1/25

2/25

Engineering Ethical Analysis

Case study: DC - 10

PRESENTED BY:
NC Talha Arshad
NC Asad Raza
PO Irfan Ahmed
PO Zamurad Khan
PO Zabeeh Ullah Noor
 3/25

Sequence
• Background
• Testing Failure
• First Accident
• Second Accident
• Investigation
• Explanation
• Poor Decision
• Third Accident
• Bad Engineering Decision
• McDonnell Douglas Con Strategy
• Ethical Shortcomings
• Conclusion
 4/25

Background
• McDonnell Douglas, one of the 3 main airlines
of America were pressure testing their new
design the DC-10
• The DC-10 was to compete directly with the
Boeing 747 and Lockheed L-1011
• Boeing already had a edge on the competition
because Boeing already had designed a cargo
plane whose design could easily be modified
into an commercial airliner
• Lockheed Martin was also well along it’s way in
designing t he L-1011
 5/25

Testing Failure
• During the pressure test, the cargo door
on the prototype blew out and the floor of
the passenger compartment buckled.
• McDonnell Douglas revised some
procedures, but the basic design of the
design was not revised
 6/25

First Accident (Ontario – 1972)

• A DC-10 airliner flying over Windsor, Ontario
suffered an accident very similar in nature to
the one experienced during testing
• The cargo door failed in flight collapsing the
cabin floor.
• The hydraulic lines of the DC-10 ran under the
cabin floor.
• Several of these lines were severed but the
pilot was still able to control the plane and
make a safe landing
 7/25

Second Accident (Paris – 1974)

• Same type of accident occurred again on a
Turkish airlines DC-10 carrying 346
passengers.
• The cargo door failed and the floor of the
passenger compartment collapsed.
• This type all of the hydraulic and electrical
connections were cut-off rendering the airplane
completely uncontrollable.
• The plane crashed and everyone on board
was killed.
 8/25

Investigation
• Investigation was carried out and 2 aspects of
the airplane design were blamed
1. The cargo door latching system
2. The floor structure
• Manual latching system was not feasible
because the cargo door was too large
• The designers had to use either hydraulic or
electrical latch system
• The designers used electrical system which
was the cause of failure.
 9/25

Explanation
• If hydraulic latch was used, the failure would
occur at a much lower altitude with less sever
consequences
• If electrical latch was used then the failure
would occur at a much high altitude with
catastrophic results
• The design engineers made the choice of the
electrical latch because it would make the
plane lighter and it had lesser moving parts
 10/25

Explanation
• There was a management pressure to make the DC-10
more similar to the DC-8 and DC-9, two very safe and
successful aircrafts
• The designers were aware the frame used in DC-8 and
DC-9 was not suitable for a large size plane like the
DC-10
 11/25

Poor Decisions
• Both Boeing and Lockheed had used 4 parallel
hydraulic control system
• McDonnell Douglas used only 3 hydraulic
control systems
• The control lines on both Boeing and Lockheed
went through the ceiling of the cabin.
• The control lines of the DC-10 ran through the
cabin floor
• If the control lines were run through the ceiling
they would not be susceptible to damage if the
cabin pressure was lost
 12/25

Third Accident (Chicago-1979)

• American Airlines DC-10 taking off from O’Hare
international airport suffered an accident.
• The engine tore off from the wing during take-
off which damaged all the hydraulic control
lines in the wing and the wing lost control
surface functionality.
• The reason was later found to be improper
maintenance procedures
• But a few bad engineering decisions were also
involved.
• After this accident all DC-10 airliners were
grounded
 13/25

Bad Engineering Decisions

• The DC-10 had all the hydraulic control lining
in the wing leading edge
• When the engine blew out it took away all the
three hydraulic systems
• The competing planes of Boeing and Lockheed
had four hydraulic systems that were spaced
safely throughout the wing
 14/25

McDonnell Douglas Con Strategy

• Afterwards when the planes were modified
and passed their FAA qualification test, they
were commissioned again
• But people were so afraid to fly on the de-
famed DC -10’s
• So McDonnell Douglas renamed the planes to
MD-11 in 1997
• This was just a tactic to gain back the
customers they had lost due the their infamous
accidents.
 15/25

Ethical shortcoming
• The design engineers should have considered
hydraulic latch system if it had a lower
probability of such a catastrophe. (Duty ethics)
• The design engineers did not take into
consideration the safety of the crew while
designing the control system lines for the wing
control surfaces (Duty Ethics)
• McDonnell Douglas tried to pass the DC-10 to
the passengers by naming it MD-11 because
the passengers were reluctant to travel in the
DC-10 (Moral Ethics)
 16/25

Conclusion
• Was there any breach of safety?
Yes
• What was that?
The breach in safety included the ignorance of the
design engineer towards the safety of the
passengers just to make the plane lighter and more
towards the lines of the old DC-8 and DC-9 planes
• What was the risk involved ?
The risk involved was that the whole plane could
lose control and crash
• Mention the risky behavior?
Use of electrical latch for the cabin door to make
the plane lighter and similar to previous planes.
 17/25

Conclusion
• Classify the type of risk (long term/ reversible etc)?
It was a non reversible risk as human life was at
stake
• Was there any violation of safe design?
Yes, the electrical latch used was unsafe at high
altitudes.
• What was type of accident?
Engineered accident
• Extent of damage to property, environment, human
life
Property or environment damage records were not
found but 346 passenger along with crew members
lost their lives.