Talk:McDonnell Douglas DC-10/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sioux City

I removed the statement that controlling the plane by its throttles is "a feature few other aircraft have."

I don't really know much about the DC-10, so I might be mistaken, but I am not aware of anything about the DC-10 which makes it any easier to control without hydraulics than any other commercial airplane. In fact, a DHL cargo A300 lost all hydraulics in Iraq after being hit by a SAM, and the flightcrew managed to circle the airport and land safely using differential thrust to control the plane. (You can find an article describing this by going to http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/ and entering "DHL A300" in the Search box.)

Safety record

I don't really like the sentence I added here..

"and the safety record improved as time went on (and in fact is now better than the 747s.".

It is true (witness http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm) but I think my wording is fairly clumsy. Hopefully someone can tidy it up.

Looks like this has already been cleaned up. Kevyn 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not true. The DC-10 is "reasonably" safe but doesn't beat the 747; Whether you consider the hull loss percentage [1], the hull loss accident rate [2] or the fatal event rate [3]. Also, the 'airsafe' reference above uses a very odd calculation method that is biased depending on the number of seats and loading of the aircraft being analysed. -- FirstPrinciples 11:22, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

MD-100

DC-10 variants include the MD-100 (originally the DC-10 Series 50 and 60), but I can't find any mention of it on Wikipedia. It should go here or on the MD-11 page. Any aviation historian-types want to tackle this? If not, I'll take a shot in the next few weeks. Kaszeta 13:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll check my books to decide where to edit these information, and add it. I'm pretty sure that the MD-100 should be added to the MD-11 page, but for the DC-10 Series 60 I'm less sure.

--EuroSprinter 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the MD-11 page. I've added origin details of the MD-11, including the MD-100 and DC-10 Super 60s. --EuroSprinter 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Concorde crash

In the article about the Air France Concorde crash in 2000, apparently that jet was downed after "inhaling" some scraps of metal which had fallen off none other than a DC-10 which had taken off from that runway shortly beforehand. Sounds a bit similar to the engine trouble which doomed the one from Chicago in 1979. Does anyone think that might be worth noting?

The picture shown in Flight International of the suspected metal bits look suspiciously like the pieces from the DC-10's thrust reversers; the rubstrip. If reversers are poorly maintained, segments of rubstrip may fall of as they are held to the reversers only by small rivets. Fikr

RAF Order?

Does anyone have a source showing the RAF's order of the KC-10? I've never heard a cheep about it, and they must have cancelled it - they don't have any, and the future tanker is the A330. Is it possible that this could be confusion with the Tristar or visiting USAF KC-10s?

The RAF has never ordered any KC-10. In the early 1980s, during the Falklands war, the RAF realised it lacked such equipment so it began to evaluate urgently the wide-body alternatives. They had the choice between the TriStar and the DC-10 with aircraft of both types readily available on the secondhand market. British Airways was to be the source of the TriStar, and for the DC-10 the idea was to convert three DC-10-30CFs of World Airways and one DC-10-30F, belonging to Korean Air, to RAF's specification. McDonnell Douglas DC-10, by Alan J. Wright (ISBN 0711017506) On this book,Lockheed TriStar, by Philip J. Birtles (ISBN 0711018243), it is said that the DC-10s could have been the ex. Laker Airways aircraft.

To date, the only DC-10 ever used by the RAF was a -30CF leased from SABENA during the first Gulf War to transport troops.

--EuroSprinter 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fedex

"Later, in 1994, A FedEX DC-10 involved in a hostile takeover was flown at speeds exceeding Mach 1 and was made to perform barrel rolls at over 400 mph. It travelled faster than any DC-10 had ever gone. Despite severe buffeting and breakage of certain components, the plane was landed safely, despite being severely overweight. It also had to make tight turns to be able to land on a runway that would be long enough for it to stop whilst carrying so much weight. It stopped with just 300m of runway to spare."

