Mad respect to the crew for putting this wounded bird safely on the ground

Did the pilot make some procedural errors? Yes. Did he get everyone down on the ground safely and without injuries? Yes. In MHO, that makes the pilots pros, because that is all that matters in the end.

I really hope the A&P's who neglected checking the filters got canned. I was an AD in VR-52. We flew DC-9s and C-9Bs. I've personally seen, inspected, and replaced that filter (among others) on the engine. Pardon my language (I am a Sailor afterall), but fuck those guys. That's gross negligence.

The captain did a great job! Any time you do a gear-up landing, there will be massive sparks created - especially from the where the nose gear doors are located. These will be thrown the length of the aircraft. If there was any residual fuel leaks (as was indicated after landing), the fire could be instantly made much worse. I don't know if this was part of his thinking, but in retrospect it turned out to be a critical consideration.

This is the first time I've heard "suck, squeeze, bang, blow" in reference to anything but a four stroke ICE.

I agree with you in that the flight crew did a phenomenal job. Their workload was incredible. They were flying with very little information from their aircraft and that information was untrustworthy in the pilot's opinion. With all that, their decisions got the airplane safely on the ground with all passengers safe. The pressure must have been enormous. It appears that any lapses in judgment were not serious enough to add to the danger. Major props to the pilots.

Giving that everyone walked away unharmed after the landing I'd say the crew did a good job. What's more concering, though, is that AA seemed to have falsified their C-check documentation. I hope there was a thorough audit of AA's maintenance after that incident. (Edit - words are hard!)

6:12 - there is no turbine at the front of the engine it`s at the back. The fan and compressor are at the front.

"The right call" is the one that gets the plane on the ground safely with no injuries to passengers, crew or those on the ground.....so in this case I would say going around was the right call

The Captain absolutely made the right call, and the proof is in the outcome. He didn’t panic, he used every resource at his disposal (including the off duty crew), made carefully considered decisions, and safely landed the plane. As a pilot, that’s some first-rate airmanship in my book.

Another well done investigation! The pilots made the right choices up to and including getting help from the other passenger pilot on board. Doubtless, their good choices saved lives. 👍

The DC-9 family was an absolute classic. I hope to see more of them converted into cargo configurations

