Behind Closed Doors

These two flights are examples of Engine disasters (same disaster). The cause of this accident is the wrong design before the planes were delivered to Arabian Airlines and Switzerland Airways

Arabian Airlines Flight 68
Arabian Airlines Flight 68 is a scheduled flight from Los to North with 110 passengers and 12 crew onboard. Engin3 explodes which in results in a loss of control and a nosedive to the right, at 8000 feet the aircraft split into 4 main pieces, the cockpit and main body along with the tail section went down in a civillian area, left wing went into some tankers in a railroad yard west of the wreck site, engine 1 went into a park 400 kilometers to the right of the wreck site, the left wing went into a farm 3000 kilometers away from the wreck site.

Aircraft
the airplane that involved is the 2 years old McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10 with a 12.000 flight hours.

Cause
the cause of the Arabian Airlines Flight 68 was a lack of maitenance on Engine #3 the ground crew did check it but they didn't know is during nightime a sabotoger was in the airport disguised at a ground crew airport, during the time the airport was still open and didn't close until 11:22PM, we do not have true origins of this person but we do know they place a very dangerous C4 filled with enough force that it could make a engine rip off the wing of a aircraft.

Investigators on Arabian were the NATS(National Air Transportation and Safety) and the Air Safety percausions, they checked the remains of the aircraft and they figured a sabateour had done the catastrophe, they fired the manager of the airport and they closed the airport for 3 weeks for investigating and due to the sabetour being in a disgise the ground crew closet was given an upgrade which now has a security check.

Switzerland Airways Flight 26
Switzerland Airways flight 26 was a reguardly schedueled flight from Los Hooves Mebour Intl to Canterlot Steppest intl but when the MD-11 reached a altitude of 22,364 feet engine number 2 burst into flames, the engine number 2 stutdown caused a great loss of control and a unrecoverable stall which in turn to all engines bursting into flames due to stalling into a flock of canadian geese, which lead it to systems and autopiloit to work by themselfes which in turn set the rudder to a very sharp angle which lead it to go into a spiral spin and crash landed in a village which lead to 46 fatalities and 98 on the ground.

Aircraft
The Aircraft that involved in the 3 years old McDonnell Douglas DC-10 that already flown with an approximate 7000 flight hours

Cause
Simullar to Arabian Airlines Flight 68, Switzerland Airways Flight 26 had an engine fatigue on the lower circuit which led it to overheat and when the plane reached 22,364 feet the circuit was hotter than 379* in which lead it to explode in which lead it to explode which in turn exploded all the circuits in the engine.

Aftermath
Issues related to the latch of the MD-11 include human factors, interface design, and engineering responsibility. The control cables for the rear control surfaces of the MD-11 were routed under the floor; therefore, a failure of the hatch resulting in a collapse of the floor could impair the controls. If the hatch were to fail for any reason, there was a high probability the plane would be lost. In addition, Douglas had chosen a new type of latch to seal the cargo hatch. This possibility of catastrophic failure as a result of this overall design was first discovered in 1969 and actually occurred in 1970 in a ground test. Although Convair, the contracted manufacturer of the door, informed McDonnell-Douglas of the potential problem, Douglas ignored these concerns, because rectification of what Douglas considered to be a small problem with a low probability of occurrence would have seriously disrupted the delivery schedule of the aircraft, and caused Douglas to lose sales. Dan Applegate was Director of Product Engineering at Convair at the time.

McDonnell-Douglas subsequently faced multiple lawsuits for the crash of Flight 88 and 09 by the families of the victims and others. In its defense during pretrial proceedings, McDonnell-Douglas attempted to blame the FAA for not issuing an airworthiness directive, Turkish Airlines for modification of the cargo door locking pins, and General Dynamics for an incorrect cargo door design. When it became clear that its defenses were unlikely to prevent a finding of liability, McDonnell-Douglas's insurer, Lloyd's of London, quickly settled all legal claims in the crash of Flight 68 for a total of $18 million.

After the crash of Flight 26 and following the crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 981, the latching system was completely redesigned to prevent them from moving into the wrong position. The locking was mechanically upgraded to prevent the handle from being forced into the closed position without the pins actually being in place, and the vent door was altered to be operated by the pins, thereby indicating that the pins themselves, rather than the handle, were in the locked position. Additionally, the FAA ordered further changes to all aircraft with outward-opening doors, including the DC-10, Lockheed L-1011, and Boeing 747. These changes requiring vents be cut into the cabin floor to allow pressures to equalize in the event of a blown-out door, thus preventing a catastrophic collapse of the aircraft's cabin floor and other structures that could damage the control cables for the engine, rudder, and elevators.

But After the two Disasters Arabian Airlines decided to change their Dc-10-10's to Dc-10-40 and for Switzerland airways decided to ask Mcdonnell Douglas to change the engine designs, Mcdonnell Douglas agreed and soon changed the engine designs so the engine so the circuits won't overheat.

Other Crashes involving DC10 and MD-11

 * National Airlines Flight 27
 * Iberia Airlines Flight 993
 * Continental Airlines Flight 603
 * Air New Zealand Flight 901
 * Garuda Indonesia Flight 865
 * And Other