ZSPD Cargo Plane Crash

[Sqwak7700]

Cargo plane from Zimbabwe, not many details. CNN has one picture of smoke billowing.

Zimbabwe cargo plane crashes at Shanghai airport | World news | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8830727)

[KAG]

A Zimbabwe-registered cargo plane crashed shortly after taking off Saturday from a Shanghai airport with seven crew members aboard, state media and witnesses said.
The official Xinhua News Agency reported that four crew members, all foreigners, were injured. The status of the other three was not immediately clear.
China Central Television showed billowing thick black smoke at the scene, with police officers blocking closer access.
A reporter from Shanghai's Oriental Satellite Television told CCTV that the tail of the plane had broken in two or three parts, and hundreds of firefighters were spraying fire retardants on the plane.
The reporter said the four injured people were conscious.
A man answering phones at the Pudong International Airport cargo information office who requested anonymity confirmed the crash but had no details.
Xinhua said the crash occurred at 7:40 a.m. (2340 GMT Friday).
In June 2006, a Chinese military plane crashed in eastern China's Anhui province, killing all 40 people aboard.

[Sqwak7700]

I wonder why the media is not picking up this story, or why the Chinese government are not allowing them to. The crash has closed the airport, seems pretty big news to me.

I checked for Zimbabwe registered aircraft, the only thing close is Avient, which has 3 DC-10s (easily confused for an MD11 to the untrained eye) and one MD11 (recent acquisition that database shows as still being parked).
:confused:

[xband11]

No confusion here, it was freshly painted Avient MD11.

[Sqwak7700]

More info here, looks like it was an Avient aircraft.

Zimbabwe Cargo Plane Crashes In China, Killing 3 - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/27/ap/asia/main5804673.shtml)

[11Fan]

Three staff have died and four others were injured after a cargo plane caught fire at the Shanghai Pudong airport Saturday, local officials said, Xinhua (http://www.xinhua.org/) reported.

The blaze occurred at 8:12 a.m., when the plane veered off the runway before it took off, they said.

All the seven foreign staff were rushed to the People's Hospital of Pudong New Area, where three of died and one is in serious condition as of 11:00 a.m.

The blaze was put out at about 9:00 a.m., rescuers said.

The plane, SMJ 324, was registered at Zimbabwe. It was scheduled to fly from Shanghai to Bishkek, capital of Kyrgyzstan.

Trend News: Three dead, four injured in cargo plane crash in Shanghai Airport (http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1589851.html)

EDIT#1: If you look at the news reports, none of them say MD-11 that I could find.

NewsNow: Airlines (http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Industry+Sectors/Airlines)

EDIT#2: The only places that are saying MD-11 are the blogs and "other" Aviation Themed Websites.

Only one place saying it was an MD-11.

©ú³ø§Y®É·s»Dºô-¨â©¤---³f¾÷¼Y¤W®ü¾÷³õ Â_¦¨¨âºI (10:38)-20091128 (http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/INews/20091128/ca61038i.htm)

That was after translation.

[xband11]

No more uncertainties, it was freshly painted MD 11.

[gtf]

Stock picture, unrelated to the accident.

AP used to say it was a MD11, now changed to "Zimbabwean-registered" instead
Xinhua doesn't mention the type either, but does mention the flight (SMJ234) so it appears definitively Avient.

(edited to add)
CCTV says tail hit ground before breaking apart. No context or additional info. Take with usual pound of salt.

[LGB]

From Avient Limited Specialising in Air Cargo to Africa and the World (http://www.avient.aero)

(They don't HAVE any MD-11s it seems, but 3 DC-10s, a 727 and an IL-76.)

Correction: It seems they just started operating an MD-11, so it could very well be that MD-11. It seems it was, N408SH on temporary US reg while being painted, see picture and further comments below.

Press Release

28 November 2009

An Avient Aviation operated aircraft was involved in an accident at approximate 00:16 GMT today while the aircraft, a McDonnell Douglas MD11 Freighter , was operating a charter freight flight from Pudong International Airport in China.

Preliminary information indicates that the accident occurred on takeoff from Pudong International Airport. The aircraft was carrying a crew of 7.

At this time, the full resources of Avient's accident response team have been mobilised and will be devoted to cooperating with all authorities responding to the accident.

At this time no further information is available. Avient will continue to release additional information as it is confirmed.


Fleet:

Avient owns its fleet of DC10-30Fs and an IL-76, with access to Boeing 727-200Fs. Our aircraft are all maintained to the highest possible safety standards by our own highly skilled maintenance team, any aircraft that we charter is pre-checked to make sure that it conforms to Avient's strict safety requirements.

All of our air crew are trained to the highest possible standard and undergo regular training and performance reviews to ensure the continued quality of excellence that Avient require.

[LGB]

What runway did they use? Here are the NOTAMs as of right now, those updated or created today.


A8588/09 - RWY17L/35R CLSD DUE TO MAINT. DURING CLOSURE PERIOD, ACFT SHALL
CROSS RWY17L/35R VIA TWY A1,TWY D1,TWY A3 AND TWY D3 ONLY. 28 NOV 05:53 2009
UNTIL 29 NOV 02:00 2009 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 28 NOV 05:55 2009



A8587/09 - ILS FOR RWY17L U/S. 28 NOV 04:20 2009 UNTIL 05 DEC 03:55 2009 ESTIMATED. CREATED:
28 NOV 04:22 2009



A8585/09 - ILS FOR RWY35R U/S. 28 NOV 04:19 2009 UNTIL 05 DEC 03:55 2009 ESTIMATED. CREATED:
28 NOV 04:19 2009



A8583/09 - RWY17R/35L FOR TAKE-OFF ONLY. 28 NOV 03:59 2009 UNTIL 28 NOV 15:59 2009 ESTIMATED.
CREATED: 28 NOV 03:59 2009



A8582/09 - VOR/DME 'PUD'/116.9MHZ/CH116X U/S. 28 NOV 03:55 2009 UNTIL 05 DEC 03:45 2009
ESTIMATED. CREATED: 28 NOV 03:57 2009



A8577/09 - 1.TWY F CLSD.
2.TWY E BTN TWY F1 AND TWY T3 CLSD.INTERSECTION BTN TWY F1 AND TWY
E CLSD. 1700-2230 7,9,11 DEC, 07 DEC 17:00 2009 UNTIL 11 DEC 22:30 2009. CREATED:
28 NOV 02:47 2009



A8575/09 - TWY B BTN TWY A8 AND TWY B4 CLSD. 07 DEC 17:00 2009 UNTIL 07 DEC 22:30 2009.
CREATED: 28 NOV 02:39 2009



A8573/09 - RWY16/34 CLSD. 1700-2230 7,9,11 DEC, 07 DEC 17:00 2009 UNTIL 11 DEC 22:30 2009.
CREATED: 28 NOV 02:36 2009



A8572/09 - 1.TWY C BTN TWY C1 AND TWY C4,BTN TWY C4 AND TWY C9,BTN TWY C9
AND TWY C12 CLSD.INTERSECTIONS BTN TWY C12 AND TWY C CLSD.
2.TWY D BTN TWY D1 AND TWY D3,BTN TWY D3 AND TWY D9,BTN TWY D9 AND
TWY D11 CLSD.INTERSECTIONS BTN TWY D11 AND TWY D CLSD. 0700-1300 7,9,11 DEC,
07 DEC 07:00 2009 UNTIL 11 DEC 13:00 2009. CREATED: 28 NOV 02:36 2009



A8571/09 - RWY17R/35L CLSD DUE TO MAINT. DURING CLOSURE PERIOD, ACFT SHALL
CROSS RWY17R/35L VIA TWY C4,TWY D3,TWY C9 AND TWY D9 ONLY. 0700-1300 7,9,11
DEC, 07 DEC 07:00 2009 UNTIL 11 DEC 13:00 2009. CREATED: 28 NOV 02:33 2009

[bizchaser]

LGB

Seems they do have an MD-11F

Z-BAV s/n 48408 delivered to Avient 20/11/2009 ex HL7372/PR-LGD

BRgds

[LGB]

LGB

Seems they do have an MD-11F

Z-BAV s/n 48408 delivered to Avient 20/11/2009 ex HL7372/PR-LGD

BRgds

Yes, I just saw that, and corrected my post above. In any case, it does not make it more or less sad :(

[LGB]

Presumably it is this one

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/4/4/15052_1256528444.jpg

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/NewsImage/2009/2009-11/2009-11-28/20091128_420986_02.jpg

[biggles72]

The small aircraft photo above in 11Fan post was too small. I suggest it was a MD11. I saw thick black smoke billow from the crash site for more than 30 minutes.

Weather today was good in ZSPD. 10km vis, wind calm maybe 10 knots at the time.

Airport closed for about an hour and a half.

Aircraft crash site was approx 500 m (my estimate) past the runway end

[eurocontrol]

Avient website cfms MD11
Avient Limited Specialising in Air Cargo to Africa and the World (http://www.avient.aero/)

[Richardatnos]

Reply to LGB

Maybe RWY 35R

[akerosid]

The Dash 8 photo was clearly just journalistic sloppiness.

It was, it seems, an MD11, in which case the acft had been in service for barely over a week.

[cargo-dus]

Will this mean the end near for SMJ-ops into EC ? I never quite understood why so many African countries are on the blacklist these days, yet Zimbabwe not. Hard to believe they are any better organized than Angola or Congo or....

[black kettle]

According to Aviation Herald it was indeed Z-BAV.Overran runway on departure to Bishkek and caught fire but suggestion is only 3 out of 7 on board are fatalities.

[Huck]

Looks like it was ex-Varig:


http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/4/4/4/15052_1256528444.jpg

[biggles72]

Seems that the aircrafts final resting place was too far away from the runway end to be a failed RTO. I believe it got airbourne.

My guess is it was not gaining enough height after take off for whatever reason at hit an obstacle.

It ended up here. Extended centreline 35R..... see below

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/01f65a6b76.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[Kep Ten Jim]

Where did you get that info from Biggles 72?

[biggles72]

Where did you get that info from Biggles 72?

Looked out the window when we took off. Could be clearly seen.

[Ian Brooks]

Sounds as if aircraft came off end of runway at a very high speed

JACDEC - Current News (http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm)


Ian B

[wilmot]

Very sad. Had a British Flying Spanner on board, no more info ... Crash: Avient Aviation MD11 at Shanghai on Nov 28th 2009, overran runway on takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=423638d8&opt=0)

[AAL]

Dear Brandtzag:

"Loss of power or as for african cargo ops - notoriously over loaded?"

I beg your pardon Bwana, not another overloaded African Ops. Headquarters based in England, aircraft based in Vatry and Liege, run by Europeans!!!

Suppose you wanted to say: "Loss of power or as for European Ops - notoriously over loaded!!"

[Load Toad]

The report on TVB Pearl, HK.. (OK not the most authoritative source...) says it was an MD 11 for AVIENT, that it had an American pilot, that it had 'crew from Indonesia' and that there are 3 dead, 4 in hospital. The plane according to the eye witnesses took a long time to get airborne and then crashed.
The crash caused some flight delays.

[PH-SCP]

The delivery from Miami to Liege was postponed several times due to fuel pump problems. Maybe it caught the crew at the worst moment.

[Tank2Engine]

I beg your pardon Bwana, not another overloaded African Ops. Headquarters based in England, aircraft based in Vatry and Liege, run by Europeans!!!Just one minor detail: aircraft registered in Africa! :ouch:

p.s. according to their website (http://www.avient.aero/Welcome.htm) their head office is in Harare.

[Dengue_Dude]

It might SAY that, but it's run from UK and has been as long as I've personally known them.

[STN Ramp Rat]

A Zimbabwian registered aircraft
A crash in China
A Cargo Aircraft
An Aircraft type that is out of production
An aircraft manufacturer that no longer exists

What sort of investigation can we expect? there are always lessons to be learnt from sad incidents like this I hope we do find out what happened so it can be prevented in future

[Tank2Engine]

It might SAY that, but it's run from UK and has been as long as I've personally known them.In that case, wouldn't you think it's a bit strange that a few of those dodgy African cargo operators (MK anyone?) are 'based' in the UK and thus gaining access to the EU market? How do they get away with it?

[lomapaseo]

What sort of investigation can we expect? there are always lessons to be learnt from sad incidents like this I hope we do find out what happened so it can be prevented in future

If it's mechancial related expect EASA, the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing to issue coments in less than 6 months.

If it's mostly crew or dispatch related and no new lessons learned, then don't expect to see anything other than internet chatter.

I suppose that there can be other issues, but for this specfic accident I can't think of any?

[Cee of Gee]

In that case, wouldn't you think it's a bit strange that a few of those dodgy African cargo operators (MK anyone?) are 'based' in the UK and thus gaining access to the EU market? How do they get away with it?

MK were based in the UK and G registered the last time I looked!?

C o' G

[rfp172]

Per ASN Network, note the pics

"The Zimbabwe-registered aircraft's tail struck the ground on takeoff..." - If that is true, then this would not be the first time this aircraft's tail touched the ground:

Planepictures.net search: Registration: HL7372 (http://www.planepictures.net/netsearch4.cgi?stype=reg&srng=1&srch=HL7372)

[overlength]

A quick search on Freight Dogs and you will find a lot written about this airline and its owner Mr. Andrew Smith.

