Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEx MD-11Tailstrike In DEN 1/25/13  
User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3690 posts, RR: 12
Posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 21058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://avherald.com/h?article=45cb7632&opt=0

Av Herald is showing an MD-11 tail strike in DEN today. Looks like N618FE will be on the ground for some time.


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 20866 times:

Ouch! Buckled the floor... I wonder what it did to the rear bulkhead.

User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 20634 times:

Sadly I think we may be looking at the end of another beautiful Trijet. Thanks FEDEX for wrecking another one.

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20551 times:

Those pictures don't look bad at all. The report of a buckled floor is troubling, but somehow, based on the apparent exterior damage, I'm thinking the report is exaggerated.


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineSPaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20513 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 2):
Sadly I think we may be looking at the end of another beautiful Trijet. Thanks FEDEX for wrecking another one.

Hopefully not. They recently bought two other MD-11s as sources for spare parts. At least, this one didn't end up belly up or in the water, isn't it FedEx ?



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20516 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
Those pictures don't look bad at all. The report of a buckled floor is troubling, but somehow, based on the apparent exterior damage, I'm thinking the report is exaggerated.



That's what sucks about these... they DID report a "Hard Landing" and external appearances are most always deceiving. If they reported a "buckled floor" then it's a lot worse than it looks!

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5639 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20353 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
Those pictures don't look bad at all. The report of a buckled floor is troubling, but somehow, based on the apparent exterior damage, I'm thinking the report is exaggerated.

Unfortunately, the main damage didn't come from the tailstrike, it came from the impact. They could be quite lucky, today, that they didn't experience yet another classic MD-11 failure mode- hit too hard, rip main wing spars, lose the plane.

Also, photos of tailstrike damage rarely tell the whole story; you can't tell from an exterior photo that the aft pressure bulkhead is buckled, for example.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 5):
That's what sucks about these... they DID report a "Hard Landing" and external appearances are most always deceiving. If they reported a "buckled floor" then it's a lot worse than it looks!

Yup yup. Bad day for 618.


User currently offlineMd88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1329 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 20345 times:

Buckled floor = major, major $ and time. Maybe more than the airframe is worth? Probably more than the airframe is worth.

User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 20027 times:

Lucky it wasn't worse.


A very unforgiving Aircraft bites again.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19881 times:

The MD-11 has proven to be tricky to handle especially during approach and landing. But once more, it did happen again with FedEx. So unless any outside element like a gust of wind occurred at the last moment, I find it interesting that both FedEx and UPS operate a large fleet of MD-11, one for longer than the other, and still, one company's aircraft were involved in several incidents or accidents, while the other's seem to go the other way while both companies handle the same kind of cargo.


KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19630 times:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
The MD-11 has proven to be tricky to handle especially during approach and landing. But once more, it did happen again with FedEx. So unless any outside element like a gust of wind occurred at the last moment, I find it interesting that both FedEx and UPS operate a large fleet of MD-11, one for longer than the other, and still, one company's aircraft were involved in several incidents or accidents, while the other's seem to go the other way while both companies handle the same kind of cargo.

Simple, it's the handling differences between the MD-10 and MD-11. Fed Ex is the only airline in the world that crews are dual qualified on the MD-10 and 11. Because of the dual qualifications, the crews are not as proficient in the aircraft as their competitors are with the 11s. When you add up a tricky aircraft to land, with a crew who hasn't flown a Md-11 trip in a while and is not as proficient as someone who flies nothing but the MD-11, then you will surely have more incidents with the type! After the crash of the Md-11 in Japan, it was the widely debated between Fed Ex crews about splitting the fleet up as far as pilot qualifications go. Fed Ex I believe shot down those ideas due to cost issues as well as guarantees from Boeing in regards to the flight deck overhauls on the DC-10s



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19479 times:

That don't look good....I guess it will takes a few days to determine how bad the damage is. I suspect that if the damage is too much to fix vs. the value of the plane that this will get parted out to keep some other MD-11's flying.
Was there any reason to believe that was a cargo shift ?


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16345 times:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
So unless any outside element like a gust of wind occurred at the last moment, I find it interesting that both FedEx and UPS operate a large fleet of MD-11, one for longer than the other, and still, one company's aircraft were involved in several incidents or accidents, while the other's seem to go the other way while both companies handle the same kind of cargo.

UPS did crack an MD-11 tail a few months ago at SDF, flown by management pilots. It was swiftly put in the hangar; needless to say it didn't make the headlines.



