The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this accident.
Additional Participating Entities:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Houston, Texas
Boeing Air Safety Investigations
Pratt & Whitney
Everts - Safety and Security
987 Investments LLC
Location: Brookshire, Texas
Accident Number: DCA22MA009
Date and Time: October 19, 2021, 10:08 Local
Registration: N987AK
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-87
Injuries: 1 Minor, 20 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General aviation - Personal
On October 19, 2021, at about 10:00 am central daylight time, a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-87, N987AK, operated by 987 Investments LLC, overran the departure end of runway 36 at Houston Executive Airport (TME), Brookshire, Texas, after the crew executed a rejected takeoff.
Of the 23 passengers and crew onboard the airplane, two passengers received serious injuries and one received minor injuries. A postcrash fire ensued, and the airplane was destroyed.
The airplane was operating as a 14 Code of Federal Regulation Part 91 flight from TME to Laurence G. Hanscom Field Airport (BED), Boston, Massachusetts.
Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information
Aircraft Make: McDonnell Douglas
Registration: N987AK
Model/Series: DC-9-87
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built:
Operator: Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Designator Code:
Meteorological Information and Flight Plan
Conditions at Accident Site:
Condition of Light:
Observation Facility, Elevation:
Observation Time:
Distance from Accident Site:
Temperature/Dew Point:
Lowest Cloud Condition:
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: / ,
Lowest Ceiling:
Visibility:
Altimeter Setting:
Type of Flight Plan Filed:
Departure Point:
Destination:
Wreckage and Impact Information
Crew Injuries: 3 None
Aircraft Damage: Destroyed
Passenger Injuries: 1 Minor, 17 None
Aircraft Fire: On-ground
Ground Injuries:
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 1 Minor, 20 None
Latitude, Longitude: 29.818027,-95.898046
J. Alan Kent
Credit his southern roots for the quiet tone and dignified manner of J. Alan Kent, the native Houstonian who has become the largest landowner and developer in northwest Harris County. Governed by uncompromised professional standards and driven by a sense of philanthropic duty, the founder of J. Alan Kent Development has, for over thirty years, been quietly working to improve the lives of those around him.
Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board air safety investigators onsite.
Photo of the flight data recorder (left) and cockpit voice recorder (right) from the October 19, MD-87 plane crash near Brookshire, Texas.
National Transportation Safety Board
Officials with the National Transportation Safety Board held a news conference Thursday to discuss their investigation into the plane accident that occurred Tuesday in Brookshire. During the briefing, officials said the aircraft had not been flown since December 2020. They also detailed how those aboard got out of the aircraft and provides a status update on the black boxes recovered from the wreckage.
The NTSB is charged by Congress to investigate all civil aviation accidents. NTSB opened their investigation into the Brookshire accident Wednesday.
During a news conference Thursday, Michael Graham, a board member with the NTSB, said the investigation is in its early stages.
“Our team methodically and systematically reviews all evidence and considers all potential factors to determine the probable cause of an accident,” Graham said. “We will not jump to any conclusions.”
A team will remain onsite to gather evidence for one to two weeks. The NTSB investigator in charge is Dan Bauer. Assisting him is Senior Investigator Michael Huhn. Bauer and Huhn will be joined by several other NTSB investigators and plan to investigate the plane’s air-worthiness, its engines, accident survival factors, as well as operational factors including performance, among other things.
Graham said NTSB is analyzing the video of the MD-87 that KPRC 2 obtained yesterday and which shows the MD-87 run down the runway in an attempt to take off from the Houston Executive Airport.
The footage was captured by Harry Johnson, a pilot who works out of the Houston Executive Airport.
About eight seconds into the video, a puff of smoke can be seen coming out of one of the aircraft’s engines.
“Fortunately, the engines are in good condition on the tale at the wreckage site and will allow for a thorough examination,” Graham said.
According to NTSB, the accident flight on Tuesday was the aircraft’s first flight since December 2020. NTSB investigators are reviewing the plane’s maintenance history.
Airworthiness investigators are at the wreckage scene identifying the components they will remove from the tail section to examine further.
The investigative team assessed the runway Wednesday and documented the tire marks on the runway’s surface. Graham said the tire marks indicate hard breaking application and good tire contact with the runway’s surface and added that all tires were in contact with the runway when the aircraft ran off the runway.
