For all you DC-10 fans!

[MCI transplant]

Interesting side story of EAL flt.401:     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJt0oSpYJM8                                         For those who believe in such things!

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

And what the Saudi's don't what you to know is what caused the death of those 302, was  a passenger that started to heat food on a portable stove in the back of the Aircraft ,while transporting "pilgrims" to Mecca, for their once in a lifetime trip, during "Hadge". One of the Pilots  smuggled a video of it out of Saudi, and one of our (TWA) Instructors got a hold of a copy and showed it to us.---- Not pretty! The Aircraft had landed, and was taxing to the gate when the fire started, or during landing. They never made it!

 
Actually, the fire started just after they had taken off.  They did manage to land the plane, but instead of performing an emergency stop at touch down(where crash crews were waiting) they rolled out/taxied off at the far end of the runway.
 
By the time they got the doors open, everyone onboard was dead.

 

[MCI transplant]

 
Actually, the fire started just after they had taken off.  They did manage to land the plane, but instead of performing an emergency stop at touch down(where crash crews were waiting) they rolled out/taxied off at the far end of the runway.
 
By the time they got the doors open, everyone onboard was dead.

Again, I stand corrected! Damn I must be getting old! -------- Think? ------ Na!!!!

 

[eolesen]

Interesting! But with the DC-10, and DC-11's track record, it might be best that it never flew. But the L1011 had it's problems also. It seems Lockheed had problems with cracks in wings of almost all it's Aircraft, from the Electra, to the C-5, and yes, the L1011, which alternately grounded it.

Not sure what track record you want to point to, MCI, but with 700 airframes built between the two types, compared to 250 for Lockheed, the track record isn't as bad as you think.

The only loss of a DC10/MD11 due to design is the THY crash in France, where the cargo door blew out and rendered the hydraulics inop. Root cause of both UA232 and AA191 were due more to manufacturing & maintenance issues, and not neccessarily the design.

EAL 855 (oil seals) was definitely a design flaw. TW 843's airframe was lost due to a bad stick shaker, and arguably, EAL 401's loss was not just pilot error, but due to the amount of control pressure which allowed autopilot to become disengaged.

 

[metopower]

Even the Turkish accident with the cargo door blow out was not because of the airplane. On the ground before push back they could not get the cargo door warning light to go out. After many attempts to close the door a mechanic was called out. The fix was to fix a miss aligned switch. That done the light went out but the locking mechanism was not fully engaged. Future aircraft installed  visible door lock indicators.

 

[Overspeed]

Even the Turkish accident with the cargo door blow out was not because of the airplane. On the ground before push back they could not get the cargo door warning light to go out. After many attempts to close the door a mechanic was called out. The fix was to fix a miss aligned switch. That done the light went out but the locking mechanism was not fully engaged. Future aircraft installed  visible door lock indicators.

 
The cargo doors and floors were modified due to that accident and the AA DC10 cargo door failure. The problem was the design of the latching mechanism and the verification that the door was actually locked properly. Latch viewing windows, the vent door, cargo door indicator light mechanism, and cargo lining vent panels helped solve the issue. The vent panels prevented the sudden pressure differential from buckling the passenger floor which also contained many critical flight control cables. Future WB's all have design elements like these incorporated due to the DC10 design flaw.

 

[Overspeed]

Not sure what track record you want to point to, MCI, but with 700 airframes built between the two types, compared to 250 for Lockheed, the track record isn't as bad as you think.

The only loss of a DC10/MD11 due to design is the THY crash in France, where the cargo door blew out and rendered the hydraulics inop. Root cause of both UA232 and AA191 were due more to manufacturing & maintenance issues, and not neccessarily the design.

EAL 855 (oil seals) was definitely a design flaw. TW 843's airframe was lost due to a bad stick shaker, and arguably, EAL 401's loss was not just pilot error, but due to the amount of control pressure which allowed autopilot to become disengaged.

 
It is important to note that all of these accidents were not single point failures. Bad engineering, processes, checks and balances, and some form of human error in combination caused these accidents.
 
It's important that programs like ASAP be used to determine how these failures occur and we fix the problems to make the system better. By learning from the tragedies that occurred in all the accidents that you noted and many others, engineers and regulators have helped make aviation safer for all of us. 

 

[MetalMover]

Not sure what track record you want to point to, MCI, but with 700 airframes built between the two types, compared to 250 for Lockheed, the track record isn't as bad as you think.

