Lufthansa MD-11 Mexico City [Archive]

Shore Guy

10th Oct 2009, 23:50

Accident: Lufthansa Cargo MD11 at Mexico City on Sep 13th 2009, hard landing
By Simon Hradecky, created Saturday, Oct 10th 2009 16:27Z, last updated Saturday, Oct 10th 2009 16:27Z

A Lufthansa Cargo McDonnell Douglas MD-11 freighter, registration D-ALCO performing freight flight GEC-8240 from Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA) to Mexico City (Mexico), touched down very hard at Mexico City's runway around 23:10L (Sep 14th 04:10Z). The airplane rolled out safely and taxied to the apron. No injuries occured.

A postflight inspection revealed wrinkles to the fuselage skin and a bent nose gear structure. The airplane is still in Mexico City awaiting decision whether to repair the airplane or write it off.

Metars:
MMMX 140648Z 00000KT 4SM -RA FEW015 BKN020 OVC080 15/14 A3032 RMK 60175 8/47/ HZY
MMMX 140548Z 18003KT 4SM -RA FEW015 BKN020 OVC080 15/14 A3032 RMK SLP098 52016 928 60165 8/47/ HZY
MMMX 140449Z 19005KT 4SM -RA FEW015 BKN020 OVC080 15/14 A3032 RMK 60225 8/46/ HZY
MMMX 140415Z 26004KT 4SM -RA FEW015 BKN020 OVC080 15/14 A3030 RMK 8/96/ HZY RAE11 B-RA
MMMX 140345Z 27003KT 3SM RA BKN020 OVC080 15/14 A3030 RMK 60155 8/96/ HZY -TSRAE41 BRA

captplaystation

11th Oct 2009, 00:05

The last time one of these babies was smacked in, some of the drivers rushed in to defend their ship.
I am sure, driven well, it is a fine machine, but it does seem a little intolerant of less than perfect piloting. At least this time, no pilots have been harmed in this proof of aerodynamic concept. . . Phew :rolleyes:
Don,t haven,t and probably won,t fly one, but it sounds too stressful in the landing phase for my liking anyhow.
Don,t grill me for my apostrophes below rather than above, I am still line training on my new applemac.

Huck

11th Oct 2009, 00:13

Mexico City's at 7316' above sea level. At max landing weight you'd be looking at ground speeds in the 190 knot range on final......

metrojet

11th Oct 2009, 02:28

Was there the next day and the agent pointed the a/c out to us, and you could see it didn't look right sitting there.

dcsagcs

11th Oct 2009, 03:15

Varig Airlines almost lost a bird like that at the same airport during a bounced landing few years ago. I have heard that they spent several months to repair the plane which almost lost the tail...

Gretchenfrage

11th Oct 2009, 05:14

You could merge this one with the "pilot skills" thread.
The MD11 is still my favorite, especially due to the by far best cockpit in the industry. It is however a aerodynamic blunder. As long as initially merely DC10 and MD80 pilots started flying it, it was ok. But as the A320 generation started upgrading to the maddog, the problems started. This new generation was never drilled in pitch and power flying, nor on strict attitude and precise short final discipline. The industry fell for the cheap "my grandmother can fly the bird" myth and neglected basic training that can not be brought back later to Nintendo-Jack. Therefore the MD11 might be too difficult handle for todays jockeys.
It reminds me of the early 911 or the first Kawa900, both thrilling machines with plenty of character. They needed an expert hand! Todays offsprings are much easier and safer to operate, but lost all the character and fun. Same goes for todays airliners, sterile but apparently safer. I say apparently because as long as the rams and roms sparkle straight, everything's ok. The moment the electronic donkeys lose it, and by the way just throw the aircraft back at you in any kind of state, then todays pilots seem to be just as lost ......

Dan Winterland

11th Oct 2009, 05:30

Th MD11 always lloked like it was built out of a load of spare aircraft parts left over from building other aircraft to me. The old addage "If it looks right, it flys right" seems to apply to the MD11.

PopeSweetJesus

11th Oct 2009, 07:50

The MD11 is still my favorite, especially due to the by far best cockpit in the industry. It is however a aerodynamic blunder. As long as initially merely DC10 and MD80 pilots started flying it, it was ok. But as the A320 generation started upgrading to the maddog, the problems started.

Huh? IF it's an aerodynamic blunder, it's an aerodynamic blunder no matter who is flying it, saying otherwise is a bs pilot copout. Besides look at the few airlines that fly the airplane. FedEx, who has had the most incidents with it had crews mostly coming from DC-10's, AA had them coming from DC-10's and MD-80's and DL had former MD-80 people as well, Lufthansa had DC-10's too. None of this seems to have affected the incident rate with the airplane. This just seems like they typical stuff pilots like to tell themselves to make themselves seems superior to those who have been less fortunate than them in the skies. Big stretch to blame the 'A320 generation' for MD-11 incidents, especially when the biggest problems occurred at airlines that didn't fly that type or anything like it at the time.

Gretchenfrage

11th Oct 2009, 10:44

PSJ

You seem to have a problem understanding what others write. So try again:
Logically most of the operators had ex DC10 and MD80 pilots commencing operations of the MD11, that was what ran around at that time. But how many of the ACTUAL pilots still came from those mentioned, and how many from the newer generation like A320? You wouldn't know I guess, but actually the latter is the majority. That's why initially the record was better, deteriorating lately.
I don't know if you ever came close to a MD11 (by your whining I would guess not, but very close to an Airbus), but I have tons of hours on it and have myself experienced the difference of aptitude described above , so it's not just blaming, but more something like reporting. Please accept at least that.

If every time someone points a finger at training or aptitude issues he gets shot down with the branding of him feeling superior, making one self a hero, then we will all shut up with our experience and accept the new shortcomings. But that would be purely stupid.

Don't take it personally, dear PSJ. Some pilots are not as well trained as the older generation due to the constant cost cutting. It's not their fault and not saying they coulnd't be better pilots than I am, even most probably they would. But with less training and less experience you will have a hard time to do so. That argument goes with the new generation of aircraft as well.
The solution would be to eliminate the older one, or to train the newbees on this equippment the way it should be, the way it has been.
You simply can't have it both ways.