This sounds unlikely. A cite, anyone? Guinnog 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• The barrel rolls and Mach 1 sounds crazy. The rest could be possible. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The diving DC-10 accelerated past 500 miles per hour, then past the instruments’ capacity to register." from http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm Have you tried to search the NTSB site http://www.ntsb.gov . It seems to be down at the moment, but I'm pretty sure you'll find more informations there to answer your query. --EuroSprinter 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Refers to the following incident: FedEx Flight 705. -- C. Deelmann 08:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Continental retiring DC-10s?

Does anybody have a cite for the second sentence in paragraph below about Continental quickly retiring all their DC-10s. I couldn't find anything related to that reason. They did get rid of them in Oct 2001 for age and to simplify their fleet. [4]

The Air France Concorde crash of 2000 was attributed to a fragment of titanium metal that fell from a DC-10 that had taken off some four minutes earlier. Continental Airlines, the operator of the DC-10 in question, quickly retired its entire fleet of DC-10s immediately afterward.

For what it's worth, it wasn't immediately afterwords, but more than a year later. Once the retirment started, though, not only did they retire the fleet fairly quickly, but the offending aircraft N13067, was one of the first to get parked at Mojave, and the only one rushed into the scrapping program - less than 3 weeks after arriving, it was already being torn down. I do have a citation for this, but I can't use it due to conflict-of-interest rules: there is a small chapter on this aircraft and its scrapping in a book I wrote. Akradecki 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the last sentence to this:

Continental Airlines was the operator of the DC-10 in question.

Thanks. - Fnlayson 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Combining 2 similar sections

The Current Operators and The DC-10 in Service Today sections largely repeat the same information. I will move the DC-10 in Service content to the Current Operators section later on, provide no one has a problem with it. -Fnlayson 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. -- BillCJ 22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Current operators

• Good work on the Operators section, EuroSprinter. Good catch on the KC-10s total as well. One was lost in an accident. Also, ageing is the British spelling as I understand it. I should have listed consistent US spelling in my edit summary when I fixed those. -Fnlayson 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Regarding the spelling of ageing/aging, I thought at first that it was a mistake, but then I checked and found both spellings in my paper and on-line dictionaries for the same meaning. The Wiktionary provides both words too, and pinpoint that "ageing" is Commonwealth English. For my part, both are alright with no preference, as long as it is english, and perhaps both should be used as part of the English language. --EuroSprinter 19:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's a note in the Manual of Style about both spellings being OK, but consistent spelling (US or Commonwealth) should be used throughout an article. I prefer US cause that's what I learned in school but can deal with both. -Fnlayson 21:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidents list

I am of the opinion that the list of incidents in the article should be "notable", with notability being conveyed by the incident having a wikipedia article, the standard we use in many other places. If others agree, I'll start culling the list, linking where applicable, deleting where applicable. Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I've done that myself recently on other articles. - BillCJ 01:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. But having an article doesn't automatically make it notable. Same for the converse. -Fnlayson 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Drawing board variants

Any thoughts on the inclusion of drawing board variants like the DC-10 Twin shown at http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/12/20/203709/clipped-wings.html? Wtroopwept 20:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• If more info can be found, sure. A subsection for an undeveloped variant could be added like in Boeing 747. To me, the DC-10 Twin's design changes from the basic DC-10 would need to addressed. Did it have the same length & span, but with 2 larger engines or was it shortened with 2 engines. Maybe a DC-10 book covers this some. -Fnlayson 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In one of my books about the DC-10, there are more infos about the Twin. --EuroSprinter 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

National Airlines Flight 27 - 3 November 1973

Unless there are objections, I am going to add NA Flight 27 paragraph to the section of incidents. For those who are not aware of what happened, the #3 engine fan assembly completely disintergrated in flight causing major damage to the aircraft and the death of one passenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.57.185 (talk • contribs)

