[Raion]

I took an engineering ethics course in college 8 years ago. We had to study several aero, mechanical and electrical engineering cases that are a result of ethical issues. 

I was recently reminded by this reading articles of the trainwreck that is the 737MAX, and this reminds me of another aircraft: The DC-10

For those who don't recall, there's multiple instances of crashes either involving the DC-10 or that were caused by the DC-10. 

I'll go through four such cases:

AA Flight 96
Turkish Air Flight 981
United Flight 232
Air France 4590

So, the first two cases involve cargo door failures that led to explosive decompression and damage to the hydraulics. 

Flight 96 took off and had its cargo door blow off, collapsing the floor and damaging 2 of 3 hydraulics systems, jamming the rudder and breaking Engine No. 2 (the tail engine). The pilots had little control over the surfaces, and ended up using differential thrust. There were only a few injuries, and no deaths. This miracle, is the only one we will review though. The plane had no flaps and couldn't land normally, hence the pilot Bryce McCormick had to basically land at over 220km/h. 

The door on the DC-10 is NOT a plug door like most planes. It swings out. This was done to reduce the amount of weight and wasted space, but because it's not a plug door, it has to use a latch bar and pins to ensure it's secured. The latch wasn't fully secured, and the pins weren't engaged, and there was no indication to the pilots that the door was not properly closed, hence disaster. 

The FAA didn't ground the DC-10. They made a backdoor deal with McDonnell Douglas, and let them "work it out." This was disastrous for Flight 981. 

Unlike Flight 96, everyone died because ALL 3 hydraulic systems failed, and the pilots lost control. 

The door was recovered and it was TERRIFYING. Not only were repairs performed, but a Turkish engineer had filed down the pins to make the door easier to close. The pins thus didn't engage. The baggage handler additionally couldn't speak Turkish or English, and had little training to double check the door was closed. He wasn't stupid, he was fluent in French, Arabic and Berber and literate in all 3. This wasn't Turkish Airlines' fault, since these handlers are often hired by airports, not airlines.  But all the same, it's terrifying. 

This time, the FAA couldn't ignore the issue and grounded the fleet. And just now McDonell Douglas had to actually, you know, do the work. This shit is ridiculous. The design is clearly flawed, and the DC-10 should have never been allowed to fly.

But oh, it gets MUCH worse. United Flight 232 AGAIN had hydraulic failures, this time due to Engine No.2 exploding and taking out all three engines. The plane diverted to Sioux City entirely under differential thrust on the remaining engines, and broke up upon attempted landing, killing nearly half of the people on board. The pilots did the best they could, it's not a case of pilot error. No recalls or groundings were issued.

This segways into the final case. The air france 4590 is an example of flawed design and company negligence at its worst. This was a concorde flight out of Charles DeGaulle Airport. Just before taking off, the runway  had debris on it from Continental Airlines DC-10 - a piece of the thrust reverser came off. This part had come off in Israel, and was sent back to Texas where Continental had it repaired with an aftermarket part. McDonnell Douglas had apparently no repair procedure outlined, so it was welded on and pushed out. 

The strip ruptured the Concorde's tires, sending debris into the fuel tanks. This fuel caught fire when the engines no. 1 and 2 ingested it through the nacelles, which disintegrated the wing and caused the plane to crash into a nearby hotel, because it was already past V1 speed.

In court, Continental tried to deflect responsibility by pointing out the plane was slightly overloaded (800KG or so) and that it hit something after going airborne. As IF that matters, because the load numbers do have some wiggle room, and it wasn't until it veered off course due to your piece of shit airplane's parts coming off and blasting a hole through the tires causing a fire. Like seriously, that court case's arguments made me mad.

Thankfully, the engineer responsible for the hackjob was found civilly liable and forced to pay money. In my opinion, he should be in prison for manslaughter, along with Continental's head of engineering. Had the FAA forced the DC-10 to never be airworthy again, this would have never happened. 

Furthermore, there's actually nothing wrong with the tri-jet design. The L-1011, the main DC-10 competitor, was/is a fine plane. Never anything like the piece of shit DC-10's myriad of accidents ever happened on the same scale. Some of the engineers will argue the DC-10 was by and large perfectly safe. And I'd agree, but a plane is not remembered for statistics. It's remembered by its events. And in this case, the DC-10 is a deathtrap. So many horrific accidents that could have been much worse with less competent pilots. 

Back to the 737MAX. There's a larger argument to be had about increased automation leaving flight crews unprepared for emergencies, combined with the removal of flight engineers (Which I HEAVILY disagree with. A third set of eyes in the cockpit is incredibly helpful.) has left us virtually unprepared for when crises happen. The 737MAX is a death trap that Boeing falsely claimed was the "Exact same as the 737NG". How wrong they were. They don't get it! History has repeated itself. I'll never fly on a 737MAX. I also avoid flying airbus for the accidents where airbus has failed through all of its computing and automation to make a safer craft. 

What do the engineering nerds here think? Am I making sense somewhere in this? Or is this just nonsense?