This was very interesting: a few days ago I saw Mentour Pilot's video on the DC-10 that crashed following engine separation, and was surprised by his assertion that the plane might have been able to return safely despite the breakup. I guess this confirms it, though it also shows how difficult a feat of airmanship flying such a plane would be.
The problem was the weight and also the damage , they lose the left flaps and the separation occurred during rotation once the were about v1, it was full with people and cargo with I think more fuel than necessary, considering that they were a 3 reactor loosing 33% of power and not 25%
That aircraft was below minimum control speed for having lost 6 tons of mass out on the wing. In this 747 incident, they had good flying speed to handle the problem, and in addition it was an inboard engine they lost so the roll moment is lower. The 747 also has very effective ailerons and roll spoilers.
It is truly remarkable to understand how excessive and highly unusual forces can damage an aircraft. Those fighter pilots must have been astounded looking at the wing damage. No wonder the pilot was uncertain if the plane would make it back. Great lessons learned and thankfully they made it back to safety.
Never underestimate the forces of natures. No matter how careful, once in awhile you will get whacked out of the blue as it were. This crew was fortunate to survive. Fine presentation thanks.
Genuinely amazing that they managed to get such a crippled bird back on land safely! I really don’t blame the Captain for thinking he wouldn’t get back safely, the damage to the wing is actually terrifying, Jesus Christ
I was living in Anchorage when that happened, took my flight training there too out of Merrill Field. That engine landed in the back yard of the former weather anchor for KTUU Channel 2 news. He heard a trememndous BANG!, went to the rear of his house, and right there in the back yard was this giant somewhat flattened engine. I searched for this and the photos but could not find them.
1. The engines are designed to do that. Not only are underslung engines designed to fall off if there is a massive, uncontrollable fire, they are designed to drop off in extreme turbulence to protect the wing spars. During my training on the 747, they told us to not "wrack it around", or make use of the surprising responsiveness of this 833,000 pound max takeoff weight airplane. The controls are heavy on this airplane, but they do not move full travel, the yoke only moves about 120 degrees left or right. While they are heavy in feel, they are not extreme; I suspect a 10 year old boy could easily fly this airplane. BUT it feels "heavy". What I am getting at is that it is quite easy to roll this big airplane left and right. I'm not sure what the roll rate is, but I guess it would only take about 3-4 seconds to put it's wings 90 degrees to the ground. What you have to think about is that those engine assemblies? They are 13,000 pounds each. And especially the outboards, they are about 130 feet from the centerline of the airframe. Imagine the amount of torque the engine pylon is exposed to if 13,000 pounds on a 130 foot long pole is suddenly rotated 90 degrees in 3-4 seconds then stopped; I was told that continuous back and forth rolling CAN throw an engine off this airplane! 2. When I flew at CKS, one of my friends there, a fellow first officer, did a trip from Anchorage to Chicago, and then on to New York JFK airport. The captain [Johnny, former Eastern SCAB, and as usual with these people...A bizarrely socialized ASSHOLE~] flew the first leg to Chicago, and my friend was to fly to JFK. They took off normally out of ORD, and passing through 18,000 feet over Lake Michigan, they lost an engine. Yes, they lost an engine... All the gauges showed the leftmost #1 engine at zero. They leveled off, ran the appropriate checklists, and since by this point they were over Michigan and on a perfect weather evening had Detroit's Wayne County International airport visible right in front of them, they elected to land there. When all the checklists were run, captain Johnny Asshole decided to flip on the wing lights and see what was out there, since you can see the outboard engines on these airplanes in flight. He immediately said "We lost the engine!", to which my friend said, "Yes, I can see that". "No, we LOST the engine. It isn't there, it fell off the wing!" Yes, that is exactly what happened. It turns out later that they recovered the engine from Lake Michigan, and these are held on by three bolts, two at the front and one at the rear. The weld on flange on the engine that attached to that rear bolt had failed and the whole engine assembly apparently broke off and went over the top of the wing missing the empennage by a few feet. From what I have read from the NTSB report, they do not know why this happened, since this was a remanufactured engine that had been recently X-rayed in this area. -I saw the front portion of the recovered engine in the garage area of Kalitta Air, and it looked kind of like a giant beer can that had been crushed down... Funny part of all this: My friend about three weeks later is in the interview of his life (!) with a major cargo airline that shall remain nameless but might fly out of Louisville. The interviewer asks, "Hey, you work at Kalitta? I heard about three weeks ago that one of your planes lost an engine. You know anything about this? "Uhm, yeah I do, I was uhm, flying it at the time." He got the big job and works there to this day!
I remember when this happened. I think it was only in the news for one day. At least on the east coast where I lived. Basically all I knew was the #2 engine pylon failed catastrophically in severe turbulence and departed from the plane and took it's engine with it. The plane returned to the airport and landed safely. That report and this video are a far cry from each other. This was actually quite a bit dicier than I'd been led to believe. It is a great demonstration of how well the 747 was designed and built. I really enjoyed your video. It was very well researched and presented. There is one tiny, little, minor, thing I'm going to call you on though, only because I'm an aviation nerd and a fan of the 747. While you were showing the photo of the plane after it had landed, you comment that it looked as if the wing was only hanging by a thread. In fact, the structure of the 747 wing is very robust. For the majority of the wings span, it has redundant wing spars. Many planes have only front and rear spars. The structure of the pylon failed, however the wings structure was not compromised. Because of the where the pylon first failed, the front of the engine pivoted upwards, wrenching itself from the rest of the mounts and continuing up and over the wing, before heading for the ground. As it wrenched around the leading edge of the wing, the sheet metal that is the skin of the wing was crushed, torn and crumpled. Also, some of the control, power, and hydraulic lines that run just behind the leading edge would have been damaged as well. Moving through the air at speed, sections of the damaged sheet metal would have been torn and peeled away, or simply bent back over the wing behind it. While that photo looks horrible, the majority of the damage is only "skin deep". If some part of the main wing structure had been compromised, it most likely would not have been economically practical to repair the plane. There was much more than thread keeping that wing in place. PS, I subscribed.
Thank you for the explanation of the B747 wing design. I enjoy science, technology and engineering stuff, so this is fascinating. An engine falling off due to turbulence sounds quite strange though, I have to admit. I wonder how an Airbus A330 wing spar and engine mount would have handled the situations described in this video and your account of said accident.
That's not going to help at all. The engine pylon is designed to do exactly what occurred here. The pylon is designed for extremely high fore/aft load (for engine thrust), but to shear off when excessive side loads are applied. If the pylon was built not to shear (or we add additional pylons) then the side load of the engine in extreme airplane upsets would simply rip the wing off. To counter that problem the wing would need to be designed with so much weight for increased strength that the airplane would either never fly or have such a reduced range that it's not an efficient airplane (no one would buy it).
