CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo [Archive]

Rainboe

22nd Mar 2009, 23:39

Hard to see initiqal touchdown, but it doesn't appear bad. Nose lowered quite violently then strong nosewheel bounce and pitch up and aeroplane became airborne again, rising about 30'. The second touchdown was very hard on the nose leg, and in the crash landing after the bounce, the left gear collapsed and massive fire broke out as left engine appears to have punctured fuel tanks and left wing broke outboard of engine, and video shows plane rolling over to left onto its back in major conflagration. It seems to be a repeating pattern with this type.

I wonder if the plane was very lightly loaded? It seems extraordinary behaviour, however there are reports of squall-type gusty winds at the time which could cause inadvertent return to the air before it was properly settled. The pitch down after the bounce was incredible. A heavily loaded MD11 would have collapsed the noseleg on the second touchdown.

A bounced landing must be recovered from first before allowing a big jet to settle back. Essential to get power on instantly and stop speed falling and hold attitude and stay airborne to collect your wits before deciding either go around or fly it back on. But the landing causes big speed loss and you are airborne too slow with the nose falling away from you into a fatal dive we see. Very unfortunate.

rotated

22nd Mar 2009, 23:41

Both pilots now confirmed dead.

.

Edit: Conflicting report now of one "rescued" person being transported to hospital.

Techman

22nd Mar 2009, 23:42

Too small stabilizer. Reduced from DC10 dimensions for fuel burn reasons.

The result have been seen more than once.

Mike-Bracknell

22nd Mar 2009, 23:43

BBC link:

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Cargo plane crash lands in Japan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7958367.stm)

ManaAdaSystem

22nd Mar 2009, 23:52

It's always a good idea to check where the stab is before landing a MD. Running out of elevator in the flare can be a nasty surprise. Not saying this is what happened here, just a general comment.

The fire could be because the engine and/or the MLG strut punctured the wing.

It's just frightening to see how fast something like this can happen.:sad:

Le Pilot

22nd Mar 2009, 23:54

Mandarin Airlines at CLK (HKIA) 22 Aug 1999.

Dani

23rd Mar 2009, 00:00

Interesting reading:

NTSB Accident Report Fedex 14 Newark (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0002.pdf)

azlee_19

23rd Mar 2009, 00:11

i landed here (rw 16R) last night at 6.45pm and here's the wind like for me.

base leg, 2800 ft : 210/58kt
finals 1000ft : 190/27 gust to 33
at minimums : xwind 12kt still gusting

had a very firm touchdown, we both dont care what pax say, even got one of MD aboard!

But i guess wind was stronger this morning. my heart goes to the Crew

Rainboe

23rd Mar 2009, 00:12

Fedex lost an MD11 in a heavy landing at Newark in July 97. This is their third loss of a MD11.

It is interesting the alleged loss of elevator authority in the MD11. The DC10 had a massive tailplane, the MD11 seems smaller. A lot of elevator authority is needed in a bounce like this to stop the nose falling away as you are suddenly 20 kts slower than trim speed, and suddenly airborne again in a big surprise. The key to this is: were they trying to fly it down or hold it off? If trying to hold it off and the nose drops like that, then this plane has a fundamental elevator control design deficit. The flight recorder will be the key with elevator demand during the bounce. Bounce landing training seems to be lacking these days. Simulators should have a 'bounce' button where whatever your landing is like, it will throw you airborne again to sort it out. It could possibly have helped here.

whazitdoinnow

23rd Mar 2009, 00:22

With winds like this it always gets tricky in NRT. Just go for a run around the airport and you will notice that the winds come from every direction. There was also a winshear warning on the metar for 34R, the short runway.

ManaAdaSystem

23rd Mar 2009, 00:25

http://joshuadavis.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/iadklmmd-11.jpg

Just to illustrate the typical stabilizer angle during approach.

finalschecks

23rd Mar 2009, 00:32

OK maybe partly a point techman, but aren't you oversimplifying a bit?

How about the strength of the landing gear?
How about the (very) swept wing design?
How about the high approach speeds?
Pilot input? (can't say I haven't ever been tempted to push the nose down after a bouncy landing)
How serious was this wx really?

I find rainboe's post a bit smarter, that's all.

Speedbird61

23rd Mar 2009, 00:36

Hi Iceman, is the Airport operational again, I am due to fly there tonight ?

wileydog3

23rd Mar 2009, 00:39

Newark animation..

NTSB - Runway Incursion (http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2000/FedEx/landing_video.htm)

On initial viewing, very similar. Bounce. Nose down. Main gear failure and breakup.

Airbubba

23rd Mar 2009, 00:40

FedEx has had way too many widebody hull losses in recent years but sadly, if confirmed, I believe this would be the first crew loss on the mainline. The carnage on the feeders has been discussed here in the past.

A sad day in NRT for us all.:(

rotated

23rd Mar 2009, 00:46

It appears the original report I heard on TV has now been confirmed.

NARITA —

A FedEx cargo aircraft crash landed and burst into flames early Monday morning at Narita International Airport, east of Tokyo, according to airport and police officials. The pilot and copilot were taken to a hospital, and a local TV station reported they were both confirmed dead.

The MD-11 aircraft, Flight 80 from Guangzhou, China, was apparently whipped back up by strong winds when it landed at around 6:50 a.m., according to the Chiba prefectural police.

Local firefighters were seen trying to extinguish the flames.

A local observatory said winds of up to 72 kilometers per hour were blowing in areas around the airport at the time of the accident.

Japan Times (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/cargo-plane-crash-lands-at-narita-airport-bursts-into-flames)

Techman

23rd Mar 2009, 00:47

OK maybe partly a point techman, but aren't you oversimplifying a bit?
Sure, I left out the training aspect.

All the points you mentioned should have been part of the design considerations. Yet, what happened here is, sadly, not a first.

Xpatpilot

23rd Mar 2009, 00:47

An Airworthiness Review - China Air MD-11 Hong Kong (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/airworthiness_review.html)

RiSq

23rd Mar 2009, 00:47

That is a truely shocking video, can't say I've ever seen anything like that before. It actually looks to me like the left gear fails on the first bounce, the plane then gets airbourne again before coming back down and the left of the plane digging in having watched it a couple of times in Slo-mo.

2 crashes in the space of a few hours? jeeez.

Anymore news on the crew? As said above, I have seen reports of all lives lost and another saying at least 1 survivor.

Willoz269

23rd Mar 2009, 01:00

This video shows the initial touchdown....very hard bounce!

News Video - 23-Mar-2009 (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200903/r351923_1614698.asx)

HarryMann

23rd Mar 2009, 01:05

Interesting reading:

NTSB Accident Report Fedex 14 Newark (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAR0002.pdf)

Thanks, interesting reading the 27 point Conclusions

blueloo

23rd Mar 2009, 01:06

Shocking stuff.... is that a jet fuel storage area in the background? Bit hard to tell, but is that a long way off from where the jet ended up?

lomapaseo

23rd Mar 2009, 01:08

Considering 3 out of 3, what's the significance of the right wing down involvement vs the left wing. Is it something to do with the control function:confused:

If I'm wrong about 3 out of 3 I'll edit my post to reflect

IcarusinJapan

23rd Mar 2009, 01:28

Japanese press confirms both dead and have just released the names. Don't know if it is appropriate here:

Kevin Kyle Mosely (54) (US)
Anthony Stefan Pinot (49) (US)
Names were written in Japanese so spelling will not be accurate

will be a gathering at JLC this evening.

NHK WORLD English (http://www.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/)

philipat

23rd Mar 2009, 01:29

For BA61, according to the Narita website, flights are still arriving and departing on schedule. There are no notices on the site to the effect that passengers should call in etc. So it appears that NRT is still operating at or close to normal.

zakhooi

23rd Mar 2009, 01:38

seems nose gear collapsed during first touch down. as response pilot instinctively pulls full aft elevator to keep the nose up, overcorrecting in its way.

J.O.

23rd Mar 2009, 01:39

I really don't think it's appropriate to be asking (or answering) questions about the operational status of the airport after such a tragic accident. What say we try to have some consideration for the victims here folks?

Ranger One

23rd Mar 2009, 01:47

Dani: Interesting reading:

NTSB Accident Report Fedex 14 Newark

More interesting reading:

NTSB Accident Report Fedex 647 Memphis (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/AAR0501.pdf)

captaintunedog777

23rd Mar 2009, 01:59

JO

No one questions the trageic and horrific accident. But seriously asking what the status of the airport is in no way disrespectful of what has occurred.

IcarusinJapan

23rd Mar 2009, 02:02

Runway A (34L) is still closed. Only the shorter Runway B open.

waddawurld

23rd Mar 2009, 02:04

I flew this airplane for a number of years and it can be a real handful to land. There is more 'info' on landing technique than on any other aircraft I've ever flown. If you don't get it exactly right the nose wants to come down rather violently, causing a natural tendency to overcontrol and the nose then pitches up severely. (Part of it is due to where the CG is in relation to the main gear) Add strong gusty crosswinds and this beast can put your heart in your mouth. It looks like there was an attempt to recover from that first overreaction and then the nose hits hard-- after that all bets are off. I noticed that the nosegear had not sheared off from 1 of the pix, so that 'bounce/pitchover' might have happened here at the wrong time.

Weapons_Hot

23rd Mar 2009, 02:06

Rainboe - you are partially correct.

The elevator authority on touchdown on the MD11 is certainly adequate to meet this type of problem (bounced landing). The contributing factors for this type of catastrophic result are: generally the throttles have been commanded closed (function of Auto Throttle System (ATS)), and the wing is a "critical" wing in such that there is little to no "ground effect" produced, and a tendency to pitch down and then immediately pitch up, which will drive the nose gear and then main gear back to the runway, with a possible >3g force. At the same time, speed/lift is rapidly decaying, which will result in less control surface authority.

A typical reaction to a bounced landing is a tendency to pitch down to "settle" the airplane, which with the MD11 is a no-no. I am aware of at least one carrier that regularly practices bounced landings in its simulator and on good authority of a couple of its drivers, their policy in relation to a bounced landing, is to go-around - GA thrust, pitch attitude 10 degrees NU, and hold that attitude until 50 ft RA (apparently to negate a tail strike).

A sad day indeed, but the result of the investigation will probably discover poor, if any, bounced landing technique being applied in this accident, exacerbated by gusty conditions.

IcarusinJapan

23rd Mar 2009, 02:06

It was a wild, wild wind this morning. Hard to put anything down in that.

Airbubba

23rd Mar 2009, 02:08

No one questions the trageic and horrific accident. But seriously asking what the status of the airport is in no way disrespectful of what has occurred.

Yep, some of us have to worry about such things as the runway status at NRT. Looks like they are using 34R, the 'B' runway, which is 7152 feet long, the wind is still quite gusty. I've seen Triples operate off the short runway, never seen a 744 on that one.

rotated

23rd Mar 2009, 02:11

Looks like it was N526FE (cn 48600/560).

N526FE Photo (http://www.airliners.net/photo/FedEx-Express/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11(F)/1362091&tbl=&photo_nr=2&sok=&sort=&prev_id=1406081&next_id=1350079)

Edit: Formerly Delta N813DE, converted for freight.

biitomd11

23rd Mar 2009, 02:23

Unfortunately the MD11 is not the easiest airplane to land. We don't know the causes; the only thing we can see in the video is the first bounced landing; on the second the tail touches the RWY braking apart; the left wing contacts the ground fliping the aircraft upside down.
Lets wait and see...

IcarusinJapan

23rd Mar 2009, 02:33

Some flights being diverted to Haneda, Kansai, Centrair

HarryMann

23rd Mar 2009, 02:38

Looks like something quite nasty occurred at the first touchdown, but the a/c was well stalled and short of control authority and thrust during the main bounce.
The MD-11 will have more MOI (inertia) in the pitching plane than a twin of course

azlee_19

23rd Mar 2009, 02:39

the short runway(34R) is only capable for 772 and below, so no departure for 747/773/346 at least this morning only what abt 345?

Striker

23rd Mar 2009, 02:46

the short runway(34R) is only capable for 772 and below, so no departure for 747/773/346 at least this morning only what abt 345?

As a solution, would it not be possible for the 744's etc. to take on a splash of fuel and stop off at some other strip somewhere to avoid cancelling flights? Or is 34R just not long enough for a fully loaded 744, albeit with a light fuel load?

waddawurld

23rd Mar 2009, 02:48

Weapons Hot

Thank you for your accurate transcription of what MD11 pilots have experienced for years- the major operators took the time to give formal instruction to their crews on the best techniques for the 'quirks' of this aircraft-- the rest of us had to glean what we could. Having said that- I loved this airplane, but it had some serious defects, namely, for some unknown reason, they(McDonald Douglas) decided to reduce the size of the elevator. As a result , after the engineers worked with the design, they had to install a computerized control system (known as an LSAS-- Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System) to help with pitch control. If this system was lost in flight the penalties were severe. How this design flaw may have played into this accident, I don't know, but all the DC10 pilots I knew said that McD D. took a step backwards when they built this AC (from a pilots handling POV)

philipat

23rd Mar 2009, 02:51

All flights operating with 773 and 744 are now shown as cancelled on the NRT website.

IGh

23rd Mar 2009, 02:52

See other App&Ldg, ARC cases:
ARC = Abnormal Rwy Contact

-- MD11 / 4Nov94 Lndg, ARC, tailstrike, ANC
-- MD-11 FDX 71 / 16May96 tail strike, landing ANC 24R
-- MD-11 Alitalia / 19Aug94 I-DUPO hard landing at ORD
-- MD10 /31Jul97 at EWR
-- MD11 / 22Aug99 Hong Kong
-- MD11 / 22May00 Taipei
-- MD11 / 20Nov01 Taipei
-- MD11 / 16Jun02 Subic
-- MD10F / 18Dec03 FedEx MEM
-- MD11/ 19Sep04 MEM, airplane had previously been involved in an incident involving a flight control malfunction on approach to Subic Bay, Philippines, on June 16, 2002 (NTSB # DCA02MA042)
-- MD11F / 7Jun05 SDF, http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050627X00874&key=1
-- MD10 28Jul06 MEM LHS MLG fail

568

23rd Mar 2009, 02:59

I am shocked to learn of the death of the crew members, so my thoughts and prayers are with their families at this time.

Now, after all of the written BS on the AMS 737 NG accident prior to any released information, I would like to set the record straight regarding the MD-11 landing. It is a real handful in a crosswind, especially gusty conditions as per the HKG accident.

I have over 7000 hours flying this type so here is some information on what happens during the landing of the MD-11.