GF out

MPH

11th Oct 2009, 11:31

Not my favorite plane but, still a great preformance A/C with good navigation, instrumentation and good brakes. Coming strait off the DC-10, it took a bit of time getting used to the LSAS system specially when hand flying the machine. Once you got used to the feel of it, she was still was demanding in the landing stage and especially on the freighters as, the max landing weight is around the 220,000kgs. So, as mentioned on hight elevation airports, speeds tend to be on the hight side. Have to agree it, is a tweaked up DC-10, bigger engines, 2 man cockpit, 6 meters longer, tail tank and a reduced elevator (30% less in comparison to the DC10) but, with same wing bar a few aerodynamic fairings. All in all a nice plane but, you certainly had to be on top of things to fly this bird!!! My take after 5000 hrs+ on this A/C.

20milesout

11th Oct 2009, 12:11

Now there she sits, awaiting her fate:

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/0/0/7/15288_1254293700_tb.jpg (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6681660)
© André Du-pont (Mexico Air Spotters)

411A

11th Oct 2009, 15:10

My take after 5000 hrs+ on this A/C.

It sure is refreashing to hear from folks that know what they are talking about, instead of the button-pushing side-stick crowd whom haven't a clue.
Clearly, from the knowledgeable comments, a pilots airplane...for pilots who know how to actually fly.:ok:

ehaertner

11th Oct 2009, 15:26

I agree absolutely with you. (411A)
after 11 years flying MD-11 for SWISSAIR, I noticed also the degrading FLYING capabilities of young pilots !
less training (cost factor), whatever it will cost later !!

kindly
erich

pontifex

11th Oct 2009, 15:50

411A. For the first time in over 6 years of PPrune I feel I have to respond to your comments. You really are an archtypical Luddite! I flew for 50 years on over 100 types from Harvard to A320 through Lightnings, VC10s and Lancaster. The button pushing A320 is a most delightful aircraft to handle. The people you refer to, properly trained, are just as good as us oldies ever were. I know, I have many hours training them and I have seen them skillfully taking "fly by wire" aircraft into tiny Greek islands with no aids (thus manually flown visual circuits) smoothly and with obvious enjoyment in a skill well used. Equally, I have seen "old stagers" make the most appalling holickses. At the end of the day there is no substitute for good training and continuity of handling practice. Where I might agree with you is in decrying the creeping tendency for firms to require their crews to use the autopilot 100% of the time. That is certainly a latent hazard.

Modern FBW aircraft have predictable, benign handling characteristics that enhance flight safety and protect fools from themselves. As one who has "been there, seen it, done it" I sincerely suggest that you open your mind and accept that technology moves forward. If it didn't we might still be wrestling 4 engined piston, manually controlled monsters across the oceans.

rmac

11th Oct 2009, 15:51

So what happens to the poor guys who broke this one.....is it a career breaker, or is it better to break it this way than the last Fedex one and live with the consequences ?

Squawk7777

11th Oct 2009, 16:00

That's up to the LBA. I could very well be that the pilots are grounded until the investigation is complete. Last I heard about the co-pilot who landed the A320 in HAM is that (s)he still waiting to get her license/permission back to fly. Silent lips from LH on that issue ...

edit

I am not even sure if this plane was piloted by LH or contract pilots. There used to be quite a few contractors over there.

Bahamapilot

11th Oct 2009, 16:03

My take is if it breaks it's better, when you can walk away, and live with the consequences...There are still a lot of jobs around the airports.

STBYRUD

11th Oct 2009, 16:18

'Certain' companies are very nasty when it comes to such incidents/accidents, no matter if the flight crew is deemed guilty or not by the authorities and other bodies they're often times a lot better off outside the company...

PopeSweetJesus

11th Oct 2009, 16:53

GF,

I have not flown the MD-11, I've flown various Boeings and Airbus (FBW and non-FBW) and a couple of other types. I didn't take your training comments personally as I've seen differences in training affect newer pilots as well, although I've seen plenty of what pontiflex speaks of as well. Personally I think the airline I work for places far too much emphasis both in training and culturally on getting fully automated quickly and staying that way as long as possible-even though the manuals don't require us to fly that way. That's pretty much across all fleets and I think it's had a deleterious affect on our hand flying skills across all backgrounds.

My airline does fly the MD-11 though, so I get to ride it a lot and talk to a lot of people who fly it. That is of course no substitute for actually flying it, but I do get annoyed at the number of pilots who make excuses for an airplane that has been involved in an unusual amount of incidents/accidents for the number of airframes produced. The MD-11 pilots are notorious for this. They'll talk about the aerodynamic issues, the difficulties landing it, etc for hours on end, then they'll blame all of the incidents/accidents completely on the crews involved. It reminds me of when I flew 737's and Brasilia's, two airplanes that have had ghosts in their histories as well. People would often make excuses for design flaws/issues in those birds too and blame things completely on the experience/training of the crews.

All that said, that really wasn't the main point I was trying to make in my other post. You put a lot of blame on the 'A320 generation' yet a lot of the airlines that have had the incidents/accidents don't have A320's or anything similar for the accident/incident pilots to be upgrading off of . A great deal of those pilots came out of the type of aircraft you listed or similar 'old school' airplanes.

Gretchenfrage

11th Oct 2009, 17:12

PSJ

Got your point and basically agree.
I should not go so bluntly at the Axxx aircraft, maybe. It is the generation that goes with it, be it AB or B or any other new birds. My criticism is however still directed at Toulouse, as the automation-frenzy evidently came from there. They created the grandmother myth, they sold their aircraft first with the argument of them beeing so safe, you could cut down on the overly expensive pilot issue. The others just followed because the industry bought that crap. Logically, it bolstered the managers bonuses.
We are today picking up the first pieces of this sad evolution and they won't be the last. The MD11, beeing as imperfect as it was, is one of the first to show the effects so dramatically.
We can now ignore it and blame it on the maddog, or we can analyse it, everyone from his corner and convictions, but I hope the conclusion is not more of the grandmother s#!t, but more of the real stuff ...... !
Fill in your favorites for the gaps, but fill in something.

MPH

11th Oct 2009, 17:56

Unhooked: 20 years ago there where no magenta lines to follow! Or were IRS´s and infact FMC around. A/C were certainly not as sophisticated. So, flying was indeed more challenging and that your navigation and flying skills were certainly more demanding! Having said that, thank god we now have, all the goodies that come with modern day aviation. And thanks to that, comercial aviation it s a lot safer. The argument is not, what pilot is suited for the modern day comercial flying but, what is the correct method of teaching and instructing them. Experience has been different for every generation, of pilots!
Anyway, be you an old timer or a the ´new generation pilot the MD11 is still a handfull! :)

falcon10

11th Oct 2009, 19:21

LH Cargo contractors flying the MD11 do not fly LH's aircraft or any MD11 with LH livery. The only current LH contractor I know of flying MD11s is World Airways.

