HKG MD-11 Crash Video Released

[Doors to Automatic]

Whilst surfing another aviation forum I came across this link:

http://streaming.scmp.com/aircrash/CAL_Plane_crash1f.avi

Which apparently has only just been released and shows the horrific last moments of the MD-11 which crashed in a typhoon at Hong Kong in August 1999.

As a relative layman what amazed me about this video is that the final stages of the approach did not look unduly out of the ordinary. Yes there was a small amount of bufetting but compared to some footage I have seen (various Kai Tak, 321 at Lisbon) the aircraft looked under control. I cannot fathom what actually caused such a catastrophic end?

[planecrazi]

This is amazing and scary, everything looks OK until the last seconds!!!

[phnuff]

Hell - Whatever caused that to happen - anyone know ?

[MAN777]

Dont recall much about the incident, any links available to the accident report ? Or can anyone tell the story ?

Shocking footage.

[AAL_Silverbird]

When you click on it frame by frame the first flash of fire comes from the right inboard wing around the number three engine. It grows from there. Anyone know what happened?

[mikegreatrex]

Yes everything looks OK apart from the rain, the wind, its dark etc etc.....Why was he landing in such conditions anyway???

As a private pilot I would be on the ground somewhere else waiting....why oh why does "get home itis" appear so prevelent in commercial aviation....Lisbon A321 should have hit the toga button ages before he did....Singapore 747 in Taipei....should have been at the gate sipping coffee.

Just my thoughts...but would be interested to here the views of the professional community.

[Cuban]

Indeed, amazing footage.

I gather wind sheer caused the crash, but even looking at the
footage, while you see the wing dip suddenly, it has corrected
before the fireball?

Did it hit something on landing or was it just a delay after the
wing hit the ground before the fuel ignited?

The reason for asking was I was onboard a Pan Am 747 that
suffered an engine fire late on finals in to JFK in 1989.

We too experienced a dramatic downward pitch of wing just
feet off the runway, but the crew landed the plane safely with
seemingly no other effects other than extreme braking and cabin
projectiles.

I assumed the braking was due to the engine not being able to
be placed in reverse thrust?

[GO DIRECT]

9.09MB download

Only a guess as I don't have the report is that they may have struck the starboard engine on the runway due windshear, or did they have a starboard ubdercarriage failure? Guessing of course without the report information.

Cheers

[Doors to Automatic]

From the evidence contained within the video (and only from that) I can draw no conclusion other than it is a horrendous design fault with the aircraft - IMHO there is no evidence of pilot error at all here. (please feel free to disagree!)

[747FOCAL]

Wind shear causing the aircraft to hit to hard and forced the gear through the wings. Isn't this the same plane that the next day there were pics of it upside down and burned in the middle of two runways with another MD11 taxiing by from the same airline and the joke is the Stew telling the PAX to look out........... :confused:

[Globaliser]

From Flight (http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_archive/ar_search_details.asp?txtRecordId=171004) for 9 September (subscription access):-Row over findings of 1999 China Airlines crash inquiry leads to establishment of new body

Hong Kong's first-ever aircraft accident review board is being established to evaluate the findings of a disputed report into the fatal August 1999 crash of a China Airlines (CAL) Boeing MD-11 at Hong Kong International Airport. ...The dispute is apparently between "pilot error" (investigators) and "windshear" (airline). Because of this, the investigation report has not yet been published. No doubt there's a lot more information than this video.

One thing is clear from the video, though. It seems amazing that most of the occupants survived this, and that there were only three fatalities.

[longhaulie]

As I recall eventually it was proven that the RH strut sheared on touchdown as a result of not having been (correctly) inspected after several previous hard landings in its recent history. This relatively normal one was the final straw.

[md80forum]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/1999/990822-0.htm

[Bubbette]

Thanks for that link. Amazing more people were not injured.

