Looks like the same thing that happened with the AA191 crash. Same plane, same engine falling off and going over the wing.
21
SwitchyandWitchy [she/her] - 4w
Not exactly the same but very similar. AA191 was caused by improper maintenance that weakened the rear pylon mount. We don't yet know why the rear mount failed but this time but the prelim report claims the spherical bearing lug had metal fatigue cracks as well as signs of overstress, but doesn't mention any dents like we're present on AA191:
(Sorry for the yt screenshot it was the only place I could find this picture yesterday)
Also AA191 crashed due to assymetrical lift due to the slats retracting as hydraulic pressure was lost on the affected wing, this time iirc the slats remained extended and the plane just didn't have enough thrust. It's possible that debris from the engine separation were injested by the #2 engine causing it to lose thrust as well while the plane was extremely heavy.
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
8
SwitchyandWitchy [she/her] - 4w
Thank youuuuu I was getting 403'd when I was trying to read it
4
RNAi [he/him] - 4w
(If nobody died nor got injured): lmao
aw shit 14 people died
21
NuraShiny [any] - 4w
Yea fuck that. I know why I don't fly.
10
gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him] - 4w
Thankfully, this is probably a design/maintenance issue with the DC-10/MD-11 that doesn't apply to other aircraft. The A320, 787, A350, A380, and 777 aircraft have nearly spectacular safety records. Flying is still the safest method of travel by a significant margin. Planes just fail in a uniquely scary and public way, whereas busses, trains and cars kill people in mundane and unremarkable ways.
11
TankieTanuki [he/him] - 4w
Do you drive?
9
NuraShiny [any] - 4w
I do and I realize that, statistically, that is less save then flying. But if my car catches on fire, I can exit it and since I drive the same car every time I drive, I can notice if it needs repairs and whatnot. In a plane, I gotta hope that whoever serviced it didn't fuck up.
Also, most car problems, even crashes, are not deadly. I drive in the city and a crash even at 50 kph isn't that likely to kill me. Meanwhile, any problem a plane might have is an immediate nightmare scenario.
Sense of control vs no sense of control, I suppose.
15
came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them] - 4w
i used to subscribe to the idea that flying was safer than driving and since i drove all the time, i should just zen out about flying.
i drive way less now, but besides that, i think the undernining of the administrative state and its institutions is undermining the historic record for air travel safety, specifically the idea that historic statistics are a predictor for present and future reality.
so, basically, fuck flying in the US.
17
juniper [none/use name] - 4w
FWIW you also have to drive if you live in most places in the US. Flying is optional but there isn't a way to opt out of the four-wheeled death trap like you can with air travel.
12
ZWQbpkzl [none/use name] - 4w
9
blunder [he/him] - 4w
Even if one of your jet engines decides to, um, just leave halfway through takeoff (), I thought these multi engine jets were designed to operate down an engine
8
MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any] - 4w
Likely engine 1 and 2 were both out, engine 2 has a visible compressor stall on takeoff visible in videos, likely from ingesting debris from engine 1. Two engine failure on takeoff is unrecoverable in a tri jet.
10
blunder [he/him] - 4w
Scary. Yet another reason that we just do not belong in the sky
3
MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any] - 4w
It's a very rare freak accident that happened on an aircraft type no longer used by passenger airlines, even before this. I don't think this will have much of an influence on aviation beyond an early retirement for the MD-11. There's no such thing as a risk free flight, risk is inherent to aviation, but lots has been done over the years to minimise risk.
6
CHOPSTEEQ @lemmy.ml - 4w
I think a lot of factors combined to make this deadly. Not least of which, the engine seemingly strikes the plane when it yeets? Further, it happens during takeoff, so the plane is completely oriented improperly for gliding while down an engine. And then finally, as seen in the video, the catastrophic destruction was due to the frame hitting structure and beginning to tumble end over end. Ideally, they could have slammed back down into the runway and skidded to a stop eventually.
6
blunder [he/him] - 4w
Interesting, yeah I thought they could take off down an engine but we can't see what happens to the tail engine behind the fireball. The fire could be compromising control and fuel to the other engines as well maybe. Just terrifying
4
reader [comrade/them] - 4w
down an engine doesn't usually mean "engine ripped off the airframe" it just means it's damaged or not running
8
blunder [he/him] - 4w
1
MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any] - 4w
This is probably the end of the DC-10/KC-10/MD-11 platform. Metal fatigue related failure well before scheduled inspection. Don't see any insurer, cargo operator, or private mid air refueling company wanting to be liable for this.
