Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Zimbabwean Cargo Aircraft Down At Shanghai-Pudong  
User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1980 posts, RR: 23
Posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 43346 times:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...ATA3SLzrdRiQuy_jbZjNGpoRQD9C889J00

Appears the crew has survived based on the initial report. Pure speculation as the airplane/airline hasn't been mentioned, but has Avient placed their new MD-11 into service yet?

JSD


"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
246 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 43416 times:

Yes this aircraft has been in service since the 22nd Nov. when it visited Hong Kong on it's first revenue trip.

User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 43254 times:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ws/Asia/Story/STIStory_460204.html

This website mentions it is indeed an MD-11.


User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 43200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not good. I think that this is an ex Varig MD-11F. Hopefully they find the rest of the crew, and that they are safe.


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineAviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1486 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 43036 times:

On 25 November, Avient operated an MD-11F Z-BAV from Hong Kong (dep 0430hrs LT) to Singapore (arr 0750hrs LT). It landed in Singapore in glorious sunshine - looking absolutely fantastic in its gleaming livery.

This was indeed an ex-Variglog and ex-Korean Air aircraft.

Can anyone confirm if this is the only MD-11F Avient has?

KC Sim


User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1980 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 42851 times:



Quoting Aviasian (Reply 4):
Can anyone confirm if this is the only MD-11F Avient has?

As of this past week, yes this is/was the only MD-11F Avient had. It was seen in MIA in late October/early November wearing N408SH (the way I saw it) before delivering to the company.
Shame it was tucked in amongst other planes (inc. another VarigLog MD-11) as looking back now, I should have nabbed a proof shot at least...

CNN reporting 3 of the crewmembers have passed away in the accident as well. RIP

JSD



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2972 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 42622 times:

But why is everyone saying it's Avient? That has not been confirmed.


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 42555 times:

Avient is the only operator of a Zimbabwe registered MD11!

User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3970 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 42457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Xinhua (official Chinese news agency) confirms it is Avient. Veered off the runway while taking off for FRU and LGG.

Local sources quoted by Xinhua say three deaths, one serious injury, three minor injuries.

[Edited 2009-11-27 20:58:13]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 42350 times:

I wonder if this was related to the large number of birds they have there. It has been a real problem of late.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently online71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 42197 times:

This was the aircraft.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N408SH

Former Varig PR-LGD, now Z-BAV.

According to CH-Aviation, Avient has three DC-10-30F and one MD-11.

If you google N408SH, you will see a photo of the plane freshly painted at MIA.




http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/arti...200911/20091128/article_420993.htm



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 41882 times:

http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1589851.html

If that is the airplane that crashed, then it is certainly not an MD-11


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15735 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 41745 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 11):
that is the airplane that crashed, then it is certainly not an MD-11

Stock photo probably, like how we still get to see DC-10s and 727s on the evening news sometimes.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 41741 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 11):
If that is the airplane that crashed, then it is certainly not an MD-11

News media is not known for its accuracy in these matters. That is a screenshot of a video of Dash-8 gear failure in Europe which didn't kill anyone.


User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1980 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 41744 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 11):
If that is the airplane that crashed, then it is certainly not an MD-11

Stock image of the Q400 gear collapse video??? Wow...One of the sites earlier on google had an image of a DHL airplane next to it as well. Not many copy editors working the weekends I guess?



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineDJ748 From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 355 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 41695 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 10):
According to CH-Aviation, Avient has three DC-10-30F and one MD-11.

I read in a recent issue of Airliner World (from the UK) an article about Avient, and they also operate an IL-76, for flights from CPT to the Antartic (when the weather is good way down south).


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3970 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 41154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Seems to be a bit of confusion. It is now nearly certain that it was an Avient aircraft (flight SMJ234) but all stories mentioning an MD11 have been rewritten to read "Zimbabwean-registered aircraft" or similar.

So it could still be Avient's sole MD11, or one of their three DC10s.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineCX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6597 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40471 times:

In that image posted above, is that another Avient aircraft on the left of the photo?

User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40308 times:



Quoting CX flyboy (Reply 17):
is that another Avient aircraft on the left of the photo?

Looks like it.

According to another site, PPRUNE, the aircraft came down about 500m beyond the end of the runway and struck a China Easter cargo warehouse.


User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 40294 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 11):
If that is the airplane that crashed, then it is certainly not an MD-11

This is the photo of the Dash-8 that crashed at AAlborg, Denmark



Keep it clear of the propellers
User currently offlinePEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 40093 times:

According to the Avient website it seems pretty certain that it was their sole MD11 involved in this tragic accident  Sad


Peet7G
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 40090 times:

More info, from Aviation Herald:

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=423638d8&opt=1


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 39710 times:



Quoting PEET7G (Reply 20):
According to the Avient website it seems pretty certain that it was their sole MD11 involved in this tragic accident

Yeah, certainly looks like an MD-11 winglet in the debris in the link provided by Kaitak... Sad



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineKiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 38370 times:

So how many MD-11 frames have been lost now? 5? Apart from Concorde, (which had a much longer period of operation), would this be the highest loss rate for a commercial aircraft type?

By my count, there's this one, the Fedex one, the Swissair one, (not really related to the aircraft type), the Mandarin Airlines one.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 521 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 38264 times:

Isn't this the second MD11 crash in Shanghai after the Korean freighter in 1999?

Makes a total of 7 (!). Fedex 3, Mandarin 1, Swissair 1, Korean 1, Avient 1.


User currently offlineScorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 5028 posts, RR: 44
Reply 25, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 38225 times:



Quoting Kiwiinoz (Reply 23):
So how many MD-11 frames have been lost now? 5?

7. Besides the ones you mentioned, there's also a Korean Air in 1999, also in Shanghai, and two more FedEx in 1997 and 1999.


User currently offlineEBGflyer From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 41562 times:



Quoting 797charter (Reply 19):
This is the photo of the Dash-8 that crashed at AAlborg, Denmark

Yes, it is. Not the MD11. Here's a correct use of the stock pic:
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-8216610.html?forside



Future flights: CPH-BKK-MNL; MNL-GUM-TKK-PNI-KSA-KWA-MAJ-HNL-LAX
User currently offlineKiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 41273 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 24):
Makes a total of 7 (!). Fedex 3, Mandarin 1, Swissair 1, Korean 1, Avient 1.

Wow, only 200 aircraft of this type were built. 7 seems a big number


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 28, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 41112 times:

And don't forget the CAL/Mandarin MD11 at HKG in 1999.

User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4316 posts, RR: 36
Reply 29, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 41215 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 24):
Isn't this the second MD11 crash in Shanghai after the Korean freighter in 1999?

and another sad fact is that this aircraft, cn 48408/457, is ex HL7372 of Korean Air (afterwards N988PG, PR-LGD and N408SH), a sistership of HL7373 (48409/490) which also crashed taking off Shanghai killing 3. Line number 457 makes it the 11th MD-11 built.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 40461 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 24):
Makes a total of 7 (!). Fedex 3, Mandarin 1, Swissair 1, Korean 1, Avient 1.

Most happened during landing or take-off, illustrating the wellknown tricky behavior of that aircraft. Add to this two notable hard landings this year alone (LH and Centurion).


User currently offlinePetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 40345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And the Fed Ex MD11 at NRT.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11645 posts, RR: 60
Reply 32, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 39705 times:

I think anyone surviving that crash should consider themselves extremely lucky. RIP to those who didn't make it out, but that's one hell of a mess to get out of alive.

 tombstone 



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 39526 times:

According to Airfleet, http://www.airfleets.net/listing/md11-1.htm, 8 MD-11 have been written off, representing 4% of the production.

User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4316 posts, RR: 36
Reply 34, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 39238 times:



Quoting Planesailing (Reply 33):
8 MD-11 have been written off

I think it's still 7. China Airlines B-150 appears twice on airfleets.net if you browse the pages.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 38108 times:

According to this article the crew was an all amercian crew totaling 7, with 3 not surviving the accident. It also says that the local officals believe that the accident was caused due to the tail striking the ground during takeoff. The aircraft was bound for Bishkek.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577405,00.html


First I want to wish a speedy recovery to those that made it through this ordeal!
Next... A 7 memeber crew for an MD-11? Sounds a bit excessive to me, unless they were dead heading a crew to move the aircraft along after the stop in Bishkek. I was also surprised to hear that the whole crew of the Zimbabwean aircraft was American. Can anyone confirm this?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineIrish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 969 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 38081 times:

MD-11F Z-BAV routed PVG-FRU(Bishkek)-SNN-LGG on 22/23 November, so it has been in service for some days.

User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 37936 times:

My God. RIP to those who didn't make it and to those who did, it just wasn't your time so make the most with what you have. Give your family a really big hug!

My heart sank when I heard the news this morning and then sank more when I learned of the deaths. Then when I find out it's ANOTHER MD-11 I just wanted to scream and run out in the road next to my house! Unreal this year what that particular model airframe has gone through.



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 37621 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 37):

My heart sank when I heard the news this morning and then sank more when I learned of the deaths. Then when I find out it's ANOTHER MD-11 I just wanted to scream and run out in the road next to my house! Unreal this year what that particular model airframe has gone through.

Exactly my thoughts - I was horrified to read in my email that another MD-11 had been lost, and this time one so beautiful as Avient's. Their DC-10s have graced the skies for years and now what a horrible shame that they've lost their biggest and best. Here's to hoping that Avient will secure another one in the days to come.

RIP to the crew - lets hope we find out what caused this soon.


User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 38346 times:

According to Airfleets:

"A Shanghai based pilot witnessing the crash said, that the main gear left the ground just before the end of the runway, the airplane however did not climb more than 10 feet, impacted approach lights and antennas and fell back onto the ground."

This sounds eerily like the Halifax crash of the MK Airlines 747...

This is the aircraft - what a shame...

Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 816 File size: 234kb


User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 40, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 37152 times:

It's another MD11F, but it doesn't look like the cause had anything to do with the type.

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 41, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 36920 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 30):
Most happened during landing or take-off,

As do virtually all commercial aircraft accidents.

This is gonna be a cargo loading/overweight issue from the description given by the pilot who witnessed it.


User currently offlineScotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 12
Reply 42, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 37082 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here Z-BAV image

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avien...cDonnell-Douglas-MD-11F/1615946/L/



Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
User currently offlineMd88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 20
Reply 43, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 36804 times:

The eyewitness accounts do tend to point to an airplane too heavy to fly. We are taught in a situation where the plane is struggling past V1(like a windshear during takeoff scenario) to rotate at the 2000' remaining point (identified by lighting and/or signage). Sounds like these guys did a similar late rotation in order to give the plane a chance.

User currently offlineYYZALA From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 36521 times:



Quoting Irobertson (Reply 39):

WOW! What an amazing livery for an MD-11. It is so sad to see another MD-11 destroyed. If this crash is somewhat similar to the MK Airlines one, then there must have been a serious mistake with V-speeds as the runway is 4000 meters long!


User currently offlineLHRspotter From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days ago) and read 35769 times:



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 41):
This is gonna be a cargo loading/overweight issue from the description given by the pilot who witnessed it.

You are probably right although the EK incident in Melbourne and the Spanair crash in Madrid were both very similar to this one yet caused by other completely unrelated factors.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 35430 times:



Quoting LHRspotter (Reply 45):

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 41):
This is gonna be a cargo loading/overweight issue from the description given by the pilot who witnessed it.

You are probably right although the EK incident in Melbourne and the Spanair crash in Madrid were both very similar to this one yet caused by other completely unrelated factors.

Cargo overload, wrong CG, bad de-rated takeoff calculations, flap settings, locked brakes, engine failure or bird strike, loss of controls at the wrong time ... there are several possible reasons. We need more information.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 35229 times:

I note that they have only been flying the MD11 for a week, would the crew have been recruited specially for this aircraft or are they likely to be re trained DC10 crew.

Would a new type rating be needed.

Also if they were former DC10 crew, would the flying characteristics of the MD11, (which are often desribed as tricky) be a factor.

Equally, if the plane has only been in service or a week after storage, is it possible that something was missed when returning it to service.


