CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North Carolina
Age: 63
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Michael Schumacher Needed...
Valvanuz,
I disagree. It does not take someone with Michael Schumacher-like skills (to continue with the analogy) to land a MD-11.
Safely landing the MD-11 is, like everything else, a matter of training and remaining current. Nothing more.
A similar situation existed in the GA fleet with the Mitsubishi MU-2 - another famously 'finicky' airplane with a very bad accident history (far, far worse than the DC10/MD11 family) - at one point, congress wanted the d#&n thing grounded because its (MU-2) record - and reputation - were so bad.
But, aside from a few quirks and an unusually high (for GA aircraft) wing-loading, there was nothing inherently dangerous about the MU-2...just as there is nothing inherently dangerous about the MD-11. It turned out to be a matter of training.
Since the FAA instituted a structured, type-specific training protocol for the MU-2 - with regular checks - its accident rate is now among the best in the GA/Business fleet. You'll find a good summary here > Mitsubishi MU-2 | FLYING Magazine
So no - no 'special skill' to fly the MD-11, one doesn't need to be Chuck Yeager to land one safely every time. You just need "strict attention to proper technique and a stable approach."
I disagree. It does not take someone with Michael Schumacher-like skills (to continue with the analogy) to land a MD-11.
Safely landing the MD-11 is, like everything else, a matter of training and remaining current. Nothing more.
A similar situation existed in the GA fleet with the Mitsubishi MU-2 - another famously 'finicky' airplane with a very bad accident history (far, far worse than the DC10/MD11 family) - at one point, congress wanted the d#&n thing grounded because its (MU-2) record - and reputation - were so bad.
But, aside from a few quirks and an unusually high (for GA aircraft) wing-loading, there was nothing inherently dangerous about the MU-2...just as there is nothing inherently dangerous about the MD-11. It turned out to be a matter of training.
Since the FAA instituted a structured, type-specific training protocol for the MU-2 - with regular checks - its accident rate is now among the best in the GA/Business fleet. You'll find a good summary here > Mitsubishi MU-2 | FLYING Magazine
So no - no 'special skill' to fly the MD-11, one doesn't need to be Chuck Yeager to land one safely every time. You just need "strict attention to proper technique and a stable approach."
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please define proper technique.....does the MD11 technique differ from that required in landing and Go arounds in the L1011?
thanks notadog
Any body,...
Did Boeing ever use PCA?,..I know they have those hydrual 'fuse plugs' ??? to keep Sioux City from reoccuring,...but now we're going more electric ,...surprised 'PCA' did not show up,...even in most MD-11s IIRC
Any body,...
Did Boeing ever use PCA?,..I know they have those hydrual 'fuse plugs' ??? to keep Sioux City from reoccuring,...but now we're going more electric ,...surprised 'PCA' did not show up,...even in most MD-11s IIRC
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CFE
Age: 65
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe not Shumi
SK8TRBOI
I was not thinking about the F-1 type Ferrari (that is more like flying a fighter jet) but more like any high performance car.
the MD-11 may not be a "dangerous" airplane as it has managed thousands of perfectly good landings. but, just the fact that you need specific training and honned skills does imply that the plane is less forgiving than your average 737 or... 747 (to stay in the "heavy" category). Since the error margin is narrower, it just becomes more difficult in tight situations.
BMWs are not dangerous and anyone can drive them easily but, you do need a better than average driver to take one fast on a snowy road...
I was not thinking about the F-1 type Ferrari (that is more like flying a fighter jet) but more like any high performance car.the MD-11 may not be a "dangerous" airplane as it has managed thousands of perfectly good landings. but, just the fact that you need specific training and honned skills does imply that the plane is less forgiving than your average 737 or... 747 (to stay in the "heavy" category). Since the error margin is narrower, it just becomes more difficult in tight situations.
BMWs are not dangerous and anyone can drive them easily but, you do need a better than average driver to take one fast on a snowy road...
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MD11 is a lovely aircraft; fun to fly, very rewarding to master. I've flown it in both seats, at two different carriers.
It also has a glass jaw. The structural design of the landing gear mounts does not suffer fools gladly. An accident that would cause a collapsed gear in other aircraft causes the MD11 wing spar to fracture.
It is what it is. I don't think any current MD11 pilot takes their landings lightly - not anymore.....
It also has a glass jaw. The structural design of the landing gear mounts does not suffer fools gladly. An accident that would cause a collapsed gear in other aircraft causes the MD11 wing spar to fracture.
