The American Airlines Jumbo Jet that Lost the Brakes - Flight 70

[@ashleystorm6345]

My mom was one of the flight attendants on this flight. I was little when it happened, but I vividly remember how traumatized she was by the whole thing. The captain made the right call. Thanks for making this video... I feel like I better understand my mom & a major incident she went through in her career.

[@welcome_to_the_collapse]

I flew the DC-10 frequently during the 80s and 90s. I never knew whether a door would blow out or an engine would fall off. Exciting times.

[@wardinaafikah1074]

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

[@ADFeldbauer]

I flew the DC-10, and I would trust it over the 737 MAX.

[@Prodagist]

​@ADFeldbauer The DC-10 was actually a surprisingly reliable aircraft! While it did have a much higher than normal amount of accidents in relation to the amount built, only 2 incidents were ever actually the fault of McDonnell Douglas. The DC-10 had a cargo door issue, which could cause them to blow out midflight. This issue caused American 96 and Turkish Airlines 981. American 96 suffered 1 fatality following the blowout as a flight attendant was sucked from the cabin, the crew were faced with more failures than any amount of training could prepare them for, yet, through incredible feats of airmanship, they put the plane on the ground safely preventing further death. Turkish 981 was not so lucky, the pilots were unable to deal with the immense failures cause by the blowout damaging crucial hydraulic systems, and were unable to retain control of the airplane like flight 96's crew could, leading to the death of everyone on board. While these 2 incidents are certainly tragic, they are the only incidents involving the DC-10 that is the fault of the manufacturer, every other incident is either the result of pilot error, or failure of the Airlines matinence crew. Having only 2 incidents attributed to fault on the manufacturers end actually gives the DC-10 a better saftey rating than most boeing aircraft of the same era.

[@geoff1201]

Freddie Laker had the best idea, weld the dodgy doors shut.

[@ILoveLucy21.]

Exactly!! Read my comment! I flew as a AA flight attendant at the same time that you flew on them! And even I was SCARED of them because of the DOOR AND ENGINES!!

[@Eric_200]

I’ve been on an aviation bender this weekend and I can’t say enough how awesome your content is! The attention to detail is phenomenal and much appreciated!

[@MPCFlights]

Thanks Eric!

[@robertsnorrason2494]

Poor DC-10, just couldn't catch a break for the longest time. Great video!!

[@MPCFlights]

Thank you Robert

[@billolsen4360]

No pun intended?

[@GuidosDad]

A Beautiful Aircraft in an equally beautiful livery I worked on them for years. Great video. Thx

[@jayreiter268]

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

[@Zzrdemon6633]

@@jayreiter268breaks or brakes?

[@jayreiter268]

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

[@wayback75]

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.

[@davedave5787]

G: Would you say it was a quality plane or to many shortcuts at factory? Thxx

[@w.ryanbutler8097]

How you can tell this flight took place on another planet: "...there were 10 flight attendants..."

[@jenniferadam8052]

I like the way you always end your videos by showing the plane in question getting to fly free and unencumbered, even if it's only in one's mind!

[@kitbaker8521]

The -30 was the sweetest airplane I flew in 40 years of flying.

[@JEHOVYIREH]

El maestro de maestros Aereonautico muy buen video realizado de este vuelo de American airlines saludos cordiales 💯🇺🇲 bendiciones 🙏🙌✈️🎉

[@GregSr]

Back in the day, my job took me to the far corners of the world. I spent a lot of time in the L1011, DC-10 and the 747. Whenever possible, I would try to only book flights on the 747. I didn't trust the DC-10 - especially after that disaster in the Iowa cornfield.

[@Cl4rendon]

The DC-10 displayed here in the simulation is a DC-10 - 10 This version could actually not fly long haul from Dallas nonstop to FRA - This would have rather been the DC-10-30 which had a greater range and had a mid gear section directly under the fuselage.

[@basiltaylor8910]

Wow somebody other than me spotted the mistake, Thanks.

[@markr.1984]

He uses a flight simulator such as Microsoft flight simulator or X-plane to do these videos. Not every plane is modelled in those sims. He did the video with what he had. I used to have a flight sim on my computer and you just don't have every plane ever made loaded into your sim!! Give me a break! You'd have literally thousands of planes taking up your hard drive space.

[@sr406b]

Yes this is DC-10-10 not DC-10-30…

[@jourwalis-8875]

Fantastic rendition and very good airplane sound also! Very realistic!

