Propilot83 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 545 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3953 times:
When Swiss Air Flight 111 an MD-11 aircraft crashed near Nova Scotia in 1998, the Canadian version of the NTSB found that faulty electrical wiring near the cockpit section caused an arc, that caused smoke in the cabin and caused the plane to crash into the water. Now the Swiss Air MD-11 was equipped with Kapton wiring. Now many of you say "well if TWA-800 was a faulty electrical wire that was Poly X in the center fuel tank explosion, why didnt the FAA ground all Boeing 747's that time?" Well my question is, why didnt the FAA ground all MD-11's when Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed because of a similar electrical problem with wiring in regards to TWA-800? This concludes that not only Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed because of faulty electrical wiring, but also TWA-800.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3953 times:
Quoting Propilot83 (Thread starter): Well my question is, why didnt the FAA ground all MD-11's when Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed
If I remember correctly the wiring was not part of the airframe wiring, but added later as part of an entertainment system unique to Swisair
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3928 times:
Quoting Propilot83 (Thread starter): Well my question is, why didnt the FAA ground all MD-11's when Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed because of a similar electrical problem with wiring in regards to TWA-800?
Well, for starters, it wasn't really the same kind of electrical problem. But the short answer is that, had Swiss Air Flight 111 been wired properly (i.e. as the flight crew thought it was) they could have extinguished the fire and survived.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3895 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1): If I remember correctly the wiring was not part of the airframe wiring, but added later as part of an entertainment system unique to Swisair
Anyone have the name of the company of the IFE?
regds
MEL.
VMCA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
Quoting Propilot83 (Thread starter): Well my question is, why didnt the FAA ground all MD-11's when Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed because of a similar electrical problem with wiring in regards to TWA-800?
The short answer is the IFE was a non-approved addition. Had the approval process been followed, the deficiencies in the wiring and the inability to disconnect the IFE from the power supply would have certainly been noticed. The other MD-11s that had not had that particular IFE installed had no reason to be suspect.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6260 posts, RR: 39 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
Quoting Propilot83 (Thread starter): This concludes that not only Swiss Air Flight 111 crashed because of faulty electrical wiring, but also TWA-800.
The problem was that they could not identify what could have caused the TWA 800 center fuel tank to explode (that is of course assuming that it did.) Not having a specific cause makes it hard to ground an entire fleet that had been flying for nearly 20 years without a similar case. And there are many (myself included) that strongly doubt the exploding tank theory, anyway.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
EcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3270 times:
At the risk of going slightly off topic:
The amount of MD-11´s flying around the world is under 200 units only.
The majority are cargo planes, with the major operator being Fed-Ex.
KLM is one of the few reputable arlines that operate them for pax.
I have been told that the MD-11 is an underperfoming plane!
My question is: why are they mainly used for cargo?
Why is KLM different?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
"Underperforming" is rather subjective. It is true that at entry into service, the MD-11 failed to meet performance guarantees. A rigorous program of improvements fixed that. But the damage was done.
Cargo: I think it is mostly because the aircraft has been surpassed by other designs. It has gone where older designs tend to end up: cargo.
KLM: They probably feel it still fits well for them. No airline has a route network like any other, so what fits for one may not fit for another.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
May I be obnoxious and ask you to develop that point please?
To give you an example: KLM uses them for AMS-BON-GYE-UIO-BON-AMS; it´s like a bit of a merry-go-round, would this be a specific route for the MD11? And then there´s the backwards and forth Montreal route as well.....and I don´t see any similarities.
But then they don´t seem to go to Africa for instance, that´s mainly a 777 area, or so it seems. I wonder why........is it all to do with number of seats?
I realize I should actually start a new thread on this perhaps, but then I wouldn´t want to waste everybody´s time with such personal (dumb) questions.
But who decides what plane goes where at major airlines? I realize 1 route is normally covered by 1 type of aircraft, but which? They are all in different conditions.
You have 2 MD-11´s available, and 2 flights due soon.....(for argument´s sake): Does the manager on duty decide which one is going where? I mean, that decision could have major consequences if something was to go wrong maintenance wise in some "rural" part of the world (aviation wise I mean).
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2991 times:
Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 11): Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10):
so what fits for one may not fit for another.
May I be obnoxious and ask you to develop that point please?
It means that no two airlines are the same. Disregarding that for a moment, one needs to look at the "big picture", not just route economics. The cost of the aircraft includes startup costs (purchase/lease, training, setting up maintenance etc...), operating costs and finally disposal costs (may be disposal revenues). It is quite possible KLM got a good deal on the MD-11. So there's one factor. Another factor to consider is the cost of replacement. Is it cheaper to keep the MD-11 than to replace it? I assume yes. And if KLM wishes to replace the aircraft, when will the replacement enter service? If that's in 5 years given delivery slots, the MD-11 will be around even if it is not, right now, theoretically the cheapest.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
It´s good to know that I wasn´t the one being obnoxious........
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12): The cost of the aircraft includes startup costs (purchase/lease, training, setting up maintenance etc...), operating costs and finally disposal costs (may be disposal revenues). It is quite possible KLM got a good deal on the MD-11. So there's one factor. Another factor to consider is the cost of replacement. Is it cheaper to keep the MD-11 than to replace it? I assume yes. And if KLM wishes to replace the aircraft, when will the replacement enter service? If that's in 5 years given delivery slots, the MD-11 will be around even if it is not, right now, theoretically the cheapest.
