ZSPD Cargo Plane Crash
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't hold your breath Finn47
Anybody ever seen a crash report by the Chinese authorities anywhere?
Last edited by sb_sfo; 5th Dec 2009 at 04:48. Reason: get airline name right
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: .
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#2 Rev deploy
I have had a scenario in the sim in which the #2 reverser deployed after v1, it was mid weight, 430 or so, and the machine was very difficult to manage, as the engine was producing full thrust, but was manageable. That far along in the take-off roll, if it had been a #2 fail it would have been reasonably easy to manage.
Not saying this happened, the design of the reverser system makes it very unlikely, but the way the aircraft failed to get fully airborne, it is not impossible.
Not saying this happened, the design of the reverser system makes it very unlikely, but the way the aircraft failed to get fully airborne, it is not impossible.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early in the MD-11 production, there was a problem with #2 reverser coming unlocked, or not locking fully after retraction after landing. It was addressed by AD, IIRC.
I'm not speculating here, just following up Wrldwide.
GB
I'm not speculating here, just following up Wrldwide.
GB
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eish & Izent
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do any of the current MD-11 pilots have any comments about SEPilots comment? I find them interesting - as they point to a few things which haven't been mentioned yet? Not that the points he raised should result in the accident in this scenario, but they are interesting points, non-the-less?
This thread has departed so far from the topic, we might as well discuss these points as well? (considering the
swinging going on in the last few pages)
This thread has departed so far from the topic, we might as well discuss these points as well? (considering the
swinging going on in the last few pages)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The hairdressers!
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine Air 101 - Really?
Kingpilot,
Is there any further info on the Fine Air DC-8 accident. As far as most (me anyway!) understood, load shift was the primary cause?
Many thanks,
C o' G
Is there any further info on the Fine Air DC-8 accident. As far as most (me anyway!) understood, load shift was the primary cause?
Many thanks,
C o' G
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cee of Gee
Read the report on the Fine Air DC8. The cause was determined to be a catalogue of loading errors by an unsupervised loading team resulting in an incorrectly loaded aircraft. The report is readily available on the internet. Then put your suggestion of a "load shift" to any experienced loadmaster and you will get a very short answer - where is the load going to shift to when the aircraft is fully loaded??!! 
IF load shift was a factor, the aircraft would need to be half empty to start with and everyone assumes that the cause would be the load moving aft. On the MD11, an extremely nose heavy trim would in fact have the same effect on take off as the eyewitnesses describe having on the Avient MD11. By extremely nose heavy trim, I mean outside the envelope, and before you ask, if you mix lbs and kgs and lb inches and kg inches within the same weight and balance mechanism, without understanding the consequences, this WILL happen. Raises a lot more questions now doesnt it? The MD11 is not a DC10, it can be a lot more unforgiving and needs a lot more close attention to load sequencing and supervision. Too many people think of it as just a bigger DC10 and it isnt. How many DC10 Loadmasters have I seen transfer onto the MD11 and get caught out. To illustrate this point, do a web search of aircraft sitting on their tails and see how many of them are MD11's. In Avients case they only had the type for a week so you have to ask how much experience there was within the organistion on this type, excluding the flight deck crew who were highly experienced pilots on the MD11.
IF load shift was a factor, the aircraft would need to be half empty to start with and everyone assumes that the cause would be the load moving aft. On the MD11, an extremely nose heavy trim would in fact have the same effect on take off as the eyewitnesses describe having on the Avient MD11. By extremely nose heavy trim, I mean outside the envelope, and before you ask, if you mix lbs and kgs and lb inches and kg inches within the same weight and balance mechanism, without understanding the consequences, this WILL happen. Raises a lot more questions now doesnt it? The MD11 is not a DC10, it can be a lot more unforgiving and needs a lot more close attention to load sequencing and supervision. Too many people think of it as just a bigger DC10 and it isnt. How many DC10 Loadmasters have I seen transfer onto the MD11 and get caught out. To illustrate this point, do a web search of aircraft sitting on their tails and see how many of them are MD11's. In Avients case they only had the type for a week so you have to ask how much experience there was within the organistion on this type, excluding the flight deck crew who were highly experienced pilots on the MD11.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gone from the FL sun to the desert Oasis
Age: 60
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SepPilot, you have posted this same diatribe on A.net quite
extensively. Give it a rest already. You have been proven many times, you are not a MD-11 pilot so stop spewing
this crap!!!
extensively. Give it a rest already. You have been proven many times, you are not a MD-11 pilot so stop spewing
this crap!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the Dragonair crash at HK, listed here ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-11 B-150 Hong Kong-Chek Lap Kok International Airport (HKG) the final report took 5 years 3 months and that accident was in Hong Kong 2 years after the handover?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cee og Gee Wrote:
Yes there is, in the shape of a final report released in 1998, the year following the accident. I think what really caused the initial speculation and its subsequent longevity is that initial inspection of the wreckage revealed a number of pallet locks that were not in place, however the investigation eventually discounted this as a cause. Follow the earlier link to ASN, they have a link to the full report, it contains some useful lessons for any pilot.
In fact I personally can't think of a jet transport accident that has been caused by loadshift? Can anyone?
CargoOne wrote:
Agreed although the actual error made would probably be different since this was an FMC equipped aircraft, the result is certainly very similar. Also very similar to the Emirates accident earlier in the year, which demonstrates another potential error, ie in entry of assumed temp.
All this talk of the MD-11s safety record really has no place here, I believe this is the first hull loss to take place in the takeoff phase, so the MDs handling characteristics and accident record in approach and landing have absolutely no relevance.