I just found your channel and love your great work and thank you so much for it! I just watched your previous vids and in one you mentioned you went back to school while still hoping to get back in the cockpit. That’s a good plan of course but never give up trying to get back even if takes years. I’m a retired flight attendant and when I started in the late 70’s in the US, deregulation was causing great turbulence for aviation professionals. I went through two bankruptcies and being furloughed three times with five different airline over 3 years until I finally flew with a winner. (For a star flight attendant initial training is usually only three weeks, but imagine doing that 5 times in three years. It was so discouraging and stressful financially and emotionally--but how glad I am that I had the tenacity to stay with it for a years-- to do what I really loved for decades. As they say in French “bon courage” and I wish you all the best.
Awesome again! Precise, concise, informative, and entertaining. I never heard about this incident either. Thank you for taking the time and effort in making this video. Seeing that aircraft parked after the pilot manhandled it back to the airport I can't believe the wing didn't fall off! Scary!👏👍❤🇺🇸
I believe but don’t quite me, Evergreen International airlines as per photo were not linked or to be confused with the Taiwanese Evergreen group who own the ships and EVA air etc.
Seeing that picture with the damaged wing makes me wonder just how that plane was still able to fly... How is that wing even able to provide lift through aerodynamics?
The 747 that crashed in Amsterdam also had severe damage to one wing, but that aircraft lost 2 engines. It was able to fly for several minutes, but when they had to slow down for landing, it rolled over.
The entire wing would still have been producing lift, though the damaged section would be producing significantly less than usual... which is not a good combination with a missing engine on that side. The load bearing capacity of the wing doesn't appear to have been significantly compromised, though. The spar appears to be in tact. That being said, some very weird and unexpected aerodynamic loads certainly would have been generated by the air flow over the portion of the wing where the leading edge was missing. Most likely significant extra drag and turbulence. Also, 3 gs lateral loading is insane. They're lucky that only the one engine and no control surfaces separated. The rudder and v-stab must have had tremendous loading between the wind shear and the large rudder deflection required to keep the aircraft flying straight after the engine and slats separated.
What is aerodynamics when we have a miracle working God! Jesus died for us so that we can be saved! When all else fails God doesn't! Aerodynamics may leave but the Lord will not leave nor forsake us.
9:41 Gotta add something here. Design limits are made with safety buffers in mind. So while it says that the engines can handle 2.8 G's, it's pretty clear (noted by the three still-attached engines) that the actual limit is somewhere just above 3 G's. Dare I say, it's likely 11% higher than 3 G's. Engineers learned decades ago that people like to push the limits. For safety's sake, engineers tend to declare any 'maximum' somewhere below the actual maximum. When something does fail, it tends to show the actual maximum- the point of failure.
It would be interesting to compare this to El Al out Schiphol. Number three engine detached and took off number four. A cargo 747. No one onboard survived. Quite a few on the ground were killed also as it crashed into an eleven story apartment complex.
So what years were you there? Where did you go after Evergreen? Did you happen to fly out of McChord? At least, several flight engineers were also in the Reserve.
Great they managed to land safely. One point- Evergreen International was an aviation company headquartered in McMinville, OR. It was a completely separate entity from Evergreen Marine, based in Taiwan.
Very educational re-telling of a spectacular aviation incident that did not get much news coverage simply because the crew skillfully brought the plane back safely👏👏👍👍 A mention too have to be added to the Boeing repair teams that are quickly organized and despatched to the wounded aircraft wherever it may be to carry out the repairs. I witnessed this highly skilled team repaired a B747 that had suffered a nose wheel-well damage. It required the replacement of the entire chin of the airplane from the forward bulkhead to the electronics bay just aft of the nose wheel-well, and below the cabin window line. This same team of engineers and structures mechanics after completing the repairs in Singapore then packed their gear and moved over to Hongkong to perform another repair on another B747F that suffered catastrophic damage during an aborted T/O.
@1:15 It's fun that the cargo plane departed from the North Terminal in the recreation. This terminal is generally used for international passenger flights. The cargo area is quite a bit north from that in reality. Not upset, it's just rare to see my local airport on these videos. :)
It seems interesting to me that ANC would still operate a separate international passenger terminal. I know it was very common for trans-Pacific passenger flights to stop there back in the day, but ANC only has a few international passenger flights now, as far as I know. Especially if you don't count flights to Canada, which don't need immigration facilities anyway (due to pre-clearance facilities at the Canadian airports for U.S.-bound flights.) It looks like seasonal flights to Frankfurt and a flight to Kamchatka that only happens a few times per year are the only ones once Canada is excluded. Of course, there are still tons of international cargo flights in and out of Anchorage every day. Probably more 747s there than any other airport in the U.S. these days.
I can tell you a little of the history of this airplane which I may have worked on twice in my career as an aircraft mechanic. I first came into contact with this plane when it came out of long term storage at Lockheed Commercial Aircraft at Norton AFB and then again when it came in for heavy maintenance at Evergreen at the Pinal Air Park in Arizona. I used to think my instructors were nuts when they said that the 747 is built to toss a departing engine over the top of the wing. Then it showed up in a crash investigation show. I was amazed because that engine weighs 8,470 lbs.
There was a similar accident approximately 1 year earlier in 1992, where an EL AL flight 1862, where a B747 also had an inboard engine detached at takeoff, and the plane crashed into a social housing apartment block. So the EL AL accident actually precedes this one.
Hi Paul. Correct. The inboard, #3, detached, and also took off #4. Brutal. As you say, others on the ground were killed. But it wasn't turbulence. I believe it was a structural/maintenance issue. Still, similar as you state. Pylons should never ever fail.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Hi, think in this Japan Airlines flight, structural fatigue did play a part, but as the NTSB acknowledged, there was inadequate procedure for the maitenance checking of them, and no one could have foreseen the impact this would have on fatigued pylons. and in the case of the EL AL flight , there too was not an adequate procedure for the checking & maitenance of the engine fuse pins . Boeing further strengthened these pins and revised the maitenance procedure to include ultrasonic checking.
@@paulsz6194 Hi Paul. Thanks. No problems here. When you check out this B747 in Schiphol I think you will be interested, although saddened as well. It was difficult.
@@EvanBear at the end of the video, he mentions that the airliner was scrapped after another 8 years of flying in 2001. As cool as they are, 747s aren't really economical to operate anymore. 9/11 along with rising fuel costs mostly killed wide body passenger airplanes like the 747.
Sounds erially similar to the EL AL Cargo plane that sadly ended in disaster when it crashed into an apartment block in Amsterdam. Fortunately in the Japan Airlines Cargo incident no one was seriously hurt or worse killed.