[@MPCFlights]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@markr.1984]

Not many DC-10 accidents were due to faulty design, other than the one that crashed in France due to a door blowing out. Most accidents were either pilot error or improper or lack of maintenance. The Iowa crash in Sioux City was an engine problem. The horrible crash at O'Hare was due to improper maintenance dismounting and re-mounting the wing engines. They were overall good planes in my opinion.

[@michaelosgood9876]

This aircraft started its career as ZK-NZL, Air New Zealands first DC 10-30. NZM, NZN & NZT also flew with American until late 2000

[@markr.1984]

The DC-10 was not a bad plane like many are saying. Most accidents were not the fault of the plane itself, if people would just do a little research or grow a few more brain cells. But no, they just want to pout off B.S. UPS flew A DC-10 cargo jet over my house once a week until only about three years ago, I used to see it all the time. If they were dangerous jets, UPS would not have flown them until they were so old. But they did!! Now all are retired.

[@paulsz6194]

All AA aircraft’ at 1:22 had the " Luxury liner" moniker on the side of the plane, whether it be the DC-10, A300 or B767….I don’t know why, I think it just was a marketing idea . Don’t know here on the plane the luxury was, certainly not in economy…

[@tango6nf477]

The DC10 was a great aircraft but suffered from a number of faults some of a serious nature leading to at least one major disaster. However once faults were corrected it was a wonderful aircraft to be carried in. If not for the faults it would have been as successful and popular as the B747 and have a more positive place in aviation history.

[@Prodagist]

What's actually interesting about comparing it's success to the 747 is that, the early 747's had the exact same cargo door issue as the DC-10, making the 747 just as vulnerable to incidents of the same nature as American 96 and Turkish 981. Through nothing but sheer luck, this issue wouldn't show itself until 1989, when the 747-100's and 200's that had the cargo door issue were already ending production in favour of the -400, which had much better designed cargo doors. United Airlines flight 811 was the aircraft affected by the cargo door issue on the 747, and it truly is an incredible tale of hero pilots, would highly reccomend looking into it.

[@basiltaylor8910]

A glaring mistake, your video depicted the earlier Domestic Series -10 ,not the later Transcontinental Series-30 with the centre line truck. In view of the Series 30,s having a history of poor braking ,then why did AA mechs not check the brake pack wear indicators before signing off the aircraft as fit for service?.

[@johnstuartsmith]

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.

[@basiltaylor8910]

@@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.

[@johnstuartsmith]

@@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 KZbin 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.

[@basiltaylor8910]

@@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.

[@johnstuartsmith]

@@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...

[@kodibassInsideoutboards]

Great Captain & FO,, The kind of Pilots I want flying, Abort the take-Off.. Save Lives. NEEDS 2 B Standard Flight pre V-1 & even 20-40 second post V-2 ,, FAA V2 standard rules have killed so many people.

[@haiwatigere6202]

United is the DC 10 in the current climate. Can't catch a break

[@andrewdewit4711]

Them’s the brakes…lucky there were no injuries, except to the FAA’s regulation. Must have been a sight from that cockpit, watching the building loom ever larger…

[@aaron-v5r8e]

Jumbo jet was the nickname of the 747 not DC 10

[@markr.1984]

Not true, most twin aisle planes over 500,000 pounds weight could be called jumbos and were called that often. The DC-10 and the similar Lockheed L1011 Tristar were both true jumbos. I can tell you didn't live back in those days.

[@MichaelBeeny]

A very odd phasing effect on the sound.

[@wheelofunfortune]

Happy November! 🦃🍁🦡🍁

[@paulsmith843]

Good old FAA strikes again!

[@davidrasmussen5537]

What was the music ... enchanting ❤️

[@phugoid]

What do you mean 'Jumbo Jet' in the title, eh?

[@marks6663]

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

[@basiltaylor8910]

I go by size not weight, I E Consolidated Vultee Convair B-36D Peacemaker ,a monster yet weighed the same as a late model Boeing 707, yes I know all about electric and human powered aircraft, but talking about large more conventional powered aircraft, like the Strato Launch, Antonov,s An-22 and An -124.

[@Ryle-s4f]

Can you do United Airlines flight 232?

[@et1161]

DID THEY FIND THE LOST BRAKES?😮

[@vermontviking]

Good video, but the Aeronaves de Mexico DC-8 is a bit anachronistic.

[@markr.1984]

Not really, there were still a few DC-8 and Boeing 707s and 720s still flying in 1988. Many DC-8 aircraft were converted to cargo and some were still flying not that long ago.