Well stated.......
I suppose this explains a lot, and I happen to know KLM invested in their interior recently so the MD-11´s will stay for quite a while yet.
I still wonder why KLM is one of the very few though...........one of the very VERY few airlines that has a considerable pax fleet of MD-11.
And may I ask, why are under-performing (or shall we say "less" performing) planes more suitable for cargo than pax. Aren´t cargo ops even more intensive and $$$-sensative than pax ops are?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6260 posts, RR: 39 Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 13): pax fleet of MD-11.
And may I ask, why are under-performing (or shall we say "less" performing) planes more suitable for cargo than pax. Aren´t cargo ops even more intensive and $$$-sensative than pax ops are?
I believe that cargo operations in general spend less time in the air than passenger ops, and hence fuel costs are less important, and capital costs more important. That is why most freight operators use older planes. The MD11, therefore, since it has been largely rejected by passenger operators can be purchased for much less than any other aircraft of similar age and capacity, so that is why so many of them are flying freight.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
EcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14): I believe that cargo operations in general spend less time in the air than passenger ops, and hence fuel costs are less important, and capital costs more important. That is why most freight operators use older planes. The MD11, therefore, since it has been largely rejected by passenger operators can be purchased for much less than any other aircraft of similar age and capacity, so that is why so many of them are flying freight.
Really? Do cargo planes generally spend more time on the ground than pax planes?
Interesting! I mean, it´s common sense that it takes longer to completely fill up a freighter from scratch than to take in a few hundred passengers + luggage + grub, but what I see here at my "local" international airport is that freighters only pick up the odd couple of "items" (big items) and they are airborne before you can drive home to get your camera!
I may be exaggerating a bit, but I think you´ll get my drift.
The freighters do no stay on the apron for long!
Obviously they´ll stay longer at their main hubs, but still...............interesting!
Well, I´m personally a big fan of the MD-11, I think the winglets really made it stand out from the DC-10 and I hope to enjoy them for quite some yet!
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2626 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2): But the short answer is that, had Swiss Air Flight 111 been wired properly (i.e. as the flight crew thought it was) they could have extinguished the fire and survived.
Not only that, it was also determined that the aircraft in question was using the wrong type of insulation blankets that was flammable. I found this out in a mx video in A&P school.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2608 times:
Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 16): Really? Do cargo planes generally spend more time on the ground than pax planes?
Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 16): I see here at my "local" international airport is that freighters only pick up the odd couple of "items" (big items) and they are airborne before you can drive home to get your camera!
Woosie From United States of America, joined May 2006, 115 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2): Well, for starters, it wasn't really the same kind of electrical problem. But the short answer is that, had Swiss Air Flight 111 been wired properly (i.e. as the flight crew thought it was) they could have extinguished the fire and survived.
One of the results of this accident is that metalized mylar was found to be flammable, so the liners were changed. Wiring was at issue...that's all I can say (I helped the TSB with their investigation and report). The changes we did for Swissair, called the Mods Plus program, was really neat. Too bad the changes were removed when the airplanes changed hands.
Quoting EcuadorianMD11 (Reply 9): The amount of MD-11´s flying around the world is under 200 units only.
The majority are cargo planes, with the major operator being Fed-Ex.
KLM is one of the few reputable arlines that operate them for pax.
I have been told that the MD-11 is an underperfoming plane!
The airplane is a bit more expensive to operate than 777; not so sure when compared to A340. Twins had one less engine to contend with, which is a saving in maintenance costs.
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 10): Cargo: I think it is mostly because the aircraft has been surpassed by other designs. It has gone where older designs tend to end up: cargo.
The MD-11 is a stellar cargo airplane - one that's primarily volume limited as opposed to weight limited. This means you can really fill one up and go fly, which makes them better money makers than the competition. The 777F may be a better freighter airplane I don't know the specifics) but it certainly is newer, which is attractive to certain operators. Fedex has invested heavily into the trijet, both MD-11's and MD-10's (and a few DC-10-30's), so they'll use them for a long time to come. The airplanes are operated a bit less than pax versions, primarily because of Fedex's route structure (to/from the main hub in Memphis), as opposed to a typical pax route structure (hub to spoke to spoke to spoke then to a hub); the pax route structure allows for more time in the air.
EcuadorianMD11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
Quoting Woosie (Reply 19): The MD-11 is a stellar cargo airplane - one that's primarily volume limited as opposed to weight limited.
Okay, so what I understand is that the MD11 has plenty of grunt on board to do the job.
Overkill perhaps for a mere 300 pax with their sunglasses, swimming trunks and their tax free bottle of Scotch on board?
Overkill = waste = expensive?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3): Anyone have the name of the company of the IFE?
IFT. An odd firm from Las Vegas if I remember well. Talked to them. Big screens and real AVOD. Very heavy, expensive. I enjoyed it once in Alitalia Magnifica, also a MD11. IFT went out of business soon after the disaster. I think the system was connected to a bus also used for primairy systems.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 545 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 238 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5540 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
