A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1973 posts, RR: 26 Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39887 times:
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!"
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39795 times:
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 39741 times:
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
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1453 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 39577 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?
A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1973 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 39392 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!"
Braniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2628 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 39163 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!
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3125 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 38998 times:
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.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 38738 times:
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 38423 times:
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14345 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 38286 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?
GothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 38282 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.
A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1973 posts, RR: 26 Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 38285 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!"
DJ748 From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 38236 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).
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3125 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 37695 times:
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.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 36251 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...
Kiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2029 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 34911 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.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 29, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 37756 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?
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 30, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 37002 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).
Petera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 36886 times:
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11132 posts, RR: 63 Reply 32, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 36246 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.
Planesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 802 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 36067 times:
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 34649 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.
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!
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2362 posts, RR: 9 Reply 37, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 34477 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.
Irobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 4 Reply 38, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 34162 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.
Irobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 4 Reply 39, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 34887 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...
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 17 Reply 40, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 33693 times:
It's another MD11F, but it doesn't look like the cause had anything to do with the type.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 16 Reply 41, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 33461 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.
Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 546 posts, RR: 13 Reply 42, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 33623 times:
Md88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 43, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 33345 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.
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!
LHRspotter From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 182 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 32310 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.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 612 posts, RR: 1 Reply 46, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 31971 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.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 31770 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.
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 31652 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
AirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3639 posts, RR: 12 Reply 49, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 31303 times:
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
Pilotaydin From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2498 posts, RR: 50 Reply 50, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 31223 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!
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 44 Reply 51, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 30676 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.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 30483 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.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 53, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 30473 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.
(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.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 29898 times:
Another MD-11 crash....very sad.
And unfortunately its going to bring out all of the MD-11 bashers now
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 56, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 29821 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.
Flyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0 Reply 57, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 29407 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.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 58, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 28906 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.
AMS From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1689 posts, RR: 12 Reply 59, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 28412 times:
It looks that this same aircraft had some overloading problems when it was still flying for KE.
Rwy8l From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 28 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 27605 times:
Condolences to friends and families of those lost in this incident.
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 27577 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!
CodyKDiamond From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 537 posts, RR: 1 Reply 62, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 27277 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.
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4736 posts, RR: 30 Reply 63, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 26699 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.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 64, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 26634 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.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11955 posts, RR: 37 Reply 65, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 26365 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.
LVZXV From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, RR: 44 Reply 67, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 25665 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".
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 68, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 25272 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.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 69, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 24804 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.
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.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 70, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 22055 times:
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 21966 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
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21857 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
Quoting 413x3 (Reply 71): compared to other aircraft with some bad design flaws
"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...
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 74, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21705 times:
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 75, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21554 times:
Quoting 413x3 (Reply 74): too small vertical stabilizers
Has there been an accident caused by a so called small vertical stabilizer?
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10687 posts, RR: 100 Reply 76, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 21523 times:
"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.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 77, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21226 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
Irelayer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 1071 posts, RR: 2 Reply 78, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 21107 times:
UK_Dispatcher From United Arab Emirates, joined Dec 2001, 2550 posts, RR: 32 Reply 79, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 20937 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.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 410 posts, RR: 1 Reply 80, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20698 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.
"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.
A1ring23 From Australia, joined Jun 2009, 196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 83, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 20215 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.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 84, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 20128 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.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11955 posts, RR: 37 Reply 85, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 19801 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.
FRA2DTW From Germany, joined Feb 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 86, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19719 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?
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 87, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19690 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
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1115 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19627 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.
Pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 89, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 19617 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.
Sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 869 posts, RR: 0 Reply 90, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 19314 times:
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.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18923 times:
Quoting A1ring23 (Reply 83): perhaps training for pilots on the MD-11F should be looked at?
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3125 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18846 times:
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.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 93, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18798 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,
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 94, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18410 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.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18411 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!
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 648 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18300 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.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 18141 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.
FX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 5 Reply 99, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17711 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.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 16 Reply 100, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17579 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.
FX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 5 Reply 101, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17504 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.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 16 Reply 102, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 17500 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.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 103, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 17198 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.
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.
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.
N707PA From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 17078 times:
Quoting FRA2DTW (Reply 86): Some large operators (such as KLM, Varig and Delta) have operated the type with little trouble.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 106, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16479 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
Comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4673 posts, RR: 17 Reply 107, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16364 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.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5031 posts, RR: 29 Reply 108, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16349 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...?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 109, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16300 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
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 612 posts, RR: 1 Reply 110, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16104 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.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 111, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16096 times:
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.
SepulTALLICA From Zimbabwe, joined Sep 2009, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 112, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15990 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
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.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 113, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15889 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?
FX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 5 Reply 114, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15826 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??
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 115, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15677 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.
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 116, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15650 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
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 117, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15599 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.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 118, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15423 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.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 119, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 15366 times:
I think we can guess who the Ghanaian company is.