FLYi
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31576 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 16300 times:

The pictures don't seem serious enough.....Any inside views......


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2254 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 14532 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 2):
Thanks FEDEX for wrecking another one.

VERY uncalled for remark dude! You weren't there and don't have a clue what happened. 12 yr. MD-11 Capt Fedex Ret.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 11):
Was there any reason to believe that was a cargo shift ?

very doubtful.


User currently offlineSpaceshipDC10 From Australia, joined Jan 2013, 1402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13323 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 10):
Simple, it's the handling differences between the MD-10 and MD-11. Fed Ex is the only airline in the world that crews are dual qualified on the MD-10 and 11. Because of the dual qualifications, the crews are not as proficient in the aircraft as their competitors are with the 11s. When you add up a tricky aircraft to land, with a crew who hasn't flown a Md-11 trip in a while and is not as proficient as someone who flies nothing but the MD-11, then you will surely have more incidents with the type! After the crash of the Md-11 in Japan, it was the widely debated between Fed Ex crews about splitting the fleet up as far as pilot qualifications go. Fed Ex I believe shot down those ideas due to cost issues as well as guarantees from Boeing in regards to the flight deck overhauls on the DC-10s

Thanks for your reply. I should have remembered the dual qualification.



KEEP LOOKING UP as in Space Fan News
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 11339 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 10):
After the crash of the Md-11 in Japan, it was the widely debated between Fed Ex crews about splitting the fleet up as far as pilot qualifications go. Fed Ex I believe shot down those ideas due to cost issues as well as guarantees from Boeing in regards to the flight deck overhauls on the DC-10s

You don't save much money when you're crashing them all the time..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10824 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):

You don't save much money when you're crashing them all the time..

   Best summation yet.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAerowrench From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10385 times:

Its all about the wing loading...Glad to see this crew walk away with nothing more than a possible bruised ego.

User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4845 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10163 times:

It's never good when you leave aircraft parts behind on the runway.

You never know what will actually happen at the end of the runway until you arrive there, weatherwise.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10002 times:

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
But once more, it did happen again with FedEx.

Fedex has more flights on the type than anyone, ever. It makes sense that they would have the most incidents.

Quoting Aerowrench (Reply 18):
Its all about the wing loading.

And the empennage, which is 40% smaller than a DC-10's, creates interesting handling situations at landing according to accounts from a number of very experienced captains.

The single type certification for two planes with such different handling attitudes is very interesting to me, since I'm not a pilot I perhaps don't understand where the line would be drawn between what constitutes common and what does not.
It can't just be the cockpit, otherwise the MD-11 would have always been the same rating as the DC-10, different 747s wouldn't be the same rating, and 737s would not all carry the same rating.

Airbus and Boeing discuss their FBW systems as enabling common qualifications - Airbus planes from the A318 to the A380 are said to handle quite similarly, according to them.

NS


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9748 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):
You don't save much money when you're crashing them all the time..

Well, if insurance pays for it, I guess you would be still saving money! But then again, Fed Ex clearly has no idea how to run an airline, apparently!  



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9427 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 21):

Well, if insurance pays for it, I guess you would be still saving money! But then again, Fed Ex clearly has no idea how to run an airline, apparently!

Insurance doesn't pay all the costs resulting from a crash, the damage is enormous, for passenger Airlines it can run over a Billion dollars easily.


Freight operators are, by their very nature 'lower profile' and their accidents are soon forgotten but the costs are still there and the effect on their insurance premiums as well.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2254 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9287 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 20):
It can't just be the cockpit, otherwise the MD-11 would have always been the same rating as the DC-10,

Don't follow that since the MD-11 cockpit and DC-10 cockpit is totally different. It's the MD-11 and the MD-10 that has like cockpits but the handling differences are completely different. One flies like a MD-11 and the other flies like a DC-10.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2607 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8981 times:

Isn't it a little bit funny that the 787 has been grounded but the MD 11 keeps on flying even though there have been a series of accidents and incidents with the MD 11, which can be clearly linked to the design of the MD 11 (i.e. the fact that MD decided to keep the same wing as for the DC 10).

I am fully aware that I am comparing apples with organges since the 788 has only a limited number of flying hours compared to the MD 11. But still, I think every a.netter will confirm that within the next 5 years there will be another serious landing accident with the MD 11 a là LH MD 11 in Saudi Arabia, Fedex MD 11 in Japan etc.). So, applying the same standards as for the 788 should the (cargo) airlines start to phase out the MD 11s?


