Lufthansa MD-11 Mexico City
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys, don’t know much about the MD11, can only say it’s a nice good looking bird … but I need here to reply to DW on his earlier comments.
Regarding the Lufthansa episode, you’re correct, it would have been a disaster if not from the Airbus side stick philosophy. What’s more surprising is how that modern technology allowed such a mistake to be done during the repair process (?) and of course how it had to happen in a … German hangar (?)
Regarding the Hudson, don’t know why you would give a medal to the flight control computer, when Capt. Sullenberger didn’t use any 'protection' and certainly never intended to.
It is not an issue than computers may be fooled by faulty or poor sensor readings but it is an issue when computers are given priority and don’t pretend anymore it never happened. Credit to the Australians who have produced a honest report, something you would not have ever seen in France.
Also interesting enough, I don’t remember reading in the so called 'serious' aeronautical press how two 'protection' features dangerously took over a nicely manually flown aircraft …
Back to the MD11 and I think you’re correct : It could be a weakness in the main ldg gear attachment.
Regarding the Lufthansa episode, you’re correct, it would have been a disaster if not from the Airbus side stick philosophy. What’s more surprising is how that modern technology allowed such a mistake to be done during the repair process (?) and of course how it had to happen in a … German hangar (?)
Regarding the Hudson, don’t know why you would give a medal to the flight control computer, when Capt. Sullenberger didn’t use any 'protection' and certainly never intended to.
I hear what you're saying, but there are two 752s on the bottom of our two largest oceans that are testament to the fact that humans can be as easily fooled by faulty or poor sensor readings as computers can. A component flaw does not necessarily imply a failure in the systems design.
Also interesting enough, I don’t remember reading in the so called 'serious' aeronautical press how two 'protection' features dangerously took over a nicely manually flown aircraft …
Back to the MD11 and I think you’re correct : It could be a weakness in the main ldg gear attachment.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a reason this aircraft is the freighter of choice.
You can quote all the MD-11 incidents you want. Fact is it lost manufacturer support when Boeing took over and most importantly the tech support that aircraft manufacturers supply 10-20 years into their operating aircraft.
I also believe that a pilot operating said craft is none different than a car driver, heavy equipment operator etc... Being proficient in the machine they operate. Hell yeah the MD-11 is demanding.... Reality is relativity.
Got to ask yourself.... What would you think of the difference between handing your kid a set of keys to a car with an automatic transmission v/s a high performance car with a manual transmission. Age apart as a poor analogy, given the proper training and respect for the machine safety is not an issue, proficiency is the key.
Not to mention the human factor........... This is the big one..
Most crashes on landing that were into known poor conditions could have been avoided by going around or selecting an alternate (fuel providing). The human factor exists here, I know I like to clock out on time.
This whole post has nothing to do with this MD-11 hard landing in Mexico City.
I rember 2 personal accounts of 742/1 hard landings that the crew failed to admit to that resulted in flap damage (as the 747 fowler flaps will shift on a hard landing) as procedure is to leave the flaps extended after said hard landing.
You can quote all the MD-11 incidents you want. Fact is it lost manufacturer support when Boeing took over and most importantly the tech support that aircraft manufacturers supply 10-20 years into their operating aircraft.
I also believe that a pilot operating said craft is none different than a car driver, heavy equipment operator etc... Being proficient in the machine they operate. Hell yeah the MD-11 is demanding.... Reality is relativity.
Got to ask yourself.... What would you think of the difference between handing your kid a set of keys to a car with an automatic transmission v/s a high performance car with a manual transmission. Age apart as a poor analogy, given the proper training and respect for the machine safety is not an issue, proficiency is the key.
Not to mention the human factor........... This is the big one..
Most crashes on landing that were into known poor conditions could have been avoided by going around or selecting an alternate (fuel providing). The human factor exists here, I know I like to clock out on time.
This whole post has nothing to do with this MD-11 hard landing in Mexico City.
I rember 2 personal accounts of 742/1 hard landings that the crew failed to admit to that resulted in flap damage (as the 747 fowler flaps will shift on a hard landing) as procedure is to leave the flaps extended after said hard landing.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: US
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe that a pilot operating said craft is none different than a car driver, heavy equipment operator etc... Being proficient in the machine they operate. Hell yeah the MD-11 is demanding.... Reality is relativity.
muduckace,
As an md11 pilot who works for the same company you do, I think your opinion of a what a pilot does is a little skewed. Heavy equipment operator? Car driver? Come on now, just this past trip we landed on the backside of a typhoon (30G50) in NRT, landed in a 1/2 mile vis pouring rain storm in SIN, had ~5 birdstrikes during flare at 50 ft in KUL, and then to top it off, had 3 go-arounds due to vis and windshear in PEN. All this on 1 trip. Please explain how I'm considered no different than a car driver or heavy equipment operator?
