Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: The dying DC-10's struggle with image

  1. #1
    Senior Member TallDutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hoofddorp, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,162

    The dying DC-10's struggle with image

    The DC-10, which ends its final passenger flight in the U.S. today, fell victim to overblown fears about safety.

    FOR WHAT many consider an aviation failure, the DC-10 has had quite a run. But this morning, more than 35 years after the first of the planes was built, Northwest Airlines Flight 98 will pull up to an airport gate in Minneapolis after an eight-hour trip from Hawaii, and the last paying passengers in the U.S. to fly on a DC-10 will disembark.

    The DC-10 is indeed a remarkable plane, but not for its innovative wide-body design or even its signature tail-mounted jet engine. Rather, its claim to fame is that no other passenger jetliner has suffered more from the public's fear of flying.

    It's not necessarily fair. Built at McDonnell Douglas' Long Beach factory from 1968 to 1989, the DC-10 had its share of high-profile accidents — but so have the much-less-maligned Boeing 737 and 747, the latter of which has a fatal-accident rate close to the DC-10's. But popular fears are hard to erase: Just this past June, Wired magazine named the DC-10 the fifth-worst "stupid engineering mistake" in history.

    Granted, the DC-10 did have its share of problems after its first flight in 1970. But before 1980, McDonnell Douglas was still selling the planes at a brisk pace. More than 270 DC-10s were in service around the world in 1979; the plane's chief rival, the Lockheed L-1011, had run into production problems that pushed airlines to buy the DC-10.

    But on a May afternoon in 1979, unfairly or not, the public's perception of the DC-10 would change forever.

    American Airlines Flight 191 to Los Angeles ended just seconds after the DC-10 started its takeoff roll in Chicago. As the plane lifted off the runway, the engine mounted on its left wing ripped away and knocked out crucial hydraulic lines that connected the cockpit to the wings, rendering the plane uncontrollable. The left wing lost much of its lift, and the DC-10 came down, rolled over and crashed into a trailer park near O'Hare International Airport, killing all 271 people on board and a few on the ground. An amateur photographer near the airport captured chilling photos of the plane as it turned on its side.

    Initially, the Federal Aviation Administration did its due diligence: It worked deliberately and didn't jump to conclusions. But pressure mounted on then-FAA chief Langhorne Bond to take drastic action; he was called to testify at a House hearing. The public was hungry for a culprit.

    In June 1979, Bond dealt the DC-10 what many consider a deathblow: He grounded all 138 DC-10s in service in the U.S.; the order was lifted 37 days later. All but a handful around the world also were grounded.

    What was lost in the outcry was the FAA's final conclusion: American Airlines' maintenance was mostly to blame for the Flight 191 crash — not McDonnell Douglas' design. In fact, of all the fatal DC-10 accidents before 1980, only one crash near Paris was blamed on a design flaw (which McDonnell Douglas and airlines quickly fixed).

    Though the DC-10 remained in service, it never truly regained the public's confidence. American Airlines, which had painted "DC-10 Luxury Liner" on each plane's fuselage, erased the DC-10 label and went with a less descriptive "American Airlines Luxury Liner."

    In 1989, McDonnell Douglas shut down the DC-10 production line; in all, only 446 (60 of which were sold to the Air Force) were built. By contrast, Boeing has built more than 600 of its similarly sized 777s since 1995.

    Ironically, it was partly because of another crash that the DC-10 regained some public trust. In 1989, a crippled United Airlines DC-10 was filmed crash-landing in such a horrific fireball that it looked as if it should have killed all 296 people on board; instead, 185 survived. Experts praised the DC-10's sturdy design for such a high number of survivors.

    So why have U.S. airlines retired their DC-10s? Not because of safety; if that were the case, airlines would have mothballed their fleets immediately after the Chicago crash.

    The real reason is that newer planes are far more fuel-efficient — and therefore less expensive to operate — than planes from the DC-10 era. In fact, more than 150 DC-10s are still in service, many of them hauling freight for companies such as FedEx (which, for various reasons, are more willing to use secondhand planes even if they're not as fuel efficient). ATA Airlines recently bought a batch of Northwest's DC-10s for U.S. military charter flights.

    No doubt it's gratifying for those who built the DC-10 to see their plane go into retirement not as many may have expected — amid crash investigations or calls to ground the planes.

    Instead, by the time you've read this, the final DC-10 passenger flight in the U.S. probably has ended exactly as the McDonnell Douglas designers would have wanted — anticlimactically and without much notice.


    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail
    See:
    My photos at Jetphotos.net
    Joop Stroes @ Jetphotos
    My photos at Airliners.net
    Joop Stroes @ Airliners.net

  2. #2
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    I feel the crash of AA 191 was ALL American Airlines fault. It is true that having the stick shaker on the FO's side was an option at that time and that particular plane didn't have it but if AA didn't try to cut corners and use a forklift remove the pylon-engine as one piece and not the recommended taking the engine off then pylon separately that would have never been an issue. The DC10 got a very bad rap for that crash, sure it has some issues but I thought it was a great aircraft. Not as good as the Tristar but...
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  3. #3
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    I agree, McDD can't be blamed for that, and designing an aircraft shouldn't need to accommodate idiots using the wrong equipment or working on aircraft the wrong way.