After moving off the MD-11 fleet, there was an update to the LSAS and the corresponding software (cant remember all the details as I am not an engineer) which made an input to the elevator, so as to avoid tail strikes near the flare and main wheel touchdown. This input applied "nose down" elevator which was not evident to the crew in terms of "feel" on the control column.

The autothrottle is "full time" to 50 Feet RA when it will start to retard. It was long felt by seasoned crew that this height was too "high" for this to occur. The need to "override" the A/T in gusty conditions made for a better touch down. Keep in mind that the Md-11 at near MLW will achieve a descent rate of about 1100-1200 FPM in steady wind conditions.

For the descent rate to be "arrested" near the flare point, is the hardest item to be trained during line operations.

On touch down the ground spoilers will only partially deploy, which produces a "pitch up" moment. Until the software update and even after the deployment of the update, the pilot flying had to apply some forward control column pressure so as to stop the pitch up moment, which could easliy strike the number 3 VHF aerial at the bottom of the rear fuselage. When the nose gear was lowered to the runway, the ground spoilers then fully extended with subsequent tail engine reverse thrust now being made available (sleeves will not translate fully until nose gear touchdown) Only the wing mounted engines are able to use full reverse thrust with or without nose wheel touch down.

I will make no assumptions as to the cause of this accident except to say that we should leave the experts to voice their findings.

philipat

23rd Mar 2009, 03:22

772 can operate, not 773. All 744 and 773 flights listed at NRT as either cancelled or indefinite delay.

BreezyDC

23rd Mar 2009, 03:27

From the NY Times:

"Video footage of the crash showed a massive fireball erupting from the plane just as it touched down. The plane then veered to its left, skidded off the runway and flipped over. Fire engines rushed to the scene and sprayed the plane with foam."

You gotta wonder if the reporter (Mark McDonald in HK) really watched the same video as us....

pattern_is_full

23rd Mar 2009, 03:36

As the video shows, a bounced landing can snatch away control of the aircraft almost faster than you can blink. The only real defense is to brief it on approach if it's a possibility and have a plan ready, because you will have zero thinking time once it starts.

By comparison, Capt. Sullenberger had an eternity to consider his options and make his decision.

And the best pilot in the world can get dropped on the runway if a gust knocks 13 knots off the airspeed at just the wrong moment in the flare.

Airbubba

23rd Mar 2009, 03:37

It certainly looks bad...don't think anyone could have survived that.

Some years ago I ran into a guy from ANC who was the jumpseat rider on the FedEx MD-11 crash at EWR in 1997. He told me about the initial response to the crash. The aircraft bounced, came down hard, rolled over on its back and burned. The pilots, jumpseat rider and two company pax in the back were able to exit with very minor injuries. When the crash crew rolled up, they thought the five people were spectators who had run across the grass to the crash. They were told to get away. Needless to say, the crash crew's demeanor changed when they realized they were talking to the survivors.

You gotta wonder if the reporter (Mark McDonald in HK) really watched the same video as us....

I've seen a couple of different videos online, some show the initial touchdown and bounce, others start with the second, more violent impact with the runway.

IcarusinJapan

23rd Mar 2009, 03:45

As of 1230pm, Narita Airport are unable to say when the Runway will reopen.

rotated

23rd Mar 2009, 03:54

Locally they are airing some very high quality HD video of the crash, between that and the FDR's this may turn out to be one of the most clearly documented accidents ever.

Hopefully it will help prevent another.

Capt Kremin

23rd Mar 2009, 04:21

The first touchdown seems almost normal apart from the rapid nose drop after maingear touchdown. Windshear perhaps?

May it have been so simple as an attempt to catch the rapidly dropping nose caused the aircraft to get airborne again after the nosewheel bounced, but not at flying speed or with speedbrakes now extended, causing the second fatal nose drop?

Power may even have been coming on for a go around but the rapidly dropping nose made the situation unrecoverable?

How quickly things can turn to ****....:(

Eminence Grise

23rd Mar 2009, 05:56

It looks like after the nose gear collapsed and it was yanked into the air only to stall driving the nose into the ground for the second time. Was it an -11 or a -10 conversion? I spent five years on the -10-30 but never saw any conditions like that. Is it 16L or 34R that has the small valley off the end of the runway? Sad day!

Dash-7 lover

23rd Mar 2009, 06:26

Oscillation followd by over-compensation???

ACMS

23rd Mar 2009, 07:14

From the CX port page info:

RWY 16L/34R is only 7,100' in length and during normal operation it's use is restricetd to A330/A340 and Boeing 777-200/300 ( excluding 300ER ) with an approved slot on this runway.

Captains only Landing, no contamination allowed. etc

So.........the 777-200's AND 300's ( except ER ) CAN use it WITH an approved slot.

This is obviously CX, but is approved by the NRT authorities and would apply to all operators.

Carnage Matey!

23rd Mar 2009, 07:18

It's hard to see in this footage but it seems like the left wing fails fairly early in the proceedings. Could this be a repeat of the HKG and EWR accidents?

411A

23rd Mar 2009, 07:33

A bounced landing must be recovered from first before allowing a big jet to settle back. Essential to get power on instantly and stop speed falling and hold attitude and stay airborne to collect your wits before deciding either go around or fly it back on. But the landing causes big speed loss and you are airborne too slow with the nose falling away from you into a fatal dive we see. Very unfortunate.

Getting the power on instantly is a problem (so I'm told by those that fly the MD11), not for spool-up time, but the rather pronounced nose down pitch when the number two engine spools-up, and combine this with the known poor pitch response with the reduced horizontal stab/elevator assembly size (versus the DC10 design)...can be a handful in strong winds, 'tis reported.

It was a wild, wild wind this morning. Hard to put anything down in that

Indeed, it can get nasty at NRT, gusts to 45 knots or more, not easy.

green granite

23rd Mar 2009, 08:20

A wider view of the landing: YouTube - FedEx MD-11 crash landing at RJAA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jQZ1zNmGEc)

bookworm

23rd Mar 2009, 08:42

Metar Rjaa 222100z 30013g28kt 260v330 9999 Few020 13/m01 Q0998 Nosig=
Metar Rjaa 222130z 32026g40kt 9999 Few020 12/m02 Q0999 Ws R34l Nosig=
Metar Rjaa 222200z 31026g40kt 9999 Few020 12/m02 Q1001 Nosig=
Metar Rjaa 222230z 30018kt 9999 Few030 12/m03 Q1001 Ws R34r Tempo 31020g30kt=

Taf Rjaa 222038z 2221/2324 31014kt 9999 Few030 Tempo 2221/2306 31020g30kt Becmg 2309/2312 01008kt=

gordonroxburgh

23rd Mar 2009, 08:59

There was speculation on here that the nose gear collapsed, its very evident in this selection of still images that this was not the case.

Image Gallery on Sky News.com (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Tokyo-Plane-Crash-Two-Pilots-Die-As-FedEx-Cargo-Plane-Bursts-Into-Flames-At-Narita-Airport-Japan/Article/200903415246955?f=rss)

Dreadful accident and shows what the weather can do.

Floats

23rd Mar 2009, 09:01

The touchdown is a apparently result of rather violent pitch-down at very low altitude. With gusty winds 30-40 degr off the ruway it is likely to be a windshear. Autoland mode or manual flying, a recovery from a situation like this might prove impossible.

Dani

23rd Mar 2009, 09:04

Gordonroxburgh, it's evident that it was a main gear failure, but that wasn't the reason, but the outcome. First fails the main gear, the left wing touches the ground, fireball, aircraft turns upside down and slides along.

I guess this thread will become another 100-pager like the AMS-THY one, just because people are speculating why the wreckage lies the way it does - oh dear...! :suspect:

yankeeclipper747

23rd Mar 2009, 09:08

A lot of interesting thoughts here and all true. Having flown the MD-11 for about 5 years and having been to NRT many times, it is one of the more difficult airports due to the treacherous winds that always seem to blow there. However, what no one seems to take into account are the autospoilers. The video "seems" to show that they were on the ground long enough on the initial touchdown for the spoilers to have extended (nose grear touchdown-throttles idle). Another idioscyncracy of the MD-11 is a pitch up tendency with spoiler extention. My thought is that after the hard landing and subsequent nose gear coming down too hard and bouncing back up with the added pitch up of spoiler extention, perhaps they tried a go around. If they had tried that a stall would have been inevitable.

philipat

23rd Mar 2009, 09:13

GG: That video is misleading because it doesn't show the first landing, only the second contact after the first bounce. For a better view of the complete incident see the video in Post # 7, now embedded.

FrequentSLF

23rd Mar 2009, 09:19

What a pity it didn't remain right side up
Is not the first MD11 that does not remain side up...is this aircraft prone to end up upside down more than other models?
FSLF

p7lot

23rd Mar 2009, 09:20

Looked like windshear to me .
The nose went down hard...way too hard .

rog747

23rd Mar 2009, 09:30

nasty crash at tokyo, poor crew.very sad...

in dec 1992 a dc-10 crashed on landing at Faro Portugal and rolled over too...55 died.
so did the united dc-10 at sioux city...(but they only had thrust for control)

i know this was a md-11 yesterday which has a small stab but it seems a pattern in c/w or h/w landing accidents with this derivative of the dc-10
EWR and HKG md-11 accidents also as mentioned earlier.

Flight Safety

23rd Mar 2009, 09:42

Interesting HQ video of FedEx MD11 in crosswind landing at Narita. Shows just how hard all the flight control surfaces (including the elevator) have to work for a stable approach in stong winds.

YouTube - Crosswind Landing - by FedEx Express McDonnell Douglas MD-11(F) ?N587FE? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWZzxqQMoro)

WHBM

23rd Mar 2009, 09:53

What other aircraft has this continual history of cartwheeling and overturning on landing ?

It's notable that of the three somewhat-comparable widebody types that came along in the early to mid 1990s (MD-11, B777, A330), the latter two generally remain in front line service with their original purchasers, while the MD-11 was sold off prematurely by almost all of them. Very few of them remain in passenger service now, despite it being a modern design, and most have been sold off cheaply to cargo operators.

The public story is that the MD-11s were sold off, at some considerable financial loss to the original operators, because its efficiency didn't come up to expectations. But behind the scenes are many who quietly told their boards of directors that as a large-capacity passenger aircraft, with its poor handling capabilities on landing, it was a risk too far.

Dysag

23rd Mar 2009, 10:02

The MD-11 wasn't really a modern design. McDDouglas tried to do a quick and cheap derivative of the DC-10. It ended up being neither quick (many delays) nor cheap.

By the time it entered service the 777 and A340 were well under way and were much more efficient: lower weight and operating cost.

Most potential (and existing) customers had lost confidence in McDD by then. Any handling difficulties were just an extra nail....

ManaAdaSystem

23rd Mar 2009, 10:09

In Flight Safetys video you can actually see the nose rising when the spoilers deploy.

Interesting.

Propellerhead

23rd Mar 2009, 10:24

Horrific. The 2nd touchdown was in a very nose down attitude onto the nose gear. As several have said, the MD11 does seem to have a habit of flipping onto it's back on crash landings (HKG springs to mind)- and even the sioux city DC10 did the same.

The DC10 was a bad design from the start with the cargo door failures (paris crash) and running all 3 hydraulic lines past engine number TWO (when engine no.TWO blew up in the sioux city aircraft it took out all the hydraulics).

Flightmech

23rd Mar 2009, 10:26

Propellerhead,

Not to be pedantic but it was the #2 engine the hyd lines passed by (the engine in the tail)

rog747

23rd Mar 2009, 10:28

dear sir,
as i mentioned above dont forget Faro too

Flightmech

23rd Mar 2009, 10:29

But wasn't the DC-10 in Faro windshear??:ugh:

captainspeaking

23rd Mar 2009, 10:30

That's the second FedEx Express major accident this year: USA: FedEx (http://www.airlineupdate.com/airlines/airline_profiles/airlines_usa/fedex.htm)

... and the second MD-11F. The other two MDs they lost in '03 and '06 were -10s.

411A

23rd Mar 2009, 10:32

...running all 3 hydraulic lines past engine number 3 (when engine no.3 blew up in the sioux city aircraft it took out all the hydraulics).

Actually, with Souix City, engine number two.:rolleyes:

Flightmech

23rd Mar 2009, 10:32

Its actually the 3rd MD-11F. EWR, SFS and now the sad NRT incident.

LorryDriver

23rd Mar 2009, 10:35

Additional view of the crash on a liveleak video LiveLeak.com - Plane Crash Lands In Japan (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e4e_1237791859)

Propellerhead

23rd Mar 2009, 10:43

Yes, beg your pardon. Please forgive me (I was thinking of it as the third engine)! Edited above post for accuracy.

rog747

23rd Mar 2009, 10:54

i understood Faro dc-10 crash was over crosswind limits ?
and also windshear and other factors

HarryMann

23rd Mar 2009, 10:59

In Flight Safetys video you can actually see the nose rising when the spoilers deploy. Yes, believe can see weight coming back off nosegear. My goodness what a nasty thing to cope with floating back up after a heavy intial contact.

What a heavily compromised aircraft this is: once you start having to 'tweak' all manner of aerod.& stability systems for cruise-drag reduction, it is very easy to start chasing your tail to regain low-speed handling. In this case, and IMHO, the large pitch inertia makes this even more awkward.

The propensity to roll-over is probably augmented by the relatively high CoG, with an inertial axis that slopes down from aft fwds. This itself can increase maingear loads when out-of-line.

It may well have all been out of the crew's hands after the initial touchdown, which state will become apparent only with FDR.
Very upset that Japanese news clip is showing just the second touchdown (repeatedly!)... very ghoulish! I can only imagine what is going through FedeX minds right now... both pilots & management.

CABUS

23rd Mar 2009, 11:12

Hi guys, just a suggestion. How about a Baulked landing? If not the bounce is probably one of the most stable bounces I have ever seen. How about the pilot flying initiated a baulked landing then the PNF said to put the a/c down? I say this as the initial part of the bouce looks more like a climb away with TOGA than an unstable bounce.

deSitter

23rd Mar 2009, 11:25

Floats - yes reminds me almost exactly of the NTSB reconstruction of DAL191's approach in DFW.

This plane was one of Delta's last MD-11s, sold in 2004.

-drl

Rainboe

23rd Mar 2009, 11:45

The picture referenced by ManAdaSystem in post 19 showing a KLM MD11 on final approach and the tailplane angle indicates a real problem. I have seen MD11s with this absurd tailplane incidence many times. Does it not show a fundamental misdesign? The wing is evidently too far back- it even looks it. The tailplane is desperately trying to provide enough downforce. Put yourself in a baulked landing with low airspeed and you then have a real problem trying to hold the nose up. If the pilots had full back elevator and the nose still fell like that, then this aeroplane should be withdrawn from service.

