More KC-46A woes....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, KenV, whichever airliner ultimately proves best for conversion to trash-hauling, it'll undoubtedly be safer than the woeful MD-11F....
Thread Starter
KenV, are you really saying that you don't know of the MD-11 landing incident/accident rate?
See: ASN News » NTSB issues recommendations to address MD-11 bounced landing susceptibility
Oh my.....
See: ASN News » NTSB issues recommendations to address MD-11 bounced landing susceptibility
Oh my.....
The MD11 safety record is woeful by any standard, even if you don't like that particular description.
And here's a thought, I have no doubt Boeing planned and engineered the capability into the 787 for a future freight version when someone decides to do it.
They're not exactly neophytes at this, every 7 series so far has had a freight conversion, no reason the 787 would be excluded from this capability regardless of it's composite construction.
And here's a thought, I have no doubt Boeing planned and engineered the capability into the 787 for a future freight version when someone decides to do it.
They're not exactly neophytes at this, every 7 series so far has had a freight conversion, no reason the 787 would be excluded from this capability regardless of it's composite construction.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Maybe I'm over reacting, but a passenger aircraft that can be downed after takeoff by a single blown tire sounds kinda unsafe.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a bit of a low blow, even for a cousin...
Last edited by KenV; 24th Aug 2015 at 22:06.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As does one that can be downed by a single improperly latched cargo door....
Thread Starter
Oh my - do stop digging yourself a hole, KenV.
The MD-11 has a very poor safety record and well you know it.
From last year's Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor:
Sounds 'kinda' woeful to me - and I'm pretty certain that I'm probably not alone in that perception.
The MD-11 has a very poor safety record and well you know it.
From last year's Wall Street Journal by Andy Pasztor:
Almost two decades after U.S. air-safety officials addressed some dangerous handling characteristics of MD-11 jetliners, there is a renewed call to take further action.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that regulators require installation of new cockpit aids and cues to help MD-11 pilots avoid botched landings that have resulted in a history of hazardous bounces, wing fractures and even some aircraft rolling over on the runway.
The board said the widebody jet, which suffered 13 hard landings between 1994 and 2010, has the highest rate of such dangerous touchdowns among 27 Western-built jet models, based on the number of flights.
More than 140 of the jets remain in service with cargo carriers, though passenger airlines have essentially phased them out. McDonnell Douglas Corp. introduced the plane 24 years ago and in 1997 Boeing Co. bought the company.
In addition to calling for installation of additional safety systems, the NTSB this month said it wants the Federal Aviation Administration to consider imposing more-stringent experience requirements on MD-11 pilots than those flying other big Boeing or Airbus jets. To maintain proficiency and comply with federal rules, U.S. airline pilots operating scheduled flights typically must make at least three landings every 90 days or they won't be considered "current" to fly passengers or cargo. In its letter, the board said the plane's accident history means that MD-11 pilots could benefit from "additional landing experience beyond the current requirement."
Such a recommendation is unusual, because implementing it could upset airline training and scheduling systems. Since MD-11s typically are used on medium- to long-haul routes, their pilots have relatively few chances to execute landings compared with pilots flying shorter routes. As a result, the safety board said such crews may lack "sufficient opportunities to maintain their skills" when it comes to "making appropriate control inputs" just before touchdown.
A spokesman for Boeing said the company is reviewing the recommendations and will submit comments by the beginning of July.
An FAA spokeswoman said the agency will "carefully consider all recommendations" from the NTSB and since 1993 has worked with the board to implement 44 of 47 previous recommendations related to the MD-11. "We look forward to working with the board on these new recommendations to improve the safety of the MD-11 fleet," the spokeswoman said.
The board's letter highlights the continuing safety controversy over the three-engine plane 24 years after McDonnell Douglas introduced it into service, promising that computerized flight controls would offer a big safety advance.
Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents.
Boeing has implemented a number of software upgrades and pilot manual changes since it bought McDonnell Douglas. Starting in the late 1990s, the MD-11 gained a reputation as an unforgiving airplane with finicky handling that can make it particularly hard to land.
