Another MD11 Accident:

[stilton]

Accident: Centurion MD11 at Sao Paulo on Oct 13th 2012, left main gear collapsed during roll out
By Simon Hradecky, created Sunday, Oct 14th 2012 13:44Z, last updated Sunday, Oct 14th 2012 19:59Z

A Centurion Air Cargo McDonnell Douglas MD-11 freighter, registration N988AR performing freight flight WE-425 from Miami,FL (USA) to Sao Paulo Campinas,SP (Brazil), landed on Campinas' runway 15 at around 19:54L (22:54Z), when during roll out the aircraft settled on its left engine and wing tip after the left main gear fractured and collapsed. The aircraft came to a stop on the runway, there were no injuries, the aircraft received substantial damage and was disabled on the runway, the runway was damaged as well.

As result, the airport is estimated to remain closed until 20:00L/23:00Z Oct 14th for a period of about 24 hours.

Infraero, Brazil's Airport Operator, confirmed the left main gear collapsed.

Relevant NOTAMs:
J1186/12 - RWY 15/33 CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT. 14 OCT 17:31 2012 UNTIL 14 OCT 23:00 2012. CREATED: 14 OCT 17:40 2012
J1185/12 - RWY 15/33 CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT. 14 OCT 08:59 2012 UNTIL 14 OCT 18:00 2012. CREATED: 14 OCT 09:02 2012

Metars:
SBKP 140100Z 12019KT 9999 FEW018 BKN045 BKN090 16/13 Q1020
SBKP 140000Z 12021KT 9999 FEW018 BKN045 BKN090 17/13 Q1020
SBKP 132300Z 13020KT 9999 FEW018 SCT045 BKN090 17/13 Q1020
SBKP 132200Z 13021G31KT 9999 FEW018 SCT045 BKN090 18/13 Q1020
SBKP 132100Z 14018KT 9999 FEW018 SCT030 BKN090 18/14 Q1020
SBKP 132000Z 13020KT 9999 FEW025 SCT030 BKN090 19/14 Q1020
SBKP 131900Z 13021KT 9999 FEW025 BKN090 21/14 Q1019

[VFD]

Centurion Air Cargo McDonnell Douglas MD-11 freighter, registration N988AR performing freight flight WE-425 from Miami,FL (USA) to Sao Paulo Campinas,SP (Brazil), landed on Campinas' runway 15 at around 19:54L (22:54Z), when during roll out the aircraft settled on its left engine and wing tip after the left main gear fractured and collapsed. The aircraft came to a stop on the runway, there were no injuries, the aircraft received substantial damage and was disabled on the runway, the runway was damaged as well

Ok chicken or the eqq came first? Hard landing damaging gear or gear failure damaging wing.

[Lyman]

did the gear collapse or sever the spar and pillow box?

the actual gear leg is impossibly robust.....

[Fullblast]

Not the first, air afrique a300 in dakar did the same.

[robdean]

Photos and more (AV Herald) (http://avherald.com/h?article=457695b2)

Posts there claim this is the same airframe that suffered substantial damage during a hard landing in Montevideo a couple years ago, and that this was a 'bounced landing with gear collapse on third bounce'.

[Flightmech]

Not the first, air afrique a300 in dakar did the same.

All very well but Stilton is only interested in MD-11 accidents:D

[KBPsen]

Just remind us again, Flightmech, of those 200 MD11's built how many have ended up with landing gears pointing in other directions that it should upon landing?

[lomapaseo]

Just remind us again, Flightmech, of those 200 MD11's built how many have ended up with landing gears pointing in other directions that it should upon landing?


and how should we interpret this, that the aircraft is below standards or that the pilots are below standards?

I doubt that aircraft will be redesigned

[Fullblast]

All very well but Stilton is only interested in MD-11 accidents


Only??? Where does he say so? Anyway, my post might be not 100% related, yours surely isn't.

[VFD]

and that this was a 'bounced landing with gear collapse on third bounce'

I caught that comment from pilot holding short.

Significant damage to runway as well.

[grounded27]

Damn Bone that was heavy, probably true. Another probability (suspect fact) after 3 bounces (experienced one high bounce in a 10-30) the aircraft lands with a stalled wing resulting in major stress to said gear. This aircraft is designed to be flown by competent pilots. It is a demanding aircraft and a fine one at that. The margin for error is slim, the drivers have to be on their game prepared for a G/A before the first bounce. I have observed thousands of landings as a back seat driver in the MD-11, Mostly freight and hundreds into VCP as a freight dog MX rep. The sorry fact I see is modern pilots that enjoy automation can not respect this aircraft.

[Sydy]

It has been posted on a md11 ex-crew social network (mostly brazilians), a witness report of a pilot holding short on runway 15 stating it was a bounced landing and that the gear colapsed on the second or third bounce.

Let's wait a bit more for further details.

[Hotel Tango]

Whatever the reason, at least they walked away from this one. Some were not so lucky.

[Doors to Automatic]

I can't believe that there are still people out there who are blaming pilots! How many other commercial aircraft (let alone widebodies) have ended up on their backs - or with MLG collapsing on landing like a pack of cards - in the time that countless MD11 airframes have been lost?

The aircraft is a flying deathtrap and it is only a question of time before we see another Fedex Narita type event as long as it keeps flying.