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 35111 times:

They were probably new crew hired with MD-11 experience, my guess is Gemini crew who probably flew that same aircraft type for thousands of hours

User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 49, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 34762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 35):
Next... A 7 memeber crew for an MD-11? Sounds a bit excessive to me, unless they were dead heading a crew to move the aircraft along after the stop in Bishkek. I was also surprised to hear that the whole crew of the Zimbabwean aircraft was American. Can anyone confirm this?

PVG-FRU-LGG would require a four man crew for the length of the duty day. So on the plane was most likely four pilots, a mechanic, a loadmaster, and a courier. As for the pilots being American, Avient is flagged in Zimbabwe, but they operate heavily out of France and Belgium. I know that there are a lot of former Gemini pilots there, so the crew being entirely American is completely plausible.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlinePilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2539 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 34682 times:

oh dea i just signed on to see this, i just saw an MD 11 takeoff from here *im in Dakar, Senegal at the moment, and thought about the md 11 and its performance over the years with accidents....and to find this was a bit of a shock...

rip to those who lost lives...



The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 51, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 34135 times:



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 34):
I think it's still 7. China Airlines B-150 appears twice on airfleets.net if you browse the pages.

It's 8. The Saudia Cargo damaged in KRT in June was ferried back to JED and declared damaged beyond economic repair, so an insurance write-off. The others are the Swissair, the China Airlines, three FedEx and a Korean Air (Cargo).

Remember there are two more MD-11s that may also be declared w/o: the Centurion at MVD and the Lufthansa Cargo which had a rough landing at MEX. I understand the latter was ferried to the US with its nosegear extended; has any final decision been made on this aircraft?

I continue to think, rightly or wrongly, that while the aircraft is tricky it has been so since 1990 and all crews who've flown it have known that and had to deal with it. That we are seeing more accidents and incidents now is perhaps because by comparison just about every other aircraft is easier to fly, and maybe those new to the MD-11 still don't know all the ways in which the Mega Dog can catch them out at take-off and landing. It's something I've heard incresingly from the few airline pilots I know (some of whom admit they never were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11) and to me at least sounds more plausible than the aircraft itself being at fault.

/ZXV



How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 33942 times:



Quoting YYZALA (Reply 44):
the runway is 4000 meters long!

Not only that, the airport elevation is only 13 ft., so the performance of the engines must be very good in normal conditions. Apparently they couldn't attempt a RTO and tried to make a late rotation with this tragic result, probably something goes wrong way after V1.
My best wishes to the survivors, and God bless the guys who didn't make it and his families.

Another sad day for aviation, specially for the people who likes the MD11.  Sad


Saludos.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 33932 times:

LVZXV

(some of whom admit they never were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11).

Not sure that I follow you.

Do you mean (some of whom admit they were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11) or
(some of whom admit they never up to the "challenge" of the MD-11).

The statement as typed means that they were up to the challenge, which I do not think is what you mean.


User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 54, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 33446 times:



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 53):
LVZXV

(some of whom admit they never were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11).

Not sure that I follow you.

Do you mean (some of whom admit they were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11) or
(some of whom admit they never up to the "challenge" of the MD-11).

The statement as typed means that they were up to the challenge, which I do not think is what you mean.

Sorry Bennett, I changed the sentence and didn't re-read it. Should have read: were not up to the "challenge...", ie. simply chose to stick with more predictable, mainstream aircraft.

/ZXV



How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 33357 times:

Another MD-11 crash....very sad.  Sad

And unfortunately its going to bring out all of the MD-11 bashers now  irked 



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 33280 times:

Not meaning to be critical.

Thanks for clarifying.

Sounds like you know some smart folks. No shame is saying "I can't do this", far better than trying to exceed your limits and perhaps getting someone killed.

David


User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 32866 times:

Its very sad R.I.P, i hope there will be no more crashes of this beautiful plane, i wish they were still around Gatwick or Heathrow, probably need to hop on a plane to AMS to see lots of them....or MEM lol!

Lets hope they find out the cause of the crash quickly, it might not even be the MD11s fault, a lot of the time its due to human faults, not the machine.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 58, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 32365 times:



Quoting LVZXV (Reply 51):
It's 8. The Saudia Cargo damaged in KRT in June was ferried back to JED and declared damaged beyond economic repair, so an insurance write-off.

That is new to me. It was reported the aircraft damage was either "minor" or "substantial". That makes 3 MD11Fs written off this year, plus possibly the Centurion freighter, which looks repairable but might be w/o due to advanced age.


User currently offlineAMS From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1691 posts, RR: 11
Reply 59, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 31871 times:

It looks that this same aircraft had some overloading problems when it was still flying for KE.

:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui




Regards,

AMS


User currently offlineRwy8l From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 31064 times:

Condolences to friends and families of those lost in this incident.

User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 31036 times:



Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 49):
PVG-FRU-LGG would require a four man crew for the length of the duty day.

That would be one heck of a duty day! Pretty close to pushing the limits I think...

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 49):
As for the pilots being American, Avient is flagged in Zimbabwe, but they operate heavily out of France and Belgium. I know that there are a lot of former Gemini pilots there, so the crew being entirely American is completely plausible.

I did not know that. Thanks for the info!



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineCodyKDiamond From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 30736 times:

What a terrible accident. My family and I send our condolences to the crew and their families and friends. Additionally, I wiksh the surviving members a fast recovery and a long career afterward, hopefully. Like many, I too saw this a/c at MIA in the past two weeks.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 51):
the Centurion at MVD

LVZXV, N701GC will be repaired and returned to service.


User currently offlineF9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5026 posts, RR: 28
Reply 63, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30158 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 35):
According to this article the crew was an all amercian crew totaling 7, with 3 not surviving the accident. It also says that the local officals believe that the accident was caused due to the tail striking the ground during takeoff. The aircraft was bound for Bishkek.



Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 46):
Cargo overload, wrong CG, bad de-rated takeoff calculations, flap settings, locked brakes, engine failure or bird strike, loss of controls at the wrong time ... there are several possible reasons. We need more information.

I am thinking overload, or perhaps the load not being secured properly?

On the MD-11, if you don't configure the wing for takeoff, could it have the same results of an MD-80? NW 255 comes to mind, since he only got about 10 feet plus off the ground. Very sad, RIP to those lost.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently online71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 30093 times:



Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 49):
PVG-FRU-LGG would require a four man crew for the length of the duty day. So on the plane was most likely four pilots, a mechanic, a loadmaster, and a courier. As for the pilots being American, Avient is flagged in Zimbabwe, but they operate heavily out of France and Belgium. I know that there are a lot of former Gemini pilots there, so the crew being entirely American is completely plausible.

This is correct. There were 4 ex-Gemini pilots on board and 3 are now deceased in the accident.
RIP and condolences to the families.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 65, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 29824 times:



Quoting LVZXV (Reply 51):
Remember there are two more MD-11s that may also be declared w/o: the Centurion at MVD and the Lufthansa Cargo which had a rough landing at MEX. I understand the latter was ferried to the US with its nosegear extended; has any final decision been made on this aircraft?

I hadn't heard about the SV incident; can you explain the circumstances (and if possible, give the registration?)

Also, I saw this on JACDEC and have been curious about it; tried e-mailing JACDEC, but couldn't find an email address on their site. Here's a link and if you go half way down the page, there is an incident on 3rd June in Urumqi involving a China Cargo AL MD11, which is a "possible W/O" (and incidentally, an AA 763 at Alliance, TX - what happened there?!) ... can't find any info about this incident.

http://www.jacdec.de/


User currently offlineLongitude From Russia, joined Nov 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29701 times:

Why does the photographer who published a photo of crashed MD-11 say that this airplane was written-off???

User currently offlineLVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 37
Reply 67, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29124 times:



Quoting CodyKDiamond (Reply 62):
LVZXV, N701GC will be repaired and returned to service.

Good to know, though I am a tad surprised since the pictures I saw of it in Pprune were not good. As NA said, it is also one of the older MD-11s (I think originally RG's 1st or 2nd).

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 65):
hadn't heard about the SV incident; can you explain the circumstances (and if possible, give the registration?)

HZ-ANB (msn 48775, l/n 616, ff. 07-97). I don't know exactly what happened but I seem to recall it being a heavy landing at KRT on 09-06-09. ATDB actually words the aircraft's fate a bit differently to me, "aircraft ferried to JED and retired", though whether or not it was w/o by the insurers or simply retired by SV, it goes on to list it as "Destroyed at JED". Maybe that just means "would still be active if not for the incident", which yes, is one way of saying "destroyed".

/ZXV



How do you say "12 months" in Estonian?
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 28731 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 65):
which is a "possible W/O" (and incidentally, an AA 763 at Alliance, TX - what happened there?!) ... can't find any info about this incident.

That AA763 is flying again.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 69, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 28263 times:



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 34):
Quoting Planesailing (Reply 33):
8 MD-11 have been written off

I think it's still 7. China Airlines B-150 appears twice on airfleets.net if you browse the pages.

Also 7 MD-11 hull losses according to the aviatioln-safety.net accident data base.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...353%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1

Coincidentally, one of the previous losses also involved a freighter (KE) soon after takeoff from Shanghai in 1999 (SHA airport, not PVG). That one wasn't blamed on the aircraft.


User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25514 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 69):
That one wasn't blamed on the aircraft.

None of the MD-11 accidents should be blamed on the A/C.

The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25425 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 70):

None of the MD-11 accidents should be blamed on the A/C.

The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..

and yet every time there is an MD-11 accident the pilots who actually fly her admit she is more than a handful compared to other aircraft with some bad design flaws


User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25316 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71):
and yet every time there is an MD-11 accident the pilots who actually fly her admit she is more than a handful

But yet they still fly her...can't be that bad then scratchchin 


Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71):
compared to other aircraft with some bad design flaws

Such as?



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineYYZALA From Canada, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 25253 times:



Quoting Longitude (Reply 66):

"Written off" is mostly a term used by insurers to indicate that it is of zero value to them. I guess this term caught on with the aviation industry, since all planes are insured...


User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 25164 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 72):
Such as?

too small vertical stabilizers


User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 25013 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 74):
too small vertical stabilizers

Has there been an accident caused by a so called small vertical stabilizer?



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13008 posts, RR: 100
Reply 76, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Written off" is mostly a term used by insurers to indicate that it is of zero value to them.[/quote]
Nitpick, "written off" means to absorb an accounting loss. It does not have to mean zero value, just a substantial drop in value.

But as you point out, in aviation circles "written off" usually means removed from the airline's aircraft roster with expectation of an insurance payout. Usually after the insurance company has determined the airframe is 'beyond economic repair.'


To others:
First, to the families, a heartfelt condolence for their loss.

I hope the flight recording data finds its way to *all* the safety organizations. I'm a fan of the MD-11, but I think there has been enough doubt cast that a very thorough investigation should be performed. Not a witch hunt, but perhaps there is something the MD-11 is extra sensitive to. Perhaps one limit of the weight/balance matrix needs to be changed? Note the question mark; I lack enough information to make a judgment.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 77, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24685 times:

According to a local HKG paper, the South China Morning Post, probably the best English translation on Chinese news about.

* 3 dead are American, conformed by US embassy
* 4 survived
* F/O was also American, survived, he is 61 years of age, in hospital able to articulate his thanks to the rescue crews
* fire trucks were at the crash scene within 1 minute of being called
* the aircraft came from Korean Air, only been in service with this airline for about 1 month

No point posting a link as it would be subscription only, information taken from the print media.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineIrelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1073 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 24566 times:

What a tragedy. RIP to the victims.

I just now came across this...

http://www.metafilter.com/87033/A-Cr...-raises-questions-about-an-airline

Seems this company is shipping arms to Africa? Sorry if this has already been pointed out.

-IR


User currently offlineUK_Dispatcher From United Arab Emirates, joined Dec 2001, 2593 posts, RR: 30
Reply 79, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 24396 times:



Quoting AMS (Reply 59):
It looks that this same aircraft had some overloading problems when it was still flying for KE.