I would guess the wing has to be so far aft to allow sufficient attitude for ops without tailscrapes being a common occurence. But attaching the engines at the back, particularly DC10 style where the centre engine hangs off the very rear of the fuselage, is not a good idea for a stretched aeroplane like the MD11. For years there have been stories circulating what a nasty handful it can be on landing.

deSitter

23rd Mar 2009, 11:54

Rainboe - actually the first touchdown looks very violent as if recovering desperately from wind shear - his tail strikes something leaving a small visible puff, well beyond the threshold and it appears near the roadway underpass at that end of 16L, before the main hard touchdown with its large debris cloud. The initial contact could be the left wing contacting a light standard or part of the landing light structure. In any case there is contact with something at the very end of the runway a good 1.5 seconds before the first major impact, indicating his altitude was rapidly decaying - his pitched up nose indicates a GA attempt just as in Dallas - that L1011 at least had the same flight dynamic issues as the MD-11 if not the same specific handling peculiarities.

-drl

Carnage Matey!

23rd Mar 2009, 12:05

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9lGFawlJI) video shows that initial touchdown. They do indeed look a long way into the undershoot of the displaced 34L threshold. You can get some nasty windshear down that end with a westerly wind and have gotten airborne into some particularly unpleasant 'mush' when departing 16R

rog747

23rd Mar 2009, 12:19

carnage, thanks for that clip.
it really shows the whole sequence which is yukky and horrid...poor chaps.

from what the MD11 drivers have noted here earlier, a GA maybe was started and it all goes horribly wrong?

am sure this clip will be helpful however, coupled with the recorders and weather info to to a quick analysis of this accident and why it happened.

these MD11's and DC10's all seem to flip over, grrrr

CR2

23rd Mar 2009, 12:23

Read the thread, follow the links before you post links to videos that have already been posted. Why do you think half this thread has already been deleted?

That x-wind landing is on page 4.

Weapons_Hot

23rd Mar 2009, 12:27

Rainboe - it depends on the CG at the time. Aft CG (circa 26.0% MAC) and trim is about 8.5 ANU. In a baulked landing with the MD11, pressing the GA switch will immediately advance the throttles to GA thrust, and command a pitch up attitude to maintain VrefGA or current IAS, which normally results (3 engines) in a pitch up attitude of about 25 deg ANU. You wouldn't want to have a hell of a lot of back-pressure on the stick when you hit the GA switch. If a GA was initiated AND the GA switch was pressed, then there would only be one flight path achieved - UP.

The wings too far back? No, that has to be a wind-up.:=

Now, some are talking of the #2 engine producing a downward moment when thrust is applied; that is correct. However, what is happening to the #1 and #3 engines at the same time? Remaining at idle? (a rhetorical question). These engines will negate any nose down moment caused by #2 engine, and give the airplane a nose-up moment (see above).

For those who have flown the MD11, I doubt any will opine other than when landing, it can be a handful (not impossible or unsafe) in adverse conditions, hence the correct landing technique must be used.

Someone mentioned autoland: AFM limitation - no autoland when windshear forecast/suspected (or h/wind >25kt, x/wind >15kt, or t/wind >10kt).

411A

23rd Mar 2009, 12:29

...if not the same specific handling peculiarities.

I would beg to differ.
You never ever run out of pitch authority with the L1011, with it's very powerful, large all-moving design... a Lockheed exclusive.
Can you have windshear that no amount of thrust can overcome, as with DAL 191?
Most certainly, especially with the -22B powered airplane, but to run out of pitch authority with the Lockheed design...not possible.
The last link published by Carnage Matey was most interesting...and disturbing.:sad:

CecilRooseveltHooks

23rd Mar 2009, 12:40

why, the whole left wing separated, so why is it surprising the left mlg is on the ground? Am I missing something?

edit, OK, maybe it's still attached?

spleener

23rd Mar 2009, 12:49

Horrible stuff. Condolences to the families and friends....
Landing rollovers:
MD11 fedex July 97
MD11 mandarin [ci] August 99
MD11 fedex 23rd mar 09
Co-incidence?:=

Never flown an MD or DC with a number geater than -9 so can't comment on the handling qualities mentioned. Although, can someone explain the MD11's 'LSAS' to me? Quite a hot topic at certain ANC bars.

Have to agree with 411a reference the mighty TRISTAR, however there is a thin connection and evidence that NRT is worth avoiding around the ides in a 3-holer: CX Tristar MAR 24[!] 1990. NRT 16 [now 16R].

Christodoulidesd

23rd Mar 2009, 12:56

Interesting quote from avherald.com (http://avherald.com/h?article=416e7619&opt=0)

"Emergency services needed two hours to extinguish the blaze. Although the fire brigades were able to keep the fire away from the cockpit, the crew could not be saved. The impact forces as well as the weight of debris in the cockpit had already killed the crew.

"

Burger Thing

23rd Mar 2009, 13:05

spleener:

MD-11 LSAS, Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System.

This is copied from the MD-11.org web study guide (great page, by the way)

LSAS provides:
1) Pitch Attitude Hold and Automatic Pitch Trim –With no force
on the control column, and bank angle less than 30 degrees,
LSAS holds the current pitch attitude. LSAS holds this attitude
by deflecting the elevators as much as 5 degrees. The
horizontal stabilizer is automatically adjusted to relieve the
sustained elevator deflection and maintain a full 5 degree
elevator authority.
2) Pitch Attitude Limiting –LSAS maintains pitch attitude to less
than 10 degrees of dive, or less than 30 degrees of climb.
3) Pitch Rate Damping – Increases the apparent static stability to
reduce the chance of over-control in pitch. It is active
throughout the flight envelope. 100% of max damping is
available above 20,000ft, decreasing linearly to 30% below
16,500 ft.
4) Speed Protection – If the autopilot is not engaged and the
autothrottle is not available (or able to maintain a safe speed),
LSAS Speed Limiting will engage to provide overspeed or
stall protection. LSAS overspeed protection is accomplished
by changing pitch. LSAS does not provide flap, slat or gear
overspeed protection.
5) Stall Protection – At 75-85 pct of the angle of attack required
to activate the stick shaker, the LSAS stall protection engages.
LSAS reduces pitch until the AOA is sufficiently reduced.
6) Pitch Attitude Protection and Positive Nose Lowering -During
takeoff rotation, LSAS provides Pitch Attitude Protection
(PAP) to reduce the possibility of a tail strike. During landing,
after spoiler deployment is commanded, LSAS initiates
Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) to assist in transitioning the
nose wheel to the runway after main gear touchdown.

The picture referenced by ManAdaSystem in post 19 showing a KLM MD11 on final approach and the tailplane angle indicates a real problem. I have seen MD11s with this absurd tailplane incidence many times. Does it not show a fundamental misdesign? The wing is evidently too far back- it even looks it. The tailplane is desperately trying to provide enough downforce. Put yourself in a baulked landing with low airspeed and you then have a real problem trying to hold the nose up. If the pilots had full back elevator and the nose still fell like that, then this aeroplane should be withdrawn from service.

I have read a lot of nonsense in pprune. But that has to take the cake :ugh:

sussex2

23rd Mar 2009, 13:06

My addled grey cells seem to recall that a while back there was a bit of a fuss because the FAA wanted to merge DC10 and MD11 licences - despite the aircraft having distinctly different handling characteristics..
For my pennyworth the MD11 never 'looked' right...appearing in take off configuration almost as if it were in landing mode, an awful lot of flap out..
I remember the first time I saw one when working for AA. It looked mishapen, parts put together rather than a complete design.
If it don't look right - then it don't fly right!

Carnage Matey!

23rd Mar 2009, 13:07

One would think the simple imbalance of wing on one side, no wing on the other side would be enough to roll the aircraft inverted. The MD11 seems to have a disturbing tendency towards wing failure at the root following a hard impact. Maybe it's a weakness of the wing root plug design from when they stretched the DC10 wing, maybe not, but it's not often you see another type of aircraft with it's wing cleanly detached at the root.

icecone

23rd Mar 2009, 13:10

The main gear landed successfully in the first touch down. Why did it bounce when the nose gear touched down (which seems to be soft)?
Were the ground spoilers deployed?

Push to talk

23rd Mar 2009, 13:10

Not to judge, just to say what I see/ saw: Looks like oscillating bounces followed by a gear collapse an/ or loss of control causing the aircraft to hit the ground with its left wing and roll. Amazing though that it pretty much slided on its back and did not roll further. Notice the nose, right main and centre gear pretty much still there on the pictures.

As a former FedEx employee, my condoleances to the relatives and friends of the pilots.

Ptt,

ironbutt57

23rd Mar 2009, 13:14

And that makes 4...3 fedex and one china/air china?? same scenario..hard landing wing root failure, over she goes...something wrong here??

Xeque

23rd Mar 2009, 13:36

The Toxic One will have a go at me I'm sure but....

It seems to me that it all happened during the initial touchdown. Looking at all the clips that are available the aircraft (a) appears to be moving very fast for a final approach (b) the touchdown was very firm (given the amount of tyre smoke that can be seen) and (c) the nose comes down very quickly. You expect to see the nose being kept high for several seconds to allow the lift to decay after the mains have made firm contact. Not so here.
I can't tell whether the spoilers deployed or not. If the trigger to automatically deploy them is firm weight on the nosewheel then it looks as if that was never achieved because the nose came back up again very rapidly and may not have touched the ground at all.
Can it be that we looking at a "computer commands one thing - Pilot Flying tries to do the right thing but is over-ridden" scenario here?

CityofFlight

23rd Mar 2009, 13:37

Having worked for FedEx for 13+ yrs, I am still close to many crew and staff. It's painful to see the unfolding events as I know FedEx crews are well trained and the company takes its role as an airline seriously.

My sympathies to the family, friends and staff at FedEx.

spleener

23rd Mar 2009, 13:38

Thanks Burger T. makes more sense than in humpys at dark o'clock.
May not be relevent in this case [let's see the official report], but does the LSAS inhibit stall protection at low altitude - eg 'bus below 100'ra?

Also the statement:

"During landing, after spoiler deployment is commanded, LSAS initiates
Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) to assist in transitioning the
nose wheel to the runway after main gear touchdown."

...is a bit chilling after seeing the video - and I guess explains the requirement for bounced landing training on this type.

Ironbutts57 - sorry I had the count wrong?

philipat

23rd Mar 2009, 13:39

Sorry to digress but, in response to earlier posts, yes the TriStar was a different animal. CX drivers may remember the "Hump" at the end of the runway at the old Payar Lebar airport in SIN and how she would just sit there over the hump on landing, in any conditions. Memories. Sorry, back to topic!

Mungo Man

23rd Mar 2009, 13:39

Just to illustrate the typical stabilizer angle during approach.

How do you know that is was typical, unless you know the CofG of that aircraft was typical then you can't say that the stab angle was typical. You being too simple.

DK_FCI

23rd Mar 2009, 14:01

The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Accident History (http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm)

Weapons_Hot

23rd Mar 2009, 14:04

From the MD11 FCOM (Systems):
Pitch Attitude Protection (PAP) reduces the chance of a tail strike during take-off and landing by adding nose down elevator if the aircraft is at serious risk of tail contact with the ground. PAP is a direct function of pitch attitude, radio altitude and pitch rate and is enabled below 100 feet RA. The pitch attitude limit will vary linearly from 30 deg at 40 feet RA to 9.5 deg at 0 feet RA.

Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) will apply 3 deg of nose-down elevator command when the FCC commands the Auto Ground Spoilers to extend at main wheel spinup. As the spoilers extend beyond 10 deg, PNL will increase the nose-down elevator command to 4 deg. The command fades out when FD mode cycles back to T/O, or if throttles are advanced for G/A.
During take-off and landing flight phases, when PAP or PNL is active, approximately 10-15 pounds of force on the control column is required to override LSAS.

Xeque: The ground spoilers are automatically retracted when #2 throttle is advanced, or they can be manually retracted if already extended. Also, with MLG spin-up, the ground spoilers will only deploy approximately 60% until NLG wheel spinup, when the ground spoilers will deploy to 100%.

LSAS stall protection: I cannot find a reference, either in the FCOM or AMM to a RA input/flight condition where LSAS stall protection is not available.

However, again from the MD11 FCOM:
...the pilot may counteract the LSAS overspeed or stall protection by pushing on the control column with enough force to defeat the LSAS elevator inputs. This force is approximately 50 pounds. If the pilot releases the control column force rapidly, LSAS will dampen the resulting elevator instability.
(my highlighting)

WHBM

23rd Mar 2009, 14:05

I know FedEx ........ the company takes its role as an airline seriously.
Really ? To the extent of building up the world's largest fleet of a type which is proven continually prone to this type of incident ? Who continue to enlarge their fleet with secondhand units of this type despite disaster after disaster ?

Carnage Matey!

23rd Mar 2009, 14:08

I seem to recall disaster after disaster affecting the 737 too. Best not fly any airline with any of those in there fleet then WHBM.:ugh:

Airbubba

23rd Mar 2009, 14:10

Is not the first MD11 that does not remain side up...is this aircraft prone to end up upside down more than other models?

I have an old friend who was flying MD-11's for another carrier, when I asked what plane he was on these days, he replied 'The Turtle'.

Here's an article posted by Huck (I think he still flies MD's for FedEx) a while back about MD landing issues:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/236665-fedex-off-runway-mem-2.html#post2764418

It it tragic that FedEx's string of hull losses continues, this time with fatal results.

As I commented here after one of the earlier FedEx MD landing mishaps:

>>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.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/236665-fedex-off-runway-mem.html#post2746987

My addled grey cells seem to recall that a while back there was a bit of a fuss because the FAA wanted to merge DC10 and MD11 licences - despite the aircraft having distinctly different handling characteristics..

I believe it was the MD-10 (a glass cockpit, two pilot update of the DC-10) and MD-11. And, I'm not sure, did it go through?

EDML

23rd Mar 2009, 14:16

The cause of the rollovers is simple: One wing breaks away at the wing root.

During the accident investigations of the '97 (FedEx) and '99 (Air China) rollovers the NTSB looked very closely into the forces and strength of MLG and main wing spar. Using DFDR data they where able to calculate that the forces where beyond design loads and safety margins. - Therefore the wing "was allowed" to break regarding the construction standards.

