On March 3, 1974, 346 people lost their lives to one of the worst crashes in aviation history, a fatality that could have been avoided.
Engineering keeps pushing innovation to previously unattainable levels. However, to ensure we advance in a safely manner, ethics and moral codes, amongst other things, have to be taken into account in this process, as not everything that looks good on paper will work as intended in real life. If a design flaw is found in a product, there should be no hesitation whether to fix it o not. It is a priority to ensure all information provided from the manufacturer or any other organism is trustworthy and a product poses no threat to its users. This matter applies to the McDonnell Douglas (MDC) aircraft DC-10, as
…show more content…
Consequently, the plane went out of control and crashed into a forest near Paris, killing all 346 occupants. In this essay, I aim to display the development of the cargo-door problem over the years, showcasing McDonnell Douglas’ and associated organisations’ …show more content…
The electrical door opened outwards and relied on a latching mechanism actuated from the outside to close itself shut. The purpose of this was to be able to use more space inside the cargo compartment. With the final design ready, production of the aircraft started in 1968. Whilst performing a ground test in 1970 on the first produced plane, one of the cargo-doors blew open, causing a sudden change of pressure. This made the cabin floor collapse. It became obvious that the DC-10’s floor was too weak for such a wide airplane and the door’s locking mechanism had some sort of flaw, as, while the door could appear locked from the outside, the locking pins on the inside were not correctly engaged. Was this to happen mid-flight, the airplane’s controls, which run through the floor, could result severely damaged when buckling occurred. Convair, a sub-contractor and manufacturer of many parts, recognised the flaw and discussed further actions with MDC. It was not clear who would pay or produce the changes in design and as a result there was no further action. MDC took The aircraft underwent the usual tests and inspections, carried out by the manufacturer’s