I was at the Airport that day. I was driving that yellow fire truck parked in front of the missing engine. The crew took the plane out over the water adjacent to Anchorage as they as they had serious doubts that they would be able to maintain control. It was so lucky the falling engine didn't hit anyone as it landed in the parking lot at a shopping mall on the east side of town. One piece of the leading edge slats did tear through the roof of a home near the mall, but nobody was injured. And one more small piece of trivia, that not many know is this. Bruce Willis went on to destroy the plane in Die Hard 2. Not really of course, but this is the same aircraft that was leased to the production company for filming the scene of the terrorists taking off in a 747 that Bruce manages to blow up with a lighter.
The wing mounted engines are not stressed for left/right side loads, only fore and aft loads. A Boing KC-135 got caught in the wake from a preceding C-5 and rolled into an uncoordinated 90 degree bank and 3 of the 4 engines broke off. They landed safely.
Fantastic videos, and love your (more Swiss, than Austrian, actually) accent. One nit: I observed a pattern where you say things like "all but unforeseeable", when really what you mean is the opposite: all but foreseeable, meaning it is everything except that it can be foreseen. Keep it up, man, these are great.
This is a great example of how even when everyone does everything right, reality can bitchslap and murder you any time. Fortunately, things were done so right that the aircraft - and those onboard - survived.
Half a year before this incident, a 747 crashed in Amsterdam also after a detached engine. This engine then struck another engine, which separated. This crew was lucky!
The plane in the simulation is a -800 model, while the incident airplane was a -100 model. In the digitally controlled 747s the throttle lever will stay put, but in the manually controlled -100s the loss of the engine could move the throttle purely mechanically by the cables.
Fantastic flying by the crew. Imagine the insurance agents getting those calls from customers making claims. "Yea so my car has been destroyed.....yes.... by a jet engine....no it didnt get sucked in , it fell from the sky....no this isnt a prank call.....yes its out there now"
There was an accident where a 707 out of SFO lost an engine and wing outboard of the engine. It managed to make a safe emergency landing at Travis AFB several miles northeast of San Francisco. A 747 lost an engine in the Netherlands but they also lost most of their hydraulic systems and control of the airplane. The 747 crashed into an apartment building and killed many people on the ground.
I was going to mention this, so glad you did. That El AL cargo flight wasn't so lucky in Netherlands. Losing hydraulics was the problem. It is also what doomed the DC-10 in Chicago that lost an engine. 747 has more redundancy than DC-10 I think on hydraulics but even that wasn't enough that time.
@@antinotis There was another DC-10 crash you have covered that lost all hydraulics after an uncontained engine failure. The only control the pilots had was asymmetric thrust to the engines. They were able to perform a crash landing that 184 of the people aboard survived. Everyone on that plane should have died, but more than half survived thanks to the heroic efforts of the crew and a dead heading 3rd pilot. That is probably one of the most extraordinary stories in aviation, United Airlines Flight 232
How can a wind sheer produce a force strong enough to rip off a engine pylon? I've designed such frames and the amount of engineering and stress calculations going into such design is huge. Just incredible 🤔 Thanks for a well produced video. 👍
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I can only surmise that the pylons and engine mounts were damaged/fatigued/cracked after 23 years of flying and they were therefore weaker than the investigators thought. (The video mentioned one crack -- perhaps there were others.)
“No other 747 physically lost an engine after the aircraft described in this video” - Not true. I can think of at least one example, Kalitta Air flight 825. They lost an engine over Lake Michigan in 2004.
After alL the adverse comments about Boeing it`s good to see that they USED to be able to build a resiliant aircraft. That`s the way evolution SHOULD work (survival of the fittest), good luck,BUT I`m for Airbus.
747 is the toughest passenger bird ever to fly. There is a plethora of evidence to support. I guess statistically the 777 is the safest, but the 47 is just....amazing. I flew back and forth to Korea for years on that ratty old thing out of SF. I was sad the day it was replaced by the 787. But when we got to Korea I was happy for the new plane too lol.
This accident was incredibly similar to 2 previous 747 accidents, El Al Flight 1862 and China Airlines Flight 358. In those cases, Boeing 747s had engines detach whilst climbing out after takeoff but the crews in these cases werent so lucky as the crew in this case and their aircraft ultimately rolled over and crashed into the ground. Investigations into both cases found that the fuse pins that connect the engine and pylon to the wing had suffered fatigue which lead to the engine detachment.
Fortunately, the crew of this Boeing 747 freighter managed to return safely unlike El Al flight 1862 6 months before which lost both engines 3 and 4 after takeoff.
One solution is to make the air visible. At those nearby mountain peaks and tops of ridges along those valleys reaching towards the airport install colored smoke generators that activate when winds coming over towards the airport reach a certain speed. At least will give a visual that rough air exists above the airport.
Nothing to do with the incident itself but I like that the video shows Lake Spenard and Lake Hood, which combined is a large seaplane base next to Ted Stevens International Airport.
I remember this and I always think of it when I am near where the engine fell. I have flown out of ANC hundreds is not thousands of time over 35 years and when there are high winds over he mountains turbulence departing and approaching ANC is normal. It just about always smooths out the last 1000’. It’s funny to watch people with worried looks are we are bouncing around on approach. It seems the FAA now favors using the North runway on windy days.
1:50 Between the aircraft and the right side edge of the video is a fake tree. We know it's fake airfields don't have trees as they're a collision risk ! In fact, you can see where a wing has already sliced part way through it :)
This looks a bit like the failure of the engine Pylons of El Al flight 1862 in 1992, which lost an engine due to fatigue. But in that case, the ripped of engine hit the other engine, causing the loss of this engine as well resulting in crash of the Boeing in Amsterdam, killing 47 people. So it looks like the pylons of the 747 had too little margin at that time. Edit: I am not the only one seeing the parallel.
Nice video. I am a bit surprised that you didn’t mention the similar incidents with the 747 engine separations on the El Al Schipol crash or the China Airlines Taipei crash.
First, let me correct the presenter's comment about this aircraft's owner. It was owned and operated by Evergreen International Airlines of McMinnville, Oregon which has nothing to do with the container shipping company based in Taiwan whose cargo ship got stuck in the Suez Canal earlier this year. I worked for Evergreen Int'l Airlines and had conversations with their chief powerplant engineer who investigated this incident. I would appreciate a retraction statement from "Airspace" UA-cam channel owner to this effect. Evergreen International Airlines had a stellar safety record and this engine separation incident was no fault of the airline.
Nobody said the airline was to blame for the fault, as I stated in the video. You are correct though, the airline and the shipping company seem unrelated. Mistake on my part.
Note on the description, it wasn't Ted Ste(v)ens Airport yet, that came in 2000. It's a bit of a morbid and dubious honor, because he survived a crash at the airport in 1978 that killed his wife, and himself died in an airplane crash in 2010. Doesn't seem like the best name to associate with an airport, despite his own WW2 flying career.
I know of one other 747 which lost an engine over one of the great lakes in 2004 or 2005. I saw it on the ramp in DTW after it landed, and it was definitely short one motor.