[scanscanscan]

There was a video of this aircraft descending through approx 1000ft on the ILS taken by a member of the public and I saw it on Tv abroad but only once.
It sure scared me!
As a 10 year Tristar Captain to me the gyrations of this MD11 in yaw and pitch were very large and the obvious turbulence was way beyond any I had experianced in 14 years as a Tristar crew member flying into the old and new HKK airports.
The aircraft appeared to me to be about to go out of control.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I was told the Italian Captain was a new hire and had not much experiance in monsoon/storm conditions operateing in/out of the HKK area.
If so I feel really sorry for him and the weather he faced that day.
Seeing that Video on Tv has remained with me for ever.
I feel it should be shown to all pilots expected to operate in the Far East and HKK in particular.
After a series of fatalities in these conditions I feel clear advice now needs to be given that a Crew will be supported if they decide to chuck it all away and divert or indeed not leave the gate for takeoff if they feel the weather conditions too violent and approaching a level beyond their abilities.

[Bokomoko]

From the evidence contained within the video (and only from that) I can draw no conclusion other than it is a horrendous design fault with the aircraft - IMHO there is no evidence of pilot error at all here. (please feel free to disagree!)


Sorry DtA, but I have to disagree. With throttles reduction to idle at 50ft and airspeed decreasing almost 20kt prior to flare a very hard landing was definitely unavoidable. Night landing, poor visibility, MLW, low speed, high sink rate and attitude, crosswind and crab angle are a sequence that can lead to unforeseen results for any heavy jet airplane... Therefore, it's not an 'exclusive' MD11 design fault.

[av8boy]

I couldn't help but think that the pics of the aircraft inverted in the infield didn't look like a heavy. However, this picture (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=050078&WxsIERv=TWNEb25uZWxsIERvdWdsYXMgTUQtMTE%3D&WdsYXMg=TWFuZGFyaW4gQWlybGluZXM%3D&QtODMg=SG9uZyBLb25nIC0gQ2hlayBMYXAgS29rIEludGVybmF0aW9uYWwgK EhLRyAvIFZISEgp&ERDLTkt=Q2hpbmEgLSBIb25nIEtvbmc%3D&ktODMp=QXVndXN0IDE5OTk%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=VG9tbXkgVA%3D%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=Qi0xNTA%3D&MgTUQtODMgKE=VGFrZSBhIGNsb3NlIGxvb2sgb2YgdGhlIGNyYXNoZWQgQi0 xNTAu&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MjMwOTg%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MTk5OS0xMC0xMQ%3D%3D&static=yes&size=L) reminded me that we were talking about a sizeable airframe.

Only three dead out of, what was it, 317? Just amazing.

Dave

[VR-HFX]

I was not there that evening but I do recall that at the time only 25L/07R was operational as 25R/07L was not yet completed.

25L is more prone to windshear especially on a night like that with a typhoon in the area.

I seem to recall that a CX 777 did get in just prior to this accident and was on the taxiway when it saw a fireball heading its way. A quick power up and rapid exit from the taxiiway was initiated earning the skipper a trip to Seattle for the next 777 delivery.

No names but perhaps he might like to recall the events as they unfolded.

The approach looked reasonably stable to me considering the wx and X-wind/gust component but its a pretty blurred video clip.

I understand the Italian captain was exonerated although I am sure it didn't make him feel any better. As an old C&T said after the Ansett nose gear job in Sydney...not a great final entry in the log book.

There but for the Grace of God....

[Doors to Automatic]

I've watched the clip several times now and it does appear that a violent sink-rate developed from about 50ft - but surely the aircraft should be able to withstand this?

That said, as several contributors have pointed out, the video clip is blury by that point with the poor visibility of the night.

[PAXboy]

DTR... does appear that a violent sink-rate developed from about 50ft - but surely the aircraft should be able to withstand this? An early post mentioned that, the investigation revealed records showing that the airframe had had two previous hard landings and these had not been properly examined. Consequently, this landing was too much for it and the gear gave way, being thrust up through the wing rupturing cables and lines. Inevitably the No3 pod struck the ground but it was, in reality, already over by then and only a question of how the airframe would react to the natural forces unleashed by the failure of the right main gear. I sit to be corrected.

[GO DIRECT]

Hi Peeps,

Just revisiting the thread, looking at the port/left wingtip at touchdown it immediatley goes rapidly upward as if in one hell of a hard landing/bounce. Pilots or windshear thats for investigators to use onboard systems to analyse? Clearly you then see the wing going upwards as the right/starboard wing is catching on fire and then raising to the point of going vertically as the fire increase as if the right wing has almost left the aircraft, hence the inverted resting position.

Scares me that heavy landings even on some turn-rounds are logged as Inspected no fault found, should go in for NDT test or have accelerometers telling you how hard it was.

