Lufthansa cargo plane crash [Archive]

johan_jnb

27th Jul 2010, 12:22

official LH statement:

According to the latest reports, a Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 freighter crashed this morning at 11.38 a.m. (local time) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft, coded Flight LH 8460, was on a flight to Riyadh from Frankfurt, Germany.

The plane was piloted by a two-man crew, according to initial reports. Both pilots are being treated in hospital.

On board Flight LH 8460 were 80 tonnes of freight. It is not yet known exactly what type of freight it was or which customers are affected.

The cause of the accident is still being investigated. At the moment, we have no further details. We will communicate any further information immediately. This accident might have an influence on our operation for the next few weeks. Lufthansa Cargo will do its best to operate a stable flight schedule. Updates are also available at www.lufthansa-cargo.com (http://info.lufthansa-cargo.com:8080/ctd/lu?RID=1-T62DOH&CON=1-1N4-2894&PRO=&AID=1-YH-1906&CID=1-T61T2J&COID=1-T61T6X&T=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lufthansa-cargo.com&TN=www.lufthansa-cargo.com&RT=Clicked+On+URL).
Best regards

Lufthansa Cargo
J. Florian Pfaff
Vice President
Europe & AfricaLufthansa Cargo
Nils Haupt
Director
Communications

Tediek

27th Jul 2010, 13:24

good thing the crew survived it. always interesting when cargo catches fire..... hopefully with crew still alive and the cause can be found easily.

Payscale

27th Jul 2010, 13:30

Interesting!!!??? guess you dont fly airplanes for a living. NOTHING interesting about a cargo fire. Ive had one. Wasnt INTERESTING at all. :ugh:

Tediek

27th Jul 2010, 13:31

what an over reaction. yes i fly planes. it was remark that how can it catches fire. relax

http://www.alriyadh.com/2010/07/27/img/573708880746.jpg

http://www.alriyadh.com/2010/07/27/img/264002989469.jpg

http://www.alriyadh.com/2010/07/27/img/795006927056.jpg

protectthehornet

27th Jul 2010, 13:45

in the USA, a DC8 freighter caught on fire due to lithium batteries in the cargo hold...a great quantity...wondering what the cargo was.

I recall an MD11 (or was it a 10) for Fedex broke apart landing in japan

I understand the plane requires a deft hand in landing...but we've all seen some terrible airborne fires...recall valujet and its crash in florida due to oxygen generators among other things in the cargo hold.

any landing you can walk away from...

TheWanderer

27th Jul 2010, 14:09

from http://avherald.com/h?article=42edca16&opt=0

...
Lufthansa Cargo said, that the airplane broke in two parts and caught fire. The two crew received injuries, the extent of which is not yet known.

Aviation sources in Riyadh reported, that the crew declared emergency reporting a cargo fire indication while on approach to Riyadh.

Observers on the ground said, that the airplane was already trailing smoke while on final approach.

Saudi Arabia's Civil Aviation Authority confirmed the crew arriving from Frankfurt (Germany) declared emergency reporting a cargo fire inside the aircraft while on approach and landed at 11:38L (08:38Z). An investigation is under way.

protectthehornet

27th Jul 2010, 14:09

if you look at the pictures, it would be hard to believe the cargo didn't burn...whether it was the cause of the fire or the cargo caught fire subsequent to another fire will certainly be a subject of investigation.

if we ''wait'', why even have pprune at all? I heard about it on FoxNews.

PPRNkof

27th Jul 2010, 14:11

Did you have a look at the photots on the previous page?

It certainly looks like a fire in the cabin.

Could have been cargo, could have been wiring, coulda been lots a things.

Glad everyone made it.

Mark in CA

27th Jul 2010, 15:08

in the USA, a DC8 freighter caught on fire due to lithium batteries in the cargo hold...a great quantity...wondering what the cargo was.
Maybe the cargo was...lithium batteries. :rolleyes: It was a UPS plane carrying laptop batteries. Made an emergency landing at PHL, Feb 7, 2006.

Semaphore Sam

27th Jul 2010, 15:18

Where's the aircraft now? Normal Riyadh procedure is to pull it off the runway a few hundred feet, and let it sit for 20+ years.

GarageYears

27th Jul 2010, 15:26

Quote:
"Wait for the official investigation."

Ehhhh, Why?
Possibly because we are all sick and tired of the planespotters here offering up their words of wisdom as to the cause of every aircraft crash reported on PPRuNe.Isn't the point of a "Rumour Network" to, er, well, you know postulate ideas, maybe hazard a guess, you know that sort of thing? After all there's absolutely no compulsion on your part to read or comment, is there? If others want to give it a go then aren't they living up to the name of this board?

Otherwise we should rename the darn thing - "Professional Pilots Facts Only Network"....

I dunno', it's getting rather tedious seeing people complaining all the bloody time about the fact that people are posting opinions, which is the point of the board in the first place.

- GY :ugh:

MPH

27th Jul 2010, 15:34

Looks like a fire mid cabin. Not much you can do but, put it on the ground ASAP or send a crew member back and try an combat it. Not a nice scenario both ways. Good job by the crew of getting it on the ground and I hope they recup. soon!

juniour jetset

27th Jul 2010, 15:42

very well put Garage Years:ok:

Spider Man

27th Jul 2010, 15:47

She is the most challenging plane of all civilian widebody airliners with the highest wingloading and fastest approach speeds. Not easy to land at all, even under normal conditions. The Lufti guys belong to the best trained pilots in the industry and nevertheless this happend, a sad day for the industry. Lets be thankfull that they survived.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5832348) Cws, you coudn't have put it better ! The MD 11 is the most unforgiving airliner in history. The statistics are a testimony to that.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5832348&noquote=1)

GAZIN

27th Jul 2010, 16:11

Perhaps FedEx's new main deck fire suppression system will turn out to be a wise investment after all:).

stratocumulus

27th Jul 2010, 16:28

Thank you Sir,

Spot on

NS

IFIX

27th Jul 2010, 16:47

What happened to the rh inboard aileron?

hptaccv

27th Jul 2010, 16:50

@gazin

Fedex has fire suppression (i.e. halon) for maindeck as well?
Do they have a solid smoke barrier or a curtain solution?

GAZIN

27th Jul 2010, 17:03

htpaccv.
Fedex have both solid bulkhead & net/curtain configured MD11's but most are net/curtain. The fire system is for containerised freight.

Hatzerim

27th Jul 2010, 17:55

I never understood why a cargo plane like this one, does not has a loadmaster or some other crew member on board. He could finish a fire like this if he was fast enough to reach te ignition point, :rolleyes: and help the crew of a big widebody in something else if it was necessary...frankly, it's a big plane and lots of cargo for two men...:{

PAXboy

27th Jul 2010, 18:00

HatzerimI never understood why a cargo plane like this one, does not has a loadmaster or some other crew member on board.Money. It's the same reasons that busses and trains have less staff and why there are less cabin crew and so on around the world.

Hatzerim

27th Jul 2010, 18:07

I understand that...but shouldn't SAFETY be there first? :suspect:

11Fan

27th Jul 2010, 18:24

Hatzerim,

Just FYI, 80 tons cargo is not too far from max cargo so even if there was someone else on the aircraft, getting back to where the fire was (presuming you could even find it) would be difficult - at best. A fully loaded MD-11 does not leave much room to go for a stroll.

Also, on this flight, there happened to be two crew. Sometimes there are more. Loadmasters are "typically" used to load the freight but may not travel with the aircraft for operators like Lufthansa Cargo. That said, sometimes additional crew are on-board, but I think you are being overly optimistic to think that someone is going to be able to squeeze by all of those pallets and containers to fight a fire aft of the wing, presuming that is where it started of course.

The guys did the right thing. Land Immediately. Fortunately, they were in a position to do that and not somewhere out over the Atlantic. If that were the case, we would possibly be telling a different story.

Sygyzy

27th Jul 2010, 18:24

Hatzerim

It's not only money, where's the safety having a 'loadie' sitting about waiting for something to happen. He sure isn't needed to load or unload the a/c. Even if the cargo did catch fire if it were containerised he'd have a hard job even getting a probe anywhere near the source, and how would he know where the source is? Some years ago BA were forced to stop flying the 747 combi as the UKCAA insisted that if the cargo was mixed with pax on the main deck then a fireman (not a pretend fireman) was positioned on the pax side of the bulkhead in full fire gear for the duration of the flight. Now that's safety-and the airline decided double quick time that it wasn't worth the hassle.

You have to be proportional in all of this. How many fires per thousand hours etc etc. I'm no actuary, those people are paid far more than pilots to figure out the risk v profit.

S

MADTASS

27th Jul 2010, 18:25

"I dunno', it's getting rather tedious seeing people complaining all the bloody time about the fact that people are posting opinions, which is the point of the board in the first place."

Couldn"t agree more, it seems like other peoples suggestions or ideas are becoming Personal Insults to some, so what if there wrong, it"s an open forum after all, it"s a place where people can Toss around ideas and hopefully learn something. When i looked at the Pictures i came to the view that it wasn"t an Engine Fire, but i could still be wrong, no need to Blast me into Cyber-Space because of it.

superspotter

27th Jul 2010, 18:25

I am so glad my company uses loadmasters on most of our flights, obviously it keeps me in a job but more importantly, there as the first line of defence.
It has to be said though, the MD-11's attrition rate is rather unsettling. That's not assuming the aircraft itself was at fault here.

jafar

27th Jul 2010, 18:30

The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Accident History, MD-11 crashes, MD-11 design defects (http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm)
Not a very good airplane as it appears

Hatzerim

27th Jul 2010, 18:38

Some more pics here > Avião pega fogo na Arábia Saudita (http://noticias.uol.com.br/album/100727aviaoarabiasaudita_album.jhtm?abrefoto=6#fotoNav=1)

superspotter

27th Jul 2010, 18:58

Appreciate the comment Saskatoon but having an LM onboard does provide that quicker reaction to a situation than an otherwise occupied flightdeck...

Enos

27th Jul 2010, 19:14

Question

From the photos the nose gear is either sheered off...another MD11 landing.

OR has it failed to extend due to no hydraulics because of the cargo fire.(it was mentioned that it was a lower cargo hold fire)

If this is the case these guys were really lucky to get away with this.

ruutinuuska

27th Jul 2010, 19:56

Superspotter, you might have a point there.

Finnair operated it´s MD-11 fleet for 20 years without accidents. They even had bit of farewell ceremony for the fleet: On last flight to Delhi, sparkling wine was served for the passengers, and they also had "Bye Bye My Dear" -postcards printed for customers. Fleet Chief spoke very highly about the plane in the news here in Finland.

Obviously some are luckier than others.

eagleflyer

27th Jul 2010, 19:58

Maybe the nosewheel collapsed when the aircraft left the runway?

STN Ramp Rat

27th Jul 2010, 20:26

Just a couple of points on the loadmaster issue,
Firstly, IF and it is a big IF, the fire started in the dangerous goods then if my memory serves me correctly then all the DGR should be loaded in an accessible and visible position, this means no DGR on the lower decks and none in sealed ULD’s . Accessible is a moot point, a “who ate all the pies” crew member might not be able to get down the aisle between the cargo and the walls, I believe this is a particular issue is some configurations on the B777F.
With regards to the loadmaster on the flight, a two crew operation would presumably precludes either of them leaving the flight deck to investigate the fire warning and I assume the fire warning checklist for a two crew operation reads thus
1. Get on the ground quick.
2. Why are you not on the ground yet?
A third crew member, be it a loadmaster or third pilot allows one person to go back, investigate and possibly fire fight. I guess though there is a trade off between the increased insurance premiums and the salary of the third crew member.

daikilo

27th Jul 2010, 20:43

Position of NLG is interesting but I doubt a significant contributory factor to the global events leading to the end result.

If potential cargo hold fire was reported only shortly before landing, I would worry that it could not be controlled and even more cause sufficient damage to cause a landing upset and worse a failure of the fuselage aft of the wing.

My judgement on whether this is fundamentally an airplane issue remains open, with or without the "assumed declared" fire.

SoaringTheSkies

27th Jul 2010, 20:50

bigbore

27th Jul 2010, 21:00

Firstly, IF and it is a big IF, the fire started in the dangerous goods then if my memory serves me correctly then all the DGR should be loaded in an accessible and visible position, this means no DGR on the lower decks and none in sealed ULD’s .

Wrong , only CAO has to be accesible and DGR can go in sealed ULD's and anywhere on the aircarft . The only rule is to have it in the front of the uld and to the right side so its easy to find , Also DGR can go in the lower deck positions

Bigbore

daveyb

27th Jul 2010, 21:06

from what i can remember working for FDX all DGR bar class 9 are loaded in the two forward positions, with class 5 separated from the likes of class 3/4. saying that certain DGR could be loaded as IDG rather than ADG cannot remember what class/UN number though.
each uld would then be labeled with the amount&quantity of DGR loaded onto the pallet/container,we would then input the amount of DGR into the W&B system which would then be sent to the next ramp/hub.

CargoOne

27th Jul 2010, 21:18

Hey, MD11 main deck is Class E compartment. Class E and C compartments (unlike class A and B) are not required to be accessible inflight by certification definitions. Up to my best knowledge there is no legal link between DGR and required position on the deck, it is rather a best practice stuff.

