Garfield1966
Veteran
Well it seems the languge police are at wrk again. The "deleted" part was a request for you to kiss my posterier. As if saying it in a more "polite" manner changes the meaning in some fashion.
How lame.
How lame.
In Memoriam
- Thread starter Dont call me Shirley
- Start date
upsilon
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 372
- 2
Calling Garfield1966 'ignorant' is uncalled for. Twenty-five years is a long time by any standard. I lost friends on AA191 and still have another one because he missed the flight. They and many others were going to LAX to attend the American Booksellers Association meeting and tradeshow over the Memorial Day weekend. The crash cast a gloom over the meeting.mga707 said:
As an aviation nut I vividly remember the news coverage of the crash, the horrific pics; and I closely followed the investigation into the cause of the pylon failure and the fact that the flight crew, being ignorant of the condition of the plane, could not take steps to overcome the problem.
I know and remember a helluva lot about commercial aviation history including events going back to the first mid-air crash in 1956 over the Grand Canyon (UA DC6/TW Con), the 1960 midair over Brooklyn (UA DC8/TW Con. But I would never connect something similar, like AA191, based on a time span and a flight number alone.
As did Garfield1966, I took a stab at it and was correct. There must be something else between these two for mga707 to call him 'ignorant'.
.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
Either is a violation of TOS.Garfield1966 said:
'Nuff said.
Garfield1966
Veteran
Never had any interaction with him what so ever unless he is someone on here with a different alias.upsilon said:
upsilon
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 372
- 2
Garfield1966, you must have forgotten mga707's comments about your posts on two threads back in February relating to religion that were sparked by the AA pilot who did some proselytizing on the intercom. In my opinion mga707 didn't forget.Garfield1966 said:
Proselytizing Pilot and More Religious Heat…the Nuns
mga707, your profile shows you were on this board from hour one of day one. You have a prodigious memory for aviation historical main events and an eye for minutiae. I have enjoyed your past posts sharing it with those of us aviation enthusiasts with less observational skills, and even less mental retention. But please choose your words more carefully and think again before using the word “ignorant†when others don’t match your recall abilities (or with whom you otherwise disagree).
Best Wishes to all,
Y
Back to the topic...
Anyone else watch the History Channel program tonight? Any comments?
One point that they did not mention was that the public perception of the DC-10 in 1979 was further denigrated by two other fatal crashes that occurred within six months of AA191, although neither was in any way the fault of the aircraft: The Western crash while landing at MEX, which I believe was an ATC screwup that sent the -10 onto a closed runway that was under reconstruction, and the Air New Zealand disaster over Antarctica in which the crew flew the plane into a mountain. To the general public both just reinforced the perception of the -10 as a jinxed aircraft.
Also, I believe the program stated that there had been three other fatal DC-10 crashes prior to 191. The only one that comes to mind is the THY crash near Paris. I also remember a passenger on a National -10 getting sucked out of the plane over New Mexico, although the aircraft made a safe emergency landing. What other one was there?
I also cracked up when Peter Greenberg was IDed as an "investigative journalist". Right....
Anyone else watch the History Channel program tonight? Any comments?
One point that they did not mention was that the public perception of the DC-10 in 1979 was further denigrated by two other fatal crashes that occurred within six months of AA191, although neither was in any way the fault of the aircraft: The Western crash while landing at MEX, which I believe was an ATC screwup that sent the -10 onto a closed runway that was under reconstruction, and the Air New Zealand disaster over Antarctica in which the crew flew the plane into a mountain. To the general public both just reinforced the perception of the -10 as a jinxed aircraft.
Also, I believe the program stated that there had been three other fatal DC-10 crashes prior to 191. The only one that comes to mind is the THY crash near Paris. I also remember a passenger on a National -10 getting sucked out of the plane over New Mexico, although the aircraft made a safe emergency landing. What other one was there?
I also cracked up when Peter Greenberg was IDed as an "investigative journalist". Right....
Garfield1966
Veteran
Wasn't the United flight in Sioux Falls (or some place like that) a DC-10 also? I seem to recall something about having 3 redundant back up systems taken out in the tail due to the tail engine disintegrating. Seems to me if you are going to have a back p system in place, you would want to locate it away from the primary that it is backing up. Maybe I am missing something.
A friend of mine whos dad worked for MD way back when said he would never get on a DC-10 even before all the accidents. Said he did not trust the design of the AC and thought it was a accident waiting to happen. He said the MD-11 corrected numerous of the design flaws but it was still a piece of crap.
A friend of mine whos dad worked for MD way back when said he would never get on a DC-10 even before all the accidents. Said he did not trust the design of the AC and thought it was a accident waiting to happen. He said the MD-11 corrected numerous of the design flaws but it was still a piece of crap.