[grounded27]

I do not care what type of machine you are operating, they all come with an operators manual. Come on? Bounced 3 times??? The operators manual for this machine does not expect it to work properly under these conditions, clearly human judgment WAS at fault! This is not speculation. Like I said above in my personal largest bounce we stalled--- the aircraft is in the air and not flying any more!!! As is typical one wing stalls first placing the FULL weight of the aircraft on 2 to 4 tyres and one out of the 3 gear the AIRCRAFT IS DESIGNED TO LAND ON!!!!!!!! A simple comparison, driving on the interstate and an accident happens just in front of you at 6 car lengths and you are in a car, you hit your brakes and avoid, If you were in a fully loaded semi at 6 car lengths all hell would break loose thus you operate the semi with greater distance and care. Operate your machine with competence!

[Armchairflyer]

While blaming operators for their lack of competence might not be factually wrong, it arguably contributes little to preventing future accidents, and an airplane involved in more accidents of a certain kind than comparable models arguably does have a design issue.

Some thoughts on the subject worth reading IMHO:
People or systems? To blame is human. The fix is to engineer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115647/)

Disclaimer: this post is not directed at any prior author, after all it is a recurring discussion, see link.

[Doors to Automatic]

Grounded27 - given that there are relatively few MD11s in operation compared to other types, I am sure that other more prevalent types (such as the 737) have equally or less competent pilots as/ than the worst of any MD11 crews. As far as I am aware though no other type has suffered any, never mind as many airframe losses as a result of bounced/hard landings. How many 757s have ended up on their back or 777s lost their MLG on landing??

[400drvr]

Is the runway still closed?

[broadreach]

reopened as from 1735 local time Monday 15th. over 400 flights cancelled due to accident.

[3holer]

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_AQZj37yM&feature=player_embedded

[grounded27]

My point is being competent on type aircraft, it has a higher demand. Thus do not expect a MD-11 to land like an B-xxx or A-xxx.

[fox niner]

The center main wheel strut is retracted. Why not use it? And would it have made a difference?

[casablanca]

Most Md Airplanes are built like tanks... however they do not like a firm bounce followed by unloading the wing with the subsequent touchdown at 6 g's and the next at 8 g's. ( Im guessing most airplanes wouldnt).
Almost all of these crashes are the same....bounce, push nose over, drop like brick, yank bank , bounce, then do it again harder and harder.

[stilton]

It looks to me like the centre main gear is extended.

[claser111]

MD11 bounce landing = immediate go around...if not this is the result.

[illflyit]

Stilton: You are correct. The centre gear is extended.

[broadreach]

Shortly after the Centurion gear collapse at Viracopos I read in some local news report that an Infraero spokesperson had said it was Centurion's responsibility to remove the aircraft from the runway.

Interesting situation, particularly since Viracopos was recently concessioned, and is now in the process of ops being transferred from Infraero to the concessionaires.

In the end, I'm not sure who removed the DC-10 from the runway, Centurion, Infraero or the new concessionaires or a combination of them. But I'm interested to know how other - especially single-runway - airport authorities deal with similar accidents. Do they have lifting and haulage equipment of their own or of others' standing by? Or do they just leave wreck removal to the accident aircraft's operator and to hell with other operators' schedules?

[Huck]

MD11 bounce landing = immediate go around...if not this is the result.

Firewall power and 7.5 degrees pitch. That's what we teach. And we practice in the sim until we can nail the pitch without looking down at the instruments.

[777fly]

I have to agree with doors to automatic on this subject. It is generally not pilot technique which, more frequently on DC10/MD11 than most types, ends with the landing gear pointing skywards.
I believe that this marque of aircraft has a design flaw which has its roots in the development competition between Douglas and Lockheed, in the 1960's, to get a trijet wide body jet into production. Lockheed were initially well ahead with their programme but Douglas, starting late, rushed their programme for the DC10 under the motto 'fly before they roll'. That philosophy has cost many lives since: The poorly designed cargo door and cabin pressure relief killed hundreds in Paris. Lack of hydraulic redundancy leads to Sioux City accident. Poor slat locking design kills hundreds in Chicago. Lack of development time leads to installation of No 2 engine as a 'straight through' design, robbing valuable area from the rudder. Consequence? The wing engines were mounted further inboard to retain adequate directional control. Consequence of that? A wing gear collapse on landing results in the wingtip digging into the landing surface. Wing breaks, aircraft rolls inverted. QED. That does not happen when the engines are further outboard, as on L1011,B777, etc, as they prevent excess roll when they contact the ground.
I flew both DC10-30 and all Tristar (L1011) types. The former was a capable Ford, the latter a Range Rover: an uneconomic engineering jewel.
It is certainly not fair to blame pilots for the engineering shortcomings of the DC10/MD11. This MD11crew was lucky, the wingtip seems to have skated on a hard surface and not damaged the wing.

[Christodoulidesd]

I think it is safe to say that after all these years, it's pretty evident that it is a crappy plane that doesnt tolerate errors at all. How many are still in passenger service?

[Gretchenfrage]

I think it is safe to say that after all these years, it's pretty evident that it is a crappy plane that doesnt tolerate errors at all

It certainly doesn't tolerate bad operators, I agree. It is one of these aircraft to expose the inadequate with no mercy. Insofar it is no longer adequate for today's standard.

On the other hand it exposes this characteristic on landing only. Apart from SR111, which was doomed due to enhancement c@ck-ups, not one of them fell out of the air uncontrolled and stalled, like another make.

Same origin, certainly, inadequate operators, but just as much design flaws.
But as it seems, one designer gets the eternal blessing, the other the damning.

13 years of MD11 operation, not one hard landing, not one bounce.

I'll take it anytime, because in all these years I never heard "what is it doing now ....?" or "are you doing something or not???"