Be sure to include your sources, and make sure that the incident is notable. I couldn't find an article on the incident in Wikipedia, which is a good sign that it is not notable. However, incidents can be notable to aircraft articles without being notable enough for their own page, and this may be one of those. If you're not sure, feel free to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, as they deal with such issues. - BillCJ 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Here's the page aviation-safety.net National Airlines Flight 27. Also, the airline's link is National Airlines (NA). There have been several National Airlines it seems. -Fnlayson 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why this gets a subsection. A one line entry seems more appropriate. Also, a lot was added without references. -Fnlayson 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Concur. Not sure why the question was asked, then the guidance given not followed in any way. THe item is better listed under the other "Other incidents" section, as the major sub-sections are for those incidents that were crucial in the history of the DC-10. Perhaps it's notable enough for it's own article, but again, sources are needed, and the incident should have ramifications extending beyond just the immediate incident. THis apperas to be so at this time, but I'd again recommend approaching the Aviation Task force, and getting their input on this. If this is not done, the article would be a good candidate for deletion, and the Task FOrce members will help you avoid that by doing it right from the start. - BillCJ 01:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• If Flight 232 is included in this list, which once again brought up problems with inherent CF6 engine issues (failed fan disk) and not directly related to the DC-10 design, then why not Flight 27? Leeveraction 01:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Flight 232 was a much worse accident and they managed to control the plane by varying engine power (rare thing). The loss of hydraulic pressure was a plane design flaw putting the lines close together near the center engine. -Fnlayson 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• one again, the ROOT cause was engine failure, not hyrdaulic failure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.57.185 (talk) 02:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the other major incidents sections are also too long. But, as Jeff (Fnlayson) pointed out, they were much worse, and they also had far reaching conequences. THis page is a summary overview of the entire aircraft's history, and we cannot cover every incident in such detail, else the article would be extremely long and unwieldy. In addition, most of the other articles have their own pages, which is where the details should be. Since the originator of the details does not seem inclined to listen to suggestions that don't fit his preconceived notions of what should be included in the text here, I will be asking at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, and see if there is a consensus that the incident is notable enough for its own incident article. Whether it is or not, I will be trying to cull back the section here this week, either to one sentence if it gets its own page, or a SHORT paragraph if it does not. - BillCJ 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

THis incident may only be borderline notable, as it did not result in the loss of the aircraft directly, as the landing was uneventful (fate not stated, but it could have been written off). If the incident is so similar to Flight 232, it may be that some on the info should be included there, as an example of "warniong signs" that were not heeded. - BillCJ 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the current content from this article.

At 1640 local time 3 November 1973, a DC-10-10 (S/N N60NA) aircraft cruising at 39,000ft experienced an uncontained failure of the #3 engine fan assembly. The cabin was penetrated by shrapnel from the engine and lost pressure. One seatbelted passenger was violently ejected out the cabin through a failed window. The shrapnel penetrated the #1 engine oil tank which began to leak oil and had about one minute of usable oil left upon landing. Two of the aircrafts three hydraulic systems were also inoperative. The #2 engine sustained minor damage from ingested shrapnel. The aircraft made an uneventful landing in Albuquerque NM.[5]

The subsequent investigation revealed some interesting facts.

During the flight, while on autopilot, the flight deck crew decided to experiment with the relationship between the fan speed indicator (N1) and the automatic flight control systems. The engineer disconnected the electrical circuit breakers for all three N1 tachometers while the pilot reduced the airspeed by 5 knots. Once the throttles automatically retarded, the pilot disconnected the autothrottle. The crew then heard the explosion.[6]

The CF6-6D engines used on the aircraft were designed to be "red-lined" at 111% N1. The #3 engine failed at 100% N1 while the other two engines reached a maximum 107% N1. While the failure mechanism that triggered this event was never reached conclusively, enough was learned to prevent the occurrence of similar events. The speed of the engine at the time of the accident caused a resonance wave to occur in the fan assembly when the fan blades began to make contact with the fan shroud. This, compounded with the fact that no significant axial locking mechanism existed for the blades at the time allowed the blades to "walk" towards the front of the aircraft and part with the fan disk. The engine fan assembly was subsequently redesigned by GE. [7]

It is important to point out that although the pilots were the initiators of this accident, had this event not happened, it would have taken place sometime in the future due to the design limitations of the CF6 engine. [8]

I think that much detail should go in a separate article (National Airlines Flight 27?). I'll be rewriting a summary version in the Other accidents section a few days. -Fnlayson 18:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

