CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo
propellerhead
dear sir,
as i mentioned above dont forget Faro too
as i mentioned above dont forget Faro too
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: In the shed
Age: 78
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the second FedEx Express major accident this year: USA: FedEx
... and the second MD-11F. The other two MDs they lost in '03 and '06 were -10s.
... and the second MD-11F. The other two MDs they lost in '03 and '06 were -10s.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...running all 3 hydraulic lines past engine number 3 (when engine no.3 blew up in the sioux city aircraft it took out all the hydraulics).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 64
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different camera view
Additional view of the crash on a liveleak video LiveLeak.com - Plane Crash Lands In Japan
flightmech
i understood Faro dc-10 crash was over crosswind limits ?
and also windshear and other factors
and also windshear and other factors
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Flight Safetys video you can actually see the nose rising when the spoilers deploy.
What a heavily compromised aircraft this is: once you start having to 'tweak' all manner of aerod.& stability systems for cruise-drag reduction, it is very easy to start chasing your tail to regain low-speed handling. In this case, and IMHO, the large pitch inertia makes this even more awkward.
The propensity to roll-over is probably augmented by the relatively high CoG, with an inertial axis that slopes down from aft fwds. This itself can increase maingear loads when out-of-line.
It may well have all been out of the crew's hands after the initial touchdown, which state will become apparent only with FDR.
Very upset that Japanese news clip is showing just the second touchdown (repeatedly!)... very ghoulish! I can only imagine what is going through FedeX minds right now... both pilots & management.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 30W
Age: 40
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, just a suggestion. How about a Baulked landing? If not the bounce is probably one of the most stable bounces I have ever seen. How about the pilot flying initiated a baulked landing then the PNF said to put the a/c down? I say this as the initial part of the bouce looks more like a climb away with TOGA than an unstable bounce.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture referenced by ManAdaSystem in post 19 showing a KLM MD11 on final approach and the tailplane angle indicates a real problem. I have seen MD11s with this absurd tailplane incidence many times. Does it not show a fundamental misdesign? The wing is evidently too far back- it even looks it. The tailplane is desperately trying to provide enough downforce. Put yourself in a baulked landing with low airspeed and you then have a real problem trying to hold the nose up. If the pilots had full back elevator and the nose still fell like that, then this aeroplane should be withdrawn from service.
I would guess the wing has to be so far aft to allow sufficient attitude for ops without tailscrapes being a common occurence. But attaching the engines at the back, particularly DC10 style where the centre engine hangs off the very rear of the fuselage, is not a good idea for a stretched aeroplane like the MD11. For years there have been stories circulating what a nasty handful it can be on landing.
I would guess the wing has to be so far aft to allow sufficient attitude for ops without tailscrapes being a common occurence. But attaching the engines at the back, particularly DC10 style where the centre engine hangs off the very rear of the fuselage, is not a good idea for a stretched aeroplane like the MD11. For years there have been stories circulating what a nasty handful it can be on landing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe - actually the first touchdown looks very violent as if recovering desperately from wind shear - his tail strikes something leaving a small visible puff, well beyond the threshold and it appears near the roadway underpass at that end of 16L, before the main hard touchdown with its large debris cloud. The initial contact could be the left wing contacting a light standard or part of the landing light structure. In any case there is contact with something at the very end of the runway a good 1.5 seconds before the first major impact, indicating his altitude was rapidly decaying - his pitched up nose indicates a GA attempt just as in Dallas - that L1011 at least had the same flight dynamic issues as the MD-11 if not the same specific handling peculiarities.
