3 ms·
Cargo bay doors was the problem with the DC-10. The doors were re-engineered so they were fail safe. They did have other problems but fixing the door latches wa
by Theodores 6y ago
Cargo bay doors was the problem with the DC-10. The doors were re-engineered so they were fail safe. They did have other problems but fixing the door latches was it. This is in a different league of design fault to the 737 Max and MCAS.
Furthermore this was in a different era before the internet. People only had the mainstream news to go on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~:text=A%20new%2C%20outward-opening%20cargo,the%20cabin%20prone%20to%20depressurising.&text=On%2025%20May%201979%2C%20271,was%20identified%20as%20the%20cause https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26259236#:~....
- kube-system 6y agoHow is it in a different league? We know why the planes crashed, and we know what to do to fix it. Add some AOA redundancies, and get a new type certification that requires pilot retraining. Safety is not a complicated goal to achieve. You identify hazards and you rectify them. The hard part is identifying them, which in this case has already tragically happened.
- Theodores 6y agoNot really. The fix for the cargo doors was not affecting the aerodynamics, centre of gravity and how the plane handled. The pilots didn't need updated type certification for the fixed cargo doors. Your easy fixes for the dreaded 737 max sound like those of an armchair expert.
- kube-system 6y agoIt is my understanding that the inherent handling characteristics of the 737 Max would have been acceptable under a new type certification, without MCAS. Is this incorrect?