It is what it is. I don't think any current MD11 pilot takes their landings lightly - not anymore.....
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are still crashing!
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...io-monday.html
Any well designed aircraft will have a reasonable tolerance for some pilot imperfections. None of us is perfect. There are certain aircraft that sane pilots avoid flying. Why put up with the extra risk?
http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-fl...io-monday.html
Any well designed aircraft will have a reasonable tolerance for some pilot imperfections. None of us is perfect. There are certain aircraft that sane pilots avoid flying. Why put up with the extra risk?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this is covered already but this is an extraordinary recurrence of a familiar problem, and it is common to MD11 and DC10. I was once told the technical details but essentially there is something radically wrong with the ability of the MLG to handle lateral loads. This type of crash has been seen for over 20 years now - hard bounce, touch again, MLG snaps, the rolling momentum upwards breaks off the wing and it flops on its back. The hull loss rate of the MD11 is simply staggering and much as it may be delightful to fly, has any other a/c type had so many disastrous crashes of exactly the same kind? Planes crash for all sorts of reasons but the number of times precisely this has happened to MD11s/DC10s is huge -- without looking it up it must be a good seven or eight.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: TWIMyOyster
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes you wonder about the validity of 'grandfather rights' within the FAA certification process: the MLG (design) problem was well known from the DC10 and was no longer allowed on new aircraft in the 1980s; but since the MD11 was certified as a DC10-model it was still allowed on the MD11.
a few MLG (design) related DC10/MD10/MD11 crashes:
- Faro (Martinair, DC10)
- Newark (Fedex, MD11)
- Memphis (Fedex, MD10)
- Chek Lap kok (China Airlines, MD11)
- Narita (Fedex, MD11)
An a lot of landing incidents...
In the early days MLG-touchdown on the MD11 generated a significant pitch-up effect (esp. F50). Pilots therefore were used to PUSH the yoke after touchdown in order to land the nosewheel as opposed to normal system behavior were you would tend to PULL the yoke (might have contributed in this crash). Later-on MDD modified the spoiler sequence, whereafter a more or less 'normal' landing behavior could be expected (although still very different from 'normal' aircraft).
But, despite its quirks, I loved to fly the MD11 (I used to compare it with women: all you have to do is treat them delicately).
a few MLG (design) related DC10/MD10/MD11 crashes:
- Faro (Martinair, DC10)
- Newark (Fedex, MD11)
- Memphis (Fedex, MD10)
- Chek Lap kok (China Airlines, MD11)
- Narita (Fedex, MD11)
An a lot of landing incidents...
In the early days MLG-touchdown on the MD11 generated a significant pitch-up effect (esp. F50). Pilots therefore were used to PUSH the yoke after touchdown in order to land the nosewheel as opposed to normal system behavior were you would tend to PULL the yoke (might have contributed in this crash). Later-on MDD modified the spoiler sequence, whereafter a more or less 'normal' landing behavior could be expected (although still very different from 'normal' aircraft).
But, despite its quirks, I loved to fly the MD11 (I used to compare it with women: all you have to do is treat them delicately
).
Last edited by HotelT; 4th Feb 2010 at 17:53.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North Carolina
Age: 63
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa!
RE: MU-2 crash at Cleveland.
Whoa - Carrier...that was like all of 2 weeks ago (and on approach in heavy fog) - let's not blame the airplane just yet...
Whoa - Carrier...that was like all of 2 weeks ago (and on approach in heavy fog) - let's not blame the airplane just yet...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't WX a major factor in the Faro DC-10 and CLK MD-11 accidents? (Windshear and TS?)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: North Carolina
Age: 63
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MLG related accident history
At the risk of beginning to sound like an MD-11 "apologist" as opposed to a simple driver
...The Newark and Memphis accidents were entirely preventable. The outcome (complete hull loss) was tangentially related to exceedence of lower (but not unreasonable nor flawed) design loads.
As to statistics, Mark Twain once wrote, "There are three kinds of Lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." A once huge fleet of DC-10s (now mostly retired, along with nearly every L1011 and 747-100) and a sizeable modern fleet of MD-11 with zillions (that's a scientific term!) cycles, the record is still a speck, statistically speaking (and the two mentioned above that I've thoroughly studied were entirely preventable). Is it more than, say, a B767? Yes, it is.
Lastly, C172's crash every week, C310's nearly every month. Is it the airplane? No. It's the training.
