What's the truth about the MD11?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under a Rock
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the truth about the MD11?
I have heard from numerous sources that the MD11 is a difficult plane to fly and some have theorised that the relatively high accident rate of the type (8 or 9 write-offs?) may be the result of this. Most of this comes from people who have never flown the type, so I was wondering if any current or former MD11 pilots could share their opinion? Are they totally different to a DC10?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The South
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From over the captains shoulder for 4 years and more than a decade around the aircraft. The key factor is that the aircraft performs differently, it is more demanding of a pilot under certain conditions.
The aircraft is very different, but this is not important. What is important is it has it's own set of parameters it operates within, when those are not respected hull losses are a result. You will find that the majority of losses (swiss air is still a mystery) are a result of human error. Is the aircraft more demanding?...Yes... Is the aircraft safe?... Yes when operated within it's means, just like any other machine.
Are they totally different to a DC10
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's fair to include the Swiss Air accident in this discussion.
That accident was not the result of the typical MD11 hard landing then flip over syndrome we've seen so much of.
I don't want the thread to take a tangent on that accident either. I just thought it was important to point out because I'm also very interested in the question posed by the original poster.
That accident was not the result of the typical MD11 hard landing then flip over syndrome we've seen so much of.
I don't want the thread to take a tangent on that accident either. I just thought it was important to point out because I'm also very interested in the question posed by the original poster.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This subject has been explored extensively here on Pprune, do a keyword search on the MD-11, you'll find an entire book's worth of opinion provided by experienced MD=11 pilots.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
zero
(swiss air is still a mystery)
My curiosity is centered on the lack of a complete investigation into FDX flt80 @ Narita. Seems odd a year has gone by plus some and a crash that had recorders found, video to watch and all pieces of aircraft accounted for had not been finalized.
That accident was not the result of the typical MD11 hard landing then flip
The bounce and flip should be a fedex trademark, Having only happened twice (EWR & narita), (corrected, oops I see air china has one as well)
The only TYPICAL problem that still remains despite FCC program changes is a pitch up upon ground spoiler deployment that is more harsh than in the DC-10 and most other airframes. As long as the pilot is aware of this tendency it becomes an operational characteristic that the pilot should be proficient in compensating for
Last edited by muduckace; 24th May 2010 at 14:16.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
ALL large commercial aircraft have about the same accident rate, except for two aircraft.
The 737, 747, 757, DC-9 MD-whatever, Airbus 310, 320, 330, 340, DC-10, L-1011, etc., etc. have all about the same accident rate.
The Concorde is by far the worst, but that is not indicative of the Concorde's design: It is because they had the one crash when they ran over the CAL aircraft part that fell off the CAL plane onto the runway. Because there were so few Concourde's, the one crash skewed the accident statistics tremendously.
Then, we come to the 2nd plane that has the higher accident rate.
The MD-11's accident rate is SEVEN TIMES higher than the rest.
Question answered.
cliff
LFW
ALL large commercial aircraft have about the same accident rate, except for two aircraft.
The 737, 747, 757, DC-9 MD-whatever, Airbus 310, 320, 330, 340, DC-10, L-1011, etc., etc. have all about the same accident rate.
The Concorde is by far the worst, but that is not indicative of the Concorde's design: It is because they had the one crash when they ran over the CAL aircraft part that fell off the CAL plane onto the runway. Because there were so few Concourde's, the one crash skewed the accident statistics tremendously.
Then, we come to the 2nd plane that has the higher accident rate.
The MD-11's accident rate is SEVEN TIMES higher than the rest.
Question answered.
cliff
LFW
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that mishap rate based on per hours flown, or as a percentage of the fleet?
One can't realistically base an "accident rate" on the numbers of aircraft alone, but must take into consideration usage. Accordingly, I believe you'll find other aircraft which have in times past far exceeded either the Concorde or the MD-11, for loss rates.
One can't realistically base an "accident rate" on the numbers of aircraft alone, but must take into consideration usage. Accordingly, I believe you'll find other aircraft which have in times past far exceeded either the Concorde or the MD-11, for loss rates.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi.
It is the accident rate per 100,000 flying hours. The comparison is apples-to-apples. The MD-11 is 7x more likely to crash than any recent Boeing/Airbus, and even MD/Douglas product, other than the -11.
I'm sure the accident rate for airplanes like the Comet and DC-4 and Ford Trimotor were higher.
cliff
LFW
It is the accident rate per 100,000 flying hours. The comparison is apples-to-apples. The MD-11 is 7x more likely to crash than any recent Boeing/Airbus, and even MD/Douglas product, other than the -11.
I'm sure the accident rate for airplanes like the Comet and DC-4 and Ford Trimotor were higher.
cliff
LFW
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 54
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been avoiding weighing in, but here goes. Read the accident reports.