That has nothing to do with overloading, but a Centre of Gravity beyond its limits. The MD11 needs to be loaded in a certain way in order to avoid tail tipping, along with several other types. The MD11 is more prone to this than others though.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 521 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 24157 times:

Although it's far too early to jump to conclusions here, so far this crash shows all the signs of an error of either the calculated takeoff performance (like the EK A345 incident) or the mis-entering of the ZFW in the FMS.

If the aircraft did indeed suffer a tailstrike, this could point to the ZFW being entered into the gross weight line in the FMS, which would result in V-speeds being far too low and resulting in a possible tailstrike. The same could happen if during takeoff perfomance calculation the wrong takeoff weight was used. As a result the crew could have selected a high flex derate temperature resulting in too little thrust being applied during the takeoff roll. Something that has happened quite a few times in the past few years, and resulting in many tailstrike incidents. A Boeing or an Airbus may (just) get away with this, but we all know the MD11 is not that forgiving.

All of this just speculation, off course.


User currently offlineLongitude From Russia, joined Nov 2007, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23969 times:



Quoting YYZALA (Reply 73):


Quoting Longitude (Reply 66):

"Written off" is mostly a term used by insurers to indicate that it is of zero value to them. I guess this term caught on with the aviation industry, since all planes are insured...

In Russia we use this term to indicate an aircraft which has flown out its hours.


User currently offlineLoalq From Switzerland, joined Jan 2007, 224 posts, RR: 3
Reply 82, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 23924 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 10):

Also another MD11F on this pic, right? The one with Lufthansa Cargo?



"...this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped."
User currently offlineA1ring23 From Australia, joined Jun 2009, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 23674 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 70):
None of the MD-11 accidents should be blamed on the A/C.

The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71):
and yet every time there is an MD-11 accident the pilots who actually fly her admit she is more than a handful compared to other aircraft with some bad design flaws



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 72):
Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71):
and yet every time there is an MD-11 accident the pilots who actually fly her admit she is more than a handful

But yet they still fly her...can't be that bad then scratchchin
Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71):
compared to other aircraft with some bad design flaws

Such as?

Although technically there hasn't been a design flaw found with the MD-11F, the fact that it has been lost so frequently, 7 hull losses from a production of around 200(?) in total is quite alarming. Maybe it's just unstable in certain conditions on T/O and landing, or perhaps training for pilots on the MD-11F should be looked at?

Either way, this a/c has an alarmingly high ratio of number produced:number written off.



Where's the accelerometer on this thing?
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 84, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 23587 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 70):
The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..

A crash directly caused by a severe constructive failure is very rare (the Lauda Air 767 crash comes to my mind).
The worst MD11 accident, the Swissair crash, can be traced back to a constructive fault in some way, the use of flammable material in the wrong place.
To quote aviation-safety.net about SR111 (shortened):
1.Aircraft certification standards for material flammability were inadequate in that they allowed the use of materials that could be ignited and sustain or propagate fire.
2.Metallized polyethylene terephthalate (MPET)-type cover material on the thermal acoustic insulation blankets used in the aircraft was flammable. The cover material was most likely the first material to ignite.
5. The type of circuit breakers (CB) used in the aircraft were similar to those in general aircraft use, and were not capable of protecting against all types of wire arcing events. The fire most likely started from a wire arcing event.

As for an accident being related to a particular aircraft type: one aircraft is more easy to fly than another, and the MD11 is reportedly tricky to handle on landing/takeoff. If a pilot makes a mistake and/or bad weather strikes, an overly sensible aircraft can make the difference between crash and lucky escape.

Quoting UK_Dispatcher (Reply 79):
That has nothing to do with overloading, but a Centre of Gravity beyond its limits. The MD11 needs to be loaded in a certain way in order to avoid tail tipping, along with several other types. The MD11 is more prone to this than others though.

Interesting to note here that 5 of the 7 MD11s lost in accidents were freighters, yet the majority built were pax aircraft.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12432 posts, RR: 37
Reply 85, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 23260 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 84):
Interesting to note here that 5 of the 7 MD11s lost in accidents were freighters, yet the majority built were pax aircraft.

That's really just because the majority - apart from one or two with WO and KL's ten - have been converted to freighters. I believe the FX M11 that crashed at NRT was ex-NA and of course, both this and the other KE MD11 that crashed at/near PVG had started out at pax acft.


User currently offlineFRA2DTW From Germany, joined Feb 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23178 times:



Quoting A1ring23 (Reply 83):
or perhaps training for pilots on the MD-11F should be looked at?

You have to wonder about that. Some large operators (such as KLM, Varig and Delta) have operated the type with little trouble. Even the freight outfits (UPS, World, Martinair, Lufthansa, even the late Gemini) seem to be doing OK. Then you look at FedEx and the other operators who have had crashes and you can't help but speculate what differences there might be in their training, or even in their hiring practices?


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 87, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23149 times:



Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86):
Even the freight outfits (UPS, World, Martinair, Lufthansa, even the late Gemini) seem to be doing OK.

I understand the 4 American pilots were all ex-Gemini. It is a little too early to suggest if the pilots were a contributing cause, apparently they all had truck loads of experience on type.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFlaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1267 posts, RR: 4
Reply 88, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23086 times:



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 74):
too small vertical stabilizers

Correction. The control issues with the MD11 are caused by undersized horizontal stabilizers not the vertical stabilizer.


User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23076 times:



Quoting 76er (Reply 80):
If the aircraft did indeed suffer a tailstrike, this could point to the ZFW being entered into the gross weight line in the FMS, which would result in V-speeds being far too low and resulting in a possible tailstrike

It would be quite a blunder. Have you ever heard of such mistakes?
Things happen. But to mix up ZFG line and GW line in FMS - most important ones for calculations - it's too much of a mistake.
But if we assume this mistake was made, on a 4,000 meter runway they could try to override - and then the tail stike would be possible indeed.


User currently offlineSandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1099 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22773 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Pylon101 (Reply 89):
It would be quite a blunder. Have you ever heard of such mistakes?

The EK 345 tail strike and near crash at MEL last year was due to miss-calculations in the gross weight of the aircraft.

I have read elsewhere that the wing section of the MD11 is to small (adopted from another aircraft?) and this causes stability issues at low speed as less lift was generated and the wing stall speed is higher. This made the MD11 less stable in landing / takeoff than it's competitors and tricky to fly in weather.

Sandyb123



Member of the mile high club
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22382 times:



Quoting A1ring23 (Reply 83):
perhaps training for pilots on the MD-11F should be looked at?

 checkmark  could not agree more!  checkmark 



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3970 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86):
Then you look at FedEx and the other operators who have had crashes and you can't help but speculate what differences there might be in their training, or even in their hiring practices?

You fail to account for the relative difference in fleet sizes. The more aircraft you have of one type, the more likely you are to have more accidents on type than an operator with a smaller fleet. DL had 17 MD11s at its peak, GEC 19, KLM 11, UPS 42 and FedEx 59. With that in mind, FedEx can be compared only to UPS, and that makes your samples size statistically too small to conclude that one operator is worst than the other at training its pilots. It could very well be that one operator is far luckier than the other too...

Quoting Sandyb123 (Reply 90):
This made the MD11 less stable in landing / takeoff than it's competitors and tricky to fly in weather.

Landings mostly.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 93, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 22257 times:



Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86):
Some large operators (such as KLM, Varig and Delta) have operated the type with little trouble. Even the freight outfits (UPS, World, Martinair, Lufthansa, even the late Gemini) seem to be doing OK.

Wasn't AA the largest original MD-11 (passenger model) customer? They also appear to have operated their 20 or so MD-11s with no reported accidents for a decade, as have other original customers like JL, SV, AZ, GA, AY,


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 94, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21869 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 92):
With that in mind, FedEx can be compared only to UPS, and that makes your samples size statistically too small to conclude that one operator is worst than the other at training its pilots. It could very well be that one operator is far luckier than the other too...

Don't forget the influence of the common pilot rating on the MD 11 and MD10, only effectuated by Fedex, for commercial reasons.
IMO this is an extra factor in the relative high accident rate of FedEx.
Both cockpits look the same, but in fact you are flying two different airplanes, with a totally different flight behavior (especially in landing configuration) on a common type rating.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 93):
Wasn't AA the largest original MD-11 (passenger model) customer? They also appear to have operated their 20 or so MD-11s with no reported accidents for a decade, as have other original customers like JL, SV, AZ, GA, AY,

The now slowly increasing MD11 incident/accident rate is influenced by two reasons :
- MD 11 aircraft are moving to lesser experienced airlines.
- Almost all remaining MD 11 aircraft are converted to full freighter and are operating at far higher landing weights (the weak point in the MD11 design), then in all pax. configuration.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently online71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 21870 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 93):
Wasn't AA the largest original MD-11 (passenger model) customer? They also appear to have operated their 20 or so MD-11s with no reported accidents for a decade, as have other original customers like JL, SV, AZ, GA, AY,

AA did not have any landing accidents but they did have 2 upset incidents in cruise that caused 18 minor and 3 serious injuries in 1994 and 1996. In the first, the FO accidentally bumped the control yoke during cruise and in the other the Capt attempted to pull back on the yoke attempting to over ride the autopilot. In both cases, the aircraft went through a series of wild dives and climbs and in one reached loads of 2.28 g.

JL also had one of these cruise upsets resulting in 3 serious and 1 fatal injury in 1997, the autopilot was cited in that case but I have no further info. JL also had a landing accident at Manila in 1998 where they slid off the side of the wet runway with 7 minor injuries.

SV just had a landing accident at Khartoum, Sudan this past June with substantial damage and that aircraft is rumoured to be written off.

AZ had a hard 1.94 g landing and tail strike at ORD in 1994, crew error with improper flare was cited.

GA had a hard landing on a mishandled autoland at HNL in 1997 and suffered a tail strike on the subsequent go around, crew error.

Nothing on Finnair that I could find so kudos to them!



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4316 posts, RR: 36
Reply 96, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21779 times:

Nice to read, just when I have a Finnair MD-11 flight to Bangkok in 2 weeks time  scared 


nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21759 times:

In the wake of this accident, CAAC (the regulatory authority of aviation in China) grounded all the MD-11F in the country. The aircraft is still operated by MU and FM.

Also apparently one MD-11 operated by MU experienced an episode of landing gear dysfunction upon taking off in 1998, forcing the aircraft to return to SHA. There was no injuries or casualties.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 21600 times:



Quoting Cerecl (Reply 97):
In the wake of this accident, CAAC (the regulatory authority of aviation in China) grounded all the MD-11F in the country. The aircraft is still operated by MU and FM.

Do you have a source ???
Personally I found that measure a little hysterical, and even more, if they don't ban all the other MD 11 operators in China ( FX, LH, and a lot of other cargo operators ), is a totally useless measure.

Saludos.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21170 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 85):
Quoting NA (Reply 84):
Interesting to note here that 5 of the 7 MD11s lost in accidents were freighters, yet the majority built were pax aircraft.

That's really just because the majority - apart from one or two with WO and KL's ten - have been converted to freighters. I believe the FX M11 that crashed at NRT was ex-NA and of course, both this and the other KE MD11 that crashed at/near PVG had started out at pax acft.

The one that FX just had crash in Tokyo in March was originally N813DE with Delta and was the only one to have worn the Wavy Gravy livery. I do believe that World has a few more than one or two MD-11's left in PAX configuration along with Finnair having some still, I believe.

FX1816


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 100, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21038 times:



Quoting FX1816 (Reply 99):
I do believe that World has a few more than one or two MD-11's left in PAX configuration

Their web site says they currently have six passenger MD11s They have the five that they bought new, including three standard and two -ERs. They had a sixth ER that they acquired from Citybird that was ex-Sabena. However, they subsequently converted that one to a freighter. Then they had the three that they subleased from DL prior to its bankruptcy. Upon bankruptcy, the DL leases were terminated and the aircraft sold to UPS. They remained in the WOA fleet on lease from UPS until cargo conversion slots were available for them, then they were delivered to UPS and converted. In August of this year, they acquired another MD11 pax version, so now they have six. They also have eight MD11 freighters, per their web site.


