Re: A brief commentary

From: (RD Rick)
Organization: Netcom
Date:         21 Jul 96 13:29:34 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In <airliners.1996.1334@ohare.Chicago.COM> Tony Maddern
<> writes:
>IMHO the Chicago DC10 did not stall but when the speed was reduced to
>V2 it came below Vmca for the aircraft with one engine failed and
>asymmetric leading edge flaps. This is an abnormal configuration and
>is not considered in the calculation of Vmca. The effects of the
>engine failure and the loss of leading edge devices on the same side
>were additive and the end result was the pilot did not have enough
>aileron and rudder capability to control the aircraft which then
>rolled into the subsequent dive and crashed.
>If the pilot had lowered the nose and maintained the airspeed above
>the Vmca for the existing configuration he had could have maintained
>control of the aircraft. Of course he had no idea what that speed was.

At the time, a DAC engineer told me that the copilot was flying the
takeoff, and after the engine departure had the plane climbing and
accelerating above vmca.  The FDR showed compensating rudder, then
neutral rudder, and then hard right rudder.  Per AA SOP, the captain
had taken over and brought the nose up to achieve "two engine centering
speed".   That act, with a retracting slat, apparently caused the
ensuing stall.

Maybe airline Captains should be aircraft commanders, and not helmsmen
as well.