Still thats life and expense.

Cheers GD

[Shamrock107]

The photos of the aircraft lying upside down remind me of the FedEx MD 11 that had an incident at Newark (EWR) a few years back. Although the weather was not similar, I wonder if any other factors may have been in common between the two.

[Anti-ice]

Seeing that photo above with the overhead lockers crushing the tops of the seats, it is amazing that only 3 were killed out of over 300.

I realise it may not be a design fault too, but isn't the MD-11 known as a tricky machine to fly ? ?

With those swept back wings, and being i guess a little tail heavy with a small rudder, is it not a bit of a handful , particularly on landing?

Personally, i love the plane, its so unique in design and concept (though being an updated DC10).
I think it's sad that its had a relatively short career compared to many of it's contemporaries, and believe that all pax versions but a few in Asia will be converted to Cargo ops soon:(

Obviously , it never came up to its promise in terms of range/fuelburn , but nevertheless was a good idea at the time of its design stage in the 80's, till the 'twin' took over the roost.

[Dani]

What is it then to watch out if it comes to such weather? I hear a lot about tropical storms but do not know what is the difference to European weather.

Dani
Regional-Pilot

[spagiola]

Obviously , it never came up to its promise in terms of range/fuelburn ...
A common misconception. Yes, early examples fell short of advertised range, but this problem was solved and later examples met and exceeded range targets. Now that Boeing owns Douglas, it is using some of the same design approaches to extend the range of its own models.

[GO DIRECT]

Hey Dani

Bigger, more ferocious, more unpredictable, longer lasting, you name it its got it. Having flown around Europe most of my life and now in my recent job flying mainly through the monsoon and into tropical cyclones, then Europe has very little to compare. However, the rest of the world only has a few places like Europe that can give the snow and fog as continuously as Europe does over the winter season.

Cheers GD:cool:

[Anti-ice]

Thanks for the info spagiola; yes it is a widely held perception,and its interesting to know that it was re-designed in some way to overcome that.

How was this shortfall overcome?
Would be very interested to know please?

[Cpt. Underpants]

As an aside:

The crash video was filmed by an off-duty Cathay pilot while he was testing his new camera. The original captures a lot more than the edited, low-bandwidth version offered by the SCMP.

The video was immediately made available to the FAA and HKCAD as well as BAC for the accident investigation in the belief that it may have helped to exonerate the crew. It was specifically and deliberately withheld from the media despite a very significant cash offer for the tape from a Cable News Network (over six figures USD). The Cathay pilot refused all offers and chooses to remain anonymous.

It has been available for viewing in the offices of the HKAOA since the accident, and has been viewed by dozens of FedEx, EVA and CAL crews. The video was not allowed out of the AOA offices.

The decision to make the tape available to the SCMP was made after the preliminary report on the accident tended to point fingers at the operating crew as the primary cause, rather than the inadequate wind shear detection and reporting system.

Bad old AOA strikes again...

What do you say about that, Cliffie Clavin?

[Fragman88]

Hi Dani,
As GD says, bigger and nastier. I spent many years dealing with them, so a few thoughts. Fuel is the first one. Lots of it gives you options, particularly as the extent and duration of these systems can either close your alternate, or the route to it, and the sheer number of aircraft disrupted can progressively saturate the close-in airfields. Also, and just as importantly, a landing weight up towards the higher end will give an increased wing loading, resulting in less gust response. The 747 was extremely `frisky' at very light weights even in good weather, but a pleasure at Max Landing Weight as long as the speed was maintained. Swept wings as you will know hate to get slow, as slow will give you a high sink rate as appeared to happen to this MD11. Fast, within reason, keeps you on the right side of the drag curve, better conrol authority, and if it does go wrong a good start to the missed approach (Speed losses of 30 Kts or so are not unusual in Typhoon conditions, and if the approach was at Vref+5, pulling the stick back will do nothing at Vref-20 or so!)

These conditions will normally be beyond the capabilities of the automatics, and a smooth as silk autoland on a flooded runway with a max crosswind is probably not the best start to the ground roll.