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 101, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20963 times:



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 100):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 99):
I do believe that World has a few more than one or two MD-11's left in PAX configuration

Their web site says they currently have six passenger MD11s They have the five that they bought new, including three standard and two -ERs. They had a sixth ER that they acquired from Citybird that was ex-Sabena. However, they subsequently converted that one to a freighter. Then they had the three that they subleased from DL prior to its bankruptcy. Upon bankruptcy, the DL leases were terminated and the aircraft sold to UPS. They remained in the WOA fleet on lease from UPS until cargo conversion slots were available for them, then they were delivered to UPS and converted. In August of this year, they acquired another MD11 pax version, so now they have six. They also have eight MD11 freighters, per their web site.

Very cool, thank you for the update.

FX1816


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 102, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20959 times:



Quoting FX1816 (Reply 101):
Very cool, thank you for the update.

My pleasure. Thanks for the feedback! By the way, you probably know this but the one they picked up in July/August was formerly OH-LGA from Finnair and is now N270WA.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20657 times:



Quoting NA (Reply 84):
Interesting to note here that 5 of the 7 MD11s lost in accidents were freighters, yet the majority built were pax aircraft

Most MD11 freighters are built or modified to be operated at increased landing weights.

For the 630.000 lbs MTOW version (most common now) :
MLW of a passenger MD11 is 458.000 lbs.
MLW of a MD11 freighter (customer built or modified) is 491.500 lbs.

see on pages 26 and 29 of the MD11 Type Certificate : http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...0a862575d1006f7449/$FILE/A22WE.pdf

In actual day to day operation the average (landing) weight of freighters is far higher then during passenger operation, due the increased MZFW (higher payload) of the freighter aircraft, as also stated in the type certificate.
During high landing weights and marginal weather conditions the already not optimal MD11 pitch control during landing will then be magnified and can sometimes overwhelm the flying skills of the pilots. Increased training can do a lot to prevent more landing incidents or accidents, but can not prevent everything.

The question however remains : do we need highly trained, super qualified, pilots on the MD11 or is there something fundamentally wrong with the (certified) design of the MD11, especially when operating at the outer limits of the increased landing envelope of the MD11 freighters.
In a few years time the MD11 freighters will be operated by "less training minded" airlines, without full flight MD11 simulators at the home base, to give additional training.

IMO the combination MD11 and lesser trained pilots is a recipe for more to come.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20647 times:



Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 98):

Do you have a source ???

China Grounds All MD-11 (by YLWbased Nov 29 2009 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 98):
Personally I found that measure a little hysterical, and even more, if they don't ban all the other MD 11 operators in China ( FX, LH, and a lot of other cargo operators ), is a totally useless measure.

A bit harsh. CAAC is faced with a balancing act with a number of factors to consider such as:

MD-11 does have an accident rate slightly on the high side.
If a Chinese MD-11F goes down the CAAC will be seen as being derelict of its duty
Zimbabwe is not exactly everyone's model country in terms of aviation safety, so the accident may have nothing to do with the plane
If a foreign MD-11F goes down the chance of Chinese casualties is low.

It could do nothing or it could go all out and ban all MD-11 operations in China including foreign operators. In the end it was reported to have chosen a middle path. I say "it was reported" because it is actually not certain that CAAC demanded the Chinese MD-11F to be ground. The most recent news reported that MU had not received such orders.


User currently offlineN707PA From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 279 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 20537 times:



Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86):
Some large operators (such as KLM, Varig and Delta) have operated the type with little trouble.

Here's a couple of DL incidents:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX93IA198&rpt=fa

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_500426.pdf


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 106, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19938 times:



Quoting Comorin (Reply 40):
It's another MD11F, but it doesn't look like the cause had anything to do with the type.

No, it's just another crash of a type with by far the worst crash rate of any modern airliner. Move on, nothing to see here.

Quoting LVZXV (Reply 51):
I continue to think, rightly or wrongly, that while the aircraft is tricky it has been so since 1990 and all crews who've flown it have known that and had to deal with it. That we are seeing more accidents and incidents now is perhaps because by comparison just about every other aircraft is easier to fly, and maybe those new to the MD-11 still don't know all the ways in which the Mega Dog can catch them out at take-off and landing. It's something I've heard incresingly from the few airline pilots I know (some of whom admit they never were not up to the "challenge" of the MD-11) and to me at least sounds more plausible than the aircraft itself being at fault.

And this is the crux of the issue. The MD-11 is, by all accounts that I have read, much trickier to handle than any other airliner. It also crashes far more often (in proportion to its numbers) than any other airliner. I don't know about others, but to me the connection is obvious.

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 55):

And unfortunately its going to bring out all of the MD-11 bashers now

OK, I'll bite.

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 70):
None of the MD-11 accidents should be blamed on the A/C.

The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..

No, because it has been certified, and its peculiar handling characteristics were known at the time and accepted. To find the aircraft at fault would be to find that the certification authorities were wrong, and the investigating boards are reluctant to do that. If something unknown at the time of certification were to turn up, that would be a different story. So the only official answer is that the plane was performing as expected, but the pilots goofed. The fact that so many pilots have goofed in the MD-11 and not in any other airliner should be cause for concern.

Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86):

You have to wonder about that. Some large operators (such as KLM, Varig and Delta) have operated the type with little trouble. Even the freight outfits (UPS, World, Martinair, Lufthansa, even the late Gemini) seem to be doing OK. Then you look at FedEx and the other operators who have had crashes and you can't help but speculate what differences there might be in their training, or even in their hiring practices?

This is why I do not call for the grounding of the MD-11. There have been airliners that have proved that they can fly this type safely; perhaps, like Concorde, it should be limited by law to these operators. Fedex, in particular, needs to get its act together or give them up.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 104):
MD-11 does have an accident rate slightly on the high side.

And it was a little breezy during Hurricane Katrina. The accident rate for the MD-11 is orders of magnitude higher than any other jet airliner (except the Concorde, which is an unfair comparison because of the small number built, and the rate being based on 1 crash). The arguments that "no fault has been found in the MD-11" sound to me like saying that a man has been married 7 times and all his wives committed suicide, but it's not his fault. It is well known that the MD-11 is much trickier to fly than any other airliner, and it has had far more crashes in both proportion and in absolute numbers than any other current production airliner (limiting the 737 to the 737NG). It is also the ONLY airliner that has EVER broken a main wing spar after a hard landing and flipped over on its back and caught fire, and it has done so THREE TIMES (no fault of the airplane, of course.) This is, of course, purely coincidence. As to the crash in question, it is way too soon to assign blame. It does sound likely that it was an overloading or miscalculation issue, and then the question becomes if it had been another aircraft type would the same thing have happened? If so, then I would have to agree that this one was not the fault of the MD-11.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 107, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19823 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 106):
Quoting Comorin (Reply 40):
It's another MD11F, but it doesn't look like the cause had anything to do with the type.

No, it's just another crash of a type with by far the worst crash rate of any modern airliner. Move on, nothing to see here.

I do agree with you, but I was referring to this specific incident which occurred at take-off. Was it a handling issue or a loading/flaps issue? The first is type-related, and the second isn't. We're talking about a T/O in calm weather on a 4000M runway.

Cheers


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 108, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19808 times:

What if the plane was overloaded? Or encountered wind shear? Or encountered any of the plethora of problems which have brought down airliners in the past?

Speculation is all well and good but it seems somewhat premature to condemn the type without knowing the cause of the accident.

That seems like something the oft derided press would do...but a.netters know better, right...?



What the...?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 109, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19759 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 108):
Speculation is all well and good but it seems somewhat premature to condemn the type without knowing the cause of the accident.

I plead guilty to being biased against the MD-11, and hence when I hear of another MD-11 crash I presume that it is likely that its handling characteristics had something to do with it, and that attitude is reflected in my previous post. I did, however, acknowledge at the end that the facts of this accident are not known and, from what is known, it is entirely possible that this crash was in fact in no way the fault of the plane. But I make no pretensions at being a journalist and make no claims whatsoever to being an objective observer. I am an A-net poster precisely because I enjoy engaging in speculation. When my speculation gets proven wrong I will acknowledge it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 110, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19563 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 109):
I presume that it is likely that its handling characteristics

I have a real hard time understanding how "handling characteristics" could have played any role in this incident. The MD-11 is a powerful machine. When configured and working properly, it will take-off like a rocket. This crash does not appear to have anything to do with the previous landing crashes, which were about slow enough vertical and horizontal speeds, PIO, and the tolerances of the MLG.

So, its very unclear what happened. Lets speculate about that, but lets also not take this accident as evidence of the previous problems. At least not unless some very surprising linkage is uncovered by actual evidence.


User currently online71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 19555 times:

Here's a story on the lone surviving pilot,

http://wcco.com/local/plane.crash.china.2.1338562.html

CHANHASSEN, Minnesota (WCCO) ― A pilot from Chanhassen has survived a plane crash in Shanghai, China. Bill Johnson Sr. was one of the pilots aboard the MD-11 cargo plane. It crashed during takeoff at Shanghai's Pudong Airport on Friday. Three Americans were killed.

Johnson Sr. has been a cargo pilot for years, including time served in the Air Force during Vietnam. His son says he was the chief pilot on the plane that crashed. He was supervising two other pilots at the controls.


Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 110):
I have a real hard time understanding how "handling characteristics" could have played any role in this incident.

There was a post on another board from a MD-11 pilot who said that when this plane was flight tested just before delivery to Avient, there was a tail pipe fire in engine #2. He said that if they would have had a #2 failure on take-off at heavy weight that there would have been a pronounced pitch up and this could have led to a tail strike. Seems to make sense considering the high mounted center engine.



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineSepulTALLICA From Niger, joined Sep 2009, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19449 times:



Quoting Cerecl (Reply 104):
Zimbabwe is not exactly everyone's model country in terms of aviation safety, so the accident may have nothing to do with the plane

 Yeah sure If you actually did some research on Avient, you'd realize that the only thing that plane had to do with Zim was its registration.

Avient is a Zimbabwean-run (ex farmers etc) operation. They are based and maintained in France, and use international crews for their operations, hence the Americans, Belgians etc on the crew roster. It simply registers its planes in Zim for tax purposes, hence your issue about the 'standard of aviation safety' in the country is irrelevant.



Chinokanganwa idemo; Chitsiga hachikanganwe. ✈
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 113, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 19348 times:



Quoting SepulTALLICA (Reply 112):

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 104):
Zimbabwe is not exactly everyone's model country in terms of aviation safety, so the accident may have nothing to do with the plane

  If you actually did some research on Avient, you'd realize that the only thing that plane had to do with Zim was its registration.

Avient is a Zimbabwean-run (ex farmers etc) operation. They are based and maintained in France, and use international crews for their operations, hence the Americans, Belgians etc on the crew roster. It simply registers its planes in Zim for tax purposes, hence your issue about the 'standard of aviation safety' in the country is irrelevant.

Add to it that the aircraft was flying for Avient since just about one week. What can an airline do wrong in one week?


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 4
Reply 114, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19285 times:



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 102):
Quoting FX1816 (Reply 101):
Very cool, thank you for the update.

My pleasure. Thanks for the feedback! By the way, you probably know this but the one they picked up in July/August was formerly OH-LGA from Finnair and is now N270WA.

Very cool, looks like they are using that reg. again on a different MD11??

FX1816


User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19136 times:

Avient's 2nd MD-11 (ex. Varig Log as well) is already painted but after news of the accident it was quickly towed inside a hangar and the tail logo has been covered by masking paper that looks like a giant post-it note. While it's not like many will recognize that logo (it's no PanAm or TWA), I can see why. Possibly so a news photographer doesn't take the opportunity to see the tail sticking out of the hangar and try to make a story about maintenance issues or whatever.

The crashed aircraft was stored in Miami for almost two years. It was painted into Avient colors recently, did several test flights two weeks ago and delivered around the 20th. I'd like to know how many cargo legs it completed before the accident.


User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19109 times:



Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 75):
Has there been an accident caused by a so called small vertical stabilizer?



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 111):
He said that if they would have had a #2 failure on take-off at heavy weight that there would have been a pronounced pitch up and this could have led to a tail strike. Seems to make sense considering the high mounted center engine.

