Since time has passed since some high-profile FedEx MD-11 crashes, have changes mandated by the FAA to the Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company now made the aircraft safe during takeoffs and landings? I realize this aircraft is no longer used for passenger transportation.

convair880mfan wrote:

have changes mandated by the FAA

Can you provide a link to a site that specifies what these changes were?

convair880mfan wrote:

safe

safer

For some reason my "linker" is not working. The changes are actually NTSB recommendations described on pages 72-74 on the NTSB Aircraft Accident Report "Crash During Landing FedEx, Inc. McDonnell Douglas MD-11, N611-FE Newark International Airport Newark New Jeresy [sic] July 31, 1991. Does that help?

fr8mech wrote:

convair880mfan wrote:

safe

safer

I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.

Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.

The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.

Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.

My father was friends with a CEO of a major airline. They were visiting each other once and I heard the CEO say: "Safety is about how many fatalities we can suffer in a year and still convince the traveling public that we are "safe." I was surprised by his comment which seemed to me to be pretty mercenary. I agree with the previous post in the sense that safety is not a two value situation but constitutes a range of values. On the other hand, aviation authorities have to have some kind of criteria in the end before they certify an airliner. Safety may constitute a range but a plane is either certified to fly or not. Sometimes aviation authorities of one country will certify an aircraft while the aviation authorities of another country will demand changes before they will certify the same aircraft. I think there have been some differences, for example, in how the FAA and JAA have certified certain types.

The MD-11 is a perfectly safe airplane when flown properly and when it has an IFE system not prone to catching fire.

convair880mfan wrote:

My father was friends with a CEO of a major airline. They were visiting each other once and I heard the CEO say: "Safety is about how many fatalities we can suffer in a year and still convince the traveling public that we are "safe." I was surprised by his comment which seemed to me to be pretty mercenary. I agree with the previous post in the sense that safety is not a two value situation but constitutes a range of values. On the other hand, aviation authorities have to have some kind of criteria in the end before they certify an airliner. Safety may constitute a range but a plane is either certified to fly or not. Sometimes aviation authorities of one country will certify an aircraft while the aviation authorities of another country will demand changes before they will certify the same aircraft. I think there have been some differences, for example, in how the FAA and JAA have certified certain types.

In what year was the attributed quote said?

dennypayne wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

convair880mfan wrote:

safe

safer

I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.

Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.

The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.

Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.

To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.

Statistical analysis. That’s the one.

Zeke2517 wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

safer

I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.

Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.

The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.

Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.

To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.

Statistical analysis. That’s the one.

Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.

Aaron747 wrote:

Zeke2517 wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

I have to say this is one of my biggest pet peeves with discussions about safety. I feel like there are way too many questions of the form “Is XYZ safe” - as if there is a “Safe-o-meter” that can give any sort of sensible answer to that question.

Safety is a culture that needs to permeate design and operation of any complex equipment. It’s not a binary state of being. To me, any question or statement that attempts to designate it as such is not well thought out.

The MD-11 has safely operated many thousands of flights over decades of service. Additional knowledge/refinement of training has added to the ability to continue operating it safely.

Also - NTSB recommendations are not in any way the same as FAA mandates.

To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.

Statistical analysis. That’s the one.

Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.

Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.

Zeke2517 wrote:

It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.

Actually, there is a big difference, semantics aside.

“Unsafe” tends to be an objective determination. If an aircraft is deemed unsafe it will not be allowed to fly. If an air carrier is deemed unsafe they would not be allowed to operate.

“Less safe” is a relative term. An aircraft that is less safe than a comparable aircraft can still be safe.

N1120A wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Zeke2517 wrote:

To be fair, I think there is a safe-o-meter, they just call it something much more official sounding. It’s how airlines deemed the MD-11 to be unsafe (or less safe, for you fans of semantics, but the effect is the same) in the first place all those years ago.

Statistical analysis. That’s the one.

Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.

Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.

Yes, there’s no concern by passenger airlines now as none operate MD11’s anymore !

N1120A wrote:

Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.

Indeed. The MD-11 did not have the DC-10 like stigma to its reputation regarding safety. Had the 1996 performance been delivered in 1991, perhaps AA takes delivery of all 50, SQ keeps their order, and the ultimate MD-11 production total is a lot closer to that of the DC-10 (446 vs 200).

As it were, McDD clearly should have marketed a lower performing “A” version for the early delivery slots, similar to Boeing with the 772A or original 1993 vintage A343 for Airbus. As both lacked considerably compared to the later 77E and A343E. The difference of course being the performance disparities having been baked-in weren’t a surprise, and thus unlike the MD-11, confidence from the operator’s was retained.

Max Q wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Pretty sure the B777 and A340's superior performance on similar missions had more of an impact.

Superior performance and actually meeting, or exceeding, what was promised. The MD-11 required several modifications to ultimately meet its targets and become quite a good airplane for what it was. There is a reason the MD-11 initially outsold both the 777 and A340 - because it had incredible projected numbers that it failed to meet until like 5 years in service. There was literally no concern that MD-11s were going to kill a bunch of passengers, and there still aren't.

