Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
3-3-74...Paris Crash In The Forest  
User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 401 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 19138 times:

Today, March 3 was the day THY flight 981 crashed just outside of Paris after the DC-10 lost its cargo door resulting in loss of control and the ultimate disaster. While I was a very young child at the time I do remember pictures on the news as my folks watched. A very bad airplane crash...was what they told me as we watched, and later they explaining that a door was opened up while in the air. I know there was a similar incident not long before this accident but for some reason this particular aircraft had not yet been modified. My questions are the following: What is your recollection of the crash? Were you working around planes at that time? Was there a stigma placed on the DC-10 that was later seen after the crash in Chicago? Very gruesome crash and hearing about what rescue workers initially faced...I can not imagine.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18886 times:

I was in the USAF flying KC-135s at the time of the crash. The DC-10s were being modified with the same style cam locking system for the cargo doors that we had (the DC-10 system was more automated than what we had). IIRC it was the deadliest crash in history up until that time (the Tenerife B-747 ground collision accident didn't happen for another 3 years) with some 350 killed in the accident.

The TK-981 accident is also known as the Ermenonville air disaster, named for the forest the wreckage fell into. The aircraft, a DC-10-10 was, IIRC the first or second DC-10 delivered to TK, after they were leased from UA, but not delivered to that airline. I believe it was around the 30th DC-10 built.


User currently offlineairsmiles From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 18710 times:

TC-JAV was the 2nd for THY and was en-route to London-Heathrow so this accident was badly felt in the UK. I'm not quoting facts here but I believe there was a similar cargo door failure on an American AL DC10 prior to the THY accident. I think the accident was put down to a manufacturing defect on the latch mechanism, but that's my recollection only. If so, presumably the THY and American aircraft came off the assembly line at similar times?

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18672 times:

It was a design problem that allowed to close the door without really closing it.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 18510 times:

Quoting airsmiles (Reply 2):
I'm not quoting facts here but I believe there was a similar cargo door failure on an American AL DC10 prior to the THY accident. I think the accident was put down to a manufacturing defect on the latch mechanism, but that's my recollection only.

You are correct, it was AA-96, about 2 years earlier, another DC-10-10, N103AA. That was a near disaster, too. But the AA crew managed to regain control of the airplane and made an emergency landing at DTW. This was the Windsor incident.

N103AA was around the 10th or 12th airplane off the line, so it was not produced at the same time TC-JAV was built.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18442 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Quoting airsmiles (Reply 2):
I'm not quoting facts here but I believe there was a similar cargo door failure on an American AL DC10 prior to the THY accident. I think the accident was put down to a manufacturing defect on the latch mechanism, but that's my recollection only.

You are correct, it was AA-96, about 2 years earlier, another DC-10-10, N103AA. That was a near disaster, too. But the AA crew managed to regain control of the airplane and made an emergency landing at DTW. This was the Windsor incident.

If memory correct, the TK DC-10 had not yet been modified to cover FAA recommendations following the AA accident.

Quoting airsmiles (Reply 2):
TC-JAV was the 2nd for THY and was en-route to London-Heathrow so this accident was badly felt in the UK.

Many passengers were BA passengers who had been rebooked on the TK flight at the last minute due to a BA labour dispute that resulted in cancellation of the BA flight.

As a sidenote, CDG airport officially opened 5 days after the TK crash.


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3150 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18351 times:

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Thread starter):
Was there a stigma placed on the DC-10 that was later seen after the crash in Chicago? Very gruesome crash and hearing about what rescue workers initially faced...I can not imagine.

The Chicago and Paris crash were unrelated reasons

Paris was the cargo door opening up and plane depressurizing similar to the AA DC-10 at DTW as someone else mentioned. The AA Flt 191 Chicago crash was an engine falling off and damaging the aircraft causing it to roll over and crash


User currently offlineTK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4299 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18275 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © M. Maibrink


For all lost their lives that day, RIP.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4843 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18232 times:

One of the problems with the DC10 cargo door latching mechanism was that you could force the door handle to appear to be shut with very little force. This could lead to the appearance that the door was shut when really it is not. Also to add to the problem was that the door instructions written on the door itself was only in English. And the ramp worker at CDG didn't speak English.

I believe the correction was to make the door handle harder to close if latched improperly and to put a sight window on the door so you could visually ensure that the door was truly latched.

This info comes from a book published a few years after the accident. I think it was called "The Last 10 Seconds" or something like that.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 496 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18205 times:

May those who were aboard TK 981 rest in peace.  Sad
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):
If memory correct, the TK DC-10 had not yet been modified to cover FAA recommendations following the AA accident.

I recall reading a few different books that discussed these incidents...they said that the NTSB issued a recommendation to make these modifications after the AA incident, but the FAA didn't make it an Airworthiness Directive until after the TK crash. At least one of the books implied that the FAA's failure to make it an AD was the result of pressure from McDonnell Douglas, but I don't know if there's anything to back up that claim.