A little thought could be given to minima for the approach. I remember reading a UK AIC many years ago which, referring to CAT 1 and 2 approaches, mentioned:`The minima for these approaches are designed for the fog case, with little or no wind drift. If significant wind is present, serious consideration should be given to increasing the minima'. Further to this, I was told by an Ancient Aviator `I can happily do 200Ft/600M all day and the same for limiting crosswinds onto soaking runways, But sorting them all out together is pushing the operation well toward the outer edges of the envelope' I liked that, so as a good youg pilot, I stole it, and it has served me well.

Finally, decisions.

1) TOD... Do I really wish to do this, and is there a very good chance of a safe landing? Pick a sensible DH and brief it, with the emphasis on the Goaround.

2) Commencing the approach... Make sure that your alternate is still there for you, the last thing you want to find out on the G/A is that it closed 20 Min. ago, review the decision to make the approach in view of the latest WX.

3) At your DH... decide whether a landing looks on. If so fly the A/C into the flare position, keeping the speed agressively under control (too much is better than too little, stopping distance is not normally critical in these conditions, there is normally a howling headwind component, and if the LDA is critical, perhaps step one was a mistake!)

4) At the flare point...How's the speed, am I tracking the centreline, am I at a reasonable point for a touchdown?

5) If Yes...Firmly place the A/C on the ground (Autobrakes are really a good idea).

6)The most important Bit...How Did That Go? Am I firmly down, under control, tracking the centreline, with a touchdown point around where I was aiming? If any of these are not there, easy, push up the power and go. If the approach was flown properly, you should still be at least 1.4VS or so and flying her off should be no problem, the spoilers should auto stow, autobarakes cancel, and you're away. If you're happy, then commit and pull reverse, and get busy keeping straight and stopping. Don't relax, I've found that very often the real fun starts at this point! ( The bit in the manuals about reducing reverse if you start having directional problems really works!). Finally take it easy on the way in, flooded and invisible taxiways loose and blowing baggage containers etc are all waiting to spoil your day.

Sorry this has gone on a bit, but I thought there are a few things I've been taught over the years that are worth putting out there.

One last point, if the G/A path looks nasty when on finals, that's the time to talk to ATC and see if you can negotiate an alternative, not as you are in the G/A. They understand and will do all possible to help (Thanks for many Occasions in the past chaps):ok:

[Frenzy]

http://www.acsoft.ch/alitaliamd11kaitak.wmv

Click or save target as.

[Traffic]

Frenzy

Someone of Italian heritage has a bad day at Kai Tak (now closed) on 13 (who hasn't??)...and your point is??

Are you saying this is the same a/c and the same LHS...just different airport different livery and different uniform? Even with a perfect match, I don't get the point.

Perhaps you could enlighten us?

[Frenzy]

No harm intended..........just thought people might have wanted to see it.

In no way did i mean to connect the two together.

Have a nice day:D

[Cuban]

Without knowing the circumstances of the AZ landing and not
being in the trade, to me it looked like hats off to the crew for
a stunning recovery?!

[OldAg84]

In monsoon weather, besides Macau, what are the best diversion options?

[Dani]

Thanks Fragman88, and Go Direct, for that interesting post. :ok:

[Traffic]

Used to be Taipei or Manila but these days, depending on wx, you can go to any number of places...Shenzen, Guangzhou, Kaohsiung, Xiamen.

Capt Y

So that is part of the Hanoi Rd video? Doesn't quite look or sound thesame to me, but the points you make are very valid and totally commendable. The un-named CX pilot who got the footage is indeed a man of high moral character and a man made greater by his anonymity.

Fragman

Well said. and thank God for Ancient Aviators. My there always be enough of them to go around.

[Schrodingers Cat]

Scanscanscan.....perhaps you might remember the L1011 incidents at BZZ and NRT...perhaps 3 engines is the problem?

Just which airline was flying this aircraft.....are you SURE it was CAL.....did they fly MD11 at this time? :suspect:

[hkgmjq]

Schrodinger's-

As I remember the aircraft was painted with the Mandarin Airlines livery, making them part and parcel of CAL.

More generally,

I was living on Lantau Island, HK at the time and remember that night vividly. As I recall, the aircraft came to rest a few meters from the airport fire station in the pouring rain, no small factor in the high survival rate.

The recent public release of the crash video has, predictably, made rather lurid headlines in HK. One thing it has done is expose a whole host of flaws in the HKCAD's accident investigation. As far as I can tell, it seems there's been four years of finger pointing going on between the HK government and CAL, both of whom seemed quite happy to hang the unfortunate Captain out to dry.

