Two, the fatigue crack was the result of poor manufacturing processes. Finally, something had to be done to assure this type of situation wouldn’t happen again. The NTSB determined that United Airlines had failed in giving adequate consideration to human factors which resulted in the failure to detect the crack. McDonnell Douglas was asked to come up with something to ensure, given the same circumstances, that this wouldn’t happen again. Three months after the accident McDonnell Douglas announced the development of design enhancements. The enhancement consisted of three things. One, an electrically operated shutoff valve that would close if fluid levels dropped below a preset limit in the main hydraulic system. Two, a sensor to detect the fluid loss and a light in the cockpit to alert the crew. PAGE 4 FIG 1FIG 2. PAGE 5 FIG 3DISCUSSION Looking at this accident from a distance it shows many remarkable things. What are the odds of a United Airlines Instructor pilot for the DC-10 being on the flight when he is needed the most. The way the crew pulled together to come up with a plan of how they were going to land is absolutely remarkable. However there is more to this story if one looks closer. To examine the flight crew’s actions would be unfair. The crew did the best job they could given the circumstances. In fact, the exact scenario was given to pilots in the simulator and not one of them could come close to landing the airplane. So for this reason the NTSB’s findings are going to be examined. PAGE 6 When the tail was reconstructed this showed the inspectors a lot. They already knew the engine had failed. But they wanted to know why the hydraulic failure. The left side had some holes but nothing large enough to cause the accident. The right side was a different story. When aircraft engines...