“We have approximately 1,200 feet of distinct tire marks from both main landing gears on the runway,” Graham said.
The NTSB did not find any debris on the runway.
Investigators are currently interviewing the MD-87′s pilot, first officer and flight mechanic and is reviewing passenger and witness statements in preparation to interview them.
Graham said NTSB determined how the passengers and crew members got out of the plane following the accident -- The flight mechanic opened the main cabin door at the front left of the aircraft and all aboard exited the main cabin door using the automatically-inflated evacuation slide.
NTSB personnel recovered multiple black boxes from the wreckage yesterday. The CVR recorded media appears to be in good condition though NTSB is still working to download the data from it. The flight data recorder also appears to be in good condition.
Graham said Thursday’s briefing would be it’s last at the scene. All new information about the status of the investigation will come out of NTSB headquarters in Washington D.C.
Anyone with photos or videos of the accident is urged the share them with the NTSB by emailing them to witness@NTSB.gov.
At approximately 10:08 a.m. Tuesday, an MD-87 attempted to take off from runway 36 at Houston Executive Airport in Brookshire. The aircraft ran off the paved runway and struck the perimeter fence of the airport, crossed a road, hit another fence and took out the power lines between two power poles and came to a rest, NTSB officials said. The debris path suggest the plane’s left wing struck trees before the plane came to a rest in a field. A majority of the fire damage occurred after the plane came to a rest.
There were 18 passengers and three crew members onboard. The crew members consisted of two pilots and one flight mechanic. Everyone on board evacuated the aircraft and only two minor injuries were reported, Graham said.
The aircraft is owned by 987 Investments LLC. -- State records show J. Alan Kent owns the LLC.
WALLER COUNTY, Texas (KTRK) -- Federal investigators are at the Waller County site where a private plane carrying 21 people crashed on takeoff.
Miraculously, all of the 18 passengers and three crewmembers made it out of the fiery wreckage safely. Two people were sent to the hospital.
The youngest person on board was a 10-year-old, officials said.
The crash happened shortly after takeoff mid-morning Tuesday, the plane ending up in a field at the Houston Executive Airport, near Brookshire, Texas.
Photos obtained by ABC13 show black smoke coming from a field around the scene of the crash.
From above the scene, SkyEye captured firefighters attempting to douse flames of the wreckage, with the aircraft tail intact.
Since the incident, FAA officials identified the aircraft as a McDonnell Douglas MD-87, adding that the plane rolled through a fence and caught fire in a field while attempting to depart the executive airport just after 10 a.m. CT.
"During the departure, it looked like a normal departure. Like I said, once it got behind the hangers I could not tell myself what was going on with the aircraft," said the airport's executive director Andrew Perry. "It should have been up in the air. I knew something was wrong and then a couple of seconds later, we saw the fireball and went rushing to the scene."
Eyewitness News learned the plane is registered under the name of J. Alan Kent, who is the corporate owner of Flair Builders, a custom home builder based in Spring.
J. Alan Kent, a builder from the Spring area, is OK after he was aboard the plane during the crash.
In a phone call with Kent, he confirmed he was on board at the time of the crash and that the group was headed to Boston for a trip to the American League Championship Series game between the Astros and the Red Sox.
The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation. They are expected to provide an update later Wednesday.
Meanwhile, utility company CenterPoint Energy said an outage impacting more than 1,800 customers near the scene of the crash was caused by the plane taking out an overhead powerline during takeoff.
That's exactly what I would think a Houston land/oil baron would look like. Central casting did its homework.
ReplyDeleteThose boots are $12,995.00 Luchase alligator boots
DeleteIt's Texas, chief. There are no big money rancher/oil baron actors there. That's simply who they are in positions of power and money. Only in Texas can you show up at a business meeting with a potential client who is wearing a Stetson Diamante cowboy hat and Lucchese boots (Google their prices). The trite phrase "Everything is bigger in Texas" means everything from the square miles of the state to the egos of the big money makers. This is not new news either. The most popular evening TVs show in history showing big egos of wealth and power ran from 1978 to 1991 was based in Dallas...of which said series was named for.
