FedEx MD-10 on fire at Fort Lauderdale airport

[logansi]

Video just posted show MD-10 on fire a Fort Lauderdale

https://youtu.be/Yu2NJc9_4ss

[logansi]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cv4xw-GWYAAg4HF.jpg

[Airbubba]

Two ground widebody aircraft fires in one day? :eek:

[giggitygiggity]

Three major incidents in 24 hours if you include Donald Guff and his minion!

[Jet Jockey A4]

Plus one off the end of a runway... Things happen in threes they say.

[mach2.6]

N370FE from TV news chopper video

[logansi]

2 Wide body likely Write-offs in one day

[tdracer]

It doesn't take much to write-off an MD-10...

[logansi]

Aircraft exploded after it stopped

https://imagr.eu/up/2BQFs_Cv405AyW8AAbMIV.jpg

[Airbubba]

From a well placed source who has reported reliably in the past, the plane was FedEx 910, MEM-FLL landing on runway 10L.

Wind given when cleared to land was 050 at 18 gusts to 23. Later tower wind before landing was 050 at 14 gusts to 22.

The tower reported the left engine on fire, the aircraft off the runway by A4, debris on the runway.

Is this their first hull loss since the tragic mishap at NRT in 2009?

[daelight]

Thank the deity she didn't roll..

[YRP]

It doesn't take much to write-off an MD-10...
Either way, this sure looks like enough!

[readywhenreaching]

live coverage: https://www.periscope.tv/w/1djxXEwljOEKZ#

jacdec.de (http://www.jacdec.de/2016/10/28/2016-10-28-fedex-md-10f-gear-collapse-and-fire-on-landing-ft-lauderdale/)

[giggitygiggity]

This aircraft first flew in 1972, it was nearly 45 years old! This seems to be a landing mishap rather than 'an engine fire' as the TV coverage is focusing on. Interestingly though, it is also a GE CF-6 engine, like the 767 in Chicago earlier.

Surely this aircraft (and the other MD10s) should have been resigned to the bin years ago?

[Airbubba]

live coverage: https://www.periscope.tv/w/1djxXEwljOEKZ#

jacdec.de (http://www.jacdec.de/2016/10/28/2016-10-28-fedex-md-10f-gear-collapse-and-fire-on-landing-ft-lauderdale/)

I don't think this narrative at jacdec.de makes any sense, PNS and FLL are not close to each other:

During cruiseflight, the aircraft experienced a catastrophic failure of its left engine. The pilots managed to make an emergency landing at Pensacola, FL.

2016-10-28 FedEx MD-10F gear collapse and fire on landing Ft. Lauderdale » JACDEC (http://www.jacdec.de/2016/10/28/2016-10-28-fedex-md-10f-gear-collapse-and-fire-on-landing-ft-lauderdale/)

[readywhenreaching]

I don't think this narrative at jacdec.de makes any sense, PNS and FLL are not close to each other:

Quote:
During cruiseflight, the aircraft experienced a catastrophic failure of its left engine. The pilots managed to make an emergency landing at Pensacola, FL.
2016-10-28 FedEx MD-10F gear collapse and fire on landing Ft. Lauderdale » JACDEC

maybe it was because they're forced doing three things at once on this special day..

[Airbubba]

Some of the chopper video shows a piece of the aircraft near the approach end of 10L. It is marked by an orange cone and looks to me like possibly part of a flap actuator and fairing. There is also a long dark streak on the left side of the runway.

Until today, I believe FedEx had gone over seven years without a mainline hull loss. I would definitely say that is a record for them. I don't believe they had gone over five years without a crash previously.

Is this possibly the seventh FedEx Mad Dog loss (two at MEM, SFS, SWF, EWR, NRT)? I've also heard rumors of a broken wing spar from a landing at ANC years ago.

[tdracer]

Is this possibly the seventh FedEx Mad Dog loss (two at MEM, SFS, SWF, EWR, NRT)? I've also heard rumors of a broken wing spar from a landing at ANC years ago. Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10.
The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much...
While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50.
At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati...