7
gay_king_prince_charles [she/her, he/him] - 4w
At least China is keeping the trijet alive. I'll miss looking at these dangerous shitboxes.
gay_king_prince_charles in main
UPS 2976 preliminary report
Looks like the same thing that happened with the AA191 crash. Same plane, same engine falling off and going over the wing.
Not exactly the same but very similar. AA191 was caused by improper maintenance that weakened the rear pylon mount. We don't yet know why the rear mount failed but this time but the prelim report claims the spherical bearing lug had metal fatigue cracks as well as signs of overstress, but doesn't mention any dents like we're present on AA191:
(Sorry for the yt screenshot it was the only place I could find this picture yesterday)
Also AA191 crashed due to assymetrical lift due to the slats retracting as hydraulic pressure was lost on the affected wing, this time iirc the slats remained extended and the plane just didn't have enough thrust. It's possible that debris from the engine separation were injested by the #2 engine causing it to lose thrust as well while the plane was extremely heavy.
Source: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/Preliminary Report DCA26MA024.pdf
ⓘ This user is suspected of being a cat. Please report any suspicious behavior.
Thank youuuuu
I was getting 403'd when I was trying to read it 
(If nobody died nor got injured): lmaoaw shit 14 people died
Yea fuck that. I know why I don't fly.
Thankfully, this is probably a design/maintenance issue with the DC-10/MD-11 that doesn't apply to other aircraft. The A320, 787, A350, A380, and 777 aircraft have nearly spectacular safety records. Flying is still the safest method of travel by a significant margin. Planes just fail in a uniquely scary and public way, whereas busses, trains and cars kill people in mundane and unremarkable ways.
Do you drive?
I do and I realize that, statistically, that is less save then flying. But if my car catches on fire, I can exit it and since I drive the same car every time I drive, I can notice if it needs repairs and whatnot. In a plane, I gotta hope that whoever serviced it didn't fuck up.
Also, most car problems, even crashes, are not deadly. I drive in the city and a crash even at 50 kph isn't that likely to kill me. Meanwhile, any problem a plane might have is an immediate nightmare scenario.
Sense of control vs no sense of control, I suppose.
i used to subscribe to the idea that flying was safer than driving and since i drove all the time, i should just zen out about flying.
i drive way less now, but besides that, i think the undernining of the administrative state and its institutions is undermining the historic record for air travel safety, specifically the idea that historic statistics are a predictor for present and future reality.
so, basically, fuck flying in the US.
FWIW you also have to drive if you live in most places in the US. Flying is optional but there isn't a way to opt out of the four-wheeled death trap like you can with air travel.
Even if one of your jet engines decides to, um, just leave halfway through takeoff (
), I thought these multi engine jets were designed to operate down an engine
Likely engine 1 and 2 were both out, engine 2 has a visible compressor stall on takeoff visible in videos, likely from ingesting debris from engine 1. Two engine failure on takeoff is unrecoverable in a tri jet.
Scary. Yet another reason that we just do not belong in the sky
It's a very rare freak accident that happened on an aircraft type no longer used by passenger airlines, even before this. I don't think this will have much of an influence on aviation beyond an early retirement for the MD-11. There's no such thing as a risk free flight, risk is inherent to aviation, but lots has been done over the years to minimise risk.
I think a lot of factors combined to make this deadly. Not least of which, the engine seemingly strikes the plane when it yeets? Further, it happens during takeoff, so the plane is completely oriented improperly for gliding while down an engine. And then finally, as seen in the video, the catastrophic destruction was due to the frame hitting structure and beginning to tumble end over end. Ideally, they could have slammed back down into the runway and skidded to a stop eventually.
Interesting, yeah I thought they could take off down an engine but we can't see what happens to the tail engine behind the fireball. The fire could be compromising control and fuel to the other engines as well maybe. Just terrifying
down an engine doesn't usually mean "engine ripped off the airframe" it just means it's damaged or not running
This is probably the end of the DC-10/KC-10/MD-11 platform. Metal fatigue related failure well before scheduled inspection. Don't see any insurer, cargo operator, or private mid air refueling company wanting to be liable for this.
At least China is keeping the trijet alive. I'll miss looking at these dangerous shitboxes.
That looks expensive.