DeleteNo wonder I don't have a pair of the boots. ;)
Delete6,610' runway 36 departure. Winds reported variable @ 8 MPH, smoke in crash video suggests wind from the east at the time the video was recorded.
ReplyDeleteKTME Weather:
Day/CDT/Wind MPH/Vis /WX/ Sky/ T/DP/RH/ Altimeter
19 09:55 Vrbl 8 8.00 Fair CLR 72 61 69% 30.11
From:
https://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KTME.html
The ground speed of the aircraft on the runway was recorded by ADS-B as 150 knots at the last reading, near where the skid marks show up in the video:
Deletehttps://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=29.805&lon=-95.902&zoom=14.9&showTrace=2021-10-19&trackLabels
Is horizontal smoke indicative of higher winds than reported? Skid pattern of nose wheel closer to right wheels indicate plane was skidding at an angle.
ReplyDeleteSkid marks look like they were correcting back to the right when they ran out of pavement. That smoke speed seems correct.
DeletePort side wing got knocked off and left behind in a big tree, easy to see after the ten minute mark in this video:
https://youtu.be/ePOVi-G-KGk?t=592
At a speed over 130 knots with trim properly set, an MD87 should have been fighting to fly, not refusing to pull up.
ReplyDeleteInteresting to note that the right engine has burned grass behind it while the left engine has more damage and no burned grass behind it.
ReplyDeleteThe right engine blew a trench out behind the aircraft if you pause the video below at 2:14 and look. Blew it down to bare dirt, without creating a grass fire beyond the end of the trench.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/Ae9lCFRU_s8?t=132
Left engine damage probably caused by the impact from the left wing as it was ripped off and left behind under the big tree that turned the plane 90 degrees.
Engine loss at or near rejection speed? Crew aborted when shoulda kept going?
ReplyDeleteNews reporting plane wouldn't rotate.
ReplyDelete“One pilot pulled up... and it (the plane) wouldn’t go up, and then the other one tried, this is what the pilots told me, it wouldn’t go up," the passenger said. "So, they tried to stop but there just wasn’t enough runway left."
https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/expert-how-21-people-survived-fiery-plane-crash/285-29ca0e69-9cba-4fb9-9a4f-ee644380105f
One of the news report videos shows the takeoff roll as it passes the windsock. There was a 3-6kt direct, or nearly so, crosswind depending on how you read the windsock. Based on how the smoke from the fire was changing direction it seems like the light and variable wind forecast was correct. Lots of witnesses for this one. 100% survival for what initially looked like a really bad crash. I'll bet it was heck of a ride.
ReplyDeleteMd87 specs say minimum runway lengthy is 7,200ft. Were the flaps/slats down. Fuel load, was it full? Crew experience. The aircraft sat on the the ramp since august. if they tried to abort why did the engines blowout the grass behind the aircraft after it stopped. Lots of questions to be answered. It would be better to have that aircraft based at hobby or intercontinental instead, more room to operate safely.
ReplyDeleteminimum roll is 6000 feet. no sane PIC would attempt to use a runway not approved for the aircraft, let alone shorter than the minimum distance.
DeleteFuel load is certainly a question - was a refuel in Boston planned or was it fueled for the round trip?
DeleteCould have been accustomed to departing that field with minimum fuel weight. Remember the Falcon 900 at MYF, fat with fuel for a Hawaii run?
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/02/dassault-falcon-900ex-n823rc-n718ak.html
"Md87 specs say minimum runway lengthy is 7,200ft."
DeleteThat has to be with an airline configuration and near max takeoff weight (and at ISO sea level standards). Mad Dogs for years have operated out of smaller regional airports with runways in the 6,000 footprint range. On top of that, this jet had a corporate layout with far fewer seats and bodies and bags. So the takeoff weight would have been far lower than typical of an airliner configuration.
"Md87 specs says minimum runway length is 7200ft"
Delete"minimum roll is 6000 feet"
This is absolute nonsense from two people with exactly ZERO experience in jets. Neither of you has any idea what you're talking about.
There are some airlines who MIGHT impose a minimum runway length limitation for their crews as company policy, but there is absolutely no such thing as "minimum roll" in any turbojet performance manual. MD80's were routinely operated in and out of John Wayne with 150+ pax and fuel loads in the 24,000 pound range. That runway is 5900' long.
