Turkish Airlines Flight 981 Infrastructural Failure of a DC-10
By: Jeremy Barnes, Jennifer Marino, and Manny Rodriguez-Turell
Slide 2
Problem Identification On March,3, 1974, just outside of Paris,
France, Turkish Airlines flight 981 crashed due to the
decompression of the cargo door, killing all 346 passengers.
Slide 3
Information on Infrastructure On March 3, 1974, Turkish
Airlines Flight 981 crashed in Ermenonville Forest, France. During
flight, the aircrafts radar label disappeared from ATCs radar
screen at the same time that a garbled transmission came over the
frequency. In the background, words in Turkish, then a
pressurization warning, and then an over speed warning were heard
throughout the plane. It turns out that the rear cargo door on the
left came off; this caused rapid depressurization, which eventually
led to the crash.
Slide 4
Jeremys Possible Solution Jeremy's possible solution for this
crash was having better locking systems for the cargo door. If the
crew of the plane had used a better locking system for the cargo
door, the crash may have never have happened and 346 people could
still be alive today. Jeremy believes that this would fix the
infrastructure failure because the improved locking system could
prevent the decompression of the door.
Slide 5
A memorial for the crash Of Turkish Airlines Flight 981 The
plane a little while After the crash occurred
Slide 6
Information about the Aircraft The aircraft used during that
flight was a McDonnell Douglas DC-10. It was first design and built
in Long Beach, California. Production began in 1968, and its first
deliveries were in 1971. Originally, it was supposed to only have
two engines, but it gained its third engine to meet an American
Airlines requirement. The last of these giants were built in 1990,
but 386 of them were delivered that year.
Slide 7
Jennifers Possible Solution Jennifers possible solution was to
create a shield to protect the cargo door from outside forces on an
aircraft. The shield would have a handle in order to lift it with
ease, and it would have bolts that would lock in place when it was
put down. The shield would have a concave shape to fit to the door,
but for testing purposes, it will be flat.
Slide 8
Mannys Possible Solution Manuels possible solution was to have
an automated locking door on top of the cargo door. The locking
door would be placed on top of the other door to insure protection
on the actual door beneath it; this would prevent any decompression
from occurred in the fuselage.
Slide 9
Select the Best Solution Jennifers idea of a shield on the
cargo door was chosen for the best possible solution because it was
the most practical than the other ideas. The idea was also the most
efficient to replicate at a smaller proportion than a real cargo
door.
Slide 10
Materials 3 Foam Blocks 4 Wood Planks 3 Hinges 1 Piece of Sand
Paper 1 Saw 1 Hot Wire Cutter 1 Hot Glue Gun 2 Pieces of Glue
Slide 11
Procedure 1.Gather materials 2.Cut 2 pieces of wood to 5 x x
3/8. 3.Cut 2 pieces of wood to 8 x x 3/8. 4.Glue the pieces
together to make a rectangular frame. 5.Cut a hinge bar to 5 long.
6.Glue the hinge bar below the 5 piece of wood. 7.Cut a foam block
to 3-1/4 x 5-3/4 x 3/8. 8.Glue the two hinges to the back of the
foam block. 9.Repeat Steps 2-9. 10.Cut a piece of foam block to 8 x
5 . 11.Measure in on all sides of the foam block.
Slide 12
Procedure Continued 12.Cut from the edges of the foam block to
the line on a diagonal. Repeat this on all 4 sides. 13.Cut another
hinge bar to 5 long. 14.Place 2 hinges on the bar. 15.Glue the
hinge bar below the top of the wooden frame. 16.Glue the foam
shield to the hinges. 17.Cut a small foam block to 1 x x 1/8.
18.Cut a x out of the block to make a U shape, but it will have a
flat bottom. 19.Glue the foam handle lower-centered to the foam
shield.
Testing/Evaluation Continued Procedure: 1.Place failing
prototype vertically on table 2.Plug in hairdryer to outlet and
turn it on 3.Blow the hairdryer on the cargo door 4.Record any
observations 5.Place the improved prototype vertically on table
6.Blow the hairdryer on the cargo door 7.Record any
observations
Slide 15
Results Both the failing prototype and the successful prototype
were tested using only a hairdryer. The failing cargo door was
tested first; it completely failed because the door blew in when
the hairdryer even came close to it, which would have caused
complete decompression in a real plane. As was expected, the
improved prototype was triumphant in protecting the cargo door with
the shield when the hairdryer was turned on.
Slide 16
Jeremys Redesign Jeremys redesign was to have a fixed position
for the door. It would slide around on the metal pole it was put
on, and it would have to be readjusted. This was not possible to
have it put in the same position it was before. If a hot glue gun
was used to keep it in the right position, the door we made would
not have to be readjusted every time it was moved. Overall, the
possible solution that the group used had protected the cargo door
was made from a piece of a foam block.
Slide 17
Jennifers Redesign Jennifer had two changes to make for the
cargo door. One change could be to have a lock for the cargo door
behind the shield using pieces of foam and an elastic band; one
button would be glued to the center of the cargo door and the other
to the wooden frame. An elastic band would be placed on top of both
of the buttons to form a lock of some sort. Another change could be
to make a hole in the wooden frame, and then a piece of foam would
be glued to the cargo door to fit into the hole; this could be used
as a form of a locking system.
Slide 18
Mannys Redesign Manuels redesign was to increase the durability
of the shield on the improved prototype. Instead of a foam block
covering the cargo door, it could have been made of wood or another
strong material. This would better insure protection against
decompression to the cargo door and the fuselage.
Slide 19
References Airplane Timeline. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2014,
from http://www.softschools.com/timelines/airplane_timeline/74/
Kilroy, C. (n.d.). AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: Turkish
Airlines Flight 981. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-thy981.shtml Martin, A.
(2014, February 18). The last of the passenger carrying DC- 10s -
AirTeamImages.com. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from
http://www.airteamimages.com/aviation_news.php?id=133 Ranter, H.,
& Lujan, F. (2014, March 3). ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell
Douglas DC-10-10 TC-JAV Bois d'Ermenonville. Retrieved March 3,
2014, from http://aviation-
safety.net/database/record.php?id=19740303-1http://aviation-
Ranter, H., & Lujan, F. (2014, March 3). Aviation Safety
Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index
> DC-10 > DC-10 Statistics. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from
http://aviation-
safety.net/database/types/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10/statistichttp://aviation-