[Huck]

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/541102_3863324661734_254919739_n.jpg

Looks like the main strut sheared. Just like the second Fedex MD10 accident in Memphis. Not a typical MD11 hard landing failure mode....

ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F N391FE Memphis International Airport, TN (MEM) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20060728-0)


.

[boguing]

Could that be half of a hole in the back edge of the part still connected?

Edit. The other half is on the lower leg.

[Machinbird]

Looks to me like a failure initiated on the aft side of the strut and proceeded forward around the circumference on both sides. The strut would then have bent forward and torn a tab of metal off the top portion of the strut. Friction would then have brought the detached strut aft, still attached by its linkages as the weight transferred to the engine pod. Such an initiation point would likely be caused by some minor prior damage to the strut outer surface.

We'll have to see an up close view of the fracture to know for sure.

If it had been a strut explosion (due to hydraulic fluid combustion) the strut would likely have been 'shivered'.

[Skyglider]

4 years ago I wouldn't believe that there's something wrong with the MD-11 ....but now:ooh: come on! you don't have to be an rocket scientist to figure that's something wrong with it...the facts are there:ugh:

[Hotel Tango]

I wouldn't say there's something wrong with it, just that it's not very forgiving if one screws up!

[Lyman]

Ordinarily, the strut survives, and the spar breaks, or worse, so this outcome is not 'typical'.

Remember the Nose strut from Narita? After that last bounce? Awesome strength. There is nothing wrong with the airplane. Abuse, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is abuse, nonetheless.

[grounded27]

Looks to me like a failure initiated on the aft side of the strut and proceeded forward around the circumference on both sides


Funny, looks to me like the failure initiated after a high side-load bounce, I am sure Captain Kangaroo did not expect this to happen, it is a shame he did not make it to the gate but a blessing all made it to the HOTEL. We will see a report, none the less I am sure a G/A would have saved the day. Pisser about the MD-11 is one wing does tend to stall hard before the other causing things like this to happen. May have mentioned it before, watching the P/F input full aileron authority during flare in windshear, I thought we scraped a motor.

[boguing]

g27.

If you had read and given some thought to the last few posts, you'd see that 120-180 fps was enough in a previous incident, and my guess would be that 1ft/min would have been fine until the brakes were applied. The fracture looks nothing like a compression failure. We all know that these airframes have a main spar made of margarine so that the leg can leave whenever it feels like it.

[stilton]

No, I'd say there's a lot wrong with it AND it's very unforgiving of screw ups.


Time to acknowledge this.

[Lyman]

The fracture follows more or less the crown of the piston, at least initially.

Boy compression or shear, a lot of both.

[boguing]

Further thought.

If I am correct, and it is a half hole that is visible in each broken tube, why on earth would a designer intentionally make a vent hole in the leg tube? Shirley it would be better to vent it in the closures at either end?

Secondly, had the stress chap/chapess allowed for the fact that upon rotation at take-off, the mlg carries more mass than when at rest, and hence more tension in the back of the leg because it is now angled forwards? To explain. It's possible that at rotation it is probable that the mass perceived by the back wheels is more than the total static mass of the aircraft.

[Lyman]

Shirley the truck swivels on the center axle? You are thinking the wheels are rigidly fixed at ninety degrees to strut/piston?

[Semaphore Sam]

It seems the DC-10/MD-11 family was an engineering disaster...from non-forgiving gear, leading edge devices which retract with engine failure, causing fatal stall, mis-designed cargo doors, floors which collapse which wipe out control cables, serial back-flips. How can anyone, with a straight face, say this aircraft isn't a deathtrap? Oh yes, a 'good operator' should be able to land without flight controls or leading edge slat retraction with engine failure at takeoff, right? Oops, almost forgot the center engine explosion which caused loss of all hydraulics, resulting in another fatal crash, all due to lack of a fuse (which rival L-1011 had) to protect at least one hydraulic system. The original engineers should have been jailed.

[broadreach]

Apologies if I'm being pedantic. It took 46 hours to haul the Centurion MD-11 off the runway; in that time it now appears that over 500 other Viracopos flights - pax and cargo - were directly affected; Azul (a passenger operation run by David Neely of JetBlue fame and based at Viracopos) had 15 aircraft trapped and that impacted their operations all down the line.

Viracopos is in transition, being jointly run by Infraero and the new concessionaires who take on full responsibility in January 2013. Infraero at the time were reported to have said responsibility for removal laid with the operators, Centurion. The A/C removal kit had to be hired from TAM, not sure whether brought from Sao Carlos or Sao Jose dos Campos. I don't know who paid for the TAM kit - Infraero, Centurion or their insurers - but the bottom line is it took nearly two days to get the aircraft off the runway.

My question is for the airport and cargo operators: whose responsibility is it to remove a damaged aircraft from a runway?

[Danish Pilot]

At the risk of stating the obvious, is it not the case that the horizontal tail on this a/c is way too small, no doubt in order to save fuel.

Isn't that behind all these landing accidents?

Hi Shy Talk.

The stab of the MD11 is just fine. The stabilizer is smaller than the one on DC10, but remember the MD11 has a longer fuselage (about 11 meters if I remember correct). And all that nonsense about dynamic instability is not true either. This is usually confused with that the cruise cg is aft during cruise, and has nothing to do with instability, although it true that margins are reduced, but well within designed flight envelope.

MD11 drivers have to know what they are flying, since the design creates some points that require attention. MD11 wing has one of the highest wing loading index of civil aircraft, and this creates the need for a higher approach speed. Higher app speed gives higher decent in ft/min. When flying near Vref during approach, if the speed is allowed to decrease slightly the sink rate increases quickly. This will result in a high sink rate upon landing. A natural reaction from the pilot is to pull the yoke to arrest the sink rate. Since the main landing gear is aft of the pivot point of the aircraft, if pulling the yoke below 15-10ft, the result is that the main gear is accelerated down into the ground with an already high sink rate = kabummm!!!!