...due to the small horizontal stabilizer vs the one on DC-10's. Also a main cause to why the MD11 at Narita bounced and pitched down hard on it's nose gear. Besides the too-small stabilizer, some speculate the wings are too far back, and (in my opinion) it would help if the main gears were wider apart. This is about the only modern airliner with several flip-overs after a wing strikes the runway.

If there have been a high number of accidents based on total # in service, now imagine the
many close-calls.

Pilots do not "goof" more on the MD-11, it's just trickier to land and requires more concentration than most other airliners. Any slightly delayed reaction can cause the aircraft to assume a weird attitude that's hard to control and result in a hard landing, tail strike, etc or the bird flipping over.

MD-11 pilots usually say the love the aircraft, except when landing.

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 70):
None of the MD-11 accidents should be blamed on the A/C.

The MD-11 has never been found to have any fault directly responsible for an accident..

we shall let someone who's not a noob pilot tell us, before throwing “facts” around. An MD-11 pilot himself/herself would be a good start


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 117, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19058 times:

According to www.airfleets.net, the last Gemini MD11 was withdrawn on 24/12/2008.

Given that the aircrew were ex Gemini, does this mean that the crew had a lengthy period not flying.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 118, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18882 times:



Quoting SepulTALLICA (Reply 112):
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 104):
Zimbabwe is not exactly everyone's model country in terms of aviation safety, so the accident may have nothing to do with the plane

Yeah sure If you actually did some research on Avient, you'd realize that the only thing that plane had to do with Zim was its registration.

Avient is a Zimbabwean-run (ex farmers etc) operation. They are based and maintained in France, and use international crews for their operations, hence the Americans, Belgians etc on the crew roster. It simply registers its planes in Zim for tax purposes, hence your issue about the 'standard of aviation safety' in the country is irrelevant.

Sorry to interupt you, but one of my previous companies had some experiences with another cargo airline, which had it´s headquarters in the UK, operated out of Europe, but had all their aircraft registered in Ghana to circumvent EASA regulations. Their MX practices, from what I´ve seen, where quite dodgy (I´m not going into details here else I might get sued) and it seems that their operational side was as well. At least they lost several aircraft, one due to overloading and overshooting a runway.
Finally the UK CAA had enough and told them firmly to either register their aircraft in the UK and to operate according to EASA rules or to be banned from Europe. Since then their operation improved and became much safer.

Avient reminds me of this company.


Similarly some years ago I was for a few months doing turnarounds for a South American cargo airline on the brink of bankruptcy. I had the pilots beg me not to make any tech log entries, because the airline didn´t have an money left for spares and they would lose their jobs if the last operational aircraft of this airline did not fly. In the end I wentto my boss and told him that I was no longer willing to certify for their aircraft. It simply became too hot for me. I didn´t want to go to jail for trying to save their jobs.

Jan


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 18825 times:

I think we can guess who the Ghanaian company is.

I have seen their planes at Kemble, Filton and Manston


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 120, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 18727 times:



Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 110):

I have a real hard time understanding how "handling characteristics" could have played any role in this incident.

According to pilots who have flown it, it is very touchy on the controls, especially when close to the ground. There have been numerous tail strikes on takeoff, and that apparently happened in this accident, It is due primarily to the aft CG and the small horizontal stabilizer.

Quoting Na (Reply 113):
What can an airline do wrong in one week?

Crash?  duck 

Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 116):
This is about the only modern airliner with several flip-overs after a wing strikes the runway.

It is the ONLY airliner that has ever done this, and it has done it three times. From what I can determine it is due to the fact that the main gear strut is mounted under the wing spar instead of behind it, and when the plane comes down too hard on one gear the wing spar breaks from the impact instead of the gear shearing off (as happened with the BA 777.)



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18696 times:

Does anyone know anything more about the company concerned? I have heard/read things that they have a knack for skirting regulations, possible illicit armament shipments, and involvement in facilitating African war crimes.


oh boy!!!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 122, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 18627 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 120):
It is the ONLY airliner that has ever done this, and it has done it three times. From what I can determine it is due to the fact that the main gear strut is mounted under the wing spar instead of behind it, and when the plane comes down too hard on one gear the wing spar breaks from the impact instead of the gear shearing off (as happened with the BA 777.)

This accident, on the other hand, had the plane crashing into a building I believe, making comparisons to MLG failure accidents irrelevant.



What the...?
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 123, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 18446 times:



Quoting FX1816 (Reply 114):
Very cool, looks like they are using that reg. again on a different MD11??

Dunno how long ago they would have used that reg. The original 3 new-build MD11 pax models were 271, 272 and 273. Then they had 2 CFs and 1 straight F which were 274, 275 and 276. The CFs were later converted to straight Fs, to lighten the hardware. Then they had 277 and 278, which were MD11ER passenger. 279 was used for the ex-Citybird, ex-Sabena aircraft, which arrived with green seats and was years later converted into an F. The DL subleases and the ex-Gemini a/c used other number series, as do the DC10s. 278, by the way, is the very-low-density config that they use for the Sonair service, which will end next year.


User currently offlineAirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 124, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 18427 times:

This airline is mostly involved in weapons transport, mostly to Africa, HQ in UK, before was based in Vatry France but moved to Liege Belgium because of pressure from French DGAC and many unpaid bills and other airport fees worldwide... with a convenience Zimbabwean AOC and old DC10F... An airline acting on areas of lawlessness. Sad...

User currently onlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4316 posts, RR: 36
Reply 125, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18260 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 120):
It is the ONLY airliner that has ever done this, and it has done it three times.

The DC-10 also had flip-overs on landing; the Sioux City United crash in 1989 and the Martinair at Faro in 1992. Of course especially Sioux City had other causes but MAYBE another type would not have flipped over in the same circumstances.



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18296 times:



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 125):
Sioux City had other causes but MAYBE another type would not have flipped over in the same circumstances.

IIRC, it's right wing hit the deck and then later sheared off completely. I don't think there are too many types who's characteristics could be predicted all that accurately under such an unusual landing.


User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18290 times:



Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 116):
...due to the small horizontal stabilizer vs the one on DC-10's. Also a main cause to why the MD11 at Narita bounced and pitched down hard on it's nose gear. Besides the too-small stabilizer, some speculate the wings are too far back, and (in my opinion) it would help if the main gears were wider apart. This is about the only modern airliner with several flip-overs after a wing strikes the runway.

"we shall let someone who's not a noob (NON-pilot) tell us, before throwing “facts” around. An MD-11 pilot himself/herself would be a good start"



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 128, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18200 times:

This year alone we had four (4) major accidents/incidents with MD11(F) aircraft. And that of a total count of less than 200 remaining MD 11 aircraft.


Nobody knows the exact cause of this latest accident, but it's obvious that an investigation in the common circumstances and/or causes of all MD11 incidents/accidents must be performed ASAP (NTSB ?), to prevent more accidents. Nothing has been done after the NRT crash in march 2009.

It can not be that only very experienced (above standard) pilots are able to operate this aircraft type. After almost every MD11 accident the flight crew is blamed for it (the easy way out).

As stated in my previous post, the short term danger is that more MD 11 aircraft are transferred to lesser "training minded" airlines (only the legal training minimum is enough), with devastating consequences.

This said, it's IMO not prudent to operate this type on a common type rating with the MD10, with totally different flight characteristics, by the airline with the far highest incident/accident number on the MD11. ( with the largest MD11 fleet), only for commercial reasons (better crew rotation).

Luckily (not for the flight crews involved), most accidents are with freighters, so relative few people were involved. Would the same happen with passenger aircraft, the media coverage would be overwhelming.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 129, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18170 times:



Quoting 747classic (Reply 128):
It can not be that only very experienced (above standard) pilots are able to operate this aircraft type. After almost every MD11 accident the flight crew is blamed for it (the easy way out).

Maybe the general level of airmanship has decreased over the last 20 or so years, with less and less airlines offering cadet programmes based on aptitude tests anymore, instead it largely depends on who can afford to pay for the courses.
We have too many glamour boys in the industry, who are becoming pilots for the supposed to be big bucks and playboy lifestyle, financed by dad´s credit card (oh, boy, will they be disapointed!).
At the station I´m working in the best pilots based here, as per peer opinion, are those who took up flying as a hobby and fly e.g. gliders, areobatic aircraft or fast ex-military jets in their off time. Real stick and rudder pilots.
Another problem is the new generation of ex-MS flight simmers in the cockpit, who know perfectly well how to program the FMC and how to fly procedures in thesim, but are of of their depth if they face a problem which demands instantaneous intuitive reaction not based on a company procedure (e.g. the pilot who saved the FR aircraft in CIA two years ago was a skilled aerobatics pilot and attributed his quick reaction to his fact).
It is well possible that the loading crew in PVG f*cked up and the pilots only noticed on rotation. If they might have had a chance to get the aircraft airborne has to be seen. I remember from about 15 years ago that the LH loading crew in FRA f*cked up and loaded 8 tons of luggage into the rear cargo hold of an A 300 instead of distributing it as per load sheet. The pilots only noticed the mistake on rotation (C of G far to the aft), but managed to get the plane into the air and to land it at the destination (barely avoiding a tailstrike), but they were not impressed. No fault with the crew, since they are not loading the aircraft themselves, they have to rely on the loadsheet as issued by the loadmaster.

Back to the MD11: I usedtgo work on this aircraft for many years and I liked it. I also knoew and still know quite a few MD-11 crew.
The general opinion is that it is a pilot´s aircraft if you are an oldstyle stick and rudder man and know how to handfly an aircraft. They like to fly the aircraft, but they say that you have to be aware of it´s pecularities and you´ll have to know what you are doing all the time.
Maybe it is an aircraft designed for a past generation of pilots (those coming from the old jets with little automatisation).

Jan


User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 130, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18152 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 120):
t is due primarily to the aft CG and the small horizontal stabilizer.

That's an internet myth or meme you do love to propagate. An aircraft's stabilizer will be large enough when it will produce enough arm to make the main wing and a/c fly level at all configurations and all allowable centers of gravity. That is most emphatically the case here, or there'd been no certification, ever. The MD-11 employs a trim ballast tank inside the stabilizer for additional trim purposes at cruising altitude for fine tuning the CG vs the stabilizer aerodynamic arm.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 128):
This said, it's IMO not prudent to operate this type on a common type rating with the MD10, with totally different flight characteristics, by the airline with the far highest incident/accident number on the MD11.

That will be FedEx only operating the MD10. In fact, in conjunction with this, the flight computer software of the MD-11 (load 908) has been reprogrammed to make the a/c handle more similar to the DC-10/MD-10.

[Edited 2009-12-01 04:18:15]

User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 131, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 18101 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 130):
That's an internet myth or meme you do love to propagate. An aircraft's stabilizer will be large enough when it will produce enough arm to make the main wing and a/c fly level at all configurations and all allowable centers of gravity.

Maybe it's large enough to pass certification, and enough to cope with any normal conditions, but a larger stabiliser might well help give more room for correction when the proverbial hits the fan.

I believe the 'myth' is that the horizontal stabiliser / wing ratio on the MD-11 is small in comparison to other types (and especially so compared to the DC-10).

The fact that the MD-11 passed certification does not mean that a larger horizontal stabiliser might have helped in some of these accidents (and not necessarily this one!).


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 132, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 18034 times:

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 130):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 128):
This said, it's IMO not prudent to operate this type on a common type rating with the MD10, with totally different flight characteristics, by the airline with the far highest incident/accident number on the MD11.

That will be FedEx only operating the MD10. In fact, in conjunction with this, the flight computer software of the MD-11 (load 908) has been reprogrammed to make the a/c handle more similar to the DC-10/MD-10.

I don´t know how this can work, since the MD-11 is controlled in the classical way as "fly-by-cable". There are no computers involved between the manual flight controls and the control surfaces, everything works purely mechanical. In normal flight (manual mode) the FCCs only control the yaw damper (for the yaw axis) and the Longitudinal Stabilization System (LSAS) which operates like a yaw damper, but through the elevators for the pitch axis, as well as automatic stabilizer trim (in conjunction with the fuel systems controller FSC, which moves fuel to the stabilizer trim tank and back as required), which can be overridden through the trim switches or the "suitcase" handle.
In automatic flight obviously the FCCs control all flight controls and the autothrottle.
From what I can see this SW update can only affect the (in non-autopilot flight) very limited FCC functions.

