HK MD-11 Accident InquiryReview published.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HK MD-11 Accident InquiryReview published.
The Board of Review Report has - finally - been published having apparently sat on the HK Chief Executive's desk for some weeks while the government gurus debated whether publication was in the public interest.
Predictably the Review endorsed the findings of the original Accident Report ..
Today's Sunday SCMP has a quote attributed to the captain of the ill fated aircraft, Gerardo Lettich, to the effect that he was a "scapegoat" in the findings.
Despite the Chairman promising to do so it appears that the Review Board did not even have the courtesy to send Capt. Lettich a copy of the review findings.
The report and the review findings can be accessed at this URL
http://www.info.gov.hk/cad/english/news.html
Predictably the Review endorsed the findings of the original Accident Report ..
Today's Sunday SCMP has a quote attributed to the captain of the ill fated aircraft, Gerardo Lettich, to the effect that he was a "scapegoat" in the findings.
Despite the Chairman promising to do so it appears that the Review Board did not even have the courtesy to send Capt. Lettich a copy of the review findings.
The report and the review findings can be accessed at this URL
http://www.info.gov.hk/cad/english/news.html
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report strikes me as rather too focused on blaming the Captain.
Afterall, he wasn't the only pilot in the vicinity at the time. If the (none too subtle) inference of the report is that he shouldn't have tried to land in the first place (because of the hostile ambient conditions) - then what does that say about all the other aircraft that did the same thing (tried to land) but were fortunate/lucky enough to get away with it?
The point that he did not arrest the sink rate, overlooks the well known fact that windshear sometimes overwhelms aerodynamics. That he 'did not' does not mean the same thing as 'he did not try'. And thus, if this airport is subject to unescapable windshear - what the hell is it still operating (full steam ahead) during typhoons for?
My F/O summed it up for me yesterday. "He (Lettich) tried too hard to get in"
My view is that this airport is dangerous in windy conditions. If the CAD is blithely going to 'blame the pilot', then the solution is simple. I most certainly am not going to try at all to get in here in poor conditions in future. I will make a token effort and shamelessly divert.
Afterall, he wasn't the only pilot in the vicinity at the time. If the (none too subtle) inference of the report is that he shouldn't have tried to land in the first place (because of the hostile ambient conditions) - then what does that say about all the other aircraft that did the same thing (tried to land) but were fortunate/lucky enough to get away with it?
The point that he did not arrest the sink rate, overlooks the well known fact that windshear sometimes overwhelms aerodynamics. That he 'did not' does not mean the same thing as 'he did not try'. And thus, if this airport is subject to unescapable windshear - what the hell is it still operating (full steam ahead) during typhoons for?
My F/O summed it up for me yesterday. "He (Lettich) tried too hard to get in"
My view is that this airport is dangerous in windy conditions. If the CAD is blithely going to 'blame the pilot', then the solution is simple. I most certainly am not going to try at all to get in here in poor conditions in future. I will make a token effort and shamelessly divert.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Film clip of accident at:
http://streaming.scmp.com/aircrash/C...ne_crash1f.avi
(Server sometimes slow/funky....keep trying)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A bad combination of weather, get-there-itis, less than superior airmanship, and a very unforgiving aircraft.......the truly amazing aspect is the limited loss of life resulting from this accident. After looking at the photos, it is just incredible that more people were not hurt/killed.
http://streaming.scmp.com/aircrash/C...ne_crash1f.avi
(Server sometimes slow/funky....keep trying)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A bad combination of weather, get-there-itis, less than superior airmanship, and a very unforgiving aircraft.......the truly amazing aspect is the limited loss of life resulting from this accident. After looking at the photos, it is just incredible that more people were not hurt/killed.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hials,
Almost every (latest) accident's with the DC-10 and MD-11 were in poor weather conditions. Most of the times with windshears near or at the rwy track. Sometimes you just have to seek for your alternate. On the other hand, if that right wing didn't hit the rwy, nobody would have had this discussion right now.
(Btw, does somebody know what's is like in a full motion sim, can you really simulate this carefully?)
Edit: It looks very much the same as the MP DC-10 crash at LPFR in 1992. Also leaving the AT on with gusty winds. I thought MD and/-or Boeing changed this in manual operation off the trottle in such conditions.
Almost every (latest) accident's with the DC-10 and MD-11 were in poor weather conditions. Most of the times with windshears near or at the rwy track. Sometimes you just have to seek for your alternate. On the other hand, if that right wing didn't hit the rwy, nobody would have had this discussion right now.
(Btw, does somebody know what's is like in a full motion sim, can you really simulate this carefully?)
Edit: It looks very much the same as the MP DC-10 crash at LPFR in 1992. Also leaving the AT on with gusty winds. I thought MD and/-or Boeing changed this in manual operation off the trottle in such conditions.