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Thread starter):
Was there a stigma placed on the DC-10 that was later seen after the crash in Chicago?

I've seen references, both in earlier threads on here and elsewhere, to people being afraid to fly on the DC-10 for a period of time after both incidents. I wasn't alive yet when either incident happened, so I have no firsthand knowledge. With that said, there were a few books written that capitalized on (and likely hyped up) the safety issues related to the DC-10, most notably The Rise and Fall of the DC-10.

[Edited 2013-03-03 17:04:39]


ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18190 times:

Adding to the cargo door issues, was another design flaw with regard to the venting of the rear cargo hold to the cabin above. It was not sufficient, so when the rear cargo hold decompressed, the pressure differential caused the rear cabin floor to buckle.

When the cabin floor buckled, control of engine 2 was lost, as well as some flight controls. It was the loss of this control that caused the crash.

These circumstances were identical to the DC-10 of AA over YQG and landing in DTW.

In my opinion, with the loss of the second aircraft with identical circumstances ... the DC-10 should have been grounded, and the flaws fixed. The books written about that, and the alleged bribing within the FAA to keep the DC-10 flying are fascinating and worthy of Robert Ludlum!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17992 times:

Not just that, but running the control cables through the floors made them vulnerable to a floor collapse.


The DC10 turned out to be a fine Aircraft eventually but it had a lot of design shortcuts initially due to the race to get
it out the door before the superb L1011 Tristar.


And yes, I am biased !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinefrontierflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 215 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17810 times:

It didn't help the flight was heavily booked, probably caused the floor to really cave in with all the extra weight .

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 17050 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 8):
Also to add to the problem was that the door instructions written on the door itself was only in English. And the ramp worker at CDG didn't speak English.

Well, I'm not sure you can expect a panel to be in dozens of languages, nor a minimum wage worker to speak a foreign language. Aren't ramp workers trained for each aircraft, at least a lead one or something like that ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4843 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 16576 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 13):
Well, I'm not sure you can expect a panel to be in dozens of languages, nor a minimum wage worker to speak a foreign language. Aren't ramp workers trained for each aircraft, at least a lead one or something like that ?

One would think....



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 16089 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 8):
and to put a sight window on the door so you could visually ensure that the door was truly latched.

On the day of the crash, the little window was already there, with English and Turkish instructions. However, the ramper from Morocco (other sources say Algeria, but in both countries the languages are Arabic and French) spoke neither English nor Turkish. However, I'm not sure if his supervisor taught him to use that window.

Anyway, the DC-10 that crashed that day seems to be the 29th DC-10 produced, which still begs the question:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 13):
Aren't ramp workers trained for each aircraft, at least a lead one or something like that ?

Did the ramper not have enough experience with DC-10s?

Quoting frontierflyer (Reply 12):
It didn't help the flight was heavily booked, probably caused the floor to really cave in with all the extra weight .

I'm pretty sure an airliner must be certified to carry passengers and their luggage safely while being 100% full.  


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15933 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 8):
worker at CDG didn't speak English.

It did not leave from CDG, because CDG had not yet opened for business. It left from ORY. The accident report (in French only in this case is at:

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1974/tc-v740303/pdf/tc-v740303.pdf

The report does reference the N103AA incident in June 72, and notes that the service directive was not implemented on the TK machine. No mention of mechanics not speaking English; where did you get that one? But it does mention they failed to inspect the access window, though it was very small, to check on the lock mechanism.

There is a monument at the crash site. What I recall (as a kid) is that Paris Match, a French weekly mag, ran some incredibly gory pictures of the crash site. Beyond that, it was always the litany of the worst crash ever (until Teneriffe happened three years later)


User currently offlinedairbus From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting longhauler (Reply 10):
Adding to the cargo door issues, was another design flaw with regard to the venting of the rear cargo hold to the cabin above. It was not sufficient, so when the rear cargo hold decompressed, the pressure differential caused the rear cabin floor to buckle.

When the cabin floor buckled, control of engine 2 was lost, as well as some flight controls. It was the loss of this control that caused the crash.

These circumstances were identical to the DC-10 of AA over YQG and landing in DTW.

Just to add...

In the case of the AA DC-10, the rear of the aircraft was configured with a passenger lounge which was empty at the time. While the floor buckled, the cables were not severed so the aircraft remained somewhat controllable. In the case of the THY aircraft, the flight was full so the cabin floor collapsed completely from the additional weight severing all the controls.



"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." - Charles Shultz
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1034 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15689 times:

I flew the DC-10 for World Airways in the mid 1980s. A procedure that evolved from the AA/THY accidents was to engage either autopilot if a loss of manual flight controls occurred. The wiring for the autopilot servos ran through the top of the cabin instead of the floor. That was the theory, anyway!

The DC-10 was a good airplane, as easy to fly as the 727. But the feeling was it could have used a little less McDonnell and a lot more Douglas...


