B747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9057 times:
Dear Apollo13 -
Extremely concerned for your safety -
Your trip from home to airport... and upon arrival, to hotel...
That is the dangerous part... be careful...
The MD-11 is very good plane, Delta a good airline...
Happy contrails -
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6134 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9041 times:
The number is 10.
Which means that it is ten billion times safer than Apollo 13 - or Apollo 14, -15 etc.
On a scale from....
One day I was flying in a Cessna 180 with a friend. He told me to take the controls even if I had never handled such a beast before. Straight and level, easy turns, shallow climbs and descends, hell, no problem.
Then he asked me to make a level 60 deg. bank 2G 360 deg. turn. First attempt ended in a spiral dive from which I managed to recover.
2nd attempt ended in something which I think was a vertical climb, totally lost airspeed, and finally what I guess must have been the beginning of a spin, from which my friend recovered.
He said: "On a scale from zero to one, how do you think you are doing?"
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3858 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8652 times:
You should have no problem on Delta.
However the MD11 by any standard has not had the best safety record and the design is a big part of the problem.
It has had two catastrophic accidents where the main wing spar totally failed
FEDEX in EWR and MANDARIN airlines in HKG and the aircraft rolled over. These were NOT overly hard landing's, in EWR the descent rate at touchdown was
That's basically a no flare landing, hard yes but not at all unknown in airline service, for the aircraft to break up? That's incredible.
There's a good reason they call it the 'Turtle'
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8637 times:
I would have to agree with Skipper on this one, the drive to the airport scares me more than the flight ever will, particularlly in some European countries (Italy comes to mind). Buy a few lottery tickets before you fly you are more likely to win than to crash.
Covert From Ghana, joined Oct 2001, 1443 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8556 times:
Drive from New Jersey to Miami on I-95. It will take you some 20 hours to drive those 1000 miles. You will see at least 5 fender benders along the way, and have 2 near misses.
Fly 4000 or so miles from the east coast of the United States to Europe, taking some 7 hours and I guarantee you will not see one accident. You probably will not even encounter other aircraft once at cruise altitude.
P.S. Take AM-going to derail-TRAK once and you will run to the airport pronto
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 8540 times:
"PPGMD, thank you for your tactfulness,"
Before I went to Italy I have never really been scared of being a passenger, but after a few hours of driving there were a number of acts that scared me. Blowing though lights and signs, parking on the highway?!?, driving all of the highway, the cars that I saw (dents, fenders crushed, broken windows et al), and from talking to other people that went there it wasn't a one time expirence.
If I ever go back, I'm flying into Germany, and I'm renting a BMW.
Fdxmech From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3251 posts, RR: 36 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8516 times:
Excerpt from the NTSB report regarding wing spar failure in EWR accident,
"Boeing estimates that the MD-11 landing gear strut will bottom and cause the wing rear spar to
fail if approximately more than 1,500,000 ft-lbs of energy is transmitted into a single
MLG. At 13.5 fps vertical speed, 0.5 g vertical acceleration, and 8° roll angle, the accident
airplane’s right MLG experienced an energy input of 1,574,000 ft-lbs during the second
touchdown, which was 3.2 times the maximum certification energy and slightly greater
than the MD-11’s estimated ultimate capability.
The MDI/Boeing structural simulations of the accident sequence indicate that the
right MLG strut and outboard tires bottomed at the second touchdown. Energy not
absorbed by the landing gear was then transmitted to the right wing rear spar through the
right MLG attach points. A corresponding down load was introduced from the left wing
and fuselage, which produced additional torsional loads on the right wing. These torsional
loads then produced a shear overload condition in the right wing rear spar according to
MDI/Boeing simulations. Boeing stated that the MDI simulations indicate that the failure
most probably “initiated at the rear spar/bulkhead (trunnion) rib interface and progressed
through the primary wing box structure. As a result of this failure, the right MLG trunnion
moved substantially upward and aft with respect to the trap [trapezoidal] panel fitting.” Thus, the Safety Board concludes that the energy transmitted into the right MLG during the second touchdown was 3.2 times greater than the MD-11’s maximum certificated
landing energy and was sufficient to fully compress (bottom) the right MLG strut and
cause structural failure of the right wing rear spar."
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3858 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8420 times:
Thanks for the interesting and comprehensive extra information.I landed in EWR
the next day and parked at the International terminal, the wreckage was quite
a sight, incredible that everyone survived.
I still think the aircraft is suspect though, with it's Horizontal stabilizer sized significantly smaller than the -10 to save fuel, it's stability, even with the artificial augmentation system is not as good as it should be.
That, combined with one of the fastest approach speeds and a significantly heavier aircraft all contributed to the problem in EWR and HKG.
To put it another way 747's have survived worse without the entire wing breaking off.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Notar520AC From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1606 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8409 times:
It's not how safe the airplane is, because for the most part, if they're maintained they fly perfectly, but how smart the pilot is to not do anything stupid. Trust me, you'll be fine. MD-11's a great jet.
Mjsmigel From United States of America, joined Oct 2002, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8431 times:
Anyone remember how scary the DC-10 was back in 1979 after that string of crashes and accidents? I took my first DC-10 flight eleven years later, fully aware of its track record (AA from DFW-LAS). As we went through the takeoff roll, we aborted very close to V1. According to the captain it was a cargo door indication that caused the abort. Very weird twist.
We were on our way again about an hour later... no problems, and a great flight. Enjoyed hearing those older high-bypass engines chewing through the air.