Last edited by wingview; 8th Feb 2005 at 01:10.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The captain speaks.....
Sunday, February 6, 2005 · Last updated 7:42 a.m. PT
Pilot in fatal 1999 China Airlines crash blames Boeing plane
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HONG KONG -- The pilot on a 1999 China Airlines flight that flipped on
landing here and killed three people blames the Boeing plane for the
accident and says politics prompted the government report that found him at
fault, a newspaper reported Sunday.
"There is a problem with that aircraft - ask any pilot and they will say the
same," Gerardo Lettich was quoted by the South China Morning Post as saying
about the Boeing MD-11 he piloted.
Lettich, 63, said declining MD-11 sales are proof it is problematic, the
Post reported.
"In reality, the industry delivered its own verdict, because the MD-11 has
disappeared from the aircraft market. This was the real condemnation,"
Lettich was quoted as saying from his home in Italy.
A Hong Kong government report released Friday said Lettich failed to control
the plane's rapid rate of descent as it landed during a tropical storm with
300 people aboard.
The aircraft tilted to the right, its right wing clipping the runway and
rupturing the wing's fuel tank, sparking an explosion, the report said. The
accident killed three and seriously injured 50 people.
Hong Kong-based Boeing Co. spokesman Mark Hooper said the company deferred
to the government report and declined further comment.
Taiwanese carrier China Airlines says weather was a main cause of the
accident. The airline has one of the worst safety records in the world, with
10 fatal crashes since 1970.
Lettich said in his interview with the Post that he was made the scapegoat
because no one was willing to take on Boeing.
"It was all down to the balance of power. On one side there was China
Airlines and me. On the other side was the Hong Kong authority, and more
importantly, Boeing. It was very, very important for Boeing not be put on
trial," he was quoted as saying.
Sunday, February 6, 2005 · Last updated 7:42 a.m. PT
Pilot in fatal 1999 China Airlines crash blames Boeing plane
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HONG KONG -- The pilot on a 1999 China Airlines flight that flipped on
landing here and killed three people blames the Boeing plane for the
accident and says politics prompted the government report that found him at
fault, a newspaper reported Sunday.
"There is a problem with that aircraft - ask any pilot and they will say the
same," Gerardo Lettich was quoted by the South China Morning Post as saying
about the Boeing MD-11 he piloted.
Lettich, 63, said declining MD-11 sales are proof it is problematic, the
Post reported.
"In reality, the industry delivered its own verdict, because the MD-11 has
disappeared from the aircraft market. This was the real condemnation,"
Lettich was quoted as saying from his home in Italy.
A Hong Kong government report released Friday said Lettich failed to control
the plane's rapid rate of descent as it landed during a tropical storm with
300 people aboard.
The aircraft tilted to the right, its right wing clipping the runway and
rupturing the wing's fuel tank, sparking an explosion, the report said. The
accident killed three and seriously injured 50 people.
Hong Kong-based Boeing Co. spokesman Mark Hooper said the company deferred
to the government report and declined further comment.
Taiwanese carrier China Airlines says weather was a main cause of the
accident. The airline has one of the worst safety records in the world, with
10 fatal crashes since 1970.
Lettich said in his interview with the Post that he was made the scapegoat
because no one was willing to take on Boeing.
"It was all down to the balance of power. On one side there was China
Airlines and me. On the other side was the Hong Kong authority, and more
importantly, Boeing. It was very, very important for Boeing not be put on
trial," he was quoted as saying.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In reality, the industry delivered its own verdict, because the MD-11 has
disappeared from the aircraft market. This was the real condemnation,"
Lettich was quoted as saying from his home in Italy.
disappeared from the aircraft market. This was the real condemnation,"
Lettich was quoted as saying from his home in Italy.
So let me get this right: he's near max landing weight, 30 feet AGL, 4 degree pitch up, sink rate is 12 fps and dropping, reported crosswinds are at the limit for type on a dry runway, and shifting. So he reverses the elevator from ten degrees up to eight down, while the winds shift and he ratchets the sink rate up to 18fps to hit the runway.
And this is supposed to be all the aircraft's fault? vabbe'
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dingerx hindsight is a wonderful thing is it not?
Let me know when you can walk on water as well and then I will defer to your superior flying skills.
No one would reverse the elevator by that amount 30 feet above the ground in a widebodied a/c let alone any jet transport without what they considered just cause.
That would have to happen in the blink of an eye and the ONLY reason to do that would be windshear.
As to whether or not he should have commenced the approach is another thing, how many a/c landed safely before him, how many either discontinued the app or did'nt commence one?
Let me know when you can walk on water as well and then I will defer to your superior flying skills.
No one would reverse the elevator by that amount 30 feet above the ground in a widebodied a/c let alone any jet transport without what they considered just cause.
