Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Lufthansa cargo plane crash

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Lufthansa cargo plane crash

Old 27th Jul 2010, 18:30
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 50
The McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Accident History, MD-11 crashes, MD-11 design defects
Not a very good airplane as it appears
jafar is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 18:38
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 6
Some more pics here > Avião pega fogo na Arábia Saudita
Hatzerim is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 18:58
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MAN/Wherever
Age: 58
Posts: 225
Appreciate the comment Saskatoon but having an LM onboard does provide that quicker reaction to a situation than an otherwise occupied flightdeck...
superspotter is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 19:14
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: europe
Posts: 111
Question

From the photos the nose gear is either sheered off...another MD11 landing.

OR has it failed to extend due to no hydraulics because of the cargo fire.(it was mentioned that it was a lower cargo hold fire)

If this is the case these guys were really lucky to get away with this.
Enos is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 19:56
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Helsinki
Age: 40
Posts: 2
Superspotter, you might have a point there.

Finnair operated it´s MD-11 fleet for 20 years without accidents. They even had bit of farewell ceremony for the fleet: On last flight to Delhi, sparkling wine was served for the passengers, and they also had "Bye Bye My Dear" -postcards printed for customers. Fleet Chief spoke very highly about the plane in the news here in Finland.

Obviously some are luckier than others.
ruutinuuska is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 19:58
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 114
Maybe the nosewheel collapsed when the aircraft left the runway?
eagleflyer is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 20:26
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 53
loadmasters and DGR

Just a couple of points on the loadmaster issue,
Firstly, IF and it is a big IF, the fire started in the dangerous goods then if my memory serves me correctly then all the DGR should be loaded in an accessible and visible position, this means no DGR on the lower decks and none in sealed ULD’s . Accessible is a moot point, a “who ate all the pies” crew member might not be able to get down the aisle between the cargo and the walls, I believe this is a particular issue is some configurations on the B777F.
With regards to the loadmaster on the flight, a two crew operation would presumably precludes either of them leaving the flight deck to investigate the fire warning and I assume the fire warning checklist for a two crew operation reads thus
1. Get on the ground quick.
2. Why are you not on the ground yet?
A third crew member, be it a loadmaster or third pilot allows one person to go back, investigate and possibly fire fight. I guess though there is a trade off between the increased insurance premiums and the salary of the third crew member.
STN Ramp Rat is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 20:43
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 136
Photo evidence

Position of NLG is interesting but I doubt a significant contributory factor to the global events leading to the end result.

If potential cargo hold fire was reported only shortly before landing, I would worry that it could not be controlled and even more cause sufficient damage to cause a landing upset and worse a failure of the fuselage aft of the wing.

My judgement on whether this is fundamentally an airplane issue remains open, with or without the "assumed declared" fire.

Last edited by daikilo; 27th Jul 2010 at 20:46. Reason: clarification
daikilo is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 20:50
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cloudbase
Posts: 149
Post

Daikilo, they were going to SHJ so if, and I say if, a cargo fire was the reason here, it will have started ,or more precisely: been noticed, at cruise altitude, in that case, it has had quite a bit of time to burn before touchdown.

Glad they made it out alive!
SoaringTheSkies is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 21:00
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: loughborough
Age: 42
Posts: 3
Firstly, IF and it is a big IF, the fire started in the dangerous goods then if my memory serves me correctly then all the DGR should be loaded in an accessible and visible position, this means no DGR on the lower decks and none in sealed ULD’s .
Wrong , only CAO has to be accesible and DGR can go in sealed ULD's and anywhere on the aircarft . The only rule is to have it in the front of the uld and to the right side so its easy to find , Also DGR can go in the lower deck positions

