PilotNtrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2791 times:
Another factor I didn't consider, I guess I was a little too excited on my post.Thanks TBonnie
I do have a question for you MTC folks out there. Were the airlines that used the one-step procedure to remove the number one or number three engines on the DC-10, just lazy or was that a cost saving procedure? The Number one engine that blew off flight 191 was caused by this procedure and the damage it caused. I am surprised that AA didn't not use the recommended procedure for removing the engine and pylon from McDonnell Douglas.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2735 times:
It was interesting to say the least. The real shock was the one man who lost his brother on flight 191 and in March of 1962, lost his parents on AA flight one, a 707 that crashed a few seconds after taking off from JFK to LAX.
The show will be re broadcast at midnight eastern time, tonight.
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 2726 times:
Unbelievable! A great documentary. I enjoyed and lose what little respect I had left for AA. That was sad that by cutting corners they caused the death of so many. No matter what industry, it all boils down to the bottom line. Faster, cheaper, smaller, better. So sad. Found it interesting that one of the men involved at AA's main service location in Tulsa took his own life. He did the honorable thing. For his mistake was preventable and caused much pain.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3624 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 2703 times:
I thought the show was a little boring - focused too much on the litigation, for one thing, and while I appreciate the fact that there's probably not much real footage of the accident and investigation, I particularly was annoyed by the staged courtroom antics and some of the other reenactments (not to mention a lot of the old shots of planes they were using were not even close to being a DC-10 - there was one shot of a couple guys crowding around a little tiny nosegear with wheels about 16" high that almost made me laugh!).
I do have a question for you MTC folks out there. Were the airlines that used the one-step procedure to remove the number one or number three engines on the DC-10, just lazy or was that a cost saving procedure?
Nobody comes up with a procedure like this because they're "just lazy". It was a time-saving procedure, which means a cost-saving procedure.
People always defend the DC-10 in the face of what happened to it after this accident, but you'll notice the design of the DC-10-10 is listed as a contributing factor in the accident. Apparently the flange clearance on the DC-10-30 was such that this type of maintenance-induced crack was a lot less likely even using the same procedure. And of course the design of the hydraulic systems was also a contributing factor, as was mentioned in the show.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!