After the first landing, because the pilot is trying to arrest the flare by pulling the yoke, the pitch attitude is high, and the aircraft bounces into flight again. At this stage the MD11 is still in one peace.

The next thing is that the pilot tries to pitch down, but since the aircraft have now gone well below Vref, the stabilizer is running out of efficiency and the natural effect is that the nose pitches down as well.

Then the pilot tries to counter act this by pulling again on the yoke, and then we are back to what happen in the first place with the main gear aft of the pivot point, high sink rate, high wing loading, high rate of decent. At this stage the MD11 will impact the runway with some 2,5-3 G. Then it bounces again and the last impact will give some 4G, well beyond any civil aircraft design limits.

All this have nothing to do with design flaws or what ever people think.
The recovery is just to ad thrust to arrest the sink rate. If this happens after Bitching Betty starts to count down, then a go around must be executed.

So MD11 requires different technique. If this is not understood the MD11 is not forgiving like say the 747. Nothing to do with design flaws.


Best regards
An ex MD11 driver

[stilton]

Danish Pilot.


I just can't see how you can deny the MD11 design is not flawed, one accident follows another on a regular basis with this Aircraft.


No other manufacturer's widebody's have ended up on their back on numerous occasions after their wing's literally broke off.


Even the best trained, best maintained operators (LH) have had serious accidents and write offs.


What would be a hard landing on any Boeing, Lockheed or Airbus regularly turns into a catastrophe for the MD11.



It is, by any measure very unforgiving of any Pilot not performing at their best
and this describes most of us occasionally, certainly including me.

[Danish Pilot]

Hi Stilton.

A Porsche 911 handles different from a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean one has a design problem over the other.

MD11 is certified to same requirement as other aircraft (Lockheed, Boeing...etc...) and does this well.

A fairly large amount of MD11 have gone upside down. You cannot land the MD11 with the same technique as you would in say a Boeing 744, and in this particular area the MD11 differs from other. But that is not design flaw.

If this is not understood and trained, then you will pay as number one on checkout to St. Peter.

A 747 cannot roll much into the wind during a crosswind landing, because the outer engines would hit the ground. This is not a design flaw, but the natural effect of the aircraft design. If this is not understood by the pilot = kabummm!

[DaveReidUK]

Since the main landing gear is aft of the pivot point of the aircraft

I'd be interested to know what aircraft don't have the MLG aft of the C of G.

[stilton]

I cannot agree Danish Pilot.


The MD11's poor safety record speaks for itself, comparing it to differing models of sports cars is just not relevant or realistic.


It's true you will bang a pod if you land with too much wing down in a B744, but I can guarantee you the wing won't come off :eek:

[DouglasFlyer]

...in this event (http://www.abag.org.br/noticias/images/clip_image008_000.jpg) the CG was aft of the MLG... ;)

[Notso Fantastic]

DouglasFlyer, that's naughty. The picture is a loading error. If you slide pallets rearwards without a tailsteady, things are going to go pear shaped!

I think Shy Talk above on this page has it. I have closely observed the MD-11 and always been convinced it is a misdesign, which for a development of a type, is appalling. There are just 2 issues in my opinion:
The horizontal tailplane is too small,
The wing should be further forward.

On final approach/slow speed, the tailplane goes severely leading edge down. I've actually been amazed at the degree I have seen. Combined with too-small an area, I suspect the pilots are running out of elevator effectiveness as the speed falls further in a bounce. I always felt no aeroplane should fly like that. The degree of slow-speed trim required shows the MD-11 wing should be quite a lot further forward. It would look 'right' too- it has always looked like an out of balance rod. See Picture (http://joshuadavis.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/iadklmmd-11.jpg)

I can just imagine what DP Davies (Author 'Handling the Big Jets') who did the original British certification of the B747, would make of this monstrosity! It's safety record clearly shows it is a problem aircraft.

I would like to refer you to a previous discussion here and ManAdaSystem Post Number 19 (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/366990-cnn-reports-fedex-crash-tokyo.html) which banged on about exactly this. An aeroplane that requires exceptional pilot skill to avoid crashing has a fatal flaw! How many times are we going to be back here discussing the same issue?

[TowerDog]

Even the best trained, best maintained operators (LH) have had serious accidents and write offs.



Not so, American Airlines flew them MD 11s for years without crashing 'em.

[Danish Pilot]

Stilton:
I cannot agree Danish Pilot.
The MD11's poor safety record speaks for itself, comparing it to differing models of sports cars is just not relevant or realistic.

It's true you will bang a pod if you land with too much wing down in a B744, but I can guarantee you the wing won't come off

Fair enough, no one says you have to agree. I know what is fact;) The point with the cars was just to point out that one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Notso Fantastic
On final approach/slow speed, the tailplane goes severely leading edge down. I've actually been amazed at the degree I have seen. Combined with too-small an area, I suspect the pilots are running out of elevator effectiveness as the speed falls further in a bounce. I always felt no aeroplane should fly like that. The degree of slow-speed trim required shows the MD-11 wing should be quite a lot further forward. It would look 'right' too- it has always looked like an out of balance rod. See Picture

An aeroplane that requires exceptional pilot skill to avoid crashing has a fatal flaw! How many times are we going to be back here discussing the same issue?