Bigbore
bigbore is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 21:06
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: ireland
Posts: 35
from what i can remember working for FDX all DGR bar class 9 are loaded in the two forward positions, with class 5 separated from the likes of class 3/4. saying that certain DGR could be loaded as IDG rather than ADG cannot remember what class/UN number though.
each uld would then be labeled with the amount&quantity of DGR loaded onto the pallet/container,we would then input the amount of DGR into the W&B system which would then be sent to the next ramp/hub.
daveyb is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 21:18
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,048
Hey, MD11 main deck is Class E compartment. Class E and C compartments (unlike class A and B) are not required to be accessible inflight by certification definitions. Up to my best knowledge there is no legal link between DGR and required position on the deck, it is rather a best practice stuff.
CargoOne is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 21:47
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 596
The general IATA rule regarding accessibility of Cargo Aircraft Only (CAO) shipments is that they will need to be loaded visibly and accessibly to the crew in flight, with the exceptions of Class 3 (Flammable Liquid) Packing Group III with no subsidiary risk, Class 6 (Toxic & Infectious Substances), Class 7 (Radioactives) and Class 9 (Miscellaneous DG). All other non-CAO shipments may, generally speaking, be loaded anywhere you please with the exception of RRY and MAG.

There may be operator variations filed by individual airlines prescribing stricter requirements, like for instance those of FedEX, but LCAG follows the general IATA rules to a very large extent. LCAG does have a few minor exceptions, which are all freely available in the IATA Dangerous Goods Manual.

IATA also allows for any and all CAO shipments to be loaded inaccessible in a Class C compartment. On the LCAG MD-11F the lower-decks (FWD and AFT) are both Class C, and they allow loading of CAO in those holds.

There are, of course, exceptions to these rules. If one is flying to the US, for instance, USG-13 comes into play, which basically says any ULD holding more than 25 kg or litres of DG must be loaded accessible, except for RCL and RNG where the limit is 75 kg or litres. The exception to this rule (there's always exceptions in DG world!) is if the DG is loaded on a pallet, and that pallet is accessible, then there's no limits to the quantity carried.

Want to learn more? Get on a full 5-day IATA DG Category 6 course. The Cat. 10 course which is mandatory for flight crew will only teach you so much, and we all know that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 22:07
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
NTSB sent out a press release indicating it would help investigate...and that the accident was a crash on landing.
protectthehornet is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 22:09
  #55 (permalink)  
NG1
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 22
Daikilo, they were going to SHJ so if, and I say if, a cargo fire was the reason here, it will have started ,or more precisely: been noticed, at cruise altitude, in that case, it has had quite a bit of time to burn before touchdown.
LH Cargo mentions RUH as destination of the flight (see post #15). My understanding ist that the A/C was supposed to continue to SHJ and HKG after the stop in RUH.

NG1
NG1 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 22:09
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: North Hampshire.
Age: 46
Posts: 50
Daikilo, they were going to SHJ so if, and I say if, a cargo fire was the reason here, it will have started ,or more precisely: been noticed, at cruise altitude, in that case, it has had quite a bit of time to burn before touchdown.

Glad they made it out alive!

The route was FRA-RUH-SHJ if you read the earlier posts.
B777FD is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2010, 23:21
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,349
I can see in the pictures that there is a broken airplane fuselage and a ground pool fire as well as a burn through of the crown skin. All of which could be secondary to a rough landing.

What facts do we have about a reported cargo fire?

Was it real or a false alarm?

Did it cause disabling damage to the plane?
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 00:03
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
Look again at photo 13 of 13 in Hatzerim's post 43. Scorched lower fuselage at least from wingbox aft. Would that not be further indication of where the fire started? And what looks almost like deformation aft of the scorched area is probably just the effect of light/shadow.
broadreach is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 01:53
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 53
I have always been fascinated by the MD11 - its a fantastic aircraft to both watch and also fly on. However how many full loses is this now since it began operations 20 years ago ? There have also been a string of incidents regularly with this aircraft type. I am surprised that more than a few people have not said that there has to be something fundamentally wrong with this aircraft - far fewer examples produced than the B777 or A330/A340 yet a significantly higher number of write offs and countless incidents. Perhaps it doesnt receive the same attention as it operates mostly cargo based flights now ?
Ireland105 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 03:08
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,572
Perhaps it doesnt receive the same attention as it operates mostly cargo based flights now ?
From the maintenance standpoint...hardly likely.
Perhaps the problem lies with the crew trained to fly the airplane....the MD11 clearly requires a high level of crew attention/experience, perhaps the latest idea of dumbing down crew with minimal training and/or experience is beginning to take its toll.
Wait for the final report...it will tell the tale...in the mean time, all other scenarios are simply guesswork...including this one.
411A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.