Sadly, I can't provide any links here, but those of you with access to the SCMP can easily read the archived files, from Sept 28th of this year (I think).

cheers

[scanscanscan]

Oldage84...
Macau whilst legal IMHO it is too close to HKK to flightplan as a diversion in such weather systems.
When the detailed weather forcasts are wrong I like fuel onboard not still in the fuel pit.
Fuel gives me more thinking time and diversion options outside of the bad weather system.
The Company Cfp loading only alternate fuel for Macau is a trap for a newly trained min fuel Captain.
Having scared the c..p out of themselves they never trust the company system 100% again to fully take care of them.

Fraggman88... Was told by the L1011 test pilots that its autoland was designed to impact onto very wet runways.
This was the reason given for a certain positive impact on touchdown on any calm dry day autoland.
They also said they had used autoland in up to 55kts X wind and the only reason the L1011 was not certified for that was they could not find 55kts during the certification period. They suggested off the record if ever poorly placed and you "Had" to land in bad conditions the aircraft autoland would see you safer than any man land.
I was also asked how often I was trained in the sim. for manual landings exceeding the certified wind limitations.

Schrodingers Cat....I missed the BZZ and NRT L1011 incidents.
My company basically closed down is Flight Saftey publication and distribution system to its pilots to save money.
They have reactivated it again in a hurry after a serious crash.
So I guess their first decision was not cost effective.
Whilst no expert... I would feel less likely to scrape something flying a three engined L1011 than a four engine poded on the wing B707 type.

[411A]

The BZZ L1011 incident was a complete stuff-up by the crew...a late engagement of the autopilot on short final.
In order for the TriStar approach/land system to function properly, the autopilot(s) must be engaged so that autoland track can be established correctly, ie: at 1500agl, or 25 seconds after glidepath capture, whichever is later.

If these folks had RTFB, they would have known.
However, as it was the RAF, maybe reading the book was not a requirement...:(

The MD-11 has a horizontal stab that is reduded in size from the DC10 by a significant amount, and has reduced elevator effectiveness at approach speeds compared to the DC10...so i'm told by a training Captain at DAL some time ago.

[moggie]

411a - yes, the BZZ accident was pretty much as you describe but then you spoil what (for you) was an intelligent post with your "as it was the RAF, maybe reading the book was not a requirement" comment.

For a little more detail, the accident was caused by the training Captain (in the RHS) showing off to the Captain under training whilst the FO was on the jump seat.

Both the FO and FE told the TC to stop what he was doing but, short of physically restraining the guy at about 500' above the runway, what could they do?

Now, if the FO and FE knew that the TC was making a mistake, surely they must have read the book?

If I recall correctly, the TC never flew in the RAF again and the aeroplane was rebuilt (and is fine now) despite having had the main spar broken in the accident.

Maybe the TC was a wannabe Redneck - you all know the joke:

You know you are a Redneck when one of your family has died after saying "Hey y'all, watch this".

[411A]

Moggie,

Well, at least you agree then...the RAF (one anyway) stuffed it up rather badly.

To be fair, some airlines have these guys as well.
And just like in the RAF, they need to be terminated from any flying duties.

Actually, terminated...period.

[DCVLX]

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-48037/m11dis.htm

The aircraft missed its approach.

[JW411]

Not that it matters much but, in the interests of historical accuracy, I have it in mind that the rather stupid RAF Tristar tent-pegging incident took place at Lyneham and not at Brize Norton.

411A:

When it comes to reading books and going into total trivia you simply cannot beat the RAF. Who else in the world could make a conversion course last for 6 months!

However, the senior w*nker who planted the Tristar knew better than everyone else in the world - until it all went wrong!

[Anti-ice]

Coming back to the MD-11 - is it a tricky bird to handle on landing??

Any (lucky) MD-11 pilots out there want to quantify ?!

[moggie]

JW411 - it definitely was at Brize - I was there at the time (but on SkodaAir not the Trimotor).

A mate of mine was the JEngO on 216 and he told me that the crack in the mainspar was wide enough to put your fist through, but that all the skin panels were reuseable as was the undercarriage itself!

