Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL,Emergency  
User currently offlineMerlin From India, joined Mar 2006, 70 posts, RR: 0
Posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

Yesterday a DL(Delta) MD-11 made an emegency landing at PDX(Portland,or) the A/C was in route to Tokyo, (LAX-NRT) when their was a problem with the hydrolic's (spelling?) system causing the pilot's to declare an Emergency and land at PDX.
If anyone knows more about this incident and how bad it really was please let me know. much thanks MERLIN.





"Aviation & Black hole carry same effect,once any where near it you're bound to get sucked in".
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 752 times:

This doesn't sound right. A flight is enroute LAX to NRT. Why would they not go back to LAX? Isn't landing at PHX out of the way?

User currently offlineAC_A340 From Canada, joined Sep 1999, 2251 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 732 times:

They fly the most northern route possible because it is shorter due to the curvature of the earth.

Hypermike; They made the landing in PDX, not PHX. PDX is kind of on the way to NRT.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 708 times:

I wonder, does this plane have just 3 hydraulic systems like it's older sister the DC-10? I know this plane (MD-11), was built with the hydraulic line shut-off values to prevent loss of hydraulic fluid so a similar incident like the United Airlines DC-10 at Sioux City doesn't happen again.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11573 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 704 times:

TEDSKI, do you listen to anyone's posts? We've been over this before, yet you continue to flame the DC10/MD11 with its 3 hydraulic lines. So what? The fact that it has 3 lines does not make it unsafe. Pay attention, and forget that the DC10/MD11 only has three lines. It's just not important.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 701 times:

If it is considered safe what happened to AA Flt 191 at O'Hare and United 232 at Sioux City! If those planes (DC-10s) had a 4th hydraulic line somewhere else in the
fuselage like the L-1011 & 747, those passengers would be alive today!!!!!


User currently offlineDLMD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 708 times:

Let us get one thing perfectly straight here.

Had the DC-10 performing AA 191 from O'Hare been any other aircraft type treated the same way, the exact same thing would have happened;

the DC-10 may or may not have been at fault for that incident, but the number of hydraulic lines was all but irrelevant - the fact that half the wing's low speed lift devices had been ripped away may have had something more significant to do with the disaster.

Also, the the MD-11 is the only aircraft CERTIFIED by the FAA and other aviation authorities, including the JAA, for zero-hydraulics landings. It is commonly referred to as 'Fly By Fire.' This makes it, if any hydraulic fault occurs, my first choice airliner to be in - regardless of the number of hydraulic lines - which - as D L X states - is all but irrelevant when you have the 'FBF' technology.

Don't blame the DC-10 singularly either for the O'Hare disaster - admittedly it wasn't perfect, but the maintenance on the aircrat was the primary fault.



DLMD-11.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11573 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 698 times:

As I thought, you aren't paying attention. The AA191 flight did not crash because of hydraulic failure. Although the engine separation caused a leak, there was enough hydraulic control that the plane could have flown for another 30 mintues. It crashed because the interlock to the LED on the port wing was supported by hydraulic pressure alone, and the pylon separation very locally reduced that pressure causing the LED to retract from the force of the slipstream. The result of that was that the port wing would now stall at a higher speed. When the jet slowed down to turn around, the port wing stalled, and began to flip the plane since the starboard wing did not stall. If either the pilot had recognized the stall, or kept the speed up, those passengers would not have died on that flight.

The UA232 crash happened because all three lines went through the same area of the plane. This section was destroyed when the #2 engine blew. Thus, it didn't matter how many lines they had on the plane, the fact that they ran through the same spot did them in. BTW, again, a wing stalled just before landing causing the plane to roll and crash, IIRC.

So, I maintain, and I hope that you're listening this time, that the planes crashing had nothing to do with the number of hydraulic lines on the jet.

To the others on this thread, I apologize that I have taken this tangent from the DL Emergency post.  



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 696 times:

By the time DLMD-11, you reach the age to fly an MD-11, Delta's MD-11s will be sitting in the Arizona desert awaiting resale or scrapping! Delta will be getting rid of it's MD-11s in probably 2002 or 2003 in favor of new 767s & 777s.

User currently offlineDLMD-11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 687 times:

I can dream can't I?  



DLMD-11.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 687 times:

DLX, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, I have been receiving the magazine Airways, and in one issue there was a good article on the DC-10. In it, it stated a lot of aerospace engineers had some displeasing things to say about the DC-10's systems and how it was inferior to the L-1011 & 747.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 686 times:

Dream of flying something that has a good future ahead like the 747, 767, 777 or A340 so when you reach the age to fly you will be in training to fly on one of those jumbos.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11573 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 686 times:

Apology accepted, although I didn't feel you were being rude.

I would agree that the DC10 as a design was inferior to the 747 and L1011. To this day, I don't really want to get on a DC10, and I've never had the need to. All I'm saying is that we need to get our facts straight. The only accident (off the top of my head) that can be blamed on the DC10's design was the THY Turkish accident at Paris because the cargo door could appear locked when it was not.