Pylons must be weak, because its better to lose just one engine (or even more engines) than lose whole wing and plane will crash, because wings are generating lift (asymmetric lift -> continuous roll like a windmill).
I was the Cessna 185 just crossing the McKenzie Point direct to Merrill field. My son and I were relocating from Nome to Merrill field for a friend. The 747 was just coming around after the engine separation. Merrill Tower cleared us to land. I requested the crosswind runway. Tower thought I was nuts. Winds were gusts were very high. So it was interesting. I wanted to land on the lee side of the trees on the cross wind runway under the curl. Very rough till about fifty feet then went practically dead calm. Owner if the aircraft and friend came out on the taxis way to help walk the aircraft back to the owners tie-down. I went and took a shower and if I drank would have had a drink.
I worked at Evergreen when this happened . The 2 planes were taking fish canneries to Russia in exchange for rare hardwoods you cannot get in the states and yes they were very heavy loads . The same plane that lost the number 2 engine was used in the movie Die Hard 2 and an ominous sign was in the movie a bad guy was ingested in you guessed it the number 2 engine . Also this Evergreen has nothing to do with the Taiwanese shipping company Evergreen , the Evergreen airlines company made most of its money contracting with the CIA . Evergreen airlines went bankrupt but facilities built by the government such as the DOD and ARMY at the Arizona base that I worked at are still in operation today. A Boeing 707 also crashed at the Pinal air park when I worked there it was very surreal to watch .
FYI the "Evergreen" cited as the owner and operator of the flight was almost certainly Evergreen Aviation, based in McMinnville Oregon. Back at that time they did a lot of this type of work. They owned several 747s, some of which are now parked at the Evergreen Aviation Museum, outside the building that contains the Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose". One of those might be the one in this video! Evergreen had a long and interesting history, including running flights for the CIA in Vietnam in the 1960s, doing a lot of firefighting, and building the first 747 tanker for firefighting but they could not get approval from the Forest Service to try it. The Chinese company Evergreen did not exist back in the time of this incident.
Uh, the Evergreen Group did exist in 1993. It was founded in 1975. They even have an airline then, having just established EVA Air in 1991. Note the name - they wanted to name it Evergreen Airways, but they changed it to avoid confusion with Evergreen International Airlines, the airline in this incident.
What year was this? Ahhh in 1993. So that's just after this crash in Holland! There was the same thing here in Holland. It was 4 October 1992. A cargo 747 (flight LY-1862) from ELAL departed. Over the densely populated part of amsterdam the 3rd engine brake of and destroying the outer engine also. It slammed into a large flat and caused a lot of damage and deaths. It was not high, due to the heavy weight. Looks exactly the same problem. I think the bolts were worn down / not many bolts to hold that engine.
Back when Boeing made great airplanes with high integrity design. The MAX would probably just noise down to the ground if the same weather condition happened.
IT HAPPENED AGAIN... El Al airlines crash in the Netherlands in 1992 was due to 2 eninge detachment. The first engine broke off and slammed into the other one shortly after take off and the airplane crashed in lto a residential building.
Just have to point this out... Evergreen, the container company, is *not* the same as Evergreen International Airlines, the CIA front business. Coincidentally, you can ride a water slide through one of the Evergreen International jets that was involved in Iran Contra now in McMinneville, OR. Mistake is @1:13.
This all begs the question. Why, if the wind conditions were so treacherous as attested to by several pilots and flights that day, were all these birds cleared to take off and fly?
@Airspace Question ? when the pilots of Boeing 747 found out one engine was not working would it not have been easier to have shut down power to missing engine and also compensate shut down one other engine on the other side ? that way they could have had 2 working engines to stabilize the aircraft yeah ?
It's actually incredible they managed to get back safely!
Spoiled
SPOILER ALERT! 😔
There designed to fall off no issue
Yeah, the fact that no other airline ever actually made it back with an engine fallen off is insane.
This was very interesting: a few days ago I saw Mentour Pilot's video on the DC-10 that crashed following engine separation, and was surprised by his assertion that the plane might have been able to return safely despite the breakup. I guess this confirms it, though it also shows how difficult a feat of airmanship flying such a plane would be.
As they say “aviate, navigate, communicate”.
Well done to all the crew on that 747. Birds with broken wings tend not to fly.
They bought there speed back to V2 now we have different procedures
@Alfred Weber if a lot of things has gone differently since none of the replication crews managed to land either
The problem was the weight and also the damage , they lose the left flaps and the separation occurred during rotation once the were about v1, it was full with people and cargo with I think more fuel than necessary, considering that they were a 3 reactor loosing 33% of power and not 25%
That aircraft was below minimum control speed for having lost 6 tons of mass out on the wing. In this 747 incident, they had good flying speed to handle the problem, and in addition it was an inboard engine they lost so the roll moment is lower. The 747 also has very effective ailerons and roll spoilers.
It is truly remarkable to understand how excessive and highly unusual forces can damage an aircraft. Those fighter pilots must have been astounded looking at the wing damage. No wonder the pilot was uncertain if the plane would make it back. Great lessons learned and thankfully they made it back to safety.
this is another one where I knew a little about it but you went and dug up a TON more info that I'd never heard, such great work!
thank you :)
1:10 The American owned Evergreen Airlines and the cargo shipping company Evergreen Marine are not the same company
I’d never heard of this incident - thank you for describing it so eloquently. I’ve subbed…!! 😊
Never underestimate the forces of natures. No matter how careful, once in awhile you will get whacked out of the blue as it were. This crew was fortunate to survive. Fine presentation thanks.
Genuinely amazing that they managed to get such a crippled bird back on land safely! I really don’t blame the Captain for thinking he wouldn’t get back safely, the damage to the wing is actually terrifying, Jesus Christ
And well done to him on his professionalism for keeping that quiet until they landed - and still trying his best to get the thing down 🏆
I find amazing that the pilot/crew despite the dire situation literately brought it to the best possible outcome.
Thankyou for this story - I have never heard of it before! It reminded me of the El-Al crash in Amsterdam, where another pylon failed.
I was living in Anchorage when that happened, took my flight training there too out of Merrill Field. That engine landed in the back yard of the former weather anchor for KTUU Channel 2 news. He heard a trememndous BANG!, went to the rear of his house, and right there in the back yard was this giant somewhat flattened engine. I searched for this and the photos but could not find them.
Did he have a son named Donny Darko?
I've reached out to a friend who worked at KTUU at the time to see if any of this original footage may still be in the archive...
1. The engines are designed to do that. Not only are underslung engines designed to fall off if there is a massive, uncontrollable fire, they are designed to drop off in extreme turbulence to protect the wing spars.
During my training on the 747, they told us to not "wrack it around", or make use of the surprising responsiveness of this 833,000 pound max takeoff weight airplane. The controls are heavy on this airplane, but they do not move full travel, the yoke only moves about 120 degrees left or right. While they are heavy in feel, they are not extreme; I suspect a 10 year old boy could easily fly this airplane. BUT it feels "heavy".