On the other hand other aircraft are much more stable: The 346 in Quito (overrun in 2007) "touched" down with > 3G and sustained no structural damage (apart from the Boogeys and wheels) until it overran.

When BA038 crashed in LHR last year the MLG was pushed through the wing but the wing structure itself did not fail.

Marcus

Trash 'n' Navs

23rd Mar 2009, 14:19

WHBM,

Pull your head in.

:*

GearDown&Locked

23rd Mar 2009, 14:28

Observing the video link posted by Carnage Matey, I seems that the plane touched down in a "normal" attitude - how hard I can't judge - but what I see next is:
-the MLG bouncing up a few feet before the NLG even touches the rwy;
-NLG hits the ground with MLG still up pushing it down again;
-After this second MLG touch down, the apparent porpoising effect seems almost controlled, with the plane in a G/A like attitude, but the speed drops in the middle of this second bounce.
-Plane hits the rwy NLG first this time, the A/C bounces again, sits and slides on its tail, wheels off the ground. Without LH or RH wheel lateral support it can tilt either way, gusts, cargo shifting do the rest, flipping it upside-down.

Huck

23rd Mar 2009, 14:29

Yes, I still fly them.

We have ~60 MD-11's and ~80 MD-10's.

The MD-10 is a former DC-10 with the MD-11 cockpit, new wiring and a few other improvements.

We have both "dash 10" and "dash 30" MD-10's.

The controversy was over the common type rating. Fedex MD-11 pilots also fly the MD-10.

Probably not a factor in this case, as the accident crew were PANC based, where there are no MD-10's.

Why did the aircraft bounce? Because it hit hard. Spoilers won't stop that.

Other than that, time will tell.

MPH

23rd Mar 2009, 14:52

By looking at the video link, it looks like he was just about to go into the flare mode bounced hard and then the tail lifted. It then looks like they tried to recuperate the nose down attitute but, to late as they then bounced hard (nose wheel first) loosing lateral control and flipping over. At 50' the throtles go into retard mode and as already mentioned if, the stabilizer was trimmed fully aft they would not have had much pitch control. The MD11 can be tricky with crossswinds and or wind shifts. As usual to speculate is not appropiate but, my comments are soley in reference to the video and my personal experience of 10 yeaars flying this aircraft.

Slats One

23rd Mar 2009, 14:58

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...

G550rocks

23rd Mar 2009, 15:17

I looked closely and it appears to me that at the 2nd touchdown, the number 2 engine (tail), broke off. Then the airplane starts to bank.

Milka

23rd Mar 2009, 15:51

Aviation Safety resources on SmartCockpit (http://www.smartcockpit.com/safety?pg=mc-donell)

HarryMann

23rd Mar 2009, 16:23

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..

A stretched fuse would not in itself imply a larger tailplane, the tail volume ratio actually increases for a tailplane of the same area.
So MD presumably took advantage of that to reduce the surface area, to reduce profile drag.
That then upped the induced drag in mis-trimmed cruise conditions, requiring another drag reduction programme, involving amongst aother things, dynamic CoG movement, a la Concorde.

But then the downside! Low-speed and flapped control authority...

The original MD developments of the DC-10 were quite seriously below advertised range, always an uphill struggle to rectify when it's probably within the very nature of the beast.

Flightmech

23rd Mar 2009, 16:23

WHBM.......:ugh::=

DCDriver

23rd Mar 2009, 16:28

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..

Slats One, I flew the '10 for 12 yrs, including 6 as a trainer. Douglas did not want to build de-icing equipment into the DC10 tail assembly, so they oversized it in case icing trials showed a tendency toward heavy ice buildup - in the event it didn't. (You have to remember that it was designed at the end of the '60's)
When McDD designed the MD11 they kept the DC10 wing and put winglets on. The horizontal stab was reduced in size as it was clear that the DC10's stab was indeed too large and led to issues such as weight, drag & structural as outlined above. Launch customers said the a/c would not achieve its payload/range targets so they "tweaked" the wing with aerodynamic tricks. I believe LSAS was added during testing as a result of initial flight tests, but am not 100% sure.
The result was a reasonable product but one that required a deft hand on the stick

Flight Safety

23rd Mar 2009, 16:32

I'm trying to understand the MD11 design. It has "relaxed" longitudinal stability, but has LESS stabilizer and elevator authority than the DC10. Then it also has an LSAS system to compensate for all of this. :confused:

In looking at the video I posted earlier, I've only previously seen fighter aircraft stabilators work that hard on approach. Even though fighters are designed with "relaxed" longitudinal stability (for agility), they compensate with very large pitch authority (which helps in landings and the transonic region).

captplaystation

23rd Mar 2009, 16:35

DK FCI,
Post 114,
Scary stuff. If the x/wind landings don't get you, the electrical fires or high altitude upsets will.

Can't say I am too sorry not to have flown this "gem" :=

act700

23rd Mar 2009, 16:49

CptPlaystation:
Quote: If the x/wind landings don't get you, the electrical fires or high altitude upsets will.

Wouldn't that be like saying the A320 is a computerized pos?! Cause if your inexperienced FO won't get you, the computer will?!

I've read some of your previos comments on different agendas and found them to be quite objective-respect.
Not this one though.

HarryMann

23rd Mar 2009, 16:49

Flight Safety

It has a lot to do with trim-drag and profile drag in the cruise... and then the low-speed consequences. Don't get sidetracked by relaxed stability, that was unlikely an original design goal - but became necessary to increase range.
This is a long story , and i bet a good few McD design aerod and project staff are grey or short of hair as a result.

pattern_is_full

23rd Mar 2009, 16:56

Airbubba: Your link in #118 is "deja vu all over again"!

Video from Narita is eerily reminiscent of the Sioux City DC-10 crash video - one wing vertical, the other trailing a sheet of flame off the side of the runway after a loss of control. (And, yes, I know the situations were otherwise very different!)

captplaystation

23rd Mar 2009, 17:00

act700, just seems to me that , either by failure to achieve adequate training, or , in the case of the electrics by design or legislation, that these 3 "nasties" have been a bit repetitive to be brushed off. Think I would leave the last word with Moody Blue, but his excellent post has "vanished" :confused: :hmm:

JW411

23rd Mar 2009, 17:01

I absolutely loved my time on the DC-10. It was a delightful aeroplane to fly - a real pilot's aeroplane. It was easy to land nicely and it was excellent in a strong crosswind (wing-down technique) and in rough conditions.

Later in my flying career, I spent a lot of time with a CAA examiner (from another European authority) who had a lot of MD-11 time and I was amazed to hear (over several beers) how they had screwed up a really nice flying aeroplane by trying to save money by chopping down the size of the horizontal stabiliser and so ended up having to fit a computer (LSAS) and God knows what else to make good this defecit.

(As a matter of interest, the span of the DC-10 horizontal stabiliser (tailplane) was the same as the wingspan of the DC-3).

It was quite difficult to bounce the DC-10 but it might be of interest to know that the recovery technique was to ease (and I mean ease) forward on the control column. This might not work well on an MD-11?

My guess is that the start of this accident might well have begun with windshear at a very late stage on finals; too late to prevent a heavy landing.

Dysag

23rd Mar 2009, 17:03

The LSAS was an example of designers running to stand still.

The fly-by-wire 777 and Airbus types were getting way ahead and the flying qualities could be tweaked electronically during flight test.

The MD-11 belonged to that intermediate generation like the A310/A300-600, not fully manual but not fully computer controlled, which scared many.

There are defenders of the old way, and many FBW supporters, but few I think who prefer the 'half way house'.

Good memories

23rd Mar 2009, 17:11

Rog 747,

You are right to refer to Faro, there control was lost , one of the main gears gave away and the wing came of , thereafter the aircraft rolled over. Why control was lost will be the issue to investigate. I 'am afraid the small stab. on the long MD 11 fuselage is playing a important role in the loss of control.

In 1994 a MD 11 at SMX. was nearly lost after control problems with the stab.and available landing distance. Here a aborted landing was made which saved the plane and pax. The aborted landing was made after selecting reverse thrust. Luckily the engines spooled up evenly.

Good Flying!

John

hetfield

23rd Mar 2009, 17:18

@Dysag

I'm afraid to agree with you, cause than I'll be banned.....

regards

Gatchaman

23rd Mar 2009, 17:40

Is the roll over not caused by the left wing stalling.
The tip then impacting the side of the runway, quickly followed by the engine breaking off with the wing.

It's not so much the tip which causes the problem. The MD11 gear is designed to break off under horizontal impact but not vertical. If the vertical stress is high enough, it breaks the rear wing spar. The opposing forces (good wing still lifting, engine on bad wing already on runway) cause the wing to fold at the main-gear point, between engine and fuselage. Once that happens there's nothing to stop the aircraft rolling inverted.

Once on its back it stays there because the other wing hasn't been weakened by gear impact stress. Very similar inversion dynamics in the Mandarin and previous FedEx accidents.

The issue is how to avoid banging the thing on the deck in the first place.

TotalBeginner

23rd Mar 2009, 18:24

Am I right in thinking that the MD11 has a couple of features to assist in the lowering of the nose-wheel upon touch down?

-Ground spoilers deploy only initially to 45deg until the nose-wheel strut is compressed, then the spoiler handle continues to the 60deg (full position).

-Engine 2 is limited to idle reverse until the nose-wheel strut is compressed.

Is this correct?

akerosid

23rd Mar 2009, 18:30

Good Memories, would like to know more about this incident - if you can share it?

"In 1994 a MD 11 at SMX. was nearly lost after control problems with the stab.and available landing distance. Here a aborted landing was made which saved the plane and pax. The aborted landing was made after selecting reverse thrust. Luckily the engines spooled up evenly."

SMX came up (IATA code) as Santa Maria, CA; is this correct; can you recall which airline it was and whether there was any official report done on it?

Broomstick Flier

23rd Mar 2009, 18:54

Probably a typo for SXM - St. Marteen
KLM flies there with 11s regularly

Cheers
BF

4krew

23rd Mar 2009, 18:54

Besides this list there was the incident in Mexico City MD11 Varig and some others bounced almost crash, LOTS of them.

BALLSOUT

23rd Mar 2009, 18:57

We have to consider the fact that this was a cargo aircraft. Did it have a
C of G problem from improperly loaded cargo. If not, how long after the first bounce did the cargo start to move, causing the C of G to move. If the cargo started to move, it could have quickly become imposible to controll.

Good memories

23rd Mar 2009, 19:02

Hi Akerosid, I see you are a sollicitor so I rather not give you the details, but the airport was St Maarten ,2000m runway, non precision approach ,at night. I was on the investigation team and one of our recommendations was not to operate there during night time with wide bodies.
The involved company and authority did not follow that advise. I have been flying 747's in there myself for 15 years.

John

akerosid

23rd Mar 2009, 19:27

Don't worry, I'm asking that question as an enthusiast, not as a lawyer!

I also recall that the Brazilian airline VASP had a serious MD11 incident at SFO.

Dysag

23rd Mar 2009, 19:33

Let's not forget this one.

The only video I've seen (not here) is of lousy quality, but appears to show the right wingtip or engine touching first, with the result you can see.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/3/6/0044639.jpg

Flight Safety

23rd Mar 2009, 19:34

Harrymann, so normal positive longitudinal stability has some tailplane drag (both trim and profile). Then for range considerations, they decide to remove the trim drag with low positive or neutral longitudinal stability with a CG change, and then reduce the profile drag with a reduced tailplane, never mind what happens to the tailplane authority with reduced speed and 50 degree flaps. After this, they try to address created issues by "fixing it in place" with the LSAS and other things.

I understand now. :ugh:

Momonishiki

23rd Mar 2009, 19:35

With respect to the center of gravity issue, I had a friend who worked as ground crew for FedEx loading aircraft. He told me what a nightmare the MD11 was compared to the DC10 in terms of CG being so far back that the nose had a tendency to come off the ground while parked if not loaded just right. So, that would seem to add some weight to the notion that aircraft's CG could have played a role in the nose up pitch.

torquewrench

23rd Mar 2009, 19:52

Was it an -11 or a -10 conversion?

It was a factory MD-11.

The MD-10 conversions lack the winglets of the -11.

But the MD-10 retains the original larger tailplane of the DC-10.

B-HKD

23rd Mar 2009, 20:02

It was a factory MD-11.

The MD-10 conversions lack the winglets of the -11.

But the MD-10 retains the original larger tailplane of the DC-10.

And no FADEC.

Leo

CR2

23rd Mar 2009, 20:07

If the aircraft was misloaded, it would probably manifest itself on departure.

With an aft cg (out of limits aft that is) you'd get either a tail tip on the ramp, lack of nose-wheel steering authority during taxi or the aircraft trying to take off before VR. Going back to the ramp, the trained eye would see the nose-strut massively extended and wonder why...

I've no idea if the aircraft was full/empty or somewhere inbetween. Loadshift? Hmm. Full, that would be impossible, empty obviously impossible too. Assume it was partially loaded for argument's sake and also for argument's sake one ULD was not locked. This 3-4T ULD (being FEDEX I doubt it would be more) shifts a position or two (1 position = 10ft); would it make a difference balance-wise? I doubt anyone would even notice.

Hiflyer1757

23rd Mar 2009, 20:25

FedEx Express (FedEx), a subsidiary of FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX), and the world’s largest express transportation company, began operations at its new Asia Pacific hub located at the Baiyun International Airport in Guangzhou, China on Feb. 6, 2009. This hub is now the company’s largest outside of the United States.
-------------------
About 7 weeks of service from the new hub....something that will be looked at by the investigators as a possible factor I would suspect.

timbob

23rd Mar 2009, 20:48

I recall American Airlines pilots in Narita referring to the MD as the "SCUD". Due to mechanical issues, the feeling was, once airborne, one never new where it was going to land....does anyone know if Narita is back to both runways??? Timbob.

speed freek

23rd Mar 2009, 21:02

Just a question (observation) so please don't shoot me!

Everybody seems to be going on about the reduced tailplane authority of the MD-11 but how can this be when any pitch moment goes through a longer 'arm'. ie. The stretched fuselage. (Think somebody posted something like that earlier). Is it not more likely that the operators/manufacturer are more worried about tail strikes? Maybe that is where the problem stems from. But what do I know? :}

And please remember this is a public forum. No more nonsense about banning aircraft. Don't forget what they go through at testing.

My thoughts are with the families and friends.

boguing

23rd Mar 2009, 21:02

If you look at the video linked to by Green Granite in post #65, you'll also see that the Starboard wing breaks away at the pylon when the roll to Port is at about 100 degrees.