I'm pretty sure the knowledge I've accrued over the past 10,000 hours of safe flying all over this planet is a little more "relative to reality" than you might think.
muduckace,
As an md11 pilot who works for the same company you do, I think your opinion of a what a pilot does is a little skewed. Heavy equipment operator? Car driver? Come on now, just this past trip we landed on the backside of a typhoon (30G50) in NRT, landed in a 1/2 mile vis pouring rain storm in SIN, had ~5 birdstrikes during flare at 50 ft in KUL, and then to top it off, had 3 go-arounds due to vis and windshear in PEN. All this on 1 trip. Please explain how I'm considered no different than a car driver or heavy equipment operator?
I'm pretty sure the knowledge I've accrued over the past 10,000 hours of safe flying all over this planet is a little more "relative to reality" than you might think.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: HongKong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@capt_zman:
reading this from your last trip, afterall do you think it was a good idea to go for a landing under KNOWN WS conditions? Was NRT closed at any time by the way?
Three GAs in PEN
I dont think so, even though you made it. This is not an offence towards you, but I think there are times to cancel or divert a flight and not "trying" to land in an active typhoon condition.
Beside that, I totally agree to the other contents of your post!
Just my opinion.
reading this from your last trip, afterall do you think it was a good idea to go for a landing under KNOWN WS conditions? Was NRT closed at any time by the way?
Three GAs in PEN
I dont think so, even though you made it. This is not an offence towards you, but I think there are times to cancel or divert a flight and not "trying" to land in an active typhoon condition.
Beside that, I totally agree to the other contents of your post!
Just my opinion.
Last edited by 2009PP; 17th Oct 2009 at 14:50. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the aircraft is to be repaired and returned to service according to aero.de
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
Note: German text.
aero.de - Luftfahrt-Nachrichten und -Community
Note: German text.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey CONF iture,
Just to clarify, regarding the Hudson incident, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the mistaken assumption that the AI FBW control design means that the computers are somehow more in charge than the pilot.
Regarding some of the points you raise - I think that the repair error was made because the colour coding of the electronic connections had changed over different revisions of the hardware. I dont think the nationality of the maintenance personnel comes into it, everyone can make mistakes.
Also, I think that the French attitude to investigation certainly seems to have improved since the early 1990s - and regarding the Qantas incident - my point was that it was a component failure rather than a failure of the system as a whole, which should, can be, and was resolved by the flight crew.
I'm not an advocate for or against any design or manufacturer, but as an engineer and part-time aviation enthusiast (and my views should always be seen as such) I'm aware of designs that have been wonderfully advanced and pilot-friendly for the time, but nevertheless had unexpected flaws - I can think of the Comet 1 (metal fatigue), DC-10 (cargo door and floor failure), 737 (rudder PCU valve) and A320 (poor FMS interface design) off the top of my head. The former two were clearly system failures and the latter component failures. In all four cases, the manufacturer, investigation and regulatory agencies tried to keep the aircraft flying before these faults were rectified, and only one of the four involved a French (or part-French) aircraft in any way.
Just to clarify, regarding the Hudson incident, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the mistaken assumption that the AI FBW control design means that the computers are somehow more in charge than the pilot.
Regarding some of the points you raise - I think that the repair error was made because the colour coding of the electronic connections had changed over different revisions of the hardware. I dont think the nationality of the maintenance personnel comes into it, everyone can make mistakes.
Also, I think that the French attitude to investigation certainly seems to have improved since the early 1990s - and regarding the Qantas incident - my point was that it was a component failure rather than a failure of the system as a whole, which should, can be, and was resolved by the flight crew.
I'm not an advocate for or against any design or manufacturer, but as an engineer and part-time aviation enthusiast (and my views should always be seen as such) I'm aware of designs that have been wonderfully advanced and pilot-friendly for the time, but nevertheless had unexpected flaws - I can think of the Comet 1 (metal fatigue), DC-10 (cargo door and floor failure), 737 (rudder PCU valve) and A320 (poor FMS interface design) off the top of my head. The former two were clearly system failures and the latter component failures. In all four cases, the manufacturer, investigation and regulatory agencies tried to keep the aircraft flying before these faults were rectified, and only one of the four involved a French (or part-French) aircraft in any way.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, I'm familiar with the subject in that case, but not in as much detail as the others - also, I didn't want to look like I was ragging on MD by mentioning them twice.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zman
Not meant to be a pilot slam just the best metaphor I could come up with to convey that with any machine, the key to operating it is understanding it capabilities and limitations. Don't be so sensitive.