I have seen their planes at Kemble, Filton and Manston
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 120, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15268 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?
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
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 121, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15237 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.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5031 posts, RR: 29 Reply 122, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 15168 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.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 16 Reply 123, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14987 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.
AirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, RR: 3 Reply 124, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 14968 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...
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 37 Reply 125, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14801 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?
Woof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 126, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14837 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.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14831 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"
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 128, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14741 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.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 129, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14711 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).
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 130, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14693 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.
Woof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 131, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14642 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!).
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 132, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14575 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.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 133, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14519 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
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.
Md88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 135, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14293 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.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 136, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14222 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?
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 137, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14231 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.
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, RR: 10 Reply 138, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14169 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)
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 140, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14073 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 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.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14008 times:
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 140): Here's a summary of the MD-11 incidents and accidents that I have found.
Eye opening indeed! .....most of the accidents are in the landing config, and most are attributed to crew error... hmm.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 143, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14021 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!
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
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3033 posts, RR: 3 Reply 144, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13945 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.
Md88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 145, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13879 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..
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 146, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13772 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
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 147, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13768 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.
Atpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13772 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.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 149, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13740 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
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 150, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13606 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:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 151, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13615 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.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 152, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13557 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
Pellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1845 posts, RR: 8 Reply 153, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 13407 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.
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 13401 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!
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 155, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 13232 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.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 612 posts, RR: 1 Reply 156, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13058 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.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 157, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12885 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
Woof From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 158, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 12835 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?
B727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0 Reply 159, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12797 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!
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 160, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12777 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 elevators, the MD-11 has slotted elevators, which allow a higher elevator deployment angle without boundary layer seperation, thus allowing for greater efficiency as if they were of conventional design.
Also, on the MD-11 you have a trim tank inside the horizontal stab, which allows for smaller stabilizer area, thus reducing drag.
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 161, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12798 times:
Quoting B727LVR (Reply 159): On a side note has anyone heard how the crew is doing? Have they been able to tell their story yet?
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 162, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 12711 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 143):
Now my own, informed, speculation about possible causes for this accident:
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! grumpy
Even the somewhat informed aviation enthusiast could have come up with those causes based on past takeoff incidents. It doesn't take Joe MD11Mechanic, or Pete Rocket Scientist to come up with those and a few more you couldn't think about. it might not even turn out to be a direct result of the aircraft design for once, although there would still be valid speculation whether had it been a DC-10 it would have made it out of the airport...
While it's understandable many will make excuses for their favorite aircraft, the record speaks for itself. For a modern aircraft, having been operated mostly by main airlines with good maintenance practices, the MD11's accident record is awful.
MDD were caught trying to get a rushed DC10 stretch to meet fuel burn and range targets so it'd hopefully sell well and maybe save the company, but they ended up having to reduce stab size and move CG too far back sacrificing low speed handling. Not even all the complicated systems solved the handling problems, and the aircraft's performance still fell short. I'm not sure if they could afford it but had they taken the development time and started with a clean sheet design their DC-10 replacement might have been a much better aircraft. The A340 would've had a tough time competing against a well-designed twin or tri-jet from MDD.
Quoting Woof (Reply 158):
Thanks Md88captain. Do you meet many engineers who don't believe you when you state this?
I'm willing to bet other than argument-seeking a.netters probably not. On pilot forums where former and current MD11 pilots of various operators have intelligent discussions, almost all pilots say pretty much the same thing Md88captain did.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 164, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 12666 times:
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 163):
Had to pick my words carefully to avoid offending MD-11 aficionados...
Hey, it doesn't bother me to offend them. I call it as I see it; you can disagree at your will, and if you are offended it's your problem.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1868 posts, RR: 17 Reply 165, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 12366 times:
Quoting 747classic (Reply 155): FedEx is however is the only airline, which is operating these MD11 aircraft intermixed with MD10 aircraft, with a common type rating.
This is completely irrelevent.
2 of the Fx crashes (EWR flip over in 1997 and Subic runway overrun ending in the sea, 1999) occured before MD10 certificatin and delivery in 2000.
Teva
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 167, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 12129 times:
Quoting Teva (Reply 165): This is completely irrelevent.
2 of the Fx crashes (EWR flip over in 1997 and Subic runway overrun ending in the sea, 1999) occured before MD10 certificatin and delivery in 2000
Pls, read my post completely, before making a comment.
Second part of post :
Quoting 747classic (Reply 155): 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.
In 2000 the FCC-208 software was introduced to produce an MD11 with more equal flight behavior to the MD10, to allow the common type rating.
It seems that this software update didn't do the job properly, seen all the incidents/accidents of the MD11 after that date.