Read the whole thread, but didn't spot it being mentioned.

Main gear fractured it or unopposed lift bent it off?

Rananim

23rd Mar 2009, 21:24

A bounced landing must be recovered from first before allowing a big jet to settle back. .

Surely this must be the key..The "recovery" here was a desperate overflare to prevent NLG damage but no thrust.A/C airborne again but resettles with less speed and more pronounced nose-down attitude.Reverser application,not MLG touchdown is the PNR in any landing.Its a mindset thats hard to break even in experienced and skilled pilots sometimes.

gulfairs

23rd Mar 2009, 21:28

the DC10 series had a larger elevator/empanage that was not anti iced.
the MD11 has a smaller empanage and is anti/deiced.
The therory was even with ice the bigger tail was adequate with an ice build up.
In ten years of flying DC10-30, I only ever had severe airframe icing, and would you believe it: it was on my first Command flight on a 10
The 10-30 was one of the best airframes I ever flew and I was lucky because I had 10 years on the " Big Cherokee"

Touch'n'oops

23rd Mar 2009, 21:29

Looking at this video YouTube - ??????????????2009.03.23??Landing accident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6cMK9LUnzI&feature=player_embedded)

Note the pitch of the aircraft before landing. It appears low then just before touchdown there is a sharp pitch up, possibly to arrest a increasing descent rate. However, this drives the main gear into the runway as it sits behind the CoG.

After the 1st touch down, I think the pilot may have reacted to the sharp pitch up and pushed the column forward to stop a tail strike. Realising that the correction had been too aggressive then checks back to hold off the 2nd bounce. The pitch looks perfect for a 3rd firm touch down, but he was all out of airspeed and the aircraft stalls. From the photos of the aircraft here Tokyo Plane Crash: Two Pilots Die As FedEx Cargo Plane Bursts Into Flames At Narita Airport, Japan | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Tokyo-Plane-Crash-Two-Pilots-Die-As-FedEx-Cargo-Plane-Bursts-Into-Flames-At-Narita-Airport-Japan/Article/200903415246955?f=rss) the third touch down is so hard the nose wheels shear off, but the nose gear does NOT collapse.

To sum it off, I believe he got himself into a Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO). I have got myself into one of these on landing before. The motions of the aircraft ring very similar to my crash. I was lucky my incident turned into a very expensive and useful lesson.

My thoughts are with the families of the ones lost.

airfoilmod

23rd Mar 2009, 21:41

snapped off outboard the Pylon, at ~100~ degrees Roll, as reported.
At rest, the a/c is obviously missing the right wing.

Flightmech

23rd Mar 2009, 21:42

Touch 'n' oops,

The nosewheels didn't shear off. Both of the hubs are clearly still there on the axle. The tyres probably perished from the heat of the flames.

boguing

23rd Mar 2009, 22:09

Take your point re: the image - but the burnt wing remains are a couple of degrees forward of where they should be (straight leading edge)(camera angles/zooms etc taken as very variable). Which 'just might' be the case if the flailing sub-structures directed it to. Or, of course, maybe I'm wrong, and the position of the remains of the wing is due to all of the almost incalculable stresses it sustained.

However, if you watch the video as often as I have, you might understand why I have convinced myself that the outer wing panel rotates (in roll) faster than the fuselage and stbd engine?

airfoilmod

23rd Mar 2009, 22:11

I was extrapolating. The wing snapped loose, but remained attached. I refer to the post (#65). I had assumed it parted, evidently not. Thx.

AF

Check the wing's remains, they look as if they've rotated front to back. the tip angle, flap structure, etc. "twisted" around the main spar.

stepwilk

23rd Mar 2009, 22:20

I suspect some of the posters who talk of the "right wing" being separated are stunningly unaware that the airplane is upside down. Ready, fire, aim...

Stephan Wilkinson

Blues&twos

23rd Mar 2009, 22:24

Just a thought, if the initial NLG touchdown was sufficiently forceful, is it possible that any remaining control of the aircraft was lost at this point, pilots unable to respond to anything after initial touchdown rather than an attempted correction gone awry?

airfoilmod

23rd Mar 2009, 22:34

View the vid linked in #65. All the way to its conclusion.

AF

boguing

23rd Mar 2009, 22:39

Agreed. In that image, the Port wing is separated. The remains of the severely burnt Starboard wing are just dust towards the bottom of the picture. However, the pattern is about two or three degrees forward of where it should be. I'll say again. The camera angle makes it look that way, but who knows?

Jofm5

23rd Mar 2009, 22:44

FYI: From The Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=416e7619&opt=0) :-

The JTSB reported, that the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have both been recovered, data analysis has started. The nose gear tires were found separated from the wheels supposedly departing the rims when the airplane touched down the second time with the nose gear first, the left wing broke off at the wing root at impact with the runway. The NTSB (USA) is joining the investigation with a go-team.

Touch'n'oops

23rd Mar 2009, 22:46

Flightmech:

I know what you thought and so did I, but see the post before this one. Those are not the rims. Compare with this photo http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/486031532_763a2972b1.jpg?v=0

muduckace

23rd Mar 2009, 23:10

The Md-11 and Dc-10 have bogies and a Center gear that are aft of the CG. Assuming, windshear advisory they were flying into a slight angled crosswind at 40kt they were 10 kt above calculated speed, windshear, overrotation and roll input to compensate driving the mlg and cg harder into the ground.

Followed by

Loss of A/S, possible elevator input from a late reaction fatally driving the nose into the ground and a 2nd bounce off the mains, lost enough a/s to come down with the left wing stalled out (cross wind/ or W/S adding to the situation).

I have experienced similar sucessfull landings in a DC-10-30 and a MD-11.
Dc-10-30 F/O landing, below G/S. Attempts to compensate with a too late flare, heard 30 on the R.A callout the 2nd time around bouncing and landing hard in a 1 wing stall.

Md-11, Windshear at 30 R.A., full aileron input to compensate no help, hard landing on one gear, allmost scraped the eng.

rotated

23rd Mar 2009, 23:24

The news this morning shows a large collection of machinery cleaning up the wreckage, evidently they are hoping to open the runway later today.

Dozens of flights are still being affected; many pax have been bussed to other airports.

Kudos to the Narita Airport Authority, despite this being their first incident it seems they are coping very well with both the crash and its aftermath.

muduckace

23rd Mar 2009, 23:28

"Am I right in thinking that the MD11 has a couple of features to assist in the lowering of the nose-wheel upon touch down?

-Ground spoilers deploy only initially to 45deg until the nose-wheel strut is compressed, then the spoiler handle continues to the 60deg (full position).

-Engine 2 is limited to idle reverse until the nose-wheel strut is compressed.

Is this correct?"

The FCC's recieved a program correction years ago to drive the stab A.N.D. after the MLG is compressed to my knowledge years ago as a result of several tail strikes. The Md-11 is not an aircraft that is safe to perform "aerodynamic breaking" in because of the smaller horizontal stab.

This could have had a slight influence.

Burbank

23rd Mar 2009, 23:36

Without wanting to judge, just to provide additional information: Boeing MD-11 FCOM vol 2 procedures and techniques PT30.2:
Bounced Landing Recovery
If the aircraft should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude
and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Avoid rapid
pitch rates in establishing a normal landing attitude.
CAUTION: Tail strikes or nosewheel structural damage can
occur if large forward or aft control column movements
are made prior to touchdown.
When a bounced landing occurs, consider initiating a go-around by use of
normal go-around procedures. Do not retract the landing gear until a
positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may
occur during the go-around.
I've been flying the MD-11 for more than 10 years and must say the FCC update has made the aircraft more stable. Luckily I've never found myself having to recover from such a bounced landing as seen in the video. Certainly, the MD-11 may not have the greatest elevator authority. But I expect it may be able to hold a landing attitude as well as other large transport category aircraft. I'm wondering however how g forces during the bounce will affect the pilots ability to "hold it steady" though. Hopefully we will all be able to learn from data from the FDR.

Also from FCOM3:

Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System (LSAS)
The Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System (LSAS) enhances longitudinal
stability and provides:
• Pitch attitude hold.
• Pitch attitude limiting.
• Pitch rate damping.
• Pitch attitude protection.
• Positive nose lowering.
• Speed limiting.
• Stall protection.
Each FCC contains two LSAS control channels. This provides four redundant
channels of control. LSAS operates through series control of the elevators (no
movement of control column), and is inhibited when autopilot is engaged.
With less than 2 pounds of force applied on the control column, LSAS holds pitch
attitude by deflecting the elevators up to +/-5°. LSAS provides automatic
horizontal stabilizer trim to off load steady-state elevator displacement, restoring
a full 5° of elevator authority. Whenever there is more than 2 pounds of force on
the control column, pitch attitude hold function is inhibited and the aircraft rotates
in proportion to the applied force. When force is then removed from the column,
the aircraft holds the new pitch attitude. Pitch attitude hold is inhibited at bank
angles exceeding 30° or below 100 feet RA.
Pitch Attitude Limiting (PAL) ensures that LSAS will only hold a pitch attitude
between 30° ANU and 10° AND.
Pitch Rate Damping (PRD) increases the apparent static stability to reduce the
chance of overcontrol in pitch, especially at high altitudes. It is active throughout
the flight envelope, below 16,500 feet at 30% of the maximum damping
(FCC-908) increasing linearly to 100% above 20,000 feet.
Pitch Attitude Protection (PAP)(FCC-908) reduces the chance of a tail strike
during take-off and landing by adding nose down elevator if the aircraft is at
serious risk of tail contact with the ground. PAP is a direct function of pitch
attitude, radio altitude and pitch rate and is enabled below 100 feet RA. The pitch
attitude limit will vary linearly from 30° at 40 feet RA to 9.5° at 0 feet RA.
Positive Nose Lowering (PNL)(FCC-908) will apply 3° of nose-down elevator
command when the FCC commands the Auto Ground Spoilers to extend at main
wheel spinup. As the spoilers extend beyond 10°, PNL will increase the
nose-down elevator command to 4°. The command fades out when FD mode
cycles back to T/O, or if throttles are advanced for G/A.
During take-off and landing flight phases, when PAP or PNL is active,
approximately 10-15 pounds of force on the control column is required to override
LSAS.
Upon detecting a fault, both channels of one FCC shut down. After selecting both
failed channels off, the remaining FCC is armed to revert to single LSAS channel
operation should one of the two remaining LSAS channels fail. The remaining
LSAS channels will increase deflection 2-fold (4-fold deflection occurs
automatically in case of reversion to single elevator LSAS operation).

Question is, what caused the nose lowering: pilot input or LSAS. In both cases things need to be changed.

Vino Collapso

23rd Mar 2009, 23:47

It will be interesting to see what the FDR makes of the speed over the fence. It looks fast and has the hallmark of mainwheels first, nose down to complete the landing by which time the mainwheels are off the ground again. The rest of the oscillation is down to science but there is a definite 'puff' when the nosewheels hit the second time, probably losing tyres and rims.

Fast over the fence could be for a number of reasons in those wind conditions.

HarryMann

24th Mar 2009, 00:05

Burbank

I'd even go so far as too select out that whole section on PAP and and PNL for a good read - and feature the last paragraph.

Pitch Attitude Protection (PAP)(FCC-908) reduces the chance of a tail strike during take-off and landing by adding nose down elevator if the aircraft is at
serious risk of tail contact with the ground. PAP is a direct function of pitch
attitude, radio altitude and pitch rate and is enabled below 100 feet RA. The pitch
attitude limit will vary linearly from 30° at 40 feet RA to 9.5° at 0 feet RA.

Positive Nose Lowering (PNL)(FCC-908) will apply 3° of nose-down elevator
command when the FCC commands the Auto Ground Spoilers to extend at main
wheel spinup. As the spoilers extend beyond 10°, PNL will increase the
nose-down elevator command to 4°. The command fades out when FD mode
cycles back to T/O, or if throttles are advanced for G/A.

During take-off and landing flight phases, when PAP or PNL is active,
approximately 10-15 pounds of force on the control column is required to override
LSAS.

shonandai

24th Mar 2009, 00:44

Runway 16R/34L reported open from 9:10 am Japan time on the Japanese language webpage of Narita airport.

Rgds

scroggs

24th Mar 2009, 00:50

It is indeed open; I'm watching aircraft depart from 34L from my hotel room. I hope to be departing from it myself by tomorrow morning.

Capn Bloggs

24th Mar 2009, 00:58

Bounced Landing Recovery
If the aircraft should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude
and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Avoid rapid
pitch rates in establishing a normal landing attitude.
CAUTION: Tail strikes or nosewheel structural damage can
occur if large forward or aft control column movements
are made prior to touchdown.
When a bounced landing occurs, consider initiating a go-around by use of
normal go-around procedures. Do not retract the landing gear until a
positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may
occur during the go-around.
I wouldn't put too much credence on this as being type-specific. These words, verbatim, are also in the 717 FCOM. In other words, generalised motherhood and brotherhood stuff that applies to all jets...certainly the ones I have flown.

B-HKD

24th Mar 2009, 01:16

Plane had 101,992 lbs of freight on board.

Leo

lomapaseo

24th Mar 2009, 02:24

News Shooter

I just want to understand the rules. Thanks for any help you can give me.

Rules?

We don't need rules, just judgements.

It's kind of like news papers with sports sections and Financial sections. Sometimes the reader interest is so high that an item makes the front page headline.

OTOH we have in the US Telly the 6 O'clock news and the news at 11 pm. If your really a local you watch both. Otherwise like me you just sample what's hot.

So let the reader (browsers decide what's hot) and the Mods second guess us all :)

Flightmech

24th Mar 2009, 08:11

Touch'n' oops,

Thanks for correcting me but I said hubs not rims. The hubs can clearly be seen along with tie bolts. The majority of the wheels are still bolted to the axle. Thanks for the photo, but I'm fully aware of what a DC-10/MD-11 nose tyre/wheel assy looks like thanks.

Propellerhead

24th Mar 2009, 10:37

I'm wondering how this impact compares with some other landing accidents. Someone mentioned the Iberia 340 at Quito(?) being 3g, but I would have thought the 777 at LHR would have been heavier, and possibly the Britannia in Girona. In the 777 case, one landing gear separated and the other went through the top of the wing - a much better outcome than the wing coming off and the aircraft rolling inverted. The Ryanair 737 in Ciampino also had the u/c partly go through the top of the wing.