SMT Member

27th Jul 2010, 21:47

The general IATA rule regarding accessibility of Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) shipments is that they will need to be loaded visibly and accessibly to the crew in flight, with the exceptions of Class 3 (Flammable Liquid) Packing Group III with no subsidiary risk, Class 6 (Toxic & Infectious Substances), Class 7 (Radioactives) and Class 9 (Miscellaneous DG). All other non-CAO shipments may, generally speaking, be loaded anywhere you please with the exception of RRY and MAG.

There may be operator variations filed by individual airlines prescribing stricter requirements, like for instance those of FedEX, but LCAG follows the general IATA rules to a very large extent. LCAG does have a few minor exceptions, which are all freely available in the IATA Dangerous Goods Manual.

IATA also allows for any and all CAO shipments to be loaded inaccessible in a Class C compartment. On the LCAG MD-11F the lower-decks (FWD and AFT) are both Class C, and they allow loading of CAO in those holds.

There are, of course, exceptions to these rules. If one is flying to the US, for instance, USG-13 comes into play, which basically says any ULD holding more than 25 kg or litres of DG must be loaded accessible, except for RCL and RNG where the limit is 75 kg or litres. The exception to this rule (there's always exceptions in DG world!) is if the DG is loaded on a pallet, and that pallet is accessible, then there's no limits to the quantity carried.

Want to learn more? Get on a full 5-day IATA DG Category 6 course. The Cat. 10 course which is mandatory for flight crew will only teach you so much, and we all know that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

protectthehornet

27th Jul 2010, 22:07

NTSB sent out a press release indicating it would help investigate...and that the accident was a crash on landing.

NG1

27th Jul 2010, 22:09

Daikilo, they were going to SHJ so if, and I say if, a cargo fire was the reason here, it will have started ,or more precisely: been noticed, at cruise altitude, in that case, it has had quite a bit of time to burn before touchdown.

LH Cargo mentions RUH as destination of the flight (see post #15). My understanding ist that the A/C was supposed to continue to SHJ and HKG after the stop in RUH.

NG1

B777FD

27th Jul 2010, 22:09

Daikilo, they were going to SHJ so if, and I say if, a cargo fire was the reason here, it will have started ,or more precisely: been noticed, at cruise altitude, in that case, it has had quite a bit of time to burn before touchdown.

Glad they made it out alive!

The route was FRA-RUH-SHJ if you read the earlier posts.

lomapaseo

27th Jul 2010, 23:21

I can see in the pictures that there is a broken airplane fuselage and a ground pool fire as well as a burn through of the crown skin. All of which could be secondary to a rough landing.

What facts do we have about a reported cargo fire?

Was it real or a false alarm?

Did it cause disabling damage to the plane?

broadreach

28th Jul 2010, 00:03

Look again at photo 13 of 13 in Hatzerim's post 43. Scorched lower fuselage at least from wingbox aft. Would that not be further indication of where the fire started? And what looks almost like deformation aft of the scorched area is probably just the effect of light/shadow.

Ireland105

28th Jul 2010, 01:53

I have always been fascinated by the MD11 - its a fantastic aircraft to both watch and also fly on. However how many full loses is this now since it began operations 20 years ago ? There have also been a string of incidents regularly with this aircraft type. I am surprised that more than a few people have not said that there has to be something fundamentally wrong with this aircraft - far fewer examples produced than the B777 or A330/A340 yet a significantly higher number of write offs and countless incidents. Perhaps it doesnt receive the same attention as it operates mostly cargo based flights now ?

411A

28th Jul 2010, 03:08

Perhaps it doesnt receive the same attention as it operates mostly cargo based flights now ?
From the maintenance standpoint...hardly likely.
Perhaps the problem lies with the crew trained to fly the airplane....the MD11 clearly requires a high level of crew attention/experience, perhaps the latest idea of dumbing down crew with minimal training and/or experience is beginning to take its toll.
Wait for the final report...it will tell the tale...in the mean time, all other scenarios are simply guesswork...including this one.:}

protect essential

28th Jul 2010, 03:42

Whenever an unfortunate incident/accident occurs with the MD-11, there always seem to be posts commenting that the aircraft is more difficult to land than other airliners, has peculiarities that make it more difficult to operate, is quirky etc...

It would be interesting to know, if the people making these comments and judgements have ever actually flown the MD-11.

Yes, the cockpit is not Boeing or Airbus, but I found the aircraft a joy to fly and the systems automation ahead of its time. And as to requiring a "deft hand" to land, I found it no more difficult than any other modern airliner that I have flown (767,757,744 etc...). Certainly easier than a 727!

p51guy

28th Jul 2010, 03:45

I had smoke through out the cabin and cockpit one day flying south out of Miami in a 757 at about 20,000 ft over the keys heading south to TGU Honduras. Shut off non essential busses, declared an emergency and returned and landed, got another plane and continued our trip. It was about a year after Swisair 111 had the electrical problem off Halifax. Our procedure hadn't been changed and said to do the checklist, shut off unessential busses and continue and see if smoke decreased.

I shut down nonessential busses, declared an emergency descended and headed back to MIA and landed. Two weeks later they changed the checklist to what I did after I wrote it up.

cirr737

28th Jul 2010, 05:30

411A:
perhaps the latest idea of dumbing down crew with minimal training and/or experience is beginning to take its toll.

Certainly not with Lufty cargo - it's around a minimum of 10 years with the airline to upgrade to command..., and if I remember correctly at least another few years of PIC on short-haul before the MD11 comes into play

RevMan2

28th Jul 2010, 05:38

at least another few years of PIC on short-haul before the MD11 comes into play

Um.... short-haul at LH Cargo is a truck.

Denti

28th Jul 2010, 06:14

True, but shorthaul as a lufthansa pilot is 737 or a320 on either the lufthansa mainline or germanwings route-network, could have been condor (757/767) or condor berlin (a320) as well, but those two last options are gone. As a pilot you switch between the different lufthansa companies.

69flight

28th Jul 2010, 07:06

brandtzag:

Emergency
In too many previous cases has the crew not properly addressed the situation with catastrophic outcome - Swissair, SAA Air Canada and so on. Fire is not compatible with aircrafts.

It's just unbelievable how many people, even fellow pilots, keep on bashing the SR crew for their actions in the Halifax tragedy. If these people took the time to read the findings in the final report they'd hopefully stop spreading these unjustified allegations.

firepoint

28th Jul 2010, 08:29

I consulted a DG specialist, who is in IATA DG board. He also thought the CAO rules was actually stupid and useless. The very strict CAO accessibility requirement was in place but how could operator to follow? i.e. some classes or divisions DGR goods are required to be accessible during flight, but even so what can flight crew do in emergency???
Can you image that to ask flight crew take the fire fighter to put off the fire? Or removing the heavy skid and deal with the leakage by hands? However, the gross weight limit of some UN DG packages are around 400L or 450Kg.

The IATA DGR only regulates the DGR goods quantity for each individual outer package, but no rules for each aircraft type. Believe it's aircraft manufacturer''s responsibility to develop such rules. I did see the cicular from Boeing regarding the Dry Ice limit on B744 aircraft.

Besides, Li-ion Batteries/Cells are flying over the world by aircraft. Some Li-ion Batteries/Cells are powerful enough as the explosives and may cause mass damage to aircraft/human being/property.

Believe that no carrier will stop this service even realizing the risk of DG or hidden DG transporting, otherwise they can't survive.

TheWanderer

28th Jul 2010, 08:49

Since some posts mention lithium battery fires and explosions:
This is a FAA video about lithium battery fires and how to extinguish them inflight:
YouTube - Tests on lithium battery fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcd34tt8YPU)
gcd34tt8YPU

BRE

28th Jul 2010, 08:56

" Some years ago BA were forced to stop flying the 747 combi as the UKCAA insisted that if the cargo was mixed with pax on the main deck then a fireman (not a pretend fireman) was positioned on the pax side of the bulkhead in full fire gear for the duration of the flight. Now that's safety-and the airline decided double quick time that it wasn't worth the hassle."

What good would the fireman have done on the pax side of the bulkhead?

I remember JAL and ANA were flying combis FRA - NRT. Not sure if the 777 curently used are combis.

TATprobe

28th Jul 2010, 10:09

The "instant experts" seem to have this one wrapped up! As it was an MD11, the usual comments about it being a bit of a challenge to land have been trotted out. Rubbish! I have several thousand hours on the MD11, including training and checking, and it is a beautiful aircraft which is no more difficult to land than most other heavy jets. It will bite the incompetent, however, like most aircraft. If the stories about an in-flight fire before landing are correct, the cause should be not too hard to find, but we still have to put up with the the MD11 knockers who prefer to blame the aircraft. Good to see that the crew escaped OK!

Less Hair

28th Jul 2010, 10:12

So do we know for sure now if they declared a cargo fire before?

Ireland105

28th Jul 2010, 10:21

Evanelpus

28th Jul 2010, 10:45

Have Lufthansa Cargo made any further statements today?

Flight Safety

28th Jul 2010, 11:10

Hard to say what happened. Right main gear looks deployed, left main appears collasped, front gear either not deployed or collapsed. If an in flight cargo fire occurred as reported, did the aircraft suffer structural damage before landing that caused the fuselage break, or did a hard landing break the fuselage? Did an in flight fire cause landing gear collapse due to damage prior to landing, or did the gear collapse during a post landing fire, or did a hard landing collapse the gear? Did an in flight cargo fire create control difficulties because of equipment or systems damage, causing a hard landing?

Lots of questions here.

taffazzi

28th Jul 2010, 11:24

Chronic Snoozer

28th Jul 2010, 11:52

If this Lufthansa MD-11 would have been full of passengers......God save the Queen....

Then it probably wouldn't have caught fire in the the first place....(allegedly):ouch:

Less Hair

28th Jul 2010, 12:23

Plus they don't have and never had any pax MD-11.

DBate

28th Jul 2010, 13:10

I do think security reasons play a major role.

Sorry, but I do think that economical reasons play a major role. :rolleyes:

patrickal

28th Jul 2010, 14:14

If this was, as has been reported, an in flight fire and emergency landing, it appears to be very similar to a Fed Ex incident that occurred back in 1996.

In that incident, a DC-10 enroute from Memphis to Boston developed a cargo fire over New York State, and diverted to Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY. Although I did not realize at the time what was happening, I actually witnessed that flights approach into SWF. His turn onto final was hard and steep, and he was obviously well above normal approach speed. At the time, I wondered what the hell he was doing. I was on a highway about 1/2 mile away from the runway as he passed by. I did not learn till later in the morning what had happened. Almost immediately after touching down and stopping on the runway, the aircraft was consumed by the fire, and the crew had to escape the cockpit via the escape cables.

If this recent incident involved a similar situation, I can see where smoke in the cockpit, causing a high speed approach and touchdown, and exacerbated by the MD11's critical handling characteristics, could result in a hard landing and a resultant landing gear collapse.

fyi, here is the link to the NTSB report on the Newburgh incident. As you read it, you will see that it appears very similar. The biggest difference appears to be that the Fed Ex plane in this case was a DC-10, which is not prone to gear collapse in the way the MD-11 appears to be.

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/373.pdf

The fact that the Lufthansa crew got the bird on the ground and were able to walk away from it shows the level of their skill. Kudos to them. Once the final reports come out, it will be interesting to read how they performed vs. the checklists that are currently in use, to see what changes have been made for in flight fires.

Patrick

DGR

28th Jul 2010, 20:40

Some of the comments about loading of dangerous goods and accessibility have been way off base. The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel reviewed and revised the accessibility requirements over two years ago. The new provisions came into effect January 2009. This recognised that it may be safer to load the CAO DG in the underfloor compartment where that compartment is Class C. That way the crew actually have some fire suppression, rather than just having to depressurise the aircraft and hope that the fire goes out, which is all that you have with the maindeck Class E compartment.

As for lithium batteries, so far all of the incidents in cargo have been as a result of non-compliant shipments. For lithium ion batteries, the halon will supress the fire.

411A

28th Jul 2010, 20:50

The new provisions came into effect January 2009. This recognised that it may be safer to load the CAO DG in the underfloor compartment where that compartment is Class C. That way the crew actually have some fire suppression, rather than just having to depressurise the aircraft and hope that the fire goes out, which is all that you have with the maindeck Class E compartment.

This was evident from long ago...with the DC-6/7 (which had positive fire suppression in their class 'C' underfloor compartments)...yes, that long ago.
Positive fire suppression is far better than..." I hope it goes out', with some of the present regulation/design criteria.:rolleyes:

Ex Cargo Clown

29th Jul 2010, 00:24

It's all going to get a lot worse when the EU foolishly ban Halon.

As for DG, always stick pallets of RFL and RFG opposite corners to ROX.

It makes sense, is safe and should be "best practice".

As for the CAO issue, I'd rather have it in the main hold, then you can see if the pallet is damaged, especially in the dark. Very easy for a loader to miss a slightly broken pallet of Class 3 PKG I nastiness if it goes in the LD, a lot easier to see and smell if it goes on the UD.

This will be interesting, as it appears the A/c broke close to the wing spar and then ignited something. Anyone have a copy of the manifest and loadsheet?

Captain-Crunch

29th Jul 2010, 04:59

Why do so many MD11s crash than and also involved in landing incidents, far far more than the B777 or A330/A340 and this even the case where there are multiples more B777 and A330/A340 aircraft flying today ? Indeed far more than ANY aircraft (soviet or western) I can think of ?

Because MD-11's are older? I just don't understand the MD-11 witch hunt. The machine has the same accident rate as the B-707. They both fly over your house, yet I don't hear any poster calling for the grounding of the entire USAF KC-135 tanker fleet.

