Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FedEX DC-10 Blows 8 Main Tires On Landing?  
User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

Hi guys.

On August 10, 2002, at 05:40 EDT, a Federal Express DC-10-10 (N388FE) on a domestic cargo flight, blew 8 tires during landing following an in-flight failure of the #3 hydraulic system and an unsafe left main landing gear light on approach to the Tampa Intl Airport, Tampa, Florida. The aircraft sustained minor damage. There were no injuries to the crew of 4 on board. The flight originated from Memphis, Tennessee, at 0317 CDT.

The crew stated that while lowering the landing gear on approach to Tampa Intl, they heard a loud noise followed by a failure of the #3 hydraulic system. The pilot notified the Tampa Control Tower and made a low pass. The tower controller confirmed that the landing gear appeared to be extended. The crew completed the abnormal prcedures, remained in the traffic pattern, and made an approach for landing on runway 36L. On landing roll, all tires on the left and right main gear blew out. The crew stopped the aircraft on the runway and initiated an emergency evacuation without further incident.

My question is...If the #3 hydraulic system on a DC-10-10 fails, does it make it impossible to extend the aircraft's flaps and slats?

The reason I'm asking this is because I suspect the DC-10 landed "hard and fast" due to the loss of landing flaps and slats (a result of the hydraulics failure) causing the tires to blow from the impact! Could this be the case?

Here's the FedEx DC-10 involved.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yevgeny Pashnin



It must take quite an impact to blow 8 tires that are inflated up to a MAX of 195 psi.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manuel Marin



I'm sure the DC-10's tire smoke during landing looked a lot worse than this MD-11's.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Florian Kondziela



Chris  Smile





"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCdfmxtech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1341 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

The Flaps/Slats on the DC10 are setup so that a failure of any one hydraulic system won't prevent operation.
So to answer your question, a #3 hyd system failure wouldn't have prevented them from extending the flaps/slats0


User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4864 times:

Hello Cdfmxtech. Thanks for your info.

I thought that the reason for multiple hydraulic systems on airliners included redundancy, incase of a failure of one or more systems, thus the flaps should have been able to be extended as you mentioned. I wanted to ask anyways, because of the outcome of the DC-10's landing.

Perhaps the pilot at the controls simply landed to hard. He will probably want the same scenario set up for his next simulator session, so he can try that landing again.

Chris  Smile



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

This aircraft landed with the possibility of an unsafe (in this case, not locked down) left main gear.

Among other items, the checklist does not allow him use of ground spoilers or the use of reverse thrust from #2 and in this case #3 engine.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4822 times:

Hello FDXmech.

Thanks for that information about those abnormal procedures checklist items.

I'm left wondering though...why can't the pilot use ground spoilers or the TRs on the #2 and #3 engine? Could it be to reduce as much vibration as possible to help keep the unsafe gear from collapsing?

Also, it sounds like you're suggesting that the 8 tires didn't nessesarilly blow because of a hard touchdown....instead it might have been caused by the much longer rollout, due to the lack of spoilers and thrust reversers. Is this what you mean?

Chris  Smile




"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4813 times:

Mr Spaceman, wait a few days and read the NTSB report.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

Hello PPGMD.

This post is based on the NTSB's preliminary report of this incident (NTSB Report #ATL021A155).

Due to the fact that the final report most likely won't explain how the hydraulic systems in the DC-10-10 work and what they control (they never do), I decided to ask the professionals in here whether or not failure of the DC-10's #3 hydraulic system would affect the aircraft's flaps.

If I'm going to listen to any speculations about a possible cause to this incident, I'll make sure I get them from professionals (like A.Net members), who know what they're talking about, not from news reporters who's opinions on aviation mean about as much to me as a big fat pant load!

Trust me, the NTSB's final report won't be explaining that in a situation like this DC-10 was in, the pilot isn't suposed to use ground spoilers or certain engine reversers. I learned that info from FDXmech...and it's much appreciated.

Chris  Smile



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offlineLZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4768 times:

MrSpaceman,

Due to the fact that the final report most likely won't explain how the hydraulic systems in the DC-10-10 work and what they control (they never do), I decided to ask the professionals in here whether or not failure of the DC-10's #3 hydraulic system would affect the aircraft's flaps.


You have a valid point here, altough I have read some NTSB reports which explained such detail. For the explanation of your following words I think you have a good point but have jumped a bit too far:

the NTSB's final report won't be explaining that in a situation like this DC-10 was in, the pilot isn't suposed to use ground spoilers or certain engine reversers

Well, why the pilot isn't supposed to use ground spoilers and certain engine reversers.