What I am getting at is that it is quite easy to roll this big airplane left and right. I'm not sure what the roll rate is, but I guess it would only take about 3-4 seconds to put it's wings 90 degrees to the ground. What you have to think about is that those engine assemblies? They are 13,000 pounds each. And especially the outboards, they are about 130 feet from the centerline of the airframe. Imagine the amount of torque the engine pylon is exposed to if 13,000 pounds on a 130 foot long pole is suddenly rotated 90 degrees in 3-4 seconds then stopped; I was told that continuous back and forth rolling CAN throw an engine off this airplane!
2. When I flew at CKS, one of my friends there, a fellow first officer, did a trip from Anchorage to Chicago, and then on to New York JFK airport. The captain [Johnny, former Eastern SCAB, and as usual with these people...A bizarrely socialized ASSHOLE~] flew the first leg to Chicago, and my friend was to fly to JFK. They took off normally out of ORD, and passing through 18,000 feet over Lake Michigan, they lost an engine. Yes, they lost an engine...
All the gauges showed the leftmost #1 engine at zero. They leveled off, ran the appropriate checklists, and since by this point they were over Michigan and on a perfect weather evening had Detroit's Wayne County International airport visible right in front of them, they elected to land there. When all the checklists were run, captain Johnny Asshole decided to flip on the wing lights and see what was out there, since you can see the outboard engines on these airplanes in flight. He immediately said "We lost the engine!", to which my friend said, "Yes, I can see that".
"No, we LOST the engine. It isn't there, it fell off the wing!"
Yes, that is exactly what happened. It turns out later that they recovered the engine from Lake Michigan, and these are held on by three bolts, two at the front and one at the rear. The weld on flange on the engine that attached to that rear bolt had failed and the whole engine assembly apparently broke off and went over the top of the wing missing the empennage by a few feet. From what I have read from the NTSB report, they do not know why this happened, since this was a remanufactured engine that had been recently X-rayed in this area.
-I saw the front portion of the recovered engine in the garage area of Kalitta Air, and it looked kind of like a giant beer can that had been crushed down...
Funny part of all this: My friend about three weeks later is in the interview of his life (!) with a major cargo airline that shall remain nameless but might fly out of Louisville. The interviewer asks, "Hey, you work at Kalitta? I heard about three weeks ago that one of your planes lost an engine. You know anything about this?
"Uhm, yeah I do, I was uhm, flying it at the time." He got the big job and works there to this day!
The sound effects at 8 min mark was a nice touch
I remember when this happened. I think it was only in the news for one day. At least on the east coast where I lived. Basically all I knew was the #2 engine pylon failed catastrophically in severe turbulence and departed from the plane and took it's engine with it. The plane returned to the airport and landed safely.
That report and this video are a far cry from each other. This was actually quite a bit dicier than I'd been led to believe.
It is a great demonstration of how well the 747 was designed and built.
I really enjoyed your video. It was very well researched and presented.
There is one tiny, little, minor, thing I'm going to call you on though, only because I'm an aviation nerd and a fan of the 747.
While you were showing the photo of the plane after it had landed, you comment that it looked as if the wing was only hanging by a thread.
In fact, the structure of the 747 wing is very robust. For the majority of the wings span, it has redundant wing spars. Many planes have only front and rear spars. The structure of the pylon failed, however the wings structure was not compromised.
Because of the where the pylon first failed, the front of the engine pivoted upwards, wrenching itself from the rest of the mounts and continuing up and over the wing, before heading for the ground. As it wrenched around the leading edge of the wing, the sheet metal that is the skin of the wing was crushed, torn and crumpled. Also, some of the control, power, and hydraulic lines that run just behind the leading edge would have been damaged as well.
Moving through the air at speed, sections of the damaged sheet metal would have been torn and peeled away, or simply bent back over the wing behind it.
While that photo looks horrible, the majority of the damage is only "skin deep".
If some part of the main wing structure had been compromised, it most likely would not have been economically practical to repair the plane.
There was much more than thread keeping that wing in place.
PS, I subscribed.
Thank you for the explanation of the B747 wing design. I enjoy science, technology and engineering stuff, so this is fascinating. An engine falling off due to turbulence sounds quite strange though, I have to admit. I wonder how an Airbus A330 wing spar and engine mount would have handled the situations described in this video and your account of said accident.
it was also shown as a 747-8 but it wasnt, had to either be a 100 or 200.
This airframe was used for filming Die Hard 2, before this accident, and you can make out the Evergreen livery.
Everyone else:
Me: "You must construct additional pylons."
oh god haha 😄
That's not going to help at all. The engine pylon is designed to do exactly what occurred here. The pylon is designed for extremely high fore/aft load (for engine thrust), but to shear off when excessive side loads are applied. If the pylon was built not to shear (or we add additional pylons) then the side load of the engine in extreme airplane upsets would simply rip the wing off. To counter that problem the wing would need to be designed with so much weight for increased strength that the airplane would either never fly or have such a reduced range that it's not an efficient airplane (no one would buy it).
Just so you know it wasnt a serious suggestion but a Starcraft reference.
The 747 is one tough, resilient, well designed machine.
I just found your channel and love your great work and thank you so much for it! I just watched your previous vids and in one you mentioned you went back to school while still hoping to get back in the cockpit. That’s a good plan of course but never give up trying to get back even if takes years. I’m a retired flight attendant and when I started in the late 70’s in the US, deregulation was causing great turbulence for aviation professionals. I went through two bankruptcies and being furloughed three times with five different airline over 3 years until I finally flew with a winner. (For a star flight attendant initial training is usually only three weeks, but imagine doing that 5 times in three years. It was so discouraging and stressful financially and emotionally--but how glad I am that I had the tenacity to stay with it for a years-- to do what I really loved for decades. As they say in French “bon courage” and I wish you all the best.
Thank you so much for your nice comment :) Fortunately, I'm due to return to active duty in february after two years of not flying... Can't wait!
@@AirspaceVideos 😄
@@AirspaceVideos Congratulations!
Awesome again! Precise, concise, informative, and entertaining. I never heard about this incident either. Thank you for taking the time and effort in making this video. Seeing that aircraft parked after the pilot manhandled it back to the airport I can't believe the wing didn't fall off! Scary!👏👍❤🇺🇸
This airplane was featured in Diehard 2 in the final sequence. Fun trivia fact.
@@bibblybobbly9951 lmao
@@bibblybobbly9951 well the demo reel showed it certainly had that yippee kai yay spirit! 👍
Coincidentally, in the movie Major Grant was chewed by the no. 2 engine.
The engine that was ripped off in this accident? The no. 2 engine!
I really like that background theme music that you always put on. It makes me ponder whenever it comes on
I believe but don’t quite me, Evergreen International airlines as per photo were not linked or to be confused with the Taiwanese Evergreen group who own the ships and EVA air etc.
