Remembering the DC-10: End of an era or good riddance?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a fairly infrequent flyer I would rate the DC10 very highly from a passenger point of view, the 10's that I flew on, Laker, Continental, Northwest, THY, BA even FedEx were all quiet and smooth. In contrast I crossed the Atlantic both ways on a Delta Tristar and both rides were quite unpleasant. The only flight I can think of as quiet as the DC10's was the upper deck on a 747-300, tourist class.
The tail is not an ideal place to put an engine from a maintenance point of view, but apart from that I have not found the 10, or indeed the 11, difficult to fix, I can think of quite a few aircraft that are much worse.
The tail is not an ideal place to put an engine from a maintenance point of view, but apart from that I have not found the 10, or indeed the 11, difficult to fix, I can think of quite a few aircraft that are much worse.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although, it's interesting that it almost managed to outlive its successor in passenger service.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1989 AA DC-10-10 Sioux City accident initiated with a forging fault in the #2 fan disk, no different in principle from the DL MD-88 Pensicola accident. Of course the train of events after the disc burst was directly the result of DC-10 design shortcomings.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-10? Death Cruiser I seem to recall it was nicknamed. I only ever flew on it once with Monarch down to Cuba for a holiday; I am glad I experienced it because it was a very pleasant flight; the forward section of this aircraft is now displayed at the AVP Manchester. I did feel un-easy about flying in it following the accidents it was involved in, THY 1974 near Paris, AA Chicago 1979, United at Sioux City; perhaps this is an un-fair comment; but these accidents along with the Air New Zealand crash on Erebus (not the aircraft's fault I admit) did nothing for the publics confidence in the aircraft.
reference Sioux City - the article that the OP cited does have a link in it to the Aviation Safety Network
with 53 accidents or incidents to type, including -
19-JUL-1989DC-10-10 N1819U United Airlines 111 Sioux Gatewa...
A1
with 53 accidents or incidents to type, including -
19-JUL-1989DC-10-10 N1819U United Airlines 111 Sioux Gatewa...
A1
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: welwyn
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was lucky enough to fly on both the DC-10 and the Tristar. I did 10 flights on the DC-10 when in service with British Caledonian Charter, all were smooth and comfortable.
However, on the other hand all 6 flights I had on British Airtours Tristars were blighted with issues. Condensation pouring on my head, smoke from the galley, failed air conditioning, apu faults.
However, on the other hand all 6 flights I had on British Airtours Tristars were blighted with issues. Condensation pouring on my head, smoke from the galley, failed air conditioning, apu faults.
Many years ago I worked on DC-10s at BCAL and remember the IFE system had lots of faults with under seat connectors.
Then in 2000 I took the family to Florida on holiday. I think it was JMC that we flew with on an ex BCAL DC-10. When the movie started several rows had no sound, so I asked one of the cabin crew to get the Flight Engineer to do some magic under the seats. The large chap crawled around a few rows until I shouted "that's it" when the sound came on, and he emerged very sweaty, looking to see who it was who new about this stuff. I didn't own up but settled down with the kids to watch the movie.
As an F/E myself, I'm sometimes glad I only flew cargo.
Then in 2000 I took the family to Florida on holiday. I think it was JMC that we flew with on an ex BCAL DC-10. When the movie started several rows had no sound, so I asked one of the cabin crew to get the Flight Engineer to do some magic under the seats. The large chap crawled around a few rows until I shouted "that's it" when the sound came on, and he emerged very sweaty, looking to see who it was who new about this stuff. I didn't own up but settled down with the kids to watch the movie.
As an F/E myself, I'm sometimes glad I only flew cargo.
I took my initial check ride as a brand new DC10 Flight Engineer on the same day as the Sioux City crash. As soon as the sim landed the guy giving me my check bolted. The guy in the left seat turned around in his seat and said "congratulations on passing your check and now for the bad news". The guy giving me the check had a daughter who was a flight attendant who often flew 232 the flight that crashed, and he went to check on her.