That would have to happen in the blink of an eye and the ONLY reason to do that would be windshear.
As to whether or not he should have commenced the approach is another thing, how many a/c landed safely before him, how many either discontinued the app or did'nt commence one?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, it sure is. Nobody intentionally makes mistakes; that's why they're called mistakes.
I don't have the number of diverts,. but, quoting the accident report:
So of the three landings attempted in the previous ten minutes, only one was unsuccessful. The odds were in his favor. For the next flight coming in, of course, the odds would be 50/50
as for the "sudden elevator reversal" being used to counter windshear, this very well could have been a case where superior flying skills were irrelevant.
Maybe they were setting up a pro-Boeing kangaroo court in HK, but after a serious event like this, does it bother anyone else that the only interview the captain (a former MD-11 training captain "for a major national carrier" in Europe) gives is to the press, and in that interview, places the blame on the equipment?
I don't have the number of diverts,. but, quoting the accident report:
ATC recorded all missed approaches (or ‘go-arounds’) and landings
at HKIA. During the early afternoon, when a crosswind of
35-45 kt prevailed and RW 07R was in use, ATC reported that there
had been many go-arounds because of the weather conditions, and
only occasional successful landings. Following go-arounds by
three successive aircraft between 0727 hr and 0742 hr, and with the
wind observed as backing to northwesterly, the runway was changed
to 25L. Two further go-arounds followed, but the successful
landing rate then improved so that in the period between 0947 hr
and the accident at 1043 hr, six aircraft landed and only one had to
go-around, the latter occurring at 1034 hr.
at HKIA. During the early afternoon, when a crosswind of
35-45 kt prevailed and RW 07R was in use, ATC reported that there
had been many go-arounds because of the weather conditions, and
only occasional successful landings. Following go-arounds by
three successive aircraft between 0727 hr and 0742 hr, and with the
wind observed as backing to northwesterly, the runway was changed
to 25L. Two further go-arounds followed, but the successful
landing rate then improved so that in the period between 0947 hr
and the accident at 1043 hr, six aircraft landed and only one had to
go-around, the latter occurring at 1034 hr.
as for the "sudden elevator reversal" being used to counter windshear, this very well could have been a case where superior flying skills were irrelevant.
Maybe they were setting up a pro-Boeing kangaroo court in HK, but after a serious event like this, does it bother anyone else that the only interview the captain (a former MD-11 training captain "for a major national carrier" in Europe) gives is to the press, and in that interview, places the blame on the equipment?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not familiar with MD-11 landing techniques myself, but maybe those of you who are could inform us if it is standard practice to actively 'de-rotate' the a/c on touchdown? I know this is taught on certain wide-bodies with bogey undercarriage. It might explain a large elevator down input.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pax I've been in and out of Chep Lap Kok a fair number of times now. Two landings stick in my mind. One was in a BA 744 in the middle of a typhoon (and just before they finally closed the airport down for 3 hours). The sea below the aircraft during final approach was an extraordinary maelstrom, and yet the touchdown was textbook smooth. When I commented on this to the captain before disembarking, he noted that the wind direction had been right down the runway, which had helped things considerably!
Other was in a VS 343 in which I had been privileged to have a flightdeck visit (just pre911) and hear about the differences in landing at Chep vs KaiTak. The key point that the VS crew made was that Chep suffers hugely from wind rotors when the direction is from the island, so even a modest amount of crosswind can make things extremely unpredicatable if the wind has come over the mountains and is spinning vertically. Their view was that this can make Chep a much greater landing challenge than KaiTak even in modest wind conditions.
I wonder just how well modern simulators can reproduce windrotor conditions on final approach?
Other was in a VS 343 in which I had been privileged to have a flightdeck visit (just pre911) and hear about the differences in landing at Chep vs KaiTak. The key point that the VS crew made was that Chep suffers hugely from wind rotors when the direction is from the island, so even a modest amount of crosswind can make things extremely unpredicatable if the wind has come over the mountains and is spinning vertically. Their view was that this can make Chep a much greater landing challenge than KaiTak even in modest wind conditions.