A 6600' runway, although not generous, is plenty long enough for an MD87 with less than 30 people aboard to operate in and out of. COULD this story have ended better had they been operating from a 10,000' runway? Maybe. But this nonsense about a 7200' minimum runway requirement and a 6000' minimum roll is just nonsense.
take that up with the quite a few Mad Dog pilots who have already stated the information themselves. from 4 different airlines who have the same numbers.
Delete
ReplyDeletePuff of white smoke from one of the engines upon acceleration indicates a blown compressor, and should have been heard by the crew .
where did you see/hear this?
DeletePuff visible at 2:01 to 2:04 in this video:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/Ae9lCFRU_s8?t=119
The puff looks to me like an engine start that had a little too much fuel on light off. As if the igniters didn’t fire initially so the pilot switched igniters and possibly damaged the engine on the overfueled light off.
DeleteSo, he started the engine after getting to the runway? Naw..
Deleteseveral pilots with Mad Dog experience have already weighed in on this, and minimum takeoff roll is 6000 feet. in the videos, you can clearly see the clam shell buckets never opened for Reverse Thrust, so they didnt even reject or attempt it. i think they simply made the decision to roll it out over the grass and let it slide to a stop. a calculated risk. one that played out in their favor.
ReplyDeleteno PIC would attempt to take off on a runway that is 600 feet SHORTER than the minimum length required. in fact, they would lose their license for it.
There is no such thing - in any turbojet performance manual - of "minimum takeoff roll". I flew MD-80's with 150+ pax and a fuel load likely equivalent to or greater than that requires to fly from Houston to Boston in and out of John Wayne Airport for years. That runway is 5900' long and although it was hardly generous, it was absolutely sufficient and we did it for decades without a mishap.
DeleteAnyone who uses a term of "minimum takeoff roll is 6000 feet" has never flown an MD-80 or has taken leave of their senses.
well then take it up with the other mad dog pilots who have stated this.
Deletedont come at me sideways for going by what other mad dog pilots have said.
anyone who tries to insult someone with their senses basing their comments off of other pilots with the same experience as you claim, has lost their senses also
DeleteAviationBuff: You may be a buff but certainly not a jet pilot! "i think they simply made the decision to roll it out over the grass and let it slide to a stop. a calculated risk." Absolutely ridiculous statement!! Source: I flew 'em
DeleteIs there a gust lock on a plane like that, something that would have prevented them from rotating? Maybe something that was missed during an (inadequate) preflight?
ReplyDeleteIf this was a smaller plane, that would be my first guess, but I wouldn't expect that kind of mistake on an MD-87.
The accident study below says there is no gust lock on the 80 series and discusses a no-rotate accident from gust-damaged MD-83 elevator:
Deletehttps://code7700.com/case_study_ameristar_9363.htm
There is no mechanical gust lock on the MD-80. The controls are protected from gust damage by internal "dampers" and, frankly, their weight.
DeleteInappropriate pitch trim setting that is still in the takeoff range - thus no configuration warning - could cause a failure to rotate. The CVR output is going to be interesting.
There has been at least one other incident where a MD80 series would not rotate and the takeoff was aborted, IIRC well after V1. It got a lot of publicity at the time, I can't remember any other details. It may have been an article about rejecting after V1 involving other aircraft as well.
ReplyDeleteThat was at KYIP with the UofMichigan basketball team aboard. Aborted after a safe runway stop was impossible, but everybody aboard walked away. Ramp wind had damaged the elevator.
DeleteFrom what I understand this is a corporate floor plan layout and hence the fewer PAX on board. This means the aircraft should have a MTOW way less than what was normally expected of it when flying commercially as a Finnair MD87 with 150+ souls (and baggage for them) on board. I've witnessed a 727 private/corporate jet take off with just 18 PAX and 4 crew and it launched into the air like a G550. No reason this thing couldn't take off well under 6,600'.
ReplyDeleteComment above from a news report link says a passenger heard or saw the pilots struggle saying the jet wouldn't rotate. I know nothing about the business end of the Mad Dog, but does anyone know if it has a gust lock control for parking? Another thought is the notorious jack screw controlling the elevator movement in the tail. If not maintained fully by the book, it can fail and bring an airliner down (and has).