Ground spoilers: powered by which hydraulic system? possibility of asymetric deployment? (and thus, possibly increasing the risk of collapsing an unlocked main gear)

Thrust reversers: same reason, even a bit more clear to see. If we overlook the possibility of an asymetric reverse thrust, engaging the thrust on any engine different than Nr1 would cause a force with its vector causing the aircraft to veer to the left(relatively to the left main gear position). Since the main gear on a DC-10 retracts inward, side forces directed to the left might increase the risk of collapse of an unlocked gear. You might also consider, there might be a slight asymetry of all the forces acting during reverser/ground spoiler deployment, and this asymetry might be directed from right to left(no good for a possibly unlocked left main gear)

Maybe it has also something to do with the hydraulic systems config of the certain aircraft, but this question couldn't be answered without some detailed info and/or diagram revealing the details.

As I first read your post, I recalled AA191, where certain configurations of hydraulics/electrics had a big part contributing to the disaster that occured.

LZ


User currently offlineFDXmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 1 day ago) and read 4746 times:

Landing the DC10 or any aircraft with wing mounted engines with an unsafe main gear leaves the distinct possibility of one wing landing on an engine nacelle.

With the ground spoilers deploying, this basically precludes holding the bad side off and gently lowering it to the ground in a controlled manner.



You're only as good as your last departure.
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 4749 times:

Not educated at all about DC-10...
Personally would say tires dont blow because of "hard landing"... never...
But they blow for excessive braking, (heat) such as in the case of not using the thrust reversers... this happens in the 747s that I am familiar with...
Using emergency brakes on 747 is a likely reason why you will blow quite a few of these tires...
Whatever FedEx idea was, they probably could have landed on a longer runway somewhere else, certainly, the pilot probably was advised, by his operations office, to land in Tampa, not to delay the 10am delivery of these envelopes, and little boxes... no pilot takes that decision... he says "where do you want me to land...?"... so he is not responsible of the decision process...
FedEx, UPS or DHL do not mind blowing up a few tires to boast on time deliveries on those constant TV commercials that you end-up getting on your screen, despite paying a fortune for cable or satellite-dish service... Oh yes you get also premium channels, like QVC...
Did you know - cannot remember which one - FedEx or UPS (maybe both) do launch an airplane with full fuel, empty - above Memphis (or Louisville) and holding at high altitude... ready to proceed to any point where an airplane fails to be able to takeoff with its payload... I was told about that some 10 years ago, do they still do something similar...?
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Maybe this was caused by an anti-skid system failure. Just a guess.

User currently offlineLearpilot From United States of America, joined May 2001, 814 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (12 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/23327/4/

Skip,

Sorry, i don't know how to make it where you just click on it.
I started the topic you were asking about a few months ago. Either type that in or do a search for "Fedex Flying Spares" in the last year in this forum. It'll pop right up. Seagull and Dispatchguy explained it for FedEx and DE727UPS gave the UPS ops.

regards
LP




Heed our warnings or your future will be underpant free!
User currently offlineTulsarefueler From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 4684 times:

B747skipper and LMP737 have a major point in which I have had the luck to
witness if say it that way.

B747skipper: About 2 weeks before Emery Worldwide was grounded our main runway in Tulsa, OK (10,000ft) was closed for the day, so everybody was using the crosswind runway(7,500ft). At that time Emery a 727 always landed with almost 3/4 full freight and roughly 30-40,000lbs fuel. How this could be legal I'm not sure. I got to watch them land, kinda hard but very fast, and watched them taxi to their parking spot. Right before they started to turn into their spot the captain hit the brakes which made the nose lower about a foot for a minute, and everyone heard a load explosion like a grenade and then heard several metallic dings. Just a few seconds later the left main gears inboard tire passed the a/c up and rolled several feet in front of where it was supposed to park. After hearing a few comments from a couple of the crew members I found out that the captain had "rode the brakes" upon landing. The explosion was the tire blowing off of the rim and the metallic dings was the tire beating up against the fuselage, and the lower part of the wing. Thus by riding the brakes the captain caused excessive heat which most likely warped the rim that blew off with the tire, and later when he hit the brakes again that caused just enough extra heat to cause this chain of events. It was quite funny/different to watch this happen.

LMP737: Normal day a American Airlines 757 was flying into Tulsa on a maintenance flight(don't laugh yet). AA kept it quite whether the pilot had
problems with lowering the gear or if the anti-skid was messing up. After he
touched down all you heard was 8 pops like firecrackers and an awesome
shower of sparks. With our luck when the a/c got stopped it was sitting
perfectly in the middle of an intersection of 2 runways that crossed like a T.
Have seen several other cases with tires popping by anti-skid problems.

Thought this may shed some good light on the subject.


User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

Hi guys.

Thanks for your replies. Your input regarding this DC-10's mishap has taught me some very interesting things about procedures, decisions and possibilities that a flight crew would be faced with in a situation like this.

The extra info from B747skipper about how there's always a fully fueled & empty cargo airliner holding somewhere over Tennessee or Kentucky is cool to hear about. I guess this is how these companies can guarantee that your package will "Absolutely, Positively Make It There Overnight!".

The information and thoughts you guys have provided about this DC-10's rather exciting landing in Tampa has lead my to believe that the Final NTSB report will be explaining that "hard breaking" was required due to the absence of thrust reversers and ground spoilers, thus causing extreme heat in the main gear wheels, which resulted in the 8 tire blow-outs.