I wonder just how well modern simulators can reproduce windrotor conditions on final approach?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is it that tends to flip over DC10/MD11s, or at least break the wing on hard landings? We have this, the Martinair crash in 92, FedEx in 97 and a couple of others, I believe. NTSB once expressed concern about certification standards for landing gear, and the fact that this type, as well 757/767, accounts for a gear failure mode in the rearward direction, but not in the upward, which may have a role in the gear on hard landings snapping off the wing. So what's the culprit, some tendency in these planes to lure pilots into over-hard landings, or an inadquate gear failure mode, or a combination?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MD-11 autothrottle system (ATS) reduces to idle at 50ft agl independently if the airplane is on a correct pitch angle and landing flare. During crosswind and/or downdraft conditions it’s highly recommended to control the power to avoid a situation where airspeed and rate of descent can increase with the throttles at idle. At or below Vref elevator control is almost nil and a bounced landing is unavoidable. A proper recovery is: increase thrust until GA, if required, and keeping pitch angle not more than 7.5 degrees nose up with wings level. However with an extremely high sink rate an unpredictable consequence, like a wing or gear break up, can be really expected. Additionally, LSAS is unserviceable below 100ft, and pilot has complete manual elevator control.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LSAS is unserviceable below 100ft, and pilot has complete manual elevator control.
- The autothrottles can be manually overridden. But better to just click them off.
- An advanced landing technique described in the manual is to decrease pitch by about one degree after establishing in the flare. This slows descent of the aft mounted mains. Full elevator obviously not required.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, pilot can override the ATS anytime during landing flare even with the system engaged and therefore he/she must be ready to take corrective action in case of high sink rate below 50ft (well, it’s highly recommended at least). Note: the autocall system really helps during landing flare, but pilots have to pay attention in case of callouts faster than usual and it isn’t abnormal to hear when the system skips from 50ft directly to 10ft… if the landing flare is not properly executed at 10ft a hard touchdown can really be expected. Power reduction (in auto) is almost imperceptible and engines noise is completely inexistent on the flight deck, as well. Additionally, it’s not unusual to see a sink rate increase during the runway alignment (compulsory procedure) after an approach using a large crab angle.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Under the Bovingdon hold
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember the exact details, but the NTSB report on the crash of the FDX -11 at Newark concluded that, although the aircraft was correctly certificated to 1970s regs, the wing strength where the spar and undercarriage meet was pretty marginal.
Basically it takes very little to exceed the design strength of the wing at the root with a high sink rate at touchdown, especially if the touchdown is on one side.
So any mis-handling or weather induced sink can cause the wing to fail, causing the aircraft to turn turtle, a la Martinair/Fedex/Mandarin.
Perhaps someone can find the NTSB docket?
Basically it takes very little to exceed the design strength of the wing at the root with a high sink rate at touchdown, especially if the touchdown is on one side.
So any mis-handling or weather induced sink can cause the wing to fail, causing the aircraft to turn turtle, a la Martinair/Fedex/Mandarin.
Perhaps someone can find the NTSB docket?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would an MD-11 person expand on the difference between the 907 and 908 FCC software packages? Both FedEx EWR and China Airlines accident aircraft were operating with the 907 software package. To my knowledge, there has not been a similar accident since most aircraft upgraded to 908 software (and training with lessons learned from the two accidents).
Seems like electrons have to help that tiny tail do its job.
Seems like electrons have to help that tiny tail do its job.
Shore Guy-you anticipated my question.
Isn't the MD-11's horizontal stabilizer about 30% smaller than on the DC-10? Was this planned for weight/drag reduction? Someone claimed that the plane has a very aft cg compared to other large planes.
The unfortunate Captain in the Newark accident received all of the official blame, but could there have documentation of tiny cracks in the landing gear, which the NTSB never read about?
Isn't the MD-11's horizontal stabilizer about 30% smaller than on the DC-10? Was this planned for weight/drag reduction? Someone claimed that the plane has a very aft cg compared to other large planes.
The unfortunate Captain in the Newark accident received all of the official blame, but could there have documentation of tiny cracks in the landing gear, which the NTSB never read about?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. CG on the MD11 is variable. On takeoff and landing it is based on how you load it. Once in the flight levels, fuel is transferred into a tank in the tail until CG is ~2% ahead of aft limit.
My former employer once had a DC-10-30 and an MD11F fly virtually in formation from Seoul to Anchorage. The MD11 burned 20,000 lb. less fuel (and carried 20,000 lb. more cargo).
2. The tail is 1/3 smaller than the -10; an LSAS system is on full-time to compensate. The same as the L1011-500, I think.
3. The new flight control load keeps the LSAS in the loop all the way until touchdown (prior load cancelled it at 50'). Also, the algorithms were changed to increase pilot control. (The PF in Newark also went full deflection on elevator ... but it's still his fault, right?)
My former employer once had a DC-10-30 and an MD11F fly virtually in formation from Seoul to Anchorage. The MD11 burned 20,000 lb. less fuel (and carried 20,000 lb. more cargo).
2. The tail is 1/3 smaller than the -10; an LSAS system is on full-time to compensate. The same as the L1011-500, I think.
3. The new flight control load keeps the LSAS in the loop all the way until touchdown (prior load cancelled it at 50'). Also, the algorithms were changed to increase pilot control. (The PF in Newark also went full deflection on elevator ... but it's still his fault, right?)
