FedEx Off Runway MEM

[Airbubba]

Just got an e-mail claiming FedEx is off the runway (again) at MEM with a report of fire...

______________________

Just found this online:

FedEx plane makes emergency landing at Memphis International Airport

July 28, 2006 01:10 PM EDT

FedEx plane accident at Memphis International Airport

A FedEx MD-10 caught fire after landing at the Memphis International Airport. Three people were on board the plane at the time of the incident, and have been reported safe. A fire at the scene of the accident has also been put out.

Runway 18 at Memphis International Airport is currently closed, but officials at the airport say that passenger traffic is not being affected.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5210979

________________________________

FedEx plane makes fiery landing in Memphis

By Ruma Banerji Kumar

July 28, 2006

A FedEx plane had a fiery landing around 11:30 Friday when landing gear on the left side of the plane collapsed and caused a major fire. The plane’s crew got out of the plane in time to avoid injuries, said airport authority president and chief executive Larry Cox. The Memphis Fire Department was able to put out the flames quickly, but fire authorities are still conducting thermal imaging tests to check for hotspots that could cause further flareups.
There was "substantial damage," Cox said to both wings of the MD-10 plane because of the heavy smoke, fire and rocky landing. The crash temporarily closed one of the airport’s western runways, which could spur slight delays for Northwest Airline flights leaving and arriving midday, Cox said.

He said an accident investigation is underway.


http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/local/article/0,2845,MCA_25340_4877376,00.html

[HowlingWind]

Pix and video (http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5210979)from WMC-TV, Memphis.

http://wmctv.images.worldnow.com/images/5210979_BG1.jpg

Good job everybody's OK. It's been a bad coupla days for FedEx.

[Kengineer-130]

there goes their no-claims discount :} , glad to hear all ok though :ok:

[neil armstrong]

by now FED EX must have one of the worst hull loss records in the industry!


Neil

[FlyVMO]

I guess you have to consider the size of their fleet when talking about their hull loss rate...Worldwide 671 A/C, with 257 of those showing up on the US registry according to the FAAs website. I don't know how that compares with the Pax carriers, but it sounds like a lot to me!

[HowlingWind]

Pretty striking pic, flynverted. It looks to have been taken right after it occurred. Those in the neighbourhood must have had quite a spectacle.

[Wino]

The airplane is down at the far end of the runway, it appears that the gear collapsed after they were down to taxi speed or so.

These are some OLD heavily loaded aircraft.

Cheers
Wino

[Airbubba]

>>by now FED EX must have one of the worst hull loss records in the industry!

Sadly, FedEx seems to have a widebody hull loss every two or three years. If they were a pax carrier there would be enormous adverse publicity and probably many casualties as well.

I've got friends over at FedEx who tell me the FAA has been all over their training for years now. Instead of annual AQP sim checks like most U.S. carriers, they are under a closely monitored old style six month program.

The pilot flying in the December 2003 MD-10 hard landing and fire at MEM had a history of busted checkrides before she was hired. In April, 1994 the feds pulled her ATP after an FAA inspector observed her performance. She took more training and got the ATP back and was hired by FedEx in 1996. At FedEx she had more checkride failures, a couple of DUI's and an altitude bust that set up the fateful Mad Dog line check back into MEM. Is it possible that "diversity" was promoted over performance in this case? A possibly similar precedent at FedEx was the overlooked poor employment history of Auburn Calloway who brutally attempted to hijack a FedEx DC-10 in MEM in 1994.

Traditionally, FedEx has had very high employment standards for the freight world, i.e. almost all pilots have college degrees (well, there are some Naval Academy graduates <g>) and many are like the founder, Fred Smith, ex-military aviators. The company is consistently profitable and maintenance is excellent by most accounts.

Still, the mishaps and hull losses continue at what everyone agrees is an unacceptable rate...

[West Coast]

While Smith was in my beloved Marine Corps, I don't believe he was an aviator.


"Is it possible that "diversity" was promoted over performance in this case?"

A bold (and valid) question that FEDEX needs to answer. Standby for a flogging from the PC nazis for even raising the question.