Completely illogical. :ugh:

Yes it's a hot ship; yes it's another pitch-witch stretched fuselage that may not do so great in a strong x-wind since the tail is small. Just keep practiced on the line hand flying it up and down from 18,000 and you might stay current enough to avoid trouble. Most accidents I'm aware of seem to be where the crew stays coupled to 500 feet and disconnects it, having no idea what trim forces or flying qualities the autopilot has been dealing with. Then they PIO and have to deal with elevator software loads that keep changing because the airframe mob keeps demanding something be done to a perfectly good airplane.

The industry's infatuation with always flying at the highest level of automation is responsible for a great many accidents the last two decades, imho.

Not that that played any role in a cargo fire aloft accident (if that's what happened.) A fire can burn through the spar! A fire can melt your hydraulics!

Crunch

Old Engineer

29th Jul 2010, 05:11

From a structural standpoint, it appears to me that the aircraft collapses (nosewheel and fuselage break over wing box) occurred at a standstill, and were the result of hot fire gasses rising to the ceiling of the upper deck. This could occur from a fire anywhere within, and in my experience that fire would not have to have much fuel, just a little time--about ten minutes after taking hold.

Reasoning as follows: In a totally reinforce concrete house built as a fire training facility, a fire was set in an upstairs master bedroom with two shuttered windows and an interior door, all closed (heavy green wood). The fuel was three wooden 4x4 shipping pallets and a compact bale of hay, a little newspaper. The room had a special fire lining under test, ventilated from behind through the flat roof. One vent was instrumented. In 5 minutes, 800 degrees at ceiling was exceeded and ceiling flashover occurred. In less than 10 elapsed minutes, vent temperature reached 1600 fahrenheit. A fire crew of 4 to 6 firemen entered the room from the hall at this time under the fire gasses burning in the top part of the room space, and extinguished the fuel with a fire line. One had the top-of-ear burn as a result.

I think that heat to this extent will either burn or melt the top crown of the fuselage tube. Lesser heat at the side will considerably weaken the structural strength in tension of the tube. This tube is a longitudinal beam, and the burned or melted top quarter is its tension side. The plane is balanced over the wing box and main gear, with a slight forward bias to put enough weight on the nose gear for steering. In this case the plane has substantial load on this beam from its own weignt and the heavy cargo. If the nosewheel has say 7 percent of total weight (does someone know the weight distributions on this plane, loaded and empty?), just on the back of an envelope I'd say the cracking of the fuselage over the wing box (due to fire weakening of the structure) would increase the loading on the nose gear by at least three times. So this has to be somewhere between sinking into soft ground (on or off runway seems unclear as yet) and collapse.

In short, I don't think as yet there is any reason to conclude that the pilots crashed the plane into the runway, from what we see in the pictures.

OE

Gretchenfrage

29th Jul 2010, 06:17

Most accidents I'm aware of seem to be where the crew stays coupled to 500 feet and disconnects it, having no idea what trim forces or flying qualities the autopilot has been dealing with. Then they PIO and have to deal with elevator software loads that keep changing because the airframe mob keeps demanding something be done to a perfectly good airplane.

The industry's infatuation with always flying at the highest level of automation is responsible for a great many accidents the last two decades, imho.

Amen to that bro.

The MD11 operation went quite smooth in the beginning as the crews came from DC10, MD80 and some from 767. All aircraft that were pitch-power training machines, trimming required (DC10 CWS off). The troubles started as a lot of A320 and regional-jet trained (the case for LH) transited to the Maddog. Especially when most MD11 were transformed to freighters the provenance and training of the crews lost a lot of emphasis.

Now we are confronted with the outcome. But all of us who have pinpointed to this for years will be yelled down again by the "cheap training" through "great automation progres"' lobby.

Mark my words that we are running into the same problems again, this time concerning the oh so loathed automated (neutered) birds, as the slashing of selection and training of the modern "pilots" to a mind numbing level continues.

Brave new world

Ireland105

29th Jul 2010, 09:24

Interesting point Gretchenfrage and I agree with you. I often find as well that any criticism is immediately jumped on. Too many "passionate" pilots out there reasoning with emotions rather than looking at objective facts. A table of the B777/A330/A340/MD11 showing the total number of aircraft and number of accidents would paint a powerful picture me thinks. Something is not right with it. Yes its a fabulous aircraft to look at and indeed watch land but something seems off with it - frankly too many are crashing. While I dont have numbers to hand would 1 crash a year seem there or there abouts right ? Thats an appauling record. Great looking aircraft yes and a dream to fly in reasonable weather no doubt, but the record speaks for itself.

Chas5

29th Jul 2010, 10:04

MD-11 Statistics
Hull-loss Accidents: 8 with a total of 240 fatalities

Other occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities

Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities

Criminal occurences (hull-loss, excl. hijackings): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities

Hijackings: 0 with a total of 0 fatalities

Survival rate for all fatal accidents: on average 56.8% of all occupants survived fatal accidents
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index > MD-11 > MD-11 Statistics (http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type-stat.php?type=353)

200 hulls delivered
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-11#Safety_issues)

TonyW

29th Jul 2010, 11:05

Interesting to note that no one has raised the CAC (centre avionics compartment). Perhaps a fire could have started here with the batteries and spread from there?

lomapaseo

29th Jul 2010, 11:48

Is there any confirmation of an in-flight cargo fire or are we still speculating?

StainesFS

29th Jul 2010, 12:08

Ireland105

Re your post #89, let me paint that picture. Page 21 of Boeing's "Statistical Summary of Commercial Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations 1959-2009" shows a bar chart comparing the hull loss accident rate per million departures. For the 4 aeroplanes you mention, the figures are as follows:

MD11 3.42
A340 0.95
A330 0.27
B777 0.21.

SFS

Neptunus Rex

29th Jul 2010, 13:53

The Airbus A 340 figure is somewhat misleading. Of the five hull losses, only two were in passenger service, both involved runway overruns.
Of the other three, one was blown up by terrorists and the other two were damaged beyond repair by ground engineering errors.
There were no fatalities involved in any of the accidents.

sunny11410

29th Jul 2010, 13:57

According to the latest statements from Lufthansa Cargo and Saudi CAA ( Mr.Chalid al-Chaibari ), there was NO in-flight fire prior landing.
Fire started when A/C went/skidded off runway after extrem hard landing / "impact". Reason is still under investigation.

Ref.: Interview with „Al-Iqtisadiyah“ ( Saudi newspaper )

JW411

29th Jul 2010, 16:05

I actually have read this thread right from the beginning and I have (as usual) really enjoyed the speculative rubbish that has so far been posted.

Just to bring us all up to date;

1. Which one of you out there knows for sure that the crew had a problem before landing? If you do know, then let us know exactly what was said from your reliable source.

2. Having done more DGR courses and lectures in the last 50 years than most of you put together could ever claim to have had hot dinners, exactly who has established that DGR was involved? If you know that for sure, then why don't you tell us and stop us all guessing?

This thread is pprune speculation at its very best.

It seems to me that not one single one of you out there has the slightest idea of what went on in that Lufthansa flight deck and the only conclusion that I can come to is that none of you are worth listening to.

It really is that simple.

hetfield

29th Jul 2010, 16:16

So JW411, what's your conclusion?

JW411

29th Jul 2010, 16:47

I have absolutely no conclusions.

I am happy to wait until we have some FACTS.

subsonicsubic

29th Jul 2010, 17:03

Look,

There have been a number of speculators regarding this mishap. That is the nature of PPrune. If you don't like it; don't read and certainly don't post!

Based on evidence, I believe that there are some handling issues with the MD 11. I share this view with a number of my flying collegues.

Now some of them do actually fly the bird...and eager to glean info from any source.

If you don't want to learn, are not interested ...then :mad: up! I don't fly the 11 but I'm eager to discuss its approach and landing folibles.

Go away and let us get on with it...****

Apucutout

29th Jul 2010, 17:16

I think JW411 has a good point. And, there's nothing wrong with discussing handling qualities of any airliner, Subsonicsubic. But as in any other accident - back it up with facts please. This is called a PROFESSIONAL rumor network ;)

ApuC.

cirr737

29th Jul 2010, 17:18

Update on avherald

CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri said on Jul 29th the captain and first officer are in good health with very minor injuries. Emergency services reached the aircraft within 35 seconds after touch down using half of their agents within 3 minutes thus efficiently confining the fire to the cargo hold.

"The Economic", a Saudi Arabian newspaper in Arabic, cites CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri to have said on Jul 29th, that according to preliminary investigation results there was no fire before touch down. The airplane touched down very hard and veered to the left, the airplane subsequently burst into flames. The Aviation Herald was unable so far to confirm this statement with Saudi Arabia's CAA or otherwise independently verify that statement.

Officials of Riyadh Airport said on Jul 29th, that the crew reported a cargo fire while on approach, emergency services immediately deployed and observed the airplane arrive in thick black smoke before the airplane touched down on the runway..

Yeah... right... 35 seconds - without being prepared due to a prior mayday call - some things don't fit together here...

q100

29th Jul 2010, 18:03

Not only did they get there in 35 secs, but they "confined the fire to the cargo hold."

Leaving aside the obvious photo evidence that the fire did at the very least put a large hole in the top of the fuselage, the wording above seems to imply pretty strongly that the cargo hold is where the fire started.

My systems knowledge ain't 100% what it probably should be, but I'm pretty sure there are no fuel lines inside the MD11 cargo hold that could rupture (I believe the connectors between the L/R halves of #2 tank pass through the aux tank area, but not certain). Going the other way, however, if a fire was burning in the Center Compartment and was only being surpressed (ie. Li batteries) and somehow broke through the bulkhead into the Center Gear area all 3 hydraulic systems would be in jeopardy. And a fire in the Forward Compartment that burned into the CAC would have some very unpleasant effects on electrics, automation and flight controls. Not saying either of these scenarios happened - I personally suspect an onboard fire leading the crew to just get it on the ground regardless, but I'm no investigator and I do not actually know what happened, so...

I'll wait for official results, but I'm not about to join in the howling chorus for grounding the 11 (which if one actually studies it had an awesome safety record from 2000 to 2008, and over its life a total of catastrophic three hull losses which might be attributable to the design itself - more likely two considering Mandarin landed in a tropical storm in a far-from-stable approach...). But I'll hop off my soapbox and let those of you who prefer to rant without facts take over...

Q

GarageYears

29th Jul 2010, 18:16

But as in any other accident - back it up with facts please. This is called a PROFESSIONAL rumor network

Look, that might make sense in your mind, but if you back something up with facts, then by default it's not a rumor - is it? :ugh:

Anything else is just shades of gray, and consequentially in my book any one opinion is worth the same as any other.

Just because you see the word "professional" in the name doesn't infer any more accuracy, truthfulness or what-have-you.

Basically this board is just like any other on the internet - anyone can have at it. It's up to you as a reader, to either ignore, respond, or tut-tut yourself to sleep or whatever. Personally I find a nice glass of Merlot makes the read here less problematical. Trouble is it's only just gone 14:00 here....

- GY ;)

cirr737

29th Jul 2010, 18:28

patrickal

29th Jul 2010, 19:18

Yeah... right... 35 seconds - without being prepared due to a prior mayday call - some things don't fit together here...

Given the MD11's landing record, perhaps the emergency services crew here roll out at every MD11 arrival. :) (just looking to see how many fires I can start)

Diesel_10

30th Jul 2010, 09:16

q100 - same as a Ten. The No.2 and APU shared fuel line runs L/H fuselage inside pressurised area lower aft/centre cargo pits. If they do leak/break they are protected in a 20 gauge shroud tube vented to outside in two places. Just the sidewalls separate this from the upper deck compartment. On that piece of knowledge I'd say fire first, fuel contributed (much) later.

Disclaimer - if indeed de dah de dah de dah.........................:oh:

Evanelpus

30th Jul 2010, 10:02

Something just crossed my mind due to the conflicting reports - wildest speculation , I know - but maybe the Saudis would like to make this up as a landing accident because there was "some special cargo" on board which went pooof...

Unbelievable, it took until #104 to get the first conspiracy theorist onboard, well done sir for waiting so long to take the bait.

Less Hair

30th Jul 2010, 11:39

Latest I heard is no fire/emergency call ahead of landing.

q100

30th Jul 2010, 13:11

Thanks Diesel - I learned something today!

Wonder what happened. Guess we'll find out in due time (or overdue time if the Saudi investigators move at the same pace the Japanese & Chinese ones seem to be)

jetopa

30th Jul 2010, 14:05

CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri said on Jul 29th the captain and first officer are in good health with very minor injuries. Emergency services reached the aircraft within 35 seconds after touch down using half of their agents within 3 minutes thus efficiently confining the fire to the cargo hold.

I doubt it very much that Fire and Rescue Services in RUH will be able to deploy and be at the site within 35 seconds - unless they already have been waiting there! :=

Just look at the the way they handled the B737 in April, where the crew declared an emergency right after takeoff and desperately and repeatedly was asking for vectors back to the field. Once they made it safely on the ground, nobody in Riyadh seemed to be in a rush...

My point? They must have known that this incoming airplane was in some sort of trouble.

cirr737

30th Jul 2010, 14:17

Unbelievable, it took until #104 to get the first conspiracy theorist onboard, well done sir for waiting so long to take the bait.

Alright sir, I might consider use of the <irony>-tag next time ,)

Regarding the 35 seconds I agree with jetopa - When the AF crashed in Toronto back in 2005 response time was 52 seconds - and the Canadians were bragging for years about that exceptional time...

finncapt

30th Jul 2010, 14:26

q100

I think you may be slightly unfair to the Saudi CAA.