Is there any further info on the Fine Air DC-8 accident.
In fact I personally can't think of a jet transport accident that has been caused by loadshift? Can anyone?
CargoOne wrote:
Every speculation here starts with "I don't want to speculate".
So, here is mine - this is copy&paste of MK @Halifax.
So, here is mine - this is copy&paste of MK @Halifax.
All this talk of the MD-11s safety record really has no place here, I believe this is the first hull loss to take place in the takeoff phase, so the MDs handling characteristics and accident record in approach and landing have absolutely no relevance.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Lake Tahoe, California
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kingpilot:
Ding ding ding!! You win the prize!
This incident occurred during takeoff; a hull-loss first for the MD-11, and a fundamental truth which has been overlooked by some in this otherwise erudite debate viz. the MD-11's record. And takeoff mishaps of the sort that likely sponsored this particular tragedy aren't indigenous to any specific aircraft.
Just sayin'.
Ding ding ding!! You win the prize!
This incident occurred during takeoff; a hull-loss first for the MD-11, and a fundamental truth which has been overlooked by some in this otherwise erudite debate viz. the MD-11's record. And takeoff mishaps of the sort that likely sponsored this particular tragedy aren't indigenous to any specific aircraft.
Just sayin'.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Unionville, PA, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quidquid excusatio prandium pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old school, new school, ne'er the twain shall meet
I put it that since pilots seem to be able to fly all other jetliners day in and day out without committing these same errors, either the MD-11 is much more difficult to fly than any other jetliner, or it attracts far more than its share of incompetent pilots. I think the former is far more likely.
When the MD-11 was first introduced, the pilots that flew her generally came from years operating steam cockpits, DC-8, DC-10, all the earlier Boeing products, 70, 72, 73, and 74 classic, aircraft that demanded well rounded flying and handling skills. It was a given; if you had trouble flying an airplane to standard, you had no business being on the flight deck.
Enter the Airbus family of products, designed to engineer the weakest link out of the system, the pilot. The follow on products from Seattle have had pretty much the same idea in mind, lots of industry concern these last years of degrading piloting skills due over reliance on automation.
So, yes, there is an ever-growing group of pilots not competent enough to handle the MD-11, those who have cut their aviation teeth in a glass/automation environment. This is not meant as a criticism, merely a fact of life, these very same pilots are competent in the aircraft they currently fly. Not surprisingly, typing eighty words a minute is a required flying skill these days.
Where this argument is concerned, the MD-11, although a glass machine with significant computer enhancement, does not have the extensive automated flight envelope protections of the more modern airliners. In other words, she still requires the exacting handling and airmanship skills of the earlier jets.
What is surprising here, these pilots were old-school, and very experienced with the machine.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall comments from an LTU captain some years ago in CMB, about the MD-11.
He mentioned that behind all the fancy glass displays was a multitude of electrical problems, and ....'the eleven hour flight from DUS was a veritable christmas tree of lights, red lights, yellow lights, we have them all indicating possible failures of one sort or another.'
A year later brought forth a completely different comment from the same LTU captain however, now it was...'the christmas tree of failure lights are gone, she flies like a dream, we certainly like her now, not quite as nice as the TriStar I flew before, you understand, but still very nice'
He mentioned that behind all the fancy glass displays was a multitude of electrical problems, and ....'the eleven hour flight from DUS was a veritable christmas tree of lights, red lights, yellow lights, we have them all indicating possible failures of one sort or another.'
A year later brought forth a completely different comment from the same LTU captain however, now it was...'the christmas tree of failure lights are gone, she flies like a dream, we certainly like her now, not quite as nice as the TriStar I flew before, you understand, but still very nice'
bugg smasher
You probably didn't mean this the way it sounds.
I prefer to read it with the word "surprising" replaced by the clause "of note".
To me the skill of the pilots might relate to their knowlege and flying skills.
However if a critical factor is one that is rare enough not to be included in their training, their ability to identify, assess and correct for it may be an issue.
What is surprising here, these pilots were old-school, and very experienced with the machine
I prefer to read it with the word "surprising" replaced by the clause "of note".
To me the skill of the pilots might relate to their knowlege and flying skills.
However if a critical factor is one that is rare enough not to be included in their training, their ability to identify, assess and correct for it may be an issue.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actualy this is the second MD-11 accident on take-off. The first was a Korean Airlines in april 1999. Cargo shifting or weight problems are all possibilities but, you can check the ZFW and CG indications on the EICAS. An other factor to dial in is, the tail tank fuel managment. Wrong fuel distribution will degrade your T/O preformance!
Last edited by MPH; 5th Dec 2009 at 17:29.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actualy this is the second MD-11 accident on take-off. The first was a Korean Airlines in april 1999
Thanks for the info Foxhunter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubts about the experience of the pilots. But in a cargo aircraft it is very difficult to check the work of the loadmaster and loading staff. What is the guaranty about their skill and knowledge? ( Zim registration ) Zero! A mistake in loading is so easy, most of these guys think it`s just a truck! So putting the aft cargo fwd and vice-versa is not a problem. Or just the cargo of another flight! I`ve seen it, and not only in Africa; in Europe, yes!
Maybe in this case you can just add lousy uncontrolled maintenance, unrespected duty times,
and you have an accident!
Not at all an MD-11 problem in this case.
Maybe in this case you can just add lousy uncontrolled maintenance, unrespected duty times,
and you have an accident!
Not at all an MD-11 problem in this case.