DC-10 former operators list

I've had the idea of making a whole detailed list of every operator's DC-10 fleet on a separate page that could be linked to the main article, and at the same time reduce the length of this one. What do you think of it ? Like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Airbus_A340_operators. --EuroSprinter 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it as you can only improve the information, I would stick to a simple list of current and former operators based on the information in this article. Numbers operated can probably be lost as this could be difficult to maintain and is probably not really a notable fact.MilborneOne 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At last, I've created a whole new list with every past and present DC-10 operators. Some details are still missing, but I couldn't remember all of them. So when I'll be home I'll do the rest with my papers and sources. --EuroSprinter 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Band

Stop adding the blurb about some band named DC-10 and adding their web page. That's not significant enough to include and certainly does not belong in the History section. See Wikipedia:Notability for Wikipedia policy in this regards. -Fnlayson 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg

Image:AirNewZealandFlight901.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image

Currently this image Image:Ghana.airways.1.arp.750pix.jpg is used in the Infobox. This image Image:Aircraft.dc-10.750pix.jpg is similar but at a little better angle, imo. What about switching them? There's room in the article for both really. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Flight 405

What about this fictional American Airlines DC-10 crash? When was it filmed and where on TV it was shown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.195.86 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Last fight of Northwest DC-10

The article states that Northwest retired its DC10 in January 2007, I flew on a Northwest DC10 Detroit-Charlotte in February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgong (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[9] says the last NW DC-10 scheduled flight was from Honolulu to Minneapolis on 8 January 2007. Two aircraft were kept for charter flights but I dont know for how long but probably only to the end of January 2007. Have you any more details of your flight or aircraft (like tail number) MilborneOne (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It was Northwest Airlines #1572 on Febuary 25th 2008 Depart: Detroit Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, MI (DTW) Mon. February. 25 9:00 PM Arrive: Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, NC (CLT) Mon. February. 25 10:39 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgong (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

NW1572 on Feburary 25th 2008 from DTW to CLT (departed 21:34) was a Douglas DC-9-51 registered N768NC. MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost the same book

The 2 books listed below are almost the same book near as I can determine. Published by the same author in the same year and have the same number of pages.

• Endres, Günter. McDonnell Douglas DC-10 (Airlife's Airliners Vol. 4). Shrewsbury, UK: Airlife, 1998. ISBN 1853109142.
• Endres, Günter. McDonnell Douglas DC-10. Osceola, WI: MBI Publishing Company, 1998. ISBN 0-7603-0617-6.

Since first one has no footnotes to it and I have the 2nd one, I am removing the first book to simplify footnoting. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Important users

Biman should be put right after FedEx. Here's why:

• Biman is a [flag carrier]] to use this aircraft.
• One should look at the routes this plane is used. After FedEx,Biman is the only airlines that uses it on international flights.
• DC-10s form an integral part of the flag carrier.
• Other airlines listed have very little relevance both in the international airlines industry even though they may have more DC-10s in their inventory.
• Media Coverage Example

Canadian (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does being a flag/national carrier deserve special treatment here? The original/historical users deserve to be listed more. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bring this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft it is a consensus on Wikipedia to always list the primary users by fleet size. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

United Airlines 232 Crash Section

I am removing this sentence (The locking flap mechanisms were designed to maintain their position in the event of a hydraulic failure.) for the second time, for the following reasons:

a) I think that is an imprecise, vague and confusing phrase.

b) I have searched the entire NTSB accident reports for both UAL 232 and AMR 191, and I cannot find any such phrase as "locking flap mechanism." What is that, if the NTSB doesn't mention any such animal?

c) I also did a Google search for that phrase, but got back only references to furniture cabinets, vending machines and clothing. Nothing for aviation.