Jan

[Edited 2009-12-01 05:49:21]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 133, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17978 times:



Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 125):
The DC-10 also had flip-overs on landing; the Sioux City United crash in 1989 and the Martinair at Faro in 1992. Of course especially Sioux City had other causes but MAYBE another type would not have flipped over in the same circumstances.

I was unaware of the Martinair accident; when I looked it up I could not find an account that specifically said that it flipped over; it does say that the plane did break up. So did UA-232, which is why I did not include it in my list. The three MD-11's broke the main wing spar and flipped over while keeping the fuselage intact; I cannot find any account of any other airliner ever doing this. But the basic design of the MD-11 and DC-10 landing gear and wing spar is the same, so it is actually surprising that no DC-10 has done it. I attribute it to the higher weight of the MD-11.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 130):

That's an internet myth or meme you do love to propagate. An aircraft's stabilizer will be large enough when it will produce enough arm to make the main wing and a/c fly level at all configurations and all allowable centers of gravity.

The MD-11 gets away with the small horizontal stabilizer because of the "relaxed stability" that has never been used on an airliner before; you are quite right that because of it the required control authority is less and hence it can (theoretically) get away with a smaller horizontal stabilizer. However, the real world sometimes throws surprises your way, and the fact that every other airliner ever built has had a more forward CG range has also meant that they have required greater elevator authority. This can have unexpected effects on low-speed handling; remember that neither engineers nor certification authorities are infallible, and they can decide that something is "good enough" when it has handling flaws that they did not anticipate. I know this from personal experience; I owned for quite a while a 1962 Cessna 182. This one was a rather rare bird; it was a pre-1972 182 that had never had its firewall damaged. The reason this is rare is because one of the features of the 182 was that it offered a very wide CG range, plus (before 1972) 40 degrees of flaps. The drawback was that if you had a forward CG (which you would have without rear seat passengers) and you bounced on landing with full flaps, the elevator did not have enough authority to keep you from coming down on the nosewheel, which would instantly do at least $10,000 damage to the firewall (and it cannot be repaired without a good mechanic being able to spot it.) In 1964 they enlarged the horizontal stabilizer, but it did not solve the problem. It was only solved when in 1972 they limited the flaps to 30 degrees. My solution was that I instituted a rule for anyone flying the plane, myself included: no full flaps without rear seat passengers. The firewall remains undamaged. This is very similar to the situation of the MD-11; the early 182's also met all certification requirements, and the engineers were certain it was adequate. But a real world situation showed a hole in all of their calculations that fortunately did not kill anyone (that I know of, anyway) but did result in many damaged airplanes. If the engineers and certification authorities had realized up front that it would have this effect I'm sure they would have done something different from the start; but once it is built, certified, and in production it is much more difficult to change. Unfortunately the effects of the MD-11's departure from orthodoxy have had much more serious effects. No other airliner has EVER had such a history of landing/takeoff accidents AND high altitude upsets, and I am convinced that the relaxed stability and small horizontal stabilizer are the primary cause. On top of that the landing gear/wing spar design is another weakness, which is why it tends to break a wing and flip over on landing, WHICH NO OTHER AIRLINER HAS EVER DONE (with the possible exception of the two DC-10's mentioned above; but the DC-10 has the same design).



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 134, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 17817 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 132):
I don´t know how this can work,

You probably know this better than I do, but this is where I found what I wrote, I'm sure the LH MD-11s have using the same load for years, although afaik it has never been mandated though.

Boeing has developed an MD-11 FCC software upgrade—FCC-908—that was
FAA-certified on May 23, 2000. The upgrade primarily comprises modifications to three
subfunctions—PRD, pitch attitude protection (PAP), and positive nose lowering (PNL)—
of the LSAS. Boeing refers to these LSAS subfunctions as a low altitude stability
enhancement (LASE) package.
Boeing indicates that the LASE package implementation has two design goals.
The first is to employ the existing LSAS to provide deterrence against tailstrikes; Boeing
indicates this goal was established in response to the Safety Board’s Safety
Recommendation A-93-59. The second goal is to augment the natural aircraft longitudinal
handling qualities, via LSAS, in a manner approximating the handling qualities of the
existing DC-10.
Both objectives are intended to facilitate a common type rating between
the MD-11 and the MD-10.
source

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 133):
The MD-11 gets away with the small horizontal stabilizer because of the "relaxed stability" that has never been used on an airliner before;

No, you are confusing things here. The size of the stabilizer has to be large enough to provide enough lift arm for any eventuality during the flight, including a complete disconnecting of any stability augmentation. That lift arm will then be modified by the pilot or computer through the use of the elevators, and that modification then sends the nose up or down. As you note youself, in a roundabout way, your Cessna 182 lacked elevator authority under certain flap settings, and the size of the stabilizer was in fact immaterial.

I've said this many times before, but by all means contact the FAA and report to them the design fault of the MD-11 you've found -- perhaps they'll name it after you!

One must remember that the stabilizer has to be trimmed right against the center of gravity of the loaded aircraft. There'll be little margin of error of the a/c to work outside the allowable CGs, so a wrongly trimmed aircraft will get out of control near the extremes of pitch control.

The Concorde btw has got a stability augmentation system in the same vein as the MD-11.

[Edited 2009-12-01 08:18:57]

User currently offlineMd88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 20
Reply 135, posted (4 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 17752 times:

I flew the MD11 with DAL and it had positive attributes. A big, comfy cockpit. Excellent instrumentation. Reliable automation. It was however the worst flying jet/aircraft I have ever flown. And this was the opinion of everyone I flew it with. It was much more unstable than ANY Boeing product, Lockheed or MD product that I have time on. It was a handful on landing every time.

I'm one of those who have flown the airplane who believes that it's horrible accident rate is tied directly to the aircraft's handling and the wieght and balance issues that are magnified in a cargo operation.

IMO MD stretched the DC10 too far and sacrificed too much to make the MD11. In the end the stretch produced a quirky airplane that never was able to compete in the marketplace. MD should have started with a clean sheet design.


User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 136, posted (4 years 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 17681 times:



Quoting Md88captain (Reply 135):
It was however the worst flying jet/aircraft I have ever flown. And this was the opinion of everyone I flew it with. It was much more unstable than ANY Boeing product, Lockheed or MD product that I have time on. It was a handful on landing every time.

That was with or without the latest software load?


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 137, posted (4 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 17690 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 134):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 132):
I don´t know how this can work,

You probably know this better than I do, but this is where I found what I wrote, I'm sure the LH MD-11s have using the same load for years, although afaik it has never been mandated though.

Boeing has developed an MD-11 FCC software upgrade—FCC-908—that was
FAA-certified on May 23, 2000. The upgrade primarily comprises modifications to three
subfunctions—PRD, pitch attitude protection (PAP), and positive nose lowering (PNL)—
of the LSAS. Boeing refers to these LSAS subfunctions as a low altitude stability
enhancement (LASE) package.
Boeing indicates that the LASE package implementation has two design goals.
The first is to employ the existing LSAS to provide deterrence against tailstrikes; Boeing
indicates this goal was established in response to the Safety Board’s Safety
Recommendation A-93-59. The second goal is to augment the natural aircraft longitudinal
handling qualities, via LSAS, in a manner approximating the handling qualities of the
existing DC-10. Both objectives are intended to facilitate a common type rating between
the MD-11 and the MD-10. source

Ok, this makes sense.
According to my type rating instructors, the MD-11 was designed to have, unlike most aircraft, which fly slightly nose up, a horizontal attitude during cruise for fuel efficiency. This brought with it, together with the reduced horizontal stabilizer, a reduced stability around the pitch axis (which is by itself nothing bad, only that the pilots need to be aware of it, e.g. jet figthers and aerobatic aircraft have very little stability around all axes to allow for quick and immediate response to control commands). To provide additional "feelable" stability for the pilot, MD introduced an automatic stabilisation system similar to the longknown yaw damper called LSAS. It is run through the FCCs and uses gyro information to keep the aircraft stable along the pitch axis without flight control feedback to the pilots, as was used since the 707 for the rudder as yaw damper (Douglas speaks of "serial" and "parallel" inputs into the flight control servos. Normal autopilot is parallel, it has a feedback to the pilots, e.g. the control column moves when the autopilot moves a control surface. The yaw damper or LSAS move the control surfaces without causing a movement in the respective pilot´s flight controls and get overridden as soon as these controls are being moved by the pilots).
BTW, LSAS can be selected "off" by the pilots, same as the yaw damper (which also gets controlled by the FCCs).
Changing the response parameters in the LSAS software would change the aircraft´s stability characteristics.

Jan


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 138, posted (4 years 9 months 22 hours ago) and read 17628 times:



Quoting Md88captain (Reply 135):
I flew the MD11 with DAL and it had positive attributes. A big, comfy cockpit. Excellent instrumentation. Reliable automation. It was however the worst flying jet/aircraft I have ever flown. And this was the opinion of everyone I flew it with. It was much more unstable than ANY Boeing product, Lockheed or MD product that I have time on. It was a handful on landing every time.

I'm one of those who have flown the airplane who believes that it's horrible accident rate is tied directly to the aircraft's handling and the wieght and balance issues that are magnified in a cargo operation.

IMO MD stretched the DC10 too far and sacrificed too much to make the MD11. In the end the stretch produced a quirky airplane that never was able to compete in the marketplace. MD should have started with a clean sheet design.

Thanks for your professional verdict on the MD11

Quoting 747classic (Reply 128):
This year alone we had four (4) major accidents/incidents with MD11(F) aircraft. And that of a total count of less than 200 remaining MD 11 aircraft.

I count 6 (!), 2 or 3 write-offs, 2 or 3 still unclear

N526FE Fedex crash, a/c written off
Z-BAV Avient crash, a/c written off
HZ-ANB Saudi very hard landing, a/c insurance write off
N701GC Centurion very hard landing, heavy damage, could still be w/o
D-ALCO Lufthansa hard landing, currently being repaired (?)
B-2175 China Cargo Airlines, tailstrike, hull-loss candidate according to http://www.jacdec.de/news/months/09_06.htm (no photos since)


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10699 posts, RR: 9
Reply 139, posted (4 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 17540 times:

Addition to my last post: I found out that B-2175 has been repaired.

User currently online71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 140, posted (4 years 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 17532 times:

Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found. List may not be complete. Probable cause if listed listed comes from the NTSB or other authority.