[Airbubba]

Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.

I agree, that's why I used Mad Dog as a generic for the DC-10F, MD-10F and MD-11F. FedEx has crashed an occasional 727 and A300 over the years as well. But, I believe, no fatalities until the NRT MD-11 crash in 2009.

[BobM2]

Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10.
The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much...
While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50.
At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati...
Be advised that the -80C2 is not immune:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000922-0

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19970906-1

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000607-1

[peekay4]

Aircraft exploded after it stopped

Video via Twitter:

http://twitter.com/alex_robles44/status/792128738729295872

(you can turn the sound on)

[Huck]

Raw footage - good view of runway markings at 4:00 -



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_HFhG7AUtQ

[Huck]

No connection with the MD-11 accident. That was a dual rear spar failure from overstress on landing. This looks like a gear strut failure. Has happened twice before at FX in MD-10's.

[Sailvi767]

Sounds plausible. There was no emergency declared by the aircraft prior to landing so the engine failure reports seem false.

[Onceapilot]

Another "AIRCRAFT EXPLODED" rubbish reporting. What you can see is the left wing tank vapour explosion blowing off a very large piece of the top wing skin. This was also seen on the recent Dubai crash. These post-accident tank explosions seem to be a great risk to passenger survival (on pax flights) and a huge risk crash-crew.

[westhawk]

How about "something attached to airplane exploded" then? Something did explode. Quite possibly a tire.

[rog747]

touched down OK and something went wrong - LH gear collapsed
LH engine damaged caught fire - a/c left runway
soon after stopping LH wing large fuel tank explosion
crew left cockpit OK via escape ropes

landing weather says maybe a cross wind? with Gust 20>25kts (what is the c/w max for DC10?)

landing runway 10L

[Flightmech]

Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10.
The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much...
While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50.
At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati...

It was an MD10-10 so would have been a CF6-6D. The MD10-30 has the -50C2

[Metro man]

MD10 is very unforgiving of a messed up landing. An arrival that would have you waiting until the passengers had all got off until you left the flight deck on most other aircraft, could have you cartwheeling in flames on this type.

If the MD10 had 4 engines instead of 3 they would have gone the way of the B742 years ago.

[Flightmech]

I think you are confusing this with the MD11. To my knowledge with the exception of the United Airplane at Sioux City there are no events of a MD10 (DC10) cartwheeling in flames as you describe.

[Council Van]

Tankfully the crew got out of this one, hopefully with nothing worse than burnt hands from the escape ropes.

[Sailvi767]

MD10 is very unforgiving of a messed up landing. An arrival that would have you waiting until the passengers had all got off until you left the flight deck on most other aircraft, could have you cartwheeling in flames on this type.

If the MD10 had 4 engines instead of 3 they would have gone the way of the B742 years ago.

The MD10 is a DC10 with a updated flight deck. It was never considered a difficult aircraft to land and in fact has good landing characteristics. Perhaps you are confused and are thinking MD11.

[rog747]

the only ''similar'' messed up DC-10 landing springs to mind is Martinair 1992 at Faro but that was bad TS on app
messed up app and then heavy rain and wind-shear

hard bounced landing which took out landing gear on one side - think it cartwheeled
most pax and crew got out but around 50 or so out of 300 sadly did not

[JW411]

The DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30 were very easy to land. I would imagine that the same applies to the MD-10. I understand that the MD-11 was altogether a different ball game.

[mach2.6]

I read somewhere that the horizontal stab on the MD-11 was redesigned from the original DC-10, thus making landings more interesting. Does anybody know if the FedEx MD-10s have the DC-10 stab or the MD-11 stab?

