ZSPD Cargo Plane Crash
All ths talk of aircraft performance quirks is of no use unless it relates to the facts at hand. It strikes me of bathroom arguments about mine's bigger between octogenariams
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LGW
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never flown the MD11. But what is the difference in loading between the DC10 and MD11?
Is there any chance that the loaders have loaded the MD11 with DC10 load instructions?
Not trying to blame anyone. However on some stations were we operate the A300 on a regular basis if you turn up with an A330 the loading is done for an A300 as that is what they expect.
Is there any chance that the loaders have loaded the MD11 with DC10 load instructions?
Not trying to blame anyone. However on some stations were we operate the A300 on a regular basis if you turn up with an A330 the loading is done for an A300 as that is what they expect.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck, Lederhosen,
thanks for the confirmation; and I don't want to speculate any further. The accident happened, the result is here, tragic as it is.
Based on Huck's info I hope that there was no human error involved.
Based on Regulatory I hope it was not the machine's fault.
Based on experience with load masters I hope it was not the load masters fault either.
Just on a side note: outfits create their SOP's based on manufacturer's recommendations. I haven't seen many outfits with their SOP's outside manufacturers specs. So I would safely assume the SOP's were, bluntly said, OK.
thanks for the confirmation; and I don't want to speculate any further. The accident happened, the result is here, tragic as it is.
Based on Huck's info I hope that there was no human error involved.
Based on Regulatory I hope it was not the machine's fault.
Based on experience with load masters I hope it was not the load masters fault either.
Just on a side note: outfits create their SOP's based on manufacturer's recommendations. I haven't seen many outfits with their SOP's outside manufacturers specs. So I would safely assume the SOP's were, bluntly said, OK.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: By the Sea
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take-off performance
All the banter about one type being better or worse than another probably doesn't apply to this accident. There have been many incidents and accidents where the take-off performance was miscalculated, for example by entering an incorrect take-off weight. Some of these have resulted in tradgedy, others have luckily been avoided with an embarresing tail scrape. My point is that on a large aircraft, the manufacturer expects you to get the sums right. You will not be flying at speeds and power settings that were calculated for a vastly lighter condition.
I don't know how this operator was calculating their perofmance, or what kind of cross checking they had in place. Not having flown the MD11, I am stabbing a bit in the dark, but even with the notorious centre engine failing, the a/c should have had the performance after V1 to continue flying?
I am not suggesting that a miscalculation of the take-off weight was the cause of this accident, but should it turn out to be, then it really doesn't matter which type you are operating - it just isn't going to work.
I don't know how this operator was calculating their perofmance, or what kind of cross checking they had in place. Not having flown the MD11, I am stabbing a bit in the dark, but even with the notorious centre engine failing, the a/c should have had the performance after V1 to continue flying?
I am not suggesting that a miscalculation of the take-off weight was the cause of this accident, but should it turn out to be, then it really doesn't matter which type you are operating - it just isn't going to work.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard from MD-11 flight crew that a #2 failure at hi-speed can cause the aircraft to autorotate (due drag induced)
Huck, could you confirm this one?
Current Limiter,
What's "notorious" about the centre engine?
Huck, could you confirm this one?
Current Limiter,
What's "notorious" about the centre engine?
Last edited by Flightmech; 3rd Dec 2009 at 17:50.
Thanks for the clarification Huck, happy to accept when I am wrong. However given that Gemini ceased operations in 2008 my general premise about currency might not prove to be so far off the mark.
The co-pilot, who fortunately seems to have survived, is described as being 61 and would until recently have been a retiree in your part of the world.
The old saying 'If I do not fly for a week I notice it, two weeks and my colleagues notice it, three weeks the passengers/in this case the authorities notice it' does hold some truth. I expect some expert will point out that this does not apply to real pilots, but whatever.
The co-pilot, who fortunately seems to have survived, is described as being 61 and would until recently have been a retiree in your part of the world.