I suspected a hard landing because "all" 8 main tires exploded. Hard breaking didn't even occur to me. Question: Do any airliners have breaks on the nosegear?

>LZ-TLT, perhaps you're right about me jumping the gun. The final NTSB report may very well involve some detailed info about this DC-10-10's hydraulic and anti-skid breaking system. However, I've noticed that the NTSB sometimes doesn't go into a lot of detail when there's no public passengers on board. Who knows...I'll just have to wait and see.

Take Care,

Chris  Smile



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offline747Teach From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

Mr. Spaceman: Let me add a few comments to this thread. I will reference the DC-10-30 maintenance manual, as that is what I have available. I don't think there is any significant difference in the hydraulic systems between the -10 and -30 aircraft.
To answer your question, "Would failure of the #3 hydraulic system make it impossible to extend the flaps and slats?" Well, the nature of the failure would play a great part in the answer. If the failure is due to loss of fluid, you would not be able to pressurize the #3 system, and all systems depending on that pressure would fail to function. Further, the system could not be pressurized by any redundant system, either. If the failure is loss of hydraulic pressure (but the system is intact), then the answer to your question is no, for two reasons. First, the flaps are driven by the #1 and #2 hydraulic system, as shown in Chapter 27-50-00, Flight Controls, Description and Operation, page 2, Figure 1, and page 6, Figure 3. Secondly, the slats are driven by the #1 and #3 hydraulic system. If #3 system pressure fails, #1 system would still extend the slats. In addition, #3 hydraulic system can be pressurized by the 2-3 reversible motor pump, or the 1-3 reversible motor pump. #3 hydraulic system also has the Aux Hydraulic Pumps 1 and 2. #3 system failure will cause the loss of #3 spoiler right and left; all other spoilers are driven by combinations of other hydraulic systems. This information is from Chapter 29-00-00, Hydraulic Systems, Description and Operation, page 2, Figure 1.
In Chapter 32-16-00, Landing Gear Position and Warning, Description and Operation, page 2, is a paragraph that describes the main gear position visual indicator. It is a pin about an inch in diameter, painted yellow and black, that protrudes up from the top of the wing about an inch when the gear is down and locked. That is another way to ascertain the gear is down and locked. You might ask the question, "Is that pin visible to the crew on a DC-10-10 cargo plane?"
Once again, let me caution that my information is from a -30 manual. If anyone has any information that would contradict what I've said here, please let me know. Spaceman, hope this sheds some light on your question. Regards,


User currently offlineMusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 865 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4466 times:

Nosewheel braking was available as an option on the 727-200 Adv.

Regards - Musang


User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4353 times:

Hello gentlemen.

>747Teach, Thank You, for your reply. Your detailed info about the DC-10's hydraulic system is very much appreciated. I LOVE learning about an airliner's internal workings.

Because of men like yourself, I keep on learning really neat stuff about airliners. The next time I see a DC-10 taxiing into position at Toronto's Pearson Intl Airport (YYZ), which unfortunately dosen't happen that often these days, I'll be looking for that black and yellow pin on top of the wing.

I'm the kind of guy that can turn a stretch of sidewalk ahead of me into a "runway" and find myself going through a checklist while on final. I'm surprised that I've never been in a car accident or walked out into traffic, because when I hear an aircraft above me....everything stops, no matter where I am, I have to look up. It's a beautiful thing!

>Musang, I'm going to do a photo search and see if I can find a good pix of a 727-200's nosegear that might have that break option.

Chris  Smile



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

Oops, I meant to say Brake not Break. I must be out to lunch..get it, lunch...as in "Lunch Break"....I'm sorry about that. Oh brother!

Chris  Smile



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FedEX DC-10 Blows 8 Main Tires On Landing?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fadec Or EEC On DC-10-30? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 01:50:47 by MD11Fanatic
Ntsb Meeting On FedEX MD-10 Dec03 Accident posted Tue May 17 2005 17:11:03 by SATL382G
What's This Little Door On The DC-10? posted Mon May 2 2005 01:11:49 by Starlionblue
Open Panel On The Port Side On The DC-10 posted Wed Jan 12 2005 17:00:13 by Alphafloor
Experimental DC-10 Main Gear? posted Tue Mar 16 2004 00:12:45 by Musang
That Opening/hole On A DC-10 posted Wed Jun 18 2003 09:35:41 by Pizzapolli
Flap On DC-10 Fuselage posted Tue Feb 12 2002 14:34:58 by Nfx
Missing Panel On DC-10 posted Thu Dec 13 2001 17:18:38 by Planespotterx
Dc-10-30, Landing Gear Question. Different. posted Fri Aug 24 2001 01:57:38 by N737MC
Is This Normal On A DC-10, I Don't Think So! posted Sat May 20 2000 10:02:27 by Aer Lingus

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format