[rog747]

AFAIK no DC-10's had any structural MD-11 modifications when converted to MD-10's
only instrumentation and 2 crew handling plus max weights increased (beefed up structure) etc

MD-10 Program (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/ps02txt.html)

[Airbubba]

FedEx crash record appears to be awful, if they were moving people no one would travel with them. Would the aviation authorities even allow them to continue to operate. I guess the insurance premiums are sky high as well.

As I observed here in 2006:

>>by now FED EX must have one of the worst hull loss records in the industry!

Sadly, FedEx seems to have a widebody hull loss every two or three years. If they were a pax carrier there would be enormous adverse publicity and probably many casualties as well.

I've got friends over at FedEx who tell me the FAA has been all over their training for years now. Instead of annual AQP sim checks like most U.S. carriers, they are under a closely monitored old style six month program.

The pilot flying in the December 2003 MD-10 hard landing and fire at MEM had a history of busted checkrides before she was hired. In April, 1994 the feds pulled her ATP after an FAA inspector observed her performance. She took more training and got the ATP back and was hired by FedEx in 1996. At FedEx she had more checkride failures, a couple of DUI's and an altitude bust that set up the fateful Mad Dog line check back into MEM. Is it possible that "diversity" was promoted over performance in this case? A possibly similar precedent at FedEx was the overlooked poor employment history of Auburn Calloway who brutally attempted to hijack a FedEx DC-10 in MEM in 1994.

Traditionally, FedEx has had very high employment standards for the freight world, i.e. almost all pilots have college degrees (well, there are some Naval Academy graduates <g>) and many are like the founder, Fred Smith, ex-military aviators [I was later corrected on this point, Fred was a Marine officer but not an Aviator - Airbubba]. The company is consistently profitable and maintenance is excellent by most accounts.

Still, the mishaps and hull losses continue at what everyone agrees is an unacceptable rate...

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

Whether lower safety standards are acceptable for cargo airlines continues to be a hotly debated question for the unions, the companies and the feds.

[Metro man]

FEDEX are on of the best paying companies to fly for and could therefore be quite fussy about who they employ. Hull loss rates like these are similar to the bad days of Korean Air or China Airlines, though still better than MK Airlines.

A freighter accident generally involves an old airframe with much lower value and a known cost of the cargo rather than hundreds of lawsuits from families of passengers involved. No shipper is going to stop using a company with a poor safety record as long as they are the lowest bidder. Perhaps these are the reasons things have got to this stage.

[tdracer]

This looks like a gear strut failure. Has happened twice before at FX in MD-10's.If true, they need to take a long, hard look at their maintenance practices. FedEx still operates 40 MD-10s (well, may 39 now :rolleyes:) with an average age of nearly 39 years.
FedEx is replacing their MD-10s (and eventually MD-11s) with new-build 767F. However they're taking the new 767Fs at about one/month, so it's still going to take a few years to replace all those MD-10s.

[harpf]

In a few days the FDR data should be available.


In the two previous FedEx MD-10 gear failures one was the result of a vendor error on the gear boss plating, and the other was a higher than design load sink rate. The sink rate of these incidents was ~ 2 and 14 fps respectively


One could expected the investigation to turn one in one direction or the other once the touch down parameters are known.


The MD-11 tail plane / pitch control system is significantly different than that of the MD-10, and nether of the above MD-10 incidents are related to the MD-11 landing incidents.


.. Due to the statistics of small number it easy to infer correlation is present were none is existent

[Huck]

I have extensive flight experience in the MD10-10, MD-10-30 and MD-11 aircraft.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in the landing characteristics of the MD-10. They're just old, and we land them at or very near max landing weight, typically.

And we make a lot of turns on our ramps that pax carriers don't. It's not uncommon to make five or more 90 decree turns in a cramped parking area in Memphis. It's got to be hard on the gear.

This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.

[EK380]

Finally a wise answer! You might be 100% right Huck

[rog747]

posted on DC10 FB group

''‎Bill Griffith‎ to DC-10 Appreciation Group
9 hrs ago
I had an up close and personal seat yesterday, at the demise of N370FE here in FLL. Very shocking, and especially sad for me, as it was an airplane my Dad had flown for UAL. Strong crosswind landing, and they hit hard left main first, which then collapsed. They left a 3000 foot long trail of flaming jet fuel on the runway. Absolutely unreal, and I was right there.