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 23):
Don't follow that since the MD-11 cockpit and DC-10 cockpit is totally different. It's the MD-11 and the MD-10 that has like cockpits but the handling differences are completely different. One flies like a MD-11 and the other flies like a DC-10.

Sorry, that was somewhat the opposite of what I meant to say.... I meant that if it were just the cockpit, none of those other types would have common type ratings. So it can't be the flight deck layout alone that defines the commonality.

NS


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9335 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):


Those pictures don't look bad at all. The report of a buckled floor is troubling, but somehow, based on the apparent exterior damage, I'm thinking the report is exaggerated.

Seriously. People keep talking about that (more on the site linked to than here at any rate), but I haven't seen anything that says floor damage actually happened. I've worked on a Scud or two, and while that type of damage is possible, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon either. They are a very robust design. This airplane could be very easily put right if we're just talking about doublers or even a re-skin...

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):

The MD-11 has proven to be tricky to handle especially during approach and landing.


Right, it has. But a lot of those difficulties have been addressed and improved a while back. As well, this is FX. I'm not saying their awesome, just that there's unlikely to be an airline with more MD-11 experience out there. It stands to reason that they would know what to train for by now...



Quoting gigneil (Reply 20):
Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
But once more, it did happen again with FedEx.

Fedex has more flights on the type than anyone, ever. It makes sense that they would have the most incidents.

It did happen to FX, and there is the MD-10 vs MD-11 pilot thing. But I think this is true. There have also been incidents with UPS, LHC, KE, & Avient, as well as some well known PAX variant incidents (though only one of those was actually related to it being an MD-11). FX has had three write offs of the type, and we can say that's a lot, but we need to remember that there have only been 200 MD-11s made in the 1st place, so any number of wrecks or w/o will stand out. FX may indeed need to review their practices, but I have a hunch that that's really just a product of them having a great deal more MD-11 ops than anyone else. In fact, I'm not sure any airline out there has the level of MD-11 experience FX has...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2254 posts, RR: 16
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9518 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 25):
So it can't be the flight deck layout alone that defines the commonality.

Correct, it's the fact that the systems are identical (with some subtle exceptions). What used to be a manually operated system in -10 became an auto system in the -11. I remember in initial school being saying "you mean it's going to handle this automatically and I don't do anything?" The difference being handling due, as I said, to the fact that one is an MD-11 and the other a DC-10. I flew the MD-11 almost totally and saw an MD-10 maybe once or twice a year and maybe one sim ride per year. Even though I flew the DC-10 prior I was so used to the -11 that the MD-10 landing was work. I think the MD-10 A/T retarded at a different rate but none the less I ALWAYS disconnected the A/T for landing in the MD-10. I never had an issue with the -11 A/T.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 26):
FX may indeed need to review their practices,

This was addressed after Narita and it wasn't just a -11 procedure change. The whole issue was how to handle a hard/bounced landing. No longer were you to try to "save" a bounce and complete the landing. Unloading the elevator is a no-no. You stick it at a given pitch angle and go around even if it means hitting again. The -11 with it's high Vapp and high sinkrate just makes it easier to misjudge and get a bounce.

As for DEN I don't know and wouldn't guess.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8826 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 20):

Fedex has more flights on the type than anyone, ever. It makes sense that they would have the most incidents.

Seeveral operators have flown the MD-11 for very long times with no serious incidents; FX has had way more than their share. I don't think UPS has had any.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 21):
Well, if insurance pays for it, I guess you would be still saving money!

If you'd ever had a car accident you would know how foolish that statement is. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money, or to subsidize foolish behavior. I'm surprised that FX's insurance carrier hasn't come down on them yet; maybe after this incident they will. Certainly in private aviation insurance regulations are much more stringent than FAA regulations; for example, when I got a new partner in my 182 the FAA would let him fly it right away after a high performance checkout; the insurance company demanded 12 hours (I think) with an instructor before he could fly solo or with passengers. This in spite of the fact that I could allow any qualified pilot to fly it with no restrictions as long as they were NOT listed on the policy.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8768 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 28):
Seeveral operators have flown the MD-11 for very long times with no serious incidents; FX has had way more than their share. I don't think UPS has had any.

There's this one in Louisville:

UPS MD-11 Awaits Repair After June Incident (by Jeffry747 Sep 8 2005 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineUALAMT From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8505 times:

I personaly inspected this A/C lastnight and in my opinion it will be scrapped.The aft bulkhead is buckled ,in fact the frame in that entire area are twisted and collapsed. the belly skin is ground completely thru.