MD-80 series elevators move by the aerodynamic action of trailing edge control tabs. No gust lock. Wind can jam them.
Delete[NTSB AAR 19/01, ¶2.2.1.2] "The control tabs are the only parts of the elevator system that are connected to the control column"
From no-rotate MD-83 accident study:
https://code7700.com/case_study_ameristar_9363.htm
What's really bad about tab-controlled elevator movement is that you can verify that the tabs respond to the yoke in pre-flight, but the elevators will remain motionless. The full paragraph reads:
Delete[NTSB AAR 19/01, ¶2.2.1.2] "The control tabs are the only parts of the elevator system that are connected to the control column, and the control tabs were not damaged. Thus, the NTSB concludes that the flight crew’s preflight inspection and control check during taxi, which were performed in accordance with the procedures specified in the AOM, could not have detected the overcenter position of the right elevator geared tab’s linkage or the resultant jammed elevator condition."
Looking at KTME wind history, the passage of hurricane Nicholas on September 14th that caused local power outages was worth a look to see if the airplane could have been subjected to wind exceeding 65 kts.
DeleteThe highest wind gust recorded recorded was 45 knots, well below the wind speed where the MD-87 is required to be parked facing into the wind.
KTME 140935Z AUTO 05032G45KT 2SM -RA 21/21 A2973 RMK AO2,M
Clearly NOT the issue here. When the elevator gets locked up, it's clearly visibly in the full-down position. Photos after this crash show both elevators in a near-neutral position:
Deletehttps://cdn.aviation-safety.net/photos/accidents/20211019-0-C-1.jpg
https://fox4kc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2021/10/texas.jpg?w=1280
https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/11143483_101921-ktrk-skyeye-bug-waller-co-crash-img.jpg?w=1600
https://img.i-scmp.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=contain,width=425,format=auto/sites/default/files/styles/768x768/public/d8/images/methode/2021/10/20/88636d00-3119-11ec-8bc1-f82f86ab0ffa_image_hires_043623.jpg?itok=ED3pEmma&v=1634675792
New NTSB info that came out now shows that both elevators have bends similar to the Ameristar event, so it was incorrect to state "Clearly NOT the issue here." regarding possible gust damage.
DeleteHere is a link to the photos so you don't have to hunt:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20211110b.aspx
Investigation page:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA22MA009.aspx
Mar 8 2017, Ameristar MD83 rejected takeoff at "very high speed" due to jammed elevator. Willow Run MI. Passenger flight, only one injury. Overran the runway.
ReplyDeleteThe MD 80 thru MD87 are certified as DC9-80 etc. The 87 fuselage is 17' shorter than 80-83. The previous poster does not have the information required to compute required runway. 21 on board with say 4-5 hours fuel is a light load for the MD87. The elevator has a hydraulic system that applies down elevator only if the elevator is not responding. Really just for deep stall protection. Otherwise the elevators are not directly connected to control yoke. Yoke is connected to elevator tabs which in turn control elevators. Report on Willow Run stated there was no way for pilots to know elevator was jammed. I don't completely agree with that. I would need to research what the elevator does when the yoke is moved full forward on control check. I know the elevator power advisory light comes on, that is part of the control check. Somewhat irrelavent in this case because they needed up elevator.
The control tabs "fly" the elevators into position. Without airflow, the elevators sit there during the static check of tab response to the yoke.
DeleteYou get to find out if the elevators are free to move and not jam at rotation.
YEEEEE-HAAAWWWWWWWW!
Photos from the Ameristar no-rotate investigation:
DeleteRight elevator and relative locations of control, geared, and antifloat tabs:
https://code7700.com/images/ameristar_9363_right_elevator_ntsb_aar_1901_fig_3.jpg
Simplified diagram of elevator control:
https://code7700.com/images/ameristar_9363_right_elevator_control_aar_1901_fig_4.jpg
Bent parts on geared tab that jammed the right elevator:
https://code7700.com/images/ameristar_9363_damaged_elevator_control_aar_1901_fig_6.jpg
I've seen MD-87's take off from Tanacross Alaska with 4000 gallons of fire retardant onboard, this is a 5100 x 150 foot runway and it's world war 2 era asphalt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iPqvMcyb68
ReplyDeleteMD-87 Tanker 101 N291EA in the video and Tanker 103 on the Erickson web page are 3,000 gallon capacity. Impressive to operate out of 5000' airfields, nonetheless.