I would suggest that before that phrase is restored, that a Reliable Source should be attached to support the existence and definition of that thing, whatever it is. And then, if that can be done, tell us on this page why that is relevant to the discussion of the UAL 232 accident? Since the hydraulic failure occurred at cruise altitude, the flaps were all in the fully retracted position. They could not be moved out of that fully retracted position without hydraulic pressure, so what relevance can there be, even if the flaps are locked, somehow? The point of the UAL 232 discussion is that all the flight controls were inoperable because of the complete loss of all hydraulic fluid, NOT because some locking device (if there was such an animal) prevented the flaps from extending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.66.97 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You removed the flap sentence the first time without mentioning anything in your edit summary about it. So it looked accidental and I restored it. If something is unclear/confusing, add a {{clarify me}} tag and give someone a chance to reword it. Believe this is all covered in The DC-10 case... book listed in the References section. Please use 4 tildas (~~~~) to sign your posts. -fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My apology; didn't mean to cause confusion. I still cannot find anything in NTSB reports that would explain what you mean by "A locking feature was added to flap mechanisms to maintain their position in the event of a hydraulic failure."  ??? When was a locking feature added to DC-10 flaps? How would that have helped flight 232, if it existed before that accident? Without hydraulic fluid, the flaps were "locked," so to speak in the full up position, because they could not be extended without hydraulic pressure to the flap hydraulic cylinders. Is that what you mean? If so, why is that relevant? How does that statement provide additional light and understanding for the average reader of Wiki? It only confuses me, so trying to understand why you think that sentence helps. It definitely needs a valid RS citation, both for clarifying what it is, and why it is relevant. 65.37.66.97 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The NTSB accident report for American Airlines Flight 191 (current ref. 53) talks about locking mechanisms not used on the leading edge slats on page 69 and others. -fnlayson (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct; I have read all thru that one, as well as the one in 1981 with Air Florida. All are talking about the leading edge SLATS on the FRONT of the wing, not the trailing edge FLAPS (inboard and outboard) at the REAR of the wing. I am confident that no locking device has ever been added to the DC-10 FLAPS system, since the plane was designed and certified. That is why I think the statement is erroneous, and thus confusing and should be removed. It simply is not true, as stated.

If you want to put in something about locking devices for the leading edge SLATS, that can be true, if stated properly. However, you still need to show why such a statement is relevant to the discussion of what happened to UAL 232. Right now, I cannot see how it would be germane in that paragraph, though it certainly would be in the AMR 191 paragraph. 65.37.66.97 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the difference between slats and flaps. Seemed like the systems should be generally similar. The slat issue is mentioned in the AA Flt 191 section. -fnlayson (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In aviation articles, it is important that the nomenclature be as precise and specific as possible, which adheres to the kind of standard language discipline we see constantly from the NTSB. There is nothing to be gained for the reputation of Wikipedia, by insisting that we include a statement that is factually not true and which confuses one term with another. The statement should be removed until such time as you can support it with a valid RS citation, and that it has relevance to the paragraph where it is inserted. If you are talking about SLATS on the leading edge of the wing, then that is the correct nomenclature to use. But, if you really mean FLAPS on the trailing edge of the wing, then that is the correct nomenclature to use.

It is my position that the statement should be removed because it is not true. There has been no addition of a locking feature to the trailing edge FLAPS of the DC-10, that I can find. If you can find proof of such a modification of the DC-10 FLAPS, then put your statement back in when you can support it with the appropriate RS citation, and show relevance to the area of the article in which you insert it.

But, since the statement is contested as being not true, it should not be in the article until such time that it can be supported in the required manner. Insisting that the statement remain, without the required citation, amounts to OR and/or COI, and we both know that is not permitted. Thanks for your consideration. 65.37.66.97 (talk) 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Shrapnel"

Wiki Editor Fnlayson removed the word "shrapnel" from this section, with the following explanation:

"21:15, 14 November 2010 Fnlayson (talk | contribs) (45,364 bytes) (Partial revert, Shrapnel generally refers to munitions."

While that is ONE of the definitions, it can and has been used quite often by aviation writers and investigating experts, to describe the resulting damage from uncontained expolosions in jet engines, which also hurl hot metal chunks in the same manner as a grenades or artillery shells. Try Googling "jet engine shrapnel" and you will get over 32,000 results. On the very first page of that Google search [10], you will find 10 major news sources around the world that used the word "shrapnel" to describe the damage done to the Qantas A380, when one of the RR Trent engines exploded.

