CNN Reports FEDEX crash in Tokyo

[Flightmech]

Ask DERG, he seems to have a handle on it

[SiriusTheDogStar]

loading issues

Derg has salmonella poisoning and is in hospital so he asked me to relay the following.

Was the china stop for refuelling or loading cargo?
If it was just for refuel then fine..no issue.

However if cargo was loaded in China I fear that the numbers on the paperwork might not match the reality of the payload.

The FedEx crew are some of the best in the business and this approach just looks ALL wrong.

There must halve been a hell of a wind shear to drop the machine on the floor just as it did... If they went for TOGA that same hole in the air must have been empty enough to make the three jets useless.

Opinions requested please.

[Flightmech]

While there has no been no official report released there is obviously some information that has been obtained, confirmed and discussed by the authorities and FedEx. I think there are enough of us who work for FedEx who have contributed to this thread who can confirm that a) The aircraft was below MLW/payload not above structural max and b) the aircraft was within CG limits. You don't need to fear.

[bearfoil]

Once CG and MGW are known to be within limit here, they cease to be the issue. The fatal crash was caused by dynamic CG and GW; Once bounced beyond certain maximums, no a/c is controllable in any true sense of the word. A lightly loaded MD11 planted on the mains can snap either or both main wing spars, and once rebounded off a nose plant, the CG could be behind the a/c. Once any airframe is given a specific (and over limit) amount of energy, pilots are on a thrill ride. Demonstrably, as in this case, the Landing gear is "too robust" failing the spars and rotating the nose with such massive energy that the wings reloaded, folding them back against an already compromised structure. I think unforgiving is the word.

[Shore Guy]

FedEx Tokyo

The Japanese Transportation Safety Board has issued a progress report on the MD-11 accident at Tokyo.

Crash: Fedex MD11 at Tokyo on Mar 23rd 2009, turned on its back while landing in gusty winds

[alph2z]

Thanks Shore Guy.

Here is the direct link to the report. It's takes time to download.

http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft...416-N526FE.pdf

Differently inserted link:

http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft...416-N526FE.pdf

[VFD]

Is it me or does 166 KIAS seem a little high even when allowing for gusts.


vfd

[NOLAND3]

Not for the MD11, it's well known for having a high Vref.

[notadog]

This is apparently shaping up to be an occurrence of a bad landing followed by the crew's decision to not go around. It sure looks like a hard/bounced landing and an attempt to salvage it with disastrous results.

Contrary to popular belief, the MD11 is not that hard to land, but it requires strict attention to procedures. The reported winds were just not that bad, and the shear reported wasn't severe. The ref speed was fairly typical.

[Weapons_Hot]

Vref - here are some numbers

With a MLW of 213.8T, the MD11 VREF is 163KIAS. VAPP is nominally VREF +5 = 168KIAS. With a gust factor of 20kt or additives to VREF of up to 20kt, VAPP can get as high as 183KIAS.

I seem to recall that FEDEX has a higher certified MLW than 213.8T; in this case, then at MLW, a VAPP could be in excess of 183KIAS.

Certainly makes for a quick approach from the final fix - it also catches the ATCO's off-guard. 5nm in trail on final is quickly gobbled up by a heavy (and hot) mad dog.

[Airbubba]

As for FDX's landing technique, I cannot comment but they have been operating the type for a hell of a lot of years/hours and one would assume that if there were systemic deficiencies in their prescribed landing techniques, there would be similar incidents, if not accidents.

FedEx has suffered a significant number of landing incidents, including 3 hull losses.

As I observed here in 2006:

Sadly, FedEx seems to have a widebody hull loss every two or three years. If they were a pax carrier there would be enormous adverse publicity and probably many casualties as well.

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2746987

It was nearly three years from the second MEM landing hull loss in the thread above to the fatal crash in NRT.