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15373 times:

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 16):
No mention of mechanics not speaking English; where did you get that one?

Both the English and German Wikipedia mention the Moroccan (or Algerian) ramper who neither spoke English or Turkish, but they give no source...   


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinewinstonlegthigh From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 14770 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The aircraft, a DC-10-10 was, IIRC the first or second DC-10 delivered to TK, after they were leased from UA, but not delivered to that airline. I believe it was around the 30th DC-10 built.

When put it this way, I'd imagine it would have given the sinking that could have been me feeling in the pits of several UA-employed stomachs (particularly those dealing with fleet makeup).

Any reason they didn't receive the DC-10s?



Never has gravity been so uplifting.
User currently offlineairsmiles From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13975 times:

I don't understand the reference to leases from/to United? I've never heard that before so could someone add some clarification?

User currently offlinelh526 From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 2327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13761 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Aesma (Reply 13):
Well, I'm not sure you can expect a panel to be in dozens of languages, nor a minimum wage worker to speak a foreign language. Aren't ramp workers trained for each aircraft, at least a lead one or something like that ?

If I was an Airline operator and I would contract an airport (or one of its subsidiaries) to handle my aircraft during turnaround, I expect every one of the workers and handlers to put the utmost care into their efforts, including going by the book where absolutely necessary. I expect trained personell and duty managers and supervisors doing a proper job.
We are not talking about a carpenter laying a wood-floor, but a tin-box carrying 300+ pax!



Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13434 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 8):
I believe the correction was to make the door handle harder to close if latched improperly and to put a sight window on the door so you could visually ensure that the door was truly latched.

Back in the late-1970's, I worked in the USAF at Rhein-Main AB in Frankfurt. We were not allowed to close the cargo doors of the DC-10, this had to be done by an airline rep (World, TIA or ONA). I'm not sure if this was a USAF or airline directive, but regardless it was a no-no. We were allowed to open the doors but not close them. I'm sure this was a result of the issues with the door which resulted in the crash in France.

And not to hijack the thread, but I was there in '79 when AA191 went down and the subsequent grounding of the entire DC-10 fleet. The USAF had to pick up the slack to get folks back to the US, it took (4) C-141A's to match what one DC-10 could provide. The reputation of the '10 certainly suffered as a result of these major accidents..  
Quoting type-rated (Reply 8):
This info comes from a book published a few years after the accident. I think it was called "The Last 10 Seconds" or something like that.

If anyone gets a chance to look, this is a very good read. Not sure if that title is correct, but I know which one you are talking about.


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There was an excellent book about the crash and the development of the DC10 by a Sunday Times Insight team called "Destination Disaster". The team was lead by Paul Eddy with Elaine Potter and Bruce Page. As with all crashes it was a combination of factors which resulted in the ultimate disaster i.e as with the Tenerife Pan Am/KLM crash.

The aircraft was completely full due to BEA(Old British Airways) being on strike and a big Rugby match having been played the previous evening.

In the book much is mentioned of the effects of the take over of Douglas by McDonnell and the competition with Lockheed to be first. The term "Fly before they roll" was apparently on a banner above the assembly line. There were two very damning condemnations of McDonnell/Douglas which could have some relevance today. The first was the so call "Applegate Memo" Involves communication between Convair ( General Dynamics) who were the subcontractors on part of the fuselage including the cargo door. In this memo Convair told McDonnell/Douglas that it was an unsafe design. They were basically told to get on and built it as there were just sub contractors.

The other incident involved the so called "Gentleman's agreement" between McDonnell Douglas and the FAA after the near fatal AA 96 Windsor incident. This is where Mr Jack McGowan of Douglas and Mr John Shaffer of the FAA(a Richard Nixon appointee) agreed that Douglas would take "corrective measures' to fix the cargo door. This avoided the issuance of a FAA Airworthiness Directive on Douglas with all the negative publicity. It also went a long way to condemning the THY passenger to death. One FAA executive Arven Basnight was very dubious of this arrangement and wrote a secret memo to the files recording this arrangement to protect him and his staff. The DC 10 should in my opinion have been grounded after Paris and long before Chicago.

"Quoting maxpower1954"
"The DC-10 was a good airplane, as easy to fly as the 727. But the feeling was it could have used a little less McDonnell and a lot more Douglas..."

Yes I think that is correct. If one reads some of the posts on the "FAA Grounds 787" thread then maybe the same applies to Boeing regarding the effects of McDonnell on them too.

"Quoting winstonlegthigh"
"When put it this way, I'd imagine it would have given the sinking that could have been me feeling in the pits of several UA-employed stomachs (particularly those dealing with fleet makeup).

Any reason they didn't receive the DC-10s?"

The aircraft were originally ordered by Mitsui of Japan who hoped to sell them on to ANA. ANA were a L1011 Tristar customer but the L1011 was experiening problems due to the Rolls Royce bankrupcy. In the end ANA stayed loyal to the Tristar and these aircraft needed a new home. I think that is where the UA lease came from.



