3 ms·

And the failure of an inboard wing mounted engine can cause the failure of an outboard wing mounted engine on the same side, as in the case of El Al 1862. http

And the failure of an inboard wing mounted engine can cause the failure of an outboard wing mounted engine on the same side, as in the case of El Al 1862. https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/4X-AXG https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid... And the failure of an engine mounted on the left wing can cause debris to cross through the fuselage structure and cause a failure of the engine mounted on the right wing, or to fly thousands of feet in any particular direction, as happened to American Airlines in both a ground run incident, and in their Flight 883 accident. https://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/AAEngine/ https://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/AAEngine/ https://aerossurance.com/safety-management/uncontained-cf6-aa-b767/ https://aerossurance.com/safety-management/uncontained-cf6-a...

bunderbunder 11mo ago
The industry also responded to those crashes. For example, the El Al 1862 incident prompted a redesign of the engine strut that was subsequently mandated as a retrofit for all 747s. And here's a more detailed description of that ground run incident. It also found that the failure was related to a design flaw, and mandated that aircraft be grounded for inspection and rework. https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b762-los-angeles-usa-2006 https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b762-los-angel... I'm not a regulator or aerospace engineer or anything like that so I can't really say which actions are or are not appropriate. But I do want to observe that these are all unique failures with unique risk profiles that can't all be painted with a single broad brush. All I was trying to do in the previous post was speculate on why a MD-11 failure could result in a grounding of the DC-10 and KC-10A as well. The first thing that came to mind is that I think those are the only remaining trijets of that general shape that are still around. Though I suppose another possibility is that they all share an identical pylon design or something like that.
- jefftk 11mo ago
  > Though I suppose another possibility is that they all share an identical pylon design or something like that. They're very closely related planes (MD-11 is an upgraded DC-10; KC-10A is a military version of the DC-10), so that wouldn't be surprising. Likely the KC-10A has the same pylon, and the MD-11 has one that's similar enough that it's worth being cautious.
  - TylerE 11mo ago
    No military operates the KC-10 anymore. There are a grand total of two remaining in use as aerial firefighters.
    - jefftk 11mo ago
      > Incorrect. The KC-10 was based on the Boeing 707. No connection to the DC-10 at all other than having 10 in the name. I think you're confused? It's nothing like the 707, and is a trijet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extend... EDIT re your edit: it's still a military version, even if militaries have retired it.

bunderbunder 11mo ago

The industry also responded to those crashes. For example, the El Al 1862 incident prompted a redesign of the engine strut that was subsequently mandated as a retrofit for all 747s. And here's a more detailed description of that ground run incident. It also found that the failure was related to a design flaw, and mandated that aircraft be grounded for inspection and rework. https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b762-los-angeles-usa-2006 https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b762-los-angel... I'm not a regulator or aerospace engineer or anything like that so I can't really say which actions are or are not appropriate. But I do want to observe that these are all unique failures with unique risk profiles that can't all be painted with a single broad brush. All I was trying to do in the previous post was speculate on why a MD-11 failure could result in a grounding of the DC-10 and KC-10A as well. The first thing that came to mind is that I think those are the only remaining trijets of that general shape that are still around. Though I suppose another possibility is that they all share an identical pylon design or something like that.

jefftk 11mo ago
> Though I suppose another possibility is that they all share an identical pylon design or something like that. They're very closely related planes (MD-11 is an upgraded DC-10; KC-10A is a military version of the DC-10), so that wouldn't be surprising. Likely the KC-10A has the same pylon, and the MD-11 has one that's similar enough that it's worth being cautious.
- TylerE 11mo ago
  No military operates the KC-10 anymore. There are a grand total of two remaining in use as aerial firefighters.
  - jefftk 11mo ago
    > Incorrect. The KC-10 was based on the Boeing 707. No connection to the DC-10 at all other than having 10 in the name. I think you're confused? It's nothing like the 707, and is a trijet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_KC-10_Extend... EDIT re your edit: it's still a military version, even if militaries have retired it.