...The Newark and Memphis accidents were entirely preventable. The outcome (complete hull loss) was tangentially related to exceedence of lower (but not unreasonable nor flawed) design loads.As to statistics, Mark Twain once wrote, "There are three kinds of Lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." A once huge fleet of DC-10s (now mostly retired, along with nearly every L1011 and 747-100) and a sizeable modern fleet of MD-11 with zillions (that's a scientific term
!) cycles, the record is still a speck, statistically speaking (and the two mentioned above that I've thoroughly studied were entirely preventable). Is it more than, say, a B767? Yes, it is.Lastly, C172's crash every week, C310's nearly every month. Is it the airplane? No. It's the training.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: TWIMyOyster
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not as much the failing of the MLG (although in a few cases at a fairly low limit, some at only 1100'/min), it is the way it fails: MLG fails -> wing(root) gets structurally damaged in the process (design) -> wing fails -> aircraft flips over -> ... a number of crashes show a similar pattern.
As far as the cause of these crashes: trained professionals establish the cause of a crash, I consider myself very lucky not having to establish cause. I just observe a pattern in the way the MLG failed on several of these crashes.
MLG failures due to hard landings on large civilian aircraft are rare AFAIK, but compare this pattern to f.i. the way the B777 wing gear failure at LHR (1700'/min if I remember correctly): right and left MLG collapsed, but the damage to aircraft -although substantial- was survivable to the passengers and crew (thankfully the worst injury was a broken leg). At the very least the wings were still attached to the hull (and the wing tanks remained largely intact).
But perhaps I am being a bit too outspoken on this issue (in which case I apologize); good people have died in this crash...
As far as the cause of these crashes: trained professionals establish the cause of a crash, I consider myself very lucky not having to establish cause. I just observe a pattern in the way the MLG failed on several of these crashes.
MLG failures due to hard landings on large civilian aircraft are rare AFAIK, but compare this pattern to f.i. the way the B777 wing gear failure at LHR (1700'/min if I remember correctly): right and left MLG collapsed, but the damage to aircraft -although substantial- was survivable to the passengers and crew (thankfully the worst injury was a broken leg). At the very least the wings were still attached to the hull (and the wing tanks remained largely intact).
But perhaps I am being a bit too outspoken on this issue (in which case I apologize); good people have died in this crash...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Faro the decent rate was lower, but landed only on the RMLG which (with a high G-force) broke, wingtip hit the surface and the rest is history.
I recently spoke to a MD11 cpt who is also curios about this accident (due to the very high bounce), but also the ZSPD one.
I recently spoke to a MD11 cpt who is also curios about this accident (due to the very high bounce), but also the ZSPD one.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the MD-11 may not be a "dangerous" airplane as it has managed thousands of perfectly good landings. but, just the fact that you need specific training and honned skills does imply that the plane is less forgiving than your average 737 or... 747 (to stay in the "heavy" category). Since the error margin is narrower, it just becomes more difficult in tight situations.
Most, if not all, of the landing incidents or accidents relating to MD11s can be traced back to an non stabilized approach or a destabilized landing.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: planet earth
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Auto-Throttle and crosswind MD11
Do you leave the auto-throttle on for cross-wind landings in the MD11 ?
In the Hong Kong accident , the approach was flown at 170kts (Vapp152) with the A/P off and the auto-throttle on. At 50ft, the system retarded the thrust to idle causing a rapid speed decay . One of the casual factors causing the accident, was the Captains inability to stop the rapid ROD at 50ft.
Could this be one of the factors in the Tokyo accident ?
What is the best cross-wind technique in this situation ?
THX
In the Hong Kong accident , the approach was flown at 170kts (Vapp152) with the A/P off and the auto-throttle on. At 50ft, the system retarded the thrust to idle causing a rapid speed decay . One of the casual factors causing the accident, was the Captains inability to stop the rapid ROD at 50ft.
Could this be one of the factors in the Tokyo accident ?
What is the best cross-wind technique in this situation ?
THX
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless something has changed since I few the MD, the autothrottles start their power reduction at 47' AGL. The voice callouts are a subtle but an effective cue as to the rate of descent at that time. A rapid 50,40,30,20,10, would be indicative of a impending harder that desired landing. The AT retardation is easlily overridden IMO, and in and of it's self should not be a factor assuming your hand is on the throttles to begin with.
I do not reacll any specific AT guidelines for not using the AT's during crosswind landings. Maybe someone here with more recent time in the aircraft can correct me on this.
I do not reacll any specific AT guidelines for not using the AT's during crosswind landings. Maybe someone here with more recent time in the aircraft can correct me on this.