Well.... how scientific...!! :ok:

The MD11 does not require special superman skills, don´t know where you get that from. It requires knowledge and good airmanship.

Anyway, I made my point. Nothing is wrong with MD11. Take it from someone who has flown it and not just looked at pictures.....:cool:

[Huck]

Everybody take a deep breath and look at the picture.

This was not a wing failure. The strut broke in shear. Totally unrelated to Narita.

The MD11F is a wonderful plane - I flew it for seven years at two companies.

She lands fast and has a glass jaw. You have to disregard the "automation pyramid" that MacDac taught and hand fly enough to keep your skills. But that's what we're paid for, right?

[AlSelgas]

I totally agree with Danish pilot and Huck. The MD11 is an excellent airplane I have 5,000 + hours and counting and it is the best airplane that I've ever flown. Just have to be careful and always be ahead of it, like any other airplane.

[DouglasFlyer]

I consider my abilities as a pilot as average. I flew the MD-11 for more than 8 years as a commander. She needed a high awareness from 300 feet until touchdown, but neither a hardlanding nor a bounce happened to me (even no flip over) even in adverse wind-conditions. When I did the transition to the A-330 and A-340 for the last 7 years of my career I experienced a much easier plane to land. But I also experienced a much more difficult plane to fly in gusty weather - the high wingload of the MD-11 has advantages in these conditions.

[FlexibleResponse]

Danish Pilot said,

Hi Shy Talk.

The stab of the MD11 is just fine. The stabilizer is smaller than the one on DC10, but remember the MD11 has a longer fuselage (about 11 meters if I remember correct). And all that nonsense about dynamic instability is not true either. This is usually confused with that the cruise cg is aft during cruise, and has nothing to do with instability, although it true that margins are reduced, but well within designed flight envelope.

MD11 drivers have to know what they are flying, since the design creates some points that require attention. MD11 wing has one of the highest wing loading index of civil aircraft, and this creates the need for a higher approach speed. Higher app speed gives higher decent in ft/min. When flying near Vref during approach, if the speed is allowed to decrease slightly the sink rate increases quickly. This will result in a high sink rate upon landing. A natural reaction from the pilot is to pull the yoke to arrest the sink rate. Since the main landing gear is aft of the pivot point of the aircraft, if pulling the yoke below 15-10ft, the result is that the main gear is accelerated down into the ground with an already high sink rate = kabummm!!!!

After the first landing, because the pilot is trying to arrest the flare by pulling the yoke, the pitch attitude is high, and the aircraft bounces into flight again. At this stage the MD11 is still in one peace.

The next thing is that the pilot tries to pitch down, but since the aircraft have now gone well below Vref, the stabilizer is running out of efficiency and the natural effect is that the nose pitches down as well.

Then the pilot tries to counter act this by pulling again on the yoke, and then we are back to what happen in the first place with the main gear aft of the pivot point, high sink rate, high wing loading, high rate of decent. At this stage the MD11 will impact the runway with some 2,5-3 G. Then it bounces again and the last impact will give some 4G, well beyond any civil aircraft design limits.

All this have nothing to do with design flaws or what ever people think.
The recovery is just to ad thrust to arrest the sink rate. If this happens after Bitching Betty starts to count down, then a go around must be executed.

So MD11 requires different technique. If this is not understood the MD11 is not forgiving like say the 747. Nothing to do with design flaws.


Best regards
An ex MD11 driver

Danish Pilot describes the deficiencies of the MD-11 very well.

I think we all agree that the MD-11's handling characteristics make it look like a piece of crap when compared to its more forgiving and easier to fly competitors from a pilot's point of view.

From an Airline Executive's point of view, significant shortfalls in the aircraft's performance revealed in early on-going early testing in 1991 did not endear the aircraft to the airlines which began to cancel orders.

The MD-11 certainly marked the end of the long manufacturing life of the once wonderful company, Douglas Aircraft Company which had by that time morphed into the McDonnell-Douglas Commercial Aircraft Division.

[grounded27]

This was not a wing failure. The strut broke in shear. Totally unrelated to Narita.

The only thing it may have in common is side load on a gear after several bounces and a loss of vital a/s.

[Lyman]

In Narita, the wing broke in negative, the gear strut survived. The defining data would be whether the failure load was exceeded per specification in either accident/incident....

At Heathrow, with BA038, (777), the main gear collapsed and ended in trail as the airframe skidded to a stop, as here.

The failures that cause the loss of the flight path (MD11 short final) are pilot related, and the design of the aircraft is intended to be short coupled, no one is going to move the wing, or put plugs in the Stab.....

[glad rag]

In the previous Narita thread [s] there were quite a few photographs showing amongst other things the very limited amount of remaining control authority left during the landing phase. FACT.

stay safe polemen and poleladies [ooerr went all slasher there!]

[stepwilk]

A Porsche 911 handles different from a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean one has a design problem over the other.

Having many hours of street and track time in a wide variety of Porsches from 356s to a 917, being a committed Porschephile, and having written a book about one Porsche ("The Gold-Plated Porsche"), I can assure you that the 911--and the 356 before it--most definitely has a design problem. Even Porsche AG will admit it, and point out that for half a century they have been trying--very successfully--to overcome it.

Putting the engine behind the rear axle was a reasonable idea for the original 36-hp Volkswagen, but it's a dumb way to configure a car with anywhere from 250 to 750+ hp.

It's why Porsche doesn't dare put a truly powerful 911 engine in the mid-engined Boxster. That would make the Boxster such a fabulous car that it would be difficult to continue selling intrinsically flawed 911s.

