6 ms·
Passengers were also afraid of the DC-10. People will forget
by arnon 7y ago
Passengers were also afraid of the DC-10.
People will forget
- projectileboy 7y agoPossibly, but there are counterexamples. In particular, the Lockheed Elektra.
- dgritsko 7y agoI don't know, has there been anything of this sort in the age of Twitter and social media outrage? Seems like the unprecedented ability that we have for information to quickly disseminate could allow the 737 Max issue to live on a lot longer in the public consciousness.
- nickjj 7y agoI had no idea what the DC-10 was until I read your comment, so you are totally right on that people will forget, but it might take a generation for that to happen. Your personal mortality is a funny thing. If you're 25+ today I don't think you'll forget about the 737 MAX.
- alexis_fr 7y agoDC-10 are not transporting passengers anymore. Neither MD-11. Perhaps because they’re known? An MD-11 crashed because it was too long and the pilot didn’t know whether it was landing or already boucing. The Concorde crashed because of a piece lost by a DC-10. The DC-9 lost 4 times the same door, crrating 4 times the same crash. It goes all the way to the DC-3, where overfilling the tank would overflow into the aircon system, pulverizing droplets of jet fuel into the cabin. No need to picture the rest. Perhaps that’s why no-one knows this brand anymore. Same as De Havailland. Too many crashes. Bad engineering and management shortcuts.
- lmm 7y ago> The Concorde crashed because of a piece lost by a DC-10. That was never proven and is kind of beside the point in any case. Aeroplanes are supposed to survive a tyre bursting on takeoff; a design that can't is unsafe, regardless of what runway debris did or didn't cause the burst tyre.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y agoI'd like to point out that Concorde had a perfect 30 year safety record up until this incident.
- mikeash 7y agoIt made so few flights in those 30 years that this is irrelevant. That one crash gave it the worst fatality rate in the industry, by far, just because the denominator was small.
- lmm 7y agoWhat do you think that proves? Remember that the number of Concordes flying was a tiny fraction of most aircraft types you've heard of. AIUI the part of the fuel tank at the front where the tyre debris hit withstood the initial hit (as it was designed to), but the shape of the tank focused the pressure wave from the impact so that it ruptured the rear of the tank. Bad luck? Yes. An understandable oversight? Yes. But there's still no way to see it as anything other than a Concorde design flaw.
- lsllc 7y agoNo, all Boeing need do is change the name. It'll become the 737-1000 or something.
- jussij 7y agoAfter a few DC 10s fell from the sky it quickly earned nick names like Daily Crash, Death Contraption and Death Cruiser. Not long after that the DC 10 was relegated to flying nothing but cargo.
- jboles 7y agoThat is an exaggeration. The DC-10 was operating with tier-1 (example: Northwest, KLM) carriers up until the late 2000s/early 2010s. The DC-10's design problems were largely resolved in its first decade of service in the 1970's. Since then it has had a safety record comparable to other jet aircraft of its era and vintage such as Boeing 747 classic models (-100/200/300) and Airbus A300. http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/pdf/statsum.pdf http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_b... - see page 19
- jussij 7y agoThese may well be exaggerations, but the fact is the DC 10 earnt these nick names: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Death%20Cruiser https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Death%20Crui... The reality is, early on the plane had a bad safety history which resulted in it's bad reputation and early demise: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236
- aiCeivi9 7y agoYeah, just like they forgot about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
- 7402 7y agoI haven't forgotten. I was on a DC-10 on my first flight to California from the east coast, in the mid-1970s. One audio channel included pilot-to-tower communication, a thrill for me since that was a relatively new thing. Shortly after takeoff, I heard a loud bang. The pilot said, "We've lost an engine. We've got to go back." The tower asked, "Do you want 'equipment'?" Pilot: "No. That would just make them nervous. But have it ready."