Icing events 1. Fatal Events Involving ATR
42 and ATR 72 Aircraft
Lists fatal events involving ATR 42 and ATR 72 aircraft.
... 42; Mt. Crezzo, Italy: The aircraft took off from Milan for a flight to
Köln. Icing conditions existed at the time of departure. About 15 minutes after
...
... dived, and crashed from holding pattern at 10,000 feet (3050 m) due to icing.
The four crew and 64 passengers were all killed. Safety Reports Vol 1: ...
66% Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:07:20 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/models/atr.htm
2. Fatal BAe
Jetstream Events
Lists fatal airline events involving BAe Jetstream 31/32/41 seies
aircraft.
... unstabilzied ILS approach, improper air traffic control commands, and
aircraft icing caused the aircraft to stall and crash short of the runway during
...
... NC: Crashed about five miles (8 km) short of the runway at night in icing
conditions and with possible engine trouble. Both crew and 13 of the 18 ...
66% Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:07:07 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/models/jetstrm.htm
3. Fatal
Events Since 1970 for American Airlines
Lists fatal airline events since 1970 for American Airlines. Commuter
events are included if operated in conjunction American Airlines.
... dived, and crashed from holding pattern at 10,000 feet (3050 m) due to icing.
The four crew and 64 passengers were all killed. Books Unheeded Warning: ...
... NC: Crashed about 5 miles (8 km) short of the runway at night in icing
conditions and with possible engine trouble. Both crew and 13 of the 18 ...
64% Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:22:00 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/airlines/american.htm
4. Fatal Boeing
737 Events
List of fatal events involving the Boeing 737 where at least one passenger
was killed where the aircraft flight had a role.
... Washington, DC:. The crew did not activate heaters on engine sensors
during icing conditions. The crew subsequently did not adjust the engines to allow
...
64% Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:00:51 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/models/b737.htm
5. Fatal
Events Since 1970 for US Airways (formerly USAir)
Lists fatal airline events since 1970 for USAir (formerly USAir).
... York, NY: The aircraft crashed just after takeoff in snowy conditions due
to icing on the aircraft's wings. Three of the four crew members and 24 of ...
63% Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:09:42 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/airlines/usair.htm
7. Fatal Fokker
Events
Lists fatal events involving Fokker jet airliners.
... York, NY: The aircraft crashed just after takeoff in snowy conditions due
to icing on the aircraft's wings. Three of the four crew members and 24 of ...
... Skopje, Macedonia: The crew lost control and crashed in early climb due to
icing. Four of the six crew and 77 of the 91 passengers were killed 31 ...
60% Thu, 08 Mar 2001 05:07:10 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/models/fokker.htm
8. Fatal
Events Since 1970 for United Airlines
Lists fatal airline events since 1970 for United Airlines.
... unstabilzied ILS approach, improper air traffic control commands, and
aircraft icing caused the aircraft to stall and crash short of the runway during
...
60% Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:01:10 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/airlines/united.htm
9. Fatal Events in
December Since 1975
Provides information on a September 2000 bird strike involving a 737-400
at 10,000 feet near LaGuardia Airport.
... miles (seven km) from the runway threshold during an approach at night and
in icing conditions. The flight crew incorrectly thought that an engine had ...
... unstabilzied ILS approach, improper air traffic control commands, and
aircraft icing caused the aircraft to stall and crash short of the runway during
...
58% Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:48:39 GMT http://airsafe.com/events/december.htm
31 October 1994; American Eagle (Simmons Airlines) ATR 72; Near Roselawn, IN:
The aircraft inverted, dived, and crashed from holding pattern at 10,000 feet (3050 m) due
to icing. The four crew and 64 passengers were all killed.
NTSB Accident
Report Volume I (Summary)
NTSB Accident
Report Volume II (Summary) |
3/6/95) Continued story By Stephen J. Hedges; Peter
Cary; Richard J. Newman
The ATR turboprop planes are industry favorites. They also have a very troubled past
F light 4184 was stuck in a holding pattern late on Halloween
afternoon, waiting to land at Chicago's O'Hare airport. The weather was lousy: drizzle at
10,000 feet, the temperature near freezing. In the cockpit of the ATR-72 twin turboprop,
the pilots flipped on the wing de-icers, letting the autopilot guide the aircraft through
a series of lazy turns. The plane had been circling for 30 minutes. Things were getting a
little boring.