[forget]

If "diversity" is an active policy then, by definition, promotions over performance are inevitable - otherwise "diversity" wouldn't exist :confused:

[jondc9]

bummer

anyone have the surface winds at the time of the crack up? if i am not mistaken transport planes can handle a dead drop (no lift) of 6 feet.

perhaps a fractured landing gear on a previous flight? ham fisted pilot?


that post about the atp that lost her ticket for awhile is quite amazing...and the world of getting hired at an airline or freight place is a tough one to fully understand.

jon

[jondc9]

wx around the time of the crash I think...anyone with exact Z time of crack up please let us all know.

SPECI KMEM 281630Z 27014G18KT 10SM FEW075 SCT100 OVC150 26/18 A3015 RMK AO2
METAR KMEM 281653Z 26010KT 230V300 10SM FEW075 SCT100 OVC150 26/17 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP208 T02610172
METAR KMEM 281753Z VRB06KT 10SM FEW080 SCT100 OVC150 26/18 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP206 60000 T02610178 10261 20228 50010
SPECI KMEM 281817Z 27007KT 10SM BKN029 BKN075 OVC095 26/18 A3015 RMK AO2
SPECI KMEM 281846Z 22007KT 10SM -RA FEW017 BKN031 BKN075 OVC150 27/19 A3014 RMK AO2 RAB45 P0000
METAR KMEM 281853Z 25004KT 10SM -RA FEW017 BKN031 BKN075 OVC150 27/20 A3014 RMK AO2 RAB45 SLP200 P0000 T02670200
METAR KMEM 281953Z 22006KT 10SM SCT019 BKN110 OVC150 28/22 A3012 RMK AO2 RAE17 SLP194 P0000 T02780217

[Airbubba]

While Smith was in my beloved Marine Corps, I don't believe he was an aviator.


You are right, I inadvertantly overstated his qualifications tremendously:) ...

[Sqwak7700]

Don't forget the hull losses they had at Subic Bay. Didn't they loose a couple of buses out there? I seem to recal a picture of a FedEx bus up to its tail in water. I've seen the water in Subic Bay. Not exactly the kind of water you might want to take a dip in.

Was this a mechanical problem with the plane, or did it just happen all of a sudden during landing?

What is it with all these landing accidents at FedEx? Their fleet size is about the same as AA. If AA had these many accidents the FAA would be all over them like white on rice.

Didn't they just skid a three holer off the runway in KY? Last I remember they smeared one into Talahasse a couple years back.

I wouldn't be surprised if working those late hours is the reason that their safety record is so bad. After all, fatigue is almost always a factor when an aircraft crashes due to pilot error. The human body is just not designed to be awake at odd hours of the night.

I see so many DC-10/MD-11 planes being converted at FedEx's hangar in LAX. If they keep loosing them at this rate, they are gonna run out.

I wonder how the A380 will handle a FedEx landing? :uhoh: (just kidding)

I'm glad the crew made it out OK.

[Airbubba]

What is it with all these landing accidents at FedEx? Their fleet size is about the same as AA. If AA had these many accidents the FAA would be all over them like white on rice.

Actually, FedEx has about half as many mainline planes as American (326 vs. 700)!

Another popular website lists the breakdown as follows:

American:

777: 45
767-300: 58
767-200: 16
A300: 34
757: 143
MD80: 327
737-800: 77

FedEx:

MD11: 42
MD10: 41
DC10: 38
A300: 47
A310: 51
727-200: 94
727-100: 13

Some of the news media reports count the FedEx "feeder" aircraft, their safety record is absolutely abysmal, the Miami Herald recently did an exposé on that dangerous segment of the industry:

http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/archive/deadlyexpress/index.html

[Shore Guy]

To my recollection, this will be the sixth hull loss for Fedex in recent history.
Going from memory here....not necessarily in chronological order.
MD-10 MEM July, 2006 (looks like a hull loss)
MD-10 MEM 2003
B727 Tallahassee, Fl.
DC-10 Stewart, N.Y. (Aircraft landed ok, burnt due to undeclared hazmat - sound familiar?). I was right behind him that morning....diverted to EWR.
MD-11 Subic Bay - as I recall, there were split airspeed indications, and they slaved the good one to the bad ADC. Went off runway end at high speed....aircraft broke apart, but crew ok.
MD-11 - EWR “Turtle” accident……

[Shore Guy]

Does anyone have any information on the scenario of this accident?