User currently offlineflyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1986 posts, RR: 12
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8362 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 28):
Quoting cbphoto (Reply 21):
Well, if insurance pays for it, I guess you would be still saving money!

If you'd ever had a car accident you would know how foolish that statement is. Insurance companies are not in business to lose money, or to subsidize foolish behavior. I'm surprised that FX's insurance carrier hasn't come down on them yet; maybe after this incident they will.

It will cost them at least $1M (deductible) if the cost exceeds that. Also, with most, if not all airlines, they are co-insured where insurance companies will take a percentage of the risk. You will have a lead insurer at a certain percentage and following carriers at other percentages. It will be up to the lead insurer (in general) to decide if it's a total loss or not per the policy limit for what it was insured for. So...just depends on what it's insured for.

As for the insurance company coming down hard on them...just depends on the premium they are paying. If their ratios are good and they are a profitable risk, then the "coming down hard" won't be so hard. There's plenty of excess capacity out there right now, their premiums shouldn't be affected too much depending on their ratios.


User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8220 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 5):
Quoting UALAMT (Reply 30):
I personaly inspected this A/C lastnight and in my opinion it will be scrapped.The aft bulkhead is buckled ,in fact the frame in that entire area are twisted and collapsed. the belly skin is ground completely thru.

Can you provide some credentials, perhaps? Not that it really matters, this is just the internet, but if you legitimately did this inspection then it will answer a lot of questions.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7681 times:

I see on Av Herald today that the FAA has re-categorized this incident as an accident.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6682 posts, RR: 46
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7467 times:

Quoting flyinryan99 (Reply 31):
As for the insurance company coming down hard on them...just depends on the premium they are paying.

If I were in the insurance business and was insuring FX, I would be VERY concerned as to why they have had so many MD-11 incidents, which is totally out of proportion to everyone else who has flown the plane as well as the rest of FX's fleet. As an outsider the logical conclusion is the dual qualification with the MD-10; since this is the main thing that differentiates FX from the rest of the world and goes a long way to explain the problem. But that may not be the real issue, and if I had any part in insuring the beasts I'd want to get to the bottom of it. I would think that UPS would want to as well; their premiums are certainly going to go up as s result of all of these incidents (and crashes.)



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7230 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 34):

If I were in the insurance business and was insuring FX, I would be VERY concerned as to why they have had so many MD-11 incidents, which is totally out of proportion to everyone else who has flown the plane as well as the rest of FX's fleet. As an outsider the logical conclusion is the dual qualification with the MD-10; since this is the main thing that differentiates FX from the rest of the world and goes a long way to explain the problem. But that may not be the real issue, and if I had any part in insuring the beasts I'd want to get to the bottom of it. I would think that UPS would want to as well; their premiums are certainly going to go up as s result of all of these incidents (and crashes.)

Well said, just having a common cockpit does not bestow common handling characteristics !


Having a dedicated group of Pilots that only flies the MD11 would be a far safer operation.


The DC-10 (Which, after all is what an MD10 is) is far more forgiving and easily handled than the MD11, if you've been flying that for a while then jump into an MD11 with all it's unforgiving vices the odds are against you.



The MD11 is tricky enough without having a dedicated, and experienced group of Pilots to fly it.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7086 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 24):
I am fully aware that I am comparing apples with organges since the 788 has only a limited number of flying hours compared to the MD 11. But still, I think every a.netter will confirm that within the next 5 years there will be another serious landing accident with the MD 11 a là LH MD 11 in Saudi Arabia, Fedex MD 11 in Japan etc.). So, applying the same standards as for the 788 should the (cargo) airlines start to phase out the MD 11s?

You have a very good point. For the few MD-11 frames there are out there, there are a lot of landing incidents owing to the handling characteristics of the MD-11, which is reputed to be an unforgiving aircraft to fly.

I think that the reason it hasn't been grounded is simply because it so rarely flies passengers and because it is being phased out, anyway.

I think China has banned the MD-11 from its airports.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2254 posts, RR: 16
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 6815 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 35):
The DC-10 (Which, after all is what an MD10 is) is far more forgiving and easily handled than the MD11, if you've been flying that for a while then jump into an MD11 with all it's unforgiving vices the odds are against you.