The only loss of a DC10/MD11 due to design is the THY crash in France, where the cargo door blew out and rendered the hydraulics inop. Root cause of both UA232 and AA191 were due more to manufacturing & maintenance issues, and not neccessarily the design.

EAL 855 (oil seals) was definitely a design flaw. TW 843's airframe was lost due to a bad stick shaker, and arguably, EAL 401's loss was not just pilot error, but due to the amount of control pressure which allowed autopilot to become disengaged.

Actually, E.....EAL  885 was due to human error on the part of two mechanics......They performed an inspection on all three engine chip detectors,,,,,Three each engine....They left out the O rings on all 9 chip detectors....Also had an appropriate leak check been accomplished, it would have been caught before flight.

 

[700UW]

Did you forget about UA in SUX?
 
That was a engine disc failure that caused the hydraulics to fail also.
 

En route from Denver to Chicago on July 19, 1989, United Airlines Flight 232 suffered a loss of all hydraulics caused by an explosion in the tail, and with it all flight controls. Nevertheless, the crew was able to steer and maintain elevation by manipulating the engines, and navigated the plane to Sioux City, Iowa. In the crash landing, 111 of the people on board died, but thanks to the efforts of the pilots, 185 survived.

http://youtu.be/RD4fYxDRNwA

 

[MCI transplant]

Not sure what track record you want to point to, MCI, but with 700 airframes built between the two types, compared to 250 for Lockheed, the track record isn't as bad as you think.

The only loss of a DC10/MD11 due to design is the THY crash in France, where the cargo door blew out and rendered the hydraulics inop. Root cause of both UA232 and AA191 were due more to manufacturing & maintenance issues, and not neccessarily the design.

EAL 855 (oil seals) was definitely a design flaw. TW 843's airframe was lost due to a bad stick shaker, and arguably, EAL 401's loss was not just pilot error, but due to the amount of control pressure which allowed autopilot to become disengaged.

"E"---- I really didn't want to get into comparisons of the DC-10, to the L1011, but, if you must.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 , Scroll down to " Incidents and Accidents". It goes into the problems with the aft cargo door, along with N.T.S.B. findings, and the routing of control cables, and  hydraulic lines.  You mentioned the aft cargo door, DC-10 which was designed as a "swing door",design contribute to crash of Turkish Air Flt.891,  vrs. a "plug door" on the L1011.----- Routing of control cables, and hyd. lines under cabin floor. (DC-10) which set up failure due to depressurization!----- Control cables, and hyd.lines routed overhead, above cabin ceiling. (L1011)----- Leading edge slat hydraulic actuators, (DC-10) which contributed to the crash of AA flt.191.---- Jack screws, and Asymmetry break system, which locks leading edge slates if out of synch, or lose of pressure.(L1011)  All design shortcomings of the DC-10 design!------- I'm not saying the L1011 is a perfect Aircraft! Far from it, but it's like comparing a Ford to a Cadillac. They both have problems! But which one would you rather be driving?

 

[eolesen]

Uh, the Ford. Any day. They didn't take bailout money...

Feel free to keep arguing the merits of two aircraft types which are now turned into Budweiser cans...

 

[MCI transplant]

Uh, the Ford. Any day. They didn't take bailout money...

Feel free to keep arguing the merits of two aircraft types which are now turned into Budweiser cans...

Well, I can't argue that! ------ Keep one cold for me!

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

There's still plenty of tens out there hauling freight though… can't say the same about the L10

 

[MCI transplant]

There's still plenty of tens out there hauling freight though… can't say the same about the L10

As I stated earlier, What grounded the L1011, was the fact that they found cracks in the wing's main spar. Lockheed came up with a mod to fix that, and a few were modified. We did, at least, one mod. here at MCI. But, at that point in time, fuel pricing had made both the DC-10's, and L1011's, unpopular Aircraft. And with the added cost of the modification, pretty much spelled the doom of the L10.

 

[TDR1502C]

 

Uh, the Ford. Any day. They didn't take bailout money...

Feel free to keep arguing the merits of two aircraft types which are now turned into Budweiser cans...

 

Got some bad news there.... http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/08/23/the-other-auto-bailout-ford-toyota-and-harley-davidson/

Ford, Toyota, BMW all ate the poisoned apple too. Even the IAM's motorcycle company.