Originally published at: NTSB: UPS Crash Thursday Updates
Investigators confirm successful data recovery from recorders, continue engine analysis in Louisville.
Engine fell off. Pilots could not control aircraft with remaining two engines. Do you really need to know more?
Yeah…lots lots more. How about a thorough analysis to determine exactly WHY the engine fell off and what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future?
John, if you look closely at the footage from the individual in the tug, you can clearly see the number 2 engine compressor stalling. This means effectively they were flying on 1 engine which the airplane is not capable of full of fuel and cargo. Its very pretentious, reckless, and disrespectful of you to speak ill of the crew when knowing nothing factual about this accident. I must ask, why did you bother posting such an accusatory comment?
Thank you for this for I was going to same the same ‘why did you bother posting such an accusatory comment?’.
It fascinates me how some can jump on a forum and spit out nonsense with no thought to it at all.
Initial thought, questioning events will happen, but I accept the the NTSB is doing everything possible to determine both root cause and final moments.
Past that, I was not aware of the compression stall indications in the center engine, but that seems common sense for why it just could not stay in the air, fire not withstanding.
I am curious, with the amount of fire coming from the left wing that close to the fuselage, could it be the center engine was losing air enough to cause the compression stalls, like super heated air getting ingested drastically reduced power on the center engine.
Similar to the 1979 DC-10 crash, even if they had full power on two engines, either the fire was destroying left wing controls or hydraulics were so compromised that lift was lost on the left wing starting the roll to the left you can see in another video just before the wing hits obstructions and drags it down. This plane was never going to be saved.
My deepest feelings to the families of all effected by this crash. If the root cause rests with humans, may they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Great, professional report. Thank you! 
I immediately thought of the 1979 DC-10 crash at O’Hare and wondered if mismanagement of mating the engine/pylon to the wing will be proven to be the culprit.
Well said. Patton should find some other area to troll.
John is obviously not in the industry. So much more to discuss.
As a Navy mishap investigator with a great deal experience, the question for me is this - was the aircraft truly airworthy.
I only have limited information, but when the former Sr. Director at ST Enginnering stated they found cracks and corrosion and “addressed” those, it leaves me with a notion of skepticism.
First, structural cracks are significant and if there were cracks in the engine pylon structure, connectors, etc., even so-called repair may not be sufficient enough to place the acft in an airworthy stauts.
Even though the acft flew 28 flights before the mishap, the stress from those flights could caused failure in the repaired cracks.
Airplanes a designed to have some elasticity, but harmonic effects fron this condition can be factor in structural failure.
In my judgment, I’m not sure this acft should have returned to flying status. But, the pressure to see the equipment operational may have pushed good judgment over the line.
Again, I’m speculating that the mishap was perventable based on my comment regarding the questionable airworthyness of this acft.
Mark Denari
CAPT & Naval Aviator USN (ret)
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.