Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Самая страшная катастрофа в истории США: American Airlines 191 | Захватывающий ужас" video.

  1. Correct. But there's a strange bias that ground fatalities don't count, despite there always being included in most disaster listings. Wiki actually got it right in this case.
    2
  2. I don't think so. The flight time was 31 seconds, and only the last ten seconds were in descent and banking, so probably only 5-7 seconds at most of horror. Especially if you had your eyes closed and were sitting way back on the right side. It's entirely possible some people would barely have had an inkling something was wrong. Planes have also been known to bank very steeply before even pilots notice, witness the Aeroflot A-310 event. I'm sure I'm being a bit wishful, but I think this was a relatively quick one.
    2
  3. Another possible death trap of a plane, though it's hard to know for sure.
    1
  4. Trivia time: the elapsed block time was actually scheduled for 3 hours 54 minutes that day, not 5 hours. Time zone issues seem to perpetually plague these kind of videos.
    1
  5. I think it's rare for a single accident to bring down an airline, even if it's their fault.
    1
  6. I think they used to have a pretty good record, and very good service in the 1970s. Then they had three bad strikes (not including 911) between 1999 and 2001. Was that a reflection of poor safety culture, or just statistical bad luck? Today, like most 1st tier airlines, they have had a spotless record for decades.
    1
  7. It was also poor design that allowed flight 191 to happen. People always seem to forget this.
    1
  8.  @ArchTeryx00  I don't know if you meant this literally, but the cockpit cameras did not debut on this flight, as they were already widely known and popular at AA. Maybe it was fairly recent though.
    1
  9.  @loco4x4  Though according to the NTSB this failure mode should have been incorporated into the design.
    1
  10.  @loco4x4  Very true. But I'm wondering, isn't it usually the case that even the complete separation of an engine should not normally result in the plane crashing. Would it be likely that if a 777 or 787 or A330 engine were to peel away on takeoff that the risk of a crash would be as great as flight 191? And if so, should these designs be deemed reasonably safe? If not, then what would the excuse be for the DC-10? Asking a lot of theoretical questions, so just brain storming aloud.
    1
  11. I think it was simply too expensive to do that. And to be fair, only one other subsequent crash was design-related; but not nearly as much as flight 191.
    1
  12.  @jonesy279  But this was also a major case of design shortcoming. Even an engine ripping away is not normally supposed to lead to the plane falling out of the sky. It was in that sense not that far different than the Paris crash of 1974. The slat system was also implicated by the NTSB.
    1
  13. The DC-10 seems almost saintly compared to the MAX.
    1
  14. I agree the negative attention was out of proportion to just two crashes. However, this video feeds the common perception it wasn't design related. But it clearly was. The NTSB included in its probable cause statement the failure of the slat system. As with the Paris disaster, a door or in this case, an engine, coming off should not normally bring down a plane. It was this lack of design redundancy that brought don both planes, though to a lesser degree in the Chicago crash.
    1
  15. The video is incorrect. As an obsessive timetable collector, the AA timetable states 2:45p to 4:39pm for that period. With a two hour difference, that's 3 hours 54 min, or about 3.5 flying time as you state.
    1
  16. Except in reality it was really AA flight 11 that holds that record.
    1
  17.  @BrownWolverine  Yes you can. The title is worst crash, not worst non-hijacking maintenance error. This is on one level semantics of course. But if you really want to be consistent with how air crashes are usually complied, they include sabotage (witness Pan Am 103), and also always list ground fatalities. So it's interesting how this basic standard is often dispensed with in the case of 9/11. Of course, our intuitions may speak more to your side of things.
    1
  18. Yep, but if AA 191 had been part of 911, you know the truth movement would have stated it fell through the path of most resistance.
    1
  19.  @Kyehyfxu  If one wants to be technical and in accordance with standard protocol of how air disasters are usually compiled, AA flight 11 has he distinction of worst in the US, and indeed the world.
    1
  20.  @zipalooie  Actually only Manhattan if you count each separately. But I nit-pic. :)
    1