Air Crash Investigation - Hidden Danger / Mystery Crashes (S04E05)

United Airlines Flight 585 was a scheduled domestic passenger airline flight from the now-decommissioned Stapleton International Airport in Denver to Colorado Springs Municipal Airport in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

On 3 March 1991, the Boeing 737-200, registered N999UA, carrying 20 passengers plus a flight crew of 5 (Captain Harold Green, 52, First Officer Patricia Eidson, 42, and three flight attendants) crashed while on final approach to runway 35 at the Colorado Springs airport. There were no survivors.

Flight 585 suddenly rolled to the right and began to pitch downward, nose first. Attempts to initiate a go-around using a thrust increase and 15-degree flaps were unsuccessful. As the altitude decreased, acceleration increased to 4g. The 737 crashed into nearby Widefield Park, less than four miles from the runway threshold.

Patricia Eidson was the first female pilot to die in an accident involving a United States pure jet airliner.
____________________________________________________________
US Air Flight 427 was a scheduled flight from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport to Pittsburgh, with a final destination of West Palm Beach, Florida. The flight crashed on September 8, 1994, killing everyone on board.

The Boeing 737-3B7 flying the route, registered N513AU, was approaching runway 28R of Pittsburgh International Airport, located in Findlay Township, Pennsylvania. The airport was, at the time, the largest hub for the airline.
____________________________________________________________

Eastwind Airlines Flight 517 was a scheduled flight from Trenton-Mercer Airport in Trenton, New Jersey to Richmond International Airport in Richmond, Virginia. The crew lost rudder control but successfully landed on June 9, 1996. No casualties occurred and one flight attendant suffered only minor injuries. No damage occurred to the airplane as a result of the incident.

The crew of the Boeing 737-200 under the command of captain Brian Bishop experienced loss of rudder control while on approach to Richmond. At the time of the event the airplane's airspeed was about 250 knots and at it was flying at an altitude of about 4,000 feet MSL. The crew experienced unexpected movement of the rudder, causing the airplane to roll to the right. They applied opposite aileron input to keep the plane from rolling over and thirty seconds later the plane righted itself back to leveled flight. As the crew performed the emergency checklist, the plane again rolled over to the right. After another thirty seconds the plane snapped back to leveled flight. The crew declared an emergency and landed safely in Richmond. Investigation of this incident would later help solve two other accidents, United Airlines Flight 585 and USAir Flight 427.

It was later reported that the airplane previously had problems with uncommanded rudder deflections. These reports consisted of "rudder bumps" during departure and a lack of proper trim.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Air Crash Investigation
• ACI
• Mayday
• Air Emergency
• Hidden Danger
• Mystery Crashes
• United Airlines
• Flight 585
• Boeing 737-200
• N999UA
• Security-Widefield
• El Paso County
• Rudder Malfunction
• Patricia Eidson
• US Air
• Flight 427
• Boeing 737-3B7
• N513AU
• Hopewell Township
• Beaver County
• USair
• Eastwind Airlines
• Flight 517
• Richmond
• Virginia
• N221US
• Brian Bishop

[johnsill1]

To send the parts to the manufacturing company to be tested, could this lead to bias in its testing, or not? Just wondering

[SolarSweetheart]

I'm going on holiday by plane soon, lets watch Air Crash Investigation.

[normanjtongmd]

Just how is it that a plane is making such a "normal" approach and suddenly all hell breaks loose? I would expect something snapped, wind shear slammed it or the wing dramatically lost lift. If it was the rudder, were they making a major turn? It seems the thermal shock test points to the possiblility, how probable is it? Couldn't improper position of the piston be a result of wear, manufact. defect, contam hyd fluid, etc --more probable than thermal shock?

Why the boiling hyd fluid?

[hbunnyo]

@puncheex I was thinking myself how long this series could possibly run for. Aviation is the safest it's ever been so new accidents don't really come about. Congratulations on your work. Although I'm sure you've probably heard that enough =P.

[puncheex]

@hbunnyo: Yes, I would think so. I worked on the 2 Viking Martian landers back in the 70s, and we had a long list of thermal testing (as well as vibration and live environment) requirements that were done on a "test article" for the landers. There is no way that thermal shock should have been a surprise. I think maybe the events in the video were dramatized a might. If this had been about an accident in the 50s, perhaps. It's likely the series is beginning to run out of real accidents.

[hbunnyo]

@puncheex I apologise again. Just out of interest. Doesn't Thermal Shock seem like a bit of a simple thing to overlook or had nothing like this ever happened before this event?

[puncheex]

@hbunnyo: What approach would have been better? I'm an engineer; we spend our working lives fixing problems, future, current and even in the past. For someone to come to the conclusion that we don't do anything (in aviation or worse, in general) is incorrect and demeaning. Perhaps you didn't mean that, but that's how it come across.

I think we've managed to beat this to death, and I think you didn't mean what was said. Apology accepted, and I guess we try harder.

[Pebscorner]

and i am going on holiday from Aussie Land to USA soonish by United Airlines ouch; 2000 plane crashes a year -H.E.L.P....

[normanjtongmd]

And they will wonder why I focus on every exit on the plane, head for the tail section seats, check for a life jacket under the seat, bring a respirator from H. Depot, dash out after the plane lands...all because of watching two dozen of these stories!

[hbunnyo]

@puncheex So I apologise for calling you a mad arse.

[hbunnyo]

@puncheex Uneducated and ill-informed is arguing semantics. You are correct I said that, however I did not mean it that way; I made a mistake. Your attacking approach leaves a lot to be desired yourself. I will not repeat what I said in the previous comment, but that explains what I meant to say. What you said about me and my informed view was incorrect. I was applying it to also a broader picture than the aviation industry.

[spacemug1]

@puncheex Oh dear, another one of those replies from someone who clearly hasnt read and understood what I said.