[bugg smasher]

While here is a plane which repeatedly has landing incidents at a much higher rate than any other commercial widebody, and we have a group of "superman" who want to imply that you just have to "handle it properly".

Not to mention the armchair experts who have little to no idea of what it entails to operate either or both types successfully.

[PW127-B]

I really Don't Think You know what you're Talking about
Have You flown an MD11 yourself (PMDG's not valid though):ok:
If not, how can You possibly make such comments about the design , and go as far as to state that designers should be jailed.
You should take the word of the people who actually had a chance to fly them,
The innovations in the MD11 were nothing short of marvelous, the MCDU, the FCU, the Automatic operation of the systems etc

Just IMO
Regards

[AlSelgas]

I have 5,000 + hours and counting on the MD11 and I find it the best airplane I"ve ever flown. ( DC8 DC10 A300 B727 ) It is an airplane that you have to be very careful on final ( like any other airplane for that matter ) It's design is excellent and like any other airplane it does not allow mistakes.

[YRP]

DavidReidUK wrote:

I'd be interested to know what aircraft don't have the MLG aft of the C of G.


A DC3? :E

[galaxy flyer]

AlSelgas

Well that explains why they sold 200 planes and, what, 7 or 8 destroyed in landing accidents. How many B727s, DC-8s, and A300 have been written off during touchdowns in VMC conditions?

[Exup]

love it or hate it, its your choice to fly on it. Personally I have no problems being on one. If your not happy as the song says " Just say no"

[stilton]

It's typical of Pilots to defend the Aircraft they fly, a long association with a particular type builds a type of loyalty to it, I understand and completely respect that attitude.


However, the accident record of the MD11 speaks for itself, no other widebody aircraft has had such a record of crashes that can be directly linked to stability issues, this combined with it's inadequate structural redundancy has resulted in numerous catastrophic accidents.


You can deny it all you want but the facts cannot be disputed.

[grounded27]

Ok by your logic, X amount of people prefer driving as opposed to walking, they defend their decision to drive a car even though driving a car re, sorry I am tired, will pick up on this tomorrow, I am sorry to waste my time.

Ok just one point (invigorated) the pilot culture today is heavy on the modern jets that have not been abandoned by their origional mfgr, they dumb down the driver striving for mindless automation that will one day eliminate their jobs (idiocracy), skills are frowned upon and procedure is key as the industry is liability based. I love the MD-11, I wish half of you could enjoy this glorious craft.

I suggest anyone afraid of flying to give up their day job!!!!!!!!!!

[Gretchenfrage]

It's typical of Pilots to defend the Aircraft they fly, a long association with a particular type builds a type of loyalty to it, I understand and completely respect that attitude.

At the time I flew another aircraft, I did not defend it, didn't like it at all, albeit being on it. But then I was decried a dinosaur. So what to do ....

However, the accident record of the MD11 speaks for itself, no other widebody aircraft has had such a record of crashes that can be directly linked to stability issues

True maybe, but you state that based on what?? (Statistics ....)
I actually agree a little bit, stability is twitchy, but it can be handled with adequate pilot skills.
Now what about the record of another design, i.e. the 330/340? Compared to its competitor it's just as abysmal. It can be linked to it's controls and protections design.
Again, true maybe, but I state that based on what?? (Statistics ....)

You see what I mean? Anyone is entitled to an opinion, but it's not necessarily the whole truth.
The Airbus design is religiously upheld here, no design flaw ever even considered. The pilots are always at fault because they are not up to the holy Airbus task.

Give the Maddog the same credit!!

Again, 13 years on it, no hard landing, no bounce.
Aerodynamics are somewhat delicate, agreed, but what a cockpit design and layout!:ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

I think what worries most people is not that the MD-11 has a bad record per se but that when something relatively minor happens (such as a bouncing on landing) it can go very badly wrong indeed. It reminds me of the MU-2 - a fine aircraft if flown properly but not terribly forgiving if you are slack

[DaveReidUK]

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_(physics)

[rog747]

in 1992 did a DC-10-30 of Martinair part go over at Faro...

that was not an MD-11 but demonstrated tendency to do the same
on an approach in bad weather with a hard landing and pitch up
is that so?

[Doors to Automatic]

Martinair Flight 495 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinair_Flight_495)

[misd-agin]

PW127-B - "The innovations in the MD11 were nothing short of marvelous, the MCDU, the FCU, the Automatic operation of the systems etc"

Just IMO
Regards


Written by a 23 yr Airbus FO. What expertise or knowledge of the MD-11 do you have?

[Gretchenfrage]

Written by a 23 yr Airbus FO. What expertise or knowledge of the MD-11 do you have?

He might be young and on Airbus, but he's correct!

Written by a almost 60 year old Capt with knowledge of Airbus, Boeing and MD11. BTW do you have MD11 knowledge??

[Semaphore Sam]

Only the history of crashes, of the DC-10, MD-11 family, mainly due to design flaws, and engineering short-cuts. It constitutes a SCANDAL of major proportions. And, yes, the Airbus has its hiccups, as did the 737 rudder, but nothing like the DC-10 family over the decades. Sam

[blind pew]

Think the nicknames sum them up well
The 10 was known as the death ship and MD 11 - mega death two...
Crap systems design - non locking slats, no protection with loss of hydraulics and the lines routed around engine two and exposed in the landing gear bay.
We were only allowed to operate through the CWS - manual flying banned because two many of the older guys buggared up landings... And as for the noise in the cockpit still suffering with tinnitus.
Besides the above and that our American cousins wouldn't fly with is it was a great aeroplane if flown properly.
Did a visual from 12grand downwind on my only trip to Caracas - spooled the engines up at 700 ft.... Pure delight.