The old saying 'If I do not fly for a week I notice it, two weeks and my colleagues notice it, three weeks the passengers/in this case the authorities notice it' does hold some truth. I expect some expert will point out that this does not apply to real pilots, but whatever.
Last edited by lederhosen; 3rd Dec 2009 at 19:23.
I' ve never flown MD11 but I have some expirience in DC10.
I did the two engine ferry flight training and i've flown one of those flights with the engine N#2 shot down.
In that case, the elevator trim must be in 0 because the tendency of the aircraft to pitch up during the take off roll.
There was a warning in the DC10 AOM in case of engine #2 failure during TO to be aware of the change of pitch an the chance to have a tail strike.
I guess the MD11 must be similar.
I did the two engine ferry flight training and i've flown one of those flights with the engine N#2 shot down.
In that case, the elevator trim must be in 0 because the tendency of the aircraft to pitch up during the take off roll.
There was a warning in the DC10 AOM in case of engine #2 failure during TO to be aware of the change of pitch an the chance to have a tail strike.
I guess the MD11 must be similar.
Cue another expert, come on Nubian admit it, you just read the first line of the Wikipedia entry for MK. If there was any depth to your knowledge about MK you would know their links to Zim. Clue: where did Mr Kruger and quite a lot of his original employees come from?
Our turboprop friend Clandestino and your good self seem to have mastered the search function on the internet. But you have failed to convince me that my suggestions of various directions to look (and they are no more than that) are completely wrong.
Our turboprop friend Clandestino and your good self seem to have mastered the search function on the internet. But you have failed to convince me that my suggestions of various directions to look (and they are no more than that) are completely wrong.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The survivor, Bill J., was the chief pilot for the carrier's new MD11 operation and an instructor.
I've read that he was in the jumpseat. No doubt giving "IOE" to the flying crew, though maybe they were also planning to swap seats for the second leg.
Yes the #2 can cause a pitch up when it fails. Combine that with an aft CG and I guess that could cause the tail strike that was reported.
It has also been rumored that the #2 had some issues upon delivery to the airline.
But here's what I see:
a good weather day,
a long runway,
a sea-level airport,
an aircraft that flies just fine on two engines,
a crew with ~7 years experience on the aircraft (though, as pointed out,
unknown recency of experience),
tire marks visible leading off the runway onto a flat field,
followed by an immense conflagration/explosion, even though they were
quickly met by many many fire trucks.
The wreckage to me just looks too devastating for the V1 cut/ overrun scenario. If it WAS an engine failure, why couldn't they get it stopped?
I've read that he was in the jumpseat. No doubt giving "IOE" to the flying crew, though maybe they were also planning to swap seats for the second leg.
Yes the #2 can cause a pitch up when it fails. Combine that with an aft CG and I guess that could cause the tail strike that was reported.
It has also been rumored that the #2 had some issues upon delivery to the airline.
But here's what I see:
a good weather day,
a long runway,
a sea-level airport,
an aircraft that flies just fine on two engines,
a crew with ~7 years experience on the aircraft (though, as pointed out,
unknown recency of experience),
tire marks visible leading off the runway onto a flat field,
followed by an immense conflagration/explosion, even though they were
quickly met by many many fire trucks.
The wreckage to me just looks too devastating for the V1 cut/ overrun scenario. If it WAS an engine failure, why couldn't they get it stopped?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Huck: It was earlier mentioned in the news by eyewitness(es) that the airplane was off the ground, so more like a post Vr cut, [as TWA TriStar at JFK].