The 10 had the largest most comfortable cockpit I was ever in. It did have a lot of minor problems in the back though, and I often had to go back and reset circuit breakers or something. Don't know how that would work out with today's security stuff. Overall I really enjoyed my time on the plane.
The 10 had the largest most comfortable cockpit I was ever in. It did have a lot of minor problems in the back though, and I often had to go back and reset circuit breakers or something. Don't know how that would work out with today's security stuff. Overall I really enjoyed my time on the plane.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the Air New Zealand TE901 into Mount Erebus in 1979
even so there are those who contend that the accident investigators at the site could have been more thorough in picking through the wreckage. none of the engines were retrieved for instance . . . . . which in itself later wound up a few conspiracy theorists"
Have they seen any pictures of the crash site? Half way up a volcano in the Antarctic?????? Just how you'd move anything safely from there is almost impossible to imagine - and the kit would all have to be mobbed from New Zealand as well...........
I'm amazed they achieved what they did - and a lot of the guys involved were just scientists down there to do something completely different, not bagging up bodies and bits and searching the snowfield for important clues.....
PS I always disliked being a passenger on the DC-10 quite uncomfortable and noisy
even so there are those who contend that the accident investigators at the site could have been more thorough in picking through the wreckage. none of the engines were retrieved for instance . . . . . which in itself later wound up a few conspiracy theorists"
Have they seen any pictures of the crash site? Half way up a volcano in the Antarctic?????? Just how you'd move anything safely from there is almost impossible to imagine - and the kit would all have to be mobbed from New Zealand as well...........
I'm amazed they achieved what they did - and a lot of the guys involved were just scientists down there to do something completely different, not bagging up bodies and bits and searching the snowfield for important clues.....
PS I always disliked being a passenger on the DC-10 quite uncomfortable and noisy
While the initial concept was fine, when it came down to doing the detailed design of systems etc the DC-10 seems very much to have been done by the B-team.
Come the MD-11 and this lot seem to have made their way up into the top jobs ......
Long Beach was unfortunately always like this after Donald Douglas' departure. As the old saying goes :
"The best aircraft would be one designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing, and with Sales & Marketing by Mc DD"
Come the MD-11 and this lot seem to have made their way up into the top jobs ......
Long Beach was unfortunately always like this after Donald Douglas' departure. As the old saying goes :
"The best aircraft would be one designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing, and with Sales & Marketing by Mc DD"
Remember working on Sabena flights ex-SIN in the late 80s, these were combis with the cargo ahead of the pax. Aircraft were OO-SLA/B/C/D/E..
I remember something like 4 pallets in the maindeck. It was a bitch for ground handling.... a/c comes in, deplane all pax, remove the bridge, position the hi-lift, unload / load the main deck (after the lower aft is emptied), remove the hilift and re-position the pax bridge. All in about 80 minutes. (steps were positioned at the rear doors).
Repeat all along the route and it was a looong route.. something like SIN/KUL/BKK/BOM/AUH/BRU.
Crews were nice and friendly... quite tolerant of the loaders walking thru their nice clean cabin..
Anil
I remember something like 4 pallets in the maindeck. It was a bitch for ground handling.... a/c comes in, deplane all pax, remove the bridge, position the hi-lift, unload / load the main deck (after the lower aft is emptied), remove the hilift and re-position the pax bridge. All in about 80 minutes. (steps were positioned at the rear doors).
Repeat all along the route and it was a looong route.. something like SIN/KUL/BKK/BOM/AUH/BRU.
Crews were nice and friendly... quite tolerant of the loaders walking thru their nice clean cabin..
Anil
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it though, for various reasons including spiralling development costs for the DC-10 and being woefully behind on deliveries of -8s and -9s, Douglas was losing money hand over fist by the mid-late '60s and desperately needed the McD buyout to stay in business. The subsequent restructuring brought the project back under control financially, but I suspect that some of the savings came from increasing the amount of subcontracted work without a consequent increase of oversight and communication. Combine this with an almost pathological focus on beating Lockheed to market above all else, and the fact that an aircraft this large (and therefore more complex) was a new thing to even the experienced designers, and you have a recipe for things to potentially go badly wrong.