Then it happened. Suddenly, the autopilot popped off, and the plane flipped on its side
in a 70-degree roll. The pilots grabbed the control wheels and fought it. The plane
started to come around, but only for an instant. Then it rolled farther right, nearly
turning over, its nose pitched down. Within seconds, the plane was inverted, turning a
full spiral before it slammed into a muddy bean field near Roselawn, Ind. The pilots, two
flight attendants and 64 passengers died. The whole thing took 25 seconds.
Planes just don't fall from the sky. For that reason alone, the demise of American
Eagle Flight 4184 was more than a jarring tragedy. This week, the National Transportation
Safety Board will convene hearings in Indianapolis to examine the causes of the crash.
Explanations will be put forward, and there will be discussions of such things as pilot
error and severe icing conditions. But this incident was far from unique.
Out of control. In the last 10 years, this airplane and its nearly identical sister
ship, the ATR-42, experienced at least 12 unexpected rolls and stalls -- what the NTSB
dryly calls "departures from controlled flight" -- related to ice buildup on its
wings. On three different occasions -- in Detroit in 1986, in Italy in 1987 and last
October 31 -- two ATRs flying through the same bad weather systems went out of control on
the same day. Four of the six aircraft in those incidents survived; two, including Flight
4184, crashed. Some of the survivors were shaken. "I thought we were dead," said
a first officer after recovering from an ice-induced roll in 1986.
The causes of those incidents remain in dispute. The manufacturer, the French-Italian
consortium Avions de Transport Regional, says most were the result of unusually dangerous
weather systems and pilot error -- not deficiencies in the ATR's design. "This is the
most successful turboprop in the world," said Alain Brodin, president of ATR
marketing. "There are 410 flying worldwide. A bad airplane doesn't last for
long." Robert McCracken, an engineer with the Federal Aviation Administration
responsible for ATR design issues in the late 1980s, says the sheer number of directives
the FAA issued on the plane indicates "that this airplane has a higher sensitivity to
flight in icing conditions than other airplanes."
On three occasions before Flight 4184's crash, the FAA restricted how the plane could
be flown in icy weather. Each time, the agency lifted the restrictions after the
manufacturer made mechanical fixes and changed pilot procedures. But did the company and
the FAA do enough and soon enough? Could Roselawn have been prevented? Consider:
The FAA and ATR have known since just after the fatal crash in Italy seven years ago
that a ridge of ice could form on the top of the plane's wings, making the aircraft more
difficult to fly. That finding was first reported in a British study after the Italian
accident. ATR says it tested its planes for that kind of icing problem; the company says
the planes flew properly. Only now, however, after Roselawn, is the company installing
bigger de-icers.
The ice buildup occurs because the de-icers currently in use do not fully protect the
one part of the high-tech wing where ice could form and cause the plane to roll. In 1989,
after an ATR-42 lost control in icy weather, the FAA approved a modification to the ATR's
wings. Critics called the fix a "Band-Aid." Today, even ATR concedes the fix did
not fully address the icy-ridge problem. Some believe an ice ridge caused the accident at
Roselawn.
Tests two months ago at Edwards Air Force Base in California confirmed that an
ice-induced roll can occur, ATR officials concede. Even so, the company says the results
"again demonstrated that performance of the ATR-42 and ATR-72 exceeds all FAA
certification requirements, that the aircraft can operate safely even in extreme icing
conditions."
When the FAA certifies a plane to fly in icing conditions, what it means in fact is
that the plane has been tested only in light mist. Planes certified by the FAA for icing
conditions are not tested in freezing drizzle and rain, the most hazardous conditions that
pilots -- especially short-haul pilots -- experience. The FAA standard is 30 years old
and, despite regular complaints, has not been changed. FAA officials say now that in the
wake of Roselawn, they are considering a higher benchmark.
The ATR crashes illuminate an industry paradox: Big jets with the best de-icing
equipment fly high, above bad weather. Smaller planes with less efficient de-icers fly at
lower altitudes, where icing is more prevalent.