I asked for an investigation of all MD11 incidents/accidents AFTER the introduction of the common type rating in 2000.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 168, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 12125 times:
Quoting Teva (Reply 165): 2 of the Fx crashes (EWR flip over in 1997 and Subic runway overrun ending in the sea, 1999) occured before MD10 certificatin and delivery in 2000.
That's true but more so those 2 acidents really had nothing to do with the MD-11.
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 169, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 12054 times:
The delivery flight was delayed about 2 days. Some of the flight plans were canceled it seems (the plane didn't take off the day of filing the flight plan). And now I read on some forum that the aircraft had fuel pump problems before delivery. Perhaps mechanical problems caused them to delay some of those test flights.
The nature of tri-jets, (in the MD-11 even more so), is to pitch up after loss of thrust on the #2 engine A fuel pump problem could explain a loss of thrust and the tail strike. The plane could have been very heavy and it doesn't help hitting lights at the end.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 170, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11939 times:
Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 169): (in the MD-11 even more so), is to pitch up after loss of thrust on the #2 engine
It is a fact but in the sim I've never thought it was a major issue. I would say a possible action that can occur especially if the crew may be less than experienced in heavy jets (and I don't have a clue as to these fellows experience level so it's just an idea) is the tendency to rotate early and fast due to the long gap between V1 (eng fail) and Vr. In smaller jets V1 & Vr would be closer together and you would see "V1...eng failure...rotate" but something like an MD-11 is "V1..eng failure...........................................................................................rotate" and all this time you're steering the jet with rudder on the centerline with the eng failed. You can lose it here long before you're off the ground.
Md88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 171, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 11809 times:
I would have expected a little more information by now since the FO was alive and talking. Maybethe quiet is just a function of it being China.
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6359 posts, RR: 1 Reply 172, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11539 times:
Cosmiv Cruiser
AFAIK the crew are ex Gemini, which makes that less likely.
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 173, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11488 times:
Yes I believe they were experienced crew that used to work for Gemini, at least the Americans in the group
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 174, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11423 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 157): 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.
You're of course free to think otherwise, but I really don't think anyone concerned, including the designers and people who certified the airplane, forgot the fact that the #2 engine of the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 produces off-centerline thrust.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 157): 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.
It only takes one loading error by the loadmaster, and your cargo plane, any cargo plane, will be history.
There's any amount of junk written about the MD-11, even here we read "it's impossible to hand fly". Gosh, even if you had a zero respect towards the laws of physics and aerodynamics, I'd think what is know as the common sense would be still left!
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 175, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11379 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 174): the #2 engine of the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 produces off-centerline thrust.
I was never taught anything of the such when I went to school. It angles down but off centerline ?
757GB From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 645 posts, RR: 2 Reply 176, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11424 times:
Something that was a little freaky was that that aircraft was in MVD a few days before crashing. It was sitting VERY close to the Centurion MD11 (also ex Varig) that had such a violent landing here and is still awaiting the spares (the rumor is that it will go operational again). I saw the Avient MD11 on Thursday before the crash.
God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 177, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11408 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 170): Quoting MIAMIx707 (Reply 169):
(in the MD-11 even more so), is to pitch up after loss of thrust on the #2 engine
It is a fact but in the sim I've never thought it was a major issue. I would say a possible action that can occur especially if the crew may be less than experienced in heavy jets (and I don't have a clue as to these fellows experience level so it's just an idea) is the tendency to rotate early and fast due to the long gap between V1 (eng fail) and Vr. In smaller jets V1 & Vr would be closer together and you would see "V1...eng failure...rotate" but something like an MD-11 is "V1..eng failure...........................................................................................rotate" and all this time you're steering the jet with rudder on the centerline with the eng failed. You can lose it here long before you're off the ground.
But you can´t say that you wouldn´t be warned if#2 engine spools down. You have a big warning light right in front of you and IIRC a "Bitching Betty" aural warning message (because this engine is aligned with the center buttock line you won´t get a yw moment to announce that it has failed).
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 178, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11415 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 175):
I was never taught anything of the such when I went to school. It angles down but off centerline
In side view, the #2 engine is offset with the center both in X and Y, unlike in e.g. the L1011, which is offset only in X. Useful and necessary if one controls pitch by engine thrust alone.
The Avient MD-11 was seen at Montevideo? It seems this company is flying everywhere like Gemini used to, everywhere except to the United States.
One-person owner runs the company from the UK, planes based out of a small airport in France, ops suddenly relocated to Liege, Belgium, Zimbabwe-registered aircraft (where they're seldom seen). Word is they've transported weapons to the Congo, using DC-10 aircraft that were previously blacklisted in Europe when flying for DAS Air Cargo, etc.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 180, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11317 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 177): You have a big warning light right in front of you and IIRC a "Bitching Betty" aural warning message
Takeoff Inhibits - Level 3 alerts and associated MASTER WARNING lights
are inhibited from V1 to 400' RA, but no longer than 25 seconds in-air. Level
Takeoff inhibit exceptions are as follows:
• The Level 3 ENGINE FIRE alerts are not inhibited during takeoff, but
the associated MASTER WARNING lights are inhibited at V1.
