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 28th Jul 2010, 03:42
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: at home
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whenever an unfortunate incident/accident occurs with the MD-11, there always seem to be posts commenting that the aircraft is more difficult to land than other airliners, has peculiarities that make it more difficult to operate, is quirky etc...

It would be interesting to know, if the people making these comments and judgements have ever actually flown the MD-11.

Yes, the cockpit is not Boeing or Airbus, but I found the aircraft a joy to fly and the systems automation ahead of its time. And as to requiring a "deft hand" to land, I found it no more difficult than any other modern airliner that I have flown (767,757,744 etc...). Certainly easier than a 727!
protect essential is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 03:45
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had smoke through out the cabin and cockpit one day flying south out of Miami in a 757 at about 20,000 ft over the keys heading south to TGU Honduras. Shut off non essential busses, declared an emergency and returned and landed, got another plane and continued our trip. It was about a year after Swisair 111 had the electrical problem off Halifax. Our procedure hadn't been changed and said to do the checklist, shut off unessential busses and continue and see if smoke decreased.

I shut down nonessential busses, declared an emergency descended and headed back to MIA and landed. Two weeks later they changed the checklist to what I did after I wrote it up.
p51guy is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 05:30
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Thirty West
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
411A:
perhaps the latest idea of dumbing down crew with minimal training and/or experience is beginning to take its toll.
Certainly not with Lufty cargo - it's around a minimum of 10 years with the airline to upgrade to command..., and if I remember correctly at least another few years of PIC on short-haul before the MD11 comes into play
cirr737 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 05:38
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Back of beyond
Posts: 793
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
at least another few years of PIC on short-haul before the MD11 comes into play
Um.... short-haul at LH Cargo is a truck.
RevMan2 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 06:14
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,503
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
True, but shorthaul as a lufthansa pilot is 737 or a320 on either the lufthansa mainline or germanwings route-network, could have been condor (757/767) or condor berlin (a320) as well, but those two last options are gone. As a pilot you switch between the different lufthansa companies.
Denti is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 07:06
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Around the World
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down Slamming SR Crew not justified

brandtzag:

Code:
 Emergency 
In too many previous cases has the crew not properly addressed the situation with catastrophic outcome - Swissair, SAA Air Canada and so on. Fire is not compatible with aircrafts.
It's just unbelievable how many people, even fellow pilots, keep on bashing the SR crew for their actions in the Halifax tragedy. If these people took the time to read the findings in the final report they'd hopefully stop spreading these unjustified allegations.
69flight is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 08:29
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I consulted a DG specialist, who is in IATA DG board. He also thought the CAO rules was actually stupid and useless. The very strict CAO accessibility requirement was in place but how could operator to follow? i.e. some classes or divisions DGR goods are required to be accessible during flight, but even so what can flight crew do in emergency???
Can you image that to ask flight crew take the fire fighter to put off the fire? Or removing the heavy skid and deal with the leakage by hands? However, the gross weight limit of some UN DG packages are around 400L or 450Kg.

The IATA DGR only regulates the DGR goods quantity for each individual outer package, but no rules for each aircraft type. Believe it's aircraft manufacturer''s responsibility to develop such rules. I did see the cicular from Boeing regarding the Dry Ice limit on B744 aircraft.

Besides, Li-ion Batteries/Cells are flying over the world by aircraft. Some Li-ion Batteries/Cells are powerful enough as the explosives and may cause mass damage to aircraft/human being/property.

Believe that no carrier will stop this service even realizing the risk of DG or hidden DG transporting, otherwise they can't survive.
firepoint is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 08:49
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since some posts mention lithium battery fires and explosions:
This is a FAA video about lithium battery fires and how to extinguish them inflight:
YouTube - Tests on lithium battery fire
TheWanderer is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 08:56
  #69 (permalink)  
BRE
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
" Some years ago BA were forced to stop flying the 747 combi as the UKCAA insisted that if the cargo was mixed with pax on the main deck then a fireman (not a pretend fireman) was positioned on the pax side of the bulkhead in full fire gear for the duration of the flight. Now that's safety-and the airline decided double quick time that it wasn't worth the hassle."

What good would the fireman have done on the pax side of the bulkhead?

I remember JAL and ANA were flying combis FRA - NRT. Not sure if the 777 curently used are combis.
BRE is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 10:09
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool Instant experts, again!