I was involved in a serious airmiss over their airspace some years ago and the investigation was handled in a very efficient and expeditious way.

q100

30th Jul 2010, 14:31

finn,

Not knocking the Saudis (although having spent quite a bit of time there it sure is tempting). More a comment on how long it's taking us MD11 drivers to find out what went wrong last year in Narita & Shanghai, so that perhaps if there are things we need to know we can avoid sharing the fates of those crews.

Q

Ex Cargo Clown

30th Jul 2010, 15:23

I would be utterly astonished if this is a DG event. Lufty are pretty good with their loading and DG checking fromIt's what I have witnessed.

It's also very hard to get CAO DG to burn in proper UN spec containers, so was it a hard landing, underpacked DG or undeclared DG?

marsipulami

30th Jul 2010, 17:18

Have experienced many things so far. Scalding stuff, cacao for instance can be very nasty, underpacked DG, similar. Or DG loaded in the wrong place i.e. underneath tonnes of general cargo.
Undeclared DG, only became evident after the paint (luckily) started leaking and was caught in time.

No doubt LH is damn good in cargo handling, the a/c came from FRA.
Nevertheless, the holes in the cheese may line up one day and fact is that the crew did the right thing.

jumpseater

30th Jul 2010, 19:12

Yeah... right... 35 seconds - without being prepared due to a prior mayday call - some things don't fit together here...

Unless a fire crew/s was out on the airfield at the time, on routine duties, e.g. training, hydrant checking, posing for calenders etc, and happened to be pretty close to the accident by sheer luck.

chase888

30th Jul 2010, 22:51

Aviation Week have an article regarding this accident.
LH state there was no fire.
Interesting speculation towards the end of the article about the future of MD11 as a member of the LH family.
Can anyone comment on whether cargo carried in MD11's attracts any insurance surcharge?
For my speculation, if MD11 were to be withdrawn, could we see LH converting their 748I order to 748F?

SMT Member

30th Jul 2010, 23:41

Chase,

As long as LH doesn't know if the Nimby's manage to place a ban on operations in FRA between 00:00 and 05:00, I don't suspect LCAG will order much of anything. If the Nimby's loose, as I suspect we all hope they do, my money would be on the 777F instead of the 747-8F. It's the natural successor to the MD-11F, and LH left the outsize cargo business quite a few years ago, finding the MD-11F and loads no bigger than what a 20ft pallet will hold being a more cost effective proposition.

DownIn3Green

31st Jul 2010, 03:09

:ok:RE: Riyadh Emergency response teams and their time to respond...Back in 1998 I was flying a VIP B-727...Mutt knows who for...We departed Riyadh for Beiruit to pick up the principal, and then take him and his party to Tunis...

Fuel being cheaper in Saudi than other places (go figure???) we fuelled for both legs...

Immediately after "Positive Rate, Gear Up", and I do mean immediately, the Cabin Chief, whom I had flown with in VIP Ops for yrs., came up front and informed us that the cabin was full of "smoke"...

The F/O was flying, I turned and looked, and I couldn't see more than 10' back into the lounge...

I donned my mask and smoke goggles, instructed the crew to do the same, took control of the A/C and ordered the F/E (also a long-time crewmember with me) to start dumping fuel...

We weighed, well let's just say we were an empty B-727 100 with 75,000 lbs of fuel on board...In any case our max landing weight was 142,500 and I wanted to get it as close as possible, but with no thought of climbing and going into holding to get down to weight...(remember Valujet?)

We didn't know where the smoke was coming from but it was acrid...We had departed to the south from the left side...I elected to keep the flaps at 15 and hold 160 -180, with 160 kts being our min threshold target with flaps 30..

(the 727 will fly at 160 with 15 flaps downhill regardless of the weight.)

I told the F/O to declare an EMERGENCY, as the Saudi Controllers understand that, and that we wanted the equipment, we were going to remain in right traffic and land on the right side...

As it turns out I cut it too close and didn't compensate for the weight of the A/C...When we rolled out on final, we ende up aligned with the left side, (my fault) and informed the controllers that's the runway we were going to end up on...

I observed the Saudi Rescue Crews, who were in place for our arrival on the right side, race to the left side (by the Gen Av Ramp)...

We landed, evacuated, and they were there...total time of this event was 7 minutes tops, from declaring the emergency to brakes set, and the CFR response was outstanding...

The 3 F/A's didn't don their Abayas and nothing was said...

Turns out the smoke was coming out of the venliation system via the gasper fan...An electrical harness had shorted out, the rubber coating was melting, and the resulting smoke was pumped into the cabin by the gasper fan...

The point of my post is to say that from the time we told ATC of our intentions, Riyadh CFR was on the way...VERY WELL HANDLED by Riyadh, in my opinion...

Old Engineer

31st Jul 2010, 04:39

Early in the war, my father was Post Engineer and Fire Marshall at Sheppard Field. One Saturday he had taken me to his office on the apron, not far from the runway threshold, west end. There was a firehouse just off the runway, south side. The tower was somewhere nearby on the far side of the runway. I was five, at most just six.

Pilots trained here in a number of aircraft. The landing procedure was that a flight of 4 or 5 would make a "downwind" pass near the tower at low elevation, and then peel off left at intervals into a 180 to land, coming back past the firehouse. I said downwind pass, but I never saw them use the runway in the other direction, so a lot of the landings may have been downwind, if not most.

This day would involve a Thunderbolt. Radios were in short supply and the training P-47s did not have them. I assume the close tower pass let the tower check for gear down or other trouble. My father and I had just left his office to head for home. We hadn't gotten 100 feet down the apron when the firehouse siren went off, the doors went up, and a large fire truck-- large even by today's standards-- rolled out all in one motion. He crossed to the far side of the runway and turned right and raced at full speed down the runway.

At the same time my father veered from the exit and headed up toward the firehouse and himself turned down the near side of the runway and floored the gas. I had the good sense to stand up on the front edge of the seat and get a good grip on the top of the windshield. Well, it isn't like there was anything else to hang onto in that jeep-- no radio in it either. We went down the runway at 60 flat out and didn't catch the fire truck.

I just don't remember exactly when the Thunderbolt entered the picture. We could not have outrun it from an even start. The fire truck had to have crossed the runway ahead of the aircraft, considering the distance it slid, and the speed at which it did so-- it was an extremely heavy fighter for its day. Gear failure to lower, obviously. No time to foam the runway, if they even had the capability then. All I remember for sure is that we all three went down the runway more or less in a small group. The fire truck and the P-47 ground to a halt together, and we were 5 or 10 seconds behind, about 30 feet to one side, and the fire truck about the same on the other.

Having to write this down, I realize now that the fire truck had to position itself on the upwind side of the aircraft. There must have been a telephone line from the tower, and the fire crew must have known they had to cross the runway before the P-47 reached its turning point and returned, and known exactly how much time they had to do this.

When we got there, the pilot was already out of the cockpit and standing up on the fuselage. There wasn't anyway he could get off of it, because just like that the plane was already surrounded by a burning pool of fuel. And on that plane, you are a long way up on the top of it.

One of the fire crew was already in his reflective aluminum foil suit, put on his helmet and walked toward the burning fuel with a foam hand line. He knocked the fire down on that side in short order, maybe 15 seconds. A couple of the fire crew came over with a ladder and got the pilot off. The fire was still burning on our side. I remember it had a four-bladed propeller, and all the tips were bent back. It had yawed about 20 degrees to the right, but slid fairly straight. The rescue looked effortless-- I'm sure that seconds mattered, though.

Years later, after my father had died, I found a letter from a general commending him. It seemed it was my father who had devised this procedure, to deal with what had become a considerable problem. So yes, I don't see a 35-second response as being something that just isn't possible.

Anyway, one of my father's last airport jobs involved the design and construction of the airbase at Dhahran in the Saudi. He was Chief of the Design Division in Tripoli, and the design reviews and resolution of construction problems at Dhahran were handled by his office. It is possible the Saudis learned from him where the firehouses should be placed and why --it would have been within his authority to set that detail up just as he thought it should be done. I assume Riyadh would have copied such details.

OE

411A

31st Jul 2010, 04:44

It is possible the Saudis learned from him where the firehouses should be placed and why ...

I expect so, as the firehouse at the old Dhahran airport (runway 34L, anyway) was midfield, just off the parallel taxiway.
Manned 24/7, as I recall.

GlueBall

31st Jul 2010, 17:39

German media reports cause of crash as hard landing, followed by damaged gear, which caused the airplane to veer off the pavement, then catch fire. :{

Fehler bei Landung Ursache für Absturz von Frachtflugzeug in Riad
Der Absturz eines Frachtflugzeugs der Lufthansa auf dem Flughafen der saudiarabischen Hauptstadt Riad ist offenbar auf einen Fehler bei der Landung zurückzuführen. Die Maschine sei bei der Landung auf der Rollbahn aufgeprallt, wodurch das Fahrgestell zerstört worden sei, erklärte der Sicherheitschef der saudiarabischen Luftfahrtbehörde, Abel Rahman Buchari, am Samstag in Dschiddah. Daraufhin sei die Maschine ins Rutschen geraten und von der Landebahn abgekommen. "Der Aufprall hat in der Maschine einen Brand ausgelöst", hieß es weiter unter Berufung auf erste Ermittlungsergebnisse. Endgültige Klarheit solle die Auswertung der beiden Flugdatenschreiber bringen, die inzwischen gefunden worden seien.

wingview

31st Jul 2010, 19:05

I can hardly believe that a hard landing was the reason it caught fire. The wing (area) looks clear of fire marks and I doubt it that there was (still) fuel in the centre tanks, even when it was fueled for the next trip to SHJ.

The media I believe even less. Still a lot of questions.

wozzo

31st Jul 2010, 19:42

The media I believe even less.

You will have to extend the disbelief to the Saudi investigators, as they are being quoted in the news:

"When landing at King Khaled International Airport, the aircraft struck the runway which destroyed the undercarriage and caused it to slide off the track," the head of Saudi Arabia's civil aviation security said in a statement.
"The impact caused a fire in the aircraft," Abel Rahman Bukhari said based on the preliminary results of the investigation into Tuesday's accident involving the German carrier.

AFP: Bad landing caused Lufthansa plane crash: Saudi (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gHfsD0Z7jif3n1iTOmLSMyr7wgIg)

tubby linton

31st Jul 2010, 19:58

The photographs on the avherald appear to show both main gears and wings still attached unlike previous MD-11 hard landing accidents.

2csonTriple7

31st Jul 2010, 22:55

Looks like the widow maker strikes again.
At least the crew didn't get a "Wing Off" warning light........

http://http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article93566.ece (http://http//arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article93566.ece)
Lufthansa plane's 'hard landing caused fire'
By GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN | ARAB NEWS Published: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 Updated: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 RIYADH: Preliminary investigations into Tuesday's crash of a Lufthansa cargo plane have contradicted earlier reports that linked the accident to a "midair fire" on board the aircraft. The statement released by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) on Saturday said that a "heavy hit on the surface of the runway caused the crash that led to a fire and billowing smoke all around" immediately after landing. The plane's black box recorder has been recovered and is being analyzed, according to GACA spokesman Khaled Al-Khaibari. The report said the plane's hard landing occurred at 11:38 a.m. at Riyadh's King Khaled International Airport as it arrived from Frankfurt on the first stop of a run that would have continued to Sharjah and Hong Kong. According to airline sources, there were no hints of a malfunction, or even of on-board fire prior to landing. The results of GACA's investigation also contradict earlier reports attributed to Saudi air traffic control officials who said that the crew had declared an emergency just before touchdown. In fact, an alert was declared and all necessary support mobilized only after the plane struck the runway and caught fire, according to the initial investigations. "The international investigating officers in cooperation with Saudi officials are still gathering information from the crash site," said the GACA statement. Investigators have learned that the plane's landing gear remained intact after the crash, but the front gear was destroyed, causing the plane's nose to impact the ground. Damage to the rear fuselage and the type of injuries sustained by the pilots are seen as indicators of a violent impact. "Metal scratching along the runway could be identified as an ignition source (to the ensuing fire)," said an airline official on the condition of anonymity. The fire destroyed much of the upper-half of the plane and the estimated 80 tons of cargo, the official added. The official said investigators are still trying to figure out if the hard landing was the result of some kind of emergency that caused the pilots to attempt to land as quickly as possible or whether the accident occurred during a normal landing procedure gone awry. The pilots' account of what transpired before the accident have yet to be revealed publicly.

Flight Safety

1st Aug 2010, 13:58

I'm not one who believes in conspiracies, except those supported by a substantial and confirmed set of facts. However this disagreement about whether an in-flight fire occurred prior to landing is rather puzzling. This link from AVHerald regarding this accident, contains a list of quotes with dates from the various authorities involved in the investigation.

Accident: Lufthansa MD11 at Riyadh on Jul 27th 2010, cargo fire, broke up on landing (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=42edca16&opt=7168)

I know it always takes time to sort out the facts related to an accident, it's just that this one looks a little odd, given the sources of some of the statements. In particular, I think the Riyadh airport authorities would know if an in-flight fire and emergency was declared, and if they dispatched fire crews before the aircraft landed. They also reported the aircraft trailing smoke as it can in for a landing. They also persisted with this set of facts thru Jul 29th, but no further comment from them (at least as reported on AVHerald) since then. Very interesting. The pilots are also quoted as saying they reported an in-flight fire.

wozzo

1st Aug 2010, 14:08

In the new "Der Spiegel" magazine (31/2010, p. 119), Lufthansa Cargo spokesman Nils Haupt is quoted (translation by me):

"The pilot says, there were no irregularities before the landing"

German:

"Der Pilot sagt, es habe keinerlei Unregelmäßigkeiten vor der Landung gegeben."