Retraso.com, accidentes aereos, air disasters, air crashes, (http://www.retraso.com/Web/tusderechos/informeaccidentes/informe1.htm)

Aircrew Buzz: Ryanair Flight FR4102 Emergency at Rome-Ciampino: Multiple Bird Strikes (http://aircrewbuzz.com/2008/11/ryanair-flight-fr4102-emergency-at-rome.html)

In the Brittania case:
"The aircraft, yawed considerably to the right of its direction of travel, then passed through the fence, re-landed in a field and both main landing gears collapsed.

It came to rest after a 244 metre slide across the field, with the fuselage almost structurally severed at two points, the NLG and both engines detached and the underside of the left wing torque box split open near the wing root. The three fuselage parts remained upright, connected by cables, wires and other services, but rolled to the left between 8-16°. There was no fire".

Just because the MD11 is certified to a certain structural limit (Xg) doesn't mean the wing should fall off when that structural limit gets to
X.1g!

fox niner

24th Mar 2009, 11:01

I have a gut feeling that this MD11 experienced more than 3 G's....more than the quito Airbus.

Of course I'm patiently waiting for the final report, just like everyone else. But since someone mentioned pilot induced occilation, check this out:

YouTube - Crazy landing with L-410 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhUO4pdGCf8)

It shows what can happen with PIO.

HarryMann

24th Mar 2009, 11:11

Someone mentioned the Iberia 340 at Quito(?) being 3gLanding limits are more generally expressed as a rate-of-descent e.g. 10 ~ 15 ft/s max (and at given landing weights)...

The 'G' that something experiences, will vary across the whole aircraft structure, and parts thereof, depending on it's mass, stiffness, interconnectedness and instantaneous crash dynamics.

For instance, the recent AMS 737 accident, it is quite evident that the forward fuselage experienced many times the 'g' force of the centre fuselage and wing section.

Ultimately it's the forces that count, which are dependent upon the mass of the part that's accelerated, which (mass) could of course change dramatically during the course of an accident... so any comments on what should and shouldn't break and how, is highly speculative. Granted though, that MD-10 & 11s seem to come apart pretty dramatically in such incidents... it would have been the accelarative forces of the flipping of the right wing, that seemed to break it outboard of the pylon.

tomcruise

24th Mar 2009, 12:24

website where this was published:

That Tragic MD-11 Safety Record (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/forbidding.html)

Subject: WSJ
/Jet's Troubled History/continued
Yet sometimes, at low altitude, the opposite occurs: Pilots tell of pulling with all their might and finding the plane hardly responded. That can be a problem during landing. In several instances where pilots brought down their MD-11s too rapidly and tried to compensate at the last minute, they smacked the aircraft's tail on the runway or caused other damage.
That's what NTSB investigators reckoned took place in 1997 when FedEx pilots tried to land an MD-11 at Newark. The plane touched down too hard, bounced, rolled right, broke its right wing, flipped over and was destroyed by fire. The two pilots, who escaped, took most of the blame. But the safety board also raised questions about the plane's "stability and control characteristics," the design of its landing gear and why its wing broke off, a rare occurrence in similar hard-landing accidents.
Boeing acknowledges the tail-strike problem but says it has addressed the matter in a variety of ways, including new software and better pilot-training programs. It says there hasn't been a serious MD-11 tail strike reported in the past year or so.
'Just Quit Flying' Veteran FedEx captain Jack Burke, who once walked away from an MD-11 tail strike, has described his caution about flying the plane. "The first 100 feet and the last 100 feet are where the crew really has to sweat it," he says. If the descent isn't exactly right, Capt. Burke adds, he will abort the landing, because "the plane can just quit flying on you. There is simply no time to recover."
Some pilots, reflecting the joking camaraderie of their ranks, have adopted macabre nicknames for the MD-11. "Death Star," some facetiously call it, according to the Air Line Pilots Association's safety-committee chairman. Others call it the Scud, after Iraq's unpredictable Gulf War missile.

beatrix

24th Mar 2009, 13:35

From the stand point of a casual observer;

Could the violent up-down movement seen on the video have been caused by freight breaking loose after initial heavy impact? in my mind, freight shoving backwards, then forwards, then all over the shop would be enough to cause all sorts of weight distribution/CofG problems?

go easy - I'm still learning :8

Fizix

24th Mar 2009, 13:40

Can anyone please point to any documented design parameters for subsequent aircraft models (be it Brand A or Brand B) which have specifically taken into account the need to avoid the situation displayed by this accident? Namely those which take into account the previously-known handling characteristics of an MD-11 in particular (especially as a cited justification? - eg "touchy/sensitive" elevator control leading to new design feature as follows, ..., bearing in mind MD-11 behavour X/Y/Z)?

Put another way, are there any formally-documented design criteria post the 1970s/80s which point to a subsequent overall aircraft design feature which particularly avoids the "known" handling issues of an MD-11 (eg that which has apparently led to the accident in NRT)? I accept the -10 to -11 changes in design but seek information about other manufacturers takng certain things into account.

Also, I'm not a "legal eagle", just curious about whether "known" handling difficulties in one type have been acknowledged/rectified in subsequent airframe designs by other manufacturers.

ProM

24th Mar 2009, 14:11

Looking at this video (there are more than one),

BBC NEWS | World | Asia-Pacific | Fiery Tokyo plane crash kills two (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7958367.stm)

if you quickly stop/start the video between 4s and 5s in then the starboard wing seems to be swept back at a massive angle at one point

vovachan

24th Mar 2009, 15:15

RobertS975

24th Mar 2009, 15:48

The above referenced BBC link states that this was the first fatal accident in the history of NRT which opened back in 1978. If true, then that is an impressive stat all by itself!

SEPilot

24th Mar 2009, 16:00

This is very pertinent. Boeing designs its landing gear to shear off under excessive vertical loads; this is far safer than having it break the wing spar, as apparently happens on the MD-11. I think this goes back to when McDonnell took over Douglas; McDonnell had never designed anything except military planes, and if they met specifications then everyone was happy. Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed, however, had learned that when designing airliners you made it as safe as you could, period. The regulations were regarded as just the starting point. I am convinced that many of the problems with the DC-10/MD-11 come from the fact that the military people at McDonnell were in control of the company, and the Douglas people who really knew how to build an airliner were not listened to.

philbky

24th Mar 2009, 16:16

SEPilot,

That occurred to me many years ago after discussing handling probs and the small tailplane with an AA "Scud" driver.

Douglas pretty much bankrupted itself into the hands of McDonnell by building tough airframes. When the St Louis outfit took over the financial reins, its first civil creation, the DC10, was pretty much a General Dynamics fuselage mated to a Douglas wing - primarily because DC9 demand was putting a strain on the Long Beach facilities and it was more cost effective to build the fuselage elsewhere.

The over large tailplane of the DC10 was a cheaper alternative than an active de-icing system and the MD-11 contains hall marks of fighter thinking in its wing position, the redesign of the tailplane and many of the handling features.

I've yet to meet anyone in engineering or who flies the MD-11 with anything really good to say about it.

Flight Safety

24th Mar 2009, 16:18

Can anyone post the decision logic of the LSAS system? I can discern some of it from the FCOM discription, but not all of it. Anytime automation is "in the loop" at the time of an accident, I think it's worth looking at.

Propellerhead

24th Mar 2009, 16:27

What is the max certified g limit - 2.5g? I can't see that landing being more than 7.5g. I agree with the previous poster's comments about g force varying throughout the structure.

snowfalcon2

24th Mar 2009, 16:35

Just because the MD11 is certified to a certain structural limit (Xg) doesn't mean the wing should fall off when that structural limit gets to
X.1g!
***************

actually it can withstand abt 3x its certified limit.

Hmm... I hope you don't fly to such limits.

FAR25 says:

"Sec. 25.303 Factor of safety.

Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit load which are considered external loads on the structure. When a loading condition is prescribed in terms of ultimate loads, a factor of safety need not be applied unless otherwise specified."

Please have a look at the youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o) of the B777 wing load test. It breaks at 154% limit load, proving designers don't put in more strength (and weight) than necessary.

Flight Safety

24th Mar 2009, 16:40

I think Harrymann may be on to something.

First we have from the FCOM
During take-off and landing flight phases, when (LSAS) PAP or PNL is active, approximately 10-15 pounds of force on the control column is required to override LSAS.

Then we have:
Bounced Landing Recovery
If the aircraft should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Avoid rapid pitch rates in establishing a normal landing attitude.
CAUTION: Tail strikes or nosewheel structural damage can occur if large forward or aft control column movements are made prior to touchdown.

So, we need 10-15 pounds of control column "break out force" to override the LSAS PAP or PNL active modes below 100ft RA, when light pitch rates are needed, in an aircraft that already has low pitch stability.

What am I missing here?

Perwazee

24th Mar 2009, 16:42

“The above referenced BBC link states that this was the first fatal accident in the history of NRT which opened back in 1978. If true, then that is an impressive stat all by itself!”

If you’re an ‘American Football’ or ‘Baseball/Basketball’ fan, then yes I can see how you’re impressed by a meaningless statistic!

snowfalcon2

24th Mar 2009, 16:54

What is the max certified g limit - 2.5g? I can't see that landing being more than 7.5g. I agree with the previous poster's comments about g force varying throughout the structure.

Please...
The airworthiness requirements, FAR 25 for transport category airplanes, are all on the web. Here is a link (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/CurrentFARPart!OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=11#11) and here's the basic requirement for the landing gear.

"Sec. 25.473 Landing load conditions and assumptions.

(a) For the landing conditions specified in Sec. 25.479 to Sec. 25.485 the airplane is assumed to contact the ground--
(1) In the attitudes defined in Sec. 25.479 and Sec. 25.481;
(2) With a limit descent velocity of 10 fps at the design landing weight (the maximum weight for landing conditions at maximum descent velocity); and <....>"

So the gear must withstand a 600 fpm descent rate as the service limit load, and in the certification tests it must pass one test at ultimate loads corresponding to 900 fpm. Note also that there are a number of conditions attached to those requirements, in reality it's not just that simple number.

SEPilot

24th Mar 2009, 17:18

Huck

24th Mar 2009, 17:35

I have plenty of good to say about the MD11.

But it is not proper right now. Two of my coworkers are dead.

We'll discuss it later.

armchairpilot94116

24th Mar 2009, 18:05

An Airworthiness Review - China Air MD-11 Hong Kong (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/airworthiness_review.html)

Some info on the other Fedex Md11 accident on that link , plus link to the Mandarin Md11 accident in HK

Seems the Md11 is not suited to landing in strong winds, and a diversion is a better preference when such conditions exist?

lomapaseo

24th Mar 2009, 18:26

The certification requirements dictate what loads the landing gear must take, they do not dictate what happens when they are exceeded. This is where real design takes place; to make sure that when it fails it does so in the most benign fashion possible. In this case it would be that the landing gear shear off, but with the MD-11 it appears that it tends to break the wing spar. Note the BA 777 at Heathrow; had it been built like the MD-11 and the wing spar had broken instead of the landing gear going through the wing that one might well have ended up on its back as well, and in that case it is highly likely that there would have been fatalities. If the gear would have detached in the same manner perhaps none of the three MD-11's that flipped on landing would have done so.

Some good posts here above on cert requirements as well as the one quoted.

I think the issue here might be that the designers assumed that when/if the loads were exceeded it would be a crash landing and no amount of analysis could predict the results.

Unfortunately it looks like a crash landing with a still flying wing on one side is what is unique in these accidents (lesson learned?)

zekeigo

24th Mar 2009, 18:45

It is not correct to say that the MD-11 is not suited to land in strong or gusty cross winds.
Respecting the limitations, it is a perfectly fine aircraft to operate in all weather conditions as any other wide body.
MD-11 pilots must understand the LSAS and this is the key to fully appreciate this beautiful airplane.
I believe that pilot qualifications to fly the MD-11 are more of the concern, not the aircraft.
The secret to land the MD-11 in gusty cross winds is to align with the runway using the rudder not later than 500 feet and don’t allow the auto-throttle to retard at 50 feet RA. In other words, hold the thrust levers to maintain the Vref + wind additives and manually retard the throttles to idle at touchdown.
This is not an easy task and requires a lot of experience to achieve this technique, that’s why pilot qualification has an important role here.
two cents from who operated the great MD-11 for long time
:ok:

philbky

24th Mar 2009, 18:59

The secret to land the MD-11 in gusty cross winds is to align with the runway using the rudder not later than 500 feet and don’t allow the auto-throttle to retard at 50 feet RA. In other words, hold the thrust levers to maintain the Vref + wind additives and manually retard the throttles to idle at touchdown.
This is not an easy task and requires a lot of experience to achieve this technique, that’s why pilot qualification has an important role here.]So, in your view, where should this "experience" be gained in order for this task, which is "not easy", to become part of a line pilot's repertoire? With pax in the back (thankfully now a relatively rare occurence) or with thousands of dollars of other people's goods on the main deck or in the simulator?

You may have mastered the beast but clearly other pilots haven't and even the most experienced can be caught out by a set of circumstances.

If the aircraft is that tricky to deal with in an everyday situation such as a cross wind the question has to beasked about its suitability for continued service for the sake of those who still ride down the back, including many American troops, the freight shippers and you and the other crew who fly the aircraft.

I've seen many an MD-11 landing in cross winds over many years. The aircraft has always looked to handle the situation far less tidily than other wide bodies before or following

EDML

24th Mar 2009, 19:11

The 346 in Quito landed with 1100fpm - without structural damage. Only the MLG bogies where damaged which in turn damaged the Air/Ground logic leading to the overrun.
Noteworthy is furthermore that at 249t they where close to Max. landing wheight which is 259t.

Marcus

airfoilmod

24th Mar 2009, 19:12

With its institutional memory, builds a/c to land on the Carrier. The LG division is a little over exuberant. After the wing fails, (pick a side) the remaining wing is accelerated (pivoting around a dug in MLG) gaining great lift. The remaining (Starboard in this case) wing failed also, at its most pronounced AOA and at the pylon. The video shows this, it is unusual it remained in position post crash, but not startling; skin, and rib/stringer assemblies carried it along. IMO. It is amazing to see the NLG defiantly stuck in the Air after those horrendous bounces and pre-roll skid.

AF

HarryMann

24th Mar 2009, 19:19

The over large tailplane of the DC10 was a cheaper alternative than an active de-icing system and the MD-11 contains hall marks of fighter thinking in its wing position, the redesign of the tailplane and many of the handling features.