[Airbubba]

This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.

Sure does, a photo of the earlier mishap aircraft is in this post:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/236665-fedex-off-runway-mem.html#post2745703

[MrSnuggles]

Side by side comparison with DC10(MD10) and MD11 shows the MD11 to have significantly smaller tail section than the 10-version.

Based on nothing other than a general understanding of aerodynamics, wouldn't the small tail section contribute to tricky landing?

[Huck]

The theory is that an active stabilization system in pitch - sort of a pitch-damper - would compensate for the smaller tail. It's always worked fine in my experience. But no, you don't ever doze off on short final in an MD11.....

[MrSnuggles]

Found a wikipedia picture.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/MD11_AND_DC10_varig_comparison.jpg

[andrasz]

MD11 to have significantly smaller tail section than the 10-version...
With the longer moment arm due to the longer fuselage, based purely on principles of aerodynamics a smaller control surface should be equally effective. There has to be more to it.

[rog747]

this crash has nowt to do with MD11 design - this a/c at FLL landed hard it seems in a crosswind and the gear went - thats it what we know so far

pilots i know say the DC10 is a delight and easy to land (not so the MD11 where you have to have your wits about you and understand the botched landing technique and escape route which is normally a GA and nothing else will save the day)

please i think the MD11 is nothing to do with this

[ion_berkley]

Nice piece of video showing the end of the landing roll, wing already burning hard:

https://www.facebook.com/C130MRO/videos/981560475324167

[misd-agin]

In the two previous FedEx MD-10 gear failures one was the result of a vendor error on the gear boss plating, and the other was a higher than design load sink rate. The sink rate of these incidents was ~ 2 and 14 fps respectively





Calling an impact with the runway at 840 FPM a 'landing' is a bit of a stretch.

[DaveReidUK]

Nice piece of video showing the end of the landing roll, wing already burning hard:

More than 2 minutes between the first appearance of fire and the ARFFS showing up. Bloody hell.

[peekay4]

Standard response time in the US is 2 minutes, measured from the time ARFF receives notification to the time they start foaming the aircraft.

From the video I can see the first fire truck applying foam by the 1:52 mark. Without knowing when exactly the crash call happened, I'd give ARFF the benefit of the doubt that they met the required SLA.

[SeenItAll]

Given that fire trucks may easily need to travel for a mile (or possibly more) to reach a wreck -- and dodge stopped planes blocking taxiways, 2 minutes between notification and foam being sprayed seems rather good. These vehicles aren't Formula 1 racers.

[Airbubba]

From a November 22, 2016 NTSB investigative update:

FedEx Express MD-10 Landing Gear Failure

FedEx Express flight 910, a Boeing MD-10-10F (registration N370FE) experienced a left main landing gear collapse and subsequent fire in the left wing after landing on Runway 10L at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Oct. 28, about 5:51 p.m. EDT. The airplane came to rest on the side of Runway 10L. The two flight crew members evacuated the airplane via the cockpit window and were not injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The cargo flight originated from Memphis International Airport, Memphis, Tennessee.

Initial findings include the following:

The airplane was manufactured in 1972 and configured for passenger service. It was converted to a DC-10-10F freighter in 1999 and further modified to an MD-10-10F in 2003. It had accumulated 84,589 total flight hours with 35,606 total flight cycles at the time of the accident.

Investigators retrieved the flight data and cockpit voice recorders shortly after arriving on scene. The recorders were transported to the NTSB recorders lab for download. Both recorders contained good quality data. The CVR Group convened last week at the NTSB recorders lab and completed a draft transcription of the event’s audio recording.

Preliminary information from the flight data recorder indicates the airplane’s touchdown appeared normal and the airplane rolled on the runway for about 12 seconds before the left main landing gear collapsed.