Delete4,000 gallon tankers in the contracting list are 737's.
http://www.eatanker.com/
https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/logistics/aviation/Federal_Contract_Air_Tanker_List.pdf
I work for Erickson. That first year we were a 4000 gallon tanker. Restricted to 3000 after the addition of the pod and new STC.
DeleteI was sure the pilot told me he was going with 4000 gallons and would see how it went, this makes sense now, this was before the pod, and they were getting out of a 5100 foot strip with little room to spare, both of the video I took was with 4000 gallons.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iPqvMcyb68
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB9xt34nHyo
Just a thought. Were the flaps and slats extended and set for takeoff?
ReplyDeleteJust a thought. Were the flaps and slats extended in the takeoff position?
ReplyDeleteIMO, compressor stall from the port engine (white smoke). No RTO. Didn't clear the obstacle at the end of the rwy.
ReplyDeleteUpdate, there is a picture of the aircraft going down the runway. There is a large white puff of smoke and a loud bang was heard. It sounds like a compresser stall. If so the takeoff should have been rejected at that point. Interesting to see if that plays into the equation.
ReplyDeleteVery strange, that's a really reliable jet. Almost like they forgot to extend the flaps. Just like Delta flight 1411 in 1988.
ReplyDeleteSpanair 5022, MD-82, pilots forgot twice to set/check flaps AND the TO configuration warning system did not work for unknown reasons.
DeleteDelta 1141 was a 727.
How long does it take for engine to recover from compressor stall to full power again ?
ReplyDeleteHow long does it take for engine to recover to full power after compressor stall? Is compressor stall monetary like backfire on car engine ? Seems like pilots would feel one engine out or not producing same power as other engine
ReplyDeleteAA operated MD'S out of John Wayne Airport (SNA) 5900 Ft runway for years loaded with pax and enough fuel to fly halfway across the country to DFW. 6600 ft was plenty of runway for this flight.
ReplyDeleteI don't have commercial experience, but in the Navy, a compressor stall was "we're down, abort, taxi back, get another jet." The infamous boat anchor P&W TF-30 in the F-14, at MIL power or in A/B, could send a nice flame about 15 feet or so forward of the intake during a compressor stall. And it was loud. Yup, stop the jet. Taxi back to the ramp.
ReplyDeleteThere are airlines that have "Minimum Runway Length" limitations, but all the chatter here about the airplane requiring not less than 6000' of runway is bs from people who've obviously never flown an MD-80. I flew the Mad Dawg several thousands of hours and had the thrill of flying it at light takeoff weights many times. An MD87 with just 21 SOB's and 4 hours of fuel is LIGHT and a 6600' runway - although not generous - is plenty.
ReplyDeleteA compressor stall would 100% be heard by the crew. I've experienced them in the -80 and they're quite the little event.
I did see the puff of smoke while the airplane was taxiing, which was "interesting", but not unheard of with those engines.
The big questions, other than an engine failure very near V1, are:
1. Flap setting - the -80 series has a "Dial A Flap" feature for various takeoff flap settings. This is something that can lead to inappropriate flap settings that are still in the takeoff range and would thus not trigger the configuration warning as the thrust levers are advanced.
2. Pitch trim setting. Again, you can have a pitch trim setting in the takeoff range that is still grossly inappropriate for a given CG or weight.
The skid marks suggest a loss of directional control and would seem to suggest an aborted takeoff, but as others have noted, the reversers are stowed, so that's strange - unless they were deferred for some reason or didn't deploy due to crew error. It would take multiple hydraulic system failures for BOTH reversers to not deploy.
In any case, it's a great that everyone got out of the airplane alive and it's a shame that a Mad Dawg died in a fiery wreck, but the fact that it stayed sufficiently intact for everyone to get out alive is a testament to how stout it is.
Thanks Tex! You didn't have to tell me anything. I watched Delta MD-8x aircraft fly in and out of Pensacola Regional (PNS) for years when I was getting my private and advanced ratings out of there while attending the nearby University Of West Florida. Both intersecting runways are 7000' and the Mad Dogs would rotate between the 3 and 2 remaining distance markers depending on season/temp and winds (and unknown loads). Of course that was a sea level airport so there's that.
