This is not true. There certainly was a way to bring her in for an emergency landing, as NTSB simulator tests showed.
Bringing in it on a sim, knowing what is going on AHEAD OF
TIME, is a hell of a lot different than being presented with a catostrophic situation and having only seconds to figure out-correctly-what is wrong. To say this was preventable may be theoretically correct, but not very realistic, giving what happened, and how little time those pilots had to react to so many unknowns.
Read this article on the accident. http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/aacrash.shtml
Here's one paragraph from that article:
Under normal circumstances an aircraft losing an engine would be able to fly on the remaining power plants still functioning, so why was this accident different? When the engine separated, it took a 3 foot section of the wing with, it ripping out vital hydraulic and electric lines in the process. The starboard slats stayed extended but the port slats retracted because of the leaking fluid, causing a stall. The crew was unaware of the retraction due to the fact that the no.1 generator powered the Captain's instrument panel, and thus the slat disagreement system. The stick-shaker had also been disabled.
So maybe in theory, they can recover, but with that much damage, happening so close to the ground, with so little relative speed, they didn't have much ofa chance.
The cause of the accident was not blamed on pilot error, and I'm not saying it should have been.
No it shouldn't have been, as it was blmaed on faulty pylons, if I"m not mistaken.
...the DC10 had (arguably, rightfully) earned a bad rap well before this crash.
Right. An aircraft that few literally thousands and thousands and thousands of safe, uneventful flights, deserved a bad rep?
Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?