-drl
-drl
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video shows that initial touchdown. They do indeed look a long way into the undershoot of the displaced 34L threshold. You can get some nasty windshear down that end with a westerly wind and have gotten airborne into some particularly unpleasant 'mush' when departing 16R
carnage (blimey wot a username)
carnage, thanks for that clip.
it really shows the whole sequence which is yukky and horrid...poor chaps.
from what the MD11 drivers have noted here earlier, a GA maybe was started and it all goes horribly wrong?
am sure this clip will be helpful however, coupled with the recorders and weather info to to a quick analysis of this accident and why it happened.
these MD11's and DC10's all seem to flip over, grrrr
it really shows the whole sequence which is yukky and horrid...poor chaps.
from what the MD11 drivers have noted here earlier, a GA maybe was started and it all goes horribly wrong?
am sure this clip will be helpful however, coupled with the recorders and weather info to to a quick analysis of this accident and why it happened.
these MD11's and DC10's all seem to flip over, grrrr
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the thread, follow the links before you post links to videos that have already been posted. Why do you think half this thread has already been deleted?
That x-wind landing is on page 4.
That x-wind landing is on page 4.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absurd tail-plane incidence?
Rainboe - it depends on the CG at the time. Aft CG (circa 26.0% MAC) and trim is about 8.5 ANU. In a baulked landing with the MD11, pressing the GA switch will immediately advance the throttles to GA thrust, and command a pitch up attitude to maintain VrefGA or current IAS, which normally results (3 engines) in a pitch up attitude of about 25 deg ANU. You wouldn't want to have a hell of a lot of back-pressure on the stick when you hit the GA switch. If a GA was initiated AND the GA switch was pressed, then there would only be one flight path achieved - UP.
The wings too far back? No, that has to be a wind-up.
Now, some are talking of the #2 engine producing a downward moment when thrust is applied; that is correct. However, what is happening to the #1 and #3 engines at the same time? Remaining at idle? (a rhetorical question). These engines will negate any nose down moment caused by #2 engine, and give the airplane a nose-up moment (see above).
For those who have flown the MD11, I doubt any will opine other than when landing, it can be a handful (not impossible or unsafe) in adverse conditions, hence the correct landing technique must be used.
Someone mentioned autoland: AFM limitation - no autoland when windshear forecast/suspected (or h/wind >25kt, x/wind >15kt, or t/wind >10kt).
The wings too far back? No, that has to be a wind-up.
Now, some are talking of the #2 engine producing a downward moment when thrust is applied; that is correct. However, what is happening to the #1 and #3 engines at the same time? Remaining at idle? (a rhetorical question). These engines will negate any nose down moment caused by #2 engine, and give the airplane a nose-up moment (see above).
For those who have flown the MD11, I doubt any will opine other than when landing, it can be a handful (not impossible or unsafe) in adverse conditions, hence the correct landing technique must be used.
Someone mentioned autoland: AFM limitation - no autoland when windshear forecast/suspected (or h/wind >25kt, x/wind >15kt, or t/wind >10kt).
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...if not the same specific handling peculiarities.
You never ever run out of pitch authority with the L1011, with it's very powerful, large all-moving design... a Lockheed exclusive.
Can you have windshear that no amount of thrust can overcome, as with DAL 191?
Most certainly, especially with the -22B powered airplane, but to run out of pitch authority with the Lockheed design...not possible.
The last link published by Carnage Matey was most interesting...and disturbing.
Horrible stuff. Condolences to the families and friends....
Landing rollovers:
MD11 fedex July 97
MD11 mandarin [ci] August 99
MD11 fedex 23rd mar 09
Co-incidence?
Never flown an MD or DC with a number geater than -9 so can't comment on the handling qualities mentioned. Although, can someone explain the MD11's 'LSAS' to me? Quite a hot topic at certain ANC bars.
Have to agree with 411a reference the mighty TRISTAR, however there is a thin connection and evidence that NRT is worth avoiding around the ides in a 3-holer: CX Tristar MAR 24[!] 1990. NRT 16 [now 16R].
Landing rollovers:
MD11 fedex July 97
MD11 mandarin [ci] August 99
MD11 fedex 23rd mar 09
Co-incidence?
Never flown an MD or DC with a number geater than -9 so can't comment on the handling qualities mentioned. Although, can someone explain the MD11's 'LSAS' to me? Quite a hot topic at certain ANC bars.
Have to agree with 411a reference the mighty TRISTAR, however there is a thin connection and evidence that NRT is worth avoiding around the ides in a 3-holer: CX Tristar MAR 24[!] 1990. NRT 16 [now 16R].