[CargoFlyer11]

Happened a couple days ago - auto land KSEA - center gear collapsed on taxi in - apparently no fault of crew, just a weak airplane...:ugh:

http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/D_1022_N.txt

[Flightmech]

Actually the centre gear didn't "collapse". The drag strut/brace eye-end fractured and allowed the centre gear to rotate rearwards. The autoland was within limits structurally.

It happens, I recall someones 747-400F taking the runway in HKG a while back and the wing (?) gear strut outer cylinder just decided to fracture. Not long out of overhaul too.

[Huck]

We were only allowed to operate through the CWS - manual flying banned

Good God.

So LESS hand-flying was the percieved solution.....


-----


I flew the MD11 until 2 years ago, when I moved to the 777F. In the right seat for both.

I will happily move back to the Mighty Dog as soon as I can hold the left seat. I love both aircraft. And the MD has a much quieter cockpit.....

[Comfort Eagle]

Estan hablando 8==✊=D💦

[stilton]

'It happens, I recall someones 747-400F taking the runway in HKG a while back and the wing (?) gear strut outer cylinder just decided to fracture. Not long out of overhaul too. '



However, you can go back to 1969 and the 747's first flight and you won't find one incident of it's WING BREAKING OFF.

And it's been around a lot longer than the MD11, same with the L1011, A300, 767, 777, pick a widebody, none of them have an accident record like the MD11.


And none of them break apart like it either. :eek:

[Burger Thing]

I really for sorry for the guys involved in the accident and also the remaining crew of Centurion, who will very likely be affected by this accident. In these days, it is a tough environment if you have to move on and try to find another job if you don't have a "popular" rating. I have several thousand hours on the MD-11, now on an Airbus Widebody. Personally I think McDonnell Douglas put in all their resources they had to build an aircraft with a state of the art Cockpit and Systems (I have to laugh about the peeps in this thread who talk about the MD-11 systems despite having absolutely *no clue* := ). If they had been in a financial better position at the time of designing this aircraft, MDD would have probably designed a different (bigger, aerodynamically enhanced) wing. Luckily for Airbus, they haven't, because otherwise the A340 would have been dead on arrival...

However, it is what is is now. A fast machine, with a high wingloading resulting in a VREF of ~165 knots at heavy weights. The margin of error is therefore relatively low compared to other types. Does it behave strangely? Personally I don't think so. Just pay attention on the flare.

One thing I like to point out, though: smaller airlines like Centurion most likely won't have the budget to send their crews around the world to train in the latest generation of simulators. My guess is, that they will use Alteon in Miami, which operates the oldest MD-11 Simulator (used to be in Long Beach). And I am not so sure, if in the older generation of training devices, things like Bounced Landings can be "accurately" simulated. I have used MD-11 simulators in the past where the examiner told us, that recovery from bounced landings are tough to train, because the simulator has a hard time to reproduce a bounce. Huck stated, that in FedEx is is trained now, but I am sure, FedEx has much better equipment to train in.

Still miss the MD-11 and its fantastic cockpit, tough. When I look at my Airbus overhead panel, the FCU and the Flight Guidance systems, I can't really agree with the proud people in Toulouse, stating that this is *the best and most modern cockpit*. I go even one step further and say, that the automation and flight guidance on the MD-11 is in fact much better. Which should not surprise in fact, because the Airbus cockpit layout is based on their first FBW Model, the A320, which first flew in 1987 and hasn't really changed that much. The MD-11's cockpit design is a bit younger. :ok:

[stilton]

Ok, it has a nice flight guidance system and overhead :confused:


So what ?

[misd-agin]

He might be young and on Airbus, but he's correct!

Written by a almost 60 year old Capt with knowledge of Airbus, Boeing and MD11. BTW do you have MD11 knowledge??

MD11? None. Didn't comment on it either.

He hasn't told us what his experience/qualification on the MD11 is.

[Burger Thing]

Ok, it has a nice flight guidance system and overhead

So what ?

Just sharing what mattered to me, when I was flying it: The Cockpit and its systems. And not the talk of people here on pprune who get all emotional about the MD-11 and spout a lot of opinions, without having first hand knowledge. :E

[stilton]

With all due respect B Thing to your personal experience.


It makes no difference to the MD11's accident record.

[Gretchenfrage]

Burger Thing

Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......

If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.

To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.

Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!

[Doors to Automatic]

I would never profess to be an expert in the MD-11s flying characteristics as the only flying experience I have in real types is 2 hours in a 737-800 Level D simulator!

However I do have a background in statistics and know that the combined number of landings of the 737,747,757,767,777,A320,A330,A340 outweighs those of the MD11 by a factor of hundreds if not thousands.

As far as I am aware none of them have ever suffered complete destruction after a bounced/hard landing. Even if the MD11 had suffered one that would be very unusual but to suffer so many is way way beyond any normal statistical distribution.

So for me, looking at this in completely independent terms for anyone to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd.

[Gretchenfrage]

No one can prove otherwise. Stats can only be countered by stats.

Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?

As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0. That can be just as much "way beyond normal statistical distribution".
To cite you once more, "to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd", would mean that there is something wrong with the one product, wouldn't it?

This is to show that stats can be traitorous!!

[Doors to Automatic]

Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?


No I haven't but I am sure that the safety advances made by FBW in terms of removing many previous causes of accidents in non-FBW aircraft have offset many times over the handful of accidents that it may have contributed to.