Yes there have been seven hull losses.
Swissair - improperly installed aftermarket IFE system with no way to shut it off...
Korean - Captain decided to put aircraft into a low-level, steep dive when he got confused over feet vs. meters (at a time when KAL was writing off 1 widebody per year)
FedEx over-run Subic Bay - surely you can't be serious about blaming the design.
Avient Shanghai - No official report yet but those in the know would tell you the design was probably not a factor (ask yourself why an aircraft would fail to get airborne on takeoff roll on 13,000' runway...).
That leaves the 3 roll-overs. Again, read the reports. I'll give you this though - The MD-11 is demanding and not terribly forgiving. She has a high wing loading and high approach speed and must be flown by the book. She does not like rough handling, and a bad or unstable approach is probably best salvaged by going around. The fact that the wing broke when design loads were exceed is not good - witness the BA 777 that glided into LHR for a better failure mode. However, if you want to be truly informed, read the reports find out why the design loads were exceeded. That said, of the three rollovers, including one aircraft full of passengers, there have been 5 fatalities. Douglas always did build robust machines...
Yes there have been seven hull losses.
Swissair - improperly installed aftermarket IFE system with no way to shut it off...
Korean - Captain decided to put aircraft into a low-level, steep dive when he got confused over feet vs. meters (at a time when KAL was writing off 1 widebody per year)
FedEx over-run Subic Bay - surely you can't be serious about blaming the design.
Avient Shanghai - No official report yet but those in the know would tell you the design was probably not a factor (ask yourself why an aircraft would fail to get airborne on takeoff roll on 13,000' runway...).
That leaves the 3 roll-overs. Again, read the reports. I'll give you this though - The MD-11 is demanding and not terribly forgiving. She has a high wing loading and high approach speed and must be flown by the book. She does not like rough handling, and a bad or unstable approach is probably best salvaged by going around. The fact that the wing broke when design loads were exceed is not good - witness the BA 777 that glided into LHR for a better failure mode. However, if you want to be truly informed, read the reports find out why the design loads were exceeded. That said, of the three rollovers, including one aircraft full of passengers, there have been 5 fatalities. Douglas always did build robust machines...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
q100: I hear you saying that many of the hull losses on the MD-11 were totaly crew error, and nothing was wrong with the plane?
My info is based on accidents per 100,000 flight hours. The info counted EVERY crash by EVERY airframe, per 100,000 hours. Do you not think that MANY 737/747/-320/MD accidents were also caused by 100% crew error, and had nothing to do with the plane?
It was an apples-to-apples comparison, and the MD-11 is 7x more likely to crash than any other large, commercial airframe out there flying today.
cliff
LFW
q100: I hear you saying that many of the hull losses on the MD-11 were totaly crew error, and nothing was wrong with the plane?
My info is based on accidents per 100,000 flight hours. The info counted EVERY crash by EVERY airframe, per 100,000 hours. Do you not think that MANY 737/747/-320/MD accidents were also caused by 100% crew error, and had nothing to do with the plane?
It was an apples-to-apples comparison, and the MD-11 is 7x more likely to crash than any other large, commercial airframe out there flying today.
cliff
LFW
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 54
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cliff,
Perhaps you read something in my post where I questioned your numbers and you therefore feel compelled to repeat your assertions with the use of CAPS LOCKS for good measure?
I did not question your numbers (although a statistic without a source probably should be questioned) - what I did was to look behind the numbers, and attempt to answer the original poster's original question, which that poster appeared to appreciate.
If you want to play with numbers, you could easily say that from 2000 to 2008 the MD-11 was the safest large airliner, with zero hull losses during that time frame. Or you could say that based on the last 12 months, the A330 is a deathtrap. Or say, as the media did when they leapt to the (false) conclusion that the Colgan 3407 crash was due to icing "that's the 3rd regional turboprop to crash in the US due to icing in the past 14 years" where it would also have been the 1st since the late 1990s if ice was indeed the culprit. Look how many 737s have been wrecked in the last few years for various reasons, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely. Or see how ugly the record of the A320 was in its first year before crews learned how to operate it properly, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely.
I hope you get my point, which is that statistics have context which should be considered. Same goes for the MD-11. Yes there have been hull losses, but that does not mean that the MD-11 is NOW (oops, caps lock) 7 times more likely to crash than any other airliner. Context again - the first 5 losses were in the span of about 26 months 1997-1999, and many things were modified, changed or learned from since then. Past is not necessarily prologue, and indeed the whole point to air crash investigation is to make sure of this.
Okay, I'll concede your point that the hull loss rate is 7x higher (which I never disputed, although I'm curious as to your source). What I do not concede that this is the whole story, "question answered," and that based on the past the MD-11 is in the future "7x more likely to crash.' Statements like that don't reflect well on you, and may not help you much if you are serious about getting hired by, say, EVA....