DeleteIt was always fun being lined up at the hold line watching you MD guys spool up and take off...that would blow the skirt up on our Cessnas. Sadly not too long after I was there, in July 1996 two passengers were killed when an MD-88 engine blew up and parts of it were not contained and breached the cabin where they were (Delta 1288). I'm sure you and many here remember that.
That aircraft was repaired and went on flying only being retired just three years ago this past August by Delta. it was a tragedy of the loss of two lives and permanent injury of a few others, but rebuild was a testament to the MD's ruggedness and original McDD DC-9 over-engineering bones like aircraft manufacturers did back then.
Compare the requirements for multiples of gravity "back then" and nowadays. I'd take a modern airframe design any day form that reason, which doesn't mean that an older one is not good enough, though.
DeleteLove the 12k Luchase alligator boots!
ReplyDeleteI really like what the NTSB is doing about being transparent! I don't remember ever seeing pictures and video of the evidence as they go through the investigations!
ReplyDeleteNTSB = They are the BEST aviation accident analysts in the entire world.
Delete...Fly Safely - Train Often...
The reporting says the bird had not flown since December. Irresponsible to take guests on a test flight. Should have performed at least one takeoff/landing cycle before loading pax.
ReplyDeletethe recovered flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder reveals the actual data to what is now conjecture.
ReplyDeleteNTSB initial statement is "1200' of tire marks, both mains, indicating heavy braking.
ReplyDeleteAlso indicates the airplane never left the ground as some earlier reports claimed. Why reverse was not used is a mystery. I wonder what else the pilots had been doing since their last MD 87 flight? Were they even current?
We flew out of some relatively short runways with up to 34,000# of cargo in the DC9-32CF. At Hill AFB with a 13,500' runway length we did zero flap takeoffs. Rotation in the low 170 kt range with 1500' of runway remaining. Shorter runways there were takeoffs where we went into a paved overrun with the mains still on the ground. The charts did not reflect this poor performance.
The puff of white smoke during the beginning of the takeoff roll looks to me like the left engine ingested a bird. There is a NOTAM for this airport warning of birds on & INVOF the airport. While this is conjecture, the left engine could have spooled down during the latter half of the takeoff run, essentially making the takeoff a one-engine takeoff attempt. If this scenario is correct, then the question is whether or not the crew detected the decreasing left engine thrust before V1. If they detected the engine failure late, then V1 would have occurred further down the runway, and in that situation, they should have rejected the takeoff, but with perhaps not enough runway left to stop the airplane. Maybe they decided to not use reverse thrust because it would have occurred on the right side engine only and would have pulled the nose of the plane off the runway. The CVR and interviews should solve this.
ReplyDeleteNo, disagree. Reduced thrust is noticed immediately and they would not continue or "attempt" a one-engine take-off, not even accidentally. It just doesn't happen that way. On a rejected takeoff you would use reverse thrust, even on one engine. But a mechanical or pilot issue might have prevented it. Source: I flew 'em
DeleteBefore presuming reversers were not deployed at all, consider that the left wing was removed when they intercepted the large tree that spun the airplane 90 degrees.
DeleteAs the left wing departed the aircraft and the big yaw left event began, reverse thrust was no longer helpful, making it the right time for the pilot to discontinue reverse thrust.
The rest of the engine control story to figure out is that bare stretch of dirt behind #2 where the engine blew all the grass away. Why was thrust set to make that rut after the plane came to rest?
I skimmed thru some information online from a variety of sources. Since the Ameristar crash the elevator control issues have become a big deal.
ReplyDeleteWhile I cannot quote specifics, it would appear that with the airplane sitting outside for that length of time that a mandatory detailed inspection of the elevators was required. Unlikely that that was performed with the airplane sitting outside. No way any sane person would attempt that on a ladder. It would normally be done in a hangar with a scaffold. So my vote is a jammed elevator. Likely past V1 no rotation, lack of currency in the airplane, easy to imagine simply forgetting reverse. Rejected takeoff performance doe not include reverse, it is a bonus if available.