Rainboe

11th Oct 2009, 19:29

Was there the next day and the agent pointed the a/c out to us, and you could see it didn't look right sitting there.
This is the sort of unsubstantiated statement that is breaking out all over Pprune! I have looked at the photograph on page 1. I can see noting about 'didn't look right'. I was expecting to see the fuselage buckled down on either side of the main landing gear! Looks to me the damage may be more superficial than you might get the impression of in this thread.

Turning this thread away from Airbus v 'the rest' philosophy and back to the incident, Mexico City poses some significant hazards that conspire to prevent a stabilised approach. Large terrain (Popocatopetl is nearby), the main approach is reached by a 90 degree close in base leg, and the extreme altitude causes very high TASs on finals. It is quite frightening observing your speed as you approach the flare. The runways are long, but you use them because of the altitude and speed, so if you float, there can be a desperation to 'put it down'. I found it a very difficult airport to operate in and out of, at the limits of a 747 performance. Places like this will inevitably have a greater risk, and spring nasty surprises on unprepared crews. I can recall happily descending on a left base procedure with mid flap when I casually glanced out at the airport and gulped- it was far closer than I anticipated and we were going far faster than we should have been! Also, flying on QNH, the altimeter is giving you enormous altitude readings which leads to complacency.

Squawk7777

11th Oct 2009, 21:51

Falcon10, I could be mistaken but I thought that LH was looking for contract pilots to fly their fleet a year back or so (even these poor souls had to pass the dreaded DLR test). There were a few time when I heard a LH Cargo call sign with a definitive non-German accent.

I guess LH must have subcontracted entire routes to World... So, does World in this case use the LH call sign? :confused:

hetfield

11th Oct 2009, 22:46

I guess LH must have subcontracted entire routes ...

AFAIK yes, plenty. Not even with cargo....

Like Franchising.

Huck

12th Oct 2009, 02:47

It is quite frightening observing your speed as you approach the flare.

You ought to see Quito in an MD11F. At night. Don't forget to duck below the g/s on short final.....

grimmrad

12th Oct 2009, 03:04

No pilot speaking, just SLF originally from HAM. Last thing I heard about that was that there was some computer issue involved (ground mode or however it was called activated, not allowing for proper input as needed i recall)...

Squawk7777

12th Oct 2009, 04:19

grimmrad, I don't know the HAM accident in complete detail, but a pilot should know his or her airplane. Blaming it just on computers is far too easy sometimes...

hetfield

12th Oct 2009, 06:28

but a pilot should know his or her airplane.

@squawk

Go and ask an average pilot about all the fancy fctl modes of A320 in various flight phases.......

muduckace

12th Oct 2009, 07:52

Hey, been on many Md-11 approaches into Quito, World drivers I flew with never missed a smooth transition from G/S to visual for a decent approach, had one ****ty landing with an ill prepared Gemini crew, empty aircraft and they got behind the aircraft for a carrier landing.

As for mexico city, only one time into there but ATC was incompetent, vectored us in a DC-10-30 for a 90 deg ILS intercept, did not clear for ILS untill we blew past the RWY HDG, much into the other paralell ILS. Not impressed.

muduckace

12th Oct 2009, 07:56

The reg was D-ALCO, not a World tail number.

stilton

12th Oct 2009, 08:26

Just been a few months since Fdx in NRT hasn't it, have they even finished the investigation ?

And now we have yet another MD11 prang,big surprise, and from no less of an operator than Lufthansa.

Time to call this thing what it is, a dangerous unforgiving disaster of an Aircraft, completely unsuitable for civilian flying.

Ground it.

Squawk7777

12th Oct 2009, 08:32

Go and ask an average pilot about all the fancy fctl modes of A320 in various flight phases.......

I have. Still not impressed with that crew's handling and decision making. Nor have the people that are current on the 320. Know your airplane and judge it in its current environment. Back to the MD11 ...

hetfield

12th Oct 2009, 08:57

@squawk

Have a look to the report of the A330 test flight crash 1994 at Toulouse.

Even the chief test pilot wasn't aware of the autoflight mode/submode!

Have a look the Warsaw 320 overrun report! Very complex systems. Afterwards the mist cleared a bit. But must it have an accident to show all the fancy design features?

It's impossible to know all the features/modes/submodes beside different software-/hardware specs and modifications even within one type but different models.

Rainboe

12th Oct 2009, 09:48

And now we have yet another MD11 prang,big surprise
Sorry, did we miss something? I thought we merely had a 'heavy landing' here. Nothing more. Few bits bent. Nothing a good pop rivet gun and plenty of duct tape wouldn't fix. 'Prang?'- not yet! Prangs break things, heavy landings just bend them. There is a difference.

The poor, unloved MD11. I actually feel sorry for it! But there is something not quite right with it. All they did wrong was put the wing further back than it should have been. That tailplane angle is bizarre.

BFGCT

12th Oct 2009, 10:03

To be fair, I thought he meant the aircraft "didn't look right sitting there" in the sense that a modern Lufthansa MD-11 parked with engine covers on in Mexico indeed "doesn't look right"... I'm not sure he was referring to damage.

411A

12th Oct 2009, 10:08

The poor, unloved MD11. I actually feel sorry for it!

My neighbor doesn't.
He has been flying the airplane for quite a long time, and says that...'yes, it demands attention, as does any large airplane, at max landing weight, however, it is a delight to fly'....his words, not mine.
So, we seem to have those at extremes here, such as.....

And now we have yet another MD11 prang,big surprise, and from no less of an operator than Lufthansa.
Time to call this thing what it is, a dangerous unforgiving disaster of an Aircraft, completely unsuitable for civilian flying.

One wonders...has the respective poster actually flown the MD11....or, is he talking through his hat?:rolleyes:
Or, are somehow Lufty pilots immune from....slight mishaps?

casablanca

12th Oct 2009, 16:16

I have the utmost respect for LH, an airline with excellent pilots and procedures. I did see a inflight magazine on a LH flight recently which featured an article on a new pilot; if I remember correctly she had been with company less than 2 years and was flying the MD11. Considering before this she was probably training in a single engine aircraft one would have to admit this is a slight challenge.( agin my apologies if my facts are wrong....just saying it is a challenging first jet) Not sure what the crew experience was on type, but Lufthansa has been operating the MD11 for long time.
I myself have flown the md11 for approximately 8 years. My personal take is the 11 is a great airplane with lots of power and capabilities. It is less stable on landing than many aircraft and unfortunately not very forgiving of mistakes. The Hor Stab is 30-40 percent smaller than the DC10 and the elevator effectiveness on landing is noticeably different. Has very different characteristics on a light landing of say 300,000 lbs or heavey weight of 490,000. The pull and pray method ( let auto throttles go to idle and flare at 50 feet doesnt always work well....especially at lighter weights. With high wing loading it doesnt respond well to pushing the nose forward on a bounce or when slow.
Besides that I still have to say it is an awesome airplane....I think that most MD11 pilots would say the same.

