KC-767 ????

John Mullen wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"Jack G" writes:

A couple of DC-10's were lost due to problems with the thrust bearing -
one
major crash at Chicago - I don't have a reference handy for the others.

I suggest that's because they never happened!

Lots of people refused to fly on DC-10's after the Chicago crash -
prompting
the bumper sticker "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".

The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame, more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

I've heard that was effectively maintenance too. 747s have had problems with
the latching mechanisms on the front cargo door too ( UA811 ).

Plenty of Boeings have crashed too. Even
(very rarely) an Airbus!

John

Kinda what I've heard too.

The DC-10 had a number of high profile incidents directly after entry into
service. Rumour has it that MD fixed all the latent problems so well that it
was eventually the safest wide body of its day. Still didn't save its
reputation though. Ppl have long memories.

PB

"John Mullen" writes:


The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame, more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

And N1819U (46618/118) July 19th 1989, Sioux City, IA;
the aircraft design was blame-free?






--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" writes:


The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

And N1819U (46618/118) July 19th 1989, Sioux City, IA;
the aircraft design was blame-free?


Uncontained engine failures arent supposed to happen and
can kill any airplane, the Boeing 737 crash at Manchester
was caused by the same thing and killed a LOT of people
when engine parts ripped open and ignited the fuel tanks

Keith

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:



The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

I've heard that was effectively maintenance too. 747s have had problems
with
the latching mechanisms on the front cargo door too ( UA811 ).


While there were indeed maintenance problems, specifically adjustmens
to the lock limit warning switches were made incorrectly there
were also a number of design faults.

If the lock actuator shaft failed to extend correctly, which it did, it
was possible to bend the locking pins, making the door appear locked
when it wasnt, without using excessive force. All the load was them put on
the
actuator attachment bolts which failed as the pressure difference increased
with altitude.

The latching mechanism was redesigned after the crash and blowout panels
installed in the floor to prevent a collapse in the event of cargo hold
depressurisation

Keith

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" writes:


The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

And N1819U (46618/118) July 19th 1989, Sioux City, IA;
the aircraft design was blame-free?

Yes. In fact I'd go further and say that but for the 10's sturdy design (and
of course the heroism of the crew and the deadheading pilot who helped them)
nobody would have survived.

John

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:



Thrust bearing? The only major DC-10 crash I can recall at Chicago was
in
1979 and was due to faulty maintenance procedures.

Turkish Airways....


In France not Chicago and a result of a failed cargo door IRC

Keith

Correct on both counts.

Although why MD chose not to fit pressure blowout valves is a mystery.. The
cargo compartment de-pressurised and brought the pax floor down onto the
control lines. From then on it was uncontrollable.

This happened over Windsor,Ontario as the aircraft climbed out of DTW.
It should have been uncontrollable, but for Capt. McCormick who brought
it back missing only the coffin which had shifted in turbulence and hit
the door enough for it to pop open.

--
Ron

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:



The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

I've heard that was effectively maintenance too. 747s have had problems
with
the latching mechanisms on the front cargo door too ( UA811 ).


While there were indeed maintenance problems, specifically adjustmens
to the lock limit warning switches were made incorrectly there
were also a number of design faults.

If the lock actuator shaft failed to extend correctly, which it did, it
was possible to bend the locking pins, making the door appear locked
when it wasnt, without using excessive force. All the load was them put on
the
actuator attachment bolts which failed as the pressure difference
increased
with altitude.

The latching mechanism was redesigned after the crash and blowout panels
installed in the floor to prevent a collapse in the event of cargo hold
depressurisation

Spot on. There were also staff training isues as the DC 10 had been rushed
into service somewhat, leading to the guy who was checking the cargo door
not really knowing what he was looking for.

Might have been a good idea to fix this issue when the Windsor incident took
place a few months before, hundreds of lives could have been saved...

(ref Macarthur Job - Air Disaster vol whatever)

John

Ron Parsons wrote:

In article ,
Pooh Bear wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:



Thrust bearing? The only major DC-10 crash I can recall at Chicago was
in
1979 and was due to faulty maintenance procedures.

Turkish Airways....


In France not Chicago and a result of a failed cargo door IRC

Keith

Correct on both counts.

Although why MD chose not to fit pressure blowout valves is a mystery.. The
cargo compartment de-pressurised and brought the pax floor down onto the
control lines. From then on it was uncontrollable.

This happened over Windsor,Ontario as the aircraft climbed out of DTW.
It should have been uncontrollable, but for Capt. McCormick who brought
it back missing only the coffin which had shifted in turbulence and hit
the door enough for it to pop open.
--
Ron

I hadn't heard of that additional one - do you have a cite / flight number ?

Many thanks, PB

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
John Mullen wrote:



The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

I've heard that was effectively maintenance too. 747s have had problems
with
the latching mechanisms on the front cargo door too ( UA811 ).


While there were indeed maintenance problems, specifically adjustmens
to the lock limit warning switches were made incorrectly there
were also a number of design faults.

If the lock actuator shaft failed to extend correctly, which it did, it
was possible to bend the locking pins, making the door appear locked
when it wasnt, without using excessive force. All the load was them put on
the
actuator attachment bolts which failed as the pressure difference increased
with altitude.

But wasn't UA811 very similar ?

In that case IIRC - the over-cam lock didn't work as advertised.

The latching mechanism was redesigned after the crash and blowout panels
installed in the floor to prevent a collapse in the event of cargo hold
depressurisation

Quite ! Wise move. I've still heard that the manual inspection panels for the
lock positions on old models can be 'ambiguous'.

Keith

Regds, Graham

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" writes:


The DC-10 was always more sinned against than sinning. In most of its
many
well-publicised crashes, the aircraft itself was not really to blame,
more
the way it was flown or maintained. The Paris crash was the only
exception
to this I can think of off-hand.

And N1819U (46618/118) July 19th 1989, Sioux City, IA;
the aircraft design was blame-free?


Uncontained engine failures arent supposed to happen and
can kill any airplane, the Boeing 737 crash at Manchester
was caused by the same thing and killed a LOT of people
when engine parts ripped open and ignited the fuel tanks

Keith

Whoops, I nearly fell into a trap !

I'll divide this into 2 parts after realising what Keith was saying.

Keith was referring to the British Airtours 737 that 'blew' a combustion
chamber on a JT8D ? on an old 737. Failure to evacuate the a/c quickly
contributed very significantly to the death toll.

On the other hand - the BMI crash at Kegworth ( nearby ) has been covered
by a superbly excellent documentary programe here in the Uk.

It *was not* an uncontained engine failure - although engine failure was the
cause - and if you check with the CAA - you will find that to be so.

The Kegworth crash was a classic 'systems failure' in many ways. Not least
failure to re-train flight crews in the reliability of new cockpit warning
systems. It was a brand new - 400 model IIRC and the crew were used to the
'non glass cockpit' of previous models together with their limitations.

Just shows - accidents will happen !

I could talk much more about this one.


regds, PB