That one wasn't ATC's fault; it was the cockpit crew. Spooky coincidence that the Western crash was on Dia de los Muertes.mga707 said:
The 10 had some problems in the early 70s with the cargo bay doors not closing properly. IIRC, one "passenger" was lost that way, though I'm sure he didn't notice. He was very dead already, and was being shipped in a coffin. The other cargo door incident was the THY crash you alluded to. The open door caused a partial collapse of the cabin floor, damaging control cables to the point where control of the aircraft was no longer possible.
I had to look up the National incident you mentioned; it was in 1973 and was caused by an uncontained engine failure that poked a hole in the fuselage large enough for a passenger to fit through. Unfortunately, a passenger fit through it.
The UA flight (UA232 IIRC), which was, indeed, a DC-10, did land at SUX, though it was not scheduled to land there. The uncontained failure of the #2 engine took out a good chunk of the right horizontal stabilizer. In particular, it hit the only possible spot that would cause all three hydraulic systems to drain. The three systems had to have some crossovers, and it just so happened that the crossover on the stab was the very spot hit by the shrapnel.Garfield1966 said:
I've never been a big fan of Douglas jet designs. They always seemed to be in a rush to get to market.
Yes, that incident occurred on an AA -10 soon after the type had entered service, in '72 if I recall. Happened over southern Ontario--believe plane was flying ORD-BUF--and the crew safely landed the aircraft at Windsor. Not a scratch to anyone on board, save for the aforementioned unfortunate stiff who wound up as a macabre Canadian yard decoration.mweiss said:
They were lucky, as the THY crash in France a few years later all too vividly confirmed.
OP
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #27
I beg to differ here. The Douglas, as opposed to the postmerger McDonnell-Douglas, jets - namely the DC-8 and -9 are wonderful machines. I've had pilots and mechanics tell that they were, in keeping with the DC tradition, very solid, even overbuilt, airframes. Sometime around 1990 or so I talked with a very senior UAL captain. He had decided to "step down" to the "Eight" after flying the DC-10 and 747. He wanted to spend the last year before retirement flying his favorite plane.mweiss said:
To get back to the original topic of this thread, I am a little suprised that not many posters have related their memories of the crash and the aftermath with the DC-10 grounding.
Being an aviation crazed teen back then, I did a term paper the next school year about the NTSB and FAA handling of the THY and AA DC-10 accidents.
I used to work with someone who had been an AA agent in ORD on the day of the crash. He was working an ORD-PHX-LAX Boeing 707 trip scheduled to leave about the same time as 191. A passenger with a reservation on a later flight to LAX asked the agent about getting on an earlier flight The agent suggested that the passenger take the lightly booked flight via PHX instead of the very full nonstop.
After 191 crashed, the passenger returned to the agent and said "Do you realize that you just saved my life!"
Does anyone on here know the EXACT crash site location? I would assume that it is somewhere in Bensenville adjacent to the ORD perimeter, since 191 departed on 32L (I think).
Also, what is at the site today? Any marker/memorial? Is the trailer park that it hit still there?
Also, what is at the site today? Any marker/memorial? Is the trailer park that it hit still there?
tkelly911
Member
I remember the day and the scene well. The crash site was on Touhy Avenue, between the trailer park and the Chicago Police training facility, not far from the (current) employee entrance to ORD. It was a clear Friday afternoon, about 3PM. I was a 22 year old police officer and my late father worked Chicago dispatch for AA. He had been with AA for forty five years. He was the ALDA safety rep and had some kind of disaster pass, so he grabbed a ride from near our home with the Elk Grove Fire Department.
To my surprise, I met him at the scene. There was not much we could do. The destruction was overwhelming as was the smell of JET-A. We actually could not see or do very much because of the intensity of the heat.
At the time, American was a small(er) airline and my father, as one of the senior dispatchers in the company, knew virtually every Captain on a first name basis. So to him the loss of Captain Lux was quite personal. Even though I did not work for AA (as I do now) I felt the loss as well. There was actually a family atmosphere in the company at one time. Until a couple of years ago, I did not think such a tragedy could be surpassed.
To my surprise, I met him at the scene. There was not much we could do. The destruction was overwhelming as was the smell of JET-A. We actually could not see or do very much because of the intensity of the heat.
At the time, American was a small(er) airline and my father, as one of the senior dispatchers in the company, knew virtually every Captain on a first name basis. So to him the loss of Captain Lux was quite personal. Even though I did not work for AA (as I do now) I felt the loss as well. There was actually a family atmosphere in the company at one time. Until a couple of years ago, I did not think such a tragedy could be surpassed.