In 2011, the NTSB urged improved recurrent training and operational guidance for MD-11 pilots. The latest recommendations are intended to provide "longer term solutions for further reducing the risk of MD-11 landing accidents," according to the board.
In its letter, the safety board referred to a FedEx Corp. MD-11 that bounced repeatedly while trying to land in 2009 at Narita International Airport in Japan. The left wing broke, both pilots were killed and the cargo plane burned up. A year later, a Deutsche Lufthansa AG MD-11 cargo plane made a hard landing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, causing the rear of the fuselage to rupture and the nose gear to collapse. One pilot was seriously injured and the plane was destroyed.
A spokesman for FedEx said the company is still reviewing the recommendations, which were released in early April.
According to the NTSB, MD-11 hard landings frequently involve failures by the pilots to pull up the nose of the plane just before touchdown and in some instances stem from "mismanagement of bounced landings," which can cause the airplane to "porpoise," or exhibit a series of upward and downward motions close to the ground.
Other factors the board cited were the MD-11's high landing speed and cockpit placement that reduces pilot awareness of the landing gear's contact with the ground. The board said "it is important to reduce the possibility" of excessive flight command by pilots close to the ground, which could result in a bounced landing.
The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that regulators require installation of new cockpit aids and cues to help MD-11 pilots avoid botched landings that have resulted in a history of hazardous bounces, wing fractures and even some aircraft rolling over on the runway.
The board said the widebody jet, which suffered 13 hard landings between 1994 and 2010, has the highest rate of such dangerous touchdowns among 27 Western-built jet models, based on the number of flights.
More than 140 of the jets remain in service with cargo carriers, though passenger airlines have essentially phased them out. McDonnell Douglas Corp. introduced the plane 24 years ago and in 1997 Boeing Co. bought the company.
In addition to calling for installation of additional safety systems, the NTSB this month said it wants the Federal Aviation Administration to consider imposing more-stringent experience requirements on MD-11 pilots than those flying other big Boeing or Airbus jets. To maintain proficiency and comply with federal rules, U.S. airline pilots operating scheduled flights typically must make at least three landings every 90 days or they won't be considered "current" to fly passengers or cargo. In its letter, the board said the plane's accident history means that MD-11 pilots could benefit from "additional landing experience beyond the current requirement."
Such a recommendation is unusual, because implementing it could upset airline training and scheduling systems. Since MD-11s typically are used on medium- to long-haul routes, their pilots have relatively few chances to execute landings compared with pilots flying shorter routes. As a result, the safety board said such crews may lack "sufficient opportunities to maintain their skills" when it comes to "making appropriate control inputs" just before touchdown.
A spokesman for Boeing said the company is reviewing the recommendations and will submit comments by the beginning of July.
An FAA spokeswoman said the agency will "carefully consider all recommendations" from the NTSB and since 1993 has worked with the board to implement 44 of 47 previous recommendations related to the MD-11. "We look forward to working with the board on these new recommendations to improve the safety of the MD-11 fleet," the spokeswoman said.
The board's letter highlights the continuing safety controversy over the three-engine plane 24 years after McDonnell Douglas introduced it into service, promising that computerized flight controls would offer a big safety advance.
Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents.
Boeing has implemented a number of software upgrades and pilot manual changes since it bought McDonnell Douglas. Starting in the late 1990s, the MD-11 gained a reputation as an unforgiving airplane with finicky handling that can make it particularly hard to land.
In 2011, the NTSB urged improved recurrent training and operational guidance for MD-11 pilots. The latest recommendations are intended to provide "longer term solutions for further reducing the risk of MD-11 landing accidents," according to the board.
In its letter, the safety board referred to a FedEx Corp. MD-11 that bounced repeatedly while trying to land in 2009 at Narita International Airport in Japan. The left wing broke, both pilots were killed and the cargo plane burned up. A year later, a Deutsche Lufthansa AG MD-11 cargo plane made a hard landing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, causing the rear of the fuselage to rupture and the nose gear to collapse. One pilot was seriously injured and the plane was destroyed.