Another amazing video 🙂 One thing I find missing is the reason why they lost electronics and then some of the hydraulics. I tried looking for it, but all articles focus on the engine fire cause and poor maintenance. I suspect this is somehow addressed in the NTSB report, however I don't have time to read it at the moment. -I can only guess that the left engine was responsible for supplying power to the electronic instruments and hydraulic lines got somehow damaged by the fire. That's why I don't particularly like the tail-mounted engines design. Still a wild guess though, if anyone has any reliable information on this then feel free to correct me / provide more details.- EDIT: Finally had some time to look into the original NTSB report and do some additional research. It seems like in this case the electrical / hydraulic system problems have nothing to do with the tail-mounted engines design. _____________________ 1. Loss of hydraulics NTSB report [section 1.6.3] indicates that the DC9 has two separate hydraulic systems, left and right, powered by corresponding engines. When the fire handle is pulled, a mechanically operated fire shutoff valve is also closed on the system to prevent hydraulic fluid loss. However, the same section indicates that the left hydraulic reservoir was found empty post-accident, while fluid level indicator on the reservoir showed that it was full. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] describes pilots' response to left engine fire warning and subsequent events. It indicates that Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist was interrupted multiple times, preventing pilots from executing critical items, including pulling the fire handle. This would mean that the fire shutoff valve was activated after a significant delay and probably at a point when there was no more hydraulic fluid in the left system due to damage (it's not explicitly stated in the report, but that's one logical conclusion). That's what caused the loss of hydraulics on the left side. NTSB report [section 1.6.3] also describes the operation of the hydraulic power transfer unit (PTU) that is able to mechanically transfer pressure from one hydraulic system to the other, in case of loss of power. However, the necessary condition to do so, is to have hydraulic fluid present in the receiving system. There was no hydraulic fluid in the left hydraulic system to work with. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] points out that the PTU was enabled the whole time, and that's what led to depressurization of the right system - the pressure was constantly transferred into the left system that could not be pressurized because of the lack of hydraulic fluid. There is a safety mechanism to prevent it - a shutoff valve should be automatically activated if the fluid level in the receiving system's reservoir is below a certain value. However, as stated before, the fluid level indicator on the left reservoir was broken and showed 'full', so the safety didn't kick in. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] concludes that: "[...] the pilots’ interruption of the emergency Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist at a critical point prolonged the fire and led to additional problems, including the loss of hydraulic pressure, which caused the nose landing gear to fail to extend." ________________________________________ 2. Loss of electrical / electronic systems NTSB report doesn't focus on this one, so it's really hard to figure something out. NTSB report [section 2.4.2] mentions a 'power transfer' occurring as the result of electrical anomalies. I managed to find DC9's electrical system's diagram in a coolsky's DC-9 classic Aircraft Operating Manual and some other sources to confirm it's correct. DC9's electrical system seems fairly similar to MD-80's schematics and based on some online descriptions of MD-80's system operation, I tried to figure out what could have happened. Similarly to hydraulics, DC9 also has two separate electric systems, powered by left and right engine generators, respectively. Similarly to PTU in case of hydraulics, there's a component in DC9's electrical system that allows both left and right subsystem to be powered by a single engine's generator - the AC Cross-Tie Relay (ACTR). When AC BUS X TIE switch is set to 'Auto' in the cockpit, the AC cross-tie will interconnect the two systems whenever one of the generators is offline. Initially I thought that's what the pilot meant by 'power transfer', and that's what NTSB report implies in [section 1.1], however when reading CVR transcripts, I found 'power transfer' and 'AC cross-tie' mentioned separately... Moreover, judging from the CVR transcript, the AC cross-tie actually failed and they got a 'AC cross-tie lockout' indication. From DC-9 Operating Manual, this means that the AC cross-tie got somehow locked in 'open' position and was inoperative... ... and after some more digging into the AC cross-tie lockout, I found out that it gets triggered by a high current draw - for example the AC bus being shorted to plane's GND. I think it's a plausible thing to happen during a major fire, but it's pure speculation on my part. And I can't really explain how it affected the APU deployment (maybe it works similarly to the AC cross-tie lockout, i.e. doesn't deploy APU if a relay is switched to power the AC line where a high current draw has been detected?). And why at some point the electrical power was lost to the whole cockpit (is it supplied only by the left system? because the right one should have remained unaffected...). So that's basically all I was able to find. Hope I managed to contribute something of value to the subject. Feel free to point out any mistakes. And if you have any knowledge / experience that could offer some more insight into what happened to that DC9's electrical systems, I'd love to hear it 🙂

Was there anything said about why their hydraulics and electronics failed? And why the landing gear didn't come down? The ending was a bit abrupt compared to your other vids where you clear up every part of the story that you mentioned.

The crew did their best under the most difficult of situations. However, i’m not sure I would have gone around with a fire. That plane could have fallen apart at any moment. I’d of definitely continued. Presumably the cabin crew were already briefed for an emergency landing. Their procedures would be the same regardless of if it was a fire or gear up landing. Having said that, they got a positive outcome so the captain was right on the day!

I think this captain saved a plane full of lives that day.

Well, according to a report, "A Benefit Analysis for Enhanced Protection from Fires in Hidden Areas on Transport Aircraft," a flight crew has, on average, 17-minutes to get a burning plane on the ground, something to keep in mind when considering the risk of landing without gear.

Its amazing how the investigators can figure this stuff out. Great video as always!

As implied by that very significant question posed by the investigator to the Captain "why did you go around" is saying in a completely different, yet identical way, what 99.9% of people would think in their gut namely "Why didn't you get this on the ground ASAP?" With a major fire on board - by the way which has been demonstrated so so often before - quite simply you are doomed unless you can get down and get off in minutes. I can't remember the exact flight number but I recall explicitly a Swissair flight. Within minutes, pilots were overcome and by then, irrespective of what happens to the structural integrity of the plane after that, well..... So yet another way of paraphrasing the investigator could be, thinking aloud, with such absolutely fast-acting and dire consequences, why didn't you risk a few injuries to get down straight away just because of the extremely marginal contra-procedural action of "not having informed cabin crew". We can surely infer that everyone a) was seated and b) had on their seatbelts. The only thing we don't know from this clip is whether, due to the electrical issues, the Captain was able to tell everyone "brace brace". Perhaps this is not as marginal as I think... does anyone have stats on the relative survivability of air crashes depending on whether or not the brace position is adopted?

Great graphics add to your usual detailed narration. Thanks!