When/how did the gear fail, etc.?

[Willit Run]

Maybe the same lady was flying this time?
Maybe crosswind landings need to be practiced a wee bit more.
College does not make a well flown plane!

[West Coast]

"College does not make a well flown plane!"

If only the operational side of the companies had the say and not the touchy feeley folks in HR/people dept/whatever they are called had the final say.

[jondc9]

especially an aeronautical college!

I can spot a good pilot within 5 minutes of working with him/her and sadly the opposite, a bad pilot also within 5 minutes.


by bad I mean mediocre and medicore doesn't belong in the cockpit.

[Global Pilot]

Fedex aborts at Louisville Airport.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=236488
I guess if you dont take it into the air then you wont have any problems with the gear on landing :=

[lomapaseo]

Fedex aborts at Louisville Airport.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=236488
I guess if you dont take it into the air then you wont have any problems with the gear on landing :=


:confused:

But both planes were airborne and only one broke off the gear so what am I missing here:confused:

[barit1]

If "diversity" is an active policy then, by definition, promotions over performance are inevitable - otherwise "diversity" wouldn't exist :confused:

When diversity is a stated goal, then diversity in performance will be achieved. The wiser heads in HR may be aware of this, but they don't let it obscure their vision. :rolleyes:

[Flightmech]

Christ, at this rate FedEx will end up on the EU airline "blacklist". Quite worrying really:(

[Shore Guy]

Surprisingly, very little information available on this accident....surely someone on this forum knows some more detail...
Did the gear fail or was it overstressed and failed (re: last MD-10 accident)?

[Flight Detent]

Please forgive my assumption here -

Is a MD-10 a two crew version of an DC-10?

Cheers, FD :confused:

[Willit Run]

Affirm Flight Detent

[Huck]

surprisingly, very little information available

I am a MEM-based FDX MD10/11 first officer, and I have only heard what is posted here.

Some nasty cross-winds that morning, but I haven't researched if they coincided with the accident.

Purely speculation but all the hard landings we've suffered in the past resulted in either a shear of the main strut or spar failure. To me this one looks like an overcenter strut probem - folded up when they started their turn off the runway, perhaps? If the main strut had failed they would have ended up off the runway much earlier....

I'll keep you all posted with what I can.

[Flightmech]

I am a MEM-based FDX MD10/11 first officer, and I have only heard what is posted here.

Some nasty cross-winds that morning, but I haven't researched if they coincided with the accident.

Purely speculation but all the hard landings we've suffered in the past resulted in either a shear of the main strut or spar failure. To me this one looks like an overcenter strut probem - folded up when they started their turn off the runway, perhaps? If the main strut had failed they would have ended up off the runway much earlier....

I'll keep you all posted with what I can.

Huck,
I have heard from other crewmembers that unlike the previous incident in MEM where the gear failed at touchdown, this one failed slowing thru 100kts?

[wallynearMEM]

I think the strut just snapped about half-way up. I think both the suspect ends have been collected by the ntsb for exam.

I heard it was a normal landing, they got on the brakes and felt a vibration, got off them and got back on when the gear snapped.

She (PF) did a very nice job keeping it straight and trying to clear the runway at the taxiway. Too, that may just be where it wanted to go. One of the nose tyres took a real beating probably from holding the plane straight and under control.

Fire crew was close and 'johnny-on-the-spot' and had the fire out in only a couple of minutes. The plane looks repairable to me.
W

[Shore Guy]

Any more info?

Sink rate?

Crab angle?

Metallurgic failure?

[Huck]

An interesting (and spot on) article:

FedEx Burns Another
Safety Lessons from the Latest Accident of a FedEx Aircraft
Air Safety Week 08/07/2006


It's been an article of faith among multi-engine pilots that if you
drive your bird in a little hard, forget to flare or kick off the drift,
then all that will happen is that touchdown will feel significantly
different, a few fuel-tank seams might weep tears of fuel, and the
engineers might rib you for causing them extra work.

Of course, you will have admitted your sins to them, written up the bird
and waited anxiously while they carry out a heavy landing inspection.
That check will progressively indicate, item by item, whether you've
permanently bent anything, or whether they need to check more deeply
because of what they've found. Most of the time, you will not have bent
anything and the procedure is quite perfunctory. It could happen that
you've bottomed out the oleos and witness-marked an indicator. Rarely
will a heavy landing blow or even scrub a tire, let alone damage the
gear or airframe.

