DC-10: Legend or Death Trap?

[Sampa]

So we all have heard of the old wide-body airliner: DC-10. What do YOU say it's legacy is and why?

Edited September 10, 2015 by Sampa

[Bill Phil]

I'm sorry, what's this airliner?

Why do you say, "We all."?

I'm going to say "legend." It proves that even though there might be a high accident rate early on, it can be improved over time.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Sampa]

I'll add a picture later after i get home. Phone sucks at pictures now.

[razark]

Where's the option for "It's an airliner. What's the big deal?"

[Sampa]

ok, picture added!

Razark, the reason is because this one plane has been the source of debate because of its history.

[UmbralRaptor]

Where's the option for "meh?"

It had a really terrible design flaw back in the 1970s, sure. But as best I'm aware it's overall safety record is neither here nor there?

[RuBisCO]

Was this not the plane Xenu sent the thetans in?

[Sampa]

Was this not the plane Xenu sent the thetans in?

Who and who?

[razark]

Was this not the plane Xenu sent the thetans in?

No, that was the DC-8.

[Camacha]

That engine set-up is a classic, whatever transpired in service.

[RuBisCO]

No, that was the DC-8.

Oh ok, my bad.

Who and who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

Edited September 11, 2015 by RuBisCO

[PakledHostage]

I am happy to see the poll results where they currently stand (13 to 0 in favour of the good old "diesel 10")

The DC-10s detractors like to forget that the "design flaw" that lead to the cabin floor collapsing when the cargo door opened over Detroit and France also affected Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus aircraft. That same design flaw was addressed on all widebody types in the same airworthiness directive. It didn't show up on those other aircraft types because they didn't suffer a cargo hold depressurization, but it would have if they ever did.

And with regard to the Turkish Airlines accident, their maintenance personell had made a maitenance error in accomplishing an alert service bulletin (I don't recall whether or not it was mandated by an AD) that came came about as a result of the Detroit accident. Had they not made that maintenance error, the Paris crash very likely wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have been possible to close the cargo door latch incorrectly.

The Chicago crash was also as a result of a maintenance error. American Airlines was cutting corners while performing an inspection of the engine pylon and they cracked the pylon's aft bulkead in the process. The crack caused the pylon to fail and damage the leading edge slats as the pylon and engine departed the aircraft.

Really, the DC-10's early bad reputation was a result of simple minded belifs stemming from sensationalist reporting. But since when have the media or the simple minded ever let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Edited September 11, 2015 by PakledHostage

[Sampa]

I am happy to see the poll results where they currently stand (13 to 0 in favour of the good old "diesel 10")

The DC-10s detractors like to forget that the "design flaw" that lead to the cabin floor collapsing when the cargo door opened over Detroit and France also affected Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus aircraft. That same design flaw was addressed on all widebody types in the same airworthiness directive. It didn't show up on those other aircraft types because they didn't suffer a cargo hold depressurization, but it would have if they ever did.

And with regard to the Turkish Airlines accident, their maintenance personell had made a maitenance error in accomplishing an alert service bulletin (I don't recall whether or not it was mandated by an AD) that came came about as a result of the Detroit accident. Had they not made that maintenance error, the Paris crash very likely wouldn't have happened because it wouldn't have been possible to close the cargo door latch incorrectly.

The Chicago crash was also as a result of a maintenance error. American Airlines was cutting corners while performing an inspection of the engine pylon and they cracked the pylon's aft bulkead in the process. The crack caused the pylon to fail and damage the leading edge slats as the pylon and engine departed the aircraft.

Really, the DC-10's early bad reputation was a result of simple minded belifs stemming from sensationalist reporting. But since when have the media or the simple minded ever let the facts get in the way of a good story?

My sentiments exactly. I actually made the poll out of curiosity.

[Columbia]

-snip-

Yes, pretty much this.

I get pretty surprised whenever I see people saying that the DC-10 was unsafe, never flight worthy or overall terrible. Sure, it may have gotten to a shaky start, such as the cargo bay door, but that was only.. What? Twice? And McDonnell Douglas addressed it pretty quickly. I mean, even the Boeing 747 had much more accidents in it's lifetime, but hey, since McDonnell Douglas is the less well known company, from then on, every accident in the DC-10 is their fault. God, the stereotype is really infuriating.

Most of the aircraft's problems, such as American Airlines Flight 191 and United Airlines 232 were the fault of maintenance of the airline. Yet, when many people see these, many others assume it's the fault of the manufacturer. In that case, why isn't the Boeing 747 also regarded as a Death Trap? It also flew many miles, it also had design flaws, like the goddamn DC-10 as well.

[/rant]

- - - Updated - - -

Where's the option for "It's an airliner. What's the big deal?"

As Sampa said, the DC-10 has been a source of debate and (a bit of hate) because of it's shaky safety record in it's starting days.

And you can just.. not vote..

[Nuke]

i flew on one of these once when i was like 13 or so. that was when flying was still fun. i believe its the largest aircraft ive flown on (also the one with the most engines). probibly smoothest flight ive ever had. this was in the 90s so they still had in flight meals and movies and the works, made sure to get my free wing pin and deck of cards. i totally did not die from the experience. these days you get groped going through security and crammed into a couple cubic feet of seat space and dont even get a coke, and the interactions between flight attendants and unruly passengers result in the plane reeking with the maturity of a junior high school bus.

[Starwhip]

Never heard of this thing before today.

[Leszek]

I have to agree with everyone for reasons already mentioned.

But also, lets not forget that after that start the plane has a good safety record. If it was a death trap there wouldn't have been an afterwards so even during the rocky start.

The Detroit incident was actually over Windsor in Canada, I don't remember but dad tells me about how when they were grounded in the states pending the investigation the airport in Windsor (CYQG) was over run with parked DC-10s. Windsor airport is big enough to land a DC-10 but there isn't really a whole lot of ramp space so it would have been really crowded.