B-HKD

12th Oct 2009, 16:37

Plane is getting a minor fix in MEX and the off to VCV to be repaired.

MD11F

12th Oct 2009, 17:30

Hi there, @casablanca, minimum requirement to fly MD11 for LH is 1000 hours on jet transport aircraft! So nobody with LH without jettime! Yes, the variety is extremly large, there are landings with 140 to at 45 degrees celsius at sealevel, there are landings at Mex 7700 ft, 20degrees celsius with 220 to, or at KJA(Krasnoyarsk) at -45 degrees. So it is a lot of work for the training departement, to get everybody prepared for the expected and unexpected! The plane has to be treated good, than it is good to you, Greets MD11f:ok:

TO MEMO

12th Oct 2009, 20:15

Does anyone know what happened to the pilots?

Rainboe

12th Oct 2009, 21:13

Well, I expect when the steps were brought up, they walked off, and spent a couple of nights there in a hotel, then were flown back to Germany! Do you imagine it is all completed and book closed already? There's barely been time to start analysing flight recorder and get statements. Do you really believe it is all over already? What are you expecting? Crucifiction?

Huck

12th Oct 2009, 22:54

stilton

13th Oct 2009, 06:21

Yes, this wonderful MD11 has a fine record doesn't it. How many hull losses now ?

Four I can think of, Fdx in Newark, Mandarin In Hong Kong, Fdx again in Subic Bay, and Nrt recently, I'm probably missing some.

Numerous other incidents, some fatal over the years. An uncommanded slat extension in the cruise due to the Fo knocking the handle with his knee (poor design blamed again) scads of heavy landings and tail strikes.

Pilots that currently fly it will naturally defend it as most Pilots do, completely understandable.

An unbiased view and a little research uncovers the truth.

It's miserable record speaks for itself.

When Fdx crashed in Nrt I said it won't be long before another incident or accident fortunately this one in MEX seems fairly minor.

It's just a matter of time before another one.

Flightmech

13th Oct 2009, 10:18

Stilton

"When Fdx crashed in Nrt I said it won't be long before another incident or accident fortunately this one in MEX seems fairly minor"

Your previous post called it a prang. A hard landing into a challenging airport, nothing else. I wonder how many hard landings have occurred on other types since the FDX crash? Probably several you've not bothered to mention. Luckily for you this one was an MD-11 so you could continue your rant:ugh:

What experience do you actually have of the MD-11? None i expect.

Super VC-10

13th Oct 2009, 13:51

It's six hull losses for the MD-11. 1 China Airlines, 3 FedEx, 1 Korean Air and 1 Swissair,
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=353%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1)

Kerosene Kraut

13th Oct 2009, 15:26

Out of 200 built.

411A

13th Oct 2009, 16:24

Out of 200 built.
And, a couple of those accidents were not the direct result of the 'supposed' compromised design.

Seems to me...either fly the MD11 properly, or face the consequences.
L1011/747/A300-600/etc....same.
In the case of the L1011 multiple redundant aircraft systems and a superb design from the get-go, kept you out of trouble.
747, about the same.
A300-600, rehashed A300B4, and with AA, very poor pilot technique re/rudder ops.
DC-10, poor engine changing technique with one operator and a suspect slat design....not to mention cargo door problems, early on.

In short, gotta know your airplane, folks, and fly/maintain it by the numbers...do this, and you are likely to survive just fine.

hetfield

13th Oct 2009, 16:51

@411A

Basicly I agree with you. Anyhow, there seems to be an accumulation of aircraft specific incidents/accidents.

- A300, GoAround related
- MD11, overruns/hard landings
- A320 (and similar), crews screwed up by complex automatics

In my company we use(d) them all. The only solution is time(money) consuming training!

MPH

13th Oct 2009, 18:15

You can add Korean Air april 1999 in Shanghai

Somebody once said they should let Lockheed design all the airplanes, Boeing build them...and McDonnell-Douglas market them! And let the French guys stick to making Citroens and Peugeots.....

Not my take but, that ´somebody´ did make a rather controversial statement!!

stilton

13th Oct 2009, 21:15

Please don't attempt to confuse 411a with facts.

The MD11, by any measure has had more than it's fair share of accidents and incidents.

Stability, or the lack of it seems to be the main issue, with a horizontal stabilizer sized 30-40% smaller than the DC10. This proved to be inadequate for the control authority desired so a 'solution' was installed using an artificial augmentation system.

This has obviously not been effective either. This unforgiving machine will remain so. Unfortunately another incident / accident will happen before long.

muduckace

13th Oct 2009, 21:40

Why do y'all think AA turned back their entire fleet of MD-11s BACK BEFORE the accidents and incidents. Unprecedented.

They did it because they had a hard time operating the fleet from a maintenace stand point, erronious anomilies created delays. Boeing would not help them with any support once they took MDC over. It was the only way to get the 777 project as sucessful as it is, at the time it could not compete pound per mile as a freighter. Years of modifications and the 777F's numbers are better.

It was a good time financially to get rid of them because the MD-11 quickly became more expensive as a freighter over a pax bird to buy or lease.

leewan

14th Oct 2009, 04:44

Boeing build them.

Not anymore ! :)

saman

14th Oct 2009, 10:12

James bro,

AAAAgggghhhh!

Airbus aircraft are NOT French!!!

Three assembly lines in three different countries and so far, Great Britain has designed & supplied nearly 6000 sets of wings and we've sold nearly 9500 aircraft - with Brit wings, German interiors and so on.

We are International with a strong European flavour - and the UK is part of Europe.

Now, as a place to live, Toulouse is not too bad...

I presume you bought the Peugeot as a discretionary purchase - I prefer German cars!!!

Saman

Kerosene Kraut

14th Oct 2009, 11:02

"Airbus aircraft are not french"
I heard legally the Hamburg built ones are "license produced" french a/c.

CapitainKirk

14th Oct 2009, 11:51

I've been on it 9 years and am currently a mx test pilot on the MD11.

It is a wonderful aircraft, but it must be flown. If all you do is punch the a/p on at 500' on takeoff, and click it off at 200' on final, you are cruising for a bruising.

