Lufthansa cargo plane crash
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Positive fire suppression is far better than..." I hope it goes out', with some of the present regulation/design criteria.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all going to get a lot worse when the EU foolishly ban Halon.
As for DG, always stick pallets of RFL and RFG opposite corners to ROX.
It makes sense, is safe and should be "best practice".
As for the CAO issue, I'd rather have it in the main hold, then you can see if the pallet is damaged, especially in the dark. Very easy for a loader to miss a slightly broken pallet of Class 3 PKG I nastiness if it goes in the LD, a lot easier to see and smell if it goes on the UD.
This will be interesting, as it appears the A/c broke close to the wing spar and then ignited something. Anyone have a copy of the manifest and loadsheet?
As for DG, always stick pallets of RFL and RFG opposite corners to ROX.
It makes sense, is safe and should be "best practice".
As for the CAO issue, I'd rather have it in the main hold, then you can see if the pallet is damaged, especially in the dark. Very easy for a loader to miss a slightly broken pallet of Class 3 PKG I nastiness if it goes in the LD, a lot easier to see and smell if it goes on the UD.
This will be interesting, as it appears the A/c broke close to the wing spar and then ignited something. Anyone have a copy of the manifest and loadsheet?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: on the ragged edge
Posts: 80
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 ?
Completely illogical.
Yes it's a hot ship; yes it's another pitch-witch stretched fuselage that may not do so great in a strong x-wind since the tail is small. Just keep practiced on the line hand flying it up and down from 18,000 and you might stay current enough to avoid trouble. Most accidents I'm aware of seem to be where the crew stays coupled to 500 feet and disconnects it, having no idea what trim forces or flying qualities the autopilot has been dealing with. Then they PIO and have to deal with elevator software loads that keep changing because the airframe mob keeps demanding something be done to a perfectly good airplane.
The industry's infatuation with always flying at the highest level of automation is responsible for a great many accidents the last two decades, imho.
Not that that played any role in a cargo fire aloft accident (if that's what happened.) A fire can burn through the spar! A fire can melt your hydraulics!
Crunch
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Virginia, USA
Age: 86
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft collapse
From a structural standpoint, it appears to me that the aircraft collapses (nosewheel and fuselage break over wing box) occurred at a standstill, and were the result of hot fire gasses rising to the ceiling of the upper deck. This could occur from a fire anywhere within, and in my experience that fire would not have to have much fuel, just a little time--about ten minutes after taking hold.
Reasoning as follows: In a totally reinforce concrete house built as a fire training facility, a fire was set in an upstairs master bedroom with two shuttered windows and an interior door, all closed (heavy green wood). The fuel was three wooden 4x4 shipping pallets and a compact bale of hay, a little newspaper. The room had a special fire lining under test, ventilated from behind through the flat roof. One vent was instrumented. In 5 minutes, 800 degrees at ceiling was exceeded and ceiling flashover occurred. In less than 10 elapsed minutes, vent temperature reached 1600 fahrenheit. A fire crew of 4 to 6 firemen entered the room from the hall at this time under the fire gasses burning in the top part of the room space, and extinguished the fuel with a fire line. One had the top-of-ear burn as a result.
I think that heat to this extent will either burn or melt the top crown of the fuselage tube. Lesser heat at the side will considerably weaken the structural strength in tension of the tube. This tube is a longitudinal beam, and the burned or melted top quarter is its tension side. The plane is balanced over the wing box and main gear, with a slight forward bias to put enough weight on the nose gear for steering. In this case the plane has substantial load on this beam from its own weignt and the heavy cargo. If the nosewheel has say 7 percent of total weight (does someone know the weight distributions on this plane, loaded and empty?), just on the back of an envelope I'd say the cracking of the fuselage over the wing box (due to fire weakening of the structure) would increase the loading on the nose gear by at least three times. So this has to be somewhere between sinking into soft ground (on or off runway seems unclear as yet) and collapse.
In short, I don't think as yet there is any reason to conclude that the pilots crashed the plane into the runway, from what we see in the pictures.