There is no aural eng fail alert just eng fire.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 178): the #2 engine is offset with the center both in X and Y,
looking at the manual there is no written reference to it nor any reason given for it. There is no trg in regard to any bneifit it will afford you so for me it's transparent.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13339 posts, RR: 64 Reply 181, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11298 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 180): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 177):
You have a big warning light right in front of you and IIRC a "Bitching Betty" aural warning message
Takeoff Inhibits - Level 3 alerts and associated MASTER WARNING lights
are inhibited from V1 to 400' RA, but no longer than 25 seconds in-air. Level
Takeoff inhibit exceptions are as follows:
• The Level 3 ENGINE FIRE alerts are not inhibited during takeoff, but
the associated MASTER WARNING lights are inhibited at V1.
There is no aural eng fail alert just eng fire.
I haven´t been working on MD-11 aircraft since about 4 years now, but I checked in my old LAM schematics. Our MD-11s had a light (IIRC on the glareshield) in front of each pilot labeled "Engine Fail".
The logic for this light ( inside each of the three DEUs) was as follows:
A difference of more than 11% between the engine with the highest N1 and the lowest N1 would trigger the warning if the aircraft was on the ground, IAS was between 80kts and selected V1, IAS indication was valid, V1 was selected > 0 and both the #2 Eng Fail Det. & Rev. Cont. relay and the #3 Eng Fail Det. & Rev. Cont. relay were closed. No aural warning though.
You´ll probably find it in your LAM schematics under ATA 77-15-0.
The idea was that during takeoff roll on ground you wouldn´t notice #2 Eng failing because being on ground wouldn´t give you the nose up pitching moment yet, but your acceleration would be much less than normal.
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 182, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 11268 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 180):
looking at the manual there is no written reference to it nor any reason given for it. There is no trg in regard to any bneifit it will afford you so for me it's transparent.
The automation must be aware of it all the same.
Here's a NASA picture of how you could control the pitch by the thrust differential between
#1 and #3, and #2, here for rotation.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 183, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 11173 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 181): Our MD-11s had a light (IIRC on the glareshield) in front of each pilot labeled "Engine Fail".
Ours has the eng fail light on the glareshield too but the master warning is inhibited as I posted.
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 181): because being on ground wouldn´t give you the nose up pitching moment yet, but your acceleration would be much less than normal.
More so than that you wouldn't have the identifying yaw but from my sim rides the jet accelerates pretty darn good with one out. All in all the cause of this crash isn't known yet but with a high gross wgt t/o and subsequent eng failure that first 500' is critical to a successful flight. I've seen a few crashes from incorrectly handled V1 cuts in sim and it can happen quickly.
Sure enough it was, and it was on Thursday before the crash. I saw it myself but didn't know which airline it belonged to (saw it from far away as I drove by the airport). Then when I saw the pictures I realized it was the same airline, and since that was the only MD11 they had it had to be the one. Asking around local forums people from the airport confirmed it, and one of them even had pictures taken with his cell.
From what I gather the aircraft was not yet operational for Avient (not sure about that). I have no clue as to what it was doing here, though some people mentioned some type of paperwork (can't imagine what).
By the way, the Centurion MD11 was moved to a different side of the airport, and given the type of movement it probably has the replacement MLG installed. Will confirm that if able.
Regards,
GB
God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 185, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10919 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 174):
It only takes one loading error by the loadmaster, and your cargo plane, any cargo plane, will be history.
This is quite true, but why have MD-11 cargo jets crashed far more often in proportion to their numbers than ANY other freighter?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10845 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 185): This is quite true, but why have MD-11 cargo jets crashed far more often in proportion to their numbers than ANY other freighter?
Well aren't the MD-11s being used in larger numbers than any other freighter?
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 187, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 10795 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 185): This is quite true, but why have MD-11 cargo jets crashed far more often in proportion to their numbers than ANY other freighter?
With a considerable statistical significance, you can rephrase that question as "why does FedEx crash their MD-11s far more often in proportion to their numbers than any other operator?"
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 188, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10775 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 187): With a considerable statistical significance, you can rephrase that question as "why does FedEx crash their MD-11s far more often in proportion to their numbers than any other operator?"
Excellent question, and one that I addressed specifically earlier. But even if you exclude FedEx completely from the statistics (which, considering that they have nearly ONE THIRD of the ones still flying, is absurd) the accident rate for the MD-11 is STILL an order of magnitude worse than for any other currently flying airliner.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 190, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 10711 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 188): But even if you exclude FedEx completely from the statistics
Why does the competition, UPS, seem to be able to fly the beast without a hull-loss, whereas FedEx wrecks them at steady intervals? Some steadfastly refuse to appreciate the MD-11 can be flown right, and I for my part refuse to believe that the FedEx losses are a completely random act of statistics, that's far too unlikely.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 188): the MD-11 is STILL an order of magnitude worse than for any other currently flying airliner.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 191, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 10712 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 190):
Why does the competition, UPS, seem to be able to fly the beast without a hull-loss, whereas FedEx wrecks them at steady intervals? Some steadfastly refuse to appreciate the MD-11 can be flown right, and I for my part refuse to believe that the FedEx losses are a completely random act of statistics, that's far too unlikely.