If you, however, revert back to the reptilian core of your brain where you stored things like pitch / power relationships and the concept of vertical inertia, you will do fine. And it is a blast to fly.

Oh and if you can't click off the autothrottles and shoot a visual you may be in over your head......

YES YES YES FLYING (sadly becoming a lost art methinks) a bit like what you had to do with the L1011 a much nicer looking plane if a bit underpowered compared to the The Mad Dog/ Death Cruiser. They always looked like they were a spare parts bin cobbled together job - oops we need another engine mmm where can we put that - there you go in the middle of the tail -ooops damn blast curses its a bit too heavy for the undercarriage now - easily fixed just add another wheel - thats it great job - we can go home now..

Sorry folks i dont know how to get another post in here like most people can BUT i can/could fly a plane:D :rolleyes:

FCS Explorer

14th Oct 2009, 11:58

c'mon people. in today's world A's -AND- B's are made from part from lots a different countries. check this:

MHI to Ship First Aft Fuselage Panel for Boeing 777 Freighter. - JCN Newswires | Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-173720536.html)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to Ship First Aft Fuselage Panel for Boeing 777 Freighter.
JCN Newswires | January 23, 2008 | COPYRIGHT 2008 Japan Corporate News Network K.K.

Tokyo, Japan, Jan 23, 2008 - (JCN Newswire) - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) will ship the first aft fuselage panel for the Boeing 777 Freighter on January 30 from the company's Hiroshima Machinery Works in Hiroshima Prefecture. The high-capacity, twin-engine 777 Freighter is based on the technologically advanced 777-200LR (Longer Range) Worldliner passenger airplane. A ceremony was held at the Hiroshima Machinery Works on January 23 to commemorate the completion and initial shipment of the panel.

do i hear anyone say the glorious B777 is a japanese aircraft????:}

keitaidenwa

14th Oct 2009, 17:30

Logically most of the operators had ex DC10 and MD80 pilots commencing operations of the MD11, that was what ran around at that time. But how many of the ACTUAL pilots still came from those mentioned, and how many from the newer generation like A320?Rest assured, for most A320 pilots getting a MD11 rating would be a silly choice career-wise.

It sure is refreashing to hear from folks that know what they are talking about, instead of the button-pushing side-stick crowd whom haven't a clue.The clueless crowd flying their F-16 on AP wishing they had a proper yoke? :rolleyes:

We have no information about the of crews previous flight experience and this thread has already degraded into "young generations can't fly" and "A vs B".

bugg smasher

14th Oct 2009, 21:36

Plane is getting a minor fix in MEX and the off to VCV to be repaired.

Uh oh, VCV have all the NDT equipment, they are able to determine whether the aircraft is worthy of return to service. Not a good sign.

It is a wonderful aircraft, but it must be flown. If all you do is punch the a/p on at 500' on takeoff, and click it off at 200' on final, you are cruising for a bruising.

If you, however, revert back to the reptilian core of your brain where you stored things like pitch / power relationships and the concept of vertical inertia, you will do fine. And it is a blast to fly.

Oh and if you can't click off the autothrottles and shoot a visual you may be in over your head......

Couldn't agree more, old school at its best, a pilot's airplane to the very last rivet. Profesionally speaking, the most satisfying, rewarding and unforgiving taskmaster I have ever flown.

Gretchenfrage

15th Oct 2009, 01:40

Rest assured, for most A320 pilots getting a MD11 rating would be a silly choice career-wise

How nicely put, not to say arrogantly put. In today's environment most pilots do not have the luxury to chose their aircraft. A job's a job and a family has to be fed. I am not be so picky and went to fly the bus. That however does not impeach me from telling the difference.

Furthermore, it's you reducing the issue to A vs. B or young vs. old and by doing that you simply brush aside the problem. I say again and again, those who evade this discussion are the most in need of some basic training. It IS an issue and the MD11 is the one revealing it first, due to its handling peculiarities. And if you read correctly, many contributors like me have stated that it is not an A issue alone, but that this company was the first to go down that road.
By the way, in a very, very old thread I have described my plane I would design, and guess what? It would be equipped with a sidestick, one however featuring feedback from AP and collegue. Small but decisive difference trainingwise.

So work on the issue and not on your hurt A-feelings.

GF

Huck

15th Oct 2009, 02:23

Uh oh, VCV have all the NDT equipment, they are able to determine whether the aircraft is worthy of return to service. Not a good sign.

Judging by the photograph, we'll buy it. I guarantee. We converted two more this year already....

Contingency

15th Oct 2009, 02:48

Some years ago I was riding home from a trip overseas in an MD11. The trip was uneventful until the landing. It was a late afternoon arrival in winter after an eight hour flight. The sun was low on the horizon, the ceiling and visibility were unlimited and the temperature was probably around zero Celsius. A great day for flying because even the oldest airplanes seem to perform well.

I was sitting in the passenger cabin in a window seat in the first few rows. No wind was evident, at least not a crosswind. Conditions were smooth on the descent and approach. I had a copy of the flight plan on my lap and I was looking at my digital wrist watch counting down the seconds to see how close our landing time would be to the planned trip time. It's something I do to occupy the time. I was probably unusually attentive at that stage of the flight because of my unofficial log keeping. As we came over the approach lights I noticed that the aircraft was pretty much level - at least that was my impression from looking out the side window. We continued down the runway in what seemed to be unusually flat attitude. As we approached what I began to think was "too far down this runway," I was expecting that the bottom was just going to drop out of the airplane at any moment with a hard landing but we just coasted and coasted and coasted in this level attitude. Just at the point when I thought that "someone has to do something because this does not feel quite right," the nose of the aircraft just dropped out of the sky heading straight for the runway. The aircraft did not drop, the main gear did not drop, the nose wheel just dropped. Being up front and looking out the side window it was very evident that we were pitching down while only metres off the runway. I don't think that the pilot deliberately pitched the nose down but who am I to say. It felt like the tail stopped flying but the wing was still working and the aircraft just rotated nose down with a centre of rotation through the wing. I was convinced that we were landing nose-wheel first for whatever reason. But then before the nose wheel hit the ground, someone took control of the airplane and we launched out of there like a C130 on JATO. The airplane literally leaped off the ground thanks to the cold temperature and mostly depleted fuel supply I guess. The second landing was completely normal in all respects and reminiscent of what I had experienced on dozens of previous flights. Whoever took control to salvage the situation that day was definitely in charge of that aircraft on the go-around. Years after the fact, watching the video of the FEDEX MD11 touching down nose first in Narita, I wonder what really happened that day.