For 4 years I spent more time living (sleeping, eating and defecating) in an MD-11 than I did in my own home. When we swapped out pilots to go take a nap, I kept going with the bird. Have no doubt that I understand what your life is like strapped into a MD-11.
For 4 years I spent more time living (sleeping, eating and defecating) in an MD-11 than I did in my own home. When we swapped out pilots to go take a nap, I kept going with the bird. Have no doubt that I understand what your life is like strapped into a MD-11.
The MD11's accident and incident record speaks for itself.
Obviously, none of these would have occurred with 411a at the helm, but other, regular human pilots of all backgrounds and competency seem to have had and still have continual and successive problems with it.
It's only a matter of time before the next MD11 'event' why is this just accepted as 'normal' ?
Obviously, none of these would have occurred with 411a at the helm, but other, regular human pilots of all backgrounds and competency seem to have had and still have continual and successive problems with it.
It's only a matter of time before the next MD11 'event' why is this just accepted as 'normal' ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 4 years I spent more time living (sleeping, eating and defecating) in an MD-11 than I did in my own home. When we swapped out pilots to go take a nap, I kept going with the bird. Have no doubt that I understand what your life is like strapped into a MD-11.
the problem is not all those countless hours per flight filled with talk about planes, cars, women and mortgages, and sometimes battling the sleep, but the problem seems to be the last 30 seconds of the flight(of 200' down).
So no matter how many hours you spend in the plane, since it still is a medium to long range plane your real exposure is always limited.
Now when your plane's handling is benign (like the 74) that's no problem, the MD11 on the other hand seems to have some sharp edges....
Oh dear, not 'constructive' enough for you FMech ?
Perhaps you can enlighten all of us on the mechanics of 'constructive' posts
judging by your user name that should be easy.
I certainly hope the MD11 can enjoy an unblemished record for the rest of it's service life although the chances of this seem slim.
For you to imply I am 'wishing' for more accidents is nothing short of moronic
Perhaps you can enlighten all of us on the mechanics of 'constructive' posts
judging by your user name that should be easy.
I certainly hope the MD11 can enjoy an unblemished record for the rest of it's service life although the chances of this seem slim.
For you to imply I am 'wishing' for more accidents is nothing short of moronic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
I think that the repair error was made because the colour coding of the electronic connections had changed over different revisions of the hardware. I dont think the nationality of the maintenance personnel comes into it, everyone can make mistakes.
Anyway, big credit to the co-pilot, last resort before the disaster.
Regarding QF72, I don’t wish to pollute any longer this MD11 thread, so I will develop on a more appropriate one.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Age: 49
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
golfyankeesierra
I do not disagree with you that the MD-11 is especially more susceptable to windshear on approach. I have been on a couple squirely landings, had one where windshear was reported but the 2 aircraft landing before us declared calm air, we flew 10kts over anyways, at 50' I watched the F/O input full aileron as the RT wing dropped in a pretty hard stall. Made me think of FDX/Newark.
This is different than flying into known conditions (narita) where a Go Around may have been decided earlier. It is hard to make judjment on the crew operating the aircraft and do not do so. Mabe the rules/limitations for operating the aircraft need to be more conservative in approach/landing phase of flight.
But where it has been determined by the NTSB or other regulating entities that the flight crew did not follow procedure or proper judgment, in the same respect I do not judge the aircraft.
This is different than flying into known conditions (narita) where a Go Around may have been decided earlier. It is hard to make judjment on the crew operating the aircraft and do not do so. Mabe the rules/limitations for operating the aircraft need to be more conservative in approach/landing phase of flight.
But where it has been determined by the NTSB or other regulating entities that the flight crew did not follow procedure or proper judgment, in the same respect I do not judge the aircraft.
Last edited by muduckace; 18th Oct 2009 at 18:43.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope I'm going to be forgiven for this.... It seems that flying an MD11 v/v an A320 (or similar) is like knowing how to drive. I prefer rear-wheel drive cars that may slip and slide, but are entirely predictable. If you know what you are doing. Front wheel drive cars are easier, but oh boy, if you lose it....no way to save the situation...
(Nurries Duck.. :-) )
(Nurries Duck.. :-) )
what 411A says however about the 707--is so very very true Davie's text could have easily been called "handling the 707"--She was as good as the best of them
and as bad as the worst
and as bad as the worst