I agree that FedEx has a problem with the MD-11. Perhaps it is because they are the only operator that utilizes the common type rating with the MD-10; which sentiment on this forum seems to agree is a bad idea.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 190): Quoting SEPilot (Reply 188):
the MD-11 is STILL an order of magnitude worse than for any other currently flying airliner.
Not true.
FedEx has had two hull losses; I believe that the total is 8. That leaves 6 non-FedEx hull losses out of 200 built; that is 3% total losses. Figure that it has been flying 20 years, and that makes a loss rate of 0.15% per year. Name me another currently flying airliner that has greater that 0.3% total losses or a loss rate greater than 0.015% per year and I will take it back and apologize.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 192, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10629 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 191): Name me another currently flying airliner that has greater that 0.3% total losses or a loss rate greater than 0.015% per year and I will take it back and apologize.
I need no such thing, I'm only interested in the facts. You said the MD-11 is "an order of magnitude" (which is 10 times) worse than the next type. Where's your data coming from, and what type is that next one?
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 191): FedEx has had two hull losses; I believe that the total is 8.
Sorry for my nitpicking, but it's actually 3 out of 7 , see here
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 193, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10560 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 190): Some steadfastly refuse to appreciate the MD-11 can be flown right,
Well said, Why can't some folks grasp the point that the aircraft may not be operated correctly, and that immediate corrective training may be needed.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 194, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10562 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 187): "why does FedEx crash their MD-11s far more often in proportion to their numbers than any other operator?"
As I mentioned before 2 were not the fault of the airplane.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 195, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10562 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 194): As I mentioned before 2 were not the fault of the airplane.
When has an MD-11 crashed and it was found that the aircraft was at fault?
MD88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 196, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10537 times:
The MD11 flys like a swimming pool half full of water. A 747 is very stable and well mannered. A 777 flys like a dream. Different aircraft have different flying characteristics. The MD11 is a handful to fly and may be too challenging for some professionals. I think this latest crash looks like a misloaded/overloaded airplane running out of margin. But I think the Mexico City incident (and others) can include the MD11's squirrely handling as a causal factor.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, RR: 24 Reply 197, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10475 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 191): FedEx has had two hull losses; I believe that the total is 8. That leaves 6 non-FedEx hull losses out of 200 built; that is 3% total losses. Figure that it has been flying 20 years, and that makes a loss rate of 0.15% per year. Name me another currently flying airliner that has greater that 0.3% total losses or a loss rate greater than 0.015% per year and I will take it back and apologize.
It's 7 not 8. And you also have to look at the accident circumstances. For example, the Swissair 111 crash near YHZ was the result of a fire in cabin insulation which if memory correct prompted airworthiness directives requring that that type of insulation be replaced with another type, and that applied to aircraft other than the MD-11.. And the fire was related to wiring for an after-market IFE system that had recently been installed, which had nothing to do with the original aircrft design.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 198, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10476 times:
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 192): Sorry for my nitpicking, but it's actually 3 out of 7 , see here
You are correct on that. So I will refigure my question. With 4 non Fedex hull losses out of 200, that makes a loss proportion of 2%. Just for comparison's sake, take the 707. I count 23 hull losses from crashes (i.e. not bombs or other hostile acts) over 50 years out of 1010 built. That makes a loss proportion of 2.3%, but most of those were in a previous era of operations, before CRM, and without modern training and operational control, which is where most of the safety advances have been. The loss rate per year, however, is only .045%, which while not an order of magnitude better than the MD-11, which comes out to 0.1%, is clearly far superior. If you take modern airliners, which I would say anything introduced since 1980, and run the numbers, I am quite sure that you will find that every one of them is at least an order of magnitude better than the MD-11 even excluding the FedEx accidents. I will give just one example; the 777. It has 1 hull loss out of 816 delivered; that is a loss proportion of .12%, and a per year rate of .009%. I am too lazy to do any others right now.
Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 193): Why can't some folks grasp the point that the aircraft may not be operated correctly, and that immediate corrective training may be needed.