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineaagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 545 posts, RR: 50
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I remember following the news about the troubles with the DC-10s through the years. "Destination Disaster" was, in my opinion, an excellent source about the entire history of the cargo door problem. I bought the book and read it while on a business trip. I was flying from PHL to EWR on a NW DC10 one night. There were only about four of us on the flight so they told us to take seats in first class. I sat in my seat and started to read the book. A few minutes later one of the flight attendents stopped by and asked me if I wouldn't mind putting the book away. She explained that given the subject and where we were it didn't make her feel comfortable.

I flew DC-10s beginning in '77 constantly throughout the 80's. It was a wonderful aircraft, but it certainly did have it rough spots with this and then the AA accident at O'Hare, and the UA crash in Sioux City.

Art


User currently offlinemuzyck From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 46 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I recall reading the details about this in the book Destination Disaster. I was in my early teens when the book came out and it was quite an education about events that lead to the incident and the history of air safety.

User currently offlinehunterboy From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 7 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10645 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I do remember it well. It was the day after the France England rugby international: with the BA flight cancellation, many Englishmen were transferred to the flight at very short notice, who would never have been on the flight
RIP


User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1034 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10341 times:

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 24):
The first was the so call "Applegate Memo" Involves communication between Convair ( General Dynamics) who were the subcontractors on part of the fuselage including the cargo door. In this memo Convair told McDonnell/Douglas that it was an unsafe design. They were basically told to get on and built it as there were just sub contractors.

The most amazing part is the aft cargo bulk door blew open BEFORE the AA/THY accidents during a ground pressurisation test at San Diego (General Dynamics/Convair was the contractor for the entire DC-10 fuselage.)

MCD basically told them to mind their own business. They ignored the opinion of a peer manufacturer of the technically excellent 880/990 jet transports because of the costs redesigning the over center latches and lock. Unbelievable.


User currently offlinen729pa From UK - England, joined Jan 2011, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

Quoting airsmiles (Reply 2):
and was en-route to London-Heathrow so this accident was badly felt in the UK

Purely FYI....On the 2nd March, France had played England at the Parc des Princes in Paris in a 5 Nations rugby international. A large number of the passengers had been returning from that match on the THY flight. On the 20th April 1974 a charity match between England and France was played at Twickenham to raise money for the families. The final score I believe was ironically the same as the game on the 2nd March, 12-12

The England team could have been on the THY flight, but they managed to catch an earlier AF flight instead.

Very tragic accident.


User currently offlinebcal dc10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 721 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 9068 times:

Random fact... My late grandfather was booked on this flight and missed it.
Until the day he passed away, he wouldn't ever speak of it.


User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8348 times:

Quoting CairnterriAIR (Thread starter):
Was there a stigma placed on the DC-10 that was later seen after the crash in Chicago?

I don't remember much about TK 981, I was in HS at the time, it was distant, and the sad fact of those days was that air disasters were not terribly unexpected. There was a lot of news coverage of this flight and you could tell that no one had a chance in the forest. The door latch seemed to be a solvable problem that would be corrected.

For American 191, I worked in an office building in downtown Chicago. Word spread around the floor that the big column of black smoke to the northwest was from an airline crash near ORD, and we all could see when we looked out the north and west windows.

In the weeks that followed, most of the media didn't know a lot about aviation, but had a lot to say about the DC-10. The FAA revoked the type certificate and then allowed the DC-10 to fly again after all pylons had been inspected and corrected. A few months later, a WA DC-10 landed on a closed runway and hit a maintenance truck in Mexico City, killing all aboard, and it was reported as "another DC-10 crash". That was about the tone.

Also much was made of AA using a forklift to raise the pylon to the wing. Later it was also said that UA and CO did the same thing, but things had been cooled down by then.

In addition to seeing the smoke, my train home (Milwaukee Road NW line) passed by the southern end of ORD. Also I had a ORD-LAX trip booked for late June on CO. That flight was rebooked from a DC-10 to a 727. CO had to contact everyone by phone to tell them of the rebooking.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8000 times:

Sad for me. Lent my camera to someone who was on the plane.

User currently offline802flyguy From United States of America, joined May 2012, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6980 times:

The DC-10 was a good airplane, as easy to fly as the 727. But the feeling was it could have used a little less McDonnell and a lot more Douglas...[/quote]

A very astute observation...!

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 24):

Reply 24, posted Mon Mar 4 2013 05:21:57 your local time (9 hours 35 minutes 45 secs ago) and read 6459 times:

There was an excellent book about the crash and the development of the DC10 by a Sunday Times Insight team called "Destination Disaster". The team was lead by Paul Eddy with Elaine Potter and Bruce Page.

