HKG MD-11 Crash Video Released
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411a again!
411a - yes, the BZZ accident was pretty much as you describe but then you spoil what (for you) was an intelligent post with your "as it was the RAF, maybe reading the book was not a requirement" comment.
For a little more detail, the accident was caused by the training Captain (in the RHS) showing off to the Captain under training whilst the FO was on the jump seat.
Both the FO and FE told the TC to stop what he was doing but, short of physically restraining the guy at about 500' above the runway, what could they do?
Now, if the FO and FE knew that the TC was making a mistake, surely they must have read the book?
If I recall correctly, the TC never flew in the RAF again and the aeroplane was rebuilt (and is fine now) despite having had the main spar broken in the accident.
Maybe the TC was a wannabe Redneck - you all know the joke:
You know you are a Redneck when one of your family has died after saying "Hey y'all, watch this".
For a little more detail, the accident was caused by the training Captain (in the RHS) showing off to the Captain under training whilst the FO was on the jump seat.
Both the FO and FE told the TC to stop what he was doing but, short of physically restraining the guy at about 500' above the runway, what could they do?
Now, if the FO and FE knew that the TC was making a mistake, surely they must have read the book?
If I recall correctly, the TC never flew in the RAF again and the aeroplane was rebuilt (and is fine now) despite having had the main spar broken in the accident.
Maybe the TC was a wannabe Redneck - you all know the joke:
You know you are a Redneck when one of your family has died after saying "Hey y'all, watch this".
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moggie,
Well, at least you agree then...the RAF (one anyway) stuffed it up rather badly.
To be fair, some airlines have these guys as well.
And just like in the RAF, they need to be terminated from any flying duties.
Actually, terminated...period.
Well, at least you agree then...the RAF (one anyway) stuffed it up rather badly.
To be fair, some airlines have these guys as well.
And just like in the RAF, they need to be terminated from any flying duties.
Actually, terminated...period.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that it matters much but, in the interests of historical accuracy, I have it in mind that the rather stupid RAF Tristar tent-pegging incident took place at Lyneham and not at Brize Norton.
411A:
When it comes to reading books and going into total trivia you simply cannot beat the RAF. Who else in the world could make a conversion course last for 6 months!
However, the senior w*nker who planted the Tristar knew better than everyone else in the world - until it all went wrong!
411A:
When it comes to reading books and going into total trivia you simply cannot beat the RAF. Who else in the world could make a conversion course last for 6 months!
However, the senior w*nker who planted the Tristar knew better than everyone else in the world - until it all went wrong!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411 - it definitely was at Brize - I was there at the time (but on SkodaAir not the Trimotor).
A mate of mine was the JEngO on 216 and he told me that the crack in the mainspar was wide enough to put your fist through, but that all the skin panels were reuseable as was the undercarriage itself!
I believe the ADR showed something like a pitch rate of 6º per second just before the first impact, the aeroplane bounced 80ft into the air and that the rate of descent was something like 60 feet per second (3600 ft per minute!) at the second impact, the one that actually did the damage. No wonder the main spar broke.
A mate of mine was the JEngO on 216 and he told me that the crack in the mainspar was wide enough to put your fist through, but that all the skin panels were reuseable as was the undercarriage itself!
I believe the ADR showed something like a pitch rate of 6º per second just before the first impact, the aeroplane bounced 80ft into the air and that the rate of descent was something like 60 feet per second (3600 ft per minute!) at the second impact, the one that actually did the damage. No wonder the main spar broke.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: hamble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying the MD11
Anti Ice -
To answer your question about the MD11, it's an aerodynamic disaster and a pig to fly.
The reasons are:
High wing loading, crude flaps, small tailplane, large mass of centre engine far aft, main gear well aft of wing centre of lift, poor brakes and permanent engagement of control wheel steering.
These combine to produce the following characteristics on a typical approach:
-High speed - 160Kts with flaps 35 at MLW. Flaps 50 can be used but cause uncomfortable buffeting, Vref in this case is reduced by 5Kts. The flaps are simply hinged below the trailing edge like on a Piper, none of the area increasing triple slotted mechanical marvels of the 747!
-Poor elevator control and undesirable, mostly pitch up effects caused by the inertia of the massive centre engine so far aft. There are 4 yes FOUR pitch stability augmentation channels that are artificially enhancing stability and interfering with longitudinal control, particularly close to the ground.