A spokesman for FedEx said the company is still reviewing the recommendations, which were released in early April.
According to the NTSB, MD-11 hard landings frequently involve failures by the pilots to pull up the nose of the plane just before touchdown and in some instances stem from "mismanagement of bounced landings," which can cause the airplane to "porpoise," or exhibit a series of upward and downward motions close to the ground.
Other factors the board cited were the MD-11's high landing speed and cockpit placement that reduces pilot awareness of the landing gear's contact with the ground. The board said "it is important to reduce the possibility" of excessive flight command by pilots close to the ground, which could result in a bounced landing.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my opinion that:
"the widebody jet, which suffered 13 hard landings between 1994 and 2010, has the highest rate of such dangerous touchdowns among 27 Western-built jet models..."
does NOT equate to:
"very poor safety record" and "woefully unsafe"
Further, I believe the latter to be rather juvenile. You are welcome to disagree.
"the widebody jet, which suffered 13 hard landings between 1994 and 2010, has the highest rate of such dangerous touchdowns among 27 Western-built jet models..."
does NOT equate to:
"very poor safety record" and "woefully unsafe"
Further, I believe the latter to be rather juvenile. You are welcome to disagree.
Ken, you harvested only one aspect of the Wall Sreet Journal's article. This bit may be more appropriate:
If you think that's not a safety issue then perhaps it's better to say that the aircraft had serious design flaws that made it crap to land without significant flight restrictions imposed on the crews. But, that couldn't possibly be the case. As a company man, I doubt you'd agree with that.
The board's letter highlights the continuing safety controversy over the three-engine plane 24 years after McDonnell Douglas introduced it into service, promising that computerized flight controls would offer a big safety advance.
Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents.
Boeing has implemented a number of software upgrades and pilot manual changes since it bought McDonnell Douglas. Starting in the late 1990s, the MD-11 gained a reputation as an unforgiving airplane with finicky handling that can make it particularly hard to land.
Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents.
Boeing has implemented a number of software upgrades and pilot manual changes since it bought McDonnell Douglas. Starting in the late 1990s, the MD-11 gained a reputation as an unforgiving airplane with finicky handling that can make it particularly hard to land.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starting in the late 1990s, the MD-11 gained a reputation as an unforgiving airplane with finicky handling that can make it particularly hard to land.
Boeing worldwide accident summary 1959 – 2013
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
Page 19. Hull loss accident rates / million departures.
MD11: 3.62
vs nearest comparable aircraft (page 2): DC10 2.94,
B747 2.85,
A300 2.39
A310 2.32
Thereafter all modern aircraft >> 2.0:
45 yr average 1.44
MD 11 2013 events, 25 Jan, 24 Nov.
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
Page 19. Hull loss accident rates / million departures.
MD11: 3.62
vs nearest comparable aircraft (page 2): DC10 2.94,
B747 2.85,
A300 2.39
A310 2.32
Thereafter all modern aircraft >> 2.0:
45 yr average 1.44
MD 11 2013 events, 25 Jan, 24 Nov.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the Air Force is getting nervous about Boeing's schedule. As I said earlier, I personally don't see how Boeing is going to meet the "18 ready-to-go tankers to the Air Force by August 2017" deadline.
The Air Force is reviewing Boeing's schedule for its KC-46 tanker to ensure the recapitalization program is still on track to meet a critical deadline as repeated setbacks threaten to derail the company's tight testing schedule.
Despite eating an $835 million pre-tax charge that stemmed from development issues with the integrated fuel system on the plane, as well as repeated delays of the first flight, Boeing is bullish about its ability to deliver 18 ready-to-go tankers to the Air Force by August 2017.
"We remain committed to deliver the initial 18 tankers by 2017," a Boeing spokeswoman said earlier this month.