Another very good book about the DC-10 cargo door debacle is "The Last Nine Minutes" by Moira Johnston. I read both back in the 70's . IMHO Johnston's book is rather better written and a has detailed account of the "gentlemen's agreement" between McDonnel Douglas and the FAA to make the cargo fix a service bulletin rather than an airworthiness directive. It also discusses how the real problem was the in inadequate venting between the main cabin and the cargo compartment.


User currently offlinebrucek From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

I sometimes believe that the DC10 / L1011 race for the first trijet should be mandatory reading for college level business classes.....

I recall the incident as a teenage, and can recall the TV shots of the carnage. I read "CDG" above in one of the posts, but thought it was orly airport that was the departure....

I did see an excellent documentary on TV years after the accident. My recollection (I have no sources for this other than my limited memory) was that a bulletin was issued by the manufacturer after the "Windor Incident" with a kit of parts and sent to all operators of the aircraft. Similarly, a change bulletin was issued for all new builds to include the mods. But what was forgotten were the two aircraft in final systems test, one being the accident aircraft and the other not affected- but found to be without the mods once the manufacturer figured out how come the accident aircraft wasn't modified.

Bruce.


User currently offlineTK1244 From Netherlands, joined May 2007, 329 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

According to the episode "behind closed doors" of air crash investigation, the maintenance records of TC-JAV said that the modifications were done while this wasn't true...


"The future is in the skies. For any nation that cannot defend its skies will never be confident of its future." Atatürk
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5912 times:

Quoting TK1244 (Reply 35):
According to the episode "behind closed doors" of air crash investigation, the maintenance records of TC-JAV said that the modifications were done while this wasn't true...

Yes, that was in one of the books I read about this crash. It was thought that the mods were done at the factory before delivery, so even if it became an AD before the crash, this aircraft still would not have been modified, as records showed it was already done!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineairtechy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5647 times:

It was my understanding that per existing regulations the size and number of the "blowout plugs" in the passenger floor were sized based on those required of the 707 and DC-8. They should have been much larger because cargo doors had gotten much bigger. If one blew open, the plugs were not large enough to quickly equalize the pressure above and below the floor so the floor collapsed jamming or breaking the control cables which ran underneath the floor.

This is of course in addition to the door issue.

Jim


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting lh526 (Reply 22):
If I was an Airline operator and I would contract an airport (or one of its subsidiaries) to handle my aircraft during turnaround, I expect every one of the workers and handlers to put the utmost care into their efforts, including going by the book where absolutely necessary. I expect trained personnel and duty managers and supervisors doing a proper job.

But do you expect to pay for that ?

Quoting lh526 (Reply 22):
We are not talking about a carpenter laying a wood-floor, but a tin-box carrying 300+ pax!

Well, that carpenter is making two or three times what a ramp rat makes.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5338 times:

Here's a random movie trivia fact: The movie Snatch (with Brad Pitt, excellent film btw) has a character in it whose nickname is "Turkish." The movie explains that he got the nickname because his parents were killed in an airplane crash.

User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5124 times:

Today I loaned "Destination Disaster" from the university library. Until now, it has been a absorbing read.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12322 posts, RR: 35
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

There is another book that was written about the DC10, called - oddly enough - "The Rise and fall of the DC10"; it had very good coverage of the Paris crash, including the initial news report.

Coincidentally, the accident happened on the day that CDG was formally opened.


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

@ flying turtle Enjoy ! When I first read it there were still DC10's to fly on. Sometimes one wasn't so pleased to have read the book when sitting at 30000ft. It's a pity so many people died in Paris, Chicago and Sioux City. Had they done many of the things mentioned in the book with the door and the hydraulics system at that time, they would be alive today. In the end it became a good aircraft although for me you can't beat the DC8-62/63. They were Douglas's finest in my opinion.


SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

I took Business Analytics (basically my first statistics class ever) this past spring as part of my MBA coursework (my previous educational background is communication/media focused with a very odd aviation-flight operations degree thrown in on the side, ha ha), and one thing that I took away from that course is that while you can design something so that it will work properly every time as long as it is done properly every time, the chance of it not working properly due to operating error is proportional to the number of correct steps it takes to make it work. And the more times you do it, the greater likelyhood that at some point things will go awry.

So when you have a baggage door with the design of the DC-10, and it needs to be closed before every flight on hundreds of airplanes multiple times a day, your n goes up, up and up.

Finally the right combination of factors lines up (the accident "swiss cheese") and an event like this happens. It's an interesting engineering and human factors problem.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting planespotting (Reply 43):
So when you have a baggage door with the design of the DC-10, and it needs to be closed before every flight on hundreds of airplanes multiple times a day, your n goes up, up and up.

It makes sense in theory, but in reality there are many examples of multi-step operations on airframes. Shoot, look at the Embraer doors alone, with their vent flaps .. very similar to the DC-10 door. The difference is the design. The DC-10 door was flawed, they knew it was flawed, it was allowed to continue.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 43):
Finally the right combination of factors lines up (the accident "swiss cheese") and an event like this happens. It's an interesting engineering and human factors problem.

