Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "The WORST Single Aircraft Accident in American History" video.

  1. SOP is to always stay committed to flight (unless impossible) after passing V1 speed. This was after V2. This is sound philosophy in general, but there will always be exceptions. The crew most likely had no reason to think all control would be lost.
    3
  2. PSA 182 came months earlier, and may be the most famous shot of a crashing airliner.
    2
  3. Well I am certainly not. If there were a real Christian God, the plane would not have crashed to begin with. That's according to their own definition of God. cheers
    1
  4. Well, the entire roll lasted 10 seconds, and it often takes several seconds to realize what's happening. Imagine sitting in the right rear with your eyes closed. You might never have noticed.
    1
  5. They went strictly by the manual.
    1
  6. I think you're mixing flight 191 with 587. There was no rudder issue on the DC-10.
    1
  7. Unfortunately they are still building them, witness the 737max.
    1
  8.  @DanknDerpyGamer  There have been a handful of other events where engines have detached due to design issues, the most well known being the El Al 747 crash at Amsterdam. But the specific failure modes were different, as I recall.
    1
  9. How can you add thrust to the left side without the left engine?
    1
  10. I wish I had gone on that plane - it used to fly over my house. Gorgeous.
    1
  11. Healthy skepticism is needed for all of Youtube.
    1
  12.  @davehagen2540  Hey whats with the gratuitous language.
    1
  13. I think Palm 90 is a bad example: they were at the time not really a known quantity = stay away. A better way to look at it is that one cannot compare today to back then. Excluding the regionals, there has been but a single death on US airlines in the last 20 years. In the 70s the death risk was a respectable 1 chance in 4 million per flight. In the last 20 years it fell to 1 chance in 10 billion. Meaning it was some 200 times more dangerous back then. If you are an average driver, the equivalent risk is driving 50 feet. So if you want to go from NY to Chicago, there is no way your ride will be safer in a car.
    1
  14. And that MD built a defective aircraft.
    1
  15. The worst failure was not inspecting their work when completed.
    1
  16. I think one committed suicide.
    1
  17. $$
    1
  18. Or the heart-rending picture of the plane as it taxied towards the runway.
    1
  19. Yes, everyone seems to have not read the full report. where this inadequacy is plainly spelled out in the accident cause synopsis on page 3 of the report.
    1
  20. It's supposed to be redundant, but obviously that has had to compete with the profit motive. Even with all these lapses, air safety, even back then, had far more redundancy than say, Amtrak, car ferries, dive boats, helicopters and hot air balloons, and a host of other poorly regulated activities.
    1
  21. And ironically, by profit as well. The airlines know that plane crashes are big media events, and if there are too many of them, no one will get on a plane. So they make planes safe enough not to scare would-be passengers too too much. For example, the industry cannot afford today to be as unsafe a the 1970s. If they were, the US would have about 10 major crashes a year. That compares to about zero today, excluding commuter flights.
    1
  22. Profit
    1
  23. Yes, what about it?
    1
  24. Who is you guys?
    1
  25. Even so, its overall safety record was not greatly affected, as shown by a safety record in the same ballpark as the other widebodies of its time.
    1
  26.  @jockoharpo2622  Why would a shill be hanging out on an accident investigation video having nothing to do with 911? The other flaw in your case is the implied notion that aluminum can't cut steel. But it doesn't have to. It only need cause the joists holding the beams together to fail. That doesn't require aluminum literally tearing through steel.
    1
  27.  @jockoharpo2622  And let's see your physics proving a 767 could not penetrate the twin towers. I'm all ears.
    1
  28.  @jockoharpo2622  The vid proves zero. Sure, you don't have to prove anything. But I thought, I'm giving you an opportunity to make a silly theory look convincing.
    1
  29. And bad engineering also caused the slat system to fail.
    1
  30. The only reason the skies are as safe as they are is that profits will plummet if there are too many accidents.
    1
  31.  @emilsinclair4190  The FAA only fixes things if there's a danger too many planes will fall out of the sky. They are thus governed by the profit motive too. Why do you think they failed to stop the Max crashes, and even wanted to keep the plane flying after other governments grounded them? Could profits have something to do with it?
    1
  32. To some extent I agree. But the DC-10 had a more justifiably bad image due to the Paris crash and the effective cover-up surrounding it. So when Chicago happened, all eyes were on the manufacturer. On another forum a Boeing maintenance worker said much the same as you- the 747 was plagued with safety issues, which he witnesses first hand. But I don't think the fatal crash rate of the 747 reflected a worse overall design. The reason for its higher fatal crash rate is hard to actually pin down. At least I cannot find a single common factor.
    1
  33. Not sure though if it was any safer. It had several design shortcomings and a constant flow of ADs. The rollover tendency was one of the most serious of any contemporary type, and plagued by more issues than the A-330/40 and 777. I would have been much more reluctant to fly one than the DC-10.
    1
  34. Well, I blame MD as much because they didn't literally tell them not to do it that way either.
    1
  35. I think they were fined by the FAA some ridiculously small amount.
    1
  36. Maybe not the absolute safest, but it must be pretty close compared to car and train. The stats are pretty clear on that. On US carriers for example, no has died in over 10 years. And excluding commuter/regional there has been but a single death since 2001. The West is particularly safe. For most of the established carriers, several decades have gone by since they killed a single passenger. However I'm sure that in places like Indonesia that is most emphatically not the case.
    1
  37. They had only 30 seconds actually.
    1
  38.  @nopenever3  There are strict rules for when you can abort. "V1" is the speed after which you are committed to take off. The engine loss happened well after this point. There are exceptions to every rule, but experience has shown the best outcome is to commit to flight, as the plane will be at significant risk of an overrun, and severe damage. It's not clear how likely a successful abort would have been at this late stage, and I believe I read there was just a grassy field at the end of the runway, so it might have saved lives. But it would have been impossible for the crew, or anyone to know. If it were to have flipped over the outcome could also have been catastrophic.
    1