Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good job gentlemen.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    Well the DC-9 my friend crashed in was operated by Evergreen Int'l Airlines, who I worked for, for 13 years. It was a DC-9-30. This was back in about 1988-89. Out of an Air Force base north of Dallas that I don't think is open any more. At the time locking the cargo door was the responsibility of the ground crew and not double checked by the flight crew. That obviously changed. The NTSB found the door was open but they couldn't tell how far. What apparently happened when he tightened up the turn was the door swung completely open over the top and the a/c rolled inverted.
    Thank you.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      Absolutely the opposite. I have the greatest respect for 99% of the engineers I flew with. It was never the same as far as I am concerned, when we parked the last of our 200/300's. It is a very comforting feeling to look back over your right shoulder and ask "okay, what have we got."
      3WE was not talking about the flight engineers but the engineers that do things at 0 kts and 0 ft AGL. That is, those who design airplanes and procedures, does who work on maintenance, etc... Oh, and those in the FAA that should mandate ADs to avoid re-occurrences of very serious incidents that by the great action of the crew and a bit of luck ended up well but the next time may not end so well.

      Like the CD-10 cargo doors. Or de THC 9 cargo doors. Or the 757 cargo doors.

      In the DC-10 and DC-9, the non-fatal incidents were followed by no regulatory action and then by a fatal accident and then by a regulatory action.
      In the 757, we had one non-fatal incident that was followed by no regulatory action and then by another non fatal incident. So let's wait until we have the fatal accident to act.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

        3WE was not talking about the flight engineers but the engineers that do things at 0 kts and 0 ft AGL. That is, those who design airplanes and procedures, does who work on maintenance, etc... Oh, and those in the FAA that should mandate ADs to avoid re-occurrences of very serious incidents that by the great action of the crew and a bit of luck ended up well but the next time may not end so well.

        Like the CD-10 cargo doors. Or de THC 9 cargo doors. Or the 757 cargo doors.

        In the DC-10 and DC-9, the non-fatal incidents were followed by no regulatory action and then by a fatal accident and then by a regulatory action.
        In the 757, we had one non-fatal incident that was followed by no regulatory action and then by another non fatal incident. So let's wait until we have the fatal accident to act.
        Keeping in mind that charter airlines may still operate the 757 combi on passenger flights.

        EDIT: It appears that only ATI is flying them in pax service now. Nepal's is stored but might return to service.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          I always shyed away from these KLM combi flights because of the outward-opening cargo door. The baggage compartment doors are inward opening for safety reasons but somehow Douglas, Boeing and others got a pass from the FAA to install outward-opening doors on their pressurized passenger jets. Only 22 DC-9-33's were built.
          Notwithstanding my previous endorsement:
          - There is no, and there never was, an FAA requirement for doors to be of the "plug door" type.
          - Not all baggage compartment doors are plug-type.
          - Not all passenger doors are plug-type.
          - Plug-type doors have flown away too.
          - Many outward-opening door designs have enjoyed accident-free lives.

          The bottom line is that an outward-opening door can and should be designed to be as safe as a plug door. It may be heavier, more complex and more costly, though, which is the main reason why plug doors are preferred when possible.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            Notwithstanding my previous endorsement:
            - There is no, and there never was, a FAA requirement for doors to be of the "plug door" type.
            - Not all baggage compartment doors are plug-type.
            - Not all passenger doors are plug-type.
            - Plug-type doors have flown away too.
            - Many outward-opening door designs have enjoyed accident-free lives.

            The bottom line is that an outward-opening door can and should be designed to be as safe as a plug door. It may be heavier, more complex and more costly, though, which is the main reason why plug doors are preferred when possible.
            - All modern transport category airplanes are reasonably safe if nothing goes wrong.
            - Not all of them are equally safe if something goes wrong.
            - Some aircraft must rely upon added complexity and procedure to be safe, providing more opportunity for things to go wrong.
            - Aircraft with outward-opening doors rely on more things that can go wrong and are less safe if things go wrong.

            Plug doors offer a simple aspect of redundancy that I prefer. I do not know of any fatal incident resulting from a plug-type door that opened in flight. Decompression perhaps but not swung open to create a yawing and rolling moment or an explosive compression large enough to collapse the floor structure. If a plug-type door fails for some reason, the result is usually a failure to pressurize. No big deal. Given the comparatively large number of incidents involving outward-opening doors opening in flight (the report linked to Kent's friend's incident lists 23 prior events on the DC-9 alone), I think the FAA should require plug-type doors on all pressurized passenger aircraft. I think they should have learned that in 1974.

            Comment


            • #21
              Not feasible or practical for a large cargo aircraft door such as the side cargo door of a 74, 75/76 etc. As it is, you should see how little clearance there is getting a 777 engine inside a 74 side cargo door. And the ceiling is too low in front to use the nose door.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                Not feasible or practical for a large cargo aircraft door such as the side cargo door of a 74, 75/76 etc. As it is, you should see how little clearance there is getting a 777 engine inside a 74 side cargo door. And the ceiling is too low in front to use the nose door.
                I'm only concerned with this issue on passenger aircraft. Freighters are what they are. The added risk is by necessity.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post

                  I'm only concerned with this issue on passenger aircraft. Freighters are what they are. The added risk is by necessity.
                  Well I feel much better now. Because when a freighter falls out of the sky into the middle of a city, it's not nearly as big a deal compared to a pax bird!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Boeing Bobby:

                    When Boeing was developing the 777 they where doing the test flights in SEA. One day they where going to drain the oil from the PW engines for analysis. The mechanic drained the oil and then decided to crank the engine to get any remaining oil out. WRONG. There was an rpm limit to do that but he just let it run on the starter at too high speed. PW said you need to send the engine back so we can replace the bearings.

                    I flew a 747 side door up to SEA to do just that. As Bobby said they had to take off the cowling to get it in the side door and it took them quite some time to squeeze it into the 747. Just before we left for the east coast I went back and stood in the engine. I could just barely touch the top standing inside it. Wow a huge engine.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post

                      I always shyed away from these KLM combi flights because of the outward-opening cargo door.
                      Did you have many opportunities to take such a flight?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                        Did you have many opportunities to take such a flight?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Ok...same stuff different avenue. It’s easy to sit on your a$$ and criticize...

                          That being said, the DC-10 door was a ‘sophisticated’ cam thingie...that failed twice (Fact-but see footnote). I can imagine all sorts of UNSOPHISTICATED gross pins and bars that might be more reliable (or maybe not more reliable).

                          Footnote: There were rampie contributions to the door failure.

                          Here we have a 757 door that failed twice...

                          Of course MCAS is a bit more juicy...internal debate, NOT really mentioning it...a redundancy shortage...

                          Anyway, “Gee, I know they have safety backups, but I can imagine that screwing up...”

                          Makes for discussion...that is all.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                            Did you have many opportunities to take such a flight?
                            Several, yes. KLM combi flights were often cheaper than their regular service.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post

                              Several, yes. KLM combi flights were often cheaper than their regular service.
                              “Which you always shied away from due to the not_plug cargo door.”

                              Anyone else confused?
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post

                                Several, yes. KLM combi flights were often cheaper than their regular service.
                                You had several opportunities to take specifically their DC-9 Combis?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X