I doubt you have every worked in an a/c design office, because nobody positions a wing on anything other than 'where it should be' and there's only one place which is 'where it should be' :rolleyes:

snowfalcon2

24th Mar 2009, 19:23

The 346 in Quito landed with 1100fpm - without structural damage.
And for BA038, the B777 at Heathrow, "The aircraft’s initial impact was at a descent rate of about 1,400 fpm and a peak normal load of about 2.9g." (source: AAIB). Landing gears came off but the fuselage stayed together.

Volume

24th Mar 2009, 19:26

Some of the certification requirements posted so far do not give the full picture. For example the safety factor of 1.5 does apply to static loads, however landing gears are typically safe life structure designed for a fatigue life that matches the aircraft service life. Therefore most landing gear components are stronger than they need to be for static reason. On the other hand you cannot use the safety factor to scale impact speed, at certain rate the shock absorber will bottom and the loads will rise significantly, so you can not assume that a landing gear can always take 1.5 the design descend speed.

It is also a requrement that in a minor (otherwise survivable) crash landing the landing gear must safely break off the airframe without rupturing any fuel tank, taking into account all reasonable combinations of horizontal and vertical forces. It does therefore not matter whether Douglas or McDonnell was designing the landing gear, the requirements are the same. Typically specific shear pins are designed to break off first, they are often tailored to exact rupture loads by taking material samples and machining the inner diameter to the exact required dimension.

Regarding the break off of the left wing, as a huge ammount of fuel is obviously released (and ignited), the wing must have ruptured in the area of a fuel tank that still contains a lot of fuel during landing. I am not aware of the exact fuel system layout. The left landing gear is still attached to the wing, so it looks like the wing fractured somewhere between the fuselage and the landing gear.

What puzzles me at the moment is the fully deployed right wing (Nr. 1) thrust reverser. At which point during the event was the T/R activated ? It obviously had time enough to fully deploy, which for a translating cowl design driven by spindles should take a little time, and not happen accidentially. Auto T/R at the firm first tochdown ?

Regarding the positive statements about FedEx, I work with some of their maintenance engineers and I am always impressed by their competence and their focus on safety. My thoughts are with the colleagues they lost.

Steve Michell

24th Mar 2009, 19:39

Now, I actually fly the MD11. Left seat.
Too much speculation going on here.
Fact: An MD11 is just a plane. Certified and all, just like all the other birds out there.
Fact: LSAS provides PPL after touch down and I must say the new software makes it much easier to master for rookies. The fact that LSAS moves the elevator without the pilot handling the aircraft knowing it is to some disturbing. Not to digital jocks out there: they've given that up long time ago.
Fact: MD11 is actually certified with LSAS. It's got to operate and all redundant system working before departure.
Fact: main gears are fitted onto wing spar and THAT is not allowed in a new model anymore before certification. Gears are nowadays designed to shear i.s.o. taking the wing off.
Fact: I almost always fly with autothrottle and rarely override it. It's that good. Also in gusty wind conditions. It's even certified to auto fly itself out of windshear.
I wouldn't dare to say something about the skill of the pilots involved. May they rest in peace. But everybody who's been to Narita knows of the conditions with high wind.
Has anyone thought of an LSAS failure? The wind was strong enough to preclude an autoland so the LSAS should've kicked in as soon as the autoflight was disconnected. What if it didn't work as expected.
How about the following. How aware is any pilot of the longitudinal attitude of an airplane in the flare? A gust after a bounce could've sent the wings flying again without the pilots being aware of the aircrafts' negative pitch attitude developing, the flight deck still at an altitude above the runway that would've been expected.
Just a thought.
SM

muduckace

24th Mar 2009, 19:55

"What puzzles me at the moment is the fully deployed right wing (Nr. 1) thrust reverser. At which point during the event was the T/R activated ? It obviously had time enough to fully deploy, which for a translating cowl design driven by spindles should take a little time,"

On wheel spin up, #2 does not deploy until ground prox is made with NLG compression. 526 had prats on her, this means hydraulically actuated reversers. Not really important, even if deployment is a bit quicker even with wormgear actuation it is still only a few seconds.

philbky

24th Mar 2009, 20:04

I doubt you have every worked in an a/c design office, because nobody positions a wing on anything other than 'where it should be' and there's only one place which is 'where it should be' :rolleyes:

No, I haven't but the stretch of over 18 feet compared to the DC10-30, almost all ahead of the wing, changed centre of lift and the handling characteristics. Coupled with the smaller tailplane the MD11 is a "handfull" in certain conditions, a reputation the DC10 never had.

muduckace

24th Mar 2009, 20:14

"Has anyone thought of an LSAS failure?"

Doubtfull, the only LSAS failures I have ever encountered have been FCC boot failures. If it did fail all it would have done is provide full pilot elevator authority.

Fact: poor landing conditions.
Fact: poor landing.
Fact: aircraft crash from time to time.

I am with you on the over speculation. I believe it to be probable poor judgement mixed with horrible conditions. After the first bounce the nose down attitude reason will be determined from DFDR paramaters.

Did the landing pilot try to lower the angle of attack after he realized he flared too late too much?

Did he make the input after the hard landing in a desperate attempt to just get her on the ground?

Probably the first scenario mixed with the jar and force adding to the A.N.D. command. After the nose struck the first time they lost all control.

None the less, I believe the procedure to be to GA. in this scenario (bounce in windshear/crosswind) .#3 eng T.R. was deployed.

HarryMann

24th Mar 2009, 20:17

So nothing to do with 'military thinking' then, as aerodynamics is a rather unforgiving witness...
I am also still having a lot of trouble getting my head around sizing a tailpane based on de-icing criteria. I hope to learn something here other than repeated hearsay.

muduckace

24th Mar 2009, 20:18

No, I haven't but the stretch of over 18 feet compared to the DC10-30, almost all ahead of the wing, changed centre of lift and the handling characteristics. Coupled with the smaller tailplane the MD11 is a "handfull" in certain conditions, a reputation the DC10 never had.

This is not the pertinant to the issue at all. Different performance charicteristics require different procedures. As long as the driver respects the machine and understands her limitations the MD-11 is an excelent aircraft.

muduckace

24th Mar 2009, 20:20

am also still having a lot of trouble getting my head around sizing a tailpane based on de-icing criteria

Also the smaller tail was all about drag reduction. Anti-Ice is a trivial issue in reference to the tails design.

5 APUs captain

24th Mar 2009, 20:21

There are some rumours that according the investigation the main suspected reason is the stabilizer runaway.
Any one has heard anything?

notadog

24th Mar 2009, 20:24

Did he make the input after the hard landing in a desperate attempt to just get her on the ground?That is probably the most likely explanation. (Also the wrong thing to do as you probably know...)

What is curious is after the initial bounce, the apparent rotation to a G/A attitude, the appearance of an initial go-around (the proper choice), the airplane seems to be climbing away from the runway, and then the sudden pitch over.

Did the crew simply lose control of the airplane?

It appears they had it made had they selected TOGA gone around.

mickyman

24th Mar 2009, 20:27

Looking at the video, is it not possible for the
cargo to have been buffeted whilst on approach,loosened when
it landed hard, and moved mid bounce - therefore shifting C/G to
an unrecoverable position.

MM

philbky

24th Mar 2009, 20:39

Also the smaller tail was all about drag reductionCorrect. The penalty for drag reduction was the cost of anti-icing equipment. It is a matter of record that MDD decided the DC10 tailplane would not be de-iced as the drag penalty of the larger tailplane in the days of cheap fuel was a minimal handicap to sales and more metal was cheaper than a whole extra system.

Different performance charicteristics require different procedures. As long as the driver respects the machine and understands her limitations the MD-11 is an excelent aircraft.If the machine is so good, why did the major carriers who bought it spend zillions getting rid as fast as possible. The cost to AA and DL, to name but two, to replace the 11 with more 767s and to retrain crew, engineers and other staff was not an insignificant decision and the excuse of poor fuel economy compared to promised performance seems not to trouble FedEx.

Of course the crew need to respect the machine and understand the limitations - as with any machine or device, but a machine with inbuilt, and almost covert, vices needs more than repect.

no sponsor

24th Mar 2009, 20:47

If the nose gear had collapsed, would it have been a different outcome? Of course the aircraft would be written off, but perhaps survivable by the crew? I'm surprised to see the nose gear still attached to the airframe.

singpilot

24th Mar 2009, 21:05

From Steve Michell's post....

Has anyone thought of an LSAS failure? The wind was strong enough to preclude an autoland so the LSAS should've kicked in as soon as the autoflight was disconnected. What if it didn't work as expected.
How about the following. How aware is any pilot of the longitudinal attitude of an airplane in the flare? A gust after a bounce could've sent the wings flying again without the pilots being aware of the aircrafts' negative pitch attitude developing, the flight deck still at an altitude above the runway that would've been expected.
Just a thought.
SM

Steve;

I too, have remained detached from the rampant far-afield speculation in the previous 12 pages until now.

Excellent post, especially the last bit. Longitudinal attitude. As you know, sitting that far forward and up high, you may not be aware (in a hands-full scenario such as this) what the back end is doing (longitudinally speaking).

You'd be aware of the bounce, but not how high.... I believe is what you are saying.

I can remember the first landing from up there, being amazed that the mains were touching down when I was still up here. That feeling.

Flightmech

24th Mar 2009, 21:06

Philbky,

It's not just FedEx that weren't "troubled" by the poor performance of the MD-11. There are some other "big names" in there too who found them a competent freighter. UPS and Lufthansa (who bought them new) to name two.

727gm

24th Mar 2009, 21:36

Just hope that, with these incidents in mind, the fuselage stretch/max wt. increase/new wing/etc engineering necessary to create the 747-8 doesn't involve any control/stability issues creeping into the 747's friendly handling qualities......

Broomstick Flier

24th Mar 2009, 21:41

If I'm not mistaken, the often mentioned performance shortcomings were addressed through the PIP - Performance Improvement Programs, and after PIP-Phase 3 seems the beast actually performed better than originally advertised.

Off course, this all came too late and the damage to the sales could not be undone.

I spent almost 4 years working with MD11s and the crew were all very enthusiastic about it. Respecting and knowing your ride is the keyword here.

BF

Flightmech

24th Mar 2009, 21:43

Broomstick Flier,

You are correct. Repositioned windshield wipers, slat seals and flap hinge fairing extensions to name a few.

VR-HHE

24th Mar 2009, 21:52

Hi All

A rather obvious suggestion but would it not assist accident investigators if cameras were placed at each end of the threshold filming (on a 30 min digitial loop) the approach and subsequent landing ? Surely this would assist everyone involved in improving flight safety ? We should not have to rely on CCTV cameras scattered around the airport to provide poor images.

airfoilmod

24th Mar 2009, 22:06

Nose gear. If the NG had collapsed or sheared, the AOA would have reduced, the nose may have stayed on the ground, the fuselage absorbing energy more smoothly than a rigid strut. The NG/Nose bounce is dramatic. It increased AOA rapidly at a time when the a/c was yawing left and starting to roll. Reloading the wings was the downfall of the a/c. IMHO

AF

HarryMann

24th Mar 2009, 22:10

Yes, VR-HHE, in this day & age, very surprising, seeing that every high-street in the UK seems to have about half a dozen or more!

Must be very frustrating to have to view long distance oblique vids, if you're an accident investigator...
Could also have saved a lot of um and arring in the Madrid Barajas accident too.. and so much immediate press speculation (engines, thrust reversers etc) :ugh:

eagle21

24th Mar 2009, 22:10

VR-HHERecording Approaches

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi All

A rather obvious suggestion but would it not assist accident investigators if cameras were placed at each end of the threshold filming (on a 30 min digitial loop) the approach and subsequent landing ? Surely this would assist everyone involved in improving flight safety ? We should not have to rely on CCTV cameras scattered around the airport to provide poor images

I couldn't agree anymore, were can we suggest this to?

Robert Campbell

24th Mar 2009, 22:24

I doubt you have every worked in an a/c design office, because nobody positions a wing on anything other than 'where it should be' and there's only one place which is 'where it should be

I've had/have several friends who fly/flew the DC-10 and DC-11.

One was an ex-pat for JAL (IASCO) who killed himself trying to do a low level loop in a stock (225 Continental) Stearman. Nice guy, but he was always bitching about how MD got the 10 wrong. He said that the CC hated it because the fuselage was always in a 6-7 degree nose up attitude in cruise. He blamed the wing/fuselage attach angle.

The galley carts weighed about 700 lbs. so it was a tough climb going forward and no brakes heading aft for the CC.

When the 11 came out, apparently the avionics created all sorts of interesting situations, however, the wing/fuselage attach angle had been corrected.

All of these pilots are/were good sticks -- most flying their own taildraggers when home. I never heard a complaint about the handling of either the 10 or the 11 other than the deck angle in cruise on the 10.

bubbers44

24th Mar 2009, 22:28

Just another wag but say the FO was landing, bounced and decided to go around and the captain took control and tried to salvage the landing by putting it down. Looking at the video the bounce seemed too high for just a hard landing. Looking at the video makes me think one pilot flying the whole landing would not have allowed the pitch up then pitch down to land on the nose gear by himself. I know, wait for the FDR and CVR.

muduckace

24th Mar 2009, 22:43

"If the machine is so good, why did the major carriers who bought it spend zillions getting rid as fast as possible."

I have been with 3 MD-11 air carriers, I have held several positions, not a pilot but spent more than four years as a Maintenance Rep. or Flight Mechanic. Plenty of time to discuss with pilots and observe the aircraft charartistics.

To answer your question, the MD-11 was a reliability nightmare as it was cutting edge technology when first delivered. It had tons of "nuisance" pireps that did not have the support from MDC and especially Boeing to iron out all the issues in time. Boeing baught MDC to shut the MD-11 down to sell B-777's. Especially after the lack of tech support the guys on the line lost alot of support to resolve these issues.

EG: The fly by wire aircraft required constant monitoring of systems for given feedback (voltage and discrete) thresholds to log a failure. This was uncharted territory and as minimal faults generated by fault monotoring systems logged failures that were not actually significant but still out of design spec. It became a hard aircraft to maintain. Especially for PAX airlines who were operating many more aircraft that were not like it at all.

Fedex has been operating the aircraft for years and were able to apply the "nuts and bolts" approach to understand the aircraft better as they had been operating DC-10's for years as their "meat and potatoes" of heavy long haul aircraft.

I started out with an ACMI outfit that allowed me to work with DC-10's and MD-11's exclusively. This was great because the maintenance and flight crews could gain a better understanding of the aircraft. Flight crews became knowledgable of nuisance faults and maintenance could work better with them to resolve the issues for better reliability.

I currently maintain purely autopilot and navigation systems on the MD-11 and a few other airframes.