While the MD-11 was in development, the company was again on the ropes and was forced to "make do" and keep costs down, resulting in an underwhelming product.
Just my tuppence, anyway...
more stuff on DC-10
A few more memories of working with the DC-10..
- The holds were slightly smaller (shorter) than a 747.. officially the max height was 64ins on a 747/airbii/DC-10/MD11 but on the 747 you could get away with 65 and a bit inches. On the DC-10 it would get snagged on the pressure relief door cage.
- Early DC-10s had a shutter (Shuttle?) bar instead of container locks. This was the work of the devil and was the source of much hatred.
- The pax doors on the DC-10 were good for ground handling... you need not worry about the doors hitting the jetway/steps.\
- The door for the aft bulk compt was not designed to be opened by a guy standing on the belt-loader. We did it anyway, operating the switch while keeping your body away from the door (hanging off the belt loader) as it it opnened. You could hold on to the door but keep you thumb away from the edge. I know we were supposed to uses stairs but come onnn..
- Some DC-10s could only take LD3s in the forward. We would plan pallets in the forward as the plan was for a plane which could take them would be operating the next day. When we came to work the next day we had 5 lower deck pallets but a last minute change meant that an aircraft with LD3 only lower holds was coming in.... messy.
- The main-deck door controls were weird... you had to unlatch from the inside, come back to the galley, open door 1L, open a hatch on the floor, pull and twist a lever until the door fully opened. 747 was wayyyy better... a little electrical switch .
Anil
- The holds were slightly smaller (shorter) than a 747.. officially the max height was 64ins on a 747/airbii/DC-10/MD11 but on the 747 you could get away with 65 and a bit inches. On the DC-10 it would get snagged on the pressure relief door cage.
- Early DC-10s had a shutter (Shuttle?) bar instead of container locks. This was the work of the devil and was the source of much hatred.
- The pax doors on the DC-10 were good for ground handling... you need not worry about the doors hitting the jetway/steps.\
- The door for the aft bulk compt was not designed to be opened by a guy standing on the belt-loader. We did it anyway, operating the switch while keeping your body away from the door (hanging off the belt loader) as it it opnened. You could hold on to the door but keep you thumb away from the edge. I know we were supposed to uses stairs but come onnn..
- Some DC-10s could only take LD3s in the forward. We would plan pallets in the forward as the plan was for a plane which could take them would be operating the next day. When we came to work the next day we had 5 lower deck pallets but a last minute change meant that an aircraft with LD3 only lower holds was coming in.... messy.
- The main-deck door controls were weird... you had to unlatch from the inside, come back to the galley, open door 1L, open a hatch on the floor, pull and twist a lever until the door fully opened. 747 was wayyyy better... a little electrical switch .
Anil
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday, March 3, marked the 40th anniversary of the Turkish DC10 crash at Ermonville Forest, outside Paris.
This was, of course, the worst DC10 crash by some distance, the American and ANZ crashes being next in terms of fatalities. It was probably the incident which really focused media attention on the DC10, from which it never really recovered; the American DC10 crash - which resulted, unfairly, in the aircraft being grounded for a time - sealed its fate. Only a small number of DC10s were sold after that incident (excluding the USAF KC10s).
By the time of the ORY crash, the 747 still had a clean safety record (although it was to lose it within less than a year; the LH crash at NBO occurred in November 1974); the L1011 had suffered a crash near Miami in 1972, but that was known to be a crew error rather than an aircraft fault).
Unfortunately, as we know, once the media gets a sniff of a problem, it focuses on an aircraft and after Paris, it never really released its target lock on the DC10.
It's hard to say "good riddance"; it was a popular aircraft with flight crews, with the large cockpit windows being particularly popular.
This was, of course, the worst DC10 crash by some distance, the American and ANZ crashes being next in terms of fatalities. It was probably the incident which really focused media attention on the DC10, from which it never really recovered; the American DC10 crash - which resulted, unfairly, in the aircraft being grounded for a time - sealed its fate. Only a small number of DC10s were sold after that incident (excluding the USAF KC10s).