Impressive flight crew.
Seeing that picture with the damaged wing makes me wonder just how that plane was still able to fly... How is that wing even able to provide lift through aerodynamics?
Unbelievable, right?
The 747 that crashed in Amsterdam also had severe damage to one wing, but that aircraft lost 2 engines. It was able to fly for several minutes, but when they had to slow down for landing, it rolled over.
The entire wing would still have been producing lift, though the damaged section would be producing significantly less than usual... which is not a good combination with a missing engine on that side. The load bearing capacity of the wing doesn't appear to have been significantly compromised, though. The spar appears to be in tact. That being said, some very weird and unexpected aerodynamic loads certainly would have been generated by the air flow over the portion of the wing where the leading edge was missing. Most likely significant extra drag and turbulence.
Also, 3 gs lateral loading is insane. They're lucky that only the one engine and no control surfaces separated. The rudder and v-stab must have had tremendous loading between the wind shear and the large rudder deflection required to keep the aircraft flying straight after the engine and slats separated.
The same thing happened to American Airlines flight 191, which led to the worst crash on US soil.
What is aerodynamics when we have a miracle working God! Jesus died for us so that we can be saved! When all else fails God doesn't! Aerodynamics may leave but the Lord will not leave nor forsake us.
9:41 Gotta add something here. Design limits are made with safety buffers in mind. So while it says that the engines can handle 2.8 G's, it's pretty clear (noted by the three still-attached engines) that the actual limit is somewhere just above 3 G's. Dare I say, it's likely 11% higher than 3 G's. Engineers learned decades ago that people like to push the limits. For safety's sake, engineers tend to declare any 'maximum' somewhere below the actual maximum. When something does fail, it tends to show the actual maximum- the point of failure.
It would be interesting to compare this to El Al out Schiphol. Number three engine detached and took off number four. A cargo 747. No one onboard survived. Quite a few on the ground were killed also as it crashed into an eleven story apartment complex.
Evergreen International Airlines is Not Evergreen shipping containers.. I know, ex-747 EV pilot.
So what years were you there? Where did you go after Evergreen? Did you happen to fly out of McChord? At least, several flight engineers were also in the Reserve.
Great they managed to land safely.
One point- Evergreen International was an aviation company headquartered in McMinville, OR. It was a completely separate entity from Evergreen Marine, based in Taiwan.
Ups. Hope it gets pinned.
Very educational re-telling of a spectacular aviation incident that did not get much news coverage simply because the crew skillfully brought the plane back safely👏👏👍👍
A mention too have to be added to the Boeing repair teams that are quickly organized and despatched to the wounded aircraft wherever it may be to carry out the repairs. I witnessed this highly skilled team repaired a B747 that had suffered a nose wheel-well damage. It required the replacement of the entire chin of the airplane from the forward bulkhead to the electronics bay just aft of the nose wheel-well, and below the cabin window line. This same team of engineers and structures mechanics after completing the repairs in Singapore then packed their gear and moved over to Hongkong to perform another repair on another B747F that suffered catastrophic damage during an aborted T/O.
@1:15 It's fun that the cargo plane departed from the North Terminal in the recreation. This terminal is generally used for international passenger flights. The cargo area is quite a bit north from that in reality.
Not upset, it's just rare to see my local airport on these videos. :)
Haha, well... I actually wondered where I should put the plane in the sim... I don't know ANC at all, so I just picked one!
It seems interesting to me that ANC would still operate a separate international passenger terminal. I know it was very common for trans-Pacific passenger flights to stop there back in the day, but ANC only has a few international passenger flights now, as far as I know. Especially if you don't count flights to Canada, which don't need immigration facilities anyway (due to pre-clearance facilities at the Canadian airports for U.S.-bound flights.) It looks like seasonal flights to Frankfurt and a flight to Kamchatka that only happens a few times per year are the only ones once Canada is excluded. Of course, there are still tons of international cargo flights in and out of Anchorage every day. Probably more 747s there than any other airport in the U.S. these days.
I can tell you a little of the history of this airplane which I may have worked on twice in my career as an aircraft mechanic. I first came into contact with this plane when it came out of long term storage at Lockheed Commercial Aircraft at Norton AFB and then again when it came in for heavy maintenance at Evergreen at the Pinal Air Park in Arizona. I used to think my instructors were nuts when they said that the 747 is built to toss a departing engine over the top of the wing. Then it showed up in a crash investigation show. I was amazed because that engine weighs 8,470 lbs.
I’ve never heard of this incident. Crazy!!!
Very nice job telling the stores. I’m liking this channel more and more. Please keep them coming.
Thank you! I sure will :)
Same here, nice work
Good video. Loved your detailed descriptions. Also an amazing effort by the crew to land that plane.
This 747 was the exact one in Die Hard 2 movie
There was a similar accident approximately 1 year earlier in 1992, where an EL AL flight 1862, where a B747 also had an inboard engine detached at takeoff, and the plane crashed into a social housing apartment block. So the EL AL accident actually precedes this one.
Hi Paul. Correct. The inboard, #3, detached, and also took off #4. Brutal. As you say, others on the ground were killed. But it wasn't turbulence. I believe it was a structural/maintenance issue. Still, similar as you state. Pylons should never ever fail.
@@roderickcampbell2105 Hi, think in this Japan Airlines flight, structural fatigue did play a part, but as the NTSB acknowledged, there was inadequate procedure for the maitenance checking of them, and no one could have foreseen the impact this would have on fatigued pylons. and in the case of the EL AL flight , there too was not an adequate procedure for the checking & maitenance of the engine fuse pins . Boeing further strengthened these pins and revised the maitenance procedure to include ultrasonic checking.
@@paulsz6194 Hi Paul. Thanks. I'll look it up further. There are components that should never fail in the lifetime of an airliner but...
@@roderickcampbell2105 all good. Thanks for sharing this one though, as I never knew about this B747 incident. 👍🏼
@@paulsz6194 Hi Paul. Thanks. No problems here. When you check out this B747 in Schiphol I think you will be interested, although saddened as well. It was difficult.
Amazing that there were no fatalities. That wing looks absolutely wrecked.
even the plane could be repaired and brought back to service.
This flight crew really did a miracle.
@@sarowie That's amazing! Is it still in service then?
@@EvanBear at the end of the video, he mentions that the airliner was scrapped after another 8 years of flying in 2001.
As cool as they are, 747s aren't really economical to operate anymore. 9/11 along with rising fuel costs mostly killed wide body passenger airplanes like the 747.
Great upload 👍 i hadn't heard of this event which always makes the upload significantly more interesting.
I look forward to your videos a lot, thank you for making them!
thanks for watching ;)
Sounds erially similar to the EL AL Cargo plane that sadly ended in disaster when it crashed into an apartment block in Amsterdam.