The Reason model works, but perhaps not in the way you think. You see, the first slice of Swiss Cheese is the design itself. Both the flawed design of the door, also the flawed design of the rear cabin floor, and to an extant the flawed decision to route all control cables through that flawed cabin floor. But ... in my opinion, they are all the same (first) slice of Swiss Cheese.

But bringing Human Factors into it ...

The next slice might be training and checklists for ramp employees, as I am sure you have considered.

In my opinion another slice might be a push to get the aircraft out on time, forcing the door closed, but also ... building the DC-10 on time, competing with the L1011.

But ... in my opinion the last slice of Swiss Cheese that could have saved those passengers was in the FAA itself! In some very high office, it was known the aircraft was unsafe, and nothing was done. It is Human Factors in spades, and I have often wondered if there was one man that looked himself in the mirror knowing he could have saved those passengers, but ignored it.

Understand, I am not arguing with you. I find this area interesting, and it is my area of education as well.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineRebelDJ From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4413 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 44):
Understand, I am not arguing with you. I find this area interesting, and it is my area of education as well.

Me too! If you want to see how the regulation covering the design of fuselage doors has attempted to minimise the possibility of this type of accident happening again, read the latest FAR 25.783 here.


User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3512 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 44):
Understand, I am not arguing with you. I find this area interesting, and it is my area of education as well.

Totally understand, and I also find it very interesting as well. I really enjoyed the one human factors class I was able to take in college.

I also didn't mean that all the design factors were the only holes involved individually - I definitely think of them as "one" hole as well. I guess I feel that every new element or layer of "fail opportunity" you bring into the sequence is an obstacle to overcome in preventing an accident (starting with design; manufacturing; operations/procedures; variable factors such as timing, new employees, etc.; and finally luck - the fact that the AA flight in Windsor didn't have any passengers sitting in the back over the control cables that day, while the Turkish flight was full up).



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineFreshSide3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

They do have a memorial wall for the crash victims, at Paris' famous Pere Lachaise cemetery, incidentally.

User currently offlineType-Rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4843 posts, RR: 19
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 16):

The report does reference the N103AA incident in June 72, and notes that the service directive was not implemented on the TK machine. No mention of mechanics not speaking English; where did you get that one? But it does mention they failed to inspect the access window, though it was very small, to check on the lock mechanism.

From the book "The Last Nine Minutes" by Moira Johnston. It's a very good book about this accident and is available on Amazon.
Maybe you should read it?



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

Quoting Type-Rated (Reply 48):
The report does reference the N103AA incident in June 72, and notes that the service directive was not implemented on the TK machine. No mention of mechanics not speaking English; where did you get that one? But it does mention they failed to inspect the access window, though it was very small, to check on the lock mechanism.

From the book "The Last Nine Minutes" by Moira Johnston. It's a very good book about this accident and is available on Amazon.
Maybe you should read it?

Oh that one... Only an American journalist would expect everybody outside the US to speak English and take a swipe at the French that way. It is a good book, but it's all about the human dimension explained to a wider public. Read it when it came out. Thanks for the reminder.


User currently offlineLdriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

There's another element of intrigue that isn't as well remembered about TC-JAV. The evidence showed that a few brief weeks before Paris, someone had tinkered with TC-JAV's rear cargo door. As a result, a warning light that might have blinked on and off in the event of an improperly closed door was disconnected. In addition, the locking pins had been re-set so as to make the door easy enough for a "sickly child" to close (Destination Disaster quote, I believe). The baggae handler thus did not force the door closed in this case. If I recall, he said if anything it closed perhaps a little too easily. He was well aware, in fact, that he should never force close the door.

All this raises the question, how much of MD's culpability was offset by an airline performing unauthorized maintenance? It's interesting to speculate if another repeat accident would have occured even if the plane had not received its final fix.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3120 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I believe it was around the 30th DC-10 built.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
10th or 12th airplane off the line

I'm lucky to be here! My first widebody flight was DC-10-10 N60NA line number 14.
National Airlines TPA-JFK 12-17-71. Well before any design flaws were corrected.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

Quoting dairbus (Reply 17):
In the case of the AA DC-10, the rear of the aircraft was configured with a passenger lounge which was empty at the time. While the floor buckled, the cables were not severed so the aircraft remained somewhat controllable. In the case of the THY aircraft, the flight was full so the cabin floor collapsed completely from the additional weight severing all the controls.

This is a common misconception with regard to this crash.

Using rough figures, the aft cabin is approximately 270,000 square inches. If the cabin had pressurized even to 5 psi, (target is around 8), then the load on the cabin floor would have been around 1.3 Million pounds! That is why venting is so important. In fact the AA DC-10 over YQG was at cruising altitude, so the load at depressurization would have been over 2 Million pounds.

Approx 150 passengers in the aft cabin of the TK, with no lounge would weigh about 30,000 lbs. 90 on the AA aircraft, with a lounge would weigh about 18,000 lbs. So in reality, when you are talking load on the cabin floor in the measure of millions of pounds, a 12,000 lbs difference would be all but negligible.