And those low altitudes are where ATRs mostly fly. In the early 1980s, newly
deregulated U.S. air carriers were looking for a new airplane, one that could carry 30 to
60 passengers on short-haul routes. American aircraft manufacturers showed little
interest. So French aviation giant Aerospatiale and the Italian firm Alenia formed a
consortium. The result was ATR. The plane the new company came up with had a
state-of-the-art cockpit, highly efficient Pratt & Whitney engines, a roomy fuselage
and a sleek, metal-and-composite wing that produced less drag than older designs. That
meant decreased fuel consumption and improved range, lowering operating cost.
The wings, mounted high on the fuselage, had three parts of importance to the icing
issue. On the front edge of the wings are wide rubber strips, called boots, that
automatically inflate and deflate to break off ice. At the wings' back edge are wide,
movable flaps that help planes descend or take off. Out at the wingtips are control fins
called ailerons. These are linked by cables and rods to the pilots' control wheels, and
they operate in reverse tandem. For a right turn, for instance, the left aileron goes
down, coaxing the left wing upward; at the same time, the right wing's aileron goes up,
forcing that wingtip down.
There was something else that was special about the ATR's wings: They were thinner than
old-style wings. That, says Porter Perkins, a leading U.S. expert on wing icing who
recently retired from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, could mean
trouble: "On your old airfoils, getting some ice aft of the protected area didn't
matter too much. But on these new airfoils, not enough attention was paid to potential ice
contamination."
The new planes were a big hit. The ATR-42s passed their French certification tests in
1985. The FAA approved the plane a month later under a bilateral treaty that allows test
data to be shared. The French and American standards on icing are almost identical. Both
test only for flight in a light mist. By contrast, droplets hitting the ATR-72 that
crashed in Roselawn were five times -- and possibly 50 times -- bigger. Eventually, 110
ATR-42s and 40 ATR-72s would enter the U.S. fleet.
But it was not long, federal records show, before the planes encountered ice -- and
problems. In June 1986, an ATR-42 on a training flight pitched down unexpectedly. The FAA
blamed the incident on ice on the plane's tail and issued an "airworthiness
directive," warning pilots to avoid a certain flap setting.
Six months later, there were more problems. Within an hour of each other on Dec. 18,
1986, two ATR-42s experienced rolls as they were descending into Detroit. Both planes had
run into heavy ice. Each was on autopilot. The first plane, Simmons Airlines Flight 2860,
had 38 passengers on board. When the pilot called for the flaps to be lowered, the
autopilot quit and the plane heaved over left, then right, then left again. Inside the
cockpit, a "terrain" warning sounded. The plane had lost 500 feet in less than
20 seconds, leaving it just 500 feet above the ground when the pilots regained control. An
hour later, Simmons Flight 2801 experienced a 30-degree roll on the same landing approach.
ATR blamed the first incident on the pilot's delay in turning on the plane's de-icers.
But the next day, a concerned FAA telexed airlines forbidding them to fly ATR-42s into
"known or forecast icing conditions" -- a grounding order similar to that
imposed after Roselawn. French aviation authorities protested. Six months later, after ATR
made improvements, the FAA lifted the restriction.
Stall warnings. But still the problems continued. Less than one year after the
Detroit episodes, an Alitalia ATR-42 encountered severe icing during a late October storm
over the northern Italian city of Como. In the cockpit, a horn sounded and the pilots'
control sticks began to shake -- both warnings that the plane was about to stall -- a
condition where the wing loses lift. Then came a series of pitching turns. The plane hit
the ground at over 300 miles per hour.
As in the Detroit rolls, a second Alitalia ATR-42 had also experienced the same
handling problems in the same weather that day. The difference, says ATR Vice President
Robert Briot, a career test pilot, was that the pilots of the second plane acted correctly
and recovered easily, while those in the plane over Como did not. The real problem, Briot
says, was that Alitalia had not put instructions for flight in icy weather in the pilot
handbook. In the aftermath, ATR put ice detectors on the plane's wings and connected them
to a chime and warning light in the cockpit.
FAA officials who had handled the ATR's certification and subsequent icing problems
sent an investigator to Como but issued no special warnings. The British Defense Ministry,
however, ran tests on an ATR wing. They found that while the wing's de-icing boots worked
well, they were "insufficient" to protect the wing from heavy moisture at
freezing temperatures. When they replicated freezing drizzle, the entire wing was covered
with ice. In the United States, the Air Line Pilots Association took the British test
results to the FAA and argued that the ATR's boots needed to be expanded. ATR and a French
aeronautical agency disagreed. The British test results, they said, were flawed and did
not truly replicate the conditions that the planes fly in. Nevertheless, ATR took the
wooden shapes that replicated the ice found in the British test, put them on a plane and
reported no problems during flight tests. ATR made no changes.
