“Why You’ve Never Been In A Plane Crash” Asterisk Magazine February 2024

https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/why-you-ve-never-been-in-a-plane-crash

What about the 737-MAX?”

The MAX was grounded once, and in my opinion, the reasons for its grounding were political, not technical.

The two high-profile accidents involving the MAX were the result of some airmen’s over-reliance on cockpit automation (MCAS, in this case), and not knowing what to do when the automation misbehaved.  For what it’s worth, cockpit automation misbehavior cause a high-profile Airbus accident in Germany—“flight laws” interfered with the captain’s ability to control his aircraft.  Yet that series wasn’t grounded.

The DC-10/MD-11 accidents were the result of design decisions that were related to cost.

There has never been any question about the 737’s airframe design, especially in how the engine pylons are attached to the wings (the Alaska Airlines door plug ejection was attributed to faulty assembly, not a design defect).  There was also never any doubts about the reliability of the 737’s slat actuation mechanism.  Furthermore, I am not aware of any incident in which a 737’s cargo bay door failed in flight.  Such failures have repeatedly occurred with the DC-10/MD-11 series, causing great loss of life and property damage.

In the world of aviation accidents, coincidental video is a blessing and a curse.  The blessing is in the preservation of crucial evidence that helps investigators determine what led to the accident.

The curse is every armchair aviation expert with an Internet connection is spouting theories about what led to the accident, same as what’s happened with the Air India crash.

That the UPS flight’s final seconds were preserved on video has considerably helped the NTSB in their investigation.  Frame grabs from the video captured at the moment the MD-11F lifted off clearly show the failure sequence that to the loss of the plane and its crew.

As much as video helps to answer some questions, it also raises others.  Was the loss of the #1 engine and pylon assembly due to an innate design defect of the DC-10/MD-11 pylon attachment structure?  Or was it another case of improper maintenance, as with AA 191?  How did the loss of #1 cause #3 to develop a compressor stall?  Did #2 ingest debris and/or combustion gases from #1 and fail as well?  Did the left-wing slats stay deployed following the separation of the pylon?

I wish the NTSB much success in conclusively determining a probable cause.  I am also very sorry for the families of the victims, and especially sorry for the MD-11’s crew, who were put into a truly hopeless situation.  May God rest their souls.

What about the 737-MAX?

My thoughts on this incident bring me to the conclusion that this is the end of the road for all of these aircraft.

All of these aircraft ( tail engine type)should be grounded permanent it appears there is a major problem now with 4 bolts ???? holding on the engine to the pylon/wing for the wing mounted engines.

Any safety modification’s must surely not be cost effective and would need to be proved to be the answer to the problem and pass a further air worthiness inspection ????

Also this incident we could all say with our voices raised saying ‘It must never happen again with this aircraft’ but it has happened before in the past.

To restore pilot and public confidence in the air worthiness of all aircraft this model/type of aeroplane should be withdrawn from service.

We owe it to the families of all who have lost loved ones in the air and on the ground a line must be drawn and we have reached that point.

So yes, engine #1 had ample opportunity to spew debris into engine #2’s intake, plus superheated gas and/or flame which alone might have been enough to make #2 sputter and choke at a flight-critical time.

I’m not going to link to it because to put it bluntly, it’s disturbing. I will note that there are no MD11s or DC10s in passenger service these days (outside of possibly russia), and I salute the pilots for keeping wings level on their doomed plane for as long as they did.

Both the MD11 and precedecessor DC10 remain grounded, likely the FAA is figuring out precisely what engine pylon inspection regime needs to be instituted.

Concorde’s fire was due to leaking fuel, which was due to a fuel tank rupture, which was due to a pressure wave which was due to a tire’s impact on the wing, which was due to a tire shredding at takeoff speeds, which was due to running over a piece of metal on the runway which detached from the preceding aircraft – a DC-10 bound for the US.