The Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star

[FlyingColors]

WOW!
Nice pic!

One of the history books on my shelf must have missed that one....was the ship in service when that happened?!

If I get a chance I'll take another look.... I stand corrected!

Mike

[Derf]

WOW!
Nice pic!

One of the history books on my shelf must have missed that one....was the ship in service when that happened?!

If I get a chance I'll take another look.... I stand corrected!

Mike

This aircraft was written off on JUL 30th, 1992, when it aborted t/o, overrun RWY at JFK and burnt out. Luckily no casualties (292 pax).



NTSB Identification: DCA92MA044 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 46435.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of TRANS WORLD AIRLINES
Accident occurred Thursday, July 30, 1992 in JAMAICA, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/9/1993
Aircraft: LOCKHEED L-1011-385-1, registration: N11002
Injuries: 1 Serious, 9 Minor, 282 Uninjured.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER LIFTOFF THE STICK SHAKER ACTIVATED, AND THE FIRST OFFICER, WHO WAS MAKING THE TAKEOFF, SAID 'YOU GOT IT.' THE CAPTAIN TOOK CONTROL, CLOSED THE THRUST LEVERS, AND LANDED. HE APPLIED FULL REVERSE THRUST AND MAXIMUM BRAKING, AND TURNED THE AIRPLANE OFF THE RUNWAY TO AVOID A BARRIER AT THE END. A SYSTEM DESIGN DEFICIENCY PERMITTED A MALFUNCTIONING AOA SENSOR TO CAUSE A FALSE STALL WARNING. THE SENSOR HAD EXPERIENCED 9 PREVIOUS MALFUNCTIONS, AND WAS INSPECTED AND RETURNED TO SERVICE WITHOUT A DETERMINATION ON THE REASON FOR THE INTERMITTENT MALFUNCTION. THE FIRST OFFICER HAD INCORRECTLY PERCEIVED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS STALLING AND GAVE CONTROL TO THE CAPTAIN WITHOUT PROPER COORDINATION OF THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES IN THE STALL WARNING SYSTEM THAT PERMITTED A DEFECT TO GO UNDETECTED, THE FAILURE OF TWA'S MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO CORRECT A REPETITIVE MALFUNCTION OF THE STALL WARNING SYSTEM, AND INADEQUATE CREW COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CAPTAIN AND FIRST OFFICER THAT RESULTED IN THEIR INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO A FALSE STALL WARNING. (NTSB REPORT AAR-93/04)

[moose135]

This aircraft was written off on JUL 30th, 1992, when it aborted t/o, overrun RWY at JFK and burnt out. Luckily no casualties (292 pax).

My dad is a retired TWA mechanic (retired about 1 1/2 years before this incident) so I remember it well, and we've discussed it many times - actually, we were talking about it a few days after the AF crash in Toronto.

The NTSB report blamed maintenance & the cockpit crew for the incident, but what gets overlooked was that there was a fuel leak and fire as the a/c was on its takeoff roll. There were reports of fire trailing the a/c on the rwy, and TWA maintenance crews who responded along with airport rescue teams saw fuel on the runway. Aborting the takeoff may very well have saved lives, rather than taking a burning a/c up in the air.

[Derf]

I was told by a guy I met that the Pilot put the aircraft down hard and fast
because he knew that he was out of runway but would rather overrun
than have an aircraft that may have been not correctly set for flight....i.e.
systems left in maintenance mode or such..... That may have been the
cause of your fuel on the runway, but would also love to know where it
was on the runway.......probably the end.
I can say that a pilot (If he thinks the plane will not fly) will put a plane
down.....Period.

There are many cases where pilots aborted after V1 due to an engine
stall/birdstrike/bladeloss where the plane was perfectly flyable but the
Pilot did not, or felt the plane could not make an emerengcy landing.
These are things that pilots are very well trained on and practice often,
yet when it does happen, they are sometimes so sure that the aircraft
WILL NOT fly that they do go against ALL TRAINING an abort.


I put myself in his shoes and the stall warning goes off, it is a now or
never second that the pilot must continue till its end. When I would sit in
the 727 and had the stick shaker go off, or the Ground Proximity
warning, or stall...... It made you jump, this guy was a couple of feet in
the air and he decided to put it back down.... It did not matter if his plane
was fully engulfed with flames at that point, He mad a decision that was
to put her down after V1 with no other information than

1. his plane was FLYING
2. Stall warning

and he did an abort......THE PILOT WAS WRONG!


I wish I could come to his defense but those were the only two things he
was aware of and his training trained him otherwise.... If he did have an
aircraft on fire, he would have still made the wrong decision if he did not
know about it. The only reason that a pilot should rush and get it down
quick is Fire. I think the fire was due to slamming the aircraft into the
ground to abort the flight. It sounds logical. If there was fuel flowing
from the wing it should not be a big problem and those aircraft had a F/E
who’s job it was to balance the aircraft fuel.....this would have been
noticed very quickly with a 3 person crew as in the L-10/DC-10/727/747
aircraft.

It is just too clear and if there was any fire, the few hundred or so
passengers would have been screaming bloody murder about why they
HAD to abort. It the passengers did not say anything about it (They
would have by the truckload!) there would not have been a fire.

[PhilDernerJr]

u guys R 2 smart 4 me.

[727C47]

I love that ship too! I remember EA L-10s, and TWA L-10s arriving into JFK,& EWR< and I remember spotting EA L-10s back in '78 flying the Expressway visual into LGA, from the Ridgewood,NJ overlook, which gives a stunning view of the NYC skyline with a 75x refractor, that allowed me to spot high altitude arrivals into JFK close enough to read liveries back when I was a kid in love with all this (still am). Up through early this year I was still seeing Air Transat L-10s in CUN, and a Saudia L-10 at BOS. Great lines, Great ship.

[jakbar]

As "younger" photographers who have never had the privilege of flying on an L1011 (or, in my case, even seeing one), Brian and I have been talking for a long time about going down to BWI to try to catch a picture of the ATA L1011 before its too late. Is that our best bet for catching a picture of an L1011 on the East Coast?

We'd probably try to do this sometime soon before it gets too cold. Does anyone know whether there is any pattern whatsoever to the ATA L1011 arrivals/departures at BWI, or is it completely random?

[Yyz717]

Tom, the fourth was AC. never got a shot but remember seeing one at least 3 or 4 times in the mid-late 80's. replacing several 72S's, DC-9-30's the way the 762/763 replaces several 319's present day on weather/ATC events or sometimes the morning after. For anyone not aware the first 3 Tom is referring to are DL/EA/TW.

Regards LGA777

Of course! Why didn't I think of that! I'm pretty sure AC never scheduled the L10 into LGA, but as you say used it on an ad hoc basis to cover weather delays and backups, much as the AC 763 is now seen occasionally in LGA.

Incidently, AC DID schedule the 762 into LGA (one or two summer or fall periods in the late 80's) for one of the YYZ-LGA dailies.