411A

15th Oct 2009, 02:56

....for most A320 pilots getting a MD11 rating would be a silly choice career-wise

Agreed...they would more than likely scare the cr*p out of the instructor/check pilot during base/line training...:}

OTOH, I can think of one A320 pilot that would really like to get his hands on some bigger iron (MD-11 would be a nice fit)...he is very adapt and willing to learn.
He wouldn't have to go very far afield either....he already works for LH.:ok:

Doors to Automatic

15th Oct 2009, 10:49

Contingency - was an announcement made to explain this unusual landing and why you went around?

DBate

15th Oct 2009, 11:05

Rest assured, for most A320 pilots getting a MD11 rating would be a silly choice career-wise.

and

Agreed...they would more than likely scare the cr*p out of the instructor/check pilot during base/line training...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Well, I made that 'silly' choice. And looking back, I have to say that I would make that exact same choice over and over again. And I did not have ANY problems during base/line training - even though I came from the A320. In my oppinion switching types - and espeacially manufacturers - is a good thing to do when you have the possibility. You earn some new insights on different philosophies and thus broaden your horizon.

'Gretchenfrage' said something very true - it all comes down to proper training. And it is not only the training you receive when converting to the MD11, but also the one you received throughout your carreer; starting in flight school, and then further on to your first 'real' typerating. It is the fundament for your flying skills.

Of course those skills need to be used on the line. It is far to easy (on any type, be it A or B) to let the Autopilot do the work. But that is basically up to oneself. Personally I made it a habbit during my time on the A320 to fly at least every 2nd approach raw data. Sure enough, your companys SOPs need to grant you that right (one other thing that might lead to a degredation of flying skills nowadays).

So basically proper training is the key!

Uh oh, VCV have all the NDT equipment, they are able to determine whether the aircraft is worthy of return to service. Not a good sign.
The plane was scheduled to be parked at VCV anyway two weeks after the incident. The plan still is to have it reactivated at the end of next year or in 2011 - depending on the market situation. So as mentioned before, it will get a provisional repair at MEX to grant a ferry flight to VCV. Then a repair team from Boeing will do the rest.

Regards,
DBate

Contingency

15th Oct 2009, 14:16

..... was an announcement made to explain this unusual landing and why you went around?There was a short statement but all I understood because of the poor audio quality was the word "wind."

CONF iture

15th Oct 2009, 14:51

By the way, in a very, very old thread I have described my plane I would design, and guess what? It would be equipped with a sidestick, one however featuring feedback from AP and collegue. Small but decisive difference trainingwise.
+1 !

Decisive difference for the training but also for the everyday operation.

stilton

15th Oct 2009, 16:36

Control feedback is vital as are moving autothrottles.

WrldWide

15th Oct 2009, 22:41

contol feedback IS vital as is moving auto throttles. The only airplane I have flown in the last 14 years is the MD11, averaging 50-60 landings per year. There have been alot of good comments and some not very good comments with regard to the stability and hard landing issue. The aircraft is fine if you fly it per the manufacturers specifications. Out side of that, with any manufacturers airframe, one becomes a test pilot.

There are other threads on this forum that refer to other aircraft types having hard landings, not sure why there is such focus on the MD11. All aircraft can have a hard landing.

The MD11 is a flyers airplane, even though the engineers tried to make it a monitored airplane.

BTW, the only time I use autopilot/autothrottle below 10k is if it is CAT II or III and requires coupled approach. I feel like every other approach is a chance to stay proficient.
Cheers.

Pugilistic Animus

15th Oct 2009, 23:01

It's not the type in most cases it's the pilot,

honestly, I've always wanted to evaluate[never touched an 'MD' product though], specifically, the MD-11,... but a badly handled Airbus is just as nasty as a badly handled 707 or for that matter a badly handled Cub

you can't whisper sweet nothings in an aircraft's ear and Hope:yuk: for the best you have to know what your doing, just as 411A always so wrongly says:rolleyes:

I guess it all depends if you want to go on autopilot or manually -Proceeding Direct to the cemetery:E

PA

Huck

15th Oct 2009, 23:52

the only time I use autopilot/autothrottle below 10k is if it is CAT II or III and requires coupled approach. I feel like every other approach is a chance to stay proficient.

That's the secret.

No reason not to, except laziness. Unless it's a complicated approach or a high-density/high terrain environment.

DozyWannabe

16th Oct 2009, 08:35

It would be equipped with a sidestick, one however featuring feedback from AP and collegue. Small but decisive difference trainingwise.

+1 !

Control feedback is vital as are moving autothrottles.

contol feedback IS vital as is moving auto throttles

Four legs good, two legs baa-aaa-d.

And always the same three or four people.

*le sigh*.

There's a reason force feedback can be a bad idea, and we've been over it before. Remember the cross-wired sidestick that provided bank angle in reverse? Now - imagine what would have happened if the co-pilot had tried to take over (as he did in the real life incident), but the force-feedback was wrenching the stick the opposite way? Moving autothrottles are no panacea either, as three late Turkish pilots discovered on that 733 recently.

PA is right - it's about the pilot, not the type.

Gretchenfrage

16th Oct 2009, 09:56

And always the same three or four people

Mocking the authors doesn't make the design flaw go away.

Feedback is a integral part of human's interface. Taking it away for pilots displays a lack of understanding of human basics.

Just an add on: The initial set up on the MD11 was never as screwed up as it ended. Due to a lot of handling problems of pilots (yes, even the first generation had its problems ....) the engineers started implementing many inhibitors and limitors on pilot inputs, especially during the landing phase. This works in the same misguided way as a no-feedback on the bus and starts getting widespread throughout all manufacturors. It takes away the "real feel/feedback/correction possibility" of the pilots and hands it over to computers.

Personally I think that the fix is either in a less flawed design of the aircraft, or in much better training of pilots. But cutting down on the latter and implementing even more automatics, inhibitions etc. etc. goes the wrong (cheaper) way. Even more when in almost every mishap the pilots are then still finally blamed.

(I liked your analogy to the Farm. Pigs were evidently never designed to walk upright. Computers initially to help humans, but evidently not to overrule them. Both trials are bound to faiurel in my oppinion)

DozyWannabe

16th Oct 2009, 10:33

Seriously - that's one of the most basic misunderstandings out there (though admittedly the Ziegler faction at AI didn't help much in that case). The computer does not, ever, overrule the human - it has protections that are there to stop the aircraft from getting into dangerous situations (spiral dives, stalls etc) - but the pilot is in control *at all times* if he or she wants to be. Case in point - Capt. Sullenberger was the one decorated for bravery when he ditched his A320 in the Hudson, not the flight control computer (which frankly would have looked daft with a medal round it).