I believe the ADR showed something like a pitch rate of 6º per second just before the first impact, the aeroplane bounced 80ft into the air and that the rate of descent was something like 60 feet per second (3600 ft per minute!) at the second impact, the one that actually did the damage. No wonder the main spar broke.

[694c]

Anti Ice -
To answer your question about the MD11, it's an aerodynamic disaster and a pig to fly.

The reasons are:
High wing loading, crude flaps, small tailplane, large mass of centre engine far aft, main gear well aft of wing centre of lift, poor brakes and permanent engagement of control wheel steering.

These combine to produce the following characteristics on a typical approach:
-High speed - 160Kts with flaps 35 at MLW. Flaps 50 can be used but cause uncomfortable buffeting, Vref in this case is reduced by 5Kts. The flaps are simply hinged below the trailing edge like on a Piper, none of the area increasing triple slotted mechanical marvels of the 747!
-Poor elevator control and undesirable, mostly pitch up effects caused by the inertia of the massive centre engine so far aft. There are 4 yes FOUR pitch stability augmentation channels that are artificially enhancing stability and interfering with longitudinal control, particularly close to the ground.
-Generally sloppy control response because of control wheel steering break out forces with constant kick-backs, something that many pilots never get used to.

Landing technique is to start the flare at around 40ft, relax the back pressure at around 10ft or even push forward! Any attempt to pull back close to the ground simply rotates the main gear onto (or into!) the runway. The result is a bounce followed by a heavy landing. The pictures of wrecked MD11's lying upside down shows what can then happen.
-The whole thing is made worse by permanently engaged control wheel steering, not a favourite of this pilot.
-After touch down (or impact!) the nose has to be brutally pushed down to get the nosewheel on as soon as possible, otherwise spoilers, reverse and braking are unavailable.
-The brakes are poor because only the wing gear is directly load bearing. The centre gear pivots forward and has reduced contact pressure. That means effectively only 8 wheels braking 200 tons versus 16 and 250 tons for the 747.

Landing distance required at MLW flap 50 calm sea level 20deg no slope is 2300m dry, 2600m wet!

To end on a positive note - failure handling is outstanding. All systems are automated and control is duplicated. Engine failure drill for example goes like this:
Close throttle, fuel lever off, fire handle and bottle if necessary, check all systems still in auto (air, fuel, hydraulic, electric) - end of procedure!
That's way ahead of anything that Airbus have offered.
Fuel dumping is on one button, fully automatic to a preset level.

Hope this helps.

[Anti-ice]

694c, thanks very much for taking time in your reply, and including so much information! Excellent summary and confirmed many of my ideas, especailly re: the rear engine and tailplane.

Sounds like you have to have a very special technique to bring one of these huge liners in, (especially in poor wx).

Thanks again, and safe flying ,Anti-ice

[cpt744]

694C,
Thanks for the excellent overview on flying characteristics of MD11. Just slightly out of the topic here but may I ask for your opinions on the main differences betwn the L1011 and MD11 in terms of their handling qualities if you happen to know any? I have always presumed they're pretty much the same although those who had flown the tri-star seemed to have endless praises on it.
Cheers.
:D

[innuendo]

Never flown the MD-11 but I can tell you that the L1011-500 was one of the most delightful aircraft I have flown.

[694c]

cpt744

I can only compare the MD11 to the 747 'classic' and Airbuses 310 and 330.
I believe that the Tristar was a much more integrated and technically advanced aircraft than the DC10/MD11, which were rushed designs to keep McDonnell Douglas in the widebody airliner market.
If I recall conversations with Tristar piots in the seventies I believe that the aircraft used a feature called 'direct lift control' on approach, whereby the spoilers were part of the longditudinal control system. If the aircraft was high, forward control column pressure extended the spoilers, the aircraft descended at constant attitude; vice versa if low. I don't know if the approach could also be flown with constant thrust using this system. It probably accounts for the aircraft's outstanding autoland and crosswind landing capability.
There must be several Delta Airlines pilots who have flown both the L1011 and MD11 who could answer your question.

[cpt744]

694c
Your info was indeed concurrent with what I heard from one ex-L1011 pilot. Apart from the stabilised approach attitude using spoilers as corrective controls, he mentioned that during those good old days ( seventies I assumed.. ) tri-star was already capable of doing CAT IIIC zero vis and no DH with the 5 channels autopilot system. You can imagine how impressed I was flying the 744 in the nineties and I have 3 separate channels of autopilots to brag about then.

