MD11Fanatic From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8084 times:
I was talking to a DC-10 pilot from Omni the other day and he mentioned that planes from the original KSSU configuration were a lot less capable due to more primitive avionics and autopilot capabilities as compared to the later ATLAS configurations.
Cdekoe From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7960 times:
I don't know about KSSU vs. ATLAS, but the KLM & Martinair DC-10-30's were CAT IIIc certified and the FMS systems were state of the art. Compared to the B747-200's in the fleet the DC-10 was far more sophisticated.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
TimT From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 168 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7845 times:
NWA's DC-10 were all KSSU. They tried to get the Cat III thing going and never made it. I've spent 8-10 hours getting one to pass the tests, and on the first flight it would fail. Everytime. As far as differences? I think the part numbers are the same for all the pitch & roll computers. Maybe a different dash number. NWA also disabled the CWS and TURB modes on the A/P. Atlas did not.
TZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1434 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7798 times:
ATLAS and KSSU also translated to galley standards and became the major industry specifications for galley carts, carriers, trays, etc. ATLAS has now become the majority galley standard for most airlines, though some still use KSSU while some others use their own custom specifications which are modifications of the ATLAS or KSSU standard.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.