08/92 - Delta Air Lines - tail strike at Los Angeles, crew error, improper control use
09/92 - McDonnell-Douglas test flight - hard landing at Yuma, center gear collapsed
12/92 - China Airlines - upset in cruise flight, turbulence cited
02/93 - Viaco Aerea - hard landing at San Francisco, 7 tires blown
04/93 - Delta Air Lines - hard and bounced landing at LAX, nosewheel damage, crew error, improper flare
04/93 - China Eastern - upset in flight, slats accidentally deployed, pilot error, 60 serious, 2 fatal
06/94 - American Airlines - upset in cruise, crew error, accidentally bumped control, 15 minor, 2 serious
08/94 - Alitalia - hard 1.95g landing and tail strike at ORD, crew error, improper flare
11/94 - Fedex - hard landing and tail strike at ANC, crew error, unstabilized approach
04/95 - American Airlines - evacuation at JFK from reported fire #2 engine, 33 minor, 2 serious
06/95 - China Airlines - emergency landing smoke in the cockpit, faulty insulation in radio bay
05/96 - Fedex - hard landing and tail strike at ANC, wake turbulence from previous 747 cited
05/96 - Korean Air - tail strike at LAX, crew error, speed too low on final
06/96 - World Airways - runway over run on landing at Buenos Aires
07/96 - American Airlines - pitch oscillations in descent, max 2.28g loads, Capt overrode a/p, 1 serious
04/97 - Garuda Indonesia - over ran runway landing at Jakarta
06/97 - Garuda Indonesia - tail strike on landing at Honolulu, crew error, improper use of autoland
06/97 - Japan Air Lines - upset in cruise, autopilot cited, 9 minor, 12 serious, 1 fatal
07/97 - Fedex - hard landing at EWR, gear collapsed, aircraft flipped, crew error, over control, 5 minor
10/97 - World Airways - tail strike on landing at Montevideo, Uruguay
06/98 - Japan Air Lines - slid off left side of wet runway landing at Manila, 7 minor
07/98 - LTU Int'l - rejected takeoff at Palma Mallorca, erroneous speed warning
09/98 - Swissair - on board fire, improper additional wiring, 229 fatal
09/98 - China Eastern - emergency landing with nose gear retracted, 9 minor
10/98 - Delta Air Lines - electrical burning smell in cockpit in cruise flight, diverted to Shannon
11/98 - Swissair - smoke in cockpit on climb out from Singapore, emergency landing
11/98 - Delta Air Lines - tail strike on landing at Portland, crew error, incorrect approach speed
12/98 - China Eastern - tail strike on landing at Shanghai
01/99 - American Airlines, smoke in the cabin, emergency landing Seattle
03/99 - World Airways, fire evidence cargo floorboards during C check, defective wiring found
04/99 - Korean Air - flight dove into ground, crew error, 37 injured, 9 fatal
06/99 - Fedex - damaged elevator after a GPWS pull up descending into Manila
08/99 - China Airlines - landing accident Hong Kong, flipped, exceeded crosswind limits, 44 serious, 3 fatal
08/99 - China Eastern - departed runway on landing at Shanghai, substantial damage
09/99 - World Airways - hard and bounced landing at Shannon, then runway over run
10/99 - Fedex - landing over run at Subic Bay, excess speed, failed indicator, clogged pitot tube, 2 minor
10/99 - Fedex - center gear collapsed on landing at Newark, examination found evidence of overload
11/00 - Fedex - pitch oscillations in cruise flight, failed elevator solenoid
11/01 - Eva Air - hard landing at Taipei, nose gear and tire damage
02/02 - Fedex - tail strike landing Subic Bay, mechanical failure left inboard flap
02/02 - Delta Airlines - off side of runway landing at Dublin, wind 15 knots gusting 27 knots
03/02 - Delta Airlines - faulty engine fire warning, emerg landing w/ minor damage, 11 minor, 5 serious
05/02 - Fedex - windshield fire from heating element at SEA during pushback
06/02 - Fedex - flight control malfunction into Subic Bay, diverted to Manilla and suffered tail strike
06/02 - Fedex - damaged elevator from 2.2g GPWS maneuver to landing at Subic Bay
01/03 - Alitalia - landed at JFK with jammed ailerons, potable water dripped on cables freezing them
05/03 - Gemini Cargo - runway over run at JFK, crew error, landed long and tail wind
01/04 - Varig - tail strike on landing at Mexico City
01/04 - Varig - off side of wet runway landing at Fortaleza, Brazil
09/04 - Fedex - hard landing and bounce at MEM, suffered tail strike on go around
10/04 - World Airways - tail strike on take off at ANC, 2 engine ferry, operator center of gravity error
04/05 - World Airways - smoke in cockpit, faulty door lock actuator installation
06/05 - UPS - hard landing in Anchorage
06/05 - UPS - nose gear collapsed on landing at Louisville, crew error, derotation too fast
06/06 - Varig - center gear fracture landing at Brasilia
09/06 - Fedex - hard landing and tail strike at Subic Bay
11/06 - Fedex - center gear drag brace failed after landing at Paris
04/08 - Fedex - center gear cylinder found cracked at Singapore
03/09 - Fedex - hard landing & bounce Narita, left gear collapsed, aircraft flipped, 2 fatal
06/09 - China Cargo - hard landing and tail strike at Urumqi, China
06/09 - Saudi Arabian Cargo - hard landing in Khartoum, Sudan, substantial damage
09/09 - Lufthansa Cargo - hard landing at Mexico City, fuselage and nose gear damage
10/09 - Centurion Air Cargo - hard landing in Montevideo, Uruguay, right gear collapsed
11/09 - Fedex - smoke in cockpit during cruise, emergency landing
11/09 - Avient - runway over run on take off at Shanghai, 3 fatal



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 141, posted (4 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 17461 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 134):
Boeing has developed an MD-11 FCC software upgrade---FCC-908---that was
FAA-certified on May 23, 2000.

This software change is not legally necessary. No AD is available.
The NTSB and FAA are very reluctant to take action.
see : http://www.nolan-law.com/crash-point...-11s-vulnerability-during-landing/

The following text is relevant :

The NTSB urged that the FAA to require the installation of new LSAS software, known as the Flight Control Computer upgrade (FCC-908) to render the airplane less susceptible to over control. The FAA never required this upgrade, but it was installed in all MD-11s worldwide nonetheless. The NTSB closed this recommendation as "Acceptable Alternate Action." Well, the change was made to all U.S.-registered MD-11s, including the one that just crashed at Tokyo. Clearly, upgraded LSAS was not sufficient to cure the MD-11's shaky and demanding landing characteristics.

So, even with FCC-908 installed we have in 2009 another 5 or 6 MD11 incidents/accidents.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineDUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (4 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 17467 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 140):
Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found.

Eye opening indeed!  eyepopping .....most of the accidents are in the landing config, and most are attributed to crew error... hmm. scratchchin 



AIRLINERS.NET MODERATORS SUCK MOOSE DICK!!!!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 143, posted (4 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 17480 times:

Spotters and enthusiasts, will you pls. shut up with your statistics, which don´t mean anything in thid case? You sound like sports fans!  grumpy 

Pls. leave the discussion to those who´ve got professional knowledge about this aircraft and it´s operating procedures, this means those who have flown it (no MS flight sim doesn´t count!), maintained it, designed it or dispatched it.

Currently we have the following facts:
1) Weather in PVG was ok, no strong winds, tempersture was reasonably cool.
2) The aircraft overshot the runway during takeoff. We have no or conflicting information if the aircraft actually left the ground and in what attitude it was in when it crashed.
3) We know that the pilots were experienced American expats, former Gemini crew.
4) The engineer on flight duty came from the UK was AFAIK equaly experienced.
5) The airline just started operating the this aircraft type a few days before
6) The airline is owned by, from what was published on PPRUNE, by a former mercenary (PPRUNE gives his name), who apparently has a long history of doing dodgy deals including gun running and interfering with African civil wars.
7) The airline is registered as a company in the UK, but all aircraft are registered in Zimbabwe, this means, even if they operate out of Europe that less strict rules concerning operations and maintenance apply.
In the past there have been other UK registered airlines, which used African countries with little regulatory oversight as flag of convenience for their aircraft., to bypass European regulations, some with disastrous results.

Now my own, informed, speculation about possible causes for this accident:

1) #2 engine failed just at V1. This shouldn´t normally be a problem. Before V1 stop on the runway, after V1 take off and sort the problem inflight.
2) Aircraft was overloaded.
3) Cargo was not correctly loaded, e.g. too much weight forward of wing, preventing rotation (putting too much weight AFT on an MD-11 is almost impossible, because the aircraft would tip on it´s tail long before that).
4) Cargo was not correctly secured and shifted on rotation.
5) Flight crew entered wrong weights or temperatures into the FMC, derating the engines too much.
6) a mechanical blockage of the elevator mechanism

Jan


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3617 posts, RR: 3
Reply 144, posted (4 years 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 17404 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 120):
It is the ONLY airliner that has ever done this, and it has done it three times. From what I can determine it is due to the fact that the main gear strut is mounted under the wing spar instead of behind it, and when the plane comes down too hard on one gear the wing spar breaks from the impact instead of the gear shearing off (as happened with the BA 777.)

Though that's not what happened here thus making that irrelevant.



PHX based
User currently offlineMd88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 20
Reply 145, posted (4 years 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 17338 times:

I actually was on the aircraft during that LSAS software upgrade. Its main benefit -that I saw- was that it was much easier to control the nose during landing. The aircraft had some weird nose tendencies when the spoilers deployed on landing. The nose would pitch up as the spoilers auto-deployed. As a pilot you had to hold the nose off when the mains contacted the runway and then hold the nose down as the spoilers deployed. If the pitch up was not counteracted, you risked scraping the tail on landing. The landing also went better if you derotated the nosegear to the ground quickly. I've have seen pilots hold the nose off and lose elevator effectiveness as they derotated and end up slaming the nosegear onto the runway.

After the LSAS software change, the pitch up due to spoiler deployment was really reduced but it was still very easy to plunk the nosegear on landing..


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 146, posted (4 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 17231 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 122):
This accident, on the other hand, had the plane crashing into a building I believe, making comparisons to MLG failure accidents irrelevant.

Not necessarily; the MLG failure accidents were also related to the control/stability issues, and I suspect that they may have played a part in this accident as well. However, that is my speculation, and events may prove you right.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 134):
No, you are confusing things here. The size of the stabilizer has to be large enough to provide enough lift arm for any eventuality during the flight, including a complete disconnecting of any stability augmentation. That lift arm will then be modified by the pilot or computer through the use of the elevators, and that modification then sends the nose up or down. As you note youself, in a roundabout way, your Cessna 182 lacked elevator authority under certain flap settings, and the size of the stabilizer was in fact immaterial.

I don't know what the extent of your aerodynamic knowledge is, but you misunderstand the situation. The way to increase elevator (or stabilizer) authority is to increase its size; and its effectiveness is also affected by airspeed. Therefore it has to be large enough to give the necessary force at minimum flying speed under all conditions; the thing is that nobody can anticipate ALL of the conditions an aircraft may encounter. In the case of the 182, as I said in my earlier post, the enlarged stabilizer was not enough to correct the problem completely, and so Cessna decided to solve it by reducing flap travel. However, it would have been possible to solve it by enlarging the horizontal stabilizer farther; but this has the undesirable side effect of increasing drag, which is probably why Cessna did not go that route. Reducing flap travel does degrade short field landing performance, but that was an acceptable compromise, as the 182 even with only 30 degrees of flaps will still land in a shorter distance than is required for takeoff. You have to be very good to do it, however.

Quoting Md88captain (Reply 135):
I'm one of those who have flown the airplane who believes that it's horrible accident rate is tied directly to the aircraft's handling and the wieght and balance issues that are magnified in a cargo operation.

Thank you for your informed contribution.

Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 142):
Eye opening indeed! eyepopping .....most of the accidents are in the landing config, and most are attributed to crew error... hmm.

This is one of my main points, which I'm sure Md88captain will support. Since so many pilots seem to be committing "pilot error" on the MD-11 but not on any other aircraft, perhaps we're not placing the blame where it belongs????



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 147, posted (4 years 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 17227 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 146):
Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 142):
Eye opening indeed! eyepopping .....most of the accidents are in the landing config, and most are attributed to crew error... hmm.

This is one of my main points, which I'm sure Md88captain will support. Since so many pilots seem to be committing "pilot error" on the MD-11 but not on any other aircraft, perhaps we're not placing the blame where it belongs????

Because during the several years I maintained MD-11 aircraft I met a lot of MD-11 pilots. Most of them liked the aircraft and took it´s pecularities as a challenge sorting the men from the boys. Even after the Narita accident I talked to some MD-11 or ex-MD-11 pilots I know and they said that they never had a problem getting it safely on the ground.
I also contradict the claim that the MD-11 is a maintenance hog. If approached with the correct mindset, the MD-11 is not worse than any other aircraft. It is a Douglas with a Douglas design philosophy behind it.

Jan

Jan


User currently offlineAtpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (4 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 17231 times:

Hi.

I got a tour of an MD-11F recently, and the capt said it is about impossible to fly well. He said you have to leave the autopilot on all the time. He liked the aircraft, but did not like flying it.

