MD11Fanatic From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9513 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 (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9389 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 (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9274 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, 1471 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9227 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.