[@gavinsingh4450]

Damn, Jetblue flying in '88...

[@ElMuneconloungeking]

Jumbo Jet? DC 10

[@billolsen4360]

Govment bureaucrats at the helf at the FCC instead of fliers.

[@BICHETO]

Umm that's not a Jumbo jet.

[@EuroScot2023]

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

[@gusmc01]

7:14 says the brakes on Flight 70 would work well for "normal braking during taxi and landing" but not at "high speed during rejected takeoff." Wouldn't the landing speed of a fully loaded DC-10 be similar to the V1 speed of the rejected takeoff? I understand the plane would have been lighter at landing due to the reduced fuel load, but it seems this aircraft may have soon run into braking issues on normal landings.

[@Chris11249]

Well, you're about 10kts faster on V1 than landing on that jet in most cases, but most importantly you have about 200,000lbs MORE fuel when taking off than a long haul landing! So essentially the airplane weighs half as much than during a fully loaded takeoff, since the DC-10 max takeoff weight was around 500,000lbs if I recall. Also, landing and autobrake starts somewhere before or around 1/3 of the runway length, versus a rejected takeoff at V1 on a heavy plane will be past the 1/2 mark or maybe even 2/3! So you have to brake a lot heavier! So a VERY crude approximation would be that you need 50-70% less brakes or 50-70% smaller brakes on a typical landing to "be OK" than you'd need on a rejected takeoff at MTOW

[@gusmc01]

@@Chris11249 great info, thank you

[@markr.1984]

Landings are different, they use reverse thrust and spoilers/air brakes to help slow down, in addition to the reasons you stated. The wheel brakes are worked tremendously harder during a rejected takeoff or "RTO". During most rejected takeoffs, pilots do not use reverse thrust to help slow down, in case of thrust dissymmetry. There usually no time to make the decide it's okay to use reverse thrust (no thrust dissymmetry) because everything is happening so fast. If one engine on a wing was losing thrust and the other was at full power the use of thrust reverse could steer the aircraft off the the side and off the runway. For this reason most RTO procedures don't recommend the use of thrust reverse, only braking.

[@travelwithtony5767]

You should probably learn the difference between a Jumbo Jet (747) and a DC 10 before posting videos on anything related to aviation.

[@Zzrdemon6633]

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

[@travelwithtony5767]

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

[@nemesiscrysis4955]

@@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

[@marcmcreynolds2827]

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.

[@GaiusdanhnhanAugustus]

The 747 was the FIRST jumbo jet, not the only one. The early consensus was that a “jumbo” was just any plane with two aisles, as by 1970, there were only two beside the 747: the L-1011 and DC-10. That term was phased out as with Airbus joining the game, pioneering the efficient double-aisle twinjet configuration, large planes became a common occurrence and those were simply dubbed “widebodies” thereafter, leaving “jumbo” to be reserved for the larGER planes that aside from having a wide fuselage also flaunt two decks: the “superjumbo” A380, and the title’s original holder, the other, slightly smaller double-decker plane, the 747.

[@ThatBearHasMoxie]

The DC-10 was a flying coffin. McDonnell-Douglas knew it and still let it fly anyway.

[@rongarguilo724]

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

[@alanburge2725]

I too believe that this particular aircraft got a very bad reputation unfortunately

[@johnstuartsmith]

It was unfortunate, but the reputation was earned.

[@7marinamarinaki]

DC10 must be the most unsafe airplane ever.

[@tonyde52]

DC-10 was a very FLAWED and cursed aircraft. I chose to NEVER fly on a DC-10

[@markr.1984]

You are so wrong. Most accidents were either pilot error or improper or lack of maintenance. The Iowa crash in Sioux City was an engine problem, not the fault of the plane itself. McDonald-Douglas did not make engines! The horrible crash at O'Hare was due to improper maintenance dismounting and re-mounting the wing engines. They were overall good planes in my opinion. I'd fly on a really old one even now with no fear. If there were any flying.

[@TheShowblox]

DC-10 is my favorite aircraft and nearly all crashes were not the fault of the plane, it was perfectly safe

[@louisdebruyn4395]

Bull shit this is not a Jumbo jet

[@basiltaylor8910]

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.

[@EuroScot2023]

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.

[@basiltaylor8910]

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

[@zoggin4181]

@@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….

[@basiltaylor8910]

@@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 .

[@gavinsingh4450]

Where's the Jumbo jet???