By the time of the ORY crash, the 747 still had a clean safety record (although it was to lose it within less than a year; the LH crash at NBO occurred in November 1974); the L1011 had suffered a crash near Miami in 1972, but that was known to be a crew error rather than an aircraft fault).
Unfortunately, as we know, once the media gets a sniff of a problem, it focuses on an aircraft and after Paris, it never really released its target lock on the DC10.
It's hard to say "good riddance"; it was a popular aircraft with flight crews, with the large cockpit windows being particularly popular.
Anilv
Yes it was the shuttle bar. Initially, the in-hold system in the DC-10 was a pleasant change after the 747. The hold had a nice flat floor without the deep "bilges" of the 747 which used to accumulate all manner of rubbish. Ostensibly the DC-10 in-hold system was designed for maximum flexibility. If I recall correctly, the ULDs were restrained by the fixed end stops at one end and the shuttle bar with flip-up locks behind it at the other. The ULDs were simply butted up against one another. Problems soon arose when pallets with warped edges began to override one another - "shingling" as they called it. With several empty pallets adjoining, fore and aft restraint was lost if pallets began to overlap. The solution was to fit all pallets with override blocks but it was a band-aid fix at best.
Yes it was the shuttle bar. Initially, the in-hold system in the DC-10 was a pleasant change after the 747. The hold had a nice flat floor without the deep "bilges" of the 747 which used to accumulate all manner of rubbish. Ostensibly the DC-10 in-hold system was designed for maximum flexibility. If I recall correctly, the ULDs were restrained by the fixed end stops at one end and the shuttle bar with flip-up locks behind it at the other. The ULDs were simply butted up against one another. Problems soon arose when pallets with warped edges began to override one another - "shingling" as they called it. With several empty pallets adjoining, fore and aft restraint was lost if pallets began to overlap. The solution was to fit all pallets with override blocks but it was a band-aid fix at best.
I suspect another of the issues was that the former Douglas management was in Long Beach, and all the top execs saw the plant, and the production on the ramp, every day. Come McDonnell Douglas and the top team were 2,000 miles away in St Louis, and lost contact with what the customers actually pay them for, namely putting aircraft together.
Please remind me, is there any other major manufacturer who would move their head office from being in the same urban area as their plants, with everyone driving on the freeway past their output every day, to somewhere 2,000 miles away ............ ?
Please remind me, is there any other major manufacturer who would move their head office from being in the same urban area as their plants, with everyone driving on the freeway past their output every day, to somewhere 2,000 miles away ............ ?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rear end - the No 2 engine installation - always looked unfinished, and done in a hurry on the DC, whereas the Tristar looked much more complete.
The Tristar however only had overhead lockers on the outside: none in the centre, so there was always a fight for them, as there were too few for the numbers on board. (A bit like the lifeboats on the Titanic I suppose).
But then an experienced engineer told me that long dark nights in the hangar maintaining Tristars were enlivened, on occasion of removing the centre engine, by placing a mattress on the hangar floor and using the engine intake as a rudimentary helter-skelter.
I quite went off it after that.
The Tristar however only had overhead lockers on the outside: none in the centre, so there was always a fight for them, as there were too few for the numbers on board. (A bit like the lifeboats on the Titanic I suppose).
But then an experienced engineer told me that long dark nights in the hangar maintaining Tristars were enlivened, on occasion of removing the centre engine, by placing a mattress on the hangar floor and using the engine intake as a rudimentary helter-skelter.
I quite went off it after that.
A Continental DC-10 was my first wide body flight. Gatwick to Houston in the late 80's and I thoroughly enjoyed it so she'll always have a special place in my heart.
I always had the feeling that she gave a smooth flight both that time and when I flew a few more times in later years. I have much the same impression of the triple seven nowadays. For passenger comfort, I've not known much better.
I always had the feeling that she gave a smooth flight both that time and when I flew a few more times in later years. I have much the same impression of the triple seven nowadays. For passenger comfort, I've not known much better.