This is a Zimbabwean airline with headquarters in Salisbury, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. It operated from Vatry France for years and then in Sept this year did a moonlight flight to Liege Belgium allegedly leaving behind massive debts, then almost out of nowhere a month later they get a MD11F and within a couple of weeks of operating the aircraft this happens......

Some links previously posted:


UN Criticizes UK for Failing to Clamp Down on Mercenaries - Financial Times (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/congo/2001/0417merc.htm)
"Avient provided military assistance to the unelected Congolese government's air force in 1999 and 2000 during the war against rebel forces. "

How a Perfect English Gent in a Rural Idyll Profits From a Bloody African War - Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,846411,00.html)
"But an Observer investigation has uncovered evidence that behind the doors of a luxury house on the edge of the village, Andrew Smith runs a business empire which has made a fortune from a bloody African civil war that has claimed millions of lives. "

How British Army Man Organised Bombing Raids, Mercenary Operations - The East African (http://www.nationaudio.com/News/EastAfrican/09122002/Features/Magazine0212200218.html)
"The Observer newspaper also alleges that Smith ran a mercenary operation in the DRC and had documents showing that the former army captain had traded with the notorious Ukrainian arms dealer Leonid Minin (see The EastAfrican, November 18-24)."

UN cuts details of Western profiteers from Congo report, The Independent (http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view.pl?archive=22&num=2732)
"Avient is run by a former British Army captain, Andrew Smith. In the last panel report, the company was said to have been contracted to stage bombing raids over eastern Congo in 1999 and 2000. It also allegedly sold six attack helicopters to the Kinshasa government last year. "

Final Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo - UN Security Council - S/2002/1146 (http://www.genocidewatch.org/glca31october2002.htm)
"In April 2002, Avient Air brokered the sale of six attack helicopters to the Kinshasa Government. Bank records show several transactions between Avient and accused trafficker Leonid Minim. Under the management of Andrew Smith, a former British army captain, Gerry O'Brien and Lewis Kling, Avient was contracted to organize bombing raids into eastern D.R. Congo in 1999 and 2000."

A Catalogue of Failures: G8 Arms Exports and Human Rights Violations - Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGIOR300032003)
"Another example is the Zimbabwean company, Avient, with management links to the UK, which was reported to have hired Russian aircraft and air crew to support the government of Laurent Kabila in the Congo with "air drops", and also admitted to repairing and maintaining Russian MIG fighters for the Kabila regime."

Regulating weapons deals: The case for European Controls on arms brokers - Oxfam (http://www.oxfam.org/eng/pdfs/pp030303_euro_arms_brokering.pdf)
(pdf file, right-click & save)
"British citizen, Andrew Smith, resident in Wiltshire, was named by a UN report for organising bombing raids in DRC on behalf of President Joseph Kabila. He is also alleged to have brokered the sale of six attack helicopters to DRC government last April. He side-stepped EU arms embargos by operating through his company, Avient, registered in Zimbabwe."

[Serenity]

A/c may be "Z" reg but company is based in UK, crews are trained here at the sims in Crawley to UK standards and class 1 medicals done in UK also!!
The crews are worldwide including many form Stateside and Europe!!
This is not a case of just africans loading up and going!

Sky news reports that a/c struck the runway with its tail on rotation.

[Geebz]

3 Americans killed in Shanghai plane crash - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/china.plane.crash/index.html)

CNN reporting 3 the crew dead are Americans. The remaining crew, 4 are in hospital.

Man, what's up with all these MD-11 crashes? She's a beautiful airplane, but ever since she entered cargo service, seems to be a lot of crashes.

[poina]

Sad to see another one go down. If you check other posts on the MD-11, one recurring theme: it must be flown precisely. I retired off it with 5000 hrs. and it's the only thing I've flown that I was still not entirely comfortable with.

[Dengue_Dude]

In that case, wouldn't you think it's a bit strange that a few of those dodgy African cargo operators (MK anyone?) are 'based' in the UK and thus gaining access to the EU market? How do they get away with it?

Oh please don't think that I do not agree with your question. It mystifies me too, even when I was with them.

[Massey1Bravo]

This is not a case of just africans loading up and going!

Well if you follow the Avient thread at the Freight Dogs forum you would know about the allegations of millions of dollars owing to airport and fuel companies and how they did a runner from Vatry.

[Huck]

4 onboard were ex-Gemini.

Three of them did not survive.

Fogrunner, check in please...

[dc10fr8k9]

I knew 2 of the 3 who passed quite well and flew with them often. They were fine aviators and gentlemen too. Same has been said about the third fellow who passed. I also know the survivor and hope and pray he makes a recovery. He is also a highly experienced MD11 Captain.

Just to dispel any confusion, these pilots were Americans (irrelevant but just for the record), and they were all competent and VERY highly experienced, especially on the MD-11. There were NO amateurs in this bunch, and they were NOT some marginally trained troop of glassy-eyed semi-illiterates flying some decrepit African airplane as some would imagine or suggest. All that seems to be African about that operation is the registration, curious as that is.

The lousy airline business with non-existent opportunity in the USA compelled these pilots after airline failures and furloughs to go overseas to earn a pay check in order to feed their families, even if it meant flying for a company "based" in Zimbabwe.

God rest your souls my friends

[Finn47]

The NTSB is sending investigators to China, so that should settle questions about what kind of investigation we´re going to get:

U.S. to Probe China Cargo Plane Crash - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125946470073768131.html)

[ORAC]

Xinhua: .........[A] 61-year-old American man was seriously injured with bone fractures in the chest and lung as well as pneumothorax. "If there is no complication, he is expected to be out of danger within 48 to 72 hours," said Sun Wanju, deputy head of the hospital.

The other three injured men were from Indonesia, Belgium and Zimbabwe. They had bone fractures and contusions, according to the hospital.

[holyflurkingschmitt]

Hi all

I dont know if you've seen these pictures but on sky news they have some pictures (at the bottom of the article) from the far end of the extended centre line and you can clearly see how the a/c took out the localiser antennas and also the tyre tracks through the mud and the long grass before its final resting place:

Three Americans Die In Plane Crash In Shanghai On Board Zimbabwe Plane, According To US Embassy | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Three-Americans-Die-In-Plane-Crash-In-Shanghai-On-Board-Zimbabwe-Plane-According-To-US-Embassy/Article/200911415477326?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Re gion_9&lid=ARTICLE_15477326_Three_Americans_Die_In_Plane_Crash_In_S hanghai_On_Board_Zimbabwe_Plane,_According_To_US_Embassy)



HFS:ok:

[doubleu-anker]

dc10fr8k9

"There were NO amateurs in this bunch, and they were NOT some marginally trained troop of glassy-eyed semi-illiterates flying some decrepit African airplane as some would imagine or suggest."

So what you're implying most African operations are staffed with "semi-illiterates"?

These guys might have been experienced and on top of their game but the thing still crashed.

So what if people are simple? If aviation, was kept simple it would be a lot safer than it is now IMHO. We are getting too far away from the basics, for my liking. Instead of becoming simpler, aviation is becoming "complicated" to the detriment of the basics. There is a lot of time that should be spent on the basics, that is taken up with covering ones backside with paperwork, to keep the authorities happy. We are supposed to have less paperwork not more. I think this problem is going to get worse. We are gradually being driven into the "ground" with it all.

We have aircraft coming out now, in lower weight classes than heavies with new avionic fits, that require a totally separate type rating for the almost the same airframe. Is it getting simpler, therefore safer? I dont think so.

I am not saying it was the case in this tragedy as no one yet knows the cause. Human error may have played a part.

[lederhosen]

Reported to be a long runway, and a tailstrike with an experienced crew. What would happen if freight shifted on rotation, obviously after V1?

[777AV8R]

Sounds like the zero fuel weight may have been entered into the Gross Weight line and the FMC generated a low V speed set. Numerous accidents/incidents have been the result of this. Sad but true.

[FBW390]

The 2 last comments are very true. Possible causes:
- incorrect ZFW entry. It`s a killer.
This has for consequences:
- strongly incorrect TO speeds. Incorrect flaps setting. Inadapted TO power.

What about a badly balanced/loaded plane as well?

Crew fatigue? ( including loadmaster ) Could be the root cause of all above.

Sadly another african-registered aircraft...How well are checked the flight operations there in Zimbabwe? Same standards as in UK or Germany for instance?

[ByeByeDubai]

I wish a speedy recovery to the survivors. Good men trying to earn an honest wage. I know one of them.

As for Avient, I hope it goes under and Andrew Smith gets held liable, culpable and whatever else can be thrown at him. And the same should go for the corrupt British politicians on his "payroll" that have allowed this company to deal in arms and African blood for so long unchecked.

I am from Africa and flown around there most of my life. I have seen the direct results of the "business" that this illegal UK company engages in. The dead bodies and maimed children from the weapons Mr. Smith so happily supplied while the UK looked the other way.

It is no coincidence that one of Africa's richest countries has the highest body count of any war since WWII. All assisted by vultures like Mr. Smith.

Its a pity others should lose their lives, while Mr. Smith lives on with his ill gotten gains.

[Rainboe]

Very good, condolences masking an attack and political points all in one post! You left out global warming and Tibetan independence!

[AAL]

Hear Hear!

Perhaps time the gentleman starts providing pertinent undiabolic answers and his silent partners and backers exposed.

In this lies the root of his flying on a Zimbwean AOC of convenience, allowed by a regime that despises anything British and every "white man", with a type that the Zim CAA are not qualidied and approved to regulate.

Think people, it cant be too dificult to figure out!

[dc10fr8k9]

Doubleu-Anker,

How ironic that you suggest that I am doing exactly the kind of thing I am admonishing others not to do in this (or any such instance)! No indeed Anker, I am not implying that. I am implying that others ought not to make such an assumption, as many probably may!

Having said that, African registered aircraft just like the MD-11 itself, have about the highest rate of crashing statistically. So being in an African registered aircraft that is also an MD-11, the odds definitely go up astronomically, despite the new paint job and the seasoned crew. But not something I would not have risked after being out of work for a year myself, as my resume was also in that pile. Though I was not current on the MD11 anymore and so that (fortunately for me in retrospect) put me out of the running.

In any case, it's too bad that America is in such decline that Americans have to go to work for a Zimbabwean company of all things (or any overseas company for that matter) in order to pay the bills back home. Once upon a time our ancestors emigrated to America to seek work and purpose, and now many of us have had to leave to do the same. We are a country in decline with a leader who bows too deeply to foreign princes and potentates, but I digress. Sad what has become of us, and of our glorious industry, where the likes of Juan Trippe are surely spinning in their graves.

Half of my old colleagues from the airline that we worked for (which went Chapter 7 in 2008), had to go overseas (me included) to find work. A few are flying multi-million dollar heavy MD-11's registered in the USA, for less $ than what an average waiter makes, just in order to "stay in the game". Many are still out of work. And now a few are dead.

In any case, all I wanted to do was to pre-empt the idle speculation of some of the inevitable self appointed experts and "top guns" that usually come out of the woodwork when a tragedy like this happens. All I wanted to say, whatever the result of the crash, that these were great guys, and great aviators. And, "there but for the grace of God" go the rest of us.

[tflier]

Almost no maintenance, and not allowed to write in the techlog!
No flight time limitations!
Loadmasters stay onboard for days, I flew with one who was staying onboard for four days!
No regulatory oversight.

No surprise.

[xetroV]

Sounds like the zero fuel weight may have been entered into the Gross Weight line and the FMC generated a low V speed set. Numerous accidents/incidents have been the result of this. Sad but true.
What's even sadder is that all those accidents/incidents still haven't resulted in worldwide acceptance of an FMS update that simply blocks the Gross Weight entry field while the airplane is on the ground. Such an FMS update does exist - as an expensive option. Typical example of an ergonomic design flaw that has cost far too many lives.

[faheel]

xetroV
You are correct in saying one way to fix the problem of putting the zfw into the gw field in the fmc is simply to block any data entry whilst on the ground, but why is it an expensive option?
My company did just that shortly after a tailscrape incident a few years back, anyway the cost of having that mod done to the fmc software has got to be a hell of a lot cheaper then repairing an a/c or worse still losing one.

[atakacs]

just wondering, knowing the "background" of this operation: what kind of cargo where they supposed to deliver ?

[Spooky 2]

Some things are left un-asked. You certainly would not imagine anything "questionable" coming out of China. eh?:}

[DC-ATE]

I was fortunate in that my senority kept me away from cargoliners except for a two month period where I flew them just to see what it was like and because the schedule was fitting for other plans I had. But.....I treated every take-off as a max gross takeoff no matter what and even then added ten extra knots to everything. Now, this wasn't in an MD-11 [it was a DC-8F], but I'm sure the same thing could be done. My comment is just because there have been a few accidents where an extra ten knots of airspeed would have saved the day. But, we'll have to wait for the final report to see what all the numbers were; runway, GW, etc. Hindsight is so easy.:bored:

[tsme]

"But.....I treated every take-off as a max gross takeoff no matter what and even then added ten extra knots to everything."