http://www.jacdec.de/info/2009-11-28_Z-BAV.pdf
http://www.jacdec.de/info/2009-11-28_Z-BAV.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vermont
Age: 73
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have investigated the MD-11 for some time and come to the following conclusions. McDonnell-Douglas attempted to revive their fortunes on the cheap by stretching and repowering the DC-10, rather than starting with a clean sheet. They were not willing to design a new wing, with the result that the MD-11 has the highest wing loading and the highest landing/takeoff speeds of any airliner (except Concorde). Also, since they were reusing the DC-10 wing they tried to improve the efficiency by moving the CG aft so it would require a smaller horizontal stabilizer, and tried to compensate for the reduced stability via software. Also, the outer main gear struts mount under the main wing spar instead of behind them (which I believe every other airliner except for the DC-10 does) which means that when the plane lands excessively hard on one gear the wing spar tends to break instead of the gear shearing off. This results in the plane rolling on its back and catching fire; this has happened three times now to the MD-11, and to the best of my knowledge has NEVER happened to any other airliner. It also has had several high speed upsets, with at least one resulting in fatalities. I have never flown an airliner (I am a private pilot) but from what I have read from pilots who have flown it it is much more difficult to fly than any other airliner, especially on landing and takeoff. I believe that there is a reason why Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, Airbus, and every other transport builder came to roughly the same conclusion as to how much stability was required; my suspicion is that McDonnell, from their experience with fighters, thought they could use some of it to cut a corner on the MD-11 and get away with less. I think that the accident statistics say that it was a poor choice. Whether or not this latest accident had anything to do with the unusual handling characteristics of the MD-11 is completely unclear at this point; we will have to wait to see what the investigation uncovers. But as to the string of accidents on the MD-11 officially ascribed to "pilot error;" I put it that since pilots seem to be able to fly all other jetliners day in and day out without committing these same errors, either the MD-11 is much more difficult to fly than any other jetliner, or it attracts far more than its share of incompetent pilots. I think the former is far more likely.
China and crash reports?
As usual, it´s up to the authorities of the country where the accident took place to lead the investigation and publish a report. This NTSB press release clearly says all communication will be handled by the Chinese CAA:
Press Advisory
There have naturally been several accidents in China over the years but I could not find any mention of a crash report they´d ever published. The Chinese CAA´s website has a link to a supposedly English version but it´s "under construction". I wonder if the NTSB will publish something in English, like a preliminary report within the usual 30 days or so? Anybody ever seen a crash report by the Chinese authorities anywhere?
Press Advisory
There have naturally been several accidents in China over the years but I could not find any mention of a crash report they´d ever published. The Chinese CAA´s website has a link to a supposedly English version but it´s "under construction". I wonder if the NTSB will publish something in English, like a preliminary report within the usual 30 days or so? Anybody ever seen a crash report by the Chinese authorities anywhere?
Thanks for the very informative posts Huck and Tie Domi. So if the number 2 engine failed after V1 it might cause the nose to rise prematurely and a tailstrike, with the unfortunate crew committed to continue.
With the end of the runway looming fast, it is possible that the pilot flying might pull further, rather than push and trim forward, thus making things worse, particularly if he were not particularly current. The aircraft justs makes it into the air and then sinks back hard with the ensuing high energy crash.
This is all just rumour and speculation, which is after all what Pprune is about. But it is a possible scenario.
With the end of the runway looming fast, it is possible that the pilot flying might pull further, rather than push and trim forward, thus making things worse, particularly if he were not particularly current. The aircraft justs makes it into the air and then sinks back hard with the ensuing high energy crash.
This is all just rumour and speculation, which is after all what Pprune is about. But it is a possible scenario.
Another thing to consider in this scenario is the training for Engine #2 failure.
We usually train for engine 1 or 3 failure during TO but it is very seldom to train for the engine #2.
In 5 years flying the DC10, I would say only two or three times I had trained for engine 2 failures and I don't remember any sim check where the Check Pilot had requested that manouvere.
We usually train for engine 1 or 3 failure during TO but it is very seldom to train for the engine #2.
In 5 years flying the DC10, I would say only two or three times I had trained for engine 2 failures and I don't remember any sim check where the Check Pilot had requested that manouvere.
There have been lots of #2 engine failures on the DC10-11 over the years with succesful outcomes. And of course the aircraft is certified to take off with an engine out.
If the tailstrike is factual, then we're looking for something a lot more than an engine out scenario.
If the tailstrike is factual, then we're looking for something a lot more than an engine out scenario.