Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip

From:         BMADDISO@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca
Organization: BC Systems Corporation
Date:         05 May 95 13:42:02 
References:   1 2
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1995.561@ohare.Chicago.COM>
petercoe@netcom.com (Peter J. Coe) writes:

>As an example of how engine reliability statistics can be flawed, who
>remembers the Kegworth crash of a British Midland 737-400?  The original
>problem with the plane was an engine failure of one of it's CFM-56's.
>I can't remember the exact cause of the failure, but it was basically
>because the engine had not been tested at altitude.  It was tested at
>sea-level, and it's performance and reliability statistics were derived
>from that data.  Come real life, the engine failed, and as I recall, the
>BM plane was not the only plane to have problems, but was the only one
>to crash.

I remember reading that the crash was not a direct result of the failure
of the engine. There were two main factors-
 1. The flight crew mis-identifed the failure and shut down the *good*
    engine. The flight continued on the failed engine alone despite
    cabin crew and passengers seeing sparks and bits of metal coming
    out the tailpipe.
 2. Immediately after the failure the flight was turned *away* from the
    nearest airport (Birmingham) and tried to make Derby because that
    is BM's main base. Since the crash occurred within 2 miles of the
    runway, the extra 40 miles or so would have made all the difference.

There has been much subsequent debate as to whether this incident should
be counted in ETOPS statistics or not due to the above factors.
AFAIK this is still the only instance of a multiple power loss where
there was not a common cause.

  Brian Maddison(bmaddiso@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca)

 --this is just my opinion, not that of my employer--