| ▲ | sosodev 7 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The MD-11 was developed after that crash. Shouldn't its design and maintenance procedures have been informed by the incident? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | buildsjets 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The MD-11 is nothing but a re-engined and a re-named DC-10. They share the same type certificate. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/type-certific... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 0xffff2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aside from the engine detaching, it doesn't appear that this incident is in any way similar to the previous incident. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | loeg 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Maintenance was informed by the earlier incident. It's why we haven't seen even more DC-10/MD-11 failures sooner. Designs too have kinda been informed by this -- it's not like Boeing or Airbus make trijets anymore. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||