After the latest FedEx MD-10 burning on runway 18R at Memphis, Tennessee
on July 30, the company's pilots might be forgiven for surrendering up
the above article of faith. In fact, they may be pondering why their
"Mad Dogs" are so lame that their legs collapse at will. FedEx pilots
are made of sterner stuff, so they will just take it on the chin and
polish their landing techniques, making sure to properly adrenalize
before each and every landing. "Failure is not an option" I seem to
recall someone famous saying, while baying at the moon. Evidently the
Mad Dogs 10 and 11 never got that message. They appear to be
particularly weak-kneed.

It Seldom Happens In the latest accident, the left landing gear failed
on the airplane during landing, sending sparks into dry grass beside the
runway that ignited a fire. Three people on board used an emergency
landing chute on the right side of the plane to safely escape, avoiding
the burning engine on the other side. Fire crews responded quickly and
doused the fire with foam, containing it to the engine area and
preventing it from spreading to the rest of the aircraft. The plane,
identified as FedEx Flight 630, had departed from Seattle, Washington.
Les Dorr, an FAA official in Washington D.C., said landing gear failure
is a rare occurrence. "A landing gear collapse on a large transport-type
aircraft is a pretty rare event," Dorr said. "It seldom happens."

The MD-10 was a valiant attempt by FedEx/MD (and then MD's takeover
merchant Boeing) to use up the remaining life in the plentiful old DC-10
airframes by upgrading the cockpit to an MD-11 style two-man standard,
simultaneously rewiring and freighter-converting it. Like the two-man
MD-11F operation, it promised to be a very economical long-haul
freighter. The DC-10-10 had a Max Gross Weight increase to 446,000lbs
and the DC-10-30 to a massive 580,000lbs in the Series 30 MD-10. That
boost in cargo-carrying capability required "structural changes".

The Advanced Common Flight Deck was intended to allow FedEx pilots to
operate either the MD-10 or MD-11 interchangeably, for maximum
scheduling efficiencies. However, when the FedEx pilots got their hands
on the MD-10, they protested vociferously. They considered that there
were sufficient dissimilarities as to make any dual qualification
unsafe. Unlike the 757/767 and the A340/A330 combos, the MD-10/MD-11
basic designs and handling qualities were of two entirely different
eras. The company didn't agree and the FAA and Boeing backed FedEx, so
the pilots got to operate both. One wonders whether the Flight
Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) program has since disclosed any
lingering safety interludes for those who fly both, interchangeably.
FOQA regularly checks data-recorders for any pilot handling quirks that
would be better if they were ironed out with counseling or added
training. One could also speculate as to whether any such handling
difficulties, particularly the touchdown, might have carried over into
longer term aircraft fatigue damage. The MD-11 has had to undergo a
number of flight-control software patches in an attempt to cure it of
some of its near-the-ground vices. It is reportedly very unforgiving of
a one gear first hard touchdown, as the pilot of a Mandarin Airlines
passenger flight found on his arrival in Hong Kong on the night of Aug.
22, 1999.

Turning Turtle That aircraft lost its right gear and wing, inverted and
caught fire, killing 3 passengers.

The pilot had disconnected the autopilot but left the autothrottle
engaged, which failed to compensate for the gusting crosswind. An
amateur video showed the aircraft's quite normal approach in turbulent
conditions, followed by a high-rate descent beginning at around 50 ft RA
(radar altimeter). Wind-shear had caused a sudden loss of around 20kts
and the autothrottle failed to respond. That was the height it was
software-scheduled to throttle-close for the flare (or landing
round-out).

Near to max landing weight, and in an unremarkable less than 4 degree
right wing down attitude (for the crosswind), the aircraft hit with a
high rate of descent. This allowed the RH oleo to bottom out, the #3
engine to touch the runway and break off, taking the RH wing with it.
Looking at the relative positions of the wing-gear and the engines
(further outboard), it's not surprising that the weight of the engine
should allow its downward inertia to lever the wing off above the gear
in a hard touchdown.