Folks this is getting a little extreme. We all agree that the -11 CAN be a little tricky sometimes but not every landing is a handful. As I said before I got 12 years in the left seat and can count the times I had a handful. My most usual concern was high ldg wgt and and a wet runway. It looks like every post has already decided it's because of the different handling characteristics between the -11 & MD-10 when actually no one knows anything about the crew or what happened. This crew could have been like me and rarely flown a -10 or it could have been the opposite but no one knows.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
I think China has banned the MD-11 from its airports.

Really? Fedex flies -11s into about 4 or 5 cities in China everyday.


User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 37):

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
I think China has banned the MD-11 from its airports.

Really? Fedex flies -11s into about 4 or 5 cities in China everyday.

China Gov only banned Chinese's airline to operate MD11.
Same as 787, all airlines from China are not allowed to operate 787,
but foreign airlines are allowed to operate the 787 in China.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6260 times:

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 38):
China Gov only banned Chinese's airline to operate MD11.
Same as 787, all airlines from China are not allowed to operate 787,
but foreign airlines are allowed to operate the 787 in China.

Ah. Thank you for the clarification.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4845 posts, RR: 19
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5906 times:

[quote=Max Q,reply=22]Insurance doesn't pay all the costs resulting from a crash, the damage is enormous, for passenger Airlines it can run over a Billion dollars easily.
/quote]

Sometimes the airline even makes money from the insurance company. When it came time for the insurance pay out for AA 191, the insurers payed AA a very considerable amount more than AA had originally paid for the aircraft. So AA actually made money on 191.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4762 posts, RR: 43
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5921 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 40):
Sometimes the airline even makes money from the insurance company. When it came time for the insurance pay out for AA 191, the insurers payed AA a very considerable amount more than AA had originally paid for the aircraft. So AA actually made money on 191.

Perhaps with regard to that one hull. But all DC-10 operators lost a considerable amount of money due to the grounding of the type initiated by that accident.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineakelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2162 posts, RR: 5
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5894 times:

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 38):
Same as 787, all airlines from China are not allowed to operate 787,

What? The following Chinese airlines have the 787 on order:

Air China 15 787-9
China Southern 15 787-8
Hainan AIrliners 10 787-8


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5639 posts, RR: 11
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5828 times:

Quoting akelley728 (Reply 42):
What? The following Chinese airlines have the 787 on order:

Air China 15 787-9
China Southern 15 787-8
Hainan AIrliners 10 787-8

Indeed; yet the Chinese government has forbidden their acceptance. Several Chinese 787s are ready for delivery up in Seattle, but the CAAC won't issue certificates.
Some are even in beautiful special liveries... shame. But moot point right now, as NO ONE can fly the danged things anyhow.

Enough of that- back on topic, please.


User currently offlineBasilFawlty From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 38):
China Gov only banned Chinese's airline to operate MD11.
Same as 787, all airlines from China are not allowed to operate 787,
but foreign airlines are allowed to operate the 787 in China.

China Cargo Airlines still has three MD-11F's in operation?



'Every year donkeys and mules kill more people than plane crashes'
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 40):

Sometimes the airline even makes money from the insurance company. When it came time for the insurance pay out for AA 191, the insurers payed AA a very considerable amount more than AA had originally paid for the aircraft. So AA actually made money on 191.

Perhaps they made a profit on the hull but so what ?


You need to consider the massive loss of revenue from the grounding and the expense of the bad press keeping passengers away.


Overall, it's a massive loss.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinedavidho1985 From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 44):
China Cargo Airlines still has three MD-11F's in operation?

The ban is imposed after the KE crash in Shanghai.
In addition, I have read a news state that following the retirment of the remaining MD-XX in CZ fleet,
China's airlines will no longer operate any MD planes.


User currently offlineflyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1986 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5217 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 41):
Quoting type-rated (Reply 40):
Sometimes the airline even makes money from the insurance company. When it came time for the insurance pay out for AA 191, the insurers payed AA a very considerable amount more than AA had originally paid for the aircraft. So AA actually made money on 191.

Perhaps with regard to that one hull. But all DC-10 operators lost a considerable amount of money due to the grounding of the type initiated by that accident.

This may be true if they insured the hull for a value higher then what they paid for it. However, they would not have "made money" from insurance as insurance is only to make you whole again. Making money (for profit) would be fraud. That's not to say the value of the aircraft didn't go up from the time of purchase because it can happen (although not in today's market).