The AA191 accident occured because AA's maintenance mistakenly thought they could improve the way the MD service bulletin could be handled (CO did the same thing btw), and the UA232 accident occured because the engine could not contain a blade failure.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 684 times:

The article is in the Nov/Dec 97 issue of Airways, on pg 3 the MAILBAG section, the article is titled What is wrong with the DC-10? In it, it stated that the L-1011's and 747's slat hydraulic lines are routed on the trailing edge of the wing box. On the DC-10, they are routed together on the leading edge of the wing box. Plus both L-1011 & 747 have a slat locking system the DC-10 doesn't. MD was cutting corners and was in a hurry to get the DC-10 in service before the L-1011

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11573 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 675 times:

Again, I agree with you. The routing of the hydros leaves much to be desired. And to your credit, had the routing been through the trailing edge on AA191, that flight may have survived. Don't ever forget that for a crash to happen, lots of things have to go wrong. Even though one particular thing may pop up as being most important, the handling of that one thing is usually just as important.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 677 times:

I have to agree with Tedski on this one.

The DC-10 did not have a slat locking device which almost every other aircraft does. Additionally, The DC-10 hyds. were configured so that each individual wing's slats drew the pressure from that wings engine. Hence If the hyds. had been engineered properly even when the engine tore off due to the sheared pin due to the improper installation that Douglas had specifically told AA and CO not to continue the flight would have been able to successfully complete an emergency landing with no loss of life on board the aircraft. But because the slats retracted when the engine tore away and lost pressure on the hyd. lines the result was as we all know far more catastrophic.



User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 671 times:

Thanks for backing me up Acvitale on this one, was not getting good remarks from others on this topic. It is McDonnell Douglas's fault with it's negligence that put them in the situation they are in now, owned by Boeing.

User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 655 times:

I wouldn't call it negligence... More just a bad design and bad engineering....

Negligence would imply that there was reason to believe that the scenario would occur...

If anyone was guilt of negligence in that accident it was AMR's AA Maint. who after having been advised by McDonald Douglas that the procedure they were using could shear the pins chose to continue the procedure as it was faster hence cheaper to remount the engine using a forklift.

Yes, I will also agree that MD didn't sell many DC-10's after that accident.. Always ruined the reputation of the aircraft.

Between that and the cargo door latch problems which brought down THY from Paris to London and came close to killing a UA bird...

Just my $.02


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11573 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 659 times:

I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me Acvitale. The only point that I was making throughout the thread was that Tedski was wrong in saying that these birds crashed because of the number of hydraulic lines. The number had nothing to do with them. The positioning had some to do with UA, and perhaps different positioning could have saved AA.

I fully agree with anyone who states that the DC10 was underdesigned, however, I will disagree with someone who says that MD caused either the AA or UA accident.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 644 times:

I was stating that the design was lacking... So was the AA remount of the engine..

My bigger concern over the placement of the hyd. lines is the lack of a slat locking mechanism and the flaw in having two seperate hyd. line sources for left slats and right slats... There is no scenario I can think of that would support a situation where you would want one side extended and the other not...

As for only having three hyd. systems... Well many types have only three systems..

As for the way the lines were routed on the DC-10/MD-11 yes I must agree they could have been designed better... But as with most crashes... It is a chain of events and many weaknesses take place to make one crash happen...


User currently offlineAcvitale From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 922 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 643 times:

I was stating that the design was lacking... So was the AA remount of the engine..

My bigger concern over the placement of the hyd. lines is the lack of a slat locking mechanism and the flaw in having two seperate hyd. line sources for left slats and right slats... There is no scenario I can think of that would support a situation where you would want one side extended and the other not...

As for only having three hyd. systems... Well many types have only three systems..

As for the way the lines were routed on the DC-10/MD-11 yes I must agree they could have been designed better... But as with most crashes... It is a chain of events and many weaknesses take place to make one crash happen...


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...
DL Emergency Landing YHZ October 12 posted Tue Oct 14 2008 15:27:44 by Viscount724
DL Emergency Landing At JFK posted Tue Jul 29 2008 16:20:23 by Fanoftristars
DL Emergency Landing At MEM posted Thu Apr 24 2008 17:42:56 by Moek2000
DL Emergency At YYT? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 16:11:11 by Airbazar
DL Emergency Landing In ZRH posted Wed Dec 28 2005 18:09:21 by ManuCH
DL Emergency Landing In OAK Today posted Sun Oct 2 2005 02:30:24 by Freedomtofly
DL Emergency In ORD 14JUN05? posted Wed Jun 15 2005 01:51:54 by WeAreUnited
DL Emergency Landing At SLC posted Wed Apr 13 2005 23:54:43 by Fanoftristars
DL Emergency Landing In North Carolina posted Mon Oct 18 2004 22:25:28 by IslipWN
DL Emergency Landing Yesterday? posted Sat Aug 3 2002 15:05:04 by Frequentflier