全部
← Back to Squawk list
How trust strained by the DC-10 fractured with the 737 Max
When the European Union Aviation Safety Agency grounded the Max in March 2019, the US FAA initially resisted (www.flightglobal.com) 更多...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I was able to read the full article without encountering a pay wall and paying anything. Restriction maybe due to location.
Paywall...
I was able to read the whole article too, but I am also outside the UK.
However not withstanding the legal wrangling between the FAA and CAA and we must remember as noted in the article that there were many, many European airlines using the DC-10, Swissair, Alitalia, Finnair, BCAL, Laker, UTA, SABENA and Lufthansa to name just a few of the major operators.
I was very much aware of the 'shenanigans' at that time as my late father was BOAC/BA aircrew and indeed flew DC-10s for BA used leased ANZ DC-10s on the LAX route.
As I understood it, as always with anything involving the 'gud ol US of A' that the 'Big Bucks' were central to this controversy and revolved around how the airlines changed engines from/to the wings.
The cargo door fault was only one problem, but I believe there were 2 or 3 instances of engines falling off the wings and if I also remember correctly, US operators were using nothing more technical than a forklift which European airlines believed to be unprofessional and used instead gantry/crane systems.
This obviously was more time consuming, therefore more expensive, and affected the 'Big Bucks'.
Anyway this whole catastrophe with the aircraft type damaged the DC-10 very badly and when they remodelled the type it had a new slightly altered type reference as MD-11 and the general public didn't readily associate this type as being the same 'dangerous DC-10 aircraft'. However my father told me then that there had been several instances of passengers boarding his (BA) flight, an ANZ DC-10-30 in LAX, turning around on the airbridge on seeing the aircraft and refusing to fly, as they had booked with BA knowing and confidently believing that it would have been a VC-10, B707 or B747 and NOT a DC-10.
It seems once again the 'Big Bucks' in the US have again been central to the FAA and their very 'independent' and slow reaction to condemn Boeing, especially as it seems the FAA had willingly handed over testing approval procedures to Boeing themselves, a situation that is ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable in a world away from the 'Big Bucks' syndrome!
However not withstanding the legal wrangling between the FAA and CAA and we must remember as noted in the article that there were many, many European airlines using the DC-10, Swissair, Alitalia, Finnair, BCAL, Laker, UTA, SABENA and Lufthansa to name just a few of the major operators.
I was very much aware of the 'shenanigans' at that time as my late father was BOAC/BA aircrew and indeed flew DC-10s for BA used leased ANZ DC-10s on the LAX route.
As I understood it, as always with anything involving the 'gud ol US of A' that the 'Big Bucks' were central to this controversy and revolved around how the airlines changed engines from/to the wings.
The cargo door fault was only one problem, but I believe there were 2 or 3 instances of engines falling off the wings and if I also remember correctly, US operators were using nothing more technical than a forklift which European airlines believed to be unprofessional and used instead gantry/crane systems.
This obviously was more time consuming, therefore more expensive, and affected the 'Big Bucks'.
Anyway this whole catastrophe with the aircraft type damaged the DC-10 very badly and when they remodelled the type it had a new slightly altered type reference as MD-11 and the general public didn't readily associate this type as being the same 'dangerous DC-10 aircraft'. However my father told me then that there had been several instances of passengers boarding his (BA) flight, an ANZ DC-10-30 in LAX, turning around on the airbridge on seeing the aircraft and refusing to fly, as they had booked with BA knowing and confidently believing that it would have been a VC-10, B707 or B747 and NOT a DC-10.
It seems once again the 'Big Bucks' in the US have again been central to the FAA and their very 'independent' and slow reaction to condemn Boeing, especially as it seems the FAA had willingly handed over testing approval procedures to Boeing themselves, a situation that is ridiculous and absolutely unacceptable in a world away from the 'Big Bucks' syndrome!
I got the paywall (I'm in Great Britain), but logged in as a subscriber (free) and read the article.