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5015 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 43):
Indeed; yet the Chinese government has forbidden their acceptance. Several Chinese 787s are ready for delivery up in Seattle, but the CAAC won't issue certificates

This has been an issue for months, long before the battery problems surfaced with the 787 and the grounding that followed. It is not the reason the plane has not been certified. However, I am sure it will hold up the process now


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5030 times:

Quoting UALAMT (Reply 30):
I personaly inspected this A/C lastnight and in my opinion it will be scrapped.The aft bulkhead is buckled ,in fact the frame in that entire area are twisted and collapsed. the belly skin is ground completely thru.

Sad to see a rare tri-holer go out like this. As difficult as the plane may be to handle (depending on whom you ask of course), I have always enjoy watching them land. You can spot it a mile away, since it looks so different. I will miss that as more and more of these unique planes give way to the modern birds with only 2 engines on the wing


User currently offlineRage From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't write this plane off just yet.

User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4082 posts, RR: 19
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4454 times:

Quoting Rage (Reply 50):
Don't write this plane off just yet.

That is already a regular occurence..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12431 posts, RR: 100
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4026 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I too have to wonder if FedEx has an issue with training (e.g., MD-10/MD-11 commonality) or fatigue. It just seems like FedEx has more than their share of issues with the type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...11#Notable_accidents_and_incidents

Quoting UALAMT (Reply 30):
I personaly inspected this A/C lastnight and in my opinion it will be scrapped.The aft bulkhead is buckled ,in fact the frame in that entire area are twisted and collapsed. the belly skin is ground completely thru.

Thank you. Sad to hear. But economics must rule. The freight market is still a bit soft, so FedEx should be able to make up for the lost lift.


Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinecrjavionics From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3771 times:

Well no matter who is to blame, the latest status of the plane (from an inside contact) is that the aft pressure bulkhead has been damaged. The plan is to put on a scab patch, then fly it unpressurized to LAX to replace the APB. 6-8 weeks down.

User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3714 times:

Quoting crjavionics (Reply 53):

Well no matter who is to blame, the latest status of the plane (from an inside contact) is that the aft pressure bulkhead has been damaged. The plan is to put on a scab patch, then fly it unpressurized to LAX to replace the APB. 6-8 weeks down.

Well, if you can, let us know when it will be ferried. Might be neat to get over there (I'm assuming it will over where FX does some of their heavier work at the west-end hangars) have a look...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3049 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N618FE

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...E/history/20130204/1500Z/KDEN/KLAX


Well, we missed the ferry flight, it happened yesterday.

They filed for 9,000 feet then later climbed to 10,000.











The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3086 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 55):

Wow, that has to be about 2,000 mi. Oh well, I think I know where they'll put it. I'll see if I can have a look at work tonight...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11932 posts, RR: 25
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2820 times:

Quoting crjavionics (Reply 53):
The plan is to put on a scab patch, then fly it unpressurized to LAX to replace the APB. 6-8 weeks down.

Interesting - who does such work at LAX?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just out of curiousity...why LAX and not back to Memphis? If their base is in Memphis, why go the opposite direction? Yes, Palmdale is near it, but with LAX being busy as is???

135Mech


User currently offlinewrenchon727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2724 times:

It will be repaired in house. LAX does in house C checks and have done extensive repair like this in the past.

User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 396 posts, RR: 4
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wrenchon727 (Reply 59):
It will be repaired in house. LAX does in house C checks and have done extensive repair like this in the past.

Cool, thanks for the info!

135Mech


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ex- SAS MD-80 In DEN posted Fri Aug 15 2003 02:33:23 by UAL Bagsmasher
FedEx MD-11 Taxi Incident In BUD posted Sun Oct 24 2010 10:14:44 by HaveBlue
DL MD-88 Accident In DEN 4-03 posted Sun Jan 2 2005 22:49:12 by RyanL1011
WN Three Blown Tires In DEN posted Mon Jan 21 2013 16:59:54 by DENOO
The 747 Is Back In DEN. posted Sun Dec 2 2012 10:14:50 by klwright69
AS In DEN, MCI, MSP, STL posted Tue Nov 13 2012 19:40:53 by ridgid727
FedEx Expects Holiday Vol Up By 13% posted Mon Oct 22 2012 16:58:58 by ChrisNH
Minor Collision Of A-340 Vs MD-80 In Caracas posted Fri Oct 12 2012 19:17:05 by ogshelly
What’s Doing In DEN – Summer, Fall, 2012 posted Wed Jul 25 2012 10:12:09 by point2point
DL MD-90 S In Service? posted Tue Jun 12 2012 13:10:13 by bigbird