Does that include V1 on a balanced field?...

[bugg smasher]

Unbelievable really, the sheer number of MD-11's lost recently.

Incorrect entry of weights into the FMS is certainly plausible in this accident scenario, it wouldn't be the first time. Whether that was caused by finger trouble, or a gross load sheet error overlooked by all concerned remains to be seen.

Installation of the W&B system on that aircraft might have given the crew a heads up (transducers on all gears, transmits a relatively accurate computed weight and CG to the FMS, advisory info only). Very expensive option though, not many MD's have it, certainly this aircraft did not.

One other thing that came to mind, a failure of the center engine at V1, or worse, as the aircraft was rotated at Vr, would cause an enormous pitch up. Tried it many times in the sim, it's a nasty beast to handle successfully, even for highly experienced crews, and even when you know it's coming. Requires an aggressive and sustained push on the stick, something most of us are understandably reluctant to do close to the ground.

[AircraftOperations]

I'd be interested to know any further info about this flight.

Was it an ad-hoc charter?
What was the flightplans for the aircraft to and from China? (Origins, destinations etc)
Cargo information...commodity, payload etc
Who was the aircraft flying for/booked by?

[Nom De Guerre]

Ad hoc? Probably...So what?

CFP? PVG-FRU, do read the thread. From FRU? Don't know. Is it relevant to the accident?

Payload. Prob max. Is it relevant to TOW?

Who did it fly for? Who booked it? Does it matter? Could have been an ACMI for a big carrier, could have been a charter. Is it relevant to the crash? Its high-season, Christmas flying has started.

:ugh:

[Nom De Guerre]

A conspiracy theory... didn't take long :ugh:

I totally agree with you. Some of americas finest aviators, a "fine" girl to fly, heaps of bitumen to scratch, a cold day. This deluxe combo decides to fly "chinese" cargo on a Z plate into a former soviet state within 2,500nm range. :rolleyes:

Those who are involved in -F ops know that the likes of FRU, TAS, GYD amongst others are used as FUEL stops. MZFW PVG-Europe ain't gonna work non-stop.

Good grief, I suppose this is Bush's fault too.

[bugg smasher]

An impressive display of geo-political knowledge, but not really sure if it's relevant.

Pudong west-bound freight normally consists of cell-phones, laptops, name-brand golf clubs, and other items of Chinese manufacture, suitably pseudo-labelled after arrival at destination, thence considered to be of high value by Euro citizens of means and wealth. Marketing geniuses take note.

Central Russian airports, although by no means up to Euro standards, do offer long runways served by precision approaches, very nice hotels full of pretty, healthy and enthusiastic blondes, a refreshing frontier experience by anyone's standards, the layover considered to be quite exciting even by the itinerant freighter pilot's mostly questionable, and very exacting, wisely perceptive of requirements.

The Chinese are highly responsible in most things they do, the ancestors watch with a careful eye apparently; I suspect this accident will reveal a very ordinary technical failure of the aircraft, exacerbated, beyond normal standards of control, by the idiosyncratic nature of the MD-11.


I remain convinced, after more than 6000 hours, that she is a good ship. Effective training is the key to survival here.

[DC-ATE]

tsme -
Does that include V1 on a balanced field?

V1 was based on actual weight. Not much choice there. But.....that is another problem area...V1. Actual runway length isn't always considered in the V1 calculation. You might have loss of power on an engine past V1 and have 10,000 feet of concrete in front of you. Are you going to continue? Book says yes, but I say no. Again.....it's a judgment call. But...we digress.

[xetroV]

You are correct in saying one way to fix the problem of putting the zfw into the gw field in the fmc is simply to block any data entry whilst on the ground, but why is it an expensive option?
I don't know Boeing's current FMC software pricelist, but I do know that this software fix has been offered by Boeing for quite some years already as a operator-selectable option. I.e, implementing this fix cost money. Not surprisingly, the beancutters in my company initially didn't see the importance of this option, and consequently we flew for years accepting a totally avoidable risk of gross crew input errors during the pre-flight performance calculations.

My company did just that shortly after a tailscrape incident a few years back, anyway the cost of having that mod done to the fmc software has got to be a hell of a lot cheaper then repairing an a/c or worse still losing one.
I agree, and luckily my company nowadays thinks likewise. But similarly to your company, it took at least one "interesting" incident before the risk was fully acknowledged. This problem could have been fixed years ago. In my opinion, allowing a grossweight input on the ground (not in some obscure maintenance page, but in the PERF INIT page) is a serious ergonomic design error, and the fix should be mandated by Boeing, rather than offered as a payable option. (Perhaps this is also applicable to the Airbus FMS, but I don't know that equipment. But the problem certainly exists/existed in the Boeing and MD-11 FMSs.)


Of course, it remains to be seen if this scenario happened here. On first sight there seem to be similarities with other performance-related takeoff incidents and accidents, but it could very well be something totally different that caused this crash.

[Clandestino]

Unbelievable really, the sheer number of MD-11's lost recently.

I found only two - Narita and this one. Is Centurion at Montevideo confirmed to be a write off? It didn't seem so badly damaged.

[fcom]

The crash site was a few metres from the vor at the end of runway 35R, only thing left of the aircraft was the tail section. Didn't look like it got airborne, I have aerial footage of the crash area but I am unable to upload it to this site.

[Nom De Guerre]

CIA is one of the largest cargo operators in the world and they sure don't push candy bars around. With Oliver North, Rendition flights etc america has't showered itself in grace of late and I think it's relevant to speculate for the same reason regarding the airbase.

:ugh::ugh::ugh: The relevance of that irrelevancy to this accident is..... ?

I give up. Must be full moon.

[Huck]

Yeah the pictures don't make alot of sense. Wheel tracks leading off the runway, a flat field, then a massive fire/explosion that totally consumes most of the wreckage. Why? Why not wreckage similar to the Kalitta 747?

[hvydriver]

Has anyone heard from Fogrunner yet?

[Shore Guy]

Does anyone know if this was the first flight after paint job? (you know where I'm going here).

Personal crib for T.O. V speeds....Use estimated T.O. weights and jot down/turn the cards to V2 (only T.O. V speed directly connected to weight). If finals are much different...something wrong.

Not a criticism...an observation.

[Airbubba]

Does anyone know if this was the first flight after paint job? (you know where I'm going here).

Apparently not, the plane was sighted in HKG a couple of days before the crash with the new paint job according to a mechanic I ran into this weekend.

Still, I had similar thoughts after seeing this picture on Huck's post with the cockpit windows possibly masked for the paint job:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/397211-zspd-cargo-plane-crash-2.html#post5344440

[q100]

Has anyone heard from Fogrunner yet?

Yes, he's ok.

[MD-11F]

CIA is one of the largest cargo operators in the world and they sure don't push candy bars around. With Oliver North, Rendition flights etc america has't showered itself in grace of late and I think it's relevant to speculate for the same reason regarding the airbase.

On 3 February 2009, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev announced the imminent closure [oh we forgot to pay some fees] of the Manas Air Base. The closure was approved by Parliament on 19 February 2009 by 78–1 for the government-backed bill. However, after much "behind-the-scenes" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif negotiation between Kyrgyz, Russian and American diplomats [fees paid], the decision was reversed in June of 2009.

oh please... and I guess LH, UPS, and FedEx are doing similar work with their flights from PVG to the former central russian states and onward to europe... I agree with bugg smasher...

[Engine3firehandle]

The FMS software is from the U.S. company Honeywell and is programmed in Phoenix, U.S.A.

They are responsible for the software and prices.

The guys making the software for Airbus and Boeing/MD11 are sitting on the same floor in rooms next to each other.

Who are the bad guys again ?

[xetroV]

I knew someone would bring that up. :ok:

[atakacs]

oh please... and I guess LH, UPS, and FedEx are doing similar work with their flights from PVG to the former central russian states and onward to europe... I agree with bugg smasher...
An operation run by (ex) mercenary registering it's plane in Zimbabwe (now that's original at least :) ). Flight from China to Kyrgyzstan... Not exactly routine Fedex / DHL in my book.
The actual cargo was perhaps irrelevant to this accident but I would bet a fair amount of money that is was not only consumer electronic & clothing...

[Nom De Guerre]

Oh please... this conspiracy garbage is worse than Jet Blast. :rolleyes:

[Super Baloo]

FedEx und UPS stop in Almaty (Kazakhstan) to take fuel. Avient wanted to stop in Bischkek enroute to Liège. What's wrong with that ?

We have to stop somewhere between PVG and Europe in order to have a decent payload.
Nothing strange from this side. I don't know how you jump to the conclusion that they were not carrying electronics like everybody else.

[GlueBall]

DC-ATE . . ."You might have loss of power on an engine past V1 and have 10,000 feet of concrete in front of you. Are you going to continue? Book says yes, but I say no. Again.....it's a judgment call. But...we digress."

Be careful with that. When past V1 at MTOW your higher speed may exceed your braking capacity. The "extra" pavement is no longer an assurance of stopping before the end. You just keep rolling and rolling while standing on the brakes. :ooh:

[trot]

very few people, the ones with their many own special techniques in the cockpit, ague that an abort beyond V1 can be done by use of thrust reverse only until speed is below V1 again, then start to add brakes and hope that enough runway is available.

[Acid-drop]

Avient wanted to stop in Bischkek enroute to Liège. What's wrong with that ?

Are we even sure that this AC was going to Liège ?
Some source are talking about Harare.
But the idea stays the same I guess ...

[cargobird]

I expect that CAA China would have granted traffic rights on the basis that final destination for this flight and cargo was Harare on a third/fourth freedom basis with a tech stop via Bishkek.

In reality I would imagine cargo was destined for Europe:ok:

[JanetFlight]

Shangai to Harare via Biskhek...Hummm, doesnt sound so much plausible to me, cause in that supposed route much more southern fields goes suitable, but of course its only my personnal opinion...:rolleyes:

[ManofMan]

Having arrived back from Shanghai last night i can tell you that the current backlog of cargo in China is huge, this has been caused by airlines like Cathy etc etc taking freighters out of service during the slow down, then a huge pre-christmas boom in air cargo bookings.

This has led to freight agents chartering airliners and other airlines also chartering in hardware to try and shift the backlog at a hugely inflated price.

Space is at a premium at the moment so the chartering of aircraft ex China aint no mystery....still makes much better reading to speculate that the freight is illegal arms.

[bugg smasher]

FedEx und UPS stop in Almaty (Kazakhstan) to take fuel. Avient wanted to stop in Bischkek enroute to Liège. What's wrong with that ?

We've used Tashkent (Uzbekistan) in the past, also a very acceptable fuel stop with good facilities, delivering consumer electronics to EU.

[cws]

A colleague was in PVG during that event and told me the MD11 rotated very late almost at the end of the runway and barely made it into the air-app 10ft.
Cargo shifting unlikely? I arrived once in Europe coming from PVG with all floor locks not up, my good luck was that the aft lower comp was completely full and the cargo only shifted a few cm, but banged itself up in the process of doing so. So I do not rule that out coming from these parts of the world.

Flying the 11 I have to say it is a challenge and needs excellent maintenance and highly proficient crews, both I would raise to question, considering the creative ways of the operator (Z Reg, British Comp etc....)

[agaviator]

Shaun Sheble from Kingman,AZ was aboard that MD-11 and lost his life. I am
close to the family.

[superspotter]

I cannot believe the conspiracy crap that some of you people espouse.
Every week last year we departed HKG MTOW and stopped in Karaganda, Kazakhstan for fuel uplift on the way to LUX.

[Binthere]

You might see fit to question the proficency of the crew involved because of their involvement with this operator but I can assure you that these people were highly skilled crew who knew the MD11 very well, as I knew them. I flew with them all and knew them well and it saddens me that people like you should attempt to question their ability at a time like this.
As for the rest of you, I question your abilities to think straight in times like this. If you knew anything of the cargo side of the industry you would not even question the reason for a tech stop in one of the 'stans en-route to Europe from the far east. If any of you had carried cargo from the far east you would also appreciate that at this time of year, everything comes in almost standard cardboard boxes that are so well built on pallets they almost make the pallet locks redundant, so 'cargo shifting' is not and never will be an issue. By all means question the operator and his past history and maybe the underhand methods he employs, but stay away from the crew, they were good friends and exceptional pilots who I had the pleasure to know and fly with and all had the ability to deal with 'situations' in a calm and proffesional manner. Our thoughts should be with their families at this time and we should be thankfull that the FAA and NTSB have become involved and that at the very least there will be answers to a few questions that otherwise would be kept from us.

[blackbird71]

Any truth to the rumors the Chinese registered MD11s are now grounded pending the results of the accident investigation???

[Dengue_Dude]

God there is some claptrap going on here. Get a life for Heaven's sake.

Bishkek is a most acceptable airport for a tech stop/crew change en route Far East to Europe. We used it on the 10 as well. We were carrying bottles of Beaujolais - I daresay it was laced with biotoxins aimed at the third world proletariat - failing that, it was just wine for the Far East.

It would be nice to ease up and consider that some hard working (everybody working for this company works hard) guys were killed doing their jobs.

