British Aerospace BAE-146-300 incident near Madison, Wisconsin, January 27, 1995
On January 27, 1995 at about 10:23 pm local time, a British Aerospace BAE-146-300, registered N611AW, was involved in an incident near Madison, Wisconsin. It was a flight of an unrecorded kind under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). No one was hurt; 89 people were on board or involved. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
A fuel leak in the no. 2 engine left fuel manifold segment due to a design defect which led to a fatigue crack.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- January 27, 1995 · about 10:23 pm local time
- Place
- Madison, Wisconsin · map
- Type
- Incident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 89 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
- Aircraft
- British Aerospace BAE-146-300 BAE-146-30 · all BAE-146-300s on the register
- Registration
- N611AW · registry record · serial E3120
- Damage
- Not recorded
- Flight
- Flight of an unrecorded kind · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
While in cruise flight at 12,000 feet mean sea level, the no. 2 engine had a fire indication. The crew shut the engine down in flight and landed uneventfully. Investigation found a cracked left fuel manifold segment in the no. 2 engine. Metallurgical analysis established that the crack was characterized by fatigue striations, and that the crack occurred in a position on the manifold where there was an abrupt change in material thickness. There had been two previous occurrences of cracked manifolds reported by the operator and investigated by the NTSB. Prior to this incident, the manufacturer had taken three actions to resolve fuel manifold cracking; they were: 1.) introduce a redesign of manifold segments, 2.) agree to replace all operator manifold assemblies with the improved design, and 3.) introduce an eddy current inspection procedure for detecting manifold cracks. Following this incident, the FAA mandated more frequent inspection intervals and adoption of the new eddy-current inspection process for the unimproved manifolds.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Medical certificate: Unknown
- Seat: left
The aircraft
- Last inspection: inspection type not recorded
- Maximum gross weight: 93,000 lb
- Seats: 102
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Allied Signal ALF-502R-5 (turbojet); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: ORD Chicago IL at 10:13 pm
- Destination: MSN WI
- Flight plan: IFR
- Runway 0
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: night, dark
- Sky: not recorded; not recorded
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 4 | |||
| Passengers | 85 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Other NTSB records under N611AW the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.