Within a year of the Como crash and the British icing study, another ATR-42 rolled in
flight. This time it happened in the United States -- and this time the FAA decided to
act. The plane involved was another Simmons ATR-42, this one carrying 34 people into
Mosinee, Wis. It was night, three days before Christmas, and the weather was rainy and
near freezing. The plane had aborted one landing attempt and was making a second. The
copilot, aware that the potential for icing was high, looked frequently for a buildup on
the propeller caps -- the recommended procedure for recognizing ice -- and saw nothing.
The autopilot was guiding the plane through a 27-degree right-hand turn when the plane
leveled out and then began rolling left. At 27 degrees, the autopilot snapped off and the
plane tipped on its left side to 80 degrees. The pilot slammed the throttles forward and,
after several rolls, regained control -- 1,000 feet above the ground. The crew put the
plane into a climb and went around again. The plane landed without further incident. On
the ground, the two pilots chatted nervously, the cockpit voice recorder still running.
"I want to get out of this airplane for a few minutes," the copilot said.
"Damn, I've never been so scared in an airplane before."
Worried pilots. How much of a problem was there? "[The FAA's] principal
maintenance inspector for Simmons was concerned that this was going to happen again,"
says Robert McCracken, the FAA engineer who was in charge of ATRs at the time.
"Pilots were concerned, too." On March 6, 1989, FAA technical experts met with
representatives of ATR and the French aviation authority, known by its acronym, DGAC. The
FAA suggested that ATR pilots no longer use the autopilot in icing conditions. The French
demurred: "DGAC and ATR do not feel there is an unsafe condition," the ATR
representatives said, according to an official summary of the meeting. "It is their
position that the latest incident occurred with the airplane operating in highly unusual
weather conditions involving freezing rain."
This time, the FAA held firm. In April 1989 the agency issued a directive prohibiting
the use of autopilots on ATR-42s in icing conditions. ATR quickly came up with a fix.
Instead of bigger de- icing boots, it would put pieces of metal, called vortex generators,
on top of the plane's wings. The VGs, as they are called, often can help when a wing's
airflow is disturbed by channeling its energy back over the wing. The idea came from ATR's
new, longer version of the plane, the ATR-72, on which VGs had been installed to improve
handling. The FAA pronounced the VG solution satisfactory. The VGs, the agency said, would
"significantly improve the effectiveness" of the ailerons in icing conditions.
In October 1989, the FAA dropped its restriction on the ATR-42: Pilots could once again
use the autopilot in icy weather.
Not everyone thought the fix was a good one. The Air Line Pilots Association protested.
In a letter to the FAA, Harold Marthinsen, then director of the union's
accident-investigation department, called the VGs "a Band-Aid type fix to an aircraft
that was inadequately certified for operation in icing conditions." Other experts
expressed similar doubts. "I would very much like to see the test data that
established the effectiveness of the VGs on the ATR-42," said icing expert Porter
Perkins.
Friction. So why did the FAA agree to the VGs? "They were shown to be quite
effective in improving roll control," says Gary Lium, an FAA engineer now in charge
of overseeing ATR design issues. Lium says other FAA-required changes also improved ATR
crews' awareness of ice. But McCracken acknowledges pressure from the company: "We
were being argued with pretty steadily" by ATR and the French aviation authority.
Despite complaints, it seemed for a while as if the VGs might be the answer. There were
two severe roll incidents involving ATRs in icy weather in 1991, but both happened outside
the United States. Next, two more occurred over Newark, N.J., and in New England in 1993
and 1994, but the causes were unclear. Then came Roselawn. Unknown to pilots Orlando
Aguiar and Jeffrey Gagliano, their holding pattern at 10,000 feet likely put them in
freezing drizzle. The droplets were far bigger than the mist the FAA certified the plane
to fly in. For reasons that remain unclear, the pilots had their flaps extended 15 degrees
-- ATR says it may have been to keep the airplane level for passenger comfort. When their
flight was cleared to descend to 8,000 feet, the plane's speed increased and the flaps
were retracted. That's when the roll began.
Why? "It was a very sad conjunction of facts," says ATR Vice President Robert
Briot: The pilots were flying in freezing rain too long, and keeping the flaps down
allowed ice to form on the wing. The pilots' fatal mistake, Briot says, was when they
raised the plane's flaps. That changed the wing's shape and the air flowed in a new path
that was disrupted by the built-up ice. "If you omit one of those things, there is no
accident," Briot says. But he adds, "Everybody agrees that icing was the
prevailing condition."
One theory is that the wing "stalled," or lost its lift, with the disrupted
airflow. A more frightening scenario, experts say, was suggested by tests at Edwards Air
Force Base after the accident. They showed that a 3/4-inch-high ridge of ice can form on
the top of the wing, especially with flaps down. The interruption of the air flow by the
ice could create a vacuum over one aileron that pulls it upward -- a phenomenon known as
"aileron snatch." If that happens, the other aileron is automatically pushed
down. That makes the plane roll. The plane's autopilot, if turned on, will fight the roll
force without the pilot knowing it. When the roll forces -- that is the forces upon the
ailerons -- become too great, the autopilot will suddenly disengage. The plane can then
snap into a roll, from which the startled pilot must recover. "It would all be masked
by the autopilot," says Pete Hellsten, an aeronautical engineer and a consultant to
the FAA on icing.
A bigger boot. Since the Roselawn accident, ATR has done hundreds of tests with
wooden ice shapes stuck on wings. Brodin, the president of ATR Marketing, concedes that
ice just behind the de-icing boot can create roll forces, but he says the company's latest
tests show the forces are not so high that a trained pilot cannot recover. And the ATR-72,
he says, was put through more-rigorous icing tests when it was developed precisely because
of icing concerns.
Immediately after Roselawn, the FAA grounded the ATR planes in cold weather. But it
later relaxed those restrictions. ATR aircraft may now fly under a series of new pilot
rules -- such as no autopilot in freezing rain or drizzle and more ice-flying training.
And ATR has agreed to put a bigger boot on its airplanes, one it hopes will prevent the
dangerous ridge of ice from forming. Those new boots will have to be tested, though, to
see if they work as designed.
Is that enough? ATR says yes, and its executives point out that its planes now have
been tested more than any similar aircraft for icy-weather flying, and exceed the FAA
icing standard that the rest of the industry is held to.
Others, however, say it is time that the FAA started testing all planes for flight
safety in conditions of freezing drizzle and rain. Critics of the agency say that it
should require manufacturers to fix unsafe planes -- and stop blaming pilots for tragedies
that are beyond their control. "It disturbs me that so many of these incidents have
been categorized as pilot error," says icing expert Porter Perkins. "Yeah, it
might have been pilot error if he had known all these things about the weather and the
airplane, but, gosh, you're asking a lot of these people."
The fall of flight 4184
1. At about 4 p.m. on Oct. 31, 1994, the aircraft, an ATR-72-210,
is circling over Indiana waiting to land at Chicago. Freezing
drizzle is present, the plane's de-icing boots are operating. The
autopilot is on.
2. Flight 4184 is told to descend to 8,000 feet. The plane
descends, the pilots retract the flaps. The autopilot disengages
and the plane rolls 70 degrees to the right.
3. The pilots fight the roll and bring the plane back to 50
degrees right.
4. The plane rolls right again, sending it into a full roll. The
pilots cannot recover.
5. The plane crashes into a field 3 miles south of Roselawn, Ind.
All 64 passengers and four crew members are killed.
Ice and the ATR wing
1. Ideally, rubber de-icer boots expand and contract to break off
ice as it forms on leading edge. Air flows smoothly over the
wing, maintaining pressure over the aileron.
2. But freezing drizzle can slip past the boots and form an ice
ridge on top of the wing. That disrupts air flow, lifting it off
the wing, creating a low-pressure area over the aileron. The
aileron lifts up, and the airplane rolls.
3. Vortex generators can help when air separates slightly from
the wing. They take the energy of separated-but moving-air and
mix it with dead air that hugs the wing to re-create air flow.
4. But a high ridge of ice can push air over the top of the
vortex generators, reducing their effectiveness. The aileron
lifts and the plane rolls.
|