Why can't you grasp the idea that if one airliner has so many more "pilot error" accidents than any other that there might in fact be something wrong with the plane that makes it so much harder to fly correctly? Suppose I build you a car and inform you that it will work fine forever as long as you don't exceed 0.3g's on a turn, but if you do, it will crash and burn. You are well aware of this limitation and agree to it. You drive the car and a pedestrian darts in front of you; you swerve to avoid him and exceed the 0.3g limitation. You crash and burn, and it's your fault because you exceeded its known and accepted limitations. I submit that is the same as the MD-11; yes, it can be flown safely, but it is so much harder to do so than any other airliner in the sky today that it can rightly be blamed for many of these "pilot error" crashes.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 199, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10442 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 198): Why can't you grasp the idea that if one airliner has so many more "pilot error" accidents than any other that there might in fact be something wrong with the plane that makes it so much harder to fly correctly?
Because I don't think thats the issue with the facts given.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 198): Suppose I build you a car and inform you that it will work fine forever as long as you don't exceed 0.3g's on a turn, but if you do, it will crash and burn. You are well aware of this limitation and agree to it. You drive the car and a pedestrian darts in front of you; you swerve to avoid him and exceed the 0.3g limitation. You crash and burn, and it's your fault because you exceeded its known and accepted limitations.
You've answered that question yourself, and quite well I might add...
1) "it will work fine forever as long as YOU don't exceed 0.3g's on a turn, but IF YOU DO, it will crash and burn."
2) "You are well aware of this LIMITATION and AGREE to it."
3) "YOU swerve to avoid him and exceed the 0.3g limitation."
4) "it's YOUR fault because you EXCEEDED its known and ACCEPTED LIMITATIONS"
The answers are in bold above. Thats why I believe that the amount of training in order to fly the aircraft shold be increased or all together changed .
I recall a one of the first things tought in flight training is "know your limitations and the limitations of your aircraft, and your post reminded me of just that. So I hope you don't mind I used your example to help explain my point.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 200, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10405 times:
Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 195): When has an MD-11 crashed and it was found that the aircraft was at fault?
What I'm saying is that if someone makes several bad decisions and elects to continue an approach with several "red flags" in your face you could crash any plane. You must appreciate that I won't go into a lot of detail.
However, this has zero or little relevance to this latests accident. Flying characteristics are relevant only when you are flying, and especially when landing, but this plane ran out of 12,000 ft runway, and in spite of a tail strike at the runway end it really didn't manage to get airborne.
If the plane had reached VR speed, then at tail strike would have put it a lot higher than those 10 feet it managed, even if balance was accidentally way off limit.
A severe crew error must be the main reason. The only thing which can "excuse" the crew is a double engine failure after V1. In all other circumstances the PNF cannot have been monitoring acceleration properly, or the plane wasn't configured for takeoff (like Spannair MD-80).
A contributing factor could be that the plane was extremely overloaded, but in this case the PNF should easily have monitored that well before V1 and called for an abort.
Until I see the final report this accident has some really bad smells in my nose.
[Edited 2009-12-06 18:21:39 by prebennorholm]
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Md88captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 202, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10419 times:
Prebennorholm. That some pretty crazy talk. You speak like you have knowledge but your conclusions betray a lack of understanding. A "severe crew error" is must be the reason for the crash?? Are you kidding? A dual engine failure is the only viable "excuse" for the crew?
Let me ask you if an aircraft load so far out of cg that it will not rotate would be a viable excuse? Yes that happens. A a pilot would have NO clue until he attempts to unstick.
Would a dragging brake be a viable excuse? That happens too.
How about a combination of an overloaded aircraft with an engine failure at V1?
There are dozens of excuses that can bite you of takeoff even when you do everything right.
How would one recognize an overloaded aircraft on takeoff roll and call for an abort? I find that conclusion baffling. With reduced power takeoffs, most takeoffs approach self-induced balance field situations. So even if the aircraft is relatively light a pilot will eat up tons of runway and rotate near the end. Pilots normally will not be able to tell by V1 if there is slow acceleration. (The is an acceleration time check takeoff procedure in the military-but not at the airlines.) I regularly see takeoffs where the mains are still on the runway at the 2 board on 12-14k runways. If it doesn't want to fly then, there is not much time to do anything except curse the Monday morning qbs who will want want to hang you for "error."
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 203, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10401 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 198): I will give just one example; the 777. It has 1 hull loss out of 816 delivered; that is a loss proportion of .12%, and a per year rate of .009%. I am too lazy to do any others right now.
So the source of data for your accident analysis was finally none other but yourself? Modesty is a virtue, but sometimes it's prudent to say who provides the conclusions. We're still in the dark as to which according to you was the second worst type with the alleged 10-fold difference? Feel free to be emphatic, but any numeral conclusions need their exact justification.