-Generally sloppy control response because of control wheel steering break out forces with constant kick-backs, something that many pilots never get used to.
Landing technique is to start the flare at around 40ft, relax the back pressure at around 10ft or even push forward! Any attempt to pull back close to the ground simply rotates the main gear onto (or into!) the runway. The result is a bounce followed by a heavy landing. The pictures of wrecked MD11's lying upside down shows what can then happen.
-The whole thing is made worse by permanently engaged control wheel steering, not a favourite of this pilot.
-After touch down (or impact!) the nose has to be brutally pushed down to get the nosewheel on as soon as possible, otherwise spoilers, reverse and braking are unavailable.
-The brakes are poor because only the wing gear is directly load bearing. The centre gear pivots forward and has reduced contact pressure. That means effectively only 8 wheels braking 200 tons versus 16 and 250 tons for the 747.
Landing distance required at MLW flap 50 calm sea level 20deg no slope is 2300m dry, 2600m wet!
To end on a positive note - failure handling is outstanding. All systems are automated and control is duplicated. Engine failure drill for example goes like this:
Close throttle, fuel lever off, fire handle and bottle if necessary, check all systems still in auto (air, fuel, hydraulic, electric) - end of procedure!
That's way ahead of anything that Airbus have offered.
Fuel dumping is on one button, fully automatic to a preset level.
Hope this helps.
To answer your question about the MD11, it's an aerodynamic disaster and a pig to fly.
The reasons are:
High wing loading, crude flaps, small tailplane, large mass of centre engine far aft, main gear well aft of wing centre of lift, poor brakes and permanent engagement of control wheel steering.
These combine to produce the following characteristics on a typical approach:
-High speed - 160Kts with flaps 35 at MLW. Flaps 50 can be used but cause uncomfortable buffeting, Vref in this case is reduced by 5Kts. The flaps are simply hinged below the trailing edge like on a Piper, none of the area increasing triple slotted mechanical marvels of the 747!
-Poor elevator control and undesirable, mostly pitch up effects caused by the inertia of the massive centre engine so far aft. There are 4 yes FOUR pitch stability augmentation channels that are artificially enhancing stability and interfering with longitudinal control, particularly close to the ground.
-Generally sloppy control response because of control wheel steering break out forces with constant kick-backs, something that many pilots never get used to.
Landing technique is to start the flare at around 40ft, relax the back pressure at around 10ft or even push forward! Any attempt to pull back close to the ground simply rotates the main gear onto (or into!) the runway. The result is a bounce followed by a heavy landing. The pictures of wrecked MD11's lying upside down shows what can then happen.
-The whole thing is made worse by permanently engaged control wheel steering, not a favourite of this pilot.
-After touch down (or impact!) the nose has to be brutally pushed down to get the nosewheel on as soon as possible, otherwise spoilers, reverse and braking are unavailable.
-The brakes are poor because only the wing gear is directly load bearing. The centre gear pivots forward and has reduced contact pressure. That means effectively only 8 wheels braking 200 tons versus 16 and 250 tons for the 747.
Landing distance required at MLW flap 50 calm sea level 20deg no slope is 2300m dry, 2600m wet!
To end on a positive note - failure handling is outstanding. All systems are automated and control is duplicated. Engine failure drill for example goes like this:
Close throttle, fuel lever off, fire handle and bottle if necessary, check all systems still in auto (air, fuel, hydraulic, electric) - end of procedure!
That's way ahead of anything that Airbus have offered.
Fuel dumping is on one button, fully automatic to a preset level.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
694c, thanks very much for taking time in your reply, and including so much information! Excellent summary and confirmed many of my ideas, especailly re: the rear engine and tailplane.
Sounds like you have to have a very special technique to bring one of these huge liners in, (especially in poor wx).
Thanks again, and safe flying ,Anti-ice
Sounds like you have to have a very special technique to bring one of these huge liners in, (especially in poor wx).
Thanks again, and safe flying ,Anti-ice
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: FAR EAST
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
694C,
Thanks for the excellent overview on flying characteristics of MD11. Just slightly out of the topic here but may I ask for your opinions on the main differences betwn the L1011 and MD11 in terms of their handling qualities if you happen to know any? I have always presumed they're pretty much the same although those who had flown the tri-star seemed to have endless praises on it.