It's this lack of robustness that gives the MD-11/MD-10 its undoubtedly
unique characteristic, for a wide-body, of being able to shed a wing and
achieve an inverted attitude on the ground. Other MD-11 pilots expressed
surprise that an experienced MD-11 driver would have left the
autothrottle engaged in these conditions. Most had found that the
programmed throttle closure in the flare could often, as in this case,
prove to be the opposite of what conditions (particularly rapid onset
wind gusts) demanded. The only other available solution for arresting a
high-rate descent near the ground is backstick. Unfortunately in the
MD-11, that means an automatic hard tailstrike and a million dollar
damage bill. Pilots are taught to freeze the pitch attitude and "fly
out" of any high rate descent near the flare with added power. That
might kill the speed bleed and extend the landing roll but it precludes
the tailstrike. In the Mandarin case, with a nasty wind-shear, the
throttles auto-closing at just the wrong moment and the pilot
pre-programmed NOT to use backstick, the accident deal was already
closed.

On Dec. 21, 1992 a Martinair DC-10 PH-MBN touched down hard in gusty
conditions at Faro, Portugal. It was again a right gear first touchdown
-- and the wing separated. On July 31, 1997, a FedEx MD-11F touched down
hard at Newark, New Jersey with a 500 ft/min descent rate and a slight
right bank. The right wing-spar broke and the aircraft ended up on its
back, burning. The finding was that the landing was over-controlled and
a go-round should have been carried out. On Dec. 18, 2003 it happened
again, to an MD-10 at Memphis on runway 36R, after a quite stable
approach. A young F/O never quite got the drift off and touched down
firmly on the right gear with a very slightly banked attitude. The RH
gear collapsed and the aircraft burnt out. The NTSB faulted the pilot
and the flight captain, who was also a check and training pilot. The
company changed its training regimen after that accident.

The common denominator for the generic DC-10 and its spawned sub-types
would seem to be an underbuilt wing that allows a coupled engine
inertia/main-gear response to break the wing or gear-mounts, in any
slightly wing-down, harder than normal arrival. When combined with the
aircraft's heightened pitch sensitivity and the
MD-10-10/MD-10-30/MD-11F's quirky differences, it would seem that a
FedEx pilot goes frequently in harm's way and must work harder than most
to "keep it all together."

[Shore Guy]

Still waiting for a definitive...did the gear fail, or was it overstressed/failed.

Along those lines, does anyone know whether the manufacturers recommend a more stringent/frequent inspection of landing gear componets on freighters, particularly "converted to" freighters.

The obvious is that these aircraft operated at (consistently) much higher weights, but are also subject to higher torsional stresses. Most cargo aircraft do not do a "straight in" to a gate....many make to the tiller stop type turns to maximize use of ramp space at the hub, substantially increasing torsional loads on the gear at high weights.

Any engineers out there care to comment?

Any Boeing/Airbus reps?

[JW411]

Huck:

There is nothing new about your quoted DC-10 MTOWs. When I flew for Laker 25 years ago we used a DC-10-10 MTOW of 455,000 lbs (CF6-6D1A) and 580,000 lbs for the DC-10-30 (CF6-50C2B).

In fact, I think the KC-10 grosses out at 595,000 lbs.

[Huck]

Nice memory there JW!

I actually flew an ex-Laker -30 at Gemini.

Let me ask you, though, how often did you land at or near max gross at landing in the pax world? It happens often in cargo. Just food for thought....

Also a good point about ground handling. The KMEM ramp is a labyrinth.

[Doors to Automatic]

An interesting article there - it make one wonder why the many landing mishaps, all of which seem to involve a hard landing on one side, have all occured since 1992. The DC-10 was in far greater service in the 70s and 80s and yet there has not been one such incident in those 2 decades. Very strange! :confused:

[JW411]

Huck:

Ah! But you were talking MTOWs and not MLWs. We had 363,500 lbs for the DC-10-10 and 403,000 lbs for the DC-10-30.

Now while you are probably right about the freighter landing more often at MLW it was not unknown in Laker either for we were usually full (345 pax plus bags plus 10,000 to 20,000 lbs of freight downstairs).

I remember on one memorable occasion doing Los Angeles to London in 8 hrs 49 mins and at one point (around 30°W) contemplating having to dump to get down to MLW!

[Few Cloudy]

Glad the fire went out - I'm expecting some stuff...