Herbie65

2nd Aug 2010, 08:49

An Lufthansa engineer at RUH confirmed that there was no fire on board, nor any emergency before landing.
This also means that there was not any emergency called from the crew to ATC before landing.

Flight Safety

2nd Aug 2010, 14:14

So, let me see if I understand.

For reasons unknown (in fairly benign weather) the aircraft experienced a hard landing resulting in intact main gear but nose gear collapse. This results in front metal fuselage scraping the runway igniting a fire, but of what we don't know yet. This is followed immediately by dispatch of fire rescue who respond in 35 seconds to start work on the fire. However the top of the fuselage is burned out and 80 tons of cargo is destroyed, before the fire brigade can get the fire put out. Fortunately the pilots have time to get out.

Questions: Was the fire internal or external to the aircraft? Pictures of the aircraft suggest the fire was internal, as there appears to be no visible evidence that a fire occured on the outside of the airframe. That said, was there a fuel spill that ignited by the scraping metal nose, resulting in an external fuel fire? Did fuel also spill intermally and catch fire, resulting in an internal fire and loss of the cargo and top of the fuselage? How fast can fire rescue extinguish an external fuel fire, compared to an internal fuel/cargo fire?

Somewhere along the way as more facts become known this will all make sense, but based on what's known so far this doesn't make sense.

RegDep

2nd Aug 2010, 14:47

Are we sure that there WAS no fire on board, and there WERE no irregularities before landing, or have the statements so far said that the pilots had no indication of fire or other problems before landing) Has the reported smoke trail been demerited?

Bahrd

2nd Aug 2010, 15:39

They say so: Crashed MD-11F caught fire after impact: Saudi inquiry (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/02/345645/crashed-md-11f-caught-fire-after-impact-saudi-inquiry.html).

JW411

2nd Aug 2010, 16:00

So now we are back to my post #96 on Page 5 of this saga where I asked:

1. Which one of you knows for a fact that they had a problem before landiing?

2. Which one of you knows for a fact that DGR was involved?

I did point out that not one of you was on the flightdeck at the time and were therefore not really competent to comment.

We are now on Page 7 and not one of you windbags out there who gave us great updates on how your own companies dealt with DGR (as if LH Cargo had never had the benefit of your vast experience) and that the crew actually had a problem before reuniting 'CQ with Mother Earth) reinforces my opinion that pprune should return to being a professional pilots forum and nothing else.

P.S. As a matter of pprune history; I introduced pprune to the word "sciolist" which you will find at the bottom of most pages.

One of the alternative descriptions of the definition of a sciolist (and it is the one that I prefer):

"One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer".
What a bunch of plonkers some of you are.

Ex Cargo Clown

2nd Aug 2010, 17:23

It shouldn't be too hard to work out what started the fire, I'm sure they have looked at the manifest and loadsheet to correspond it to where the fire happened. If there is no RFG/RFL/ROX there then you can pretty much rule out an internally started fire, unless there were undeclared DG, which I very much doubt, but some agents do use the phrase "Consolidation" very liberally :eek:

Neptunus Rex

2nd Aug 2010, 18:04

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism 1709

JW411

2nd Aug 2010, 18:09

I am not the slighest bit important and never have been (unlike you).

I have already retired.

I have had a long and successful career operating aeroplanes.

I only gave up teaching and examining less than two years ago.

If you wish to continue with the talking bullsh*t and speculation merchants then please feel free to continue but it really is incredibly tiresome.

However, I have an open mind and I look forward to the learned inputs that you will undoubtedly make to pprune in the future.

Best Regards,

JW

PS. Just do me one little favour, please don't start reinventing the wheel.

subsonicsubic

2nd Aug 2010, 18:21

JW. I am sure I have much fewer years safely operating aircraft than you. This forum is not completely populated by newshounds however. Judging by you profile, you have forgotten more than I know and I respect that. We are not ALL :mad: however and I only made my comments based on you slightly "off" statement.

Anyway, hopefully back to the thread and no malice intended.

Best,

SSS

411A

2nd Aug 2010, 20:52

Oh goody, now that we're all friends again, all can...carry on regardless.:}:bored:

Maybe, it was a co-pilot landing and he stuffed it up:}, however...it would appear from the photographs (always can be deceptive, of course) that the fire did not originate as claimed by either LH or the GACA.

An agenda on someones behalf...I wonder?:suspect:

Flight Safety

2nd Aug 2010, 23:31

Well, as a local "sciolist" here at Pprune, please allow me to offer an observation.

I'm fairly convinced (subject to change by virtue of better facts) that the fire was internal, based purely on photographic evidence. I notice however that the forward fuselage top does not appear to be damaged. One might speculate (as any good "sciolist" would) that if the sparking metal fuselage was scraping the runway surface where the nose landing gear collapsed, then cargo in the forward fuselage areas could be ignited by said sparking. Given the rapid response of fire rescue and the possible spread of the fire from the forward section to most of the cabin, suggests a very hot and fast spreading fire, sufficient to overwhelm the local fire brigade before they could contain it. However the apparent undamaged forward fuselage top would seem to suggest that such a hot and fast spreading fire could not have originated in the forward fuselage area.

Question, where then did the fire originate?

BTW JW411, you're definition of a "sciolist", "One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer", fits the contributions of many experts here at PPrune, during the early stages of an accident investigation. :)

contractor25

3rd Aug 2010, 12:28

I hate to disappoint the conspiracy artists among yourselves but the Facual NTSB Report states :

On July 27, 2010, at 1139 local time, a Boeing MD-11 equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2
engines, German registration D-ALCQ, operated by Lufthansa Air Cargo as flight 8460, reportedly
caught fire after a hard landing at the King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The flight was a scheduled cargo flight from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. The two pilots were transported to the hospital with injuries, and the airplane was
substantially damaged.

The NTSB has no interest in this other than to establish cause. It will then usually make some safety recommendation or another.
If it were really so that the Saudi's had something to hide, my guess is that this thread wouldn't be here....

Less Hair

3rd Aug 2010, 13:01

"Reportedly" means the NTSB is just telling you what others told them before until they release their own findings.

Flight Safety

3rd Aug 2010, 13:58

Finally saw a photo of the left side of the fuselage, showing external fire damage in the area just behind the LMG, damaging the wing and the fuselage in that area. Lools like maybe a not too large fuel fire in this area from a leak as a result of the hard landing. I guess this spread to the cabin and cargo, or maybe an internal fuel leak occurred as well.

So with more photos to look at, this looks like a hard landing after all, just as the investigators have been saying. :rolleyes: ;)

So what caused the hard landing?

Green Guard

3rd Aug 2010, 14:25

what caused the hard landing...?

one reason could be:

True or false alarm: "Fire in the Cargo Cmprtmnt",

and then like someone previously mentioned, pilots just expected "pooooof"

lomapaseo

3rd Aug 2010, 16:58

Flight Safety

3rd Aug 2010, 17:56

Lomapaseo, I was in major multitasking mode when I first read your post, and your phrase "ground pool fire" went right past me. Not enough brain cells allocated to the task I guess. :)

MPH

3rd Aug 2010, 18:53

Don´t know about the hard landing. But, what´s evident from the photo is that the upper part on the mid-section fuselage is, burned. If, a fire was caused by the nose collapsing and scraping the runway creating sparks to fly aft and igniting leaking fuel, the underside should also be completely burned? If, the hard landing caused the centre tank to rupture and then ignite it would also have the same result?

Doors to Automatic

3rd Aug 2010, 19:18

If this crash was indeed caused by the landing itself rather than a pre-landing emergency then surely it is high time this aircraft's air worthiness certificate was withdrawn.

The aircraft seems to be a flying disaster area!!

lomapaseo

3rd Aug 2010, 19:44

If this crash was indeed caused by the landing itself rather than a pre-landing emergency then surely it is high time this aircraft's air worthiness certificate was withdrawn.

Note the word is AIRworthiness

The standards for rough handling have to end somewhere. Beyond that you take your chances in the outcome.

It's impossible to define all outcomes of a mishandled landing, thus you can not regulate a sucessful outcome. What you do is regulate some capability. Exactly where this plane stands relative to the regulation of abusive use is unknown to me. Thus I can't form an opinion of what certificate is at risk (design, operation, pilot training etc.)

Doors to Automatic

3rd Aug 2010, 19:56

All I would say is that no other plane has flipped over so many times when landing in often benign conditions, especially given how relatively few of the type were ever built.

TheWanderer

3rd Aug 2010, 20:11

NTSB has sent a team of investigators to Riad in order to assist the investigation.

From the NTSB factual report (click to download full version of the report as pdf) (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA10RA079&rpt=fa):
On July 27, 2010, at 1139 local time, a Boeing MD-11 equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2
engines, German registration D-ALCQ, operated by Lufthansa Air Cargo as flight 8460, reportedly
caught fire after a hard landing at the King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The flight was a scheduled cargo flight from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. The two pilots were transported to the hospital with injuries, and the airplane was
substantially damaged.
The accident is being investigated by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) of Saudi
Arabia. All inquiries should be directed to them at:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
General Authority of Civil Aviation
P.O. Box 887
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
+966 (02) 640 5000 Ext. 2337-3368
email: [email protected]
www.gaca.gov.sa (http://www.gaca.gov.sa)
Updated on Jul 30 2010 2:48PM

daikilo

3rd Aug 2010, 20:44

Lompaseo,

I do hope yr post was "tongue in cheek".

Until now, I have understood that acquisition of an airworthiness certificate includes validation of the design and procedures to land and taxi to the parking point at least as often as other similar aircraft with similar pilots in similar conditions.

NG1

3rd Aug 2010, 20:59

According to the NTSB report quoted by TheWanderer the routing was SHJ-RUH? Probably it's not really important for finding out what happened but all other sources mentioned the routing FRA-RUH and onto SHJ. Either they were wrong or there's a mistake in the NTSB report.

411A

3rd Aug 2010, 21:09

Nothing especially wrong with the MD-11F, IF the pilots that fly it follow the book, and use due caution.
These airplanes are nearly always landed at (or near) max landing weight, so....reasonable pilot(s) handling skills are needed, without fail.
In other words...old experienced hands on deck...for the drill.
This lets the new(er) Airboos types...firmly out.

Now, having said all this, the Lufty guys are plenty experienced, so....I still think there was a problem before landing, so what do you think...smoke and/or fire before landing ( possibly), which then needed the airplane on the deck, pronto?

Edit to add, I personally know some Lufty guys, and they are top notch, in every respect.
However, the MD-11 is an unusual airplane (apparently), requiring good basic pilot skills...old fashioned pilot skills, just like in the 'old' days.

We await the investigation, to its conclusion.
Facts...will tell the tale.:ok:

lomapaseo

3rd Aug 2010, 21:58

daikilo

I do hope yr post was "tongue in cheek".

Until now, I have understood that acquisition of an airworthiness certificate includes validation of the design and procedures to land and taxi to the parking point at least as often as other similar aircraft with similar pilots in similar conditions

Your points of course are valid as I hope mine are as well :)

All I try to do is to add balance to the discussions.

Yes it is troubling why so many MD11 end up that way. But we can't always expect to correct it via withdrawing a valid airworthiness certificate as suggested.

The final result of a sucessful outcome to the passengers and crew is also a balance between capabilities in design, operation and airmanship and we need to address the balance before calling for groundings by withdrawing a design certificate.

CargoOne

3rd Aug 2010, 22:18

lomapaseo
Yes it is troubling why so many MD11 end up that way. But we can't always expect to correct it via withdrawing a valid airworthiness certificate as suggested.

What makes it even more troubling is the fact MD11 was operated so far by reasonably reputable carriers only (one can argue about Avient, ok). So is our bet would be no MD11 will survive till 3rd grade/cowboy outfits can afford them, or this type will make a world record on built/loss ratio?

stilton

3rd Aug 2010, 22:29

On the contrary, by its record it is evident there is plenty wrong with the MD11.

Green Guard

3rd Aug 2010, 22:37

So is our bet would be no MD11 will survive till 3rd grade/cowboy outfits can afford them, or this type will make a world record on built/loss ratio?

that bet is just your guess...

P.S.
cowboys were better on the horse then many others who can be compared with today computer educated (auto)pilots

CargoOne

3rd Aug 2010, 23:21

Green Guard

that bet is just your guess...

MD11 is pretty much on the right track. Out of any modern acft types it already holds the top position on hull loss accidents. Out of heavies still on service, it is 3rd after 707 and DC8. Coincidence?

md80fanatic

3rd Aug 2010, 23:54

All I would say is that no other plane has flipped over so many times when landing in often benign conditions, especially given how relatively few of the type were ever built.

One might be led to believe that the periods between 1990-1997 and then 2000-2008 saw all MD-11s grounded, since there were no accidents during these intervals. How did such a dangerous aircraft survive 7-8 straight years (twice) without crashing?

Maybe this plane is just too far beyond the skill level of most of those who currently fly her?

WindSheer

4th Aug 2010, 00:07

There are comments regarding an urgent landing due to inflight fire or similar.
This is all very well, but why would these experienced pilots not flare the machine? Any experienced guy would overcome that sinking feeling when so close to the ground.....without thinking about it!

