The MD-11s handling issues are well established- so is its nasty prediliction for flipping over.
But that does not mean that such issues caused this crash- we will all have to wait.
However, Rainboe is not wrong - the thing is a mis-configured mess. Whatever the DC-10s problems, it had a huge, full authority tailplane (stabliser for our American readers) and this was reduced in area when the MD-11 was mutated from the DC-10.
Facts are that McDonnell Douglas justified the DC-10s oversized tailplane at launch with the aerodynamic area rule principal - and wind tunnel tests to establish control authority in a heavily flapped config. In fact so oversized was the DC-10- tailplane that it suffered from spar fatigue in the mid 1980s - a series of FAA / JAA inspections followed.
So the obvious question is, if they knew why they put such a large tailplane on the thing in the first place, what kind of logic prevailed to remove it for the MD-11- a fact made worse by the MD-11s fuselage stretch and consequent need for more elevator authority due to the change in the moment arm calculus..
So they knew....
Economic ruled the day- lighter tailplane, less weight, and a computer to control its incidence....
At American Airliens they MD-11 was called' the scud' as you never knew where it was going to land.
Oh and should we be criticising this Fed Ex pilot for attitude changes as per the video that we do not know the casue of? even if he did over control the nose angle inputs, what chance did he have? Very little.
My friends at KLM were masters of the MD-11 landing technique- esp crosswind -- but even they had to practise it regualrly- they knew you see...
Holding a glider off a bounced landing (as I sometimes do) and NOT moving the stick and allowing it to settle its phugoid out without a PIO is one thing, buth that theory aint going to work on an MD-11 chaps.
Over and out...