were several challenges facing American and Continental Airlines concerning the adoption of maintenance practices, the strict adherence to manufacturer guidelines concerning the maintenance of engines was vital. Moreover, the incorporation of modern technologies in the manufacture of machines was also crucial. The production of technology-based engines, as well as pylons, was essential in the servicing process. Additionally, the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) also proposed better training methods for controlling staff. As such, through the adoption of advanced training procedures, the aircraft control process would be made more accessible by improving the forklift lifting.
Moreover, I also think that through reporting maintenance errors to the FAA, there was a likelihood of reduction of risks of occurrence of accidents. Equally, the timely reporting of potential maintenance risks to the concerned bodies has also significantly contributed to minimizing the potential of plane crashes. Ultimately, the formulations put forward by the regulatory agency and the NTSB have been crucial in reducing the number of plane crashes. Thus, while the American Airlines crash memories will less likely be erased from the affected families, the strict adherence to the aircraft standard has worked a great deal in minimizing the subsequent occurrence of fatal accidents.
References
Kurt, H. and Fowler, W.T. (2020), “The Crash of American Airlines Flights 191.” Spacecraft Design Archive.
Zumbach, L. (2019). The Legacy of Flight 191. Chicago Tribune. Available at: https://graphics.chicagotribune.com/flight-191-anniversary/index.html. (Accessed: 10 November 2020)