As has been said many times, there are arguments for and against force-feedback in these situations and I think those with entrenced viewpoints will be reluctant to let go of them. But while automation has brought in some new dangers, the number of old dangers they helped alleviate more than makes up for that IMO.

And as I have said before, for a site that regularly bashes journos for inaccuracy, it's amazing how many cling to the journalistic inaccuracy about the A32/3/4/80 computers "taking over" from pilots and being the first step in making pilots obsolete. Sensationalism at it's worst at the time, let alone now.

We're definitely edging off-topic here though - we were at "MD-11, somewhat unforgiving in handling on landing" if I recall correctly.

jmaximo

16th Oct 2009, 11:45

It is indeed a wonderful plane to fly, and nobody could still beat MD11's cockpit and MCP.
But, as a friend of mine used to say, "not for beginners" :)

Gretchenfrage

16th Oct 2009, 12:53

Seriously - that's one of the most basic misunderstandings out there (though admittedly the Ziegler faction at AI didn't help much in that case). The computer does not, ever, overrule the human - it has protections that are there to stop the aircraft from getting into dangerous situations (spiral dives, stalls etc) - but the pilot is in control *at all times* if he or she wants to be.

Well, tell that the Qantas pilots who switched off the AP and pulled on the sidestick to avoid the aircraft to nosedive. Result? Zilch. The computer continued to be fooled by sensors and did not follow the pilots input.
There might be instances where protections saved lives, but undoubtedly there have been instances where they deteriorated the situation. If someone wants to quantify and compare the effects, good luck, because I only trust statistics I have falsified myself.
Personally I reiterate that it is evolution in the wrong direction if you take away the ultimate control of the one that has his butt on the line and his honor and career at some ignorant lawyers/judges mercy. As long as I am called pilot in command, leave me in command and then I will stand for it.

@jmaximo:
I agree the MD11 was great.
When we transferred from the maddog to the T7, we all said to be surprised to be thrown back to middle age cokpit-management wise.
The answer from Boeing was:
Maybe, but we gave you a wing!!
True as well.

DozyWannabe

16th Oct 2009, 13:10

Gretchenfrage:

I hear what you're saying, but there are two 752s on the bottom of our two largest oceans that are testament to the fact that humans can be as easily fooled by faulty or poor sensor readings as computers can. A component flaw does not necessarily imply a failure in the systems design.

Slickster

16th Oct 2009, 14:09

Moving autothrottles are no panacea either, as three late Turkish pilots discovered on that 733 recently.

Yeah, apart from the fact the fact that the autothrottle had disengaged, thus was not moving; something one would have hoped one of the three might have noticed, if they were following SOP, and had their hand on the thrust levers.

Nothing is a panacea; I've seen someone try and land gear up with the warning horn going off! See numerous threads on safety/training being eroded.

WrldWide

16th Oct 2009, 20:11

The LH pilots that landed in MEX are the only ones that know what happened in those final moments. Can we now wait until the data comes out to say what happened. This whole A v B, joystick v yoke thing,old school v new school, is very tiring and does not progress any of us to an understanding of what happened.

Every airframe that has been certified has at some point had a, or series of, "hard Landing' that took that ship out of service, ie: total loss. What will be the excuse when the 777 or 380 has a hard landing? Actually, I can assure you that the t7 has had some hard landings that are worthy of a write up but it has not made the news.

Take a chill,
WW

DozyWannabe

16th Oct 2009, 21:07

But the T7 hasn't recently suffered a hard landing that ended in tragedy, whereas the MD-11 has. I'm not knocking the design, which in some cases going on anecdotal evidence is pretty good - but it lacks some basic engineering protections (especially the main gear landing attachment) that no other modern design suffers.

CONF iture

17th Oct 2009, 05:09

Sorry guys, don’t know much about the MD11, can only say it’s a nice good looking bird … but I need here to reply to DW on his earlier comments.

Regarding the Lufthansa episode, you’re correct, it would have been a disaster if not from the Airbus side stick philosophy. What’s more surprising is how that modern technology allowed such a mistake to be done during the repair process (?) and of course how it had to happen in a … German hangar (?)

Regarding the Hudson, don’t know why you would give a medal to the flight control computer, when Capt. Sullenberger didn’t use any 'protection' and certainly never intended to.

I hear what you're saying, but there are two 752s on the bottom of our two largest oceans that are testament to the fact that humans can be as easily fooled by faulty or poor sensor readings as computers can. A component flaw does not necessarily imply a failure in the systems design.
It is not an issue than computers may be fooled by faulty or poor sensor readings but it is an issue when computers are given priority and don’t pretend anymore it never happened. Credit to the Australians who have produced a honest report, something you would not have ever seen in France.
Also interesting enough, I don’t remember reading in the so called 'serious' aeronautical press how two 'protection' features dangerously took over a nicely manually flown aircraft …

Back to the MD11 and I think you’re correct : It could be a weakness in the main ldg gear attachment.

muduckace

17th Oct 2009, 08:30

There is a reason this aircraft is the freighter of choice.

You can quote all the MD-11 incidents you want. Fact is it lost manufacturer support when Boeing took over and most importantly the tech support that aircraft manufacturers supply 10-20 years into their operating aircraft.

I also believe that a pilot operating said craft is none different than a car driver, heavy equipment operator etc... Being proficient in the machine they operate. Hell yeah the MD-11 is demanding.... Reality is relativity.

Got to ask yourself.... What would you think of the difference between handing your kid a set of keys to a car with an automatic transmission v/s a high performance car with a manual transmission. Age apart as a poor analogy, given the proper training and respect for the machine safety is not an issue, proficiency is the key.

Not to mention the human factor........... This is the big one..

Most crashes on landing that were into known poor conditions could have been avoided by going around or selecting an alternate (fuel providing). The human factor exists here, I know I like to clock out on time.

This whole post has nothing to do with this MD-11 hard landing in Mexico City.