"at those temperatures, what WOULDNT burn?" me (high af) : WATER!

Great Video, you seem to find these incidents I didn't know about and I watch every Airline incident. Great Work!!!

You do a great job of explaining in a simple way just what has gone wrong (or right) in these situations. Really super.

Tough call to go around but glad they all made it back safe and sound

It was a DC-9-82 (certificate name), or MD-82 (marketing name), or MD-80 (generic name).

With the situation and information the crew had I would have made the same decision to go around. Here is a thing to remember. The caption has 2 seconds to make a decision and the public has years to tear it apart.

Going around is far better than going in, well done sir.

These pilots ABSOLUTLY made right decision. They are heroes. I hope the techs/maintenance people faced charges for not performing proper care of the filter.

Favorite quote ever "Give it enought time and it will have the engine running in no time."

Another great video, well done and thank you.

FYI There are no turbines "right up front (of the engine)," but there are rotors that with stators compress air for combustion! Other than that, GREAT VIDEO! 👍🏽

There's no way I would have gone around with a fire. A nose gear issue is in a different category of safety that can be handled much more easily than a fire that has not responded to two discharges of fire bottles. They were skilled, but also very lucky.

But why the electrics and right side hydraulics failed? How you put it it looks like the fire was serious but somewhat contained to N1 engine. I fail to see the other issues. Maybe the bleed air pressure in reverse to the small starter turbine fucked up every other line around, but the right hydraulic system is on the other side right?

That's an amazing piece of aviation. I'm always amazed at how pilots cope in this sort of situation -- I'd be a gibbering wreck. I live in awe.

Has anyone else read this man’s description box where he includes his written summary of the incident/accident? Hate to call it a summary bc I feel like it almost minimizes it, but I highly respect the amount of work that is put into this channel. It really shows. I had forgotten the date this took place and didn’t want to rewind back, so checked there and damn that’s commitment!

as a saint Louis resident, My father watched this flight as it flew directly over our house at around 200 feet, a really weird sight to see, as I live about 1-2 miles away from the airport, with a burning engine

6:15 It’s a compressor; turbine is the part that gives power to drive the compressor and of course produce the thrust and so on

According to KZfaq this is my 5000th liked video! 👍 thanks for yet another fascinating video.

Kudos to the captain and the FO on this flight, their actions most likely saved everyone. What may seem stupid at first take often makes the difference in these situations. That captain not only saved everyone's lives on board, but he also prevented a much larger disaster from occurring. Aircrafts can be replaced and repaired. Human lives can't be replaced. Great video.

"At those temperatures, what wouldn't burn?" Most metals and high temp materials used in things like, umm...jet engines...

Great explanatory illustrations!

You've done another great video. Thank you.

Super fascinating details . Well done video.

Love these. Good job again!

Interesting, descriptive, you really put some time into it. Thanks.

Thank you for making these videos.

144 people on board, one didn’t have a soul😂

Man, I’m in a serious work meeting discussing all the nurses who work for me and I am just thinking ‘I want to watch this new episode!’ 😂

They did a heroic , epic , awesome brave and wise JOB !!!

The air crew earned their pay and more that day....👏👏👏

From the perspective as a recently prior Air Force Egress technician, whenever we heard an IFE (In-Flight Emergency) called over the radio, I would always get my hopes up that I would finally see one of our jets eject in-person, but with these much larger civilian aircraft that rely solely on the aircraft and crew to escape horrible death, I commend the crew for getting her on the ground without any casualties. Those are some absolutely excellent cabin crew to get this plane down with unknown problems from the side effects of a massive engine fire and not have a single injury. Sure, you can nitpick at the individual crewmens' activities and what they *should* have done, but in the end - their combined effort lead to the lives saved of dozens of people and that should be the ends-justify-the-means of this investigation. The pilot wasn't under the influence of any intoxicants, nor were the fellow cabin crew making poor decisions themselves, so I for the most part see this as a total save from the crew. That maintenance production should be absolutely hammered for their negligence on the filter, and I'd put them responsible for this accident. Maintainer rant over.

Smooth landing you made

Honestly, it sounded like the crew acted fast and in a reasonable way, the captain was the guy flying, he knew how it felt, I feel like he made the right decision, as you said, a rushed gear up landing would not have ended well, even informing the cabin to be ready to evacuate seems reasonable, he obviously felt like he could get her down, and wanted the cabin crew to be ready for when he did, overall I think they done well in a high-pressure situation with no instruments to help, a pilots skill takes over when all else fails, and they acted in the way they saw fit, thumbs up

Of course he made the right call! He walked away from it didn't he!!!