OE
Reasoning as follows: In a totally reinforce concrete house built as a fire training facility, a fire was set in an upstairs master bedroom with two shuttered windows and an interior door, all closed (heavy green wood). The fuel was three wooden 4x4 shipping pallets and a compact bale of hay, a little newspaper. The room had a special fire lining under test, ventilated from behind through the flat roof. One vent was instrumented. In 5 minutes, 800 degrees at ceiling was exceeded and ceiling flashover occurred. In less than 10 elapsed minutes, vent temperature reached 1600 fahrenheit. A fire crew of 4 to 6 firemen entered the room from the hall at this time under the fire gasses burning in the top part of the room space, and extinguished the fuel with a fire line. One had the top-of-ear burn as a result.
I think that heat to this extent will either burn or melt the top crown of the fuselage tube. Lesser heat at the side will considerably weaken the structural strength in tension of the tube. This tube is a longitudinal beam, and the burned or melted top quarter is its tension side. The plane is balanced over the wing box and main gear, with a slight forward bias to put enough weight on the nose gear for steering. In this case the plane has substantial load on this beam from its own weignt and the heavy cargo. If the nosewheel has say 7 percent of total weight (does someone know the weight distributions on this plane, loaded and empty?), just on the back of an envelope I'd say the cracking of the fuselage over the wing box (due to fire weakening of the structure) would increase the loading on the nose gear by at least three times. So this has to be somewhere between sinking into soft ground (on or off runway seems unclear as yet) and collapse.
In short, I don't think as yet there is any reason to conclude that the pilots crashed the plane into the runway, from what we see in the pictures.
OE
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most accidents I'm aware of seem to be where the crew stays coupled to 500 feet and disconnects it, having no idea what trim forces or flying qualities the autopilot has been dealing with. Then they PIO and have to deal with elevator software loads that keep changing because the airframe mob keeps demanding something be done to a perfectly good airplane.
The industry's infatuation with always flying at the highest level of automation is responsible for a great many accidents the last two decades, imho.
The industry's infatuation with always flying at the highest level of automation is responsible for a great many accidents the last two decades, imho.
The MD11 operation went quite smooth in the beginning as the crews came from DC10, MD80 and some from 767. All aircraft that were pitch-power training machines, trimming required (DC10 CWS off). The troubles started as a lot of A320 and regional-jet trained (the case for LH) transited to the Maddog. Especially when most MD11 were transformed to freighters the provenance and training of the crews lost a lot of emphasis.
Now we are confronted with the outcome. But all of us who have pinpointed to this for years will be yelled down again by the "cheap training" through "great automation progres"' lobby.
Mark my words that we are running into the same problems again, this time concerning the oh so loathed automated (neutered) birds, as the slashing of selection and training of the modern "pilots" to a mind numbing level continues.
Brave new world
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point Gretchenfrage and I agree with you. I often find as well that any criticism is immediately jumped on. Too many "passionate" pilots out there reasoning with emotions rather than looking at objective facts. A table of the B777/A330/A340/MD11 showing the total number of aircraft and number of accidents would paint a powerful picture me thinks. Something is not right with it. Yes its a fabulous aircraft to look at and indeed watch land but something seems off with it - frankly too many are crashing. While I dont have numbers to hand would 1 crash a year seem there or there abouts right ? Thats an appauling record. Great looking aircraft yes and a dream to fly in reasonable weather no doubt, but the record speaks for itself.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD-11 Statistics
Hull-loss Accidents: 8 with a total of 240 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Criminal occurences (hull-loss, excl. hijackings): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Survival rate for all fatal accidents: on average 56.8% of all occupants survived fatal accidents
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index > MD-11 > MD-11 Statistics
200 hulls delivered
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hull-loss Accidents: 8 with a total of 240 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Criminal occurences (hull-loss, excl. hijackings): 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 0 with a total of 0 fatalities
Survival rate for all fatal accidents: on average 56.8% of all occupants survived fatal accidents
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Aircraft type index > MD-11 > MD-11 Statistics
200 hulls delivered
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note that no one has raised the CAC (centre avionics compartment). Perhaps a fire could have started here with the batteries and spread from there?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Glasgow
Age: 73
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ireland105
Re your post #89, let me paint that picture. Page 21 of Boeing's "Statistical Summary of Commercial Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations 1959-2009" shows a bar chart comparing the hull loss accident rate per million departures. For the 4 aeroplanes you mention, the figures are as follows:
MD11 3.42
A340 0.95
A330 0.27
B777 0.21.