After the left gear collapsed, the left engine and left wingtip contacted and scraped the runway, rupturing fuel lines and the left wing fuel tank. Fuel from the left wing ignited as the airplane rolled down the runway. The fire continued to burn after the airplane came to rest, resulting in fire damage to the left wing. The fire was extinguished by airport fire and rescue personnel.

The NTSB, with assistance from investigative party members and Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport personnel, documented runway damage and debris on the runway. The first damage to the runway occurred about 3,750 feet from the runway 10L threshold. The airplane came to rest about 6,600 feet from the threshold.

Both flight crew members were interviewed in the days following the accident. They reported a stabilized approach to the airport and no anomalies with the gear retraction or extension during the accident flight.

Investigators completed the examination of the airplane and identified several parts of the left main landing gear for further examination. Those parts were transported to the NTSB lab for metallurgical examinations focusing on detailed characterization of the left main landing gear fracture surfaces.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20161122.aspx

[ZFT]

From a November 22, 2016 NTSB investigative update:



http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/PR20161122.aspx

Makes nice reading for the flight crew involved.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I have extensive flight experience in the MD10-10, MD-10-30 and MD-11 aircraft.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in the landing characteristics of the MD-10. They're just old, and we land them at or very near max landing weight, typically.

And we make a lot of turns on our ramps that pax carriers don't. It's not uncommon to make five or more 90 decree turns in a cramped parking area in Memphis. It's got to be hard on the gear.

This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.
Is that young lady still with the company, BTW?

[Airbubba]

Is that young lady still with the company, BTW?

I believe you are thinking of the FedEx MD-10 Memphis strut failure crash in 2003, not the one in 2006 that Huck was referencing.

The 2003 crash was the one with the jumpseat riders tossing Christmas presents and crew bags out the cockpit window while the plane was in flames:

https://youtu.be/yV5SbaIZ-G0

The freighter had a slide on the door but one of the jumpseat riders released it instead of inflating it so everyone went out the cockpit windows using the ropes.

The check captain retired after the 2003 crash and I think the pilot flying went on leave and never came back to FedEx. Huck would probably know.

Sadly, she passed away in 2013 after suffering an intra-cerebral hemorrhage.

[Huck]

That is all correct. I do believe, though, that the 1L slide did inflate, but due to the bank angle of the fuselage and the ~20 knot crosswind it curled underneath. The jumpseater thought it was uninflated and mistakenly pulled the disconnect lanyard instead.

As to saving the bags... there was only one window up front that was usable, and there were 6 or 7 people aboard... it takes time to go down the strap, so a line formed waiting to go. The guys at the end of the line were just standing there so they threw the baggage out the open door. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to be doing.....

[Amadis of Gaul]

The check captain retired after the 2003 crash and I think the pilot flying went on leave and never came back to FedEx. Huck would probably know.

Sadly, she passed away in 2013 after suffering an intra-cerebral hemorrhage.

Oh my... Didn't know that.

[mivens]

As to saving the bags... there was only one window up front that was usable, and there were 6 or 7 people aboard... it takes time to go down the strap, so a line formed waiting to go. The guys at the end of the line were just standing there so they threw the baggage out the open door. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to be doing.....


Although that was the testimony, the NTSB disputed that (http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0501.pdf) after reviewing the evacuation video footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV5SbaIZ-G0&feature=youtu.be).

...the crewmembers did not evacuate the airplane in an uninterrupted flow. Although the captain and cockpit jumpseat nonrevenue pilot evacuated relatively quickly, the videotape showed delays between subsequent evacuating crewmembers. During these delays, the escape ropes were available but unused, and several pieces of baggage were thrown from the airplane. The elapsed time between successive crewmembers exiting the airplane was as much as 63 seconds....

It is evident that the delays were the result of the offloading of crewmembers personal bags and not because they were waiting for other crewmembers to exit or had difficulty using the cockpit egress system.