Yes, there’s no concern by passenger airlines now as none operate MD11’s anymore !

Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.

N1120A wrote:

Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.

Yes and no.

It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.

N1120A wrote:

The MD-11 is a perfectly safe airplane when flown properly and when it has an IFE system not prone to catching fire.

Just mentioning the IFE and glossing over the other shortcomings of the MD-11 is lazy analysis.

The MD-11's landing attributes are FUNDAMENTALLY different than any other widely currently operated jet transport aircraft. If you don't believe it, ask Fedex or the MD--11 operators conferences that happen all the time. I think the MD-11 training program is like 4 months long with 3 or 4 checkride style events at Fedex.

The why has been hashed out many times...but ultimately the MD-11 was certified towards the edges of the Part 25 certification envelope, in a way that likely wouldn't be accepted today by aviation authorities.

Can the MD-11 be flown safely? Absolutely.

Does it have been flown with a level of diligence that likely exceeds other transport category aircraft? Absolutely.

Does this diligence likely arise from specific techniques and procedures, and improvements in technology? Absolutely.

convair880mfan wrote:

Since time has passed since some high-profile FedEx MD-11 crashes, have changes mandated by the FAA to the Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company now made the aircraft safe during takeoffs and landings? I realize this aircraft is no longer used for passenger transportation.

To this specific point, the accidents that had an operator error nexus were rigourously scrutinized and a variety of training and technology solutions were applied to add more layers of swiss cheese to the model.

FlapOperator wrote:

N1120A wrote:

The MD-11 is a perfectly safe airplane when flown properly and when it has an IFE system not prone to catching fire.

Just mentioning the IFE and glossing over the other shortcomings of the MD-11 is lazy analysis.

The MD-11's landing attributes are FUNDAMENTALLY different than any other widely currently operated jet transport aircraft. If you don't believe it, ask Fedex or the MD--11 operators conferences that happen all the time. I think the MD-11 training program is like 4 months long with 3 or 4 checkride style events at Fedex.

The why has been hashed out many times...but ultimately the MD-11 was certified towards the edges of the Part 25 certification envelope, in a way that likely wouldn't be accepted today by aviation authorities.

Can the MD-11 be flown safely? Absolutely.

Does it have been flown with a level of diligence that likely exceeds other transport category aircraft? Absolutely.

Does this diligence likely arise from specific techniques and procedures, and improvements in technology? Absolutely.

Wait - flying an aircraft by the numbers is somehow a new and special concept?

That mentality is what caused Colgan 3407, the MCAS debacle and various other totally preventable disasters.

FlapOperator wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.

Yes and no.

It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.

Are you suggesting the probable cause or recommended mitigation would have differed? Very confusing sentence.

N1120A wrote:

Wait - flying an aircraft by the numbers is somehow a new and special concept?

That mentality is what caused Colgan 3407, the MCAS debacle and various other totally preventable disasters.

Hardly.

The MD-11 has handling characteristics that far nuanced than "cross the threshold at Vref" just like the Colgan 3407 was more than just pure pilot error.

For example, the MD-11 has what's been described as a "skipping tendency" where the mains rebound just as the aircraft energy state is decaying and de-rotation is occurring. This can create the nose-wheel only landing attitude that causes a dangerous rebound and porpoise. Luftie installed a blue glareshield light for "wheels on ground" and I believe UPS and FDX have an EGPWS installation that measures a large variety of parameters in the last one hundred feet and will command a go-around if a hard landing or tail strike is being predicted.

Further, while a 767 for example can accept a significant crab at landing, McD crabbed landings (I think exclusively to the MD-10) have resulted in MLG failure.

Pitch during landing from reporting means little compared to say, the A320 (where the aircraft is actively commanding a nose down moment to create a flare inducing pitch up command/flare inducing cue to the pilot.) I've heard multiple pilots report that pitch back in the flare just "changes the view." The reality is that large pitch and negative pitch commands that might be required in something like a 727 are hazardous in an MD-11. This is due to the large distance from the flight deck to the CG.

Thus, management of energy state is the critical element for MD-11 landings, and there is no "energy state" indicator on the flight deck, just proxies like AoA, throttle position and airspeed.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Cargo airlines are no less concerned about safety than passenger.

Yes and no.

It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.

Are you suggesting the probable cause or recommended mitigation would have differed? Very confusing sentence.

Do you believe that if Conrad Aska had killed 220 GIs returning home on Christmas leave, the public attention wouldn't have been different?

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Yes and no.

It would be hard to argue the outcome of the Atlas 3591 accident wouldn't have been far different had the death count been 220+ vs. 3.

Are you suggesting the probable cause or recommended mitigation would have differed? Very confusing sentence.

Do you believe that if Conrad Aska had killed 220 GIs returning home on Christmas leave, the public attention wouldn't have been different?

