Comment Re: that's what happens (Score 0) 89
Engine 1 failed and came off â" period. The MD-11 is basically a stretched, weight-reduced DC-10 with a glass cockpit and a few aerodynamic tweaks. McDonnell Douglas never truly fixed the DC-10â(TM)s pylon design; they just made it good enough to pass certification and moved on.
Letâ(TM)s not forget who weâ(TM)re talking about here. McDonnell Douglas was the part of Boeing that dragged down the safety culture, not the other way around. Their management focus was production and cost, not robust engineering. The MD-11 didnâ(TM)t rack up a longer track record of failures only because its passenger career was short-lived â" most ended up hauling freight, flying fewer cycles, and avoiding the high-frequency stresses that expose design flaws.
Now, what probably happened: the left engine mount or pylon failed from fatigue or maintenance-induced stress. Under normal conditions, the engine should stay attached long enough to contain the fire, shut it down, and bring the jet back. Thatâ(TM)s the textbook outcome.
But when you get an uncontained fire or a fuel-line rupture beyond the firewall, the MD-11 has no way to fight it â" there are no extinguishers outside the nacelle. The DC-10/AA191 disaster led to changes that stopped that violent asymmetric roll, sure, but it didnâ(TM)t address the âoefire-outside-the-podâ scenario. Once that fire hits the wing box or control runs, itâ(TM)s game over.
So yeah, AA191 absolutely does have bearing here. Itâ(TM)s the same family, same design lineage, same corporate DNA â" just with a few bandaids and a new nameplate. Pretending otherwise is pure denial.