Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Posted (12 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Which one is safer? The DC-9 or the DC-10? They both have crashed multiple times, and are pretty old. I am not doing this post to "bash" anything. So I'd like to know, is the DC-10 or the DC-9 safer, and which one would you fly???
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5092 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Both types have proven themselves to be workhorses and, like all aircraft, are as safe as the carrier which is operating them, its maintenance policies and procedures, and the pilots at the yokes.
I would fly,and have flown, in each type.
When there are as many of each as have been built, some are going to be lost in accidents.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Jmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1296 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
I have had a very bad experience on a DC10, so i suppose the DC9, but i would be apprehensive about boarding one (because of age, not manufacturer).
And if 2 airlines operated the same route, and same fair, and one used a DC9 one used a MD80, or 737NG or A320, i would choose the second, with the modern planes.
BigGiraffe From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
If you've had a very bad experience on an aircraft and are here to tell about it, it can't be too bad an aircraft.
All of the commercial aircraft are "safe" -- there isn't any type I wouldn't fly due to fear. One advantage of an older aircraft is they've had more time to find bugs and correct them - the newer types may have some undiscovered challenges waiting.
Given a choice nowadays, I will choose a narrowbody over a widebody, and five-across seating over six-across, no matter how old the aircraft. This is because smaller cattle cars load and unload quicker than big ones.
Tupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 2224 times:
The DC-9 never really experienced any problems in the past from my knowledge, but the DC-10 did have problems with the cargo doors which resulted in several accidents/incidents (like the AA one in 1979? in Chicago that killed 273 people).
Exnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 2219 times:
They're both built like tanks. The DC-10's problems have never been in its airframe structure, but in some of its systems (cargo door, hydraulics, etc) which were poorly designed due to cost cuts following the McDonnell merger. The ORD accident was caused by improper maintenance procedures (using a forklift as an engine hoist) at AA.
My favorite will always be the DC-9. The last REAL Douglas airplane. Like all previous DC-series a/c, no expense was spared and no compromises were made in its design. Thirty-five years after its first flight the Nine and its descendants are still at or near the top in dispatch reliability at the carriers that operate them.
Finally a personal rant. I'm getting sick of the kids (most of them) and their "newer is better" attitude. When I hear noise and see smoke, to me that means an airplane that was designed by real engineers (not CAD operators) and require actual piloting skills. (not a couple of system monitors up front)
I'll take a Doug over a tin can from Seattle or a paper airplane from Toulouse any day.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
Tupolev 154B2, a cargo door, which was operated incorrectly by ground crew 21 years ago, and since then has been modified to be more fool proof design, it has nothing with safety in year 2000 to do.
The real problem on early widebodies was that an explosive decompression below the floor could cause the floor to fail, and at least on DC-10 the failing floor could knock out all three hydralic systems. Long time ago all widebodies have been modified so the floor does not fail in case of a decompression.
Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Iflewrepublic From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 537 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 2199 times:
I personally like, and enjoy flying, both the DC-9 and the DC-10. Both airplanes are safe and reliable airplanes and have proven themselves with all the major carriers here in the United States. I like the accessibility and passenger comfort of the DC-10; however, I like the quick turn around time of the DC-9. As for the newer airplanes, there is no way in hell you can get me on a 737...I'd rather drive (one think I truly hate to do), and the A320, well, I have never really felt safe on the A320...or any Airbus for that matter, even though at Northwest we operate a substantial sized fleet.
Iflewrepublic.
Aviation is proof that, given the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
Spence From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
I wonder how many adults here would turn down a ride in a Connie because it is too old? DC-3, DC-6, DC-7? In my younger years, some of my best flights were on Electra's and Convair 580's.
As long as older aircraft are inspected and maintained, they are safe to ride in.
The DC-9's in Northwest's fleet have the highest dispatch rating of any aircraft in their fleet.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1296 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6019 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