Their families have the prospect of a Christmas without loved ones, even for the injured who will be scarred in more ways than physical.

Whatever Mr Smith does or doesn't do, believe me, his crews are grafters doing the best they can. I've never been so physically tired as when I flew for them. I just hope that fatigue was not a contributory factor.

There are independent professionals involved investigating this tragic accident. How about just letting them get on with it, without these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

If you are so engrossed in Machiavellian plots, write yourself a book and make a few bob - but leave this tragedy alone.

[411A]

There are independent professionals involved investigating this tragic accident. How about just letting them get on with it, without these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Well said, Sir.
Having stopped a few times in the 'stans for gravy, it seems to me perfectly normal, and a way to maximise payload.

[Dengue_Dude]

very few people, the ones with their many own special techniques in the cockpit, ague that an abort beyond V1 can be done by use of thrust reverse only until speed is below V1 again, then start to add brakes and hope that enough runway is available

You obviously have grasped the principles of Performance A - well done! :hmm:

[stilton]

The MD11 strikes again, what a surprise :rolleyes:

[N1EPR]

Does anyone have the crew names on this flight?? Thanks

[Heavy-Jet]

Goose are you ok?

[Acid-drop]

Avient said that they would replace all 10 by 11 (original plan was 330), do you think they should reconcider that ?

"The State Civil Aviation Administration denied yesterday that it has banned all MD-11 cargo aircrafts from flying."

[charter man]

Operating aircraft commercially requires a team of proficient professionals, both in the air and on the ground. We all rely on everyone to do their job properly. Some facts to consider.
It is not fair at this stage to speculate on the piloting abilities of the cockpit crew, let us wait for the CVR/FDR info.
This aircraft had been brought into service as a new type to the operator in a very short space of time, therefore the "on-the-job" experience was virtually zero.
The MD11F is a complicated aircraft to trim and load, with considerable differences to the DC10.
The American crew would have been used to slick, efficient dispatchers, relying on them to build and load the aircraft properly.
To quote a very well-used phrase "never ASSUME annything".

[q100]

stilton opens his yap again and contributes less than nothing. What a surprise.

[Flightmech]

I wondered how long it would be before Stilton showed up. At this stage you have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that the MD-11 is at fault with this one so until such a time that you do why don't you just shut the **** up.:yuk:

[q100]

Since some folks see fit to speculate on the performance of the crew at a time when zero information is available to say what actually occurred, let me add the following:

I have no idea what happened leaving ZSPD, but I know first hand that at least one of the crew involved had demonstrated the ability to handle problems at high speeds on takeoff. My one and only high speed RTO in an MD-11 took place in 2008 with one of the 3 deceased in the left seat (I was in the IRO chair). Departing Conakry (not the longest runway on a hot day...) at somewhere north of 100 knots the plane shuddered a bit and the engine fail lights illuminated. He called for and performed a flawless RTO.

That was the tail end of a great week in Jo'Burg and Ghana together that I will never forget so long as I live. RIP Bro.

[GlueBall]

charter man: "The MD11F is a complicated aircraft to trim and load, with considerable differences to the DC10.
The American crew would have been used to slick, efficient dispatchers, relying on them to build and load the aircraft properly"

Have you ever been at Pudong airport? Besides Avient, UPS, FedEx, Alitalia Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Aeroflot, . . . there are other MD11F visitors, including China's own MD11F operators, all being properly serviced and loaded every day by well trained and experienced ramp crew. :ooh:

[Dengue_Dude]

Have you ever been at Pudong airport? Besides Avient, UPS, FedEx, Alitalia Cargo, Lufthansa Cargo, Aeroflot, . . . there are other MD11F visitors, including China's own MD11F operators, all being properly serviced and loaded every day by well trained and experienced ramp crew

Quite. That about covers it.

Apparently there must be fears about moving buffalo off the runway and getting bogged down in the paddy fields . . .

[MD11Engineer]

Well, I know that even the best loading crew can f*ck up from time to time. I´ve seen cargo loaded on the wrong aircraft and only discovered on pushback and I know of an incident with a very reputable airline, where the loading crew didn´t obey the instructions and loaded 8 tons of luggage into the rear cargo hold of an A300 instead of distributing it as per load sheet. The result was that the aircraft was extremely tail heavy, the pilots, believing the load sheet, only noticed during rotation, but through pure luck and airmanship managed to get the aircraft airborne and landed at the destination barely avoiding a tailstrike.

[SAspotter]

Well said q100, i was on that aircraft with you at Conakry, i was the LM. The Bro acted in a totally proffesional manner and i for one was glad that he did what he had to do! As for some of the crap that is being dispersed on here do these people really not have a life?.

[poina]

Charter man,
What a load of crap! The American crew would have been used to slick, efficient.....Like you, a Brit I assume, go back and insure the load after you checked thru the entire loadsheet, then when you have time check that the overseas territories are running up to speed.
Been to Shanghai many times on MD-11 and I assure you the loading staff is efficient and professional. Rather than interfering with them, I make sure my American ass is ready for the next departure.

[Huck]

MD11? Loaded too far forward, maybe. But never loaded too far back. She'll pop a wheelie way before things get dangerous.

Happened to a friend of mine on a quick turn in KSEA. The rest of the crew went in the office during the loading, but he stayed in the RFO seat to grab a quick snooze.

He said as he closed his eyes he was looking at the lights of the ramp and cargo facility. Fell asleep, woke up and looked out to the moon and stars. No one had tethered the nose. Thankfully the tug was hooked up so the towbar kept him from ending up all the way on the tail....

[q100]

Well said q100, i was on that aircraft with you at Conakry, i was the LM. The Bro acted in a totally proffesional manner and i for one was glad that he did what he had to do! As for some of the crap that is being dispersed on here do these people really not have a life?.

That you KR? I'm pretty sure it was you with us that day....

I was very impressed both by the way you handled things (clueless ground crew, greedy "officials", stuck pallets, etc.) that day (I've had more enjoyable days...) and also by some of your recent replies on Avherald.com. Hope all's well with you these days and life after the G-Spot is treating you right.

And to answer your question, they do not.

T.

[SAspotter]

Hi, it certainly is me, thanks for those words means a lot.. life sucks to be honest...despite what has happened am still trying to find another LM job but it all seems to be closed shop when so called mates are going to check things out for you, am working for handling agent at mo at LHR. Any ideas!!!!!!!
Bro gonna be missed sorely!

[MD11Engineer]

Huck, post #119:
[quote]MD11? Loaded too far forward, maybe. But never loaded too far back. She'll pop a wheelie way before things get dangerous.
[{quote]

I was just giving the aft loaded A300 as an example how even a normally excellent loading crew can f*ck up.
In any case, we don´t know yet enough facts about this accident to do anything except to speculate. But we can seperate total nonsense ideas from those which make some sense.

[TowerDog]

so 'cargo shifting' is not and never will be an issue.

Well, it happened in Miami a few years ago: Cargo shifted on DC-8 just after take-off, it crashed and killed all 3 crew members. :sad:

Article: 3 Die in Fiery Crash of Cargo Plane - AP Online | HighBeam Research - FREE trial (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-25497313.html)

[charter man]

Wow guys - some raw nerves there.. I said they were facts to CONSIDER -not neccessarily what happened. My point is, never assume that everything is at is seems. If you have never checked the loading of the aircraft for yourself poina, you are either very lucky or very stupid.
If you always rely on others to have done their job perfectly, do not be surprised if one day you
A. Find the wrong load on the wrong aircraft (as I have)
B. Find the load has been loaded in completely the wrong order (as I have)
C. The load has not been checkweighed (as I have)
D. The shipper has lied about the weight and the handling agent hasn't checked (as I have)
E. The loadmaster has not checked the security of the load (as I have)
F. The loadsheet is completely wrong (as I have)
I have never been to Pudong, GlueBall, but I suspect it is pretty efficient in handling freighters so I am not pointing any fingers there, or suggesting they are "third world".
The fact is that the operator had very little experience of a new aircraft type, which is acknowledged by many contributors on this and other forums to be "challenging".
CM

[stilton]

Oh dear, sticks and stones :sad:



In any case killing the messenger will not change this Aircraft's continuing litany of disasters and miserable accident history.



When Fedex crashed in NRT earlier this year I said it would only be a matter of time before it happened again. Since then LH has had a hard landing in MEX with damage to the Aircraft and now Avient has crashed in China. I have never faulted the Pilots. They are blameless in my opinion.


They were given an unsafe piece of kit


The only thing that will fix the MD11 is to ground it.

[Cee of Gee]

TowerDog,
Just FYI, the link attached was for the Emery California accident, not the Fine Air Miami one that I think you meant?

Agree with your thoughts on shifting cargo though - BAD NEWS!

C o' G

[poina]

Charter man,
You state the operator had little experience on MD-11 A/C.
Do you think they are flying it from Zimbabwe via internet?
The operators in question were 3 experienced American MD-11 pilots who you indicate need rather slick dispatching to operate competently.
FAR 91.1 states the pic is responsible for the safe operation of the A/C, so don't toot your horn about checking everything in your area of responsibility.
As for me 30+ years, 20,000+, 16,000+ pic, no accidents/incidents, 5000+MD-11
Must have been lucky!

[Cee of Gee]

Question for any experienced DC-10/ MD-11 Loadies.

Are there any 'gotchas' between the older/ newer variants? (Apart from Ground Stab awareness for both)

Never worked either type, so just interested.

C o' G

[lederhosen]

As I understand it the aircraft had been with the company a week and was the first MD11 they had operated. The pilots may have been experienced on type, but whose procedures were they using and indeed how current were they? Or to put it more directly how many MD11 sectors had the handling pilot flown in the last 90 days? Combine this with some dodgy loading or performance calculation and you get a possible scenario.

[batriple7]

I think its really sad that everyone jumps to conclusions about what did / didnt happen. What they should / shouldnt have done.
What they were / werent carrying.

Can we all just give a thought to the people at home whose loved ones arent going to be coming home - ever.

Maybe give a thought to what was maybe going through those pilots minds at that critical time.

Hopefully they didnt suffer and may they all RIP. Deepest sympathy to the families and loved ones, especially with Xmas coming up and if they were American, Thanksgiving.

I cannot begin to think what is was like for them and being in aviation myself .........

[STAGE COACH DRIVER]

To many experts on here why not wait till the real experts decide what happened

[wes_wall]

To many experts on here why not wait till the real experts decide what happened

Why indeed - no one has ever waited before - Are you suggesting something different because of known facts?

[Clandestino]

MD-11 incident/accident record. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?Type=353)

Aviation safety network is your friend.

[BenThere]

The Emery link above shows how the news reports get it wrong. They reported a load shift when the real cause of the accident, taking the lives of three good men, was an improperly installed elevator.

Freight crews will always fly aircraft that have seen their best days. It's incumbent on them to pay close attention to every detail affecting the condition of the aircraft. In days gone, or going, by, the FE was the key man. Now, in the case of the MD-11, the FO is the last piece of swiss cheese, doing the walk around, cargo inspection, and checking the logbook, paying particular attention to recent history.

We all rely on each other to do our jobs as pros. If one link breaks, we're all in danger.

Those guys in China may have been the best pilots out there. There is no qualitative difference between the captain flying for a scumbag operator and the (lucky) captain flying for a primo airline. This I know, having flown for both.

[B-Mod]

Amigo, all the incidents you cite involved LANDING mishaps. This tragic ZSPD incident, the one in question, was a takeoff problem; pure & simple. The MD-11 is an awesome, capable and worthy "piece of kit" with an honorable, enviable record. Your blaming the MD-11 for the mishaps you cite is like Rosie O'Donnell blaming the spoon for her obesity.

In capable, trained hands, the MD-11 is a jewel. Transparently, you've not flown one.

May God bless Pinedog, Saul & Shaun, comfort their families, and may He speed Bill to recovery.

[Kingpilot]

Well, it happened in Miami a few years ago: Cargo shifted on DC-8 just after take-off, it crashed and killed all 3 crew members.

You must be thinking of this Fine Air 101 (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19970807-0)

Incorrectly reported at the time as a load shift, the NTSB determined that the load could not possibly have shifted since all pallet positions were occupied and there was nowhere for the load to shift to! As has already been said, pre Christmas flights ex PVG to Europe would almost certainly be full making this an unlikely scenario.

This is precisely why speculation at this stage after an accident can be detrimental to safety. Both the Fine Air and Emery accidents were speculated to have been load shifts but the causes turned out to be very different, elevator bell crank failure in the Emery case and incorrect loading (and therefore stabiliser setting) in the Fine air case.

[Flightmech]

Just ignore Stilton. He knows absolutely nothing about the MD-11. The FedEx NRT accident investigation conclusion hasn't been released yet (unless you have inside info) the LH hard landing in MEX is no argument, plenty of other types have suffered hard landings with structural damage and if you already know the cause of the PVG accident then please share it with us. I don't actually think you are from planet earth.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[lederhosen]

The MD11 may or not be a fine aeroplane from the pilot's perspective. Fact is that it does have a much higher accident and incident rate than most other modern jets. Lies, damn lies, statistics etc....but putting it simply if the rate were applied to the jet I fly then around 120 pilots would have been killed and 60 aircraft completely destroyed in the last year alone. Another 60 aircraft would have been seriously damaged over the same time period. With a couple of exceptions most passenger airlines have withdrawn them from service. I think most people in possession of the facts would agree that there does seem to be something of a pattern.