Fly safe and best of luck,
Q
Perhaps you read something in my post where I questioned your numbers and you therefore feel compelled to repeat your assertions with the use of CAPS LOCKS for good measure?
I did not question your numbers (although a statistic without a source probably should be questioned) - what I did was to look behind the numbers, and attempt to answer the original poster's original question, which that poster appeared to appreciate.
If you want to play with numbers, you could easily say that from 2000 to 2008 the MD-11 was the safest large airliner, with zero hull losses during that time frame. Or you could say that based on the last 12 months, the A330 is a deathtrap. Or say, as the media did when they leapt to the (false) conclusion that the Colgan 3407 crash was due to icing "that's the 3rd regional turboprop to crash in the US due to icing in the past 14 years" where it would also have been the 1st since the late 1990s if ice was indeed the culprit. Look how many 737s have been wrecked in the last few years for various reasons, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely. Or see how ugly the record of the A320 was in its first year before crews learned how to operate it properly, but there sure are a lot of them flying. Safely.
I hope you get my point, which is that statistics have context which should be considered. Same goes for the MD-11. Yes there have been hull losses, but that does not mean that the MD-11 is NOW (oops, caps lock) 7 times more likely to crash than any other airliner. Context again - the first 5 losses were in the span of about 26 months 1997-1999, and many things were modified, changed or learned from since then. Past is not necessarily prologue, and indeed the whole point to air crash investigation is to make sure of this.
Okay, I'll concede your point that the hull loss rate is 7x higher (which I never disputed, although I'm curious as to your source). What I do not concede that this is the whole story, "question answered," and that based on the past the MD-11 is in the future "7x more likely to crash.' Statements like that don't reflect well on you, and may not help you much if you are serious about getting hired by, say, EVA....
Fly safe and best of luck,
Q
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 61
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi!
I would/will fly the MD-11 if that is the best job I can get. If EVA's T&Cs were better, I would apply (was applying, and stopped after I found out T&Cs). Would fly the MD for World (but would hope for the 747).
BUT, I feel that flying the MD-11 is riskier than it should be, and that the FAA improperly certified that aircraft. Relative to real life, the MD-11 is VERY safe, but I don't believe it's as safe as the other airframes, which is a shame.
On the other hand maybe it will turn out to be true that since the MD-11 is relatively new with not very many airframes flying, that the current accident rate is negatively skewed "abnormally".
Hopefully, it will turn out, in the long run, that the MD-11 is NOT 7x more dangerous than the other airframes!
cliff
LFW
I would/will fly the MD-11 if that is the best job I can get. If EVA's T&Cs were better, I would apply (was applying, and stopped after I found out T&Cs). Would fly the MD for World (but would hope for the 747).
BUT, I feel that flying the MD-11 is riskier than it should be, and that the FAA improperly certified that aircraft. Relative to real life, the MD-11 is VERY safe, but I don't believe it's as safe as the other airframes, which is a shame.
On the other hand maybe it will turn out to be true that since the MD-11 is relatively new with not very many airframes flying, that the current accident rate is negatively skewed "abnormally".
Hopefully, it will turn out, in the long run, that the MD-11 is NOT 7x more dangerous than the other airframes!
cliff
LFW
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kenya
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick opinion check
I was wondering, we do have a route request for one of our clients. At first it was a A300B4 they wanted but due to the tech. stops it would have to do, it would not make much of a profit to them. I was wondering if the MD-11 can be more economic on a 7 hour trip with msx. 60t loading.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 54
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are length and elevation of departure runway. Feel free to approximate if you are trying to keep secret....
Point is, that unless you are departing from a very performance-restricting field, the MD-11 will carry 60t for 7+ hours easily.
Q.
Point is, that unless you are departing from a very performance-restricting field, the MD-11 will carry 60t for 7+ hours easily.
Q.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the wing broke when design loads were exceed is not good
Great aircraft, safe aircraft. Just needs responsible drivers...
,best regards MD11f
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MD-11's sales were limited not so much by safety questions per se, but mainly by the aircraft's inability to meet the original performance expected by the airlines. MD was also facing a cash crunch at the time and simply did'nt have the financial resources to build a better plane, even if they technically have the know-how to do so. It was unable to compete with the A330/A340s and the 777. Another reason for it's short production history is the fact that MD was taken over by Boeing in 1997, this meant it would be competing against Boeing's own products, so Boeing ended production in around 2001 I think.
Legitimate questions can be asked of MD-11's design such as the horizontal stablizer, etc. But the short production ofthe MD-11 was not driven by safety questions.
Legitimate questions can be asked of MD-11's design such as the horizontal stablizer, etc. But the short production ofthe MD-11 was not driven by safety questions.