I quite agree.

It has always boggled my mind that modern aircraft still generally have no exterior-pointed cameras to allow quick visual monitoring of the condition of the engines, major structural elements and control surfaces from the cockpit. Typical automobiles these days have from one to several on-board cameras. Why civil air transports do not is entirely beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmXLQHhUtv4&t=21s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBk8b5Q7kk0

The similar crash at O’Hare, half a century ago, when an engine came off a DC-10, left several lessons that should have been known to these pilots, so the loss (departure/detachment) of a single engine should not have had the same result. This is why there are not many direct comparisons, because an engine that departs the plane should now be able to be handled better than the O’Hare accident.

Other than the root cause of improper maintenance procedures, the O’Hare crash was largely due to the lies that the remaining instrumentation gave to the pilots. After that crash, several pilots in simulators were given the same problems that the DC-10 pilots had on their take-off, and all of them — yes, all — “crashed,” too. Another set of pilots were given the same problems, but only after they had been told what they would encounter. They knew that their instruments would lie to them and what the actual condition of the aircraft was. All of them — yes, all of them — returned to the simulated airport safely. The lessons were clear and were incorporated into training.

I now think that these pilots were trapped in a no-win situation, and, not being a simulation, they were unable to do the same as Captain Kirk did with his Kobayashi Maru no-win simulation. The science fiction was clever, but the reality was a tragedy.

Yep. A perfect storm.

My understanding is that it was headed to Hawaii, which would mean that it was also heavy with fuel.

I blame no one for the crash until I see what exactly happened. bad maintenance, bird ingestion, bad design, or overloaded.

This was hardly the first time a DC-10/MD-11 came to grief after losing an outboard engine on takeoff that also did collateral damage. There was that incident in Chicago back in 1979, for example.

Not if a three-engine plane turns into a two-engine one right at takeoff.

I have read on the 737 MAX crashes: NTSB reports, in-type pilot experiences, and industry observations. The MCAS system was badly-designed to start. A system that alters the aircraft attitude was dependent on a single input. No redundancy. The sensor on which the system was dependent could fail in ways that would not be noticed during pre-flight, or could fail in-flight. The result was an uncontrollable aircraft, with an automatic system continuously forcing the nose down, and no way to turn it off. CVR depicts crews trying to find any way to fly the aircraft that doesn’t result in a crash.

Boeing very much did rush the system to production, as an incentive to airlines not interested in expensive crew training. The MCAS was designed to make the aircraft behave more like the previous generation, so pilots could fly the MAX the same way they flew other 737’s. Boeing didn’t test the system thoroughly, and did not inform the FAA, the airlines, or flight crews about failure modes. This is the kind of slipshod, profit-priority thinking that wouldn’t have entered heads at Old Boeing. The lot of those responsible should be doing hard time.

Well, some can: F-15 Lands While Missing a Wing

That MD-11 that crashed in Louisville was 34 years old. The Boeing 737 MAXes that crashed were brand new planes.

An alleged wartime quick-fix for a fighter…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uh764E6mUI