<“In the lawsuit, the victims’ families allege that UPS operated the 34-year-old plane when it was not airworthy and created unsafe conditions for employees and the public by “implementing inadequate maintenance, inspection, or operational procedures.” They’re also accusing Boeing of knowing the risk for catastrophic failure but failing to notify companies and air crews.”
They will get a settlement from the insurance companies. So sad.
That's cute. Now we wait for actual facts to be revealed. Facts about inspections and maintenance procedures ... and whether or not UPS was doing what Boeing told them to do.
My understanding is that the McDonnell Douglas plane model had a bad rap even before it was “old” and was limited to freight/cargo instead of passenger flights as a result.
That statement contains at least two errors.
1) The DC10/MD11 did not have a "bad rap" ... it was flown for countless hours successfully in passenger service. The 1979 accident was shown to result from the airline engaging in some really stupid maintenance practices ... contrary to instructions from McDonnell-Douglas ... that damaged the engine pylon.
2) The DC10/MD11 was withdrawn from passenger service, along with other tri-jets, because tri-jets ceased to make sense. At one time, trans-Atlantic and other long over-water were restricted to jets with more than two engines. Three engines are more efficient than four ... so Douglas, Lockheed, and Boeing all developed tri-jets. Improvements in engine reliability led to ETOPS. Two engines are more efficient than three ... and all the tri-jets quickly vanished from passenger service. Cargo lines bought them cheap, and they served for many years in that role with great success.