If we exclude from the cases the FedEx hull losses, two of which our Captain says are known to be not related causally to the MD-11 (and I think the investigation concurs), we're left with:
-the Swissair tragedy in which incorrect 3rd party installations and flammable materials (whose use was not limited to the MD-11) were the cause;
-the China Airlines accident in Hong Kong, where the Captain elected to land the a/c in the middle of a tropical typhoon outside the operational limits;
-this Korean Air cargo a/c accident, for which the narrative runs as:
"When the aircraft climbed to 4500 feet in the corridor, the captain, after receiving two wrong affirmative answers from the first officer that the required altitude should be 1500 feet, thought that the aircraft was 3000 feet too high. The captain then pushed the control column abrubtly and roughly forward causing the MD-11 to enter a rapid descent. Both crew members tried to recover from the dive, but were unable." (Air Satety Network)
So in the end of the day we're left with pretty much nothing to justify all that bad press.
DUALRATED From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 204, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10385 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 200): What I'm saying is that if someone makes several bad decisions and elects to continue an approach with several "red flags" in your face you could crash any plane. You must appreciate that I won't go into a lot of detail.
Understood and agreed. Forgive me if I miss understood your post, it just sounded like when you said "2 were not the fault of the airplane" it sounded like you were implying that the rest of the MD-11 accidents were the fault of the airplane.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4557 posts, RR: 16 Reply 205, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10375 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 198): Suppose I build you a car and inform you that it will work fine forever as long as you don't exceed 0.3g's on a turn, but if you do, it will crash and burn. You are well aware of this limitation and agree to it
I used to drive a 911. I submit that a whole lot of people would have had a great time driving it, and, given the chance, would gladly take it home for a month. It's turning radius was infinitesimal, and it's stopping distance with ABS brakes was insanely short, even from 90+ mph. I once found myself in a situation on the freeway where all I could do is push the brake to the floor and hang on as a dead-stopped construction truck loomed right in front of me and traffic had decided to box me in on both sides. Virtually no other car would have decelerated fast enough and handled precisely enough for me to execute an escape -- in any other car I can think of I would have been killed. I also occasionally have pleasant memories of its acceleration when someone does a stand-up full-power takeoff in a hot rod like a 717 or 757.
However, because it's a rear-engine car, you'd better know how to apply brake AND throttle together if you suddenly find yourself in a descending-radius turn that you didn't expect, and you'd better know how to do both with one foot if you need to shift at the same time. I myself invested a few hundred bucks in a weekend driver school to be sure I was at least marginally facile at these kind of maneuvers.
If you had the ragtop rather than the Targa or hardtop, you probably didn't want to flip it because, despite the claim that the windshield was reinforced to act as a rollbar, in my driving position my head usually seemed to be at or above the top of the windshield. That was a haircut that I probably didn't want to experience.
The point is that many machines involve tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs can often be managed with proper training, procedures, care and skill.
I have a great deal of respect for MD88Captain, and if he says it flies like a half-full swimming pool, then it does. But I don't even see him saying that it should be pulled from the skies; it just means that it's a tougher job to fly it than to fly another jumbo, and one needs perhaps to not hesitate to go around or go to an alternate when another aircraft might land just fine (and/or do a zillion other technical things differently).
As to design flaws, let's talk again sometime about what kind of sense it makes to permit deferral of the APU on the CRJ-200. With a deferred APU, you are 100 percent precluded from restarting the engines below a fairly substantial altitude. And yet folks fly that jet (and unwittingly fly ON that jet) every day with deferred APUs.
I guess that aviation just plain involves risks, known and unknown, and we depend upon pilots to do their best to minimize them to the greatest extent possible.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 206, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 10279 times:
Every time something happens with the MD11 the same topic comes up again, seen the questionable flight behavior of this aircraft. The MD11 is far more demanding than comparable aircraft types, especially in the freighter configuration, that is operating at the boundaries of the flight envelope.
If you compare this aircraft with the 747-400, both developed out of a 3 crew aircraft, certified in the same time frame, operated in the passenger, combi, convertible, dedicated freighter and converted freighter role, the difference in accident rate is striking.
The latest accident however could signal a new trend in the continuing story of this aircraft type.
We don't know the exact cause of this latest accident and i don't want to speculate about it, before more details are available.
However the following trend becomes visible in the latest two incidents/accidents (Centurion and Avient):
Caused by the economic recession and the availability of new 777 freighters the first MD11 aircraft are passed on to "less training minded" airlines from the mayor airlines, with large and very competent training facilities. These airlines provided training above the legal minimum to overcome the difficulties in operating this aircraft type, so relative few accidents happened but the incident rate was/is alarmingly high.
In the next few years you can see an increasing use of MD11 aircraft by airlines, operating at the minimum legal training needs.
This is a new variable that will even more increase the accident rate of this aircraft type,
if no additional legal training is required.
To counter this trend it will IMO be necessary to increase the legal required amount of training on this aircraft type.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 207, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10166 times:
Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 199):
Because I don't think thats the issue with the facts given.
The facts are the much worse accident rate for the MD-11 than any other current airliner.
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 200): What I'm saying is that if someone makes several bad decisions and elects to continue an approach with several "red flags" in your face you could crash any plane. You must appreciate that I won't go into a lot of detail.