I do though miss eating breakfast at altitude watching a sunrise from the cockpit of this wonderfull machine. Those big windows give you the best view possible.

Vino Collapso

24th Mar 2009, 22:50

There is a lot of technical detail coming out of this thread by very knowledgeable people. But the straight fact is that the wing was still capable of generating a lot of lift after the first bounce despite whatever lift dump, flap or other high tech gadget was deployed.

The touchdown speed is interesting.

Christodoulidesd

24th Mar 2009, 23:19

From Unusual Attitude (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/) The extraordinary accident history of the MD-11 and MD-10 (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/fedex-md-11-at-anchorage-4.html)

By Kieran Daly on March 23, 2009 10:28 AM |

It's impossible to ignore the history of landing-related accidents to the MD-11 and MD-10 series of aircraft. Plus at least one DC-10 loss that may be relevant. Some of these bear remarkable resemblances to today's accident at Narita. Others may be pertinent for knock-on reasons. I find it hard to think of a comparable pattern of serious, related accidents to a single type - particularly one not even built in large numbers. Much discussion of landing the MD-11 here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/366990-cnn-reports-fedex-crash-tokyo.html). (...)

More links and info at the original source, here. (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/fedex-md-11-at-anchorage-4.html)

stepwilk

24th Mar 2009, 23:34

Can't people forgodsakes stop posting guesses that all the cargo slid aft, or that the crew fought each other for control, or that the tires were mistakenly hyperinflated and caused the initial rebound? "Imagine this scenario..." Yeah, right.

MU3001A

24th Mar 2009, 23:53

Interesting - DCA04MA082 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041209X01953&key=1)

What-ho Squiffy!

25th Mar 2009, 00:16

Stepwilk, yours is a very common post, and I understand your sentiments. But, you probably aren't aware of the value of such speculation.

I believe it's not for infantile amusement. What we see by all this to-ing and fro-ing with scenarios/what-ifs is people are trying to learn from this experience and share knowledge so that it doesn't happen to them.

Most people in here are or have been operating crews that really have noble intent - to not crash.

lomapaseo

25th Mar 2009, 00:36

A rather obvious suggestion but would it not assist accident investigators if cameras were placed at each end of the threshold filming (on a 30 min digitial loop) the approach and subsequent landing ? Surely this would assist everyone involved in improving flight safety ? We should not have to rely on CCTV cameras scattered around the airport to provide poor images.

Sounds like a suggestion worthy of the peanut galley looking at accident investigations from their home computers.

I'll take the DFDR and scrapes in the runway and aircraft any day over angled camera views on CCTV's.

These threads would be a lot shorter if we didn't have U-tube instant analysis :)

con-pilot

25th Mar 2009, 00:42

Most people in here are or have been operating crews that really have noble intent - to not crash.

From the very first time I ever took off in an aircraft with me at the controls I expected to crash. For over forty years and 20,000 plus hours I did everything in my power not to crash on every flight I took.

I was successful.

People, quit guessing.

MGifos

25th Mar 2009, 01:49

While I am more interested in the cause of the accident than the consequent effects, I have noticed that there are some comments suggesting that the failure of the LHS Main Gear directly caused the LHS Wing to fail. While this may be correct, it is also likely that the failure of the LHS Main Gear caused the LHS Wing and Engine to contact the ground with forces likely to separate the Wing from the Body. So discussions of design issues related to failure modes of the Main Gear may not be relevant, because it is likely that the failure of one, rather than two Main Gear that is likely to be the main determining factor causing a roll to inverted.

MD11Engineer

25th Mar 2009, 01:56

From Muduckace, reply #242:

I have been with 3 MD-11 air carriers, I have held several positions, not a pilot but spent more than four years as a Maintenance Rep. or Flight Mechanic. Plenty of time to discuss with pilots and observe the aircraft charartistics.

To answer your question, the MD-11 was a reliability nightmare as it was cutting edge technology when first delivered. It had tons of "nuisance" pireps that did not have the support from MDC and especially Boeing to iron out all the issues in time. Boeing baught MDC to shut the MD-11 down to sell B-777's. Especially after the lack of tech support the guys on the line lost alot of support to resolve these issues.

EG: The fly by wire aircraft required constant monitoring of systems for given feedback (voltage and discrete) thresholds to log a failure. This was uncharted territory and as minimal faults generated by fault monotoring systems logged failures that were not actually significant but still out of design spec. It became a hard aircraft to maintain. Especially for PAX airlines who were operating many more aircraft that were not like it at all.

Fedex has been operating the aircraft for years and were able to apply the "nuts and bolts" approach to understand the aircraft better as they had been operating DC-10's for years as their "meat and potatoes" of heavy long haul aircraft.

I started out with an ACMI outfit that allowed me to work with DC-10's and MD-11's exclusively. This was great because the maintenance and flight crews could gain a better understanding of the aircraft. Flight crews became knowledgable of nuisance faults and maintenance could work better with them to resolve the issues for better reliability.

As my username implies, I also used to work on MD-11 freighters in maintenance for several years (not anymore since 4 years, because I changed jobs). In fact I'm holding an EASA Part 66 B1 licence on this type (among other types).
The MD-11 was the first aircraft for me where I really knew my stuff and even memorized the LAMS schematics.
A lot of colleagues hated the MD-11, but I have to say that they approached the work with a Boeing or Airbus mindset. The MD-11 IS different,it has different design philosophies (in fact, IMO the MD-11 rather resembles a big Cessna than an Airbus or a Boeing, and so far I have worked on products of all three big Western aircraft manufacturers). If you treat the aircraft as a Douglas and not as a Boeing or Airbus, and do the mainenace it requires, it isn't a maintenance hog at all. Our airline had some trouble because they bought a bunch of second hand aircraft from at the time bankrupt Varig and VASP and you could see that for the last years these airlines had been scrounging on maintenance and performed sloppy work. On the other hand the MD-11s we received from JAL were all in very good condition and rarely gave trouble.
For me the MD-11 seemed to be very straight forward and simple in design.
Talking to MD-11 pilots, sure, the plane seemed to have some quirks, but most of them loved to fly this plane.
I just hope that my current employer signs a maintenance contract with one of the many MD-11 operators which frequent our airport, do that I can get my hands back on one.

brit bus driver

25th Mar 2009, 02:08

Whilst your scathing denigration of the modern-day first officer is undoubtedly a debate worth having, this is not the forum. I also think it is trite of you to say that this accident was caused - and could have been prevented - by the pilots; I was not aware that you were privy to more of the facts than the rest of us.

And I'll see your 3-jet wide-body command time, and raise you.

What-ho Squiffy!

25th Mar 2009, 02:15

MU, that is very interesting reading.

I'd take a tail scrape and arse kicking over a porpoise-and-rollover any day.

Maybe the books might be changed after this latest accident?

bubbers44

25th Mar 2009, 02:44

Bouncing and nose diving into the runway usually happens in the first 20 hrs of learning to fly not after thousands of hours of flying time. I hear the MD11 has a very small elevator so requires agressive movement to not let the nose rise with spoiler deployment but the crew knew that. Why did the nose get high enough to lift off again on the first bounce?

CorpJetJock

25th Mar 2009, 02:54

In aviation, like any other aspect in life, things go wrong, people make mistakes. Aviation, being such a critical venue, safeguards are built in to mitigate these errors from causing catastrophies. Problem is, when McD designed the DC10, they were racing against the clock, the original scheduled intro of the L1011, and doing so on a minimal budget. There were inherent mistakes made and shortcuts taken, some were patched over the years due to accidents and incidents. But I believe the history has shown this design to be not as tolerant or forgiving of those everyday mistakes and failures, and prone to pranging badly over seemingly recoverable circumstances. Many of those accidents reports discuss design shortcuts and flaws vs. the Boeing and Lockheed competitors. Going cheap and in a hurry seems to always catch up with this airframe.

captjns

25th Mar 2009, 03:19

Many of those accidents reports discuss design shortcuts and flaws vs. the Boeing and Lockheed competitors. Going cheap and in a hurry seems to always catch up with this airframe.

Tuition comes at a very heavy price... not just money either.:(

rottenray

25th Mar 2009, 03:50

Not a pilot - and infrequent SLF...

There was a MD10/MD11 landing at McCaren in Vegas in 2005 which could have been similar - the aircraft touched, and a wing lifted because of serious ground level turbulence (what we commonly call "dust devils" here in the southwest) causing more lift on one side and nearly resulted in a wingtip touching the runway.

It made FOX and CNN, but I can't find anything at the NTSC site, probably because it wasn't a "real" incident. I don't recall hearing about any injuries or aircraft damage after.

(If anyone can recall this and comment, I'd appreciate it - I've tried finding the footage and can't. To me, it looked like that aircraft ran into a lot less headwind and some substantial crosswind at the same time.)

Seems like this one was a case of wind shear catching an MD11 at the most vulnerable point, and after watching this video a few times I start to doubt if any other frame would have fared much better.

My sympathies are with the families of the crew - I can't begin to imagine how it must be for them. Over-the-road truckers can now make nearly the same money and nobody umpteenth-guesses what they did when they're unfortunate enough to get killed on the job.

I've flown on MD11 several times and don't really recall anything bad about "the ride," although I have had to wait and transfer twice because of failures - an APU went south once, and "a problem with the navigation equipment" caused another.

As far as the comments regarding McDonnell, and Douglas, and Boeing - I don't know the full history of any of the companies, but it seems to me that at one point or another they have all built stellar aircraft.

It's sad that there is only room for 2 airframe makers now.

As a passenger, I've flown on DC8s, DC9s, B727s, B737s, A300s, A310s, A320s, B747s and B777s. And a slew of regionals.

What it really comes down to is the skill of the folks at the pointy end. And sometimes even skill can't overcome events.

Frankly, I miss the days when flying was part of the adventure of going somewhere, business or vacation.

...

armchairpilot94116

25th Mar 2009, 06:12

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/main1.pdf

The final report on the Ci MD11 crash in HK lends some insight into some of the MD11's characteristics while landing in difficult weather.

In that accident it was decided that a possible loss of headwind component along with the ATS powering engines down to idle by 35feet RA (per design) resulted in the RMLG contacting ground at 18 feet per second. This was beyond its design limit of 12 feet per second and caused the gear to shear off outwards resulting in right wing failure due to number 3 ground contact and subsequent aircraft inversion and resultant fire. It is noted that the left wing still had sufficient lift and contributed to the inversion of the aircraft. It was recommended that the MD11 not be flown on A/T while descending on final in possible windshear situations. And that perhaps the timely addition of power seconds before the main gear contacted could perhaps have kept the rate of descent within design limit and thus avoided this incident. However this passage is interesting to note:

"The simulator FCC was initially loaded
with the standard – 907 model FCC software used in the accident
aircraft, and a series of approaches were flown by a number of
Boeing and China Airline pilots, and by a HKCAD accident
investigator type-qualified on the MD11. During these approaches,
ability to flare the simulator below 50 ft using the technique
recommended in the China Airlines Operations Manual and achieve
a normal touchdown at a low rate of descent proved unsuccessful on
the majority of approaches flown; if power was manually applied late
in the flare, the rate of descent could be reduced but was still high at
touchdown. By comparison, and although the crosswind exceeded
the published limits for autolanding, successful autolandings could
be completed but involved an exaggerated pitch up to nearly 10°,
well beyond that which would normally be expected.
The China Airline’s co-pilot involved in the accident observed the
latter simulations. He subjectively assessed the simulated
conditions as realistic, except that he recalled the turbulence level
below about 150 ft as being greater on the accident approach than
even the highest level which could be set in the simulator.."

Leaving me to believe that the MD11 really is a handful in gusty crosswind landings. Could we call it "unsafe" even in such a situation given this latest Fedex crash and the Ci crash. The 1997 Fedex crash was in good weather but it was bounced during landing and improperly restrained? It takes way better then average ability to land this big bird safely in high winds or a bounce it would appear.

It was also interesting to note that the Captain left HK within days of the incident without reference to the local authorities or China Airlines and refused to be interviewed regarding this incident outside of later sending a prepared statement and answering some questions via fax. I understand he gave up flying after that. But in fact he seems to have done most things right that fateful night. Other then in hindsight he would've done better to have diverted in view of the knowledge of the crosswind gusting to 35 knots plus. The only mistake he seemed to have made in the actual landing is that he should have been on manual throttle control in the landing phase in order to be able to apply thrust during the fateful last few seconds. Maybe he really should've been flying another plane altogether that night? Perhaps a 777? I am just saying that the MD11 seems not the ideal aircraft in that kind of weather to land in, being so exacting in its requirements.

The latest Fedex accident really brought home how lucky the crew and passengers of the Ci HK incident were in surviving with only 3 deaths out of over 300 onboard.

The report gives these insights regarding the LSAS :

"
1.6.5. Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System
The aircraft is equipped with a Longitudinal Stability Augmentation
System (LSAS) which provides pitch attitude hold and limiting pitch
rate damping, automatic pitch trim, speed protection and stall
protection. LSAS is not provided when the autopilot is engaged.
Below 100 ft RA, and transparent to the pilot, LSAS is progressively
removed from the pitch control system.
LSAS holds the aircraft’s current pitch attitude if there is no force on
the control column and the bank angle is less than 30º. If the pilot
manually changes pitch attitude and then removes the control
column force, the aircraft will hold the new pitch attitude.
LSAS holds pitch attitude by deflecting the elevators up to 5º, and
the stabiliser is then automatically adjusted to relieve sustained
elevator deflection and maintain a full 5º of elevator authority.
LSAS also limits pitch attitude to less than 10º of aircraft nose down
(AND) or 30º of aircraft nose up (ANU). Below 15,000 ft, if there
is more than approximately two pounds (lb) (0.9 kilogram) of force "

This report had these comments in regards to the Fedex crash in Newark in 1997:

"1.18.8. MD11 landing accident – Newark International Airport, USA
On 31 July 1997, a MD11 freighter aircraft was involved in an
accident with similar consequences when landing at Newark
International Airport, New Jersey, USA. In that accident, which
occurred in good weather conditions, the aircraft also suffered
structural failure of the RMLG and right wing rear spar, and came to
rest inverted.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation
concluded that the probable cause of the accident was overcontrol of
the aircraft during landing. This involved elevator deflections
varying from 26º ANU to 18º AND, and resulted in an initial
touchdown that become airborne again followed by a heavy second
touchdown during which the structural failure occurred. The
second touchdown was in a 9.5º right wing down attitude with a rate
of descent at the RMLG calculated as 13.5 feet per second. "

This may help us understand this latest MD11 incident.