Fortunately in the Japan Airlines Cargo incident no one was seriously hurt or worse killed.
Reminds me of that time when almost the entire fin was ripped off a B-52 over the rockie mountains. Its well worth checking out
I was at the Airport that day. I was driving that yellow fire truck parked in front of the missing engine. The crew took the plane out over the water adjacent to Anchorage as they as they had serious doubts that they would be able to maintain control. It was so lucky the falling engine didn't hit anyone as it landed in the parking lot at a shopping mall on the east side of town. One piece of the leading edge slats did tear through the roof of a home near the mall, but nobody was injured.
And one more small piece of trivia, that not many know is this. Bruce Willis went on to destroy the plane in Die Hard 2. Not really of course, but this is the same aircraft that was leased to the production company for filming the scene of the terrorists taking off in a 747 that Bruce manages to blow up with a lighter.
Thank you so much for your account of the story! Must have been a sight to see. How did you feel when you arrived in front of that beaten plane?
now its intreasting to watch
coz no other program ever mentioned this accident
thank u
greetings from Yemen
The wing mounted engines are not stressed for left/right side loads, only fore and aft loads. A Boing KC-135 got caught in the wake from a preceding C-5 and rolled into an uncoordinated 90 degree bank and 3 of the 4 engines broke off. They landed safely.
When and where? Oh my!
Fantastic videos, and love your (more Swiss, than Austrian, actually) accent. One nit: I observed a pattern where you say things like "all but unforeseeable", when really what you mean is the opposite: all but foreseeable, meaning it is everything except that it can be foreseen. Keep it up, man, these are great.
thanks - also for the correction of my english. I never noticed!
Probably the best commercial aircraft produced.
They were extremely lucky and obviously the crew deserves credit too.👍👍
This is a great example of how even when everyone does everything right, reality can bitchslap and murder you any time. Fortunately, things were done so right that the aircraft - and those onboard - survived.
Half a year before this incident, a 747 crashed in Amsterdam also after a detached engine. This engine then struck another engine, which separated. This crew was lucky!
The plane in the simulation is a -800 model, while the incident airplane was a -100 model. In the digitally controlled 747s the throttle lever will stay put, but in the manually controlled -100s the loss of the engine could move the throttle purely mechanically by the cables.
Fantastic flying by the crew. Imagine the insurance agents getting those calls from customers making claims. "Yea so my car has been destroyed.....yes.... by a jet engine....no it didnt get sucked in , it fell from the sky....no this isnt a prank call.....yes its out there now"
“We lost number two “ literally 💥✈️
There was an accident where a 707 out of SFO lost an engine and wing outboard of the engine. It managed to make a safe emergency landing at Travis AFB several miles northeast of San Francisco.
A 747 lost an engine in the Netherlands but they also lost most of their hydraulic systems and control of the airplane. The 747 crashed into an apartment building and killed many people on the ground.
I was going to mention this, so glad you did. That El AL cargo flight wasn't so lucky in Netherlands. Losing hydraulics was the problem. It is also what doomed the DC-10 in Chicago that lost an engine. 747 has more redundancy than DC-10 I think on hydraulics but even that wasn't enough that time.
@@antinotis There was another DC-10 crash you have covered that lost all hydraulics after an uncontained engine failure. The only control the pilots had was asymmetric thrust to the engines. They were able to perform a crash landing that 184 of the people aboard survived. Everyone on that plane should have died, but more than half survived thanks to the heroic efforts of the crew and a dead heading 3rd pilot.
That is probably one of the most extraordinary stories in aviation, United Airlines Flight 232
great video! thanks for all the technical details
Great video man interesting to watch!!
thanks!
How can a wind sheer produce a force strong enough to rip off a engine pylon? I've designed such frames and the amount of engineering and stress calculations going into such design is huge. Just incredible 🤔
Thanks for a well produced video. 👍
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. I can only surmise that the pylons and engine mounts were damaged/fatigued/cracked after 23 years of flying and they were therefore weaker than the investigators thought. (The video mentioned one crack -- perhaps there were others.)
“No other 747 physically lost an engine after the aircraft described in this video” - Not true. I can think of at least one example, Kalitta Air flight 825. They lost an engine over Lake Michigan in 2004.
huh
You are absolutely correct!
Thanks again Airspace !
After alL the adverse comments about Boeing it`s good to see that they USED to be able to build a resiliant aircraft. That`s the way evolution SHOULD work (survival of the fittest), good luck,BUT I`m for Airbus.
Back when it really meant something when people said "if it ain't boeing I ain't going".... Now all i can say is "if it ain't Cessna I ain't going"
747 is the toughest passenger bird ever to fly. There is a plethora of evidence to support. I guess statistically the 777 is the safest, but the 47 is just....amazing. I flew back and forth to Korea for years on that ratty old thing out of SF. I was sad the day it was replaced by the 787. But when we got to Korea I was happy for the new plane too lol.
Still the Queen in my book.
What did i miss after "Yes, THAT Evergreen company"? Was laughing too hard! 😂🤣👍🏼
This accident was incredibly similar to 2 previous 747 accidents, El Al Flight 1862 and China Airlines Flight 358. In those cases, Boeing 747s had engines detach whilst climbing out after takeoff but the crews in these cases werent so lucky as the crew in this case and their aircraft ultimately rolled over and crashed into the ground. Investigations into both cases found that the fuse pins that connect the engine and pylon to the wing had suffered fatigue which lead to the engine detachment.
Unbelievable that they where able to Land with that Amount of Damage done to the Aircraft.
Amazing story very well told!
Fortunately, the crew of this Boeing 747 freighter managed to return safely unlike El Al flight 1862 6 months before which lost both engines 3 and 4 after takeoff.
One solution is to make the air visible. At those nearby mountain peaks and tops of ridges along those valleys reaching towards the airport install colored smoke generators that activate when winds coming over towards the airport reach a certain speed. At least will give a visual that rough air exists above the airport.
Nothing to do with the incident itself but I like that the video shows Lake Spenard and Lake Hood, which combined is a large seaplane base next to Ted Stevens International Airport.
I remember this and I always think of it when I am near where the engine fell. I have flown out of ANC hundreds is not thousands of time over 35 years and when there are high winds over he mountains turbulence departing and approaching ANC is normal. It just about always smooths out the last 1000’. It’s funny to watch people with worried looks are we are bouncing around on approach. It seems the FAA now favors using the North runway on windy days.
1:50 Between the aircraft and the right side edge of the video is a fake tree. We know it's fake airfields don't have trees as they're a collision risk !
In fact, you can see where a wing has already sliced part way through it :)
No video this week?
Hope you're doing well! I like the format of these videos.