Think there is a little more to it....or maybe it was just a terrible 'normal' landing.

:uhoh:

CI999

4th Aug 2010, 02:53

it's HIGH bounce and hard landing...., that's what it is....

Shore Guy

4th Aug 2010, 04:04

A bit of thread drift here, but has anyone heard anything substantive on FedEx Tokyo?

I cannot remember an accident where so little information has been released so long after the accident.

rh200

4th Aug 2010, 07:53

I'm most likely speaking out of turn here, this isn't the first aircraft to be called fundamently unsafe by people. The aircraft either meets certification criteria or it doesn't.

If it does, then maybe that criteria needs to be revisited, or a look at the common human factors involved. I seem to remember the same witch hunt on about the little MU2, sorry not in the same league as the MD11. But from the little I understand it had a big improvement in its accident rate after a lot of retraining and understanding.

Flight Safety

4th Aug 2010, 12:51

An airplane that passes certification but requires above average pilot skills to fly, is potentially dangerous in the hands of an average pilot. Is the MD-11 one of these aircraft?

Have you heard the one about aeronautical engineers and bad airplane designs? How many aeronautical engineers does it take to correct a bad airplane design? Answer: None, they turn the job over to the pilot trainers instead.

Green Guard

4th Aug 2010, 15:46

ha ha ha ha
very funny even for an avarage one

JW411

4th Aug 2010, 16:19

"An airplane that passes certification but requires above average pilot skills to fly, is potentially dangerous in the hands of an average pilot".

Another way of looking at it might be that a general reduction in pilot skills has happened since the aircraft was designed and certificated?

411A

4th Aug 2010, 18:55

Another way of looking at it might be that a general reduction in pilot skills has happened since the aircraft was designed and certificated?
Absolutely NO doubt about it.

wozzo

4th Aug 2010, 19:18

Absolutely NO doubt about it.

So, only pilots who got their ATP before January 1990 will be allowed to fly the beast. Problem solved.

Huck

4th Aug 2010, 20:57

There are a few factors to consider in what causes MD11 crashes, but here's one that links up to 411A's point: MCDonnell taught maximum use of automation in that jet. This was therefore adopted by most carriers in their training programs.

I have flown with 5000 hour MD11 pilots who click off the autopilot at 1000' on final, and never turn off the autothrottles. And get very uncomfortable when I do. This is all a result of the "automation pyramid" that is in everybody's manuals.

If I were king I'd defer all the A/T's and mandate hand-flown approaches in visual conditions.

It's hard to play piano well when you practice 3 minutes a month.....

413X3

4th Aug 2010, 21:02

I have learned one thing from this site, old timers are extremely arrogant. If only the crash rates of the past were better than today would they have a case when trying to say how perfect their flying skills are compared to the new automation generation

henra

4th Aug 2010, 21:29

@413X3 (http://www.pprune.org/members/223663-413x3) :
You take the words out of my mouth !
This glorification of the past seems to be ingrained in human nature.
As in most other cases also in this case reality rather implies the opposite.

Yes the manual hand flying skills probably have degraded to some extent. But the safety of the overall system : Plane - Pilot - Airport Equipment is so much better than it was in the good old days.
And even the distribution of the accident causes hasn't changed that much since the days of the propliners.

Frenk Boreman

4th Aug 2010, 21:35

I have several thousands of MD-11 hours and all this talk of the aircraft needing an above average pilot to fly is pure nonsense. This aircraft has its unique characteristics, higher landing speeds, smaller tailplane etc....well, an average pilot adapts. If one transitions from DC-10 to the MD-11, you will understand the differnt handling characteristics and handling qualities. You adapt to that and learn to " feel " how the aircraft behaves on final approach, then prepare to adapt to its handling qualities. On hot, humid days on a high elevation airfield one has to really " feel " the aircraft and be prepared for high sink rates. Trying to fly the MD-11 like any of your previous aircrafts will be inviting disaster... it does not need an above average pilot, it needs an MD-11 pilot!

The same thing when I hear of people likening a B77 to a souped up B767...it is not, the high lift wing and triple bogey undercarriage presents different handling characteristics in strong gusty crosswinds on hot and humid days. Guys, know your aircraft. I knew mine and I survived. I am an average pilot and had my share of crunchers...but I survived.

daikilo

4th Aug 2010, 21:40

Respect pls to "oldtimers".

What are the statistics for "oldtimers" v. "non-oldtimers" who have crashed large aircraft produced since say 1990?

Arrogance is a known danger to continued flight, and to all that surrounds it, and I suggest it rarely concerns "oldtimers".

The fundamental problem with arrogance is that it tends to kill the responsible, and others. I suggest most "oldtimers" have survived because thay have assimilated this.

Semaphore Sam

4th Aug 2010, 22:14

Why speculate? Wouldn't it be relatively easy to get the data? Relative ages and experience of the Captains and F/O's who operated flipped flights...and which seat was making the landing. If it were age/experience related, wouldn't such accidents be spread over all other fleets as well?

Another question. Is there such a thing as an 'UN-Airworthy Certificate'?

PEI_3721

4th Aug 2010, 22:49

Aircraft handling qualities can range from marginal to exceptional and still allow type certification. If after a period in service the aircraft is judged too marginal – may be weather or skill related, etc, then the type certificate / modifications can be considered.
The MD 11 has reduced longitudinal stability compared with conventional aircraft and uses a relatively small horizontal tail. It is (or has been) prone to pilot induced oscillations during the final approach and landing.
IIRC the MD 11 flight control system has been subject to at least one Airworthiness Directive requiring modifications.
Then consider the gear/wing structural design !

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

Spooky 2

4th Aug 2010, 22:52

Not beating up on any one particular age group but if we did an age analyses of the all the crews that have been involved in MD11 "accidents" I think we would find them to be comparitively young by traditional airline standards. I have no clue what the implications of this might be other than there are a lot of young pilots getting to fly this aircraft today where as in the past it was at the top of the seniority list for most operators.

Smilin_Ed

4th Aug 2010, 23:04

Does anyone know the relative ages of cargo service pilots vs. those in passenger service?

cringe

4th Aug 2010, 23:23

The following is from the official accident reports.

Fedex N611FE at EWR (1997):
Captain: 46 y/o, 11,000 hrs total time (1,253 on type, 318 as pilot-in-command)
F/O: 39, 3,703 (95)

China Airlines B-150 at HKG (1999):
Captain: 57, 17,900 (3,260, 2,300)
F/O: 36, 4,630 (2,780)

Flightmech

4th Aug 2010, 23:59

Not all MD-11 crashes have ended up on their back though? As far as i can remember there have been 3.

1. FedEx N611FE in EWR
2. China 642/Mandarin in HKG (landing in a typhoon and maybe shouldn't have been) and
3. FedEx N526FE in NRT.

That's 3 since service introduction. Is that "excessive" in the terms of becoming an aircraft "habit"?

bud leon

5th Aug 2010, 00:13

Some thoughts regarding the fire (I am an ex firefighter with post graduate studies in fire and explosion science).

This is speculation of course because fire behaviour can be difficult to determine from a few photos. But it seems to me that there may have been a relatively confined fire around the area where the wing connects to the fuselage which migrated upwards into the interior of the aircraft through opened up access areas. If there was ever an external pool fire it was relatively small and located between the undercarriages. I don't see much evidence of a large pool fire. A small pool fire may have been extinguished quickly by the firefighters. The fire was localised in intensity breaking thorugh the upper skin in the area of origination first but also migrating through the fuselage fore and aft before breaking through the upper skin areas there with remaining hot spots fore and aft. The larger burnt area at the rear can probably be atttributed to wind direction.

Hope this helps.

Zeffy

5th Aug 2010, 00:18

It's hard to play piano well when you practice 3 minutes a month.....

Agree wholeheartedly.

But when the aspects/pressures of RVSM, RNP-X and RNP-0.XX are considered, is this trend (if indeed it is a trend) surprising?

Especially in long haul ops?

denkraai

5th Aug 2010, 00:31

The number 2 thrust reverser is not deployed, 1 and 3 are. This could indicate a nose gear collapse early in the landing phase, since thrust reverse on engine 2 is only possible after nose gear strut compression ( air/ground sense).

Green Guard

5th Aug 2010, 01:30

2) Especially now that this has happened to Lufthansa, an airline with one on the highest training standards in the industry, shouldn't that underscore that it has perhaps little to do with pilot handling and perhaps more with 'a general reduction in aircraft designing skills' () of McDonnell Douglas?

LH pilot handling ??
Really?

Did we forget that B747 stall soon after T/O in Joburg or nearby
and last year or so,touch down on one wing in Bremen or nearby ?

maybe more pls remind me now...

Graybeard

5th Aug 2010, 03:33

We'll know whether the MD-11 is defective if/when Fedex does a major mod or sells them.

GB

Gretchenfrage

5th Aug 2010, 05:03

Lufthansa, an airline with one on the highest training standards in the industry

Well, a lot of freightdogs at LH originate from a regional subsidiary, with quite young captains transited from CRJ direct to the maddog (was a union and merger mess-up, like many others). The MD11 skipper was only 39, hardly where regularly trained LH skippers stand on the mainline.

So much about brushing a brand over what's not. Training and selection has eroded dramatically, even at LH, AF etc. The maddog simply is the most demanding airliner today and logically shows us first that there is a lingering disease.

Brace

JW411

5th Aug 2010, 07:43

"The No.2 thrust reverser does not appear to be deployed"

I have never flown the MD-11 but I have a fair amount of experience on the DC-10.

We tended not to use reverse on the No.2 engine unless we really needed it. Why? Simply because if it stuck in reverse it was an absolute b*gger to get up there to hand crank the reverser closed again.

Perhaps there is a similar philosophy on the MD-11?

CptRegionalJet

5th Aug 2010, 07:45

Gretchenfrage,
better get your facts straight before posting such nonsense.
Like studi said no LCAG Cpt is a direct entry from a regional arm.
While many FO`s originate from CLH most of them move on to mainline after 5 years at LCAG.
To become skipper on the MD11 currently requires around 12-13 years of LH-mainline seniority.
By the way,there is no better way to learn how to land a plane then flying regional with 3-5 legs average a day.Selection,training standards and operating procedures are also almost similar to the parent company.
Training might be a factor here,but the MD11 type rating counts as one of the thoughest within LH....

Flight Safety

5th Aug 2010, 08:26

If you start from WWII and move forward, there's basically been 2 generations of professional aviators. The first generation relied on flying skills to attain the highest levels of safety that their equipment would allow. The second now relies on automation to achieve higher levels of safety. If even higher levels of safety are to be achieved in the future, a third generation of pilots has to combine the skills of the 1st and 2nd generations, and add analytical skills not too common in either of the prior generations.

Automation has clearly improved aviation safety and the statistics show this. It's remarkable that the 1st generation achieved what they did without most of the wizardry of today's aircraft. The failure of the 2nd generation is a general disregard of the basic flying skills and aerodynamic skills of the 1st generation, and a general lack of systems analyst skills. Both failures get the 2nd generation into trouble when the automation fails them, and holds back their potential safety achievements.

The 3rd generation needs to understand sound aerodynamic principles to augment a sound set of basic flying skills, to properly understand the aerodynamic strengths and weaknesses of his aircraft type. The 3rd generation not only needs to understand the automation systems, but also needs sounds systems analyst skills to understand the automation system's strengths and weaknesses. In other words the 3rd generation must know their aircraft type and its systems inside and out.

I love the post of Frenk Boreman, who had a successful career on a troubled type because he practiced "know your aircraft". I can't think of any profession that possesses a greater demand for rigorous honesty than aviation. You have to be honest about yourself and your skills, and you have to be honest about your airplane. That means keeping both your flying and systems skill up, and keeping up with the issues and problems with your aircraft type. You have to keep up with training issues, accident reports, recurring problems, ADs, tech bulletins, automation software issues, unusual failure modes, etc, etc.

The 3rd generation of professional aviators has to be good at everything to lead the industry to even higher levels of safety. The bean counters for the most part don't understand this, but there are ways of getting and maintaining the skills and knowledge you need.

sprocky_ger

5th Aug 2010, 09:04

and last year or so,touch down on one wing in Bremen or nearby ?
It was Hamburg actually. LH044 from Munich 1st March 2008. Times go by fast ;)

2009PP

5th Aug 2010, 09:29

@denkraii

In flight direction LEFT, the Number 2 REV is open.

2009PP

5th Aug 2010, 09:36

@JW411:

Perhaps there is a similar philosophy on the MD-11?

No! Nothing like that on LH-Cargo MD-11.
All REVs or none.

Gretchenfrage

5th Aug 2010, 09:53

I admit I might be wrong about direct upgrade CRJ to MD11 as skipper, allthough I still suspect a former friend of mine did just that, but I stand corrected.
At the same time please tell me if a mainline pilot at LH can make it to a WB cockpit as skipper in 12-13 years?? I guess not, thus the carreer onto the freighter is shorter. Short carreers onto a MD11 is a recipe for disaster. I think I have mentioned it before but at the beginning of the MD11 ops mainly senior MD80 or DC10 pilots transited. There was no problem then. As later the new breed from RJ/CRJ and especially A320 pilots joined, the incidents increased above average. Coincidence? You tell me. I believe that you need to have experienced a pitch-power machine with slats and higher approach speeds for quite some time to be fit for the MD11. It's not rocket science, it's simply piloting experience on similar equippment.

