Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The delta heavy crash due to wind shear as they came in to land in unstable summer stormy weather. I believe this was one of the first flights where wind shear was determined to be the likely cause. Can't recall plane but think it night have been a large non Boeing plane. I believe it was partially videoed as it crashed near a major freeway.
My father lost several close co-workers on that flight and normally would have been traveling with them. Not that time.
Considering the flying junk heaps I've flown, I even named one "The Flying Death Trap" after it tried to kill me a couple of times. You can't worry about mechanical failure, stuff is going to work or it's not.
Well... That attitude will work for GA, not so much a premier airline operating a modern jet.
And it wasn't a cascade of errors or subtle & complex system breaking, either. I suspect people at large may deal with the fact that electronics or hydraulics systems are hard to design for all contingencies, but an engine essentially tearing itself off the plane - that's harder to excuse. The general public can relate to the idea that a piece of metal snaps under load, and that's something that they - rightfully - expect to NOT happen.
Well... That attitude will work for GA, not so much a premier airline operating a modern jet.
And it wasn't a cascade of errors or subtle & complex system breaking, either. I suspect people at large may deal with the fact that electronics or hydraulics systems are hard to design for all contingencies, but an engine essentially tearing itself off the plane - that's harder to excuse. The general public can relate to the idea that a piece of metal snaps under load, and that's something that they - rightfully - expect to NOT happen.
Well, keep in mind, that the piece of metal that snapped under load was abused pretty bad during maintenance. Not as if the pylon itself was under-designed...
And I would argue that accident WAS a cascade of errors:
-Pylon is abused during maintenance (admittedly, the design of the attachment made this easy to do)
-Pylon finally fails
-Engine departing aircraft severs hydraulic lines holding slats extended
-No locking pins in place to hold slats extended in event of hydraulic failure (design issue)
-Flying pilot not alerted to development of asymmetric stall, and only knows of loss of power on one engine, follows engine-out procedure
-Aircraft rolls and crashes
To me the most traumatic airline crash happened in the 1950's in Colorado. Somebody put a bomb on an airliner and it exploded over Colorado killing all on board. IIRC the bomber (Graham?) was caught and executed. I can't remember all the details but I believe he did it to collect insurance on a relative. I was in elementary school at the time and all of my classmates and I were very shook up about it.
I saw something like this on TV. One of the crime shows. The young man had put the bomb in his mother's or aunt;s suitcase, unbeknownst to her.
That's what stands out to me.
And of course it exploded, and it kind of took investigators awhile to figure it out.
Very unusual for the times.
Well, keep in mind, that the piece of metal that snapped under load was abused pretty bad during maintenance. Not as if the pylon itself was under-designed...
No argument there. (I think it was actually the bracket in the wing that failed, the pylon was fine.)
Quote:
And I would argue that accident WAS a cascade of errors:
-Pylon is abused during maintenance (admittedly, the design of the attachment made this easy to do)
-Pylon finally fails
-Engine departing aircraft severs hydraulic lines holding slats extended
-No locking pins in place to hold slats extended in event of hydraulic failure (design issue)
-Flying pilot not alerted to development of asymmetric stall, and only knows of loss of power on one engine, follows engine-out procedure
-Aircraft rolls and crashes
Not sure that meets my definition of "cascade" - I feel there must be a fairly high number of errors or mishaps involved. On your list, seems to me that #1 (not doing maintenance as per spec) and #4 (slats failing when hydraulic pressure is lost) counts. Everything else is either physics doing its thing or the pilot following procedure.
But I suspect it's not a term with a strict definition, so - minor quibble.
This doesn't really fit into the horrific category like most of the others above, but the shoot-down of Franis Gary Powers by the Russians is in a category all it own.
Don't know the name, but the plane that flew upside down and crashed into the pacific(around California?) in about 1998 would be it for me. To this day I have an extreme fear of flying because of that crash.
according to you? Not counting the 9/11 attacks. Just planes going about their destination and crashing.
MH 17?
Tenerife disaster?
Lockerbie?
1977 Chicago crash?
None of them shocked the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