    EIther way, the DC-10 and L-1011 were designed specifically with airports like LGA in mind. Considering the markets that LGA operates these days, even if the DC-10 were more fuel efficient, I don't think we'd be seeing them being put to their intended use and would be discarded anyway.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Phil D.[/b]]EIther way, the DC-10 and L-1011 were designed specifically with airports like LGA in mind.
    Interesting point. What in particular does (did) LGA offer to make these aircraft suitable? Was it just capacity?
    I'm learning to fly, around the clouds. But what goes up must come down. - Tom Petty

  5. #5
    Moderator Matt Molnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9,302
    My understanding is that due to the limited thrust available from engines of the day, they added the third tail engine specifically for the ability to take off from LGA's short runways.
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
    All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
    I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9

  6. #6
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Matt's correct. While I don't think that the aircraft was SOLELY designed for LGA, I still think that its use would be limited considering LGA's Perimeter Rule.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ari707's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    West Hempstead, NY
    Posts
    1,153
    I still remember seeing many flying over my house after leaving LGA heading to DFW and ORD
    Overheard on JFK TOWER - S Turns are fine, U-Turns are bad....

  8. #8
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69
    I feel the crash of AA 191 was ALL American Airlines fault. It is true that having the stick shaker on the FO's side was an option at that time and that particular plane didn't have it but if AA didn't try to cut corners and use a forklift remove the pylon-engine as one piece and not the recommended taking the engine off then pylon separately that would have never been an issue. The DC10 got a very bad rap for that crash, sure it has some issues but I thought it was a great aircraft. Not as good as the Tristar but...
    What we have here is yet another casualties influenced by deregulation.

    Sloppy workmanship, due to cutting costs. Lots of carriers were found
    removing the engines along with the pylons too. And they found cracks as well. IF they all followed the procedure by the book as per MD none of this would have happened.

    Since this crash, the FAA changed the rules for "optional safety equipment" like stick shakers. What an insane way to save a buck.
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  9. #9
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    The DC-10 was originally conceived as a twin engined aircraft, but ultimately twins were still not considered acceptable for over water service.
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  10. #10
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    "The real reason is that newer planes are far more fuel-efficient — and therefore less expensive to operate — than planes from the DC-10 era. In fact, more than 150 DC-10s are still in service, many of them hauling freight for companies such as FedEx (which, for various reasons, are more willing to use secondhand planes even if they're not as fuel efficient). ATA Airlines recently bought a batch of Northwest's DC-10s for U.S. military charter flights."

    Couple this with the 9/11 factor and a sudden glut of new aircraft. Boeing for instance was making offers that could not be denied. The still like new MD-11s suffered the same.
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  11. #11
    Moderator Matt Molnar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    9,302
    Interesting that the fuel efficiency doesn't matter for military charters. Phil, maybe you have some insight on this, but I'm guessing it must be because these flights are extraordinarily profitable since they can charge the government pretty much whatever they want.
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
    All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
    I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9

  12. #12
    Moderator mirrodie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Me like the Robert Downey Jr of cooooooookies!
    Posts
    5,749
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingColors
    What we have here is yet another casualties influenced by deregulation.

    Sloppy workmanship, due to cutting costs. Lots of carriers were found
    removing the engines along with the pylons too. And they found cracks as well. IF they all followed the procedure by the book as per MD none of this would have happened.

    Since this crash, the FAA changed the rules for "optional safety equipment" like stick shakers. What an insane way to save a buck.
    It would have happened to any airline, it was just a matter of time. Having said that though, I doubt it was the accidents that were the downfall. IIRC the statistics don't show that the DC-10 had a higher than normal amount of accidents.
    And I, I took the path less traveled by
    and that has made all the difference......yet...
    I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187

  13. #13
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
    Interesting that the fuel efficiency doesn't matter for military charters. Phil, maybe you have some insight on this, but I'm guessing it must be because these flights are extraordinarily profitable since they can charge the government pretty much whatever they want.
    The bottom line is that it comes down to necessity. The military's job is not to make a profit. They NEED to get their tropps wherever they are going. Though the military pays the charters very well, it still costs less than doing it themselves, and all costs are of course covered in the payments.

    The opposite can be said about the regular passenger flights in the airlines, where higher costs cut into profitability.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  14. #14
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193
    Getting a wide body or in those days "jumbo jet" out of of LGA was a specifi desire of I believe American. The aircraft was of course intended mass sales, but LGA was specifically in the thinking of the design.

    Utlimately, as we know, it split orders with the Tri-Star and would've garnered even fewer orders had Tri-Star not been delayed.

    DC-10's early safety erecord could not have been that good.. there was another incident where a door came off in flight I believe..maybe a couple we are missing..but not saying ithat one was the fault of the design either. That was a long time ago, I don't remember.. we'd have to research all that.
    "Keep 'em Flying"

  15. #15
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
    Getting a wide body or in those days "jumbo jet" out of of LGA was a specifi desire of I believe American. The aircraft was of course intended mass sales, but LGA was specifically in the thinking of the design.

    Utlimately, as we know, it split orders with the Tri-Star and would've garnered even fewer orders had Tri-Star not been delayed.

    DC-10's early safety erecord could not have been that good.. there was another incident where a door came off in flight I believe..maybe a couple we are missing..but not saying ithat one was the fault of the design either. That was a long time ago, I don't remember.. we'd have to research all that.
    Your thinking about the Turkish crash at Paris, the first total loss of a DC-10.
    The cause was the cargo door blowing out, and by doing so, the floor collapsed and severed a crucial amount of control appendages.

    Now here is where things get sticky: The FAA is the regulator AND the promoter of air travel.
    Several airlines complained about the locking mechanism on cargo doors, but action was delayed, until it was too late.
    "Tombstone technology".....just like a well know problematic street corner that should have a traffic signal installed, but does not, that is, until some one gets killed.
    (Geese, I guess we should fix that...)
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •