Case Study Analysis: American Airlines Flight 191

Case Study Analysis: American Airlines Flight 191
Name
Institution
Introduction
American Flight 191 crashed on May, 25 1979 killing 270 passengers including the crews, when the plane crashed immediately after taking off in Chicago. The accident is considered as one of the worst flight accidents ever recorded in American history. After taking off, the plane started rolling owing to system damage. Initially, when the plane took off, it seemed normal until it started rotating when the No.1 engine and pylon structure separated from the aircraft. After the engine no.1 and the pylon detached from the aircraft, going on top of the aircraft wings, the aircraft fell on the runway. As the aircraft descended, the wings went vertically causing the aircraft to crash on an open ground (Chris, 2013).
Possible Cause
Initial investigation by the National Transport and Safety Board suggested that the possible cause of the accident was a symmetric stall that caused the roll because of the retraction of the left wing outboard leading edge slats. Furthermore, stall warning and disagreement indicator system was faulty making it difficult for the crew to be aware of the situation upfront. The failure was associated with the No1 engine and pylon disengaging from the airplane (Aviation Safety Network, 2015).
Investigation suggested that the crew could have been aware of the situation if they had followed the specific correction actions as required. Such a complex sitiation had not been experienced before; therefore, manufactures did not see the need to share information about the earlier maintenance incidence because there was no report related to such situations. Owing to the warning system failure, the crews were not alerted on the situation until it became late for them to take any action (NNSTB, 2015).
Design Flaw
The NTSB cited that the design did not have enough redundancy within the tall warning system. Furthermore, in the leading edge slat of the aircraft, it did not have any automatic lockable device, which could have prevented the movement of the slat in the main control area. The manufactures, McDonnell Douglas, did not consider such situation when designing the air craft because it was unlikely to happen (Kurt & Wallace, 2014).
Maintenance Pro...