SFS
Re your post #89, let me paint that picture. Page 21 of Boeing's "Statistical Summary of Commercial Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations 1959-2009" shows a bar chart comparing the hull loss accident rate per million departures. For the 4 aeroplanes you mention, the figures are as follows:
MD11 3.42
A340 0.95
A330 0.27
B777 0.21.
SFS
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus A 340 figure is somewhat misleading. Of the five hull losses, only two were in passenger service, both involved runway overruns.
Of the other three, one was blown up by terrorists and the other two were damaged beyond repair by ground engineering errors.
There were no fatalities involved in any of the accidents.
Of the other three, one was blown up by terrorists and the other two were damaged beyond repair by ground engineering errors.
There were no fatalities involved in any of the accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: on the rock
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the latest statements from Lufthansa Cargo and Saudi CAA ( Mr.Chalid al-Chaibari ), there was NO in-flight fire prior landing.
Fire started when A/C went/skidded off runway after extrem hard landing / "impact". Reason is still under investigation.
Ref.: Interview with „Al-Iqtisadiyah“ ( Saudi newspaper )
Fire started when A/C went/skidded off runway after extrem hard landing / "impact". Reason is still under investigation.
Ref.: Interview with „Al-Iqtisadiyah“ ( Saudi newspaper )
I actually have read this thread right from the beginning and I have (as usual) really enjoyed the speculative rubbish that has so far been posted.
Just to bring us all up to date;
1. Which one of you out there knows for sure that the crew had a problem before landing? If you do know, then let us know exactly what was said from your reliable source.
2. Having done more DGR courses and lectures in the last 50 years than most of you put together could ever claim to have had hot dinners, exactly who has established that DGR was involved? If you know that for sure, then why don't you tell us and stop us all guessing?
This thread is pprune speculation at its very best.
It seems to me that not one single one of you out there has the slightest idea of what went on in that Lufthansa flight deck and the only conclusion that I can come to is that none of you are worth listening to.
It really is that simple.
Just to bring us all up to date;
1. Which one of you out there knows for sure that the crew had a problem before landing? If you do know, then let us know exactly what was said from your reliable source.
2. Having done more DGR courses and lectures in the last 50 years than most of you put together could ever claim to have had hot dinners, exactly who has established that DGR was involved? If you know that for sure, then why don't you tell us and stop us all guessing?
This thread is pprune speculation at its very best.
It seems to me that not one single one of you out there has the slightest idea of what went on in that Lufthansa flight deck and the only conclusion that I can come to is that none of you are worth listening to.
It really is that simple.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont read this thread
Look,
There have been a number of speculators regarding this mishap. That is the nature of PPrune. If you don't like it; don't read and certainly don't post!
Based on evidence, I believe that there are some handling issues with the MD 11. I share this view with a number of my flying collegues.
Now some of them do actually fly the bird...and eager to glean info from any source.
If you don't want to learn, are not interested ...then
up! I don't fly the 11 but I'm eager to discuss its approach and landing folibles.
Go away and let us get on with it...****
There have been a number of speculators regarding this mishap. That is the nature of PPrune. If you don't like it; don't read and certainly don't post!
Based on evidence, I believe that there are some handling issues with the MD 11. I share this view with a number of my flying collegues.
Now some of them do actually fly the bird...and eager to glean info from any source.
If you don't want to learn, are not interested ...then
up! I don't fly the 11 but I'm eager to discuss its approach and landing folibles.Go away and let us get on with it...****
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think JW411 has a good point. And, there's nothing wrong with discussing handling qualities of any airliner, Subsonicsubic. But as in any other accident - back it up with facts please. This is called a PROFESSIONAL rumor network 
ApuC.
ApuC.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Thirty West
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on avherald
Yeah... right... 35 seconds - without being prepared due to a prior mayday call - some things don't fit together here...
CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri said on Jul 29th the captain and first officer are in good health with very minor injuries. Emergency services reached the aircraft within 35 seconds after touch down using half of their agents within 3 minutes thus efficiently confining the fire to the cargo hold.