What a well done video. A terrible accident but how fascinating to watch.

An engine problem. It starting and only starting after two manual starts , um is definitely not long gone! No way should this plane even thought about leaving even with a mundane engine problem!

Kudos to the crew. Got to say I would have landed the plane knowing what I know was going on. History says the crew got it right & everyone got home, thanks to them.

my day is made! thanks so much for all the great content! ❤

Salute to the crew!

VERY GOOD!!! THANKS! 🙂😎👍

If I'm on that plane or worse someone I love, with an in-flight fire I want the captain to put it down gear or no gear. Statistics for in-flight fires show that every second can count. I'd rather risk a no gear landing than a go around in a burning plane. IMO ALLEGEDLY

Made the right call. He was close to Airport, engine fire outside of Aircraft. The hardest part was lack of instruments. He did good, if the plane was ablaze I'm sure he would have set it down with no Nose Gear, nose gear not a big deal you will just slide, but you don't need Nose Gear for steering, the rudders would have kept him straight down the centerline. Great job by both Pilots, they did exactly what you should and that's 1. Aviate 2. Navigate 3. Communicate

Good call by the Captain.😊

@mini air crash investigation, you are magic mate , how you found this incident and the research to go with it , great stuff mate

Maybe you can do a video on the 1970 crash of Aeroflot Flight 1661? To my knowledge, it is the only fatal crash caused by a collision with a weather balloon. The instrument under the balloon (a radiosonde about 20 cm in size) hit the nose of the aircraft, causing the weather radar inside the nose cone to disintegrate. This, in turn, led to damage to the windshield. The pilots were incapacitated, and the plane crashed shortly after. All 45 occupants were killed, including all members of an ice hockey team from Novosibirsk, who were on their way to a tournament. This is such an unusual crash, and I am surprised that not a lot seems to be available about it on the internet. It deserves more attention.

A gear up landing with that engine fire could have turned into a fireball.

Amazing presentation & analysis. Thank you! Disclaimer: I am not a pilot. Despite limited prep time I think the pilot should have not done the go around. But he did and luckily was able to demonstrate excellent airmanship. Swiss 111 set the rule that any fire meant immediate landing. While the risk of hydraulic pressure was not detected until go-around the effect could have been disastrous. Making that decision was risky but worked for them. Love how they pulled in a 3rd to assist, the way United pilots were supported by a flying passenger/pilot in Sioux Falls ‘89. Glad all ok. Great story, thanks!

The pilot was clearly more uncomfortable with landing than with going around. It's easy to second guess, and it's easy to judge on the outcome rather than the merits of the decision. Here are the "couldas". 1. Go around. Airplane falls apart. Crash. People die. 2. Gear up landing without fully preparing. Sparks. Fuel. Big fire. People die. Basically, either choice was reasonable for the circumstances, and either choice could have ended well or badly. (And he made his choice and it ended well.)

So glad they landed safely 🙏

I always love your tech diagrams and explanations. CRM seems to have been shaky at first, but bringing in the off-duty pilot was a smart move to improve the situation.

Captains choice on the go around or go in. No injuries so he chose right.

So, why did they lose their primary flight display, and what was the cause of the loss of hydraulics. Also, if you can't start an engine without tech support, what if they had an in-flight flame-out on that engine? How would they restart? No confidence in that carrier!

The captain got the plane on the ground as safely as possible. That's worthy of respect.

" All for the want of a nail" "The Kingdom was lost!"

Sure, there's always something to learn in order to improve CRM but I think Captain and First Officer did extremely well in an extraordinarily difficult situation. If be curious to know how many hours they had flown together. Perhaps the Captain knew FO well enough and that FO would speak-up if he did not believe himself capable of fulfilling the assigned duties so believed it reasonable and prudent to personally brief Number One. (Someone get FO a wheelbarrow to carry that pair around. Does he need a special seat with a notch cut out so that he can sit in the cockpit? Flying, checklists AND radio during a MAYDAY. Wow!) As to the go-around with fire lamps illuminated, I can see arguments either way and, because he had a clearly thought out reasoning for making the decision, at worst, the company can issue new guidance if they wish. He did what he thought was best which means that he "thought." I'm not gonna cattle-class fly for him. Great video, thanks again!