Cheers.
Thanks for the excellent overview on flying characteristics of MD11. Just slightly out of the topic here but may I ask for your opinions on the main differences betwn the L1011 and MD11 in terms of their handling qualities if you happen to know any? I have always presumed they're pretty much the same although those who had flown the tri-star seemed to have endless praises on it.
Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: hamble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD11 vs L1011
cpt744
I can only compare the MD11 to the 747 'classic' and Airbuses 310 and 330.
I believe that the Tristar was a much more integrated and technically advanced aircraft than the DC10/MD11, which were rushed designs to keep McDonnell Douglas in the widebody airliner market.
If I recall conversations with Tristar piots in the seventies I believe that the aircraft used a feature called 'direct lift control' on approach, whereby the spoilers were part of the longditudinal control system. If the aircraft was high, forward control column pressure extended the spoilers, the aircraft descended at constant attitude; vice versa if low. I don't know if the approach could also be flown with constant thrust using this system. It probably accounts for the aircraft's outstanding autoland and crosswind landing capability.
There must be several Delta Airlines pilots who have flown both the L1011 and MD11 who could answer your question.
I can only compare the MD11 to the 747 'classic' and Airbuses 310 and 330.
I believe that the Tristar was a much more integrated and technically advanced aircraft than the DC10/MD11, which were rushed designs to keep McDonnell Douglas in the widebody airliner market.
If I recall conversations with Tristar piots in the seventies I believe that the aircraft used a feature called 'direct lift control' on approach, whereby the spoilers were part of the longditudinal control system. If the aircraft was high, forward control column pressure extended the spoilers, the aircraft descended at constant attitude; vice versa if low. I don't know if the approach could also be flown with constant thrust using this system. It probably accounts for the aircraft's outstanding autoland and crosswind landing capability.
There must be several Delta Airlines pilots who have flown both the L1011 and MD11 who could answer your question.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: FAR EAST
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
694c
Your info was indeed concurrent with what I heard from one ex-L1011 pilot. Apart from the stabilised approach attitude using spoilers as corrective controls, he mentioned that during those good old days ( seventies I assumed.. ) tri-star was already capable of doing CAT IIIC zero vis and no DH with the 5 channels autopilot system. You can imagine how impressed I was flying the 744 in the nineties and I have 3 separate channels of autopilots to brag about then.
Since then have always have the curiosity to know a bit more about this Lockheed civilian 'jewel', if I may quote from someone who loved to use this word quite a lot..
Tell you what, I think I'm gonna try my luck by posting the correct question to quench my own thirst on this issue under Q & A in order to keep this thread on track. Thanks again for your time on this one.
Your info was indeed concurrent with what I heard from one ex-L1011 pilot. Apart from the stabilised approach attitude using spoilers as corrective controls, he mentioned that during those good old days ( seventies I assumed.. ) tri-star was already capable of doing CAT IIIC zero vis and no DH with the 5 channels autopilot system. You can imagine how impressed I was flying the 744 in the nineties and I have 3 separate channels of autopilots to brag about then.
Since then have always have the curiosity to know a bit more about this Lockheed civilian 'jewel', if I may quote from someone who loved to use this word quite a lot..
Tell you what, I think I'm gonna try my luck by posting the correct question to quench my own thirst on this issue under Q & A in order to keep this thread on track. Thanks again for your time on this one.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capt744, sorry to disappoint you but the Tristar only had a two channel autopilot. Each APFDS computer ( 1 @ 2) contained an Approach Land Computer A, Approach Land Computer B, a Cruise Computer and a Flight director computer. The output signals from the Approach Land Computers were fed to two Voter Modules, feeding two Servo Amps into a Monitored Servo. Although highly sophisticated for it's day, you are better off with your three channel autopilot in the 744 today.
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"To answer your question about the MD11, it's an aerodynamic disaster and a pig to fly."
694c,
I have flown the MD-11 for many years, and consider the aircraft extremely safe, a money-maker for the airline, and a great pleasure to fly. That she has certain handling characteristics different to other aircraft is clear, but a"disaster and a pig to fly"?, I think not.
If, as a professional pilot you are unable, unwilling, or do not have the requisite flying experience to meet the very normal piloting challenges presented by this aircraft, the Douglas engineers have very thoughtfully designed a large hole in the back of the flight deck:
It's called the cockpit door.
