What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Aircraft departed phl runway 08R and directed to expedite climb to 280 witha right heading of 155 degrees. While in right turn to a heading of 155 degress phnl departure instructed crew to turn left to a heading of 140 for traffic and climb and maintain flight level 280. ATC called traffic out at 10 to 12 o'clock at 5000. Crew confrimed traffic in sight and was directed to maintain visual separation. Crew was climbing through 3000 and trafffic was at 10 o'clock and approximately at 5000. First officer told captain who was flying the aircraft to shallow climb for traffic so that they would maintain separation. Crew staed that as the traffic (DC-9) approached it was still descending toward there altidue. TCAS alerted "traffic traffic", the DC-9 continued descen to there altitude at approximately the 10 o'clock position. The TCAS then replied "climb climb climb" with approximately 1200 fpm climb in red indicated on VSI. Crew immeddiately piched up to 1200 to 1500 fpm climb as directed by TCAS. After passing 4000 feet TCAS replied "clear of conflict" crew then resumed a normal climb profile captain asked departure control if there had been a traffic conflict and he replied negative. Both elevators damaged. Outboard trailing edge of outboard right elevator distorted. Outboard trailing edge of outboard left elvator distirted. Air traffic tape unavailalbe for review. (Above from 8020-23) (.4) the DC-10 captain, in response to a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) alert, made an aggressive pitch change and felt a slight buffet as the airplane decelerated. The maneuver resulted in wrinkling of the elevator skins. Air traffic control (ATC) instructed a DC-9 crew to maintain visual separation and the DC-9 crew accepted the instruction. The airplanes were about 7 miles from each other in night conditions on converging courses; the DC-9 was descending out of 5,000 feet and the DC-10 was climbing through 3,800 feet. The controller had to repeat instructions to the DC-10 crew, as well as other crews. One crew informed ATC that their radio transmissions were weak. Douglas flight operation letter aol, C1-E60-HHK-L033 dated January 21, 1988, explained probable resultant damage to aircraft components when speed was reduced to buffet speeds indicated on the cruise buffet onset boundary chart as presented in the DC-10 aircraft flight manual. It noted t hat in some cases this buffeting resulted in wrinkled outboard elevator skins. It emphasized that speed reduction down to or near the clean configuration stalling speed greatly increased the chance of experiencing elevator damage.
As the FAA filed it
AIRCRAFT DEPARTED PHL RUNWAY 08R AND DIRECTED TO EXPEDITE CLIMB TO 280 WITHA RIGHT HEADING OF 155 DEGREES. WHILE IN RIGHT TURN TO A HEADING OF 155 DEGRESS PHNL DEPARTURE INSTRUCTED CREW TO TURN LEFT TO A HEADING OF 140 FOR TRAFFIC AND CLIMB AND MAINTAIN FLIGHT LEVEL 280. ATC CALLED TRAFFIC OUT AT 10 TO 12 O'CLOCK AT 5000. CREW CONFRIMED TRAFFIC IN SIGHT AND WAS DIRECTED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. CREW WAS CLIMBING THROUGH 3000 AND TRAFFFIC WAS AT 10 O'CLOCK AND APPROXIMATELY AT 5000. FIRST OFFICER TOLD CAPTAIN WHO WAS FLYING THE AIRCRAFT TO SHALLOW CLIMB FOR TRAFFIC SO THAT THEY WOULD MAINTAIN SEPARATION. CREW STAED THAT AS THE TRAFFIC (DC-9) APPROACHED IT WAS STILL DESCENDING TOWARD THERE ALTIDUE. TCAS ALERTED "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC", THE DC-9 CONTINUED DESCEN TO THERE ALTITUDE AT APPROXIMATELY THE 10 O'CLOCK POSITION. THE TCAS THEN REPLIED "CLIMB CLIMB CLIMB" WITH APPROXIMATELY 1200 FPM CLIMB IN RED INDICATED ON VSI. CREW IMMEDDIATELY PICHED UP TO 1200 TO 1500 FPM CLIMB AS DIRECTED BY TCAS. AFTER PASSING 4000 FEET TCAS REPLIED "CLEAR OF CONFLICT" CREW THEN RESUMED A NORMAL CLIMB PROFILE CAPTAIN ASKED DEPARTURE CONTROL IF THERE HAD BEEN A TRAFFIC CONFLICT AND HE REPLIED NEGATIVE. BOTH ELEVATORS DAMAGED. OUTBOARD TRAILING EDGE OF OUTBOARD RIGHT ELEVATOR DISTORTED. OUTBOARD TRAILING EDGE OF OUTBOARD LEFT ELVATOR DISTIRTED. AIR TRAFFIC TAPE UNAVAILALBE FOR REVIEW. (ABOVE FROM 8020-23) (.4) THE DC-10 CAPTAIN, IN RESPONSE TO A TRAFFIC COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (TCAS) ALERT, MADE AN AGGRESSIVE PITCH CHANGE AND FELT A SLIGHT BUFFET AS THE AIRPLANE DECELERATED. THE MANEUVER RESULTED IN WRINKLING OF THE ELEVATOR SKINS. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) INSTRUCTED A DC-9 CREW TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND THE DC-9 CREW ACCEPTED THE INSTRUCTION. THE AIRPLANES WERE ABOUT 7 MILES FROM EACH OTHER IN NIGHT CONDITIONS ON CONVERGING COURSES; THE DC-9 WAS DESCENDING OUT OF 5,000 FEET AND THE DC-10 WAS CLIMBING THROUGH 3,800 FEET. THE CONTROLLER HAD TO REPEAT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DC-10 CREW, AS WELL AS OTHER CREWS. ONE CREW INFORMED ATC THAT THEIR RADIO TRANSMISSIONS WERE WEAK. DOUGLAS FLIGHT OPERATION LETTER AOL, C1-E60-HHK-L033 DATED JANUARY 21, 1988, EXPLAINED PROBABLE RESULTANT DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS WHEN SPEED WAS REDUCED TO BUFFET SPEEDS INDICATED ON THE CRUISE BUFFET ONSET BOUNDARY CHART AS PRESENTED IN THE DC-10 AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL. IT NOTED T HAT IN SOME CASES THIS BUFFETING RESULTED IN WRINKLED OUTBOARD ELEVATOR SKINS. IT EMPHASIZED THAT SPEED REDUCTION DOWN TO OR NEAR THE CLEAN CONFIGURATION STALLING SPEED GREATLY INCREASED THE CHANCE OF EXPERIENCING ELEVATOR DAMAGE.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.