Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Southern 242

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Southern 242

    I was talking about this unfortunate accident in another thread. I have not seen it discussed much here before, so I would like to get some professional opinions regarding the crash.
    Could anything have been done differently with the training they had in 1977?
    Did ATC screw up by not having the Cornelius Moore airport as an alternate?
    I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

  • #2
    Besides the official NTSB report, there are several articles in books and magazines on the accident of Southern 242. I have quoted the relevant sections from the NTSB report below.

    The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the total and unique loss of thrust from both engines while the aircraft was penetrating an area of severe thunderstorms. The loss of thrust was caused by the ingestion of massive amounts of water and hail which, in combination with thrust lever movement, induced severe stalling in and major damage to the engine compressors.
    Major contributing factors include the failure of the company's dispatching system to provide the flight crew with up-to-date severe weather information pertaining to the aircraft's intended route of flight, the captain's reliance on airborne weather radar for penetration of thunderstorm areas, and limitations in the FAA's ATC system which precluded the timely dissemination of real-time hazardous weather information to the flight crew. (NTSB-AAR-78-3)
    However, there also was a dissenting statement by one of the NTSB members who would have preferred to read the probable cause as follows:

    The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain's decision to penetrate rather than avoid an area of severe weather, the failure to obtain all of the available weather information despite having prior knowledge of the severity of the storm system, and the reliance upon airborne weather radar for penetration rather than avoidance of the storm system. The penetration resulted in a total loss of thrust from both engines ... (NTSB-AAR-78-3)
    One has to bear in mind though, that ob board weather radar systems at that time were not as good as they are today (no computer enhancements etc.)
    As for the training of the crew I don't think anything could have done differently under the circumstances present at that time. They could have delayed or canceled the flight but once they were airborne and inside the storm there was nothing much anybody could have done. Once the engines had failed the flight was doomed.

    Hmmmmmmmm - I can already see members of the forum come at us again about risks that the pilots take and put passengers in jeopardy.
    Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2010-03-02, 19:23.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is from the original link you posted:

      242 was equipped with weather radar, but the CVR picked up discussion of a "hole" just prior to the cell penetration. It is thought that what the crew saw was a "contour hole", caused by the intensity of the rainfall being so severe that the weather radar could not accurately display it. This phenomenon apparently misled the crew into thinking they could penetrate the storm front through a hole.
      Does this radar anomaly still exist? If it does, I hope pilots have become wise to it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Does this radar anomaly still exist? If it does, I hope pilots have become wise to it.
        It's not an anomaly in the radar, it's part of the regular operating modes. Here's the link to NTSB-AAR-78-03. Read section 1.17.3



        It's also important to note that radars were a lot less sophisitcated at that time.

        BTW - the info about the Southern 242 accident from the link that Myndee gave is pretty crappy. I suggest you all refer to the official NTSB report
        Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2010-03-02, 21:01.

        Comment


        • #5
          I recently read something to the effect that the engines (and the respective fuel injection / management system) were much less sophisticated and were surging, and that had they recognized the surging, they could have throttled back and likely saved the engines.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            I recently read something to the effect that the engines (and the respective fuel injection / management system) were much less sophisticated and were surging, and that had they recognized the surging, they could have throttled back and likely saved the engines.
            The engines were surging because of the heavy rain. Nothing much they could do about it. And a surging engine produces quite some banging... The crew can hardly miss it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Sorry about the original link. I should have posted the NTSB report.

              So there was nothing they could have done to "clear" the surge? The guy on the Air Investigation show made it sound like there was something they could have done.

              Do you think they would have made it to the Moore airport, or was that more wishful thinking?
              I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                So there was nothing they could have done to "clear" the surge? The guy on the Air Investigation show made it sound like there was something they could have done.
                Hmmmmmm - if you want accurate info, better not watch "Air Investigation" Always remember that the TV channels' interest is not to accurately inform us but to get good ratings and as many viewers as possible so they can charge more for the commercials.

                The surge inside both engines on Southern 242 caused the low-speed compressor blades to clash with the stator vanes and the debris was then ingested in the high-speed compressor which was subsequently damaged beyond any possibilty to restart the engines. The guy on Air Investigation would have known that if he had read the NTSB report rather than just the article in TIME or Newsweek on the crash
                There are circumstances where it is possible to clear an engine stall and regain at least partial power, but only as long as the "hot" part of the engine is not too compromised. For the guys on Southern 242, there was nothing they could do.

                Do you think they would have made it to the Moore airport, or was that more wishful thinking?
                Well - I don't know how far Moore airport was for Southern 242 at the time the engines quit. The NTSB and McDonnell-Douglas did a glide performance study on the DC-9-31 and found out that Southern 242 stretched the glide as far as it was at all possible to glide for a DC-9 from that altitude. Quite an achievement by the pilots considering this was not a clear VFR day but they were flying through REALLY bad weather.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I watch Air Investigation because I have a secret crush on Greg Feith!

                  http://www.gregfeith.net/
                  I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Myndee View Post
                    I watch Air Investigation because I have a secret crush on Greg Feith!

                    *lol... Not to put too fine a point on it, but it always irks me in some way when a well-credentialed professional, especially one from an oversight or regulatory institution, switches sides and turns toward "the dark side of the force"... in this case the media.
                    Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2010-03-03, 16:57.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                      The engines were surging because of the heavy rain. Nothing much they could do about it. And a surging engine produces quite some banging... The crew can hardly miss it.
                      What I read, said that they could have throttled back to stop the surging...at least, maybe the turbine/compressor damaging level of surging.

                      As to the crew "hardly missing it", the front of a DC-9 in normal flight is excpetionally quiet because the engines are not on the front of the plane. Then, throw in some heavy rain, turbulence and wind-shield-busting hail, and maybe a crew could likely miss it?
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well - apart from the noise, there are of course indications in the engine instruments that tell you your engines are stalling... besides the fact that power and thrust are dropping

                        Throttling back can help stop the surging, but the way I read the NTSB report the engines were damaged pretty early in the process. So I doubt there is any reason to blame the crew for not throttling back the engines and thereby preventing the damaging engine stall. I wonder where you read that, 3WE.
                        Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2010-03-06, 08:53.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X