Since then have always have the curiosity to know a bit more about this Lockheed civilian 'jewel', if I may quote from someone who loved to use this word quite a lot..

Tell you what, I think I'm gonna try my luck by posting the correct question to quench my own thirst on this issue under Q & A in order to keep this thread on track. Thanks again for your time on this one.

:ok:

[HotDog]

capt744, sorry to disappoint you but the Tristar only had a two channel autopilot. Each APFDS computer ( 1 @ 2) contained an Approach Land Computer A, Approach Land Computer B, a Cruise Computer and a Flight director computer. The output signals from the Approach Land Computers were fed to two Voter Modules, feeding two Servo Amps into a Monitored Servo. Although highly sophisticated for it's day, you are better off with your three channel autopilot in the 744 today.

[bugg smasher]

"To answer your question about the MD11, it's an aerodynamic disaster and a pig to fly."

694c,

I have flown the MD-11 for many years, and consider the aircraft extremely safe, a money-maker for the airline, and a great pleasure to fly. That she has certain handling characteristics different to other aircraft is clear, but a"disaster and a pig to fly"?, I think not.

If, as a professional pilot you are unable, unwilling, or do not have the requisite flying experience to meet the very normal piloting challenges presented by this aircraft, the Douglas engineers have very thoughtfully designed a large hole in the back of the flight deck:

It's called the cockpit door.

[cpt744]

HotDog,
Much appreciate your correction, I guess someone really tried hard to impress me huh.. or he must have counted and termed wrongly the 2 voter modules and 2 servo Amps with the monitored servo as 5 channels..
Would you then have any distinctive comparisions betwn the MD11 and L1011? I'm curious to find out from those of you who have hands on experience with thse 2 jetliners as to what are the main differences btwn them.


Cheers.

[Shore Guy]

Cpt744,

One crashes alot and one doesn't..........

(sorry, I just couldn't resist)

[411A]

OTOH, delivered s/n 1040 to its final resting place, and the final landing was done as it should be....autoland (with only one autopilot engaged...performance was superb.

The Lockheed-California Company got it right...(with a little help from the Trident team).

[HotDog]

capt744, no experience with the MD11 but always thought the DC10-30 was a much less complicated airplane than the L1011 but a superb machine. I was on the wide body evaluation team for my airline and the final choice was the DC-10, which at the eleventh hour was changed to the L1011 due to political pressures prevailing at that time.

[Bingo Bango Bongo]

The L1011 was indeed a complicated machine, HotDog, so much so that maintenance costs were prohibitive. The MD-11 is a derivitave DC-10, and, as such, a far more profitable machine than the Tritanic could ever have been.

[BEagle]

The TriShaw impact was on RW08 at Brize. Due to topography, the ILS on that RW has a steeper than normal GS and the GS itself has a number of bends in it. So it isn't cleared for auto-coupled approaches anyway..

The ac was very nearly lost. As it bounced back in the air after the massive impact (which the SEngO on 101 actually felt through his office chair!), the operating idiot said "It shouldn't have done that....". One engine had suffered a compressor to shroud impact, the main spar had a massive crack (through which later photgraphs showed daylight to be visible). When staggering round the circuit, it losts tonnes of fuel, some fell on a welder nearby who wisely stopped welding.... After landing, they weren't even sure whether the aircraft could be towed off the runway without falling apart.

When they came to repair it, evidence of an earlier, unreported heavy landing was allegedly detected. Well, that's what you can get if you buy secondhand....

Then there was another RAF TriShaw in which a CB in an external compartment (gear bay?) kept tripping. So it was held in. Predictably, the circuit it was protecting promptly acted as a large and expensive fuse to protect the CB. Another few mi££ion wasted.

Or the idiot engineers from Boscombe who surged an engine on the ground with their ham-fisted engine handling doing an equipment trial. We felt the bang in the Officers Mess!

[normally left blank]

"It shouldn't have done that....". :D

Another set of famous last words!

On a positive note: The "crashworthiness" of modern airliners.
Is it only the widebodies by the way?

The Sioux City DC-10 also comes to mind. From the video "through the fence" I thought it was cartwheeling, but in reality rolled right. May I recommend the series of books:

Air Disaster, Vol.1 - 3, by Macarthur Job.

regards