But the Air Force needs more convincing, Secretary Deborah Lee James indicated Monday during a press conference at the Pentagon.
"We're in the process of going over the schedule again to see whether we can see our way clear on that as well," James said. "Certainly, the margin in the schedule is all but gone at this point."
In Boeing 's most recent challenge, first flight of the tanker test plane was delayed by about a month because a mislabeled chemical was mistakenly loaded into the aircraft's refueling line during testing, according to the spokeswoman. The company's most recent estimate for timing of first flight is late August or early September — a shift of almost a year from the original time line.
If problems with the integrated fuel system tank persist, or if the delay in first flight sets back the overall test schedule, the Air Force is concerned the program could see a domino effect. Boeing must successfully demonstrate the required refueling capabilities during flight tests before the Pentagon will certify the program, an official stamp of approval the Air Force hopes to get between January and April of 2016.
"The other thing that we will be taking a look at is, would there be any operational impacts?" James said. "Should they not make that August of 2017 contractual deadline, would that have any operational impacts on us, and, if so, would there be any contractual considerations that we should look at?"
The good news is, the Air Force is not on the hook for any further cost overruns, James said.
The Air Force is locked in for 179 tankers under its KC-X recapitalization program, which is planned to be the backbone of US air refueling efforts for the coming decades.
The Air Force is reviewing Boeing's schedule for its KC-46 tanker to ensure the recapitalization program is still on track to meet a critical deadline as repeated setbacks threaten to derail the company's tight testing schedule.
Despite eating an $835 million pre-tax charge that stemmed from development issues with the integrated fuel system on the plane, as well as repeated delays of the first flight, Boeing is bullish about its ability to deliver 18 ready-to-go tankers to the Air Force by August 2017.
"We remain committed to deliver the initial 18 tankers by 2017," a Boeing spokeswoman said earlier this month.
But the Air Force needs more convincing, Secretary Deborah Lee James indicated Monday during a press conference at the Pentagon.
"We're in the process of going over the schedule again to see whether we can see our way clear on that as well," James said. "Certainly, the margin in the schedule is all but gone at this point."
In Boeing 's most recent challenge, first flight of the tanker test plane was delayed by about a month because a mislabeled chemical was mistakenly loaded into the aircraft's refueling line during testing, according to the spokeswoman. The company's most recent estimate for timing of first flight is late August or early September — a shift of almost a year from the original time line.
If problems with the integrated fuel system tank persist, or if the delay in first flight sets back the overall test schedule, the Air Force is concerned the program could see a domino effect. Boeing must successfully demonstrate the required refueling capabilities during flight tests before the Pentagon will certify the program, an official stamp of approval the Air Force hopes to get between January and April of 2016.
"The other thing that we will be taking a look at is, would there be any operational impacts?" James said. "Should they not make that August of 2017 contractual deadline, would that have any operational impacts on us, and, if so, would there be any contractual considerations that we should look at?"
The good news is, the Air Force is not on the hook for any further cost overruns, James said.
The Air Force is locked in for 179 tankers under its KC-X recapitalization program, which is planned to be the backbone of US air refueling efforts for the coming decades.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how would you describe the MD-11's safety record, Ken?
Poor? Below average? Adequate? Above average? Exemplary?
Poor? Below average? Adequate? Above average? Exemplary?
Last edited by KenV; 26th Aug 2015 at 17:45.
KenV,
Once again you have selected the bit you feel you can answer. Yes, I do think the restrictions and the finicky handling are safety issues, but the crux is this bit, which I quoted to you and which you have ignored:
If you don't think those are safety issues, then I suspect you really get safety.
Once again you have selected the bit you feel you can answer. Yes, I do think the restrictions and the finicky handling are safety issues, but the crux is this bit, which I quoted to you and which you have ignored:
Instead, the MD-11 was beset by a series of problems, including particularly sensitive controls at low and high altitudes; a tendency for pilots to smack the plane's tail on the runway during takeoffs; and persistent landing accidents.