75%(4)3 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 9 pages.
S a f e g u a r d P r o p o s a l s P o s t t h e C r a s h o f A t l a n t i c S o u t h e a s t A i r l i n e s F l i g h t 5 2 9Mechanical and Structural Factors in Aviation Safety (SFTY 335)Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Probable Cause The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of this accident was the in-flight fatigue fracture and separation of a propeller blade resulting in distortion of the left engine nacelle (National Transportation Safety Board Aviation Accident Data Summary, 1997). The fracture was caused by a fatigue crack from multiple corrosion pits that were not discovered by Hamilton Standard because of inadequate and ineffective corporate inspection and repair techniques, training, documentation, and communications. Contributing to the accident was Hamilton Standard’s and FAA’s failure to require recurrent on-wing ultrasonic inspections for the affected propellers.
Manufacturer and FAA guidelines At No-Name Airlines, we need to thoroughly review all the maintenance documentation that Embraer has provided us with. We will have to pay special attention to any specific inspection procedures that they have mentioned to discover fatigue cracking of the propeller blade. Embraer may also be issuing service notifications post the accident. They will need the instantaneous inspection of the propeller blade. Modifications will also be made to the EMB120RT manual which will introduce additional continuous inspections of the region surrounding the propeller blade. The FAA will also be publishing an AD. They will need basic introductory and continuous inspections of