I rember 2 personal accounts of 742/1 hard landings that the crew failed to admit to that resulted in flap damage (as the 747 fowler flaps will shift on a hard landing) as procedure is to leave the flaps extended after said hard landing.

capt_zman

17th Oct 2009, 11:09

I also believe that a pilot operating said craft is none different than a car driver, heavy equipment operator etc... Being proficient in the machine they operate. Hell yeah the MD-11 is demanding.... Reality is relativity.

muduckace,
As an md11 pilot who works for the same company you do, I think your opinion of a what a pilot does is a little skewed. Heavy equipment operator? Car driver? Come on now, just this past trip we landed on the backside of a typhoon (30G50) in NRT, landed in a 1/2 mile vis pouring rain storm in SIN, had ~5 birdstrikes during flare at 50 ft in KUL, and then to top it off, had 3 go-arounds due to vis and windshear in PEN. All this on 1 trip. Please explain how I'm considered no different than a car driver or heavy equipment operator?

I'm pretty sure the knowledge I've accrued over the past 10,000 hours of safe flying all over this planet is a little more "relative to reality" than you might think.

2009PP

17th Oct 2009, 11:37

@capt_zman:
reading this from your last trip, afterall do you think it was a good idea to go for a landing under KNOWN WS conditions? Was NRT closed at any time by the way?
Three GAs in PEN:confused:

I dont think so, even though you made it. This is not an offence towards you, but I think there are times to cancel or divert a flight and not "trying" to land in an active typhoon condition.

Beside that, I totally agree to the other contents of your post!

Just my opinion.

Super VC-10

17th Oct 2009, 12:40

Apparently the aircraft is to be repaired and returned to service according to aero.de

aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community (http://www.aero.de/Lufthansa_Cargo_wird_D-ALCO_in_Stand_setzen_9302.htm)

Note: German text.

cheeky cough

17th Oct 2009, 14:08

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

Interesting info here.

Fly Safe.

CC

:)

DozyWannabe

17th Oct 2009, 18:14

Hey CONF iture,

Just to clarify, regarding the Hudson incident, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the mistaken assumption that the AI FBW control design means that the computers are somehow more in charge than the pilot.

Regarding some of the points you raise - I think that the repair error was made because the colour coding of the electronic connections had changed over different revisions of the hardware. I dont think the nationality of the maintenance personnel comes into it, everyone can make mistakes.

Also, I think that the French attitude to investigation certainly seems to have improved since the early 1990s - and regarding the Qantas incident - my point was that it was a component failure rather than a failure of the system as a whole, which should, can be, and was resolved by the flight crew.

I'm not an advocate for or against any design or manufacturer, but as an engineer and part-time aviation enthusiast (and my views should always be seen as such) I'm aware of designs that have been wonderfully advanced and pilot-friendly for the time, but nevertheless had unexpected flaws - I can think of the Comet 1 (metal fatigue), DC-10 (cargo door and floor failure), 737 (rudder PCU valve) and A320 (poor FMS interface design) off the top of my head. The former two were clearly system failures and the latter component failures. In all four cases, the manufacturer, investigation and regulatory agencies tried to keep the aircraft flying before these faults were rectified, and only one of the four involved a French (or part-French) aircraft in any way.

Huck

17th Oct 2009, 18:20

You can add MD11 early LSAS design to that list.

DozyWannabe

17th Oct 2009, 18:39

Fair enough, I'm familiar with the subject in that case, but not in as much detail as the others - also, I didn't want to look like I was ragging on MD by mentioning them twice.

muduckace

17th Oct 2009, 20:00

Not meant to be a pilot slam just the best metaphor I could come up with to convey that with any machine, the key to operating it is understanding it capabilities and limitations. Don't be so sensitive.

For 4 years I spent more time living (sleeping, eating and defecating) in an MD-11 than I did in my own home. When we swapped out pilots to go take a nap, I kept going with the bird. Have no doubt that I understand what your life is like strapped into a MD-11.

stilton

17th Oct 2009, 23:00

The MD11's accident and incident record speaks for itself.

Obviously, none of these would have occurred with 411a at the helm, but other, regular human pilots of all backgrounds and competency seem to have had and still have continual and successive problems with it.

It's only a matter of time before the next MD11 'event' why is this just accepted as 'normal' ?

golfyankeesierra

17th Oct 2009, 23:24

For 4 years I spent more time living (sleeping, eating and defecating) in an MD-11 than I did in my own home. When we swapped out pilots to go take a nap, I kept going with the bird. Have no doubt that I understand what your life is like strapped into a MD-11.
Well,
the problem is not all those countless hours per flight filled with talk about planes, cars, women and mortgages, and sometimes battling the sleep, but the problem seems to be the last 30 seconds of the flight(of 200' down).
So no matter how many hours you spend in the plane, since it still is a medium to long range plane your real exposure is always limited.
Now when your plane's handling is benign (like the 74) that's no problem, the MD11 on the other hand seems to have some sharp edges....

Flightmech

18th Oct 2009, 00:39

Stilton,

When are you actually going to post something constructive, rather than just continually "wish" for the next MD-11 incident so you can gloat some more. Boring.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

stilton

18th Oct 2009, 04:27

Oh dear, not 'constructive' enough for you FMech ?

Perhaps you can enlighten all of us on the mechanics of 'constructive' posts
judging by your user name that should be easy.

I certainly hope the MD11 can enjoy an unblemished record for the rest of it's service life although the chances of this seem slim.

For you to imply I am 'wishing' for more accidents is nothing short of moronic :=

Flightmech

18th Oct 2009, 12:02

Just go back and read your own posts in this thread. Enough said:=

(mods remove if necessary)

CONF iture

18th Oct 2009, 17:30

I think that the repair error was made because the colour coding of the electronic connections had changed over different revisions of the hardware. I dont think the nationality of the maintenance personnel comes into it, everyone can make mistakes.

I do not blame the Germans because of that, we all know how professionals they are and that’s why I am surprised that such a succession of failures in the procedures took place under their watch … If I had to guess, they would have been the last on my list.
Anyway, big credit to the co-pilot, last resort before the disaster.

Regarding QF72, I don’t wish to pollute any longer this MD11 thread, so I will develop on a more appropriate one.

muduckace

18th Oct 2009, 18:08

I do not disagree with you that the MD-11 is especially more susceptable to windshear on approach. I have been on a couple squirely landings, had one where windshear was reported but the 2 aircraft landing before us declared calm air, we flew 10kts over anyways, at 50' I watched the F/O input full aileron as the RT wing dropped in a pretty hard stall. Made me think of FDX/Newark.

This is different than flying into known conditions (narita) where a Go Around may have been decided earlier. It is hard to make judjment on the crew operating the aircraft and do not do so. Mabe the rules/limitations for operating the aircraft need to be more conservative in approach/landing phase of flight.

But where it has been determined by the NTSB or other regulating entities that the flight crew did not follow procedure or proper judgment, in the same respect I do not judge the aircraft.