[Finn47]

As things stand now, Finnair is retiring the last MD-11 from service on Feb 1 next year. In other words, one less airline with passenger ops with it.

[Huck]

We've got 62.

And ~80 MD-10's.

They'll be around for a long time.

[Clandestino]

if the rate were applied to the jet I fly then around 120 pilots would have been killed and 60 aircraft completely destroyed in the last year alone. Another 60 aircraft would have been seriously damaged over the same time period.

...and if you tried to load 737 with typical MD-11 load, you would break it on the apron. If you tried to fly 737 at typical MD-11 route, you would have the oportunity to test your deadstick skills. Are you really comparing like and like?

We don't blame 737 design for Silk Air, for Adam Air, for Helios, for Aeroflot Nord... Don't just look at the stats, check the accident reports, there are only five of them so far. Refreshing as it might be to see PPRUNers bash an aeroplane that is not FBW Airbus, it is wrong nevertheless.

So MD-11 doesn't like throwing yoke from 70 percent nose-up to 67 percent nose down in flare, she won't be happy with 1200 fpm touchdowns in crosswinds over limit, dives from 4500 are going to be detrimental to crews health in her and she has particular dislike for pilots that don't bother to identify correctly reading ASI. Other than that she is heavy, fast , sensitive and quite handful. But a) she is FAA certified b)there are about 180 of them still active and on any given day they will make at least thirty and maybe a hundred uneventful flights. So, yes, she can be flown safely.

[WHBM]

As things stand now, Finnair is retiring the last MD-11 from service on Feb 1 next year. In other words, one less airline with passenger ops with it.
The only scheduled passenger fleet left operating after this time will be the 10 at KLM. This for a mainstream type which went out of production only 9 years ago. Premature value writeoffs in the accounts of those airlines who chose it run into billions of dollars.

Nothing like this has happened in the industry before with large aircraft, even the 3-crew, 3-engine DC10/L1011 served a full lifetime of operation after the 2-crew 2-engine equivalent capacity types came along. This is why it is worth discussing. To draw a comparison, the last L1011 was built in 1983, and the manufacturer then left the civil market. But by 1992 the bulk of the fleet of 250 was still operating mainstream passenger services.

I'd like to know what the insurance rates are for a passenger MD11 compared to an equal age B777.

[sleeper]

KLM had the intention of retiring the MD11 about 7 years ago. However they couldn't sell them to anyone for a reasonable price. As the leases of their 767's were expiring, they held on to the MD's and switched the 767's with new airbus A330's. The MD's are getting pretty old.

[20driver]

Huck, is FEDEX still looking for MD-11's to convert ? UPS?
Just curious, not passing judgement on the plane
Thanks
20driver

[lexxie747]

dont mention the L 1011 please! you know what might happen.......

[lederhosen]

I had a bit of difficulty following the logic of your post Clandestino then I looked at something you wrote in another thread about yourself:
'my stupefying ineptitude at critical reasoning'.
I think that sums up your last contribution pretty well. The size of the aircraft and its route structure is missing the point.

In the last eight months two MD11s have been written off and at least two seriously damaged. A total of 200 were built. Obviously there are less in service now counting the four previous write-offs and those being repaired or in storage. But keeping it simple 2/200 is one percent. There are around 6000 Boeing 737s. Yes they do crash, but apparently not at the same rate as MD11s. If we knew why there is such a difference, it might allow a few more colleagues to spend Xmas with their loved ones to use the emotive language of our cabin crew correspondent a few posts earlier.

[Huck]

Huck, is FEDEX still looking for MD-11's to convert ? UPS?


Yes. We bought and converted two in 2009.

MD11's were taken out of pax service earlier than historical average because of the 777. It was launched 6 years later. It did a better, more efficient job with one less engine.

But the same heavy, "old-school" fuselage that made the pax version burn too much gas made the MD11 an awesome freighter. Just look at the BCF on the 777 - or the A330 freighter design changes. The MD11 was overbuilt. The 777/A330 were not.

[GlueBall]

"Just look at the BCF on the 777. . ."

Not aware of any pax B772s that have become BCFs [Boeing Converted Freighters] . . .yet.

The B772Fs seen in operation so far all appear to be pure factory freighters . . .without the window plugs and doors of would be converted pax airframes. :confused:

[Flightmech]

As far as I'm aware there is no current active 777BCF programme, although i do hear that a large purple freight carrier are talking to Boeing about one.

[Machaca]

Lederhosen: Your push to compare MD-11F (sub-type) & 737 (all types) accident rates in a randomly selected period of time leads to the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation equals causation.

[Huck]

The Boeing 777 BCF is in full swing and has been pushed up to around 2012 for first flight. We've already bought slots. You heard it here first.

[lederhosen]

Actually Machaca, 200 is the total production run for all MD11 variants. The last year is as good a period as any to take and I am pretty confident that by any measure, for example hull losses per total flight hours from entry into service against any modern jet, the diva as we call her in Germany, is high on the list of accident prone jets. Rubbishing the data is most people's first reaction to something they do not believe in. I have no axe to grind. I am making no assumptions, just pointing out that as a highly trained professional your chance of crashing or being involved in a serious incident has in the past been higher with this particular jet. There are other aircraft, the meteor and starfighter would be good examples in the military, where a concerted push has improved a dismal record.

[Finn47]

Fact is, even before these two latest hull losses, the accident rate of the MD-11 (pax and freight combined) was inferior to all models of the 737. The statistical accident rate comparison prepared by Boeing, which takes into account the number of departures made by each aircraft type worldwide between 1959 and 2008, shows that the hull loss accident rate of the MD-11 up to 2008 was:
- twice the rate of the 737-100/200
- 5 times the rate of the 737-300/400/500
.. and about a hundred times the rate of the newest 737 models.

See pdf page 22 here: http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

.. but of course there will always be those who don´t appreciate statistics, whoever prepared them, Boeing or not.

[stilton]

Unfortunately you cannot confuse some people with facts. It seems misplaced loyalty to an inanimate, unforgiving poorly designed machine is more important than an unbiased objective view of the MD11's accident history.


This 'jewel of an Aircraft' will simply continue to crash or be involved in serious accidents and incidents until at least one Airworthiness authority revokes it's C of A, or a crash involving large numbers of fatalities.


What do you think would happen if, for example passenger carrying B777's started to crash or were involved in serious accidents at the same rate as the MD11, or one every few months (the same thing)


A record like that would never be acceptable to the FAA, CAA or other certifying body. The only reason this Aircraft has 'got away with it' for so long is the nature of it's mostly Freighter operation where sadly the 'only' fatalities and injuries have been the very unfortunate crewmembers.

[Finn47]

The recorders have been sent to Beijing for analysis:

Eastday-Pudong crash boxes get more analysis (http://english.eastday.com/e/091203/u1a4852587.html)

[tarmac-]

If the md11 has such bad stats, which it does, and its pilots agreeing that its a handful to fly, then theres a problem. Not all pilots will have the superior skill of other pilots hence why these accidents occur at an alarming rate considering the very few in the air. Love it or hate it, it could well be considered a dangerous airplane, considering how unforgiving it is.

[Clandestino]

Pilots who can't handle the specific aeroplane, shouldn't be flying it. Applicable to anything, from Airbike to Concorde. It's simple in principle, difficult to apply, bites back if disregarded.

[Nubian]

Funny to mention the Concord.
In the morning of July 25th 2000, it was the only passenger aircraft without a loss and statically the safest airplane in the world operating for almost 30 years. By the same evening it was deemed the worst passenger-airplane ever in service!

[Flightmech]

Stilton,

Do you actually think that because nearly all remaining MD-11s in service are in freighter role actually makes any difference at all to what any national authority thinks? There's no "getting away" with anything as you put it. If they felt the need to withdraw the CofA, ground it etc they would. Full stop. The requirements are the same. Naive or what.

[Clandestino]

Thank you for illustrating my point, Nubian. There was even one aeroplane that was statistically far, far worse than Concorde. It was A320 on the evening of June 26th 1988. And then there was passenger jet that never crashed during its entire career; Dassault Mercure. A320s are commonplace today, while no Mercure is active. Go figure.

Dear PPRuNers, some of you are putting forward the arguments similar to the following:

Premise A: MD-11 has worse accident statistics than B737

Premise B: Aeroplane that has worse accident statistics than B737 is dangerous.

Conclusion: MD-11 is dangerous.

The logic of the argument is impeccable. However, the conlusion is false, as the premise B is false and represents the misuse of statistics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics) Last year is not as "good a period as any" as there were no MD-11 incidents or accidents. This year? Very significant for anyone unaware of the meaning of the word "streak" in statistics. Statistics can point to areas requiring further examination but most of the time cannot be relied on to provide definite answers by itself.

Recommended reading: Carl Sagan: "Significance Junkies", Darell Huff: "How to lie with statistics"


There are around 6000 Boeing 737s. Yes they do crash, but apparently not at the same rate as MD11s. If we knew why there is such a difference, it might allow a few more colleagues to spend Xmas with their loved ones to use the emotive language of our cabin crew correspondent a few posts earlier.

If we knew.... well if you did bother to read reports, you would know the causes of every MD-11 accident bar the last two, as the investigation teams are still working on them! Do you really have no incentive to look them up?!? Would you like to be spoon-fed? OK, let's go:

First there was FedEx at Newark

The aircraft touched down 1175 feet down runway 22R at 149 knots with a 500f/min descent rate and 1,67g acceleration. The flight bounced, yawed and rolled right, and touched down again 2275 feet from the threshold, at 1,7g (lateral acceleration 0,4g to the right) and dragging the no. 3 engine 238 feet further on. The right roll, pinning the no. 3 engine to the ground, possibly continued until the right wing's spars broke. The MD-11 skidded off the right side of the runway and ended up on its back 4800 feet from the threshold and just short of Terminal B.
It appeared that the aircraft (N611FE) had suffered a similar incident (bounced on landing) in Anchorage, November 4, 1994.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The captain’s overcontrol of the airplane during the landing and his failure to execute a go-around from a destabilized flare. Contributing to the accident was the captain’s concern with touching down early to ensure adequate stopping distance."

Then there was SR111; using MPETs was design error which had no bearing on aeroplane's handling and would probably go undetected if it wasn't for slopilly concieved and executed instalation of IFE.

Korean at Shanghai:

When the aircraft climbed to 4500 feet in the corridor, the captain, after receiving two wrong affirmative answers from the first officer that the required altitude should be 1500 feet, thought that the aircraft was 3000 feet too high. The captain then pushed the control column abrubtly and roughly forward causing the MD-11 to enter a rapid descent. Both crew members tried to recover from the dive, but were unable. The airplane crashed into an industrial development zone 10 kilometers (6 miles) southwest of Hongqiao airport.


After that it was China Airlines at Chek Lap Kok

CAUSAL FACTORS:
"The cause of the accident was the commander’s inability to arrest the high rate of descent existing at 50 ft RA.
Probable contributory causes to the high rate of descent were:
(i) The commander’s failure to appreciate the combination of a reducing airspeed, increasing rate of descent, and with the thrust decreasing to flight idle.
(ii) The commander’s failure to apply power to counteract the high rate of descent prior to touchdown.
(iii) Probable variations in wind direction and speed below 50 ft RA may have resulted in a momentary loss of headwind component and, in combination with the early retardation of the thrust levers, and at a weight only just below the maximum landing weight, led to a 20 kt loss in indicated airspeed just prior to touchdown.


Fast forward to Subic Bay:

PROBABLE CAUSE: The failure of the flight crew to properly address an erroneous airspeed indication during descent and landing, their failure to verity and select the correct airspeed by checking the standby airspeed indicator, and their failure to execute a missed approach. These failures led to an excessive approach and landing speed that resulted in a runway overshoot.

4 out of 5 losses mainly attributable to pilot error. Take note: errors committed were largely not type specific, they were more indication of wanting airmanship. Read the reports and learn; lessons might be pertinent to you even if you are not MD-11 pilot.

Dear Lederhosen, if your Bobby has Kranich on her tail, then I can understand your Angst beim Elfer. However, I'm really not amused by you and your colleagues 1) making dubious statements based on less than firm grip on statistics 2) accusing posters that don't agree with you for:

Rubbishing the data is most people's first reaction to something they do not believe in.
(...)
misplaced loyalty to an inanimate, unforgiving poorly designed machine

Such a statements are (to my despair) acceptable in modern politics. What we're discussing is aviation. Mix of the two never produced satisfactory results.

So is the MD-11 dangerous? Hell, yes! She's 250t+ and goes down the glide at 150kt, there are not many people in the world that can handle this. Those who can are called "MD-11 pilots" and every day they prove that the beast can be tamed. All of you believing that being a pilot is easy money are dead wrong. When this notion permeates the flightdecks, we'll be truly and deeply :mad:ed.