No, I was away on a short break. Next video will probably air this friday :)
Great video and commentary as always
FunFact:Evergeen/JapanAirlines 46E Used In Die Hard (Movie) It Destoryed By Main Character (Using B747 PassengerISame Livery)
This looks a bit like the failure of the engine Pylons of El Al flight 1862 in 1992, which lost an engine due to fatigue. But in that case, the ripped of engine hit the other engine, causing the loss of this engine as well resulting in crash of the Boeing in Amsterdam, killing 47 people. So it looks like the pylons of the 747 had too little margin at that time.
Edit: I am not the only one seeing the parallel.
Nice video. I am a bit surprised that you didn’t mention the similar incidents with the 747 engine separations on the El Al Schipol crash or the China Airlines Taipei crash.
“At times, I was not flying the aircraft; it was flying me.” Not really what you want to hear the pilots say, I’ll give them that.
First, let me correct the presenter's comment about this aircraft's owner. It was owned and operated by Evergreen International Airlines of McMinnville, Oregon which has nothing to do with the container shipping company based in Taiwan whose cargo ship got stuck in the Suez Canal earlier this year. I worked for Evergreen Int'l Airlines and had conversations with their chief powerplant engineer who investigated this incident. I would appreciate a retraction statement from "Airspace" UA-cam channel owner to this effect. Evergreen International Airlines had a stellar safety record and this engine separation incident was no fault of the airline.
Nobody said the airline was to blame for the fault, as I stated in the video. You are correct though, the airline and the shipping company seem unrelated. Mistake on my part.
Thank you for such a detailed explanation, even I could get my head round that 🙄. Kudos to the captain and crew for a safe landing ✈️
Note on the description, it wasn't Ted Ste(v)ens Airport yet, that came in 2000. It's a bit of a morbid and dubious honor, because he survived a crash at the airport in 1978 that killed his wife, and himself died in an airplane crash in 2010. Doesn't seem like the best name to associate with an airport, despite his own WW2 flying career.
Great video. Keep them coming.
Just a heads up, Evergreen Aviation, now defunct, had no ties to Evergreen Marine of Evergiven fame.
Not the same company.
I know of one other 747 which lost an engine over one of the great lakes in 2004 or 2005. I saw it on the ramp in DTW after it landed, and it was definitely short one motor.
Reminds me of El Al 1862
Pylons must be weak, because its better to lose just one engine (or even more engines) than lose whole wing and plane will crash, because wings are generating lift (asymmetric lift -> continuous roll like a windmill).
New rule : ... when the winds are insane, close the airport.
I propose this new rule be accepted.
They flew in and out of a micro burst sounds like. Especially with the Cessnas description.
I was the Cessna 185 just crossing the McKenzie Point direct to Merrill field.
My son and I were relocating from Nome
to Merrill field for a friend.
The 747 was just coming around after the engine separation.
Merrill Tower cleared us to land.
I requested the crosswind runway.
Tower thought I was nuts. Winds were gusts were very high. So it was interesting. I wanted to land on the lee side of the trees on the cross wind runway under the curl. Very rough till about fifty feet then went practically dead calm. Owner if the aircraft and friend came out on the taxis way to help walk the aircraft back to the owners tie-down.
I went and took a shower and if I drank would have had a drink.
Japan Airlines has had so many videos I won’t be flying them anytime soon lol
I worked at Evergreen when this happened . The 2 planes were taking fish canneries to Russia in exchange for rare hardwoods you cannot get in the states and yes they were very heavy loads . The same plane that lost the number 2 engine was used in the movie Die Hard 2 and an ominous sign was in the movie a bad guy was ingested in you guessed it the number 2 engine . Also this Evergreen has nothing to do with the Taiwanese shipping company Evergreen , the Evergreen airlines company made most of its money contracting with the CIA . Evergreen airlines went bankrupt but facilities built by the government such as the DOD and ARMY at the Arizona base that I worked at are still in operation today. A Boeing 707 also crashed at the Pinal air park when I worked there it was very surreal to watch .
B.S. on contacting the airliner! They can get on the IAD freq (121.5).
FYI the "Evergreen" cited as the owner and operator of the flight was almost certainly Evergreen Aviation, based in McMinnville Oregon. Back at that time they did a lot of this type of work. They owned several 747s, some of which are now parked at the Evergreen Aviation Museum, outside the building that contains the Hughes H-4 Hercules "Spruce Goose". One of those might be the one in this video!
Evergreen had a long and interesting history, including running flights for the CIA in Vietnam in the 1960s, doing a lot of firefighting, and building the first 747 tanker for firefighting but they could not get approval from the Forest Service to try it.
The Chinese company Evergreen did not exist back in the time of this incident.
Uh, the Evergreen Group did exist in 1993. It was founded in 1975.
They even have an airline then, having just established EVA Air in 1991. Note the name - they wanted to name it Evergreen Airways, but they changed it to avoid confusion with Evergreen International Airlines, the airline in this incident.
Nice as always
What year was this? Ahhh in 1993. So that's just after this crash in Holland!
There was the same thing here in Holland. It was 4 October 1992. A cargo 747 (flight LY-1862) from ELAL departed. Over the densely populated part of amsterdam the 3rd engine brake of and destroying the outer engine also. It slammed into a large flat and caused a lot of damage and deaths.
It was not high, due to the heavy weight.
Looks exactly the same problem.
I think the bolts were worn down / not many bolts to hold that engine.
I said it once and I’ll say it again. This channel is hugely underrated
thanks :)
Back when Boeing made great airplanes with high integrity design. The MAX would probably just noise down to the ground if the same weather condition happened.
IT HAPPENED AGAIN... El Al airlines crash in the Netherlands in 1992 was due to 2 eninge detachment. The first engine broke off and slammed into the other one shortly after take off and the airplane crashed in lto a residential building.
My name is the Barefoot bandit, I'm a master of hard landings.
Just have to point this out... Evergreen, the container company, is *not* the same as Evergreen International Airlines, the CIA front business. Coincidentally, you can ride a water slide through one of the Evergreen International jets that was involved in Iran Contra now in McMinneville, OR. Mistake is @1:13.
"Hello Boeing, this is the NTSB.... Hypothetically, how much wind would be needed to knock an engine off a 737? Just hypothetically, of course."
Evergreen Shipping is an Asian Company. Evergreen International is and American company.
This all begs the question. Why, if the wind conditions were so treacherous as attested to by several pilots and flights that day, were all these birds cleared to take off and fly?
10:02 "As per Boeing's maintenance instructions" Be sure follow all steps while performing any repairs on the valvetrain of your DOHC 4 banger...
@Airspace Question ? when the pilots of Boeing 747 found out one engine was not working would it not have been easier to have shut down power to missing engine and also compensate shut down one other engine on the other side ? that way they could have had 2 working engines to stabilize the aircraft yeah ?
That way they would have lost quite a substantial amount of thrust. You don't want that!
2 Other 747 Freighters Lost Two Engines and Crashed
With One Engine Torn Off They where Luckily Able to make it back.