Shore Guy gives this list of earlier losses on the 2006 thread:

To my recollection, this [the second MEM crash landing in 2006 - Airbubba] will be the sixth hull loss for Fedex in recent history.
Going from memory here....not necessarily in chronological order.
MD-10 MEM July, 2006 (looks like a hull loss)
MD-10 MEM 2003
B727 Tallahassee, Fl.
DC-10 Stewart, N.Y. (Aircraft landed ok, burnt due to undeclared hazmat - sound familiar?). I was right behind him that morning....diverted to EWR.
MD-11 Subic Bay - as I recall, there were split airspeed indications, and they slaved the good one to the bad ADC. Went off runway end at high speed....aircraft broke apart, but crew ok.
MD-11 - EWR “Turtle” accident……

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2747577

Fedex does indeed have a troubling history of landing accidents in recent years. Larger U.S. pax carriers like AA, UA and DL have had far fewer hull losses in combination over the same period. Is this run of bad luck a continuing statistical fluke? I don't claim to know the answer.

Whether cargo operators should be held to the same safety standards as pax operators has been debated here and elsewhere. In recent discussions of rest rules, ALPA has called for 'one level of safety' for both freight and pax ops:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_air_...s/3.3_ALPA.pdf

In the post 911-BK era, Fedex pays pilots more than AA, UA and DL and they are profitable in these down times, so lack of money for training and maintenance does not seem to be an issue.

[411A]

Looks to me that FedEx needs a detailed audit of their flight operations department.
Has one been accomplished, and by whom/when?
Not to find 'fault' but to detect operations and training deficiencies.

[Flightmech]

FedEx have just in the last month or so, external hired a guy into a newly created position of Vice President, Flight Training and Standards, within the Air Operations Division.

PS. The FedEx MD-11 MLW is 481.5K (around the 218T mark)

[411A]

FedEx have just in the last month or so, external hired a guy into a newly created position of Vice President, Flight Training and Standards, within the Air Operations Division.

IF this fellow reportes directly to the CEO/Board Chairman, than this could be a step in the right direction.
If not, it may well not be very effective.

Usually, for improvements to be implemented, an outside firm is hired, and the report goes to the top guy, the CEO.
It is then up to him and the Board of Directors to make the necessary changes....or not.

[stilton]

'The MD11 is not that hard to land'


In one piece ?

[Huck]

We've been shown that sequence of pictures for about 6 months now in recurrent training.

Afterward, emphasis in the sim was on bounce recovery. They bring you in to short final, VFR, then "freeze" you in space right over the numbers, with the aircraft still flying, just stopped in place. Then they let you play around with pitch until you can identify and hold 7.5 degrees by external references only.

The bounce drill, therefore, is just to maintain 7.5 and add power to go around. They had an interesting exercise to drive this home: they gave me a VFR landing, then ASKED me to bounce it - see how many touch-and-goes I could make on the length of the runway, all while holding 7.5 pitch. I got three - supposedly the record is eleven.....

Yes, there has been a fundamental change in training. Yes, the new guy will probably make alot of changes. Narita was one hell of a wake up call.

[Flightmech]

Another top-notch contribution from Stilton there Where have you been? Missed you.

[captjns]

Help me out here... but after 30+ years of flying large transport category transport aircraft the drill for bounce recovery has always been the same... hasn't it?


"If the airplane should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Thrust need not be added for a shallow bounce or skip. When a high or hard bounce occurs, initiate a go-around. Apply go-around thrust and use normal go-around procedures. Do not retract the landing gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may occur during the go-around."

So what has changed in the "bounce recovery" in some 30 plus years?

[Huck]

So what has changed in the "bounce recovery" in some 30 plus years?

It's quite possible that, though this was in the book, it was not emphasized so much in training. I'm not saying that was the case - I'm saying it's possible.

Thirty years ago you had three pilots and non-computer-optimized schedules.

You also didn't have FANS or CPLDC or Datalink or L888 procedures or RVSM or RNP requirements or VNAV approaches or ACARS or cockpit security procedures or CRM topics or ..... All that stuff takes away training time from stick-and-rudder skills. I'm not saying THAT's the case, either, but it might be.

[captjns]

Huck says

Thirty years ago you had three pilots and non-computer-optimized schedules.

Let's not forget a better quality of cabin crew, layover hotels, pay and benefits, Pan Am, Eastern, & TWA... Ahhh the good old days. Oh yeah... the good old reliable B727.