[Huck]

I would love to take those NTSB members, put them atop a 20-foot platform, give them a two-inch-wide nylon strap (that has been slimed by the residue of skin and blood), and see how long it takes them to screw up the courage to jump. These are not firefighters. This maneuver is not practiced in training - we practice going through the window but it is sitting at floor level. The slides are supposed to work.

[A0283]

https://go.usa.gov/xUu8d

WASHINGTON (Aug. 23, 2018) — The landing gear collapse on a FedEx MD-10-10F, wide-body cargo jet was caused by corrosion that led to fatigue cracking, according to an NTSB report released Thursday.

[Airbubba]

https://go.usa.gov/xUu8d

WASHINGTON (Aug. 23, 2018) — The landing gear collapse on a FedEx MD-10-10F, wide-body cargo jet was caused by corrosion that led to fatigue cracking, according to an NTSB report released Thursday.

I believe that since 1996 FedEx has now had seven MD/DC-10/11 hull losses:

DC-10: SWF
MD-10: MEM (2), FLL
MD-11: EWR, SFS, NRT

[atakacs]

https://go.usa.gov/xUu8d

WASHINGTON (Aug. 23, 2018) — The landing gear collapse on a FedEx MD-10-10F, wide-body cargo jet was caused by corrosion that led to fatigue cracking, according to an NTSB report released Thursday.
I still have to make an attentive read of the report but it does not sound good to FedEx maintenance.

[Sailvi767]

Certainly contradicts all the hard landing reports.

[lomapaseo]

Certainly contradicts all the hard landing reports.


I don't see it that way, based on this report alone. Each incident should stand by itself and address lessons learned accordingly

[Airbubba]

I don't see it that way, based on this report alone. Each incident should stand by itself and address lessons learned accordingly

Here's a rundown on some of the earlier FedEx incidents and crashes from FedEx Chief Pilot Jack Lewis' self described 'rant' to FDX captains in 2006:

When it comes to piloting itself, we have an ugly record. The NTSB isn't real impressed with us. Here's the pilot-error type mishaps /accidents from 1997-present. All are landing accidents except for one go-around and one takeoff. These assessments are my own opinion, based on info I have...

Newark.....MD-11.pilot-error.....strike damage.....good visibility, contaminated runway

Manila....A300...pilot-error....$16 million damage..... good visibility, wet runway

Subic Bay....MD11 .pilot-error....strike damage...... good visibility

Tallahassee...B727...pilot-error...strike damage..... good visibility

Memphis...MD10..pilot-error...strike damage..... ...good visibility, gusty crosswind

El Paso...A300...pilot-error...$2 million damage.....good visibility

Memphis...MD11..pilot-error..$.5 million damage....good visibility, go around

Ft Lauderdale..A300...pilot-error..$1.5 million damage....good visibility

Subic Bay....MD11.initial look is pilot-error..$10.5 million damage(yow!)..good visibility, tailwind

$170+million in pilot-error damage.Yikes!!!!! At least you DC10 Captains seem to have figured out this landing thing.......The common thread in all these accidents besides pilot-error and good visibility, is that they were totally preventable by the Captain if:

1) he had maintained good SA when he was PF and if
2) he had looked at the instrumentation below 400' when he was PM. This is classic Threat & Error Management (TEM)...or lack thereof.

Additionally, we have had wheels in the mud, aircraft off the side of the runway on a rejected takeoff, altitude busts, runway incursions, early descents below MDA with EPGWS warnings, one landing on the wrong runway, one at the wrong airport, another approach to the wrong airport, etc., etc., etc,. It may seem like we don't have much going on, but as you can see, that's not the case.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/84113-post1.html

In the dozen years since Captain Lewis' email I think FedEx has had only a couple of hull losses, NRT and FLL, a better record for them I suppose. Still, it would be hard for me to imagine a U.S. passenger airline of any size with a similar accident record over the last two decades staying in business.