1. Turkish Airlines Flight 981
Infrastructural Failure of a DC-10
By: Jeremy Barnes, Jennifer Marino, and Manny Rodriguez-Turell

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.

3. Information on Infrastructure
On March 3, 1974, Turkish Airlines Flight 981 crashed in Ermenonville Forest, France. During flight, the aircraft’s radar label disappeared from ATC’s 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.

4. Jeremy’s 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.

5. A memorial for the crash
Of Turkish Airlines Flight 981
The plane a little while
After the crash occurred

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 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.

7. Jennifer’s Possible Solution
Jennifer’s 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.

8. Manny’s Possible Solution
Manuel’s 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.

9. Select the Best Solution
Jennifer’s 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.

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

11. Procedure Gather materials Cut 2 pieces of wood to 5” x ¾” x 3/8.”
Glue the pieces together to make a rectangular frame.
Cut a hinge bar to 5” long.
Glue the hinge bar ¼” below the 5” piece of wood.
Cut a foam block to 3-1/4” x 5-3/4” x 3/8.”
Glue the two hinges to the back of the foam block.
Repeat Steps 2-9.
Cut a piece of foam block to 8” x 5” ¾.”
Measure ¾” in on all sides of the foam block.

12. Procedure Continued
Cut from the edges of the foam block to the line on a diagonal. Repeat this on all 4 sides.
Cut another hinge bar to 5” long.
Place 2 hinges on the bar.
Glue the hinge bar ¼” below the top of the wooden frame.
Glue the foam shield to the hinges.
Cut a small foam block to 1” x ¾” x 1/8.”
Cut a ½” x ½” out of the block to make a “U” shape, but it will have a flat bottom.
Glue the foam handle lower-centered to the foam shield.

13. Testing/Evaluation Materials: 1 Failing Prototype 1 Improved Prototype
1 Hairdryer

14. Testing/Evaluation Continued
Procedure:
Place failing prototype vertically on table
Plug in hairdryer to outlet and turn it on
Blow the hairdryer on the cargo door
Record any observations
Place the improved prototype vertically on table

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.

16. Jeremy’s Redesign
Jeremy’s 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.

17. Jennifer’s 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.

18. Manny’s Redesign
Manuel’s 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.

19. References
Airplane Timeline. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Kilroy, C. (n.d.). AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: Turkish Airlines Flight 981. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Martin, A. (2014, February 18). The last of the passenger carrying DC- 10s - AirTeamImages.com. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Ranter, H., & Lujan, F. (2014, March 3). ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC TC-JAV Bois d'Ermenonville. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from safety.net/database/record.php?id= 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 safety.net/database/types/McDonnell-Douglas-DC-10/statistic

20. Any Questions or Comments?
Thank You!
Any Questions or Comments?