[DC-ATE]

Well said [written], Clandestino. Problem is that it seems like nowadays pilots want the airplane to fly itself without their input. That's what all this 'automation' has led to unfortunately. People have forgotten basic flying skills and assume they can just jump into any aircraft and fly it. I'm not saying that is the case here. We'll just have to wait and see what the investigators come up with on this one.

[lederhosen]

Clandestino I enjoy a good debate and you have put a lot of effort into your last reply, so despite your tone I will respond. Have you read Finn47's post and looked at the Boeing statistics for all recent jets?

The MD11 has a demonstrably worse record than any comparable jet. Of course if you take aircraft produced in small numbers you can come up with outliers. But for aircraft with flights measured in the millions, the MD11 is significantly worse than any recent jet.

The premise is not that anything worse than the 737 is dangerous. The thread is about the MD11 and facts show that even without the last two write-offs the MD11 has a very poor record. Your argument that the accident reports exonerate the aircraft has not yet convinced me.

You are obviously a fan of crash comics and safety reports in general so will no doubt be familiar with the concept of 'the holes lining up on the swiss cheese' causing accidents. In this case we have :

1. An aircraft that a lot of pilots see as demanding and with a poor overall safety record
2. An operator with what appears to be a mixed reputation and one week's experience flying the MD11
3. Pilots who may not have been in recent practice flying the MD11 due to point two
4. Oversight of the operation in a country that also has a very mixed reputation.

The report will I am sure make interesting reading. In the mean time I think some interesting points have come out and will hopefully be clarified.

[Load Toad]

How mixed a reputation has China got these days. Please can you explain and illustrate with examples...?

[HeadingSouth]

@Lederhosen,


from your mail:

2. An operator with what appears to be a mixed reputation and one week's experience flying the MD11

The operator has no experience flying the plane. It's the crew upfront who does. Let me repeat that the crew that tried to bring the MD11 into the air was rather very experienced. Yes the plane was new to the outfit, but the plane was not new to the crew.
And regarding reputation: Some rate it good, some rate it bad, as with pretty much every other outfit carrying cargo...


3. Pilots who may not have been in recent practice flying the MD11 due to point two

Has the crew that piloted the MD11 not had any recent flying experience ? I read all the contributions to this thread but did not find such information. If you could please point me towards that info.
I have read on multiple replies from experienced crew that the crew was very experienced.

[Huck]

I have read on multiple replies from experienced crew that the crew was very experienced.

Yes they were. I've flown with three of the four.

[stilton]

Flightmech.


Of course it makes a difference that the MD11 is mostly operated as a freighter.


In this role is does not draw as much attention when it crashes simply because only the unfortunate crew members pay the price


As I mentioned already, if B777's or any widely used passenger Aircraft for that matter were crashing at the rate of the MD11 with large numbers of casualties the offending aircraft would already be grounded and a fix mandated.


Whether the MD11 can be 'fixed' is questionable though..

[Flightmech]

I still disagree, whether its a freighter or pax aircraft, the authorites would take the same interest either way. A smoking hole is a smoking hole.

[lederhosen]

Load Toad ,the oversight should be provided by the country of registration, in this case Zimbabwe, one of the most troubled countries in the world. The country has a mixed reputation in the aviation world going back decades to the era of sanctions. Although not registered there MK airlines of Halifax 747 fame etc. also had very strong associations with that country.

Heading South, the crew fly the plane according to the operations manual provided by the airline. The company procedures with respect to loading, checking weight and balance could have played a significant role. The unfortunate pilots seem to have been known to Huck and we might reasonably infer were from Fedex the most experienced operator of the type in the world. How likely is it that they left a good job there to start the next day at Avient? I am sure this will all come out some time in the future. I may be wrong, but it is at least a reasonable question, thus the use of the word 'may' in point 3.

[lomapaseo]

All ths talk of aircraft performance quirks is of no use unless it relates to the facts at hand. It strikes me of bathroom arguments about mine's bigger between octogenariams

[Flying Torquewrench]

Never flown the MD11. But what is the difference in loading between the DC10 and MD11?

Is there any chance that the loaders have loaded the MD11 with DC10 load instructions?

Not trying to blame anyone. However on some stations were we operate the A300 on a regular basis if you turn up with an A330 the loading is done for an A300 as that is what they expect.

[HeadingSouth]

Huck, Lederhosen,

thanks for the confirmation; and I don't want to speculate any further. The accident happened, the result is here, tragic as it is.
Based on Huck's info I hope that there was no human error involved.
Based on Regulatory I hope it was not the machine's fault.
Based on experience with load masters I hope it was not the load masters fault either.

Just on a side note: outfits create their SOP's based on manufacturer's recommendations. I haven't seen many outfits with their SOP's outside manufacturers specs. So I would safely assume the SOP's were, bluntly said, OK.

[Huck]

we might reasonably infer were from Fedex

I flew with them at Gemini.

[Current Limiter]

All the banter about one type being better or worse than another probably doesn't apply to this accident. There have been many incidents and accidents where the take-off performance was miscalculated, for example by entering an incorrect take-off weight. Some of these have resulted in tradgedy, others have luckily been avoided with an embarresing tail scrape. My point is that on a large aircraft, the manufacturer expects you to get the sums right. You will not be flying at speeds and power settings that were calculated for a vastly lighter condition.

I don't know how this operator was calculating their perofmance, or what kind of cross checking they had in place. Not having flown the MD11, I am stabbing a bit in the dark, but even with the notorious centre engine failing, the a/c should have had the performance after V1 to continue flying?

I am not suggesting that a miscalculation of the take-off weight was the cause of this accident, but should it turn out to be, then it really doesn't matter which type you are operating - it just isn't going to work.

[Flightmech]

I have heard from MD-11 flight crew that a #2 failure at hi-speed can cause the aircraft to autorotate (due drag induced)

Huck, could you confirm this one?

Current Limiter,

What's "notorious" about the centre engine?

[lederhosen]

Thanks for the clarification Huck, happy to accept when I am wrong. However given that Gemini ceased operations in 2008 my general premise about currency might not prove to be so far off the mark.

The co-pilot, who fortunately seems to have survived, is described as being 61 and would until recently have been a retiree in your part of the world.

The old saying 'If I do not fly for a week I notice it, two weeks and my colleagues notice it, three weeks the passengers/in this case the authorities notice it' does hold some truth. I expect some expert will point out that this does not apply to real pilots, but whatever.

[cosmiccomet]

I' ve never flown MD11 but I have some expirience in DC10.

I did the two engine ferry flight training and i've flown one of those flights with the engine N#2 shot down.

In that case, the elevator trim must be in 0 because the tendency of the aircraft to pitch up during the take off roll.

There was a warning in the DC10 AOM in case of engine #2 failure during TO to be aware of the change of pitch an the chance to have a tail strike.

I guess the MD11 must be similar.

[Nubian]

Lederhosen,

Right continent, wrong counrty.
MK started ops in Ghana, not Zim.

[lederhosen]

Cue another expert, come on Nubian admit it, you just read the first line of the Wikipedia entry for MK. If there was any depth to your knowledge about MK you would know their links to Zim. Clue: where did Mr Kruger and quite a lot of his original employees come from?

Our turboprop friend Clandestino and your good self seem to have mastered the search function on the internet. But you have failed to convince me that my suggestions of various directions to look (and they are no more than that) are completely wrong.

[Huck]

The survivor, Bill J., was the chief pilot for the carrier's new MD11 operation and an instructor.

I've read that he was in the jumpseat. No doubt giving "IOE" to the flying crew, though maybe they were also planning to swap seats for the second leg.

Yes the #2 can cause a pitch up when it fails. Combine that with an aft CG and I guess that could cause the tail strike that was reported.

It has also been rumored that the #2 had some issues upon delivery to the airline.

But here's what I see:

a good weather day,
a long runway,
a sea-level airport,
an aircraft that flies just fine on two engines,
a crew with ~7 years experience on the aircraft (though, as pointed out,
unknown recency of experience),
tire marks visible leading off the runway onto a flat field,
followed by an immense conflagration/explosion, even though they were
quickly met by many many fire trucks.

The wreckage to me just looks too devastating for the V1 cut/ overrun scenario. If it WAS an engine failure, why couldn't they get it stopped?

[GlueBall]

Capt Huck: It was earlier mentioned in the news by eyewitness(es) that the airplane was off the ground, so more like a post Vr cut, [as TWA TriStar at JFK].

http://www.jacdec.de/info/2009-11-28_Z-BAV.pdf

[Huck]

Well that makes more sense. It was certainly a high-energy crash.

[SEPilot]

I have investigated the MD-11 for some time and come to the following conclusions. McDonnell-Douglas attempted to revive their fortunes on the cheap by stretching and repowering the DC-10, rather than starting with a clean sheet. They were not willing to design a new wing, with the result that the MD-11 has the highest wing loading and the highest landing/takeoff speeds of any airliner (except Concorde). Also, since they were reusing the DC-10 wing they tried to improve the efficiency by moving the CG aft so it would require a smaller horizontal stabilizer, and tried to compensate for the reduced stability via software. Also, the outer main gear struts mount under the main wing spar instead of behind them (which I believe every other airliner except for the DC-10 does) which means that when the plane lands excessively hard on one gear the wing spar tends to break instead of the gear shearing off. This results in the plane rolling on its back and catching fire; this has happened three times now to the MD-11, and to the best of my knowledge has NEVER happened to any other airliner. It also has had several high speed upsets, with at least one resulting in fatalities. I have never flown an airliner (I am a private pilot) but from what I have read from pilots who have flown it it is much more difficult to fly than any other airliner, especially on landing and takeoff. I believe that there is a reason why Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed, Airbus, and every other transport builder came to roughly the same conclusion as to how much stability was required; my suspicion is that McDonnell, from their experience with fighters, thought they could use some of it to cut a corner on the MD-11 and get away with less. I think that the accident statistics say that it was a poor choice. Whether or not this latest accident had anything to do with the unusual handling characteristics of the MD-11 is completely unclear at this point; we will have to wait to see what the investigation uncovers. But as to the string of accidents on the MD-11 officially ascribed to "pilot error;" I put it that since pilots seem to be able to fly all other jetliners day in and day out without committing these same errors, either the MD-11 is much more difficult to fly than any other jetliner, or it attracts far more than its share of incompetent pilots. I think the former is far more likely.

[tie domi]

no #2 above trust line so if #2 fails trim is set for 3 operating and the lack of above trust line trust will cause 1 and 3 to have an pitch up thrust vector

[tie domi]

a sudden failure of #2 can cause a sudden pitch up,full forward stick to regain control and trim needs to be applied without delay.

[Finn47]

As usual, it´s up to the authorities of the country where the accident took place to lead the investigation and publish a report. This NTSB press release clearly says all communication will be handled by the Chinese CAA:

Press Advisory (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2009/091128.html)

There have naturally been several accidents in China over the years but I could not find any mention of a crash report they´d ever published. The Chinese CAA´s website has a link to a supposedly English version but it´s "under construction". I wonder if the NTSB will publish something in English, like a preliminary report within the usual 30 days or so? Anybody ever seen a crash report by the Chinese authorities anywhere?

[lederhosen]

Thanks for the very informative posts Huck and Tie Domi. So if the number 2 engine failed after V1 it might cause the nose to rise prematurely and a tailstrike, with the unfortunate crew committed to continue.

With the end of the runway looming fast, it is possible that the pilot flying might pull further, rather than push and trim forward, thus making things worse, particularly if he were not particularly current. The aircraft justs makes it into the air and then sinks back hard with the ensuing high energy crash.

This is all just rumour and speculation, which is after all what Pprune is about. But it is a possible scenario.

[cosmiccomet]

Another thing to consider in this scenario is the training for Engine #2 failure.
We usually train for engine 1 or 3 failure during TO but it is very seldom to train for the engine #2.

In 5 years flying the DC10, I would say only two or three times I had trained for engine 2 failures and I don't remember any sim check where the Check Pilot had requested that manouvere.

[lomapaseo]

There have been lots of #2 engine failures on the DC10-11 over the years with succesful outcomes. And of course the aircraft is certified to take off with an engine out.

If the tailstrike is factual, then we're looking for something a lot more than an engine out scenario.

[sb_sfo]

Anybody ever seen a crash report by the Chinese authorities anywhere?If you look at the CI (Mandarin livery) crash at HK, listed here ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-11 B-150 Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990822-0) the final report took 5 years 3 months and that accident was in Hong Kong 2 years after the handover?

[WrldWide]

I have had a scenario in the sim in which the #2 reverser deployed after v1, it was mid weight, 430 or so, and the machine was very difficult to manage, as the engine was producing full thrust, but was manageable. That far along in the take-off roll, if it had been a #2 fail it would have been reasonably easy to manage.
Not saying this happened, the design of the reverser system makes it very unlikely, but the way the aircraft failed to get fully airborne, it is not impossible.

[Graybeard]

Early in the MD-11 production, there was a problem with #2 reverser coming unlocked, or not locking fully after retraction after landing. It was addressed by AD, IIRC.

I'm not speculating here, just following up Wrldwide.