• The AVWeb News (one of the most expert of all aviation news sources in the world) said this today, about that A380 engine explosion [11]:

"Qantas A380 Was Heavily Damaged. The Qantas crew whose A380 suffered an uncontained engine failure earlier this month had their hands full in getting the super jumbo back to Singapore. Shrapnel from the engine disabled one of two main hydraulic systems, hampered the fuel transfer system, punched a hole in the forward wing spar and caused a major fuel leak."

Additionally, the NTSB has used the word "shrapnel" numerous times in its accident reports about uncontained jet engine explosions. A few examples:

• The accident report on the crash of the HONEYWELL, INC. GRUMMAN G-159, N861H NEAR LE CENTER, MINNESOTA JULY 11, 1967

• The accident report on American Airlines, Inc., Boeing 747-121, N743PA San Francisco, California September 18, 1970, AAR-71-7:

"Shrapnel and f i r e damage between nacelle stations 168 and 192, above nacelle water line 154, completely severed the pylon from the outboard lower spar (firewall) chord across the top to the inboard lower spar heat and f i r e damage. Varying degrees of fire (Photograph No.3) and/or shrapnel damage were sustained by the left outboard flap, outboard aileron, No.1 edge support structure and trailing edge panels, spoiler, flap track fairings, leading edge panels/fairings,..."

• The report on the explosion of the #2 engine of a 727, during the takeoff roll on March 30, 1998, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Canadian registration C-FRYS, operated by Royal Aviation, Inc.):

"The aft cowling halves had fire blistered paint and numerous shrapnel perforations just aft of the LPT's plane of rotation. Airframe and engine damage is included on page 3 and page 5 of the attached Powerplants Group Chairman's Factual Report."

• AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT UNCONTAINED ENGINE FAILURE/FIRE VALUJET AIRLINES FLIGHT 597 DOUGLAS DC-9-32, N908VJ ATLANTA, GEORGIA JUNE 8, 1995. The word "shrapnel" is used 6 times in that report:

"As flight 597 began its takeoff roll, a "loud bang" was heard... The right engine fire warning light illuminated,... and the takeoff was rejected. Shrapnel from the right engine penetrated the fuselage and the right engine main fuel line,... The flight attendant seated in the aft flight attendant jumpseat received serious puncture wounds from shrapnel... There was also shrapnel damage to the fuselage and left engine cowl.... As a result of the uncontained failure, engine shrapnel penetrated the fuselage, severing the right engine main fuel line. Pressurized fuel sprayed into the cabin near the aft lavatory and was most likely ignited by sparks generated by steel engine fragments contacting steel galley equipment in the cabin."

• The accident report on JAPAN AIR LINES COMPANY, LTD., DOUGLAS DC-8-33, JA-8006, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 25, 1965:

"The aircraft received substantial damage. The No.1 engine was disintegrated. The left wing, No.2 engine pylon, and fuselage received shrapnel-type damage. The principal engine damage was the type associated with a disintegrating engine failure. The engine pylon and wing damage was mainly from intense fire although both received shrapnel-like penetrations from flying engine pieces. Flying pieces made two punctures in the fuselage and as previously noted one piece of stator vane penetrated the No. 2 engine pylon and ruptured a hydraulic line. Twelve other pieces pierced the No.2 engine pylon and one or more of these severed the No.2 engine thrust reverser pneumatic retract line."

• The NTSB has even used the word "shrapnel" in footnotes, in accident reports that reference other accident reports. For instance, in the NTSB report on the Loss of Control and Impact with Pacific Ocean Alaska Airlines Flight 261 McDonnell Douglas MD-83, N963AS About 2.7 Miles North of Anacapa Island, California January 31, 2000, NTSB/AAR-02/01 PB2002-910402, this footnote is found on page 165:

"In addition, the Board's investigation of the July 6, 1996, uncontained engine failure on a Delta Air Lines MD-88 in Pensacola, Florida,... Shrapnel from the uncontained engine failure pierced the fuselage and entered the rear cabin. Two passengers were killed, and two others were seriously injured."

