man… airplane manufacturers and doors. Shit killed the DC-10, should be pretty set knowledge that that is not a place to budget out 
I’m wondering if this is a carbon fiber composite pressure vessel failure at the other end of the pressure spectrum: Titan ↔ Max 9.
There have been lives lost over door issues, like a documentary I saw a while ago about earlier 747 having issues with the locking mechanism that caused it to not secure properly, and it blew out at altitude killing a few passengers because it was a cargo door, and the door essentially blew out, tearing a huge hole in the plane, and taking out a few seats.
Also maybe change the title to diverted back to airport. You made it sound as if the plane crashed.
i am aware TL that is why I brought up the DC-10, a pretty brilliant airplane that was more or less reputationally suicided by issues with the cargo door, which among some others led to it today being basically only used by FedEx as the MD-11.
At least 2 of the major loss of life incidents with the plane involve issues with the cargo door: 1) Turkish Air 981 and 2) American Airlines 96, the former of which was the deadliest single-plane incident until Japan Airlines 123. The other major one is the O’Hare DC-10 incident (American 191), which is fairly well known.
Hell, it even had an issue over the airspace of the Ontario we all think of when we say Ontario while coming into Detroit. And much like this particular incident, no loss of life.
The fuselage is aluminum.
Planes have been made from aluminum for a very long time, like since they stopped using wood. It’s not pressure vessel failing, it’s either improper design or cost cutting measures.
the dc-10 was produced for 15 years, and flew passenger service for 30 years after TWO cargo door blowouts. and followed in with the MD-11. so not so much.
nope.
Well, would you feel comfortable flying 373 max?
I wasn’t flying them prior to this fuck up. But:
There are more than those 2 options for this latest fuck up.
yeah, it continued to, but bear in mind it was grounded for a long time and most of them were eventually upgraded into the MD-11 to deal with other issues. The saving grace was that it wasn’t really MD’s fault.
No idea why I said killed. Originally kinda meant more so that it was a major problem though, and did lead to a number of headaches for everyone, and almost certainly slowed down DC-10 sales when MD would’ve really benefited from the opposite. Although in the meantime, competitors - esp Boeing - would be developing and releasing other planes to fill that void. Ofc, the people who already bought it got it serviced and whatnot to ensure it wouldn’t have such problems and continued to fly it.
I don’t think it’s any accident they seem to have focused less on passenger efficiency with the MD-11; they must’ve known it wouldn’t really be good enough, but still tried to sell it because, well, they needed the damn cash, but it’s clearly a much better freighter than passenger plane.
I read somewhere that china is no longer buying Boeing planes, and it’s causing financial difficulties with Boeing. You think Chinese clone of planes are any good?
Boeing stocks taking another dip.
I used to love Boeing. The golden standard of American engineering. Now, meh. I’m kind of glad to be on an airbus and even recently an embraer plane.
How to change the title?
I’m sure the mods can help.
But at least we know 737 max has doors that automatically open in flight so you could bail out…
I don’t believe so.
hmm.
Good to know. I wasn’t sure if “sidewalls and more” includes structural components like door plugs.
The use of carbon composites in aircraft has allowed planemakers to build lighter, more efficient planes. But this material is not easily dealt with at the end of its life. To address waste and find a new purpose for these composite materials, Boeing is testing its use in aircraft sidewalls and more.
Boeing’s latest ecoDemonstrator, an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX, is hard at work testing out a number of new technologies and modifications, many of which will inform future plane design at the firm. One of the items being tested out is a new type of sidewall, one which is made from recycled carbon fiber from Boeing’s production lines.
Simple Flying caught up with Chris Raymond, Boeing’s Chief Sustainability Officer, at the recent Dubai Air Show to find out more about this initiative. He told us,
“We have a sidewall panel on this airplane that is then made out of recycled carbon fiber from our triple seven and 787 production lines. We think it’s got the potential to reduce weight on the airplane.”
https://simpleflying.com/side-panels-and-laptops-how-boeing-uses-recycled-carbon-fiber/
A sidewall refers to the interior panel that you see.
In the case of the cargo doors, it wasn’t really MD’s fault entirely. The ground crew failed to properly close the door; the only issue was the lack of notification that it wasn’t properly closed in the case of AA96. Then in the Turkish air flight, they had already been notified and given an order for the part to fix the cargo door issue in wake of AA96, but hadn’t installed it yet. While MD definitely is implicated in the first, the service bulletin and part were designed and the fault for the latter lays squarely on Turkish and the authorities if they didn’t make this an airworthiness directive instead of just a service bulletin (which I do believe it was?)
I don’t think there’s any reason not to believe that the initial issues with the DC10 are in some part responsible for it only being produced for ~12 years even though MD didn’t really have the budget to produce another widebody. Orders dry up with the issues, they all get grounded for a year give or take, etc. It should’ve been a longer term competitor although advances in technology certainly made two jet planes more capable and gave them access to trans-atlantic and -pacific fights, not to mention getting rid of concerns around ETOPS. While it’s later history was pretty good in terms of safety, those initial few key years were just bereft with issues for MD. Obviously lots of other issues re: government contracts and whatnot at MD too, but objectively speaking, it (and Lockheed’s L-1011, the more direct competitor) failed to compete with Boeing’s 747, despite being aimed at exactly that market. It’s a shame because God those trijets are stunning
my original point was mostly just: how do they keep cocking it up on the door? It’s not like they don’t have decades of hindsight on such issues. Hell, Boeing even has MD people working there… The logo will tell you that much. Different planes and all, sure, but yeah.
I’m going all off memory here and my memory is not great so if there’s slight inaccuracies here and there, that just is what it is.
You’re right here, as I meant to say if they were converted, it was the MD-10 not 11 to which they were converted, if converted at all. The main motivations there being reducing overhead, and the fact that they were seemingly recognizing that it was going to naturally fill more of a freighter role going forward. Again, they tried to sell it as a passenger plane, but it simply succeeded in a freighter role.
i would die to fly in like a proper 1970s outfitted L-1011. Trijet masterpiece. But I need the smoking lounge and galley and shit. None of this modern aviation boring shit. I want the FULL experience.
They found the door plug in someone’s backyard here in Portland. Also found two iPhones from the plane, one of which is still functioning after falling 16,000 feet onto a roadside. Not sure about the other iPhone.
1 Like