The cry for SOP adherence and automation protection to cover up for the lack of quality in todays pilots just goes so far.

NOLAND3

5th Aug 2010, 09:58

AS denkraai has already pointed out, on the MD11 you get 1&3 on main gear compression hovever Rev#2 is not available until nose gear compression to avoid a inadvertent pitch up.

Regards

2009PP

5th Aug 2010, 09:59

What do want to say by that Noland3?

The statement is corret partly, NO2 IDLE REV is avail BEFORE Nose Gear touchdown- have a look at these pics:

Photos: McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM---Royal/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/1716081/&sid=a428c0adfc17b2344e4772284d69e85d)
or this:
Photos: McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/World-Airways/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/1663755/&sid=a428c0adfc17b2344e4772284d69e85d)
or this:
Photos: McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Swissair/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/1639650/&sid=a428c0adfc17b2344e4772284d69e85d)

Enough pics to believe it??? Thanks!!

Number 2 REV is open on the lefthand side on CQ- check the pics!

Klauss

5th Aug 2010, 10:01

The way I see it, Hamburg 2008 was mostly the result of too little info given from Airbus
on the reduction of pilot authority on the controls (!!) near the ground.
Johannesburg: was in the 70ies, was in Nairobi, and the result of a not installed warning
system on missing/incomplete leading edge deployment. Crew exonerated.
Best, klauss

NOLAND3

5th Aug 2010, 10:58

Just dragged out my old FCOM and yes your correct, Idle Rev until nose gear compression

The reverser interlock on engines 1 and 3 is a physical
stop that prohibits further lever movement until the
reverser is safely deployed. For GE, when the reverser
is 60 percent deployed, the ECU removes the interlock,
allowing uninhibited movement of the thrust
levers. For P&W, when the reverser is 87 percent deployed,
the EEC removes the interlock, allowing uninhibited
movement of the thrust levers.
Reverser lever 2 does not have a physical interlock.
The ECU or EEC, however, prohibits thrust increase
beyond idle power on engine 2 until the nose wheel
ground sensing switch has closed and the reverser is
more than 90 percent deployed.

winter959

5th Aug 2010, 14:47

JW411

5th Aug 2010, 16:24

Flight Safety:

I absolutely love your post #191.

It pretty much says it all.

The sad thing is that it will be an immense problem to persuade Generation No.2 to listen and learn from Generation No.1 before developing Generation No.3.

Anyway, well done. Your summary of the situation that we find ourselves in nowadays is spot on. Until those problems are addressed, the accident rate will continue to escalate.

411A

5th Aug 2010, 16:25

Lack of training is a red herring too, since DLH does actually make landing training in the real A/C by flying circuits at the end of the TR. Tell me one airline which does that nowadays on longhaul aircraft.

We do, and have done for quite some time.
Why?
Because I'm the DFO, that's why...and the head shed doesn't complain much, either.

SQ is doing weekly touch and goes at Senai Airport.

Not surprised, circuits were completed (until trained to proficiency) when I was with SQ, for new First Officers....and Captains.

It is the proper way to train, in my view, make NO mistake:E

NB.
It must work out OK for SQ, as they have quite a good safety record, considering their worldwide route structure.

JW411

5th Aug 2010, 16:52

2009PP:

"Perhaps there is a similar philosophy on the MD-11"

"No! Nothing like that on LH-Cargo MD-11. All REVs or none".

Is it a German thing to isolate lateral thinking? I seriously doubt that. Why on earth would you want to put No.2 in reverse if you don't need it?

Let's face it, except for wet runway operations, the use of reverse thrust is not predicated in your performance figures.

You tell me that it is ALL or NONE in LH Cargo. Nothing in between.

Have you ever had to stow a stuck reverser after landing? It involves something like a hexdrive with a winding handle. The wing engines are easy (we, and I use the term "we" - ie: including me - the captain -with some consideration) wound one close at an airfield where we didn't have company support one night.

I suppose that is the difference. If you have LH maintenance available on a worldwide basis with 30 foot cherry pickers on instant standby then you can indeed go for the ALL or NONE scenario.

Which takes me very neatly to the original query;

"No.2 engine reverser does not appear to be deployed".

So; are you really telling us that LH Cargo ALWAYS (that means ALWAYS) go for an ALL or NONE scenario as a matter of SOP? If so, could you please explain to all of us out here why it was that the crew of 'CQ apparently did NOT deploy ALL or NONE contrary to what you tell us?

Even in Germany, SOPs are SOPs.

Ice-O-Bar

5th Aug 2010, 17:18

Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 Crash Raises Issues | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/08/02/AW_08_02_2010_p41-244375.xml&headline=Lufthansa%20Cargo%20MD-11%20Crash%20Raises%20Issues&channel=awst)

2009PP

5th Aug 2010, 21:28

@JW411:

I can't follow your remarks....

SOP is to deploy ALL REVs! You can see at the pics of CQ that the number 2 REV on the lefthand side is open, right? Why the righthand side is closed, I dont know-may be you know?!

SOP is to deploy ALL REVs, except in an ENG FAIL situation- that is all I said- anything wrong with that? I dont think so...

And yes, even on dry runways- you will open all 3 REVs.

BTW, thanks for your statement:" Is it a German thing to isolate lateral thinking?" Of course you are right!:}

Chuck Canuck

6th Aug 2010, 00:24

Quote:
Lack of training is a red herring too, since DLH does actually make landing training in the real A/C by flying circuits at the end of the TR. Tell me one airline which does that nowadays on longhaul aircraft.
We do, and have done for quite some time.
Why?
Because I'm the DFO, that's why...and the head shed doesn't complain much, either.

Quote:
SQ is doing weekly touch and goes at Senai Airport.
Not surprised, circuits were completed (until trained to proficiency) when I was with SQ, for new First Officers....and Captains.

It is the proper way to train, in my view, make NO mistakehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

NB.
It must work out OK for SQ, as they have quite a good safety record, considering their worldwide route structure.

Bravo, 411A....that's the way to it. Nowadays we have these sim instructors and checkers who think the training in the box is the real super thing. They throw stupid statements like, it's a level 6 sim; it replicates everything in the real world. Absolute hogwash, I have trained on different level 6 sims at different outfits and I can tell you that they absolutely do not replicate all the handling qualities and environmental conditions in the real world!

Sunny Boyle

6th Aug 2010, 00:44

Posted by Frenk Boreman
Trying to fly the MD-11 like any of your previous aircrafts will be inviting disaster... it does not need an above average pilot, it needs an MD-11 pilot!

The same thing when I hear of people likening a B77 to a souped up B767...it is not, the high lift wing and triple bogey undercarriage presents different handling characteristics in strong gusty crosswinds on hot and humid days. Guys, know your aircraft. I knew mine and I survived. I am an average pilot and had my share of crunchers...but I survived.

Absolutely right! I have seen guys who think that the B777 is a piece of cake like an big size B737 or B767. 99.99999999999% of the time, the B777 is a dream but. It can bite and when it does, itwill truly shock fellas who did ZFT in the box thinking it is the real thing, like the taste of a coke!

JW411

6th Aug 2010, 07:43

2009PP:

I thank you for your reply. I freely admit that I have not seen a photograph of the No.2 engine reverser apparently open on the left side. If indeed that was the case, then I have absolutely no idea why that should be.

As for LH all or nothing procedures; I happily bow to your superior knowledge.

All is clear!

Volume

6th Aug 2010, 08:03

If No.2 T/R opens on just one side, would this pruce enough yaw due to the interaction with the fin to cause a runway excursion? Anybody ever experienced this type of failure?

Less Hair

6th Aug 2010, 11:33

At airliners.net people claiming to refer to eyewitness reports describe a too high flare with a following hard touchdown and high bounce as the beginning of this accident. After another nose wheel tochdown the nose wheel collapsed. People even claim the crew had initiated a late go around. Take all this with caution.

hetfield

6th Aug 2010, 11:49

@Less Hair

Brings back memories....
YouTube - ‪Fedex crash Tokyo Japan 22 march 2009‬&lrm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEYN4O1FsvE)

Flightmech

6th Aug 2010, 15:31

Volume,

If one one half of the T/R deploys then you get an amber U/L indication in the N1 indicator instead of a green REV. In this situation you would only in effect have reverse idle on that side and as the engine is on aircraft centreline then it would have little or no affect on aircraft yaw.

737forever

6th Aug 2010, 23:25

If I remember correct,someone told me that the vref on the MD11 at max landing weigth is over 170 knots,which means a sinkrate over 850 ft/min on a normal glideslope at sea level.The other interessting thing is that the max landing weight is about 20 percent higher than the DC10-10.How it was certicated on that high weight I don,t know.Because someone must have known about the design weakness regarding landing gear and wing spar carried over from the DC 10.At least after the Faro accident.
A difficult question perhaps,but if the Max landing weight was adjusted down to DC10 standard,would it still be a money maker for the cargo operators?

poina

7th Aug 2010, 09:26

Saudia MD-11, the ones I flew. MLW 218405 Kilo, Vref 162 Vapp 167 at Flap 35, at Flap 50, subtract 5 kts.

Captain-Crunch

7th Aug 2010, 11:53

I would like to tip my hat, to 411a and his admirable real-world training ethics. :ok:

Somebody mentioned over 850 fpm descent required for a three degree glidepath at gross weight. Throw in a ten knot tailwind, and that down rate is closer to 1000 fpm.

As I recall, at 1400 fpm the fuselage cracked in two at Edwards AFB on original hard landing certification tests. That airframe was repaired and delivered to a customer later. It was covered in AW&ST many years ago.

Staying current HAND flying the line gives real-world currency that the "Magic Kingdom" just can't replicate.

But the training "Sim Gods", to a man disagree.

Oh, those brave Men and their Proud Simulators! :rolleyes:

CC

MPH

7th Aug 2010, 12:11

Actualy 222+/- ton LDW is the highest I´ve seen. Descent rate should be normal 700-750 fpm aprox 165-170 IAS. At 50´ft flare and voila, she will kiss the pavement..... with a little ajustment from the pilot !!!

413X3

7th Aug 2010, 18:49

were any of these landing accidents using Auto?

Spooky 2

7th Aug 2010, 19:07

Using auto what? Auto pilot, auto throttles, auto brakes. Come on give us some sort of a hint at the question. Auto covers a lot in the MD11.:}

Sir Richard

7th Aug 2010, 21:43

Auto Know Better:E

DBate

7th Aug 2010, 22:15

were any of these landing accidents using Auto?

Concerning the LH Cargo flight: Probably not. SOP at LH is 'manual flight - manual thrust'.

Green Guard

7th Aug 2010, 23:01

May I ask if anybody can give us here next info:

On all MD11 incidents/accidents (any company)
how many of involved pilots, came from other Douglas aircraft there ?

Another words, were all of them flying MD11,
without any previous experiance on MD80 or even a DC9 ?

:cool:

Squawk7777

8th Aug 2010, 00:13

Did we forget that B747 stall soon after T/O in Joburg or nearby

Source or Reference? Haven't heard anything about it. :confused:

BeechNut

8th Aug 2010, 02:12

No doubt referring to this crash, at Nairobi, and not Jo'burg:

Lufthansa Flight 540 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_540)

The cause of the crash was determined to be a stall caused by the leading edge slats having been left in retracted position.

ZFT

8th Aug 2010, 02:44

That’s inferring an error by the crew. Wasn’t it due to the L/E cb tripping? IIRC the T/O config warning was quickly modified to detect L/E position.

Pinkman

8th Aug 2010, 03:22

First I have heard of a CB actually tripping. Every report I have ever read said that although the L/E flaps were seleceted down, the pneumatic system that powered them wasnt switched on due to the CB not being set, and that the L/E devices were not included in the configuration warning at that time. There is some suggestion that the aural T/O config warning was a MEL item and a recommendation was that it should not be (not that it would have made any difference in this case if the L/E flap setting wasnt included in the warning parameters)

In 1974 the following appeared in Flight International: "Flight has investigated the configuration on a 747 simulator and finds that a combination of pneumatic bleed-valve selections and circuit-breaker malfunctions can produce a situation where the pilots' caption warning shows green, but only four of the eight lights at the
engineer's station agree. The other four lights are extinguished by the faulty circuit-breaker setting"

The regrettable thing was that the same thing had happened the year before to BA (thankfully without incident) who had communicated the incident and several airlines were in the process of ordering mods as a result. After the Nairobi crash there was a debate as to why some operators, but not others, were aware of the issue.

Less Hair

8th Aug 2010, 08:56

LH's captain got cleared after the german investigation back then.

Squawk7777

8th Aug 2010, 10:16

I am not intentionally pointing fingers at individuals, companies or authorities, but lets not forget that the German BFU (equivalent of the UK AAIB or US NTSB) has a high percentage of ex-LH people. :hmm:

Less Hair

8th Aug 2010, 10:21

BFU had been intentionally set up to be a separate institution from LBA (CAA). I'd personally trust them to come to independent conclusions. Just look at their Hamburg incident report.

safelife

8th Aug 2010, 17:40

Hamburg's BFU report was done by an ex Air Berlin Airbus Captain, who was previously quit from Lufthansa by action of their pilot union.

hetfield

8th Aug 2010, 18:59

Hamburg's BFU report was done by an ex Air Berlin Airbus Captain, who was previously quit from Lufthansa by action of their pilot union.

Aha, so what?

wonderbusdriver

8th Aug 2010, 19:33

- No one gets fired from DLH by notion of the pilots´ reps.
(It´s not possible legally, even if they wanted to, which they wouldn´t.
What a load of crock!)