Editor Fnlayson replaced the more specific and quite correct word of "shrapnel" (which clearly is describing hot chunks of broken metal being hurled out from the exploding engine), with the word "debris" which is far less precise and specific. "Debris" includes all kinds of parts and material, not just chunks of broken, hot metal. Debris would include fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, insulation, chips of paint, fiberglass, pieces of wire, rubber hose, etc. In aviation articles, it is always best to use the word that is the most precise, when describing what actually happened. That is why I am putting the word "shrapnel" back in. Please do not remove it again. Thank you, 65.37.66.35 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My doth thinks the lady protests too much... The above seems like a lot of todo about very little. Change the wording yourself, and perhaps think about getting a userid... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

OK, but this is a mole hill not a mountain. -fnlayson (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert him, then? You were wrong as wrong can be. 89.95.58.81 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• My reason was already stated above. There's no need to beat a dead horse with this old discussion. Have you checked the current article text on this? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable incident

I edited notable incidents to add the World Airways incident at Baltimore in 2009 and it was reverted since it supposedly didn't meet WP:AIRCRASH

I'm not sure I understand this revert, the event resulted in the plane to be considered unrepairable/unairworthy which to me implies it was a hull loss incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.15.217 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The primary requirement is that the item be cited from reliable sources. All else is built on that. - BilCat (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cargo door problem

I don't want to sound paranoid, but when I first came across this page, the Cargo door problem section was full of glaring omissions and errors. The odd thing is that there were two very good sources cited (the actual British crash investigation report for Flight 981 and a copy of the NTSB report on Flight 96). Yet there were several statements citing these sources spreading blatant misinformation about what happened. No accident report cited or that I've ever come across has put the downing of Flight 981 on the plane's seating arrangement having been modified by Turkish Airlines. In fact, there's no mention of any modifications to the Turkish Airlines DC-10 in any of the sources. Secondly, the Flight 96 accident report makes it very clear that the failure of the door was due to the locking mechanism having never been properly engaged. The NTSB report blames the design of the cargo door for giving no external or electronic indications of the door not being secured. It does not mention any weakening of the locking mechanism by ground personnel.

Why someone would cite these very clear sources yet make up facts about the incidents is beyond me. And in addition to making up reasons for the crashes that shift responsibility away from McDonnell Douglas, any details surrounding the incidents (also contained in those sources) which portray McDonnell Douglas in a negative light were also conveniently left out. So I sincerely hope this article hasn't been the victim of a lame attempt at corporate revisionism.--Subversive Sound (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The original problem with the DC-10's cargo door was that the electric motors driving the latches sometimes received insufficient current, causing them to stall before the latches were fully home (locked). This then meant that any cargo handler closing the door would find that the manually closed handle had to be forced into position, the torque tube interlock safety device being too easily deformed (bowed) if too much pressure was applied with the latches not fully over-centre (locked). This resulted in the door appearing to be locked when it wasn't. The manufacturers later uprated the wire gauge to allow greater current to the motors, but this still proved insufficient to ensure the motors closed and locked the door - the latches draw the door into the frame the last couple of inches and then finally lock the door closed. Another modification was then introduced, including an additional support plate to prevent the torque tube from bowing, and including a window (hole) through-which the baggage handler could see whether the door was locked or not, however, the purpose of this 'window' was only placarded in English and French. After the THY accident (around which aircraft there appears to be some confusion about whether these modifications had actually been carried out by the manufacturer) there was a more extensive re-design of the door locking system.

I think it's fair to say that the original door mechanism was an overly complicated solution for what ought to have been a relatively simple problem, i.e., locking and properly securing an outward-opening aircraft door subject to internal pressure. A simple manually-cranked drive to the door latches would probably have sufficed, and allowed the baggage handler some guide as to the state of the door (locked/unlocked), although that may well have been too 'low tech' a solution for some. But sometimes the best implement for digging a hole is a spade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.184 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a 1974 Flight International article on the aftermath of the THY accident here: [12] - The DC-10 cargo door —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)