And even if these were directly caused by FBW (rather than a consequence of a chain of events where FBW contributed) the sum total is still way less in absolute terms (let alone rate per landing) than the number of hull destructions following a hard landing experienced by the MD-11 fleet.

[Semaphore Sam]

Statistics vrs. statistics...
If we wait long enough, the problem solves itself. After awhile, there will be no more of these 'aircraft' left, just a trail of broken wings and upturned gear off the side of various runways...how long before the next? Sam

[Doors to Automatic]

8 hull losses so far out of 200 built. By way of comparison over 1000 777s have been delivered with only 1 hull loss so far and only 3 hull losses for the A330 for a similar number delivered to the 777 (excluding two blown up by Tamils and one damaged beyond repair by corrosive chemicals). Edit - MD11 has had 9 hull losses.

[casablanca]

I am not an expert by ay means ...I have 6000 hours in the MD, with more than half as Captain. The md-11 is very advanced and wonderful plane to fly. It handles nicely but I cant deny statistics and obviously when they cut 40% of the tail off it became less stable.
I do think one contributing factor is the MD-11 often has the nose rise on landing with spoiler deployment. LSAS is a partial fix but still has tendency to do this. I remember one of my first landings I thought we bounced and were airborne again......actually mains are on ground but you need to counter this and push nose down. Another difference on MD-11 is you cant go into reverse fully until nose wheel is on ground, so again your pushing nose down more rapidly.
I think often with many small bounces that pilots are in the habit of pushing nose down maybe not knowing they are airborne....if the plane is actually airborne this unloads the wing and sets up for a much harder bounce off the nose.
In most cases the plane lands well. I actually prefer heavy weight landings vs very light weight. In some cases such as a crosswind, and at 50 feet you kick in rudder and start slip the drag increases greatly and simultaneously the auto-throttles start a retard....that can often set up a high sink rate that needs to be countered with thrust.
Its hard not to love that plane, albeit she is like a latina woman and may kill you while sleeping.

[Flightmech]

Burger Thing

Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......

If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.

To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.

Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!

But you won't win over Stilton on the MD-11. He's already categorically stated he wouldn't let his son fly on one and nobody else's opinion counts:cool:

[DozyWannabe]

He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident

If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.

Blimey - not so much a straw man as a veritable Worzel Gummidge! Of course flight deck architecture and design will have a bearing on incidents and accidents, and I suspect Stilton would agree in a heartbeat. Reflexively asserting that linked controls would be better in all scenarios, well - that's a different kettle of fish.

No-one's saying that the Airbus FBW layout has no drawbacks - simply that those drawbacks are less important than you think they are.

To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.

The MD-11 has weaknesses grandfathered from the DC-10 design - chief among them mounting the main gear directly on to the main spar, which is why several have found themselves upside down after a bounce on landing. I'm certain it is this that Doors To Automatic was referring to, and let's face it, he has a point!

Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.

Indeed - for instance, who would have thought that forcing one yoke forward and the other yoke backwards on a 767 would lead to a split elevator condition?

*All* designs have "gotchas", it's in the nature of engineering.

No one can prove otherwise. Stats can only be countered by stats.

Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?

As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0.

In fact, the numbers for all three widebody FBW types to which you refer are too small to be statistically significant (which I hope you agree is a *good* thing!). As I've said elsewhere, if you combine the number of A330s and A340s there are approx. 20% more of them in service than there are B777s, which to an extent invalidates the kind of absolute numbers you're talking about.

To illustrate the point, the very first fatal widebody hull loss involved the design that was arguably the safest and most advanced (L-1011 EAL401). By 1980 the number of fatal civilian accidents involving widebodies tallied as 2 for the L-1011, 3 for the DC-10 and *6* for the B747 - and yet this tally gives an inaccurate picture because neither of the L-1011 fatals and only one of the B747 fatals were due to purely technical failures.

To cite you once more, "to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd", would mean that there is something wrong with the one product, wouldn't it?

Well now - we can open a can of worms here if you like...

I find it interesting that a minority of pilots (including yourself) consistently denigrate the design coming from a single manufacturer, when even a short period of reviewing the evidence behind most of the mud thrown in that direction can only draw the researcher to the conclusion that most of the controversy is unsubstantiated. And yet the reputation of another manufacturer (McDonnell-Douglas), a company not only proven to have gambled with the lives of passengers and crew in the face of a known and proven design deficiency but also proven to have leveraged political connections to sweep those problems under the carpet, is considered sacrosanct - because they did things the old-fashioned way (and in the process didn't consider the consequences of more than doubling the air volume in a widebody design).

I understand how you feel. I may not be a pilot, but there's not a day that goes by where I don't pine for the way things used to be in my field - bit-flipping on the hardware and being in total control. However, I have to confess that looking at things objectively, the modern technology and processes that help me do my job at the expense of the subjective loss of feeling in control down to the bare metal means that I can get my job done faster, with less hassle and if I'm honest at least 99% of the time a whole load better and more consistent than I could have managed on my own.

[Gretchenfrage]

Dozy, you’re wearing me out. I admit defeat here.

Concerning the MD’s, statistically they do not look good. So for the peace of everyone here, they are no longer in production, so may they rest in peace and may the remaining jockeys enjoy what was for me the best aircraft I was priviledged to fly.

Concerning the Airbus, you definitely must be right, at least taking into account the number of always differing arguments to match it’s superiority.

To me however, Airbus is like the chutes and ladders game. They made two big steps forward (FBW and SS), but unfortunately one step back by taking away the tactile feedback.

In aviation I prefer the only one step forward, but none backward, thus I am very happy on the B777.

My last request would be to spare us with an answer. Thanks.