In my opinion, it was just a fluke that the control cables were severed/jammed on the TK DC-10, but still (somewhat) functional on the AA DC-10.

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 50):
All this raises the question, how much of MD's culpability was offset by an airline performing unauthorized maintenance? It's interesting to speculate if another repeat accident would have occurred even if the plane had not received its final fix.

While it was the door that caused the depressurization, it was the lack of adequate cabin floor venting that caused the crash.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 52):
While it was the door that caused the depressurization, it was the lack of adequate cabin floor venting that caused the crash.

Does anybody have a picture of such a cabin floor vent? Google won't turn up any images (except wooden cabins).


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3350 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The DC10 turned out to be a fine Aircraft eventually but it had a lot of design shortcuts initially due to the race to get
it out the door before the superb L1011 Tristar.
Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 18):
The DC-10 was a good airplane, as easy to fly as the 727. But the feeling was it could have used a little less McDonnell and a lot more Douglas...

This goes to the fact that McDonnell took over Douglas long before the design of the DC-10 was finished, and they called all the shots. McDonnell had never built any civilian planes, only military; and when building for the military you build to specification, and that is good enough. Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas, and Convair (General Dynamics) had learned that when building airliners you build it as safe as you can, period. McDonnell did not have this mindset, and the problems that the DC-10 had were the result. I am 100% certain that had McDonnell not taken over Douglas the DC-10 would have had just as good a safety record as the 747 and L-1011, and perhaps Douglas would still be in business today. They probably would have merged with somebody, as they were in dire financial straits; but McDonnell was the worst possible choice. Imagine what might have happened had Douglas and Lockheed merged? We might have had the DC-1011 instead of the DC-10 and L-1011, and it might have been financially successful. And they might have stayed in the airliner business, giving Boeing and Airbus needed competition.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 53):
Does anybody have a picture of such a cabin floor vent?

The vents were on the walls, at floor level. Either they are bare and visible like in the freighter shots, or in passenger aircraft often the wall panels wouldn't reach the floor allowing the air to flow.

Also, remember, that while pressure equalization was one of the functions, so also was cargo hold heating and ventilation. Air would flow from the cabin, through the cargo holds to the outflow valves.

Here are a few examples where the vents are visible.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Phil Debski
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Beltyukov - RuSpotters Team


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erik Nugal




Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineLdriver From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 52):
In fact the AA DC-10 over YQG was at cruising altitude,

Don't know if this would change your analysis, but AA YQG was at almost the exact same altitude as TK: between 12 and 13 thousand ft.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 52):
Quoting Ldriver (Reply 50):
All this raises the question, how much of MD's culpability was offset by an airline performing unauthorized maintenance? It's interesting to speculate if another repeat accident would have occurred even if the plane had not received its final fix.

While it was the door that caused the depressurization, it was the lack of adequate cabin floor venting that caused the crash.

There is a chain of causation, and the point I make is that there also would probably have been no TK crash if the airline hadn't defeated or altered the admittedly fragile safeguards against a forced door closing. So my question is, how much liability does one assign to TK? A valid question, I think.

regards
Chris


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 56):
A valid question, I think.

And let's not forget the role of the FAA. Under Nixon, John H. Shaffer was appointed head of the FAA, and he was tangled with corporate interests. He even ordered accident investigations to be terminated one month after the accident (GA and corporate aviation) or six months after (airliner accidents) just to... ehm, clear the administrative backlog.

In my hobby as an Alpine Club guide, the question of negligence is an important one. It all boils down to the question who could have prevented what by using his experience and/or training, and if the failure to act in a reasonable manner was causative.

The book I'm reading also mentions the spoiler lever on the DC-8. If you pulled it, the spoilers were deployed, if you pushed it, they were automatically deployed upon landing. After some accidents, the FAA just mandated a placard to be installed: "Do not deploy spoilers before landing."

The authors compared it to a placard saying "Do not crash the airplane."

It took the blood and the lives of passengers until the FAA ordered Douglas to supply a lock that makes it impossible to deploy the spoilers before landing.

How did the various agents act, as far as I know?

McDonnell-Douglas: Insisted on the door closing mechanism, and put out an SB telling personnel not to use more than 50 pounds when putting down the door latch. IMHO, a prime example of a non-failsafe method.
Convair, the door manufacturer: Warned McD-Douglas about the door closing mechanism, but was prohibited from contacting the FAA directly.
FAA: Had knowledge of the Windsor accident, and did not order an immediate fix (either grounding, or ordering sufficient temporary cabin floor vents).
THY: Has received the newer SB from McD-Douglas, and has done the fix only on paper.
The aircrew: Didn't know of the fix that hasn't been done, and they trusted that the aircraft was airworthy to begin with.
The baggage handler at ORY: Not to blame because one cannot trust a person without an engineering background to stop that cascade of failures.
The handler's supervisor: Didn't either get training related to the DC-10 door closing mechanism, or didn't pass it down to the handler.