694c,
I have flown the MD-11 for many years, and consider the aircraft extremely safe, a money-maker for the airline, and a great pleasure to fly. That she has certain handling characteristics different to other aircraft is clear, but a"disaster and a pig to fly"?, I think not.
If, as a professional pilot you are unable, unwilling, or do not have the requisite flying experience to meet the very normal piloting challenges presented by this aircraft, the Douglas engineers have very thoughtfully designed a large hole in the back of the flight deck:
It's called the cockpit door.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: FAR EAST
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog,
Much appreciate your correction, I guess someone really tried hard to impress me huh.. or he must have counted and termed wrongly the 2 voter modules and 2 servo Amps with the monitored servo as 5 channels..
Would you then have any distinctive comparisions betwn the MD11 and L1011? I'm curious to find out from those of you who have hands on experience with thse 2 jetliners as to what are the main differences btwn them.
Cheers.
Much appreciate your correction, I guess someone really tried hard to impress me huh.. or he must have counted and termed wrongly the 2 voter modules and 2 servo Amps with the monitored servo as 5 channels..
Would you then have any distinctive comparisions betwn the MD11 and L1011? I'm curious to find out from those of you who have hands on experience with thse 2 jetliners as to what are the main differences btwn them.
Cheers.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTOH, delivered s/n 1040 to its final resting place, and the final landing was done as it should be....autoland (with only one autopilot engaged...performance was superb.
The Lockheed-California Company got it right...(with a little help from the Trident team).
The Lockheed-California Company got it right...(with a little help from the Trident team).
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capt744, no experience with the MD11 but always thought the DC10-30 was a much less complicated airplane than the L1011 but a superb machine. I was on the wide body evaluation team for my airline and the final choice was the DC-10, which at the eleventh hour was changed to the L1011 due to political pressures prevailing at that time.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: World citizen
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The L1011 was indeed a complicated machine, HotDog, so much so that maintenance costs were prohibitive. The MD-11 is a derivitave DC-10, and, as such, a far more profitable machine than the Tritanic could ever have been.
The TriShaw impact was on RW08 at Brize. Due to topography, the ILS on that RW has a steeper than normal GS and the GS itself has a number of bends in it. So it isn't cleared for auto-coupled approaches anyway..
The ac was very nearly lost. As it bounced back in the air after the massive impact (which the SEngO on 101 actually felt through his office chair!), the operating idiot said "It shouldn't have done that....". One engine had suffered a compressor to shroud impact, the main spar had a massive crack (through which later photgraphs showed daylight to be visible). When staggering round the circuit, it losts tonnes of fuel, some fell on a welder nearby who wisely stopped welding.... After landing, they weren't even sure whether the aircraft could be towed off the runway without falling apart.
When they came to repair it, evidence of an earlier, unreported heavy landing was allegedly detected. Well, that's what you can get if you buy secondhand....
Then there was another RAF TriShaw in which a CB in an external compartment (gear bay?) kept tripping. So it was held in. Predictably, the circuit it was protecting promptly acted as a large and expensive fuse to protect the CB. Another few mi££ion wasted.
Or the idiot engineers from Boscombe who surged an engine on the ground with their ham-fisted engine handling doing an equipment trial. We felt the bang in the Officers Mess!
The ac was very nearly lost. As it bounced back in the air after the massive impact (which the SEngO on 101 actually felt through his office chair!), the operating idiot said "It shouldn't have done that....". One engine had suffered a compressor to shroud impact, the main spar had a massive crack (through which later photgraphs showed daylight to be visible). When staggering round the circuit, it losts tonnes of fuel, some fell on a welder nearby who wisely stopped welding.... After landing, they weren't even sure whether the aircraft could be towed off the runway without falling apart.
When they came to repair it, evidence of an earlier, unreported heavy landing was allegedly detected. Well, that's what you can get if you buy secondhand....
Then there was another RAF TriShaw in which a CB in an external compartment (gear bay?) kept tripping. So it was held in. Predictably, the circuit it was protecting promptly acted as a large and expensive fuse to protect the CB. Another few mi££ion wasted.
Or the idiot engineers from Boscombe who surged an engine on the ground with their ham-fisted engine handling doing an equipment trial. We felt the bang in the Officers Mess!