No need to use a scaffold when manlifts are easy to get delivered to the job by an equipment rental agency. It will be interesting to learn what maintenance was done on the bird.
Delete"During the briefing, officials said the aircraft had not been flown since December 2020."
ReplyDeleteApril 2021 trip shows up in ADS-B history. Should have conducted an October test hop before returning to pax service, but December was not the last op.
April 2021 KTME Takeoff:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=29.682&lon=-96.841&zoom=8.5&showTrace=2021-04-21&trackLabels
Return:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=29.323&lon=-96.579&zoom=8.5&showTrace=2021-04-26&trackLabels
The aircraft flew to Phoenix Goodyear Airport in July 2020 and returned from there to Houston on September 1st 2020. ADS-B ground data shows some movements. Facilities there service airliners.
Arrival at KGYR:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=33.771&lon=-108.552&zoom=4.6&showTrace=2020-07-07&leg=3&trackLabels
Example ground activity:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=33.428&lon=-112.367&zoom=17.3&showTrace=2020-07-21&trackLabels
Return:
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=adc52f&lat=32.559&lon=-107.203&zoom=4.8&showTrace=2020-09-01&trackLabels
Regarding the evidence in the dirt that one engine allegedly made: The statement that all passengers exited thru the forward main cabin door indicates the possibility that the engine was still getting fuel and also possibility that fuel shutoff was compromised. On the -81 and -82 the center fuselage tank is the main tank. I don't know if that configuration carries over to the -87.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to MOVE the elevators while sitting on the ground is to PUSH full forward on the control column. This applies hydraulic pressure to an actuator that FORCES the elevators to aircraft nose down (AC ND) and a blue Elevator Power light illuminated on the overhead annunciator panel. This check is accomplished during the flight control check during taxi out. If parked at the gate, you can watch the elevators move in the reflection in the glass Windows of the terminal. The elevators are free floating and operated INDIVIDUALLY, by the control tabs. With a tail wind while taxiing out to the active, one often sees one elevator in AC ND and one in AC NU (aircraft nose up). If the winds are gusty, they may be slamming stop to stop in opposite directions, or same direction.
ReplyDeleteBTW… The ailerons are flown by control tabs as well, but are linked together via cables. During the walk around, you can grab one, move it stop to stop… but the control column will NOT move. Grab the control tab and move it… you will get the attention of the CA or FO who is seated in the flight deck!
14 years on MD82/83’s in both seats… yes, I got several thousand hours in the Mad Dog.
Later news reporting says the investigators have cell phone video of the jet at the end of the roll, when brakes were applied. Puff of smoke video might have included more of the takeoff than what has been made public. Seemed odd to cut off coverage where it did.
ReplyDeleteDisappointingly brief preliminary report, in that confirming the rejected takeoff was the only new information.
ReplyDeletehttps://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/104129/pdf
New info: damaged elevator linkage - elevator jammed nose down... More info on Jet Careers
ReplyDeleteDiscussion on JetCareers is about the Mar 8 2017 Ameristar elevator jam, not any results from examining this accident aircraft.
DeleteThe Mar 8 2017, Ameristar investigation was in brought up in comments above on October 20, referring to the 2017 investigation:
https://code7700.com/case_study_ameristar_9363.htm
https://news.yahoo.com/ntsb-controls-jammed-private-jet-211621286.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
ReplyDeleteFound helpful NTSB links from that yahoo article:
Delete"According to flight crew interviews, during the takeoff roll, the first officer made the 80-knot, V1, and Vr callouts. At the rotate callout, the captain tried to pull back on the control column but indicated that it felt like it was “in concrete.” About the time the first officer made the V2 callout, the captain informed the first officer of the problem. The first officer also attempted to pull back on the control column but was unable to pull it aft."
Photos of Texas MD87 look a lot like the Ameristar bends:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20211110b.aspx
Main investigation page:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA22MA009.aspx
Hurricane Nicholas gusts on September 14th may have been the cause after all, in spite of elevator jam not being expected unless subjected to wind that exceeds 65 knots.
DeleteThe highest wind gust recorded recorded was 45 knots, well below the wind speed where the MD-87 is required to be parked facing into the wind.
KTME 140935Z AUTO 05032G45KT 2SM -RA 21/21 A2973 RMK AO2,M