- ALL Revs at least unlocked always is SOP on a non-"non-standard" landing.
Whether that makes sense from a probability/financial ("what if the #2 doesn´t close") view point is a different question, but it sure is not unsafe.

- Manual flight/manual thrust is not a "MUST", but makes sense most (!!) of the time, and that´s how it´s taught.

We´re talking about a "standardized production" with several thousand pilots and several hundred aircraft involved that are to be kept extremely interchangable within rather narrow margins.

Landing loads: 2G, >2G and finally >>2G - make me cringe, but are just facts without further background.

The final report will come frome the DGCA (KSR) in "a year or so", is what´s been told.

MD11F

9th Aug 2010, 12:11

@wonderbusdriver
looks like you have some "insider knowledge":ok:
- ALL Revs at least unlocked always is SOP on a non-"non-standard" landing.
Whether that makes sense from a probability/financial ("what if the #2 doesn´t close") view point is a different question, but it sure is not unsafe.

true, and once Reversers are deployed,there is no more "go around" option
Rgds MD11f

MPH

9th Aug 2010, 13:07

FYI Most landings on the MD11 are done with the A/T engaged.

DBate

9th Aug 2010, 13:49

FYI Most landings on the MD11 are done with the A/T engaged. FYI, most landings on the MD11 at LH Cargo are done with the A/T disengaged, as it is a company recommendation and trained that way (manual landings that is of course). ;)

Huck

9th Aug 2010, 15:06

I click them off, too. Tends to sharpen the focus and give you a better feel for energy state.

But most don't. How's that working out?

Spooky 2

9th Aug 2010, 22:00

It's not the act of clicking the AT's off before touchdown as when you clik them off.....10' or 1,000'? I think the later is a better technique if your going to hand fly and land with the AT's off. Of course with the AT's off your airspeed additives come into play so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'?

Now I happen to know that Huck just checked out in the B777 :D:D:D, so how do you handle this task in the Boeing when they recommend using the AT's through touchdown and if you do it differently from the MD11, why?

Huck

9th Aug 2010, 22:12

Well, when I actually get to fly one, I'll tell you! IOE next week....

I think the 777 AT's are a different animal. No additives? Must work like magic.

The trap at our company is the MD-10. It is the older DC-10 system, and with the lighter weights in the dash 10, you can get your ass in a crack real quick. Recall our MEM crash - light aircraft, stiff crosswind, AT's go to idle at 50' with a full crab in.....

411A

9th Aug 2010, 22:36

Of course with the AT's off your airspeed additives come into play so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'?

Quite easy with some types...you leave the thrust where the the autothrottles put it, closing the taps as needed.
Rocket science, it ain't...at least with Lockheed.

Spooky 2

9th Aug 2010, 23:03

411 get off that TriStar stuff. Damn good airplane and really fun to fly but since there are probably less than a dozen airworthy airplanes left in the world it makes llittle difference to this subject matter.

Huck, as I recall we did not add wind additives to the MD11 if the autothrottles were left on til touchdown. Has something changed?

FrontRunner

10th Aug 2010, 00:08

It's not the act of clicking the AT's off before touchdown as when you clik them off.....10' or 1,000'? ...so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'? Pardon my ignorance (not rated on the MD11) but why on earth would anyone want to click off the A/T just before or during the flare at 50' to 10'? To manually override the A/T (if not behaving as desired) I can understand, but why even bother switching it off? :confused:

Spooky 2

10th Aug 2010, 02:59

I think they call it lazy. :}

bugg smasher

10th Aug 2010, 03:41

The MD-11 AT's reduce power to idle at a specific rad alt, they do not account for the energy state of the aircraft in any way. Nothing to do with lazy, quite the opposite in fact.

Flying a cross-controlled Mad Dog in strong and gusty cross winds close to the ground, as so often happens in Anchorage winter flying, is a very challenging maneuver in this beast. The AT's work against any semblance, mindlessly so, of a smooth landing in said conditions.

My recommendation has always been, and will continue to be, disconnect the AT's somewhere on short final while the engines are at a steady-state spool-up, and carry that thrust to touchdown. Should make up for any loss of energy once cross control in applied.

Always keeping in mind, of course, that the MD-11 with her very high approach speeds, consumes available landing distance at a disconcertingly alarming rate.

Semaphore Sam

10th Aug 2010, 04:02

411A...L-1011 one of the best I ever flew....I love Lockheed, flew 7 years C-141A's, went to airline, flew F/E, F/O, Capt, Sim IP on the wonderful L1011, and loved every minute. A Crewmember's Dream! It was over-engineered (too safe, means too expensive), and much too heavy. The DC-10 was rushed to market, under-engineered (example Souix City, Paris Turkish, and many others), and the MD-11 derivative greatly under flight-controlled, resulting in multiple flip-crashes. Airlines love it. They can absorb financial losses due to crashes and deaths of crew, because of long-term financial pluses of flying under-engineered death traps with small fuel burns, great loads. DROP THE TALK OF THE L-1011. The MD-11 lives, dangerously for crew, financially valuable for airlines, and the Tri-Star is financially DEAD, to my deep chagrin. Sam

PBL

10th Aug 2010, 09:14

The DC-10 was rushed to market, under-engineered (example Souix City, Paris Turkish, and many others)

I have heard this opinion many times. I wonder what it is supposed to mean.

Nobody seems to worry too much about, say, the Boeing 787 being "rushed to market", despite Boeing announcing at the beginning that it was to be a very short development time (which got somewhat stretched, as these things will).

The accident history of the DC-10 may be viewed at, for example, Aviation Safety Network's DC-10 Hull Loss page (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=352%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1). There have been 30 hull losses. There have been nine accidents with significant fatalities:

1974 Turkish Bois d'Ermenonville
1979 AA ORD
1979 Western Air Lines Mexico City
1979 ANZ Mt. Erebus
1982 Spantax Malaga
1989 United Sioux City, IA
1989 Korean Tripoli
1989 UTA Temere Desert
1999 AOM French Guatamala City

Of these, the accidents which had anything to do with engineering are 1974 Turkish, 1979 AA and 1989 United.

1979 Western landed off-centerline with gear in the grass. 1979 Mt. Erebus was a data-entry management thing. 1982 Spantax Malaga was an RTO above V1 (indeed, above V_R). 1989 Korean Tripoli was a crash short, in v. poor visibility without a functioning ILS. 1989 UTA was a bomb. 1999 AOM was a runway overrun on landing. None of these had to do with the airplane engineering.

1974 Turkish was the result of a weakness discovered during certification testing (pressurisation tests) which through very poor regulatory practice was allowed to continue into production aircraft. After the Windsor incident, some bargaining went on to avoid issuance of an AD, and Turkish slipped through the cracks.

All large airplanes have such engineering issues. The Boeing 777 had low-frequency fuselage oscillations which gave aircraft-pilot coupling problems. The Boeing 787 had weaknesses mating wing to wing box. The Boeing 777 had a configuration problem with its fault-tolerance SW for the ADIRUs, which arose in-flight in 2005. And so on. Airplanes are very complex beasts and such things are to be expected. The difference nowadays is the much more rigorous handling on both sides, manufacturer and regulator, of engineering issues which arise during certification, partly as a result of this accident and its history.

1979 AA was largely a result of non-standard and non-approved maintenance practices. There was an airplane issue, in that slat position was not directly shown to the crew. A similar issue arose recently with Boeing 747 aircraft, in which high-lift devices retract automatically upon sensing thrust-reverser unlock, which required a finely executed escape manoeuvre by a BA crew on takeoff out of Johannesburg.

1989 Sioux City is well-known to all as a textbook example of common-cause failure. It could be argued that certification standards (still) do not deal very well with common-cause failure. Another, more recent, common-cause failure issue has arisen with the most venerated of sensors, the pitot tube, first at low altitude in heavy rain with A320-series aircraft; later with apparent ice-particle icing at cruise altitudes in A330/340-series aircraft.

None of this comes anywhere near justifying a judgement of the DC-10 as under-engineered death traps
But it appears almost impossible to shake a reputation derived from one momentous screw-up. Which observation also gives the lie to any suggestion that, for example, airlines can absorb financial losses due to crashes and deaths of crew, because of long-term financial pluses....

PBL

MPH

10th Aug 2010, 10:42

Whether you disengage the A/T for landing (manual) or not is up to the individual. But, MD designed this plane to land with A/T on. It goes to idle at 50´ but, as someone suggested. Yes, if you don’t feel comfortable at 50´manually take over. Now, each company can print their own SOP´s and flight technique´s. That does not alter the original idea that MD had in mind. This A/C was set up to be as fully automated as possible. Whether they (MD) got a perfect package that would be a matter of opinion!!

Spooky 2

10th Aug 2010, 11:21

Bugg Smasher I repsectively disagree with your comments. It is true that the AT's start retarding based upon RA height of 47' as I recall. I assume you would have your hands on the thrust levers and either resist this movement if you were slow. The point is disconnecting the AT's at 50' simply does not put you in the energy loop. If you want them off, disconnect them well above the threshold, like maybe 1000' and fly the airplane to the touchdown.

Does your company use 35 flaps for all landings or do you use 50 most of the time?

Huck

10th Aug 2010, 11:53

Huck, as I recall we did not add wind additives to the MD11 if the autothrottles were left on til touchdown. Has something changed?

We do. No difference vs. handflown.

As far as overriding the autothrottles - that works great until a stiff crosswind, an MD 10 and a small (i.e. female) pilot. Takes two hands on the yoke at that point, and throttles come back on their own.

I guess my main point would be, after 2000 hours in the MD11 at two carriers and in both seats, that it is a plane. It's just a plane. It flies like a plane. I started clicking the A/T's off when I clicked off the A/P and my landings got better. Just like a Cessna - practice makes perfect.

As for the 777, we'll see....

bugg smasher

10th Aug 2010, 13:35

By short final, Spooky, I mean anywhere below 2000' AGL. You are correct, a disconnect at 50' doesn't give the handling pilot enough time to put butt properly in seat, so to speak.

In answer to your question, F35 is SOP around here.

DonLeslie

10th Aug 2010, 15:35

Manual flight - manual thrust. That's the way it is tought throughout Lufthansa.

Just day before yesterday I landet a heavy A340-600 at a fairly small US airport that I happen to know quite well. The approach end of the runway is set in a dip with a ridge and the edge of a forest just before it. In other words, winds can be tricky there. Plus the temperature at our arrival time in the afternoon was 34°C, so the sun had heated the touchdown zone quite a bit. Taking all this into account I added 5 Knots to the Vref in order not to come low on energy.

Overhead the concrete the sinkrate still increased remarkably and I had to yank the side stick back to its mechanical stop to break it. Appearently I did it just in the right splitsecond, because it turned out to be a greaser. It could have turned out very differently, too. Especially if I had used autothrust all the way to touchdown, it might have pulled back the power just that very moment when I needed it most. While I don't think I would have broken off the tail, it would have made a loud bang at least...:}

What I'm saying is: even when you know what's coming, hot and high in a heavy jet is demanding, and that's without A/T playing nasty tricks on you. I'm really glad that these colleagues were able to walk away from their mishap and I wish them all the best. Although everything points to a hard landing right now I do not believe the main contributing factor was lack of skill on their part. They are well trained and do have more short sectors and fewer three man legs than we do on the mainline longhaul.

Regards,
DL

Spooky 2

10th Aug 2010, 16:41

Bug Smasher I see your point. Pilots were always reluctant to use flaps 50 if the 35 would work and of course that helps account for the higher approach speeds your commenting on. I prefered the flaps 50 landings and we encouraged pilots use it when they could but sometimes it's hard to convince a pilot what is good for him in the long run.

Spooky 2

10th Aug 2010, 21:43

That's intersting as we did not include wind additives unless the component was in excess of 20Kts. That was the first airplane I had seen that in having previously flown the DC10 and L10LL. It was sort of un-nerving at first but it seemed to work out without incident at the time. Those additives to Vapp and flaps thirty five would certainly account some of those high approach speeds. Also for the first year or more, we did not use ABS for landings due to some CLG issues that needed to be resolved.

stilton

10th Aug 2010, 22:11

'Overhead the concrete the sinkrate still increased remarkably and I had to yank the side stick back to its mechanical stop to break it.'

I am not, for a moment questioning your technique but I do find it amazing you would have to ever go 'to the stops' with your flight controls.

Is this not that unusual on the Airbus and is it a case of having to put in more input than is really needed to ensure the Aircraft reacts in time after your inputs are 'filtered' through the flight control system ?

safetypee

10th Aug 2010, 23:22

When using auto throttle during manual flight, especially during approach and landing, there may be several pitfalls depending on the aircraft type and auto system.

For example if the aircraft enters the flare (A/T retard phase) slightly steeper or with a higher rate of descent then the reduction in thrust is perhaps not what is required. Without thrust intervention, only pitch control is available and if used excessively may result in a high nose attitude with risk of tailstrike or reducing speed more quickly than in a normal flare which incurs other risks.

Alternatively if the approach is shallow then the retard mode may operate early (lower Rad Alt), again requiring pitch control to regain the approach angle and control speed, which may be reducing rapidly. See the accident here:- Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2007 - A07A0134 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2007/a07a0134/a07a0134.asp)

In addition some autothrottle installations are mildly destabilising in pitch; although not obvious to the crew this may increase the likelihood of arriving at the flare steeper or shallower than planned.