"The Economic", a Saudi Arabian newspaper in Arabic, cites CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri to have said on Jul 29th, that according to preliminary investigation results there was no fire before touch down. The airplane touched down very hard and veered to the left, the airplane subsequently burst into flames. The Aviation Herald was unable so far to confirm this statement with Saudi Arabia's CAA or otherwise independently verify that statement.
Officials of Riyadh Airport said on Jul 29th, that the crew reported a cargo fire while on approach, emergency services immediately deployed and observed the airplane arrive in thick black smoke before the airplane touched down on the runway..
"The Economic", a Saudi Arabian newspaper in Arabic, cites CAA spokesman Khaled al-Alkhyeeri to have said on Jul 29th, that according to preliminary investigation results there was no fire before touch down. The airplane touched down very hard and veered to the left, the airplane subsequently burst into flames. The Aviation Herald was unable so far to confirm this statement with Saudi Arabia's CAA or otherwise independently verify that statement.
Officials of Riyadh Airport said on Jul 29th, that the crew reported a cargo fire while on approach, emergency services immediately deployed and observed the airplane arrive in thick black smoke before the airplane touched down on the runway..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: CT
Age: 54
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only did they get there in 35 secs, but they "confined the fire to the cargo hold."
Leaving aside the obvious photo evidence that the fire did at the very least put a large hole in the top of the fuselage, the wording above seems to imply pretty strongly that the cargo hold is where the fire started.
My systems knowledge ain't 100% what it probably should be, but I'm pretty sure there are no fuel lines inside the MD11 cargo hold that could rupture (I believe the connectors between the L/R halves of #2 tank pass through the aux tank area, but not certain). Going the other way, however, if a fire was burning in the Center Compartment and was only being surpressed (ie. Li batteries) and somehow broke through the bulkhead into the Center Gear area all 3 hydraulic systems would be in jeopardy. And a fire in the Forward Compartment that burned into the CAC would have some very unpleasant effects on electrics, automation and flight controls. Not saying either of these scenarios happened - I personally suspect an onboard fire leading the crew to just get it on the ground regardless, but I'm no investigator and I do not actually know what happened, so...
I'll wait for official results, but I'm not about to join in the howling chorus for grounding the 11 (which if one actually studies it had an awesome safety record from 2000 to 2008, and over its life a total of catastrophic three hull losses which might be attributable to the design itself - more likely two considering Mandarin landed in a tropical storm in a far-from-stable approach...). But I'll hop off my soapbox and let those of you who prefer to rant without facts take over...
Q
Leaving aside the obvious photo evidence that the fire did at the very least put a large hole in the top of the fuselage, the wording above seems to imply pretty strongly that the cargo hold is where the fire started.
My systems knowledge ain't 100% what it probably should be, but I'm pretty sure there are no fuel lines inside the MD11 cargo hold that could rupture (I believe the connectors between the L/R halves of #2 tank pass through the aux tank area, but not certain). Going the other way, however, if a fire was burning in the Center Compartment and was only being surpressed (ie. Li batteries) and somehow broke through the bulkhead into the Center Gear area all 3 hydraulic systems would be in jeopardy. And a fire in the Forward Compartment that burned into the CAC would have some very unpleasant effects on electrics, automation and flight controls. Not saying either of these scenarios happened - I personally suspect an onboard fire leading the crew to just get it on the ground regardless, but I'm no investigator and I do not actually know what happened, so...
I'll wait for official results, but I'm not about to join in the howling chorus for grounding the 11 (which if one actually studies it had an awesome safety record from 2000 to 2008, and over its life a total of catastrophic three hull losses which might be attributable to the design itself - more likely two considering Mandarin landed in a tropical storm in a far-from-stable approach...). But I'll hop off my soapbox and let those of you who prefer to rant without facts take over...
Q
But as in any other accident - back it up with facts please. This is called a PROFESSIONAL rumor network
Anything else is just shades of gray, and consequentially in my book any one opinion is worth the same as any other.
Just because you see the word "professional" in the name doesn't infer any more accuracy, truthfulness or what-have-you.
Basically this board is just like any other on the internet - anyone can have at it. It's up to you as a reader, to either ignore, respond, or tut-tut yourself to sleep or whatever. Personally I find a nice glass of Merlot makes the read here less problematical. Trouble is it's only just gone 14:00 here....
- GY