The "instant experts" seem to have this one wrapped up! As it was an MD11, the usual comments about it being a bit of a challenge to land have been trotted out. Rubbish! I have several thousand hours on the MD11, including training and checking, and it is a beautiful aircraft which is no more difficult to land than most other heavy jets. It will bite the incompetent, however, like most aircraft. If the stories about an in-flight fire before landing are correct, the cause should be not too hard to find, but we still have to put up with the the MD11 knockers who prefer to blame the aircraft. Good to see that the crew escaped OK!
TATprobe is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 10:12
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,097
Received 74 Likes on 43 Posts
So do we know for sure now if they declared a cargo fire before?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 10:21
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do so many MD11s crash than and also involved in landing incidents, far far more than the B777 or A330/A340 and this even the case where there are multiples more B777 and A330/A340 aircraft flying today ? Indeed far more than ANY aircraft (soviet or western) I can think of ?
Ireland105 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 10:45
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: on the beach
Age: 68
Posts: 2,027
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Have Lufthansa Cargo made any further statements today?
Evanelpus is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 11:10
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hard to say what happened. Right main gear looks deployed, left main appears collasped, front gear either not deployed or collapsed. If an in flight cargo fire occurred as reported, did the aircraft suffer structural damage before landing that caused the fuselage break, or did a hard landing break the fuselage? Did an in flight fire cause landing gear collapse due to damage prior to landing, or did the gear collapse during a post landing fire, or did a hard landing collapse the gear? Did an in flight cargo fire create control difficulties because of equipment or systems damage, causing a hard landing?

Lots of questions here.
Flight Safety is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 11:24
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: brasil
Age: 58
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why do so many MD11s crash than and also involved in landing incidents, far far more than the B777 or A330/A340 and this even the case where there are multiples more B777 and A330/A340 aircraft flying today ? Indeed far more than ANY aircraft (soviet or western) I can think of ?

And to insist, why have all the MD-11 been transformed in Cargo by all major companies at a relatively normal age? You will find older 747 still transporting passengers. I do think security reasons play a major role. If this Lufthansa MD-11 would have been full of passengers......God save the Queen....

Taffazzi
taffazzi is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 11:52
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,329
Received 369 Likes on 142 Posts
If this Lufthansa MD-11 would have been full of passengers......God save the Queen....
Then it probably wouldn't have caught fire in the the first place....(allegedly)
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 12:23
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,097
Received 74 Likes on 43 Posts
Plus they don't have and never had any pax MD-11.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 13:10
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ taffazzi

I do think security reasons play a major role.
Sorry, but I do think that economical reasons play a major role.
DBate is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 14:14
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If this was, as has been reported, an in flight fire and emergency landing, it appears to be very similar to a Fed Ex incident that occurred back in 1996.

In that incident, a DC-10 enroute from Memphis to Boston developed a cargo fire over New York State, and diverted to Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY. Although I did not realize at the time what was happening, I actually witnessed that flights approach into SWF. His turn onto final was hard and steep, and he was obviously well above normal approach speed. At the time, I wondered what the hell he was doing. I was on a highway about 1/2 mile away from the runway as he passed by. I did not learn till later in the morning what had happened. Almost immediately after touching down and stopping on the runway, the aircraft was consumed by the fire, and the crew had to escape the cockpit via the escape cables.

If this recent incident involved a similar situation, I can see where smoke in the cockpit, causing a high speed approach and touchdown, and exacerbated by the MD11's critical handling characteristics, could result in a hard landing and a resultant landing gear collapse.

fyi, here is the link to the NTSB report on the Newburgh incident. As you read it, you will see that it appears very similar. The biggest difference appears to be that the Fed Ex plane in this case was a DC-10, which is not prone to gear collapse in the way the MD-11 appears to be.

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/373.pdf

The fact that the Lufthansa crew got the bird on the ground and were able to walk away from it shows the level of their skill. Kudos to them. Once the final reports come out, it will be interesting to read how they performed vs. the checklists that are currently in use, to see what changes have been made for in flight fires.

Patrick
patrickal is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2010, 20:40
  #80 (permalink)  
DGR
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Geneva
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some of the comments about loading of dangerous goods and accessibility have been way off base. The ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel reviewed and revised the accessibility requirements over two years ago. The new provisions came into effect January 2009. This recognised that it may be safer to load the CAO DG in the underfloor compartment where that compartment is Class C. That way the crew actually have some fire suppression, rather than just having to depressurise the aircraft and hope that the fire goes out, which is all that you have with the maindeck Class E compartment.

As for lithium batteries, so far all of the incidents in cargo have been as a result of non-compliant shipments. For lithium ion batteries, the halon will supress the fire.
DGR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.