Today, the captain was in charge. Um, the captain is always in charge. I think you meant he would be the PIC, or that he'd be flying the plane.

I got addicted to this program

GOOD SHOW

I've taken that flight frequently, more so around that time, and I hadn't heard of this incident. Crazy. I can't think of another video covering an STL incident.

Does this valve stop bleed air from both apu and right engine bleed air from turning the starter turbine? Sense the valve was stuck open the starter turbine would never stop running in flight?

He sure did make the right decision too go around evidenced by no deaths

Thanks!

5:50 On a turbofan, the front blades are the fan, they make the vast majority of the engine's thrust output. The next set of blades are compressor blades, there may be 2 different shafts driving the lower pressure compressor stages and the higher pressure stages. Then there's a combustor which looks like an expensive donut with a ton of fuel injectors machined into it. At the very back of a turbofan, there are turbines, sometimes mounted to a single shaft, sometimes they're mounted to different shafts to drive different stages of the compressor and the big fan in front. Sometimes these are known as a 1 spool, 2 spool, and 3 spool turbofan engines. I'm just an auto technician.

The Captain would have been criticized if he did not go around. As a trained professional, only the captain was responsible to make the proper emergency call.

Yes that captain did the right thing since fire crew did a thermal scan found serious heat under the plane with nose gear not down landing that plane on its belly would have had more serious problems

The picture of the burnt engine was a huge clue: This time the plane won't crash severely.

Sounds a lot like a “runaway diesel”. Pretty much what happens is air gets sucked into the engine, it gets compressed from the force of the other pistons, detonates (make fire), and then releases the exhausted air. That’s how diesels work, but a runaway diesel is when the pressure of the the crankshaft has more energy than it does for a detonation. This means that the engine keeps spinning, even if you don’t give it more throttle. Once it starts, it spins really fast, and blows up because the heat; unless you are able to suffocate it by blocking air flow (covering the air filter). This doesn’t happen on regular has cars because they require a spark to make it ignite; while diesels use the compression of the air.

That the crew lacked CRM is due to lack of training. Within the skill sets that they had they did a perfect job. Even finding an off duty pilot to help. The go around was just plain good judgment in an emergency. Definitely saved the plane. What I find odd (again) is the decision to fly with an engine that would not start. I feel that an unidentified intermittent engine fault should have rendered the aircraft unserviceable, which it was as it turned out. The crew should never have been given that aeroplane.

In the Description is a Typo, it is written, that the plane was an DC-8 instead of an -9

They lived, thats where my armchair quarterbacking ends.

Sully was lucky too but he got rewarded handsomely for his luck despite violating the sterile cockpit rule and wrongly choosing not to immediately prepare for a return to LaGuardia

That's utterly CRIMINAL that a filter got so deteriorated that a post of it blocked the airflow

So was I the only person with a dirty mind who giggled at “suck, squeeze, bang, blow”?

Why no livery on this one? Great video as always just curious 👍🏻🍻

IMHO the pilots did a fantastic job and it deserves incredible respect, the choice to go around, maybe this would have become a fatal incident if they landed on first attempt. I think an incredible feat by the pilots.... who is right to criticise pilots in such a situation, they did incredibly well. by managing to get the broken bird safely to the ground Insanely well done 😍

Being a non-pilot, I can only imagine the difficulty of trying to land an airliner without a nose wheel (or even with one for that matter), but I initially questioned the go-around decision also; but hearing the captain's logic, it seems an impeccable decision to me.

Good decisions, good job.

The engine runs itself? Ah yeah so does my car. All engines run themselves

That captain knew what he was doing. Probably not his first "rough flight" by the way he handled things. As much as the peanut gallery, and the official report even, insist on ragging on the crew over "procedures," I'm NOT under the impression they even would have made it if they were sticking to the book as hard as some of the uninitiated want to play. The plane is sending curveball after curveball, and he masterfully dealt with some pretty integral stuff that folk love to overlook until they're in similar situation and either notice it's missing, or can attest to how the extra added care and assistance of the crew would have literally been the differentiator for them even being able to recount the experience. Procedures have their place, but sometimes experience and intuition are what gets everyone out in one piece, verses other instances where playing with the checklist literally netted them a smashing date with the ground.....

Yeah def right call to go around at first I was like no but think abt it fuel was leaking so sparks from a no gear landing and no prep time = fire