GB

[Bartholomew]

Do any of the current MD-11 pilots have any comments about SEPilots comment? I find them interesting - as they point to a few things which haven't been mentioned yet? Not that the points he raised should result in the accident in this scenario, but they are interesting points, non-the-less?

This thread has departed so far from the topic, we might as well discuss these points as well? (considering the :mad: swinging going on in the last few pages)

[CargoOne]

Every speculation here starts with "I don't want to speculate".
So, here is mine - this is copy&paste of MK @Halifax.

[Cee of Gee]

Kingpilot,
Is there any further info on the Fine Air DC-8 accident. As far as most (me anyway!) understood, load shift was the primary cause?

Many thanks,
C o' G

[Binthere]

Read the report on the Fine Air DC8. The cause was determined to be a catalogue of loading errors by an unsupervised loading team resulting in an incorrectly loaded aircraft. The report is readily available on the internet. Then put your suggestion of a "load shift" to any experienced loadmaster and you will get a very short answer - where is the load going to shift to when the aircraft is fully loaded??!! :ugh: IF load shift was a factor, the aircraft would need to be half empty to start with and everyone assumes that the cause would be the load moving aft. On the MD11, an extremely nose heavy trim would in fact have the same effect on take off as the eyewitnesses describe having on the Avient MD11. By extremely nose heavy trim, I mean outside the envelope, and before you ask, if you mix lbs and kgs and lb inches and kg inches within the same weight and balance mechanism, without understanding the consequences, this WILL happen. Raises a lot more questions now doesnt it? The MD11 is not a DC10, it can be a lot more unforgiving and needs a lot more close attention to load sequencing and supervision. Too many people think of it as just a bigger DC10 and it isnt. How many DC10 Loadmasters have I seen transfer onto the MD11 and get caught out. To illustrate this point, do a web search of aircraft sitting on their tails and see how many of them are MD11's. In Avients case they only had the type for a week so you have to ask how much experience there was within the organistion on this type, excluding the flight deck crew who were highly experienced pilots on the MD11.

[Sleeping Freight Dog]

SepPilot, you have posted this same diatribe on A.net quite
extensively. Give it a rest already. You have been proven many times, you are not a MD-11 pilot so stop spewing
this crap!!!

[SMOC]

If you look at the Dragonair crash at HK, listed here ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-11 B-150 Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG) the final report took 5 years 3 months and that accident was in Hong Kong 2 years after the handover?

Dragonair? It was a China Airlines flight but in Mandarin Airlines colors.

[sb_sfo]

You are correct, sir. My bad.

[Neptunus Rex]

sb sfo.

Having acknowledged the mistake, please edit post 189 to reflect the truth.

[Kingpilot]

Cee og Gee Wrote:

Is there any further info on the Fine Air DC-8 accident.


Yes there is, in the shape of a final report released in 1998, the year following the accident. I think what really caused the initial speculation and its subsequent longevity is that initial inspection of the wreckage revealed a number of pallet locks that were not in place, however the investigation eventually discounted this as a cause. Follow the earlier link to ASN, they have a link to the full report, it contains some useful lessons for any pilot.

In fact I personally can't think of a jet transport accident that has been caused by loadshift? Can anyone?

CargoOne wrote:
Every speculation here starts with "I don't want to speculate".
So, here is mine - this is copy&paste of MK @Halifax.

Agreed although the actual error made would probably be different since this was an FMC equipped aircraft, the result is certainly very similar. Also very similar to the Emirates accident earlier in the year, which demonstrates another potential error, ie in entry of assumed temp.

All this talk of the MD-11s safety record really has no place here, I believe this is the first hull loss to take place in the takeoff phase, so the MDs handling characteristics and accident record in approach and landing have absolutely no relevance.

[B-Mod]

Kingpilot:

Ding ding ding!! You win the prize!

This incident occurred during takeoff; a hull-loss first for the MD-11, and a fundamental truth which has been overlooked by some in this otherwise erudite debate viz. the MD-11's record. And takeoff mishaps of the sort that likely sponsored this particular tragedy aren't indigenous to any specific aircraft.

Just sayin'.

[FoxHunter]

Kingpilot,

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-249F N806FT Frankfurt International Airport (FRA) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19831011-0)

[bugg smasher]

I put it that since pilots seem to be able to fly all other jetliners day in and day out without committing these same errors, either the MD-11 is much more difficult to fly than any other jetliner, or it attracts far more than its share of incompetent pilots. I think the former is far more likely.
Yes and no, depends on which angle you choose to view it from.

When the MD-11 was first introduced, the pilots that flew her generally came from years operating steam cockpits, DC-8, DC-10, all the earlier Boeing products, 70, 72, 73, and 74 classic, aircraft that demanded well rounded flying and handling skills. It was a given; if you had trouble flying an airplane to standard, you had no business being on the flight deck.

Enter the Airbus family of products, designed to engineer the weakest link out of the system, the pilot. The follow on products from Seattle have had pretty much the same idea in mind, lots of industry concern these last years of degrading piloting skills due over reliance on automation.

So, yes, there is an ever-growing group of pilots not competent enough to handle the MD-11, those who have cut their aviation teeth in a glass/automation environment. This is not meant as a criticism, merely a fact of life, these very same pilots are competent in the aircraft they currently fly. Not surprisingly, typing eighty words a minute is a required flying skill these days.

Where this argument is concerned, the MD-11, although a glass machine with significant computer enhancement, does not have the extensive automated flight envelope protections of the more modern airliners. In other words, she still requires the exacting handling and airmanship skills of the earlier jets.

What is surprising here, these pilots were old-school, and very experienced with the machine.

[411A]

I recall comments from an LTU captain some years ago in CMB, about the MD-11.
He mentioned that behind all the fancy glass displays was a multitude of electrical problems, and ....'the eleven hour flight from DUS was a veritable christmas tree of lights, red lights, yellow lights, we have them all indicating possible failures of one sort or another.'

A year later brought forth a completely different comment from the same LTU captain however, now it was...'the christmas tree of failure lights are gone, she flies like a dream, we certainly like her now, not quite as nice as the TriStar I flew before, you understand, but still very nice'

[lomapaseo]

bugg smasher

What is surprising here, these pilots were old-school, and very experienced with the machine

You probably didn't mean this the way it sounds.

I prefer to read it with the word "surprising" replaced by the clause "of note".

To me the skill of the pilots might relate to their knowlege and flying skills.

However if a critical factor is one that is rare enough not to be included in their training, their ability to identify, assess and correct for it may be an issue.

[MPH]

Actualy this is the second MD-11 accident on take-off. The first was a Korean Airlines in april 1999. Cargo shifting or weight problems are all possibilities but, you can check the ZFW and CG indications on the EICAS. An other factor to dial in is, the tail tank fuel managment. Wrong fuel distribution will degrade your T/O preformance!

[Kingpilot]

Actualy this is the second MD-11 accident on take-off. The first was a Korean Airlines in april 1999

I would classify this as climb or initial climb, indeed Aviation safety network classify it as enroute.

Thanks for the info Foxhunter

[FBW390]

No doubts about the experience of the pilots. But in a cargo aircraft it is very difficult to check the work of the loadmaster and loading staff. What is the guaranty about their skill and knowledge? ( Zim registration ) Zero! A mistake in loading is so easy, most of these guys think it`s just a truck! So putting the aft cargo fwd and vice-versa is not a problem. Or just the cargo of another flight! I`ve seen it, and not only in Africa; in Europe, yes!

Maybe in this case you can just add lousy uncontrolled maintenance, unrespected duty times,
and you have an accident!

Not at all an MD-11 problem in this case.

[20driver]

Pilots flying freight, how much time do you allow in pre flight to check the actual load and the load sheets agree? Do you always have a loadmaster with you? Does the loadmaster monitor the entire loading or check numbers after the fact?
I'm not talking FEDEX or regular stuff where you are "in house" so to speak but in cases like this one were you are picking up from assorted locations.
Thanks
20driver

[tflier]

On the B744 freighter used to allow enough time to check to ensure that I was happy. Would check that all the locks and latches were correct and all loads securely fastened as in turbulence you dont want any items coming loose and puncturing the cabin. Also check for smells and spills.....not so obvious with livestock!
As for weight well you have to trust the loadmaster has the correct figures from the shippers.
Remember in God we trust....all else we check!

[lomapaseo]

tflier

As for weight well you have to trust the loadmaster has the correct figures from the shippers.
Remember in God we trust....all else we check!

I realize that it's difficult to thoroughly check some other professions work, but is there a means to identify and adjust for during the takeoff roll? I am talking about weight errors that are gross enough to result in overuns under the set thrust level.

[DC-ATE]

I've got it.....how about the loadmaster has to go with you on every flight. He just might take extra care in loading.

We had a test hop in a DC-6 after an aileron change and the Captain said he wouldn't go unless the mechanic who signed off the work went along with us [ I was a lowly FE at the time ]. Well, after much discussion, the mechanic agreed to go. You should've seen the sweat pour off his face as the Captain put the plane through a bunch of maneuvers. The Co-Pilot and I were a little nervous as well !!

[MD11Engineer]

Well, I never signed off any aircraft I was not perfectly happy to fly in (and have flown in aircraft I had worked on many times). Even if it is a permit-to-fly ferry flight, I make sure that I wouldn´t be worried should I fly with it (as should any engineer or mechanic).

[GlueBall]

tflier: "On the B744 freighter used to allow enough time to check to ensure that I was happy. Would check that all the locks and latches were correct and all loads securely fastened"

Are you saying that you would come early on your own for the extra time required to check all the locks, rails and fitted netting of all the pallets on a fully loaded 74? Wow! Don't trust your loaders/handling agents? What's next? Will you be checking tire pressures? Don't trust your maintenance staff . . . ? :confused:

[tflier]

Very odd comment Glueball.......obviously no experience of B744F!
A walkaround of the maindeck on a fully loaded B744 checking what you can takes 10 minutes. No loadmaster is carried on the B744, however there is a loading supervisor who you liaise with. Used to find once in a while items not fastened as securely as I desired, also found a load blocking the fire extinguisher nozzles in the roof.
You can check the tyre pressures on the gear synoptic on the lower EICAS, so it's probably best to give it a glance!!

But then all pilots are different, some are maybe a wee bit more blase than others!

[act700]

DC-ATE,

the loadies do go on the flights, their part of the crew.

(I stand corrected: apparently lodies do not ride on all aircraft. I guess it varies from company to company.)

[tflier]

We used to have loadies on the DC10F but never on the B744F.
Never had them on the Bae748F either! Though that's another story!

[TheWanderer]

Are you saying that you would come early on your own for the extra time required to check all the locks, rails and fitted netting of all the pallets on a fully loaded 74? Wow! Don't trust your loaders/handling agents? What's next? Will you be checking tire pressures? Don't trust your maintenance staff . . . ? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

I do not trust loaders/handling agents either, not even on a 737F, simply because I have seen to much with my own eyes:
belly nets not installed (- expect loadshift at rotation)
aft belly full on the loadsheet but empty in the aircraft - forgotten to load
wrong containers loaded
aircraft loaded "the other way round", container for aft position loaded in the front position and vv
pallets build until under the roof but not secured for forward movement
etc etcand believe me, all this happened with loaders and handling agents loading freighters every day. Things like that have happened and will continue to happen.
The tiny difference is - I am sitting inside that plane and if it crashes, I might be dead - they are staying outside and if my plane crashes - they can still feed their family and kids. They might have to answer some questions - but they are still alive.

Checking the load is simply part of my job, if I don't do it, it may kill me. Same as I make sure I have bunkered enough fuel before takeoff.

And re trusting your maintenance staff, you still do your preflight walkaround, do you???

[doubleu-anker]

lomapaseo

"....I am talking about weight errors that are gross enough to result in overuns under the set thrust level."

There you have it.

Assumed load. ASUMMED means to me makes an "ASS of yoU and Me."

Basics: Full load, then use full power, period. Calculating and using reduced power is just another hole in the Swiss cheese.To hell with what the bean counters or whoever when they sqeal.

Not saying it was the case in this accident but extra power, if they were on reduced power, may have assisted them.

K.I.S.S.

[GlueBall]

Loadies don't ride along on scheduled freighter routes, but they, or equivalent competent company trained reps, supervise the loading. I'm the captain and I don't go downstairs to dabble with cargo. :rolleyes:

[cosmiccomet]

It seems that there is not much information about this accident.

I would like to think for another scenario, It could be the crew forgotten or set a wrong flap setting.

It can be another case like the MD80 series in Madrid and the B732 in Buenos Aires-Argentina.

In the MD11/DC10, you can set unlimited flap settings between 0 and 22' for Take Off.

Just another possible scenario.

[MPH]

Kingpilot: Yep, the Korean MD11 was probably on the 3rd or final stage segment. But, still not as most people are assuming that this A/C seems to more accident prone on landing than on T/O or climb as, in this case. What´s evident is, that a lot of people think this is a bad plane, due to a questionable saftey record. The fact of the matter is, that it is more aerodyanamicaly chalenging than most heavy jets but, nothing that that well trained crews cannot handle. All accidents have a to be investigated and from them we, learn and change any basic faults that might have caused them.