He was telling me about problems with the tail design. I'm sorry, I didn't pay a lot of attention to what he said about the poor tail design, because I have no great desire to fly the DC-10/MD-11.

cliff
NBO



TRY. It's all you have control over, and it's what God wants.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 149, posted (4 years 9 months 17 hours ago) and read 17199 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 147):
Because during the several years I maintained MD-11 aircraft I met a lot of MD-11 pilots. Most of them liked the aircraft and took it´s pecularities as a challenge sorting the men from the boys.

This says something about the kind of person who becomes a pilot; most of them take pride in their performance, and do not like to acknowledge that there is an aircraft out there that they cannot manage. This works up until the aircraft in question bites them. I'm quite sure that if you had asked any of the pilots who crashed BEFORE they crashed what they thought of the MD-11 chances are you would have gotten similar responses. I have seen the same in private pilots; there are a few GA aircraft that have much worse safety records than their competitors (and for well-known reasons); many pilots, however, are not scared off by them and in fact seek them out as a challenge. I am not one of those, however; I am partial to aircraft that are as forgiving as possible (and the Cessna 182 is as forgiving as they come.)



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 150, posted (4 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17065 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 146):

I don't know what the extent of your aerodynamic knowledge is, but you misunderstand the situation. The way to increase elevator (or stabilizer) authority is to increase its size; and its effectiveness is also affected by airspeed.

You are thinking the situation the wrong way up. We need to look at the worst case scenario first. That will be the worst centre of gravity, and flying with the flaps deployed as the net lift centre of the main wing will then move slightly aft.
Now, we need to have a tailplane which is sizable enough and trimmable so that the a/c will fly level with the elevators set neutral in that worst configuration. Having achieved this, our tailplane is close to being perfect. We will now need to have an elevator built in the tailplane so that when moved, it will modify the lift of the tailplane effectively enough for the desired rate of pitch control, degrees per second.

I might also add that the full flap setting for the MD-11 is 50 degrees, and the normal flap setting on landing is 35 degrees.

Quoting Atpcliff (Reply 148):
I got a tour of an MD-11F recently, and the capt said it is about impossible to fly well. He said you have to leave the autopilot on all the time.

You might want to take a look at the following videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZlyOwVqJBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV1N9JRYrs

where Finnair pilots achieve that impossible hand flying.

[Edited 2009-12-01 15:59:56]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 151, posted (4 years 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 17074 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 140):
Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found.

Seems strange that your list doesn't incluide any reports involving KLM and they've been operating the MD-11 for 16 years and as far as I know they have no immediate plans to retire their 10 MD-11s.


User currently offlineAverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 152, posted (4 years 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 17016 times:



Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 140):
Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found

Thanks for the list. I took a liberty to excelize and sort it by the operator, see below. What is remarkable to me is that the U.S. operators, with the exception of UPS, did relatively badly on the list. With the somewhat flexible numbers of 37 (UPS) vs 59 (FedEx) examples of the MD-11 flying, FedEx is an outright horrible performer compared to UPS. And we have KLM and Finnair with nothing to report with their combined 17 (max) a/c.

Aug-94 Alitalia
01-Mar Alitalia
Jun-94 American Airlines
Apr-95 American Airlines
Jul-96 American Airlines
Jan-99 American Airlines, smoke in the cabin, emergency landing Seattle
11-Sep Avient
10-Sep Centurion Air Cargo
Dec-92 China Airlines
Jun-95 China Airlines
Aug-99 China Airlines
06-Sep China Cargo
Apr-93 China Eastern
Sep-98 China Eastern
Dec-98 China Eastern
Aug-99 China Eastern
Aug-92 Delta Air Lines
Apr-93 Delta Air Lines
Oct-98 Delta Air Lines
Nov-98 Delta Air Lines
02-Feb Delta Airlines
03-Feb Delta Airlines
11-Jan Eva Air
Nov-94 Fedex
May-96 Fedex
Jul-97 Fedex
Jun-99 Fedex
Oct-99 Fedex
Oct-99 Fedex
11/00 Fedex
02-Feb Fedex
05-Feb Fedex
06-Feb Fedex
06-Feb Fedex
09-Apr Fedex
09-Jun Fedex
11-Jun Fedex
04-Aug Fedex
03-Sep Fedex
11-Sep Fedex
Apr-97 Garuda Indonesia
Jun-97 Garuda Indonesia
05-Mar Gemini Cargo
Jun-97 Japan Air Lines
Jun-98 Japan Air Lines
May-96 Korean Air
Apr-99 Korean Air
Jul-98 LTU Int'l
09-Sep Lufthansa Cargo
Sep-92 McDonnell
06-Sep Saudi Arabian Cargo
Sep-98 Swissair
Nov-98 Swissair
06-May UPS
06-May UPS
01-Apr Varig
01-Apr Varig
06-Jun Varig
Feb-93 Viaco Aerea
Jun-96 World Airways
Oct-97 World Airways
Sep-99 World Airways
10-Apr World Airways
04-May World Airways
Mar-99 World Airways


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2437 posts, RR: 8
Reply 153, posted (4 years 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 16866 times:



Quoting AirGabon (Reply 124):
This airline is mostly involved in weapons transport, mostly to Africa, HQ in UK, before was based in Vatry France but moved to Liege Belgium because of pressure from French DGAC and many unpaid bills and other airport fees worldwide... with a convenience Zimbabwean AOC and old DC10F... An airline acting on areas of lawlessness. Sad...

Maybe we will find an improperly secured and/or faulty munition is to blame. That would certainly be an exciting end.  hot 



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (4 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 16860 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 154):
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 140):
Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found

Thanks for the list. I took a liberty to excelize and sort it by the operator, see below. What is remarkable to me is that the U.S. operators, with the exception of UPS, did relatively badly on the list. With the somewhat flexible numbers of 37 (UPS) vs 59 (FedEx) examples of the MD-11 flying, FedEx is an outright horrible performer compared to UPS. And we have KLM and Finnair with nothing to report with their combined 17 (max) a/c.

It seems that FED EX + Subic Bay + MD11 = a ROUGH time. I was shocked to see how many of their accidents/incidents involved Subic Bay.

Any word on how the crew is doing?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 155, posted (4 years 9 months 4 hours ago) and read 16691 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 154):
What is remarkable to me is that the U.S. operators, with the exception of UPS, did relatively badly on the list. With the somewhat flexible numbers of 37 (UPS) vs 59 (FedEx) examples of the MD-11 flying, FedEx is an outright horrible performer compared to UPS. And we have KLM and Finnair with nothing to report with their combined 17 (max) a/c.

FedEx and UPS both operate only freighter MD11 aircraft, with high MLW. Both fleets are relative large and statistically should have comparable accident rates.
FedEx is however is the only airline, which is operating these MD11 aircraft intermixed with MD10 aircraft, with a common type rating.

KLM and Finnair both operate only MD 11 passengers aircraft, with far lower landing weights.

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but maybe the NTSB/FAA can look a little bit deeper in the interconnections of all MD11 incidents/accidents, since 2000 ( the last time, that both agencies tried to solve the pitch problem, via introduction of the FCC-908 software update) and don't judge all accidents as separate cases.
After the last MD11 crash with casualties (NRT) nothing has been published or done, as far as i know.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 156, posted (4 years 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 16517 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 154):
Thanks for the list. I took a liberty to excelize and sort it by the operator, see below. What is remarkable to me is that the U.S. operators, with the exception of UPS, did relatively badly on the list. With the somewhat flexible numbers of 37 (UPS) vs 59 (FedEx) examples of the MD-11 flying, FedEx is an outright horrible performer compared to UPS. And we have KLM and Finnair with nothing to report with their combined 17 (max) a/c.

But I wonder if the list really is complete. I seem to recall that there was a Finnair MD-11 minor tailstrike incident in JFK many years ago, for instance. Maybe I misremember, I can't find anything about this in Google.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 155):
Maybe we will find an improperly secured and/or faulty munition is to blame. That would certainly be an exciting end.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain. Please secure your weapons of mass destruction for the take off.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6897 posts, RR: 46
Reply 157, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16344 times:



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 150):

You are thinking the situation the wrong way up. We need to look at the worst case scenario first. That will be the worst centre of gravity, and flying with the flaps deployed as the net lift centre of the main wing will then move slightly aft.
Now, we need to have a tailplane which is sizable enough and trimmable so that the a/c will fly level with the elevators set neutral in that worst configuration. Having achieved this, our tailplane is close to being perfect.

This is accurate as far as it goes; and I have no problem with your approach. The difficulty is defining what the worst situation the plane is going to encounter is. Things in engineering are never as hard and fast as people like to think; for example, load limits. A plane is certified to carry a given load; many people think that it will always fly safely with that load and one pound more will cause it to crash. Likewise, people sometimes think that cars are designed to fall apart the day after the warranty expires. The problem is that situations are never as clearly defined as engineers would like, and hence one has to make judgments as to what is going to be sufficient. In the case of the accident under discussion, if the plane were somewhat overloaded and the #2 engine failed right at rotation, the elevator authority may have been insufficient to prevent a tailstrike, and the tailstrike could have slowed the plane down enough that it could not clear the warehouse that it hit. Since the overload (assuming it exists) puts the plane outside of its certification envelope officially that makes it not the plane's fault. If it was not overloaded, presumably it would have had enough control authority, and hence there is no reason why it should not have been able to take off successfully; and therefore the verdict would likely be pilot error. This is where I think the squirrely handling characteristics come into the equation. While the plane would have been theoretically capable of a safe takeoff in that situation, if it is so difficult to accomplish that many pilots faced with it fail, I still blame the plane. My question remains that if it was some plane other than an MD-11 with the same load (in proprotion to its capacity) and with the same sitiuation would it have been able to take off safely. The only freighter really comparable is the 777F, and that has not been around long enough to compare, but the 747 has been flying freight for decades and has had a much better safety record; I'm quite sure that many of them have been overloaded, had the CG off, had engines fail at rotation and been otherwise abused and still have completed their flights safely.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineWoof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 158, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 16294 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 143):
Spotters and enthusiasts, will you pls. shut up with your statistics, which don´t mean anything in thid case? You sound like sports fans!

I'm not going to comment on what you sound like, but why are accident/incident statistics irrelevant in yet another case of an MD11 accident? They may not tell the whole story, but they point strongly to this aircraft behaving more unpredictably than others.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 143):
Pls. leave the discussion to those who´ve got professional knowledge about this aircraft and it´s operating procedures, this means those who have flown it (no MS flight sim doesn´t count!), maintained it, designed it or dispatched

Why? It's a discussion forum. People have views and it they are on topic why shouldn't they post them? There's no technical qualification that I'm aware of needed to post on here.

Quoting Md88captain (Reply 135):
I'm one of those who have flown the airplane who believes that it's horrible accident rate is tied directly to the aircraft's handling and the wieght and balance issues that are magnified in a cargo operation.

Thanks Md88captain. Do you meet many engineers who don't believe you when you state this?


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16256 times:



Quoting Md88captain (Reply 135):
IMO MD stretched the DC10 too far and sacrificed too much to make the MD11. In the end the stretch produced a quirky airplane that never was able to compete in the marketplace. MD should have started with a clean sheet design.

Question... By stretched, do you mean in the literal sense or the physical? Not trying to be smart or anything, just trying to understand more of where you are coming from. is the -11 more tail heavy than the -10? I'm sure I'm asking things that already have been discussed, but from your perspective, which characteristics did you not like about it?

In doing some research I founf something that shocke the heck out of me... The distance between the tips of the horizontal stab on the DC-10 (all series) is 71ft 2in, on the MD-11 its only 59ft 2in. Thats a whole 12ft shorter! You are now missing a HUGE portion control surface from an aircraft that is 20-22feet longer.

On a side note has anyone heard how the crew is doing? Have they been able to tell their story yet?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13996 posts, RR: 62
Reply 160, posted (4 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16236 times:



Quoting B727LVR (Reply 159):
In doing some research I founf something that shocke the heck out of me... The distance between the tips of the horizontal stab on the DC-10 (all series) is 71ft 2in, on the MD-11 its only 59ft 2in. Thats a whole 12ft shorter! You are now missing a HUGE portion control surface from an aircraft that is 20-22feet longer.

The aerodynamics of the elevators are not the same on the DC-10 and MD-11. While the DC-10 has conventional elevator