Hey,just wanna say a door would blow out on BOEING

Were the break ware limits checked on Service or overnight checks?

@@jayreiter268breaks or brakes?

@@Zzrdemon6633 Surry my proof reader was on break. I had to wing it on my own.

I am retired now and I worked on a few DC-10s back in the day, to include A/A. So regarding the brake failure,, I'm not buying it. It had to be something else. Brakes that are worn and within limits will stop you just as good as a new set of brakes.

Thank you Robert

I cannot look at an image of a DC10 without thinking of AA 191 out of Chicago. Friday, May 25, 1979! I just remember seeing th the first reports coming in on TV News. Then that horrifying pic of the plane; 90 degree bank to port and the port engine clearly absent. Also the mist trailing from the wing! I was in a college dorm TV room with my girlfriend of that time! She could see how I was affected. She then put her arms around me as I wept. All I could think of was those poor people on the plane; their final moments of life, in sheer terror!

No pun intended?

Wow somebody other than me spotted the mistake, Thanks.

The brake testing and certifications were done using new brake pads. The (incorrect) assumption ( a scary word in engineering...) was that brake pads would perform consistently as their life cycle went from brand new to "somewhat worn" to "wornout". In real-life, all-out emergency stops from near take-off speeds (which are rare..) would cause " not-quite-wornout" pads to fail. Since airliner brake pads usually get changed after 1,000 or more landings, using brand new ones for FAA certication was not "testing for real-world" conditions, since nearly all aircraft brake pads are some degree of "worn." The FAA revised the testing procedures and wear limits on all passenger jet brake pads as a result of this incident.

@@johnstuartsmith Yes I am well aware of that, all rejected take offs of new commercial aircraft during certification must be undertaken with brake packs 90-95% worn, to insure they can safely slow and stop a fully loaded airliner in such a situation . Did it not occur to you the heavier Series 30 DC-10 had a history of marginal braking, same goes for the USAF,s KC-10 Extender. Look closely at each main wheel, it is manufactured in a plain solid disc, no attempt to incorporate cooling slots in the wheel rims to dissipate heat in the same manner as a high performance sports car.

@@basiltaylor8910 My point was that this incident caused the FAA to realize the problem and change how braking systems were to be certified. You have correctly pointed out that the video shows a DC-10-10, while the actual aircraft, N136AA, was a DC-10-30. The Series-30 models were longer and were equipped with 2-wheel rear center landing gears (which had brakes...) to handle the extra weight. Hence, it occured to me that the KZfaq creator's statement that "8 out of ten brakes failed" wasn't accurate because the DC-10-30 had 12 sets of brakes, 2 on the nosewheels, 4 on each main landing gear, and 2 more on the rear center gear.

@@johnstuartsmith Yes I know about the DC-10-30,s as during the 1970,s 80,s British Caledonian flew them . Sorry to p--s on your parade, to clarify matters regarding the DC-10 braking system, the main undercarriage has ten brake packs, four on each main bogie, two on the centre line truck, no brakes were fitted to the nose gear, George Dowtys of Staverton Gloucester UK, did not list brakes on the DC-10 nose gear, even as an extra cost option .And yes this landmark accident did cause the FAA to revise their certification of new aircraft by including rejected take offs with 90-95% worn brake packs.

@@basiltaylor8910 I was wrong. You are correct about the DC-10, and most other airliners not having brakes in their nosegear. There's not enough downforce and tire contact area to justify their added weight, hydraulics, and other complications. I'd bet that you never say "OCD" like it's a bad thing. Me neither...

Most wide-body airliners are considered jumbo jets. The 747 was only the first plane to be called that. You learned something today.

McDonnell Must Have Been Out Of Town When Douglas Made The DC 10

Yes it is. The 747 was simply the first of the 'Jumbo' jets.

It was unfortunate, but the reputation was earned.

Jumbo is not a boeing exclusive , maybe you should do some research “The 747 was the first airplane called a "Jumbo Jet" as the first wide-body airliner. Boeing 747. A 747-200 in Iberia livery in flight, over land. Boeing 747 ..” Db

@@Zzrdemon6633 99.9% of people: q) What is a jumbo Jet? a) A Boeing 747.

@@travelwithtony5767 I learned that the definition of a Jumbo Jet is a very large aircraft ( a wide-body airliner, as it turns out), and only after a few years did I learn that the Boeing 747 was the first one to be called Jumbo. Previously I didn't even know the 747. :0

I was around for the first-gen widebody era. All three of the twin-aisle jets made in the USA were commonly referred to as jumbo jets.

No the DC-10 is a 'Wide Body' and smaller than the B747, the term 'Jumbo Jet' is for a very large passenger airliner, the B747 fits that bill.

The 747 was the first 'Jumbo' jet. 'Jumbo' is not a trademark of Boeing. The name is applicable to all wide-body, high capacity aircraft since and, particularly the DC-10 and the L-1011.

@@EuroScot2023 That is maybe so, but to me a Jumbo Jet ,is a 747, the DC-10 and L-1011 are too small.

@@basiltaylor8910The DC-9 and Boeing 727 are also Jumbo Jets. Fokker 100 is another jumbo jet that AA flew back in the 1990s. The BAC 111-400 was AA’s first jumbo jet back in the late 1960s….

@@zoggin4181 I disagree on that issue, said aircraft described are 'Narrow Bodies' like the A320 Series , B757, too small , no way can the B727 DC-9, and Hunting Percival 1-111 be classed as jumbo jets .