[Dengue_Dude]

Loadies don't ride along on scheduled freighter routes, but they, or equivalent competent company trained reps, supervise the loading. I'm the captain and I don't go downstairs to dabble with cargo

But they DO at Avient.

[Flightmech]

cosmiccomet,

dial-a-flap setting on MD-11 is between 10 and 25. You cannot take off with flaps at 0/slats only (or shouldn't be able to providing the config warning system is functioning normally). The dial-a-flap setting is normally set at 25 for t/o and 15 for approach in our company (followed by gates flaps28 and flaps35 or flaps50)

[Feathers McGraw]

I had been wondering for a while about the configuration warning system on an MD-11. Is it a reliable system? There have been previous cases of simultaneous warning system failure and flaps not being extended on other aircraft. I wonder if the witnesses mentioned earlier were able to see whether any flap was set on this occasion?

[poina]

MPH,

Tail fuel management, aft transfer, is only available when the fuel system controller is in the climb phase, gear up, flaps up, slats retracted.

[poina]

Bug smasher,

Your argument cuts both ways. How about all those steam guys, and I am one too, that seem to have problems with keeping the A320 shiny side up? All a/c will take a bite out your ass, just seems the MD-11 bites a little more often and harder, especially when slow.

[poina]

Bug smasher,

I'm not getting on your case here but your statement that the MD doesn't have all the flight envelope protection schemes...
Pitch rate limiting
Pitch attitude limiting
LSAS speed protection over and under
LSAS stall protection
Auto throttle speed protection
Auto throttle stall protection
LSAS nose lowering
Flap limiting
Etc. Etc.
It is as advanced as the 777 in all aspects except the 1 big one, the WING, which is why Honeywell had to do such an excellent job on the automatic systems. I don't know if you fly the MD but if you don't, next time you see a DC-10 and MD-11, compare the horizontal stab size. It's scary how much they took off, 35%.
That saying, all these protection schemes deal with one aspect, pitch attitude, which is a repeating factor in MD-11 accidents/incidents.

[Huck]

That saying, all these protection schemes deal with one aspect, pitch attitude, which is a repeating factor in MD-11 accidents/incidents.

I just went through recurrent training on the MD11, the first time since the Narita crash.

In the simulator, the focus was on pitch angle control in the flare - they froze us in the flare and let us play with pitch until we absolutely could nail 7.5 degrees pitch up by outside reference only. The theory is that the plane can take just about any reasonable landing, including a bounce, if you can hold 7.5 and control altitude with power.

Then we came in and landed with spoilers disarmed, held pitch and added a little power, then set it back down, then repeated. My best effort led to three touch & goes in a row on a 10,000 foot runway....

And by the way, tail fuel management does work on the ground, in "H" mode (gives you another 5k takeoff weight capability).

[stilton]

An interesting exercise but, it's just that. You can do a lot of things in the simulator but whether you can replicate the scenario (and your performance)
in the real Aircraft day after day, month after month, year after year in all kinds of weather / gross weight /cg /personal fatigue levels is doubtful.


If 7.5 degrees pitch up is optimal for landing, fine, will you always 'nail' that ?the answer is no.


The same applys for a 'reasonable landing' this is not something you can guarantee, I have seen some rather 'unreasonable' arrivals with some of mine certainly included.


Fortunately none of these have been on a very unforgiving type, except for one but it was built like a brick sh**house.

[Flightmech]

As Huck says, mode H does work on the ground. Gives a MTOGW of 630.5K instead of 625.5K. The FSC will schedule fuel to the tail when the LSDU (fuel panel) is turned off based on the aux tank quantity. 100lbs to the tail for every 750lb (above 9000) in the aux tank (or divide total aux tank fuel by 8.9). Tail tank remains empty on t/o regardless if W&B is performed in mode L, due to MEL item etc or in mode H if total FOB is around 153-154K lbs or less.

[MPH]

Poina: Not True, As Mentioned On The Ground It Does Work. And How About No Fuel In The Tail? There Are A Few Scenario´s That Could Have Contributed To This Accident. This Is One And As Mentioned W/b Problems Plus Wrong Config, Etc.

[poina]

mph,

Saudia md-11's 285990kg mtow with fsc in auto, fsc in manual mtow reduced to 283134kg. of course there is tail fuel if fuel load exceeds 66 tons.
in fsc taxi mode fuel can be auto transferred but aft transfer is inhibited and stays inhibited until fsc transitions to climb mode.

the ones that said you can get 5000 lb increase in h mode must be ones with extended aux tanks we did not have.

that's how ours worked, not trying to bs anyone.

[Flightmech]

Poina,

The aircraft with an extra 5,000 lbs MTOGW in mode H did not have extended range aux tanks. You have described the difference (mode H/L) on your Saudia aircraft youself albeit in Kgs rather than lbs. There are a few scenarios per our MEL where you can still have a mode H W&B with the FSC in manual. Fuel has to be manually put in the tail during refuelling per the normal schedule but once airborne there is no tail fuel management. This can confuse some crews as if they see "Tail fuel management is not available" in the (o) notes of the MEL and therefore don't expect to see any fuel in the tail after refuelling. Basically with the FSC in manual they take off with the main tank pumps on and aux/tail pumps off and then turn on the aux/tail tank pumps during the after-takeoff checklist.

[Huck]

As I recall, the MD11 did not meet some range requirements when it was first flight tested. Gross weight was increased, but the FAA did not like the added stress on the nosewheel. Ground fuel shifting (the 7.5 ratio) was added into the FSC software to shift the CG back. Is this what you folks remember?

Concurrently they took off the heavy shroud around the number 2 engine and put on some gap seals on the wings. This is why the "ENG 2 A-ICE DUCT" warning can be either level 2 or level 1, depending on whether that shroud is in place on that tail number.

This is when the deflected aileron option was invented, as well.....

[Flightmech]

Lots of changes were made to improve range requirements. Improved slat seals, repositioned windshield wipers (horizontal to vertically parked) and extended flap hinge fairings (on later models off the line) to name a few. I know that a/c 620,621 and 623 at FedEx have the extended flap hinge fairings.

[WrldWide]

The unofficial word from PVG is that the a.c was overloaded. My contacts, multiple, on the ground there with local contacts, believe the a/c was overloaded significantly.
Recently flew with an individual very familiar with the entire cockpit crew, word is they were all capable pilots.
carry on.....

[Spooky 2]

It's been awhile now but Delta operated two MD11's with two aux tanks mounted under the floor. Total additional fuel was 26,000#, which of course came right out of the pay load. These two aircraft were dedicated to the LAX/HKG non stop which on occassion would exceed 15+ hours. Very hard to do this aircraft and make a buck with the restricted payload. They actually use to fuel the airplane with scuppers under the wings so as to catch the fuel as it topped off with the overfill breakers pulled.:} The MGTOW on these aircraft were 628K and I believe there were further gross weight increases as the aircraft matured.

[WrldWide]

the Delta MD11s with ext range were a DAL mod. the ER that MD produced worked a little better. Not sure what your point is because the Delta Mod tended to put the initial cg forward until the aux was burned off. I have extensive experience with the DAL birds as we used one for a backup on our LAD flights and I flew them often when ours was in hvy check.

PS: the a/c in Pudong had no relation to the DAL fleet so.......what?

[11Fan]

the LAX/HKG non stop which on occassion would exceed 15+ hours.

My first Business Trip for the Company (1995 I think). It was 15.5 hours, door close to door open.

[Maurice Chavez]

The unofficial word from PVG is that the a.c was overloaded. My contacts, multiple, on the ground there with local contacts, believe the a/c was overloaded significantly.
Recently flew with an individual very familiar with the entire cockpit crew, word is they were all capable pilots.
carry on.....

PS: was the loadies FIRST flight on the MD11 with Aviant.Who was the loadie?

[WrldWide]

I have removed the PS about the loadie from my earlier post because I actually do not know who the loadie was.
WW

[Spooky 2]

Relax WrldWide. Just talking about some of the different fuel configs in the MD11 and yes, it has nothing to do with this accident.:bored:

[lomapaseo]

Rather easy to speculate about significant overloading based on rumor. Can we discuss the overt symptoms relative to the crew.

Things like speed vs time and distance. point of rotation vs point of liftoff. Availability of thrust margin to accomodate. Do the symptoms in this accident (an MD11 on this runway) match up with the possibility of overloading? can one discern the difference between flaps and slat annomalies vs overloading?

[CR2]

Assuming a/c was at MZFW, what would TOW be PVG-FRU? Does anyone have some rough numbers?

[cargobird]

CR2 I would estimate TOW of approx 600,000 lbs based on 6hrs flight time PVG-GRU.

[CR2]

Thanks cargobird, so roughly 25K lbs ballpark figure under mtow. Don't see them carrying extra fuel given PVG fuel price. For them to be overloaded & not make it off the runway, how much extra cargo would they have to carry? 50K Lbs or more? Not counting structural limits, what do the performance charts say?

[cargobird]

With the general nature of cargo exported from China (e.g. computers, electricals, solar panels), I find it hard to believe that the aircraft would have been significantly overloaded based on the aircraft's useable volume.

Time will tell, but in my opinion the reason for this accident is far more likely to be due to the way the aircraft was hurriedly introduced into service with a carrier that was unfamiliar with the type and poor company SOP's allowed the holes of the swiss cheese to line up.

[Huck]

I agree.

On that length of runway, at that temp and altitude, I believe that if you can get the doors closed the MD-11 would make it into the air on three good engines at max rated.

What we may be looking at, though: power settings were undoubtedly set for a certain gross weight - reduced to min required to save the engines. If the weight used was in error, or if the charts were improperly used, this accident could conceivably follow......

All total speculation on my part, though. Easy enough for the investigators to check.

[despegue]

word from within Avient: A miscalculation/input of the ZFW ...

Has happened before, and no-one is immune to make these mistakes:(

[bugg smasher]

I'm not getting on your case here but your statement that the MD doesn't have all the flight envelope protection schemes...

FBW, such as those systems installed on the Airbus family, provide greatly increased protections over traditional aircraft, at the expense of course, of what the pilot is able, or in some cases, not able to do (Habsheim, for example).

Most MD-11 protections can be over-ridden by pilot stick and throttle input, several famous incidents come to mind. In the Airbus they cannot (reversion modes excepted), hence the old-school/new school comments. The NRT-generated sim training as described by Huck, wrt maintaining pitch attitude by visual reference only, is an aircraft handling case in point. In the FBW way of things, you place it there, let go, the aircraft won't budge until you place it somewhere else.

[muduckace]

The MD-11 has a "FADEC BAR" that to my knowledge will spool beyond max rated by slamming the throttles to the firewall removing protection.

I have had several flights overloaded that resulted in fuel deversion for uplift, one was an 8 hr flight and was told we were as heavy as 20k lbs overweight. This fine beast will still climb out nicely overloaded. Have had a DC-10 auto rotate due to an aft CG.

There is a good chance that there was a combination of being heavy with an aft CG. There is also a good chance of a cargo shift EG:(Arrow/KMIA).

Given the ZFW possible incorrect entry there is also a possibility that T/O flap and trim settings were not correct.

[Huck]

I hate to say it, but what about kg / lb errors....

[bugg smasher]

Was the FMS pin option on this aircraft set to KG's? I've flown some that were, load sheets arrived in LBs, the calculator finger trouble possibilities were something we watched very carefully.

[DozyWannabe]

bugg smasher:
Most MD-11 protections can be over-ridden by pilot stick and throttle input, several famous incidents come to mind. In the Airbus they cannot (reversion modes excepted), hence the old-school/new school comments.
Although it must be stated here that the limits set by the Airbus FBW are set at or near the stress limits of the airframe, and it could be argued that any human input beyond that could do more harm than good. If you need more than 67 degrees of bank with TOGA power to get out of a situation, I'd be sceptical of anyone's chances. Habsheim is very much a red herring here (and in most arguments on the subject).

The arguable issues with the MD-11 are more to do with fundamental design aspects carried over from the DC-10 as fitted to a substantially different airframe in other respects, as stated before. Best to wait and see what comes out in the wash here, I feel.

[doubleu-anker]

Does the MD 11 have a built in gross weight/CG calculator on board, independant of crew input? If it doesn't, it is impossible to xcheck weights. That is the old problem with cargo ops.

Livestock flights are/were the worst. The handlers used to dictate that the lightest animal be weighed x by so many head cattle, horses or whatever, then they would throw water, etc., feed that wasn't weighed! So before you took off you knew you were going to be "heavy" sometimes very heavy. Talking 30 years ago.

Pax flights it is easy of course to xcheck weights. Unless the a/c has the stand? system, cargo can and still is it seems, be an "inexact science."

[411A]

stand?
That would be STAN...Sum Total And Nose.
Worked good, lasted a long time.
Caught gross errors darn quick.

Should be mandatory on freighters, in my considered opinion.:ok:

[Dan Winterland]

Should be mandatory on all aircraft IMHO. Pax aircraft aren't immune. There have been at least three tailstrikes to my knowledge due to the TOW entered into performance calculations being 100 tonnes light.

I used to fly 744s with WABCs (Weight And Balance Computers) which is similar to STAN and it's a great gross error checker.