I know of the dangers of apportioning blame, but it's my opion at the moment: 45 % for McDonnell-Douglas, 45 % the FAA, 9 % THY and 1 % the baggage handler's supervisor.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 55):

Thank you for making me smarter! Until now I thought the vents would be located in the cabin floor itself, not near the wall.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4759 posts, RR: 43
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2908 times:

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 56):
Don't know if this would change your analysis, but AA YQG was at almost the exact same altitude as TK: between 12 and 13 thousand ft.

Actually, I didn't know that. I had always thought the TK DC-10 was a lot lower, and the AA DC-10 was going from ORD-BUF, not DTW-BUF. It changes the math a bit, but even if both were pressurized to say 5 psi, that would still be about 1.3 million pounds load on the rear floor. I am guessing that a 12,000 lbs difference wouldn't be that big a deal.

Quoting Ldriver (Reply 56):
There is a chain of causation, and the point I make is that there also would probably have been no TK crash if the airline hadn't defeated or altered the admittedly fragile safeguards against a forced door closing. So my question is, how much liability does one assign to TK? A valid question, I think.

Seriously, I don't think there is such a thing as an invalid question. But you point out another factor, that is that most accidents are a result of a long chain of incidents ... remove one link from the chain, and the accident doesn't occur.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 57):
I know of the dangers of apportioning blame, but it's my opinion at the moment: 45 % for McDonnell-Douglas, 45 % the FAA, 9 % THY and 1 % the baggage handler's supervisor.

To me, that looks about right.

It is interesting that you mention the DC-8 spoilers, Air Canada lost a DC-8 in YYZ in 1970 as a result of the spoilers. It's out of print now, but there is an Excellent (he he he, I wrote it) book about that crash, entitled "A Galaxy of Errors".

In that crash, even though the pilots did something against Air Canada SOP at the time, they did not take the entire blame. McDD also took a hit, as they knew about the flaw and was not public about it, also AC, as they knew about the flaw as well, but did not teach it. As well, Transport Canada took some of the blame as they licensed the aircraft in Canada.

The flaw? Even though the manuals said otherwise, the ground spoilers could be deployed in the air under certain conditions. The result, the loss of the aircraft and all about her.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 58):
and the AA DC-10 was going from ORD-BUF, not DTW-BUF.

AA96 was operating DTW-BUF, not ORD-BUF. Complete flight routing was LAX-DTW-BUF-LGA. There were only 57 passengers on the DTW-BUF leg (and 11 crew), typical of many flights in those pre-deregulation years.


User currently offlinejimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 52):
While it was the door that caused the depressurization, it was the lack of adequate cabin floor venting that caused the crash.

I have found an article that proposes something I've not heard before...

"However, in the Detroit case, reinforcement of the passenger cabin floor (to support a piano for an inaugural flight) meant it did not buckle as much under the sudden pressure difference when the hatch of the cargo hold underneath failed."
(http://chrisbart.com/?page_id=169)

Now the one thing that I have heard before is, as a result of THY 981, cabin floor reinforcements were ordered for all widebody jets.


User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting jimbobjoe (Reply 60):
Now the one thing that I have heard before is, as a result of THY 981, cabin floor reinforcements were ordered for all widebody jets.

Funny. I heard it was the other way round... ordering manufacturers to design adequate cabin floor vents.


I'm now halfway through the book, and it gets more and more frustrating. Why and why and why were the modifications on the three ships (for THY) signed off by McDonnell-Douglas, but haven't been done? Perhaps a rush to get them sold... and the horrific stories about the then-time THY F/E that had a macho attitude at their job. And nearly all of THY's pilots were captains, because they were more or less "promoted" from the Turkish Air Force into the national airline. This gave an interesting CRM.

David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta 727 Crash In The 80's posted Mon Jul 26 2004 08:21:43 by Positive rate
NW Crash In The 80s posted Wed Jul 21 2004 17:43:48 by 7E72004
Alitalia Crash In The 60's posted Fri Jan 3 2003 05:21:25 by Lubcha132
30 Years Ago : Eastern 401 Crash In The Everglades posted Fri Dec 27 2002 03:26:15 by SegmentKing
Pacific Air Crash In The Philippines posted Thu Oct 31 2002 19:02:36 by Heinz
A Crash In The LA Area posted Thu Jul 4 2002 22:09:34 by 9V-SPJ
LOT IL-62 Crash In The 80's.. posted Sun Jan 21 2001 08:02:08 by Future_Pilot
Plane Crash In The Philippines posted Wed Apr 19 2000 03:00:55 by Hmmmm...
Crash in the UK posted Wed Jan 13 1999 13:41:09 by Cool Cat IIIc
Program on French TV about the concorde crash in Paris posted Mon Oct 20 2003 15:20:12 by Kl911