But why is it always MD-11's that crash? None of the others (which are far more numerous) seem to.
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 203): So the source of data for your accident analysis was finally none other but yourself? Modesty is a virtue, but sometimes it's prudent to say who provides the conclusions. We're still in the dark as to which according to you was the second worst type with the alleged 10-fold difference? Feel free to be emphatic, but any numeral conclusions need their exact justification.
The source of my data is databases on the internet; I got the accident list for the 707 from Wikipedia; I believe that there were 3 that I excluded because they were bombs. Also, please not that when I had the facts wrong I corrected them. The production figures I got from Boeing's website. The accident rate of the 777 is well known.
I took the 707 because I presumed it would have the worst accident rate of any jetliner other than the MD-11; as I said I did not feel like taking the time for any of the others. But if you look at those certified since 1980 you have the 757, 767, 737Classic, the MD80 series, the A310, A320, A330, A340, 777, 737NG and A380. Name one of those that has an accident rate that is not at least 10 times better by any standard than the MD-11 even excluding the FedEx accidents. I am not going to go through them all to prove it. You are the one maintaining that the MD-11 is so safe; you prove it.
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 205): I have a great deal of respect for MD88Captain, and if he says it flies like a half-full swimming pool, then it does. But I don't even see him saying that it should be pulled from the skies; it just means that it's a tougher job to fly it than to fly another jumbo, and one needs perhaps to not hesitate to go around or go to an alternate when another aircraft might land just fine (and/or do a zillion other technical things differently).
I have also not said that it should be pulled from the skies; but I do believe that attention needs to be paid to its accident rate, and perhaps it should be limited to operators that can prove they can fly it safely. This will put FedEx in a big bind, as they have by far the most of them, and they have the worst record flying them. Actually, I really like your Porsche 911 analogy; but I would like to turn it on its head. Take the scenario you posed where you felt that the Porsche was the only car on the road that could have negotiated that situation safely; but this time you were in the ONLY car on the road that COULDN'T negotiate it successfully. Wouldn't you be inclined to think that something was wrong with that car?
Quoting 747classic (Reply 206): If you compare this aircraft with the 747-400, both developed out of a 3 crew aircraft, certified in the same time frame, operated in the passenger, combi, convertible, dedicated freighter and converted freighter role, the difference in accident rate is striking.
My point exactly.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
AverageUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 208, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10140 times:
Quoting 747classic (Reply 206): Every time something happens with the MD11 the same topic comes up again, seen the questionable flight behavior of this aircraft.
Well, everybody repeats the internet meme of "questionable flight behaviour", but nobody seems to be able to point out what that behaviour is. On landing, there just has to be a flare timed right, and the vertical speed must not exceed certain limits. Is that really something extraordinary in the world of landing heavy aircraft? I don't think so.
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 205):
I have a great deal of respect for MD88Captain, and if he says it flies like a half-full swimming pool, then it does.
For the record, he must have been flying the pre-2000 version of the control software (he never answered my question on it though), and modifications have been made to the handling characteristics he's complaining about. Of course everyone is entitled to their subjective opinion, but my video evidence appears to show the a/c lands fine and nobody's performing anything odd on the flightdeck as a matter of routine. The two current MD-11 pilots on the forum have not voiced anything about "bathtub-like" characteristcs either.
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 207): Name one of those that has an accident rate that is not at least 10 times better by any standard than the MD-11 even excluding the FedEx accidents. I am not going to go through them all to prove it.
If you're making a comparison, you need to have two sets of data, and I see only one. You don't have the set belonging to the (jet) airliner that is next worst to the MD-11, although you said "any". If that is not exactly 10 times or more better, your conclusion is not valid. So I'm afraid you made a bit too brash statement, and will have to suffer the consequences of proving your data. (I wonder what you'd make of the record of the 737-500?)
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 16 Reply 209, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10033 times:
Quoting DUALRATED (Reply 204): it sounded like you were implying that the rest of the MD-11 accidents were the fault of the airplane.
Not really but there are some situations where you can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time and find that things go from good to horrible in about 2 sec. and it's neither pilot nor plane that's totally at fault.
747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 1786 posts, RR: 11 Reply 210, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10005 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1973 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1453 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 355 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11955 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 692 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2029 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 410 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4934 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9614 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11132 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 802 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 612 posts, 
From Turkey, joined Sep 2004, 2498 posts, 
From Gabon, joined Mar 2004, 2041 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1676 posts, 
From Russia, joined Nov 2007, 136 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21488 posts, 
From United Arab Emirates, joined Dec 2001, 2550 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 869 posts, 
could not agree more! 
From Zimbabwe, joined Sep 2009, 188 posts, 
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. 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.....most of the accidents are in the landing config, and most are attributed to crew error... hmm. 
From France, joined Jan 2001, 1868 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 645 posts, 