Certainly, but public attention doesn't drive the way NTSB investigates an accident, determines probable cause, or issues recommended mitigations.

I agree with Aaron that using "outcome" regarding an accident is a little confusing, at least among this audience, since "public attention" is not usually focused on anything but sensationalism - it's not really relevant in the accident investigation.

dennypayne wrote:

Certainly, but public attention doesn't drive the way NTSB investigates an accident, determines probable cause, or issues recommended mitigations.

I agree with Aaron that using "outcome" regarding an accident is a little confusing, at least among this audience, since "public attention" is not usually focused on anything but sensationalism - it's not really relevant in the accident investigation.

We can agree to disagree on the apolitical nature of the NTSB.

FlapOperator wrote:

dennypayne wrote:

Certainly, but public attention doesn't drive the way NTSB investigates an accident, determines probable cause, or issues recommended mitigations.

I agree with Aaron that using "outcome" regarding an accident is a little confusing, at least among this audience, since "public attention" is not usually focused on anything but sensationalism - it's not really relevant in the accident investigation.

We can agree to disagree on the apolitical nature of the NTSB.

Whether or not an organization has political pressures does not obviously impact recommendations or probable cause findings based in scientific and technical inquiry. If you have specific evidence otherwise, let’s have it.

Aaron747 wrote:

Whether or not an organization has political pressures does not obviously impact recommendations or probable cause findings based in scientific and technical inquiry. If you have specific evidence otherwise, let’s have it.

So you think the 737 Rudder Hardover inquires were just a pure scientific and technical inquiry?

Like I said, I don't know your experience in the field, but let's agree to disagree.

Even to this day the NTSB won't swallow their pride about the C Springs 737 crash, and went as far as a whispering campaign against the crew at the time.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Whether or not an organization has political pressures does not obviously impact recommendations or probable cause findings based in scientific and technical inquiry. If you have specific evidence otherwise, let’s have it.

So you think the 737 Rudder Hardover inquires were just a pure scientific and technical inquiry?

Like I said, I don't know your experience in the field, but let's agree to disagree.

Even to this day the NTSB won't swallow their pride about the C Springs 737 crash, and went as far as a whispering campaign against the crew at the time.

I thought we were talking about Atlas 3591....now we're suddenly time traveling to 1991?

The MD11 has a very poor accident record, it has a long history of problems due to its unforgiving characteristics caused by poor design


By normal standards it has been a very unsafe aircraft

Considering they're mostly parked - very safe.

Wacker1000 wrote:

Considering they're mostly parked - very safe.

Other than the Western Global aircraft, I don't know if that assessment holds water. Considering that about just under half built (FDX's 55 or so, UPS' 35 or so, and WGA's cats and dogs) are flying over 20 years after the last delivery, and all of this an orphan airframe from a merged company, I think this speaks highly of the aircraft in its niche. Even compared to a 777, its good, fast load hauler. It will very likely outlive the A340 in a meaningful fashion in comparable service.

Frankly, in an alternative universe where the MD-12 is launched, the -11 likely would have gone away in any case, since in the late 1980s/1990s the bigger is better for WB transports was still a reasonable scenario.

Aaron747 wrote:

I thought we were talking about Atlas 3591....now we're suddenly time traveling to 1991?

So you think the 737 Rudder Hardover inquires were just a pure scientific and technical inquiry?

Like I said, I don't know your experience in the field, but let's agree to disagree.

Even to this day the NTSB won't swallow their pride about the C Springs 737 crash, and went as far as a whispering campaign against the crew at the time.[/quote]

I thought we were talking about Atlas 3591....now we're suddenly time traveling to 1991? [/quote]

"Political" is a loaded term. In this sense, I would define apolitical in this sense as "devoid of influence from a non-safety perspective."

Just set down the goal posts for a second. The point you made was that the NTSB was largely free of political pressure, and I pointed a case where the 737 should have been fleet grounded (the first time) due to a deadly design flaw that the FAA and NTSB slow rolled until a solution was found, and then voilà a service bulletin and Mr. and Mrs. America are safe and airlines are back in business. Do you think USAir or Southwest would have accepted a fleet grounding? Do you think the NTSB knew that?

In the case of Conrad Aska specifically, the NTSB focused on the fact he was lying...not on the fact that he multiple Red Flags during training at multiple operators. Which is the more politically palatable answer? Which question doesn't ask uncomfortable questions about the nature and reliability of FAA databases, what the real impact is of multiple training failures and major airline and ACMI carrier hiring practices?

I get the reasons why that legally and regulatorily, the system is as it is. However, I think to blithely describe it as non-political is to believe in a myth of government bureaucratic impartiality and independence that isn't real.

If I missed something important tell me but I skipped down about half way thru the comments. First the Fedex crash in EWR was more complicated than just saying the -11 is dangerous. The Capt. made a significant error in his landing brief that resulted in a hard touchdown and big bounce. This was before the future policy of all hard landings will be aborted.