If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jack G wrote: 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. 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". Jack It had and apparently still has a bad reputation. A couple of highly publicised crashes (due to different reasons) just after an aircraft enters service seems to have that result. However, there is a big difference between it having a bad public reputation and it actually being a bad aircraft. Hundreds of the things have operated without any major problems for years. I don't know the exact figures, but I doubt its overall safety record being much different from that of, say, the Boeing 747. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Ralph Savelsberg" wrote in message ... Jack G wrote: 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. 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". Jack It had and apparently still has a bad reputation. A couple of highly publicised crashes (due to different reasons) just after an aircraft enters service seems to have that result. However, there is a big difference between it having a bad public reputation and it actually being a bad aircraft. Hundreds of the things have operated without any major problems for years. I don't know the exact figures, but I doubt its overall safety record being much different from that of, say, the Boeing 747. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg From the statistics on the aviation safety site http://aviation-safety.net/statistics/aircraft.html It would seem the DC-10 has a better record than the Boeing 737-200 but worse than the 747, the MD-11 does better than the 747 but its a pretty safe aircraft overall. Keith |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote:
On 3 Jul 2003 23:14:00 -0700, (Tom Mosher) wrote: Where the hell did he come up with a bad thrust bearing? It was a bad maintenance practice. AA at Tulsa M&E decided to shorten the engine/pylon removal process by pulling the engine and pylon at the same time. Unfortunately, it put stress in the wrong place and cracked the structure. Eventually, the engine separated with catastrophic results. Actually, the problem wasn't that they were removing and replacing both, it was that they were using a _forklift_ to do so. Said so in the accident report.l Mary Yes, that and lack of disseminating information to other operators and the FAA. -- -Gord. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" writes:
The DC-10 has such a bad reputation that the new owners wanted to sever the connection. (Hello., ValueJet....errr ATA) Valuejet didnt operate DC-10's, they used DC-9's which are a rather different aircraft. Didn't say they did. Clue: there are 2 name changes discussed.... both cases had GREAT reps.... The MD-11 was renamed because there were substantial differences from the DC-10 including a glass cockpit, redesigned wings and tail, new engines and its longer carrying around 50 more pax than a DC-10. Yep, sure thing.... no PR angle at all.... either prefix or suffix. http://aviation-safety.net/database/1999/990822-0.htm I went through HKG a few weeks later, and got a jumpseat visit. The crew was discussing the above. HKG apparently has nasty, unpredictable low level [below DH] winds. Further, 642 barely missed landing atop another aircraft on the adjacent taxiway. And best of all, the Chinese Army wanted the wreck out of sight ASAP, so they blew it apart and picked up the pieces... -- 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"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.... -- 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
David Lesher wrote:
"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.... Turkish Airlines lost TC-JAV at Bois d'Ermenonville (just out of Orly) in 1974. There were two DC-10 losses in Chicago. American Airlines lost N110AA in a crash in 1979 and American Trans Air lost N184AT in a cabin fire on the ground in 1986. Cheers David |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"David Bromage" wrote in message .. . David Lesher wrote: "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.... Turkish Airlines lost TC-JAV at Bois d'Ermenonville (just out of Orly) in 1974. There were two DC-10 losses in Chicago. American Airlines lost N110AA in a crash in 1979 and American Trans Air lost N184AT in a cabin fire on the ground in 1986. The latter was hardly a fault of the aircraft, the loss report reads Quote The DC-10 was unloaded following a charter flight. Company maintenance personnel had placed damaged passenger seatbacks (incorporating solid-state chemical oxygen generators) in the forward cargo hold with seat covers and oil. A company mechanic examined the seatbacks to find a serviceable unit. He encountered a loose oxygen generator, which he handled improperly by its oxygen hose. The generator went off by accident, generating a 430deg C heat. Seat covers ignited and the fire eventually burned through the cabin floor. The cabin was soon engulfed in flames. /Quote Keith |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
David Lesher wrote: "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.... Faulty maintenance again. Ok, the cargo handler 'forced' the door, but the latching mechanism adjustment was intended to stop that. It was adjusted the wrong way. PB |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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. PB |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|