Lufthansa cargo plane crash

[Squawk7777]

I am not intentionally pointing fingers at individuals, companies or authorities, but lets not forget that the German BFU (equivalent of the UK AAIB or US NTSB) has a high percentage of ex-LH people.

[Less Hair]

BFU had been intentionally set up to be a separate institution from LBA (CAA). I'd personally trust them to come to independent conclusions. Just look at their Hamburg incident report.

[safelife]

Hamburg's BFU report was done by an ex Air Berlin Airbus Captain, who was previously quit from Lufthansa by action of their pilot union.

[hetfield]

Hamburg's BFU report was done by an ex Air Berlin Airbus Captain, who was previously quit from Lufthansa by action of their pilot union.

Aha, so what?

[wonderbusdriver]

- No one gets fired from DLH by notion of the pilots´ reps.
(It´s not possible legally, even if they wanted to, which they wouldn´t.
What a load of crock!)

- ALL Revs at least unlocked always is SOP on a non-"non-standard" landing.
Whether that makes sense from a probability/financial ("what if the #2 doesn´t close") view point is a different question, but it sure is not unsafe.

- Manual flight/manual thrust is not a "MUST", but makes sense most (!!) of the time, and that´s how it´s taught.

We´re talking about a "standardized production" with several thousand pilots and several hundred aircraft involved that are to be kept extremely interchangable within rather narrow margins.

Landing loads: 2G, >2G and finally >>2G - make me cringe, but are just facts without further background.

The final report will come frome the DGCA (KSR) in "a year or so", is what´s been told.

[MD11F]

@wonderbusdriver
looks like you have some "insider knowledge"
- ALL Revs at least unlocked always is SOP on a non-"non-standard" landing.
Whether that makes sense from a probability/financial ("what if the #2 doesn´t close") view point is a different question, but it sure is not unsafe.

true, and once Reversers are deployed,there is no more "go around" option
Rgds MD11f

[MPH]

FYI Most landings on the MD11 are done with the A/T engaged.

[DBate]

FYI Most landings on the MD11 are done with the A/T engaged.

FYI, most landings on the MD11 at LH Cargo are done with the A/T disengaged, as it is a company recommendation and trained that way (manual landings that is of course).

[Huck]

I click them off, too. Tends to sharpen the focus and give you a better feel for energy state.

But most don't. How's that working out?

[Spooky 2]

It's not the act of clicking the AT's off before touchdown as when you clik them off.....10' or 1,000'? I think the later is a better technique if your going to hand fly and land with the AT's off. Of course with the AT's off your airspeed additives come into play so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'?

Now I happen to know that Huck just checked out in the B777 , so how do you handle this task in the Boeing when they recommend using the AT's through touchdown and if you do it differently from the MD11, why?

[Huck]

Well, when I actually get to fly one, I'll tell you! IOE next week....

I think the 777 AT's are a different animal. No additives? Must work like magic.

The trap at our company is the MD-10. It is the older DC-10 system, and with the lighter weights in the dash 10, you can get your ass in a crack real quick. Recall our MEM crash - light aircraft, stiff crosswind, AT's go to idle at 50' with a full crab in.....

[411A]

Of course with the AT's off your airspeed additives come into play so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'?

Quite easy with some types...you leave the thrust where the the autothrottles put it, closing the taps as needed.
Rocket science, it ain't...at least with Lockheed.

[Spooky 2]

411 get off that TriStar stuff. Damn good airplane and really fun to fly but since there are probably less than a dozen airworthy airplanes left in the world it makes llittle difference to this subject matter.

Huck, as I recall we did not add wind additives to the MD11 if the autothrottles were left on til touchdown. Has something changed?

[FrontRunner]

It's not the act of clicking the AT's off before touchdown as when you clik them off.....10' or 1,000'?

...so how do you handle that if your cliking the AT's off as you descend through say 50'?

Pardon my ignorance (not rated on the MD11) but why on earth would anyone want to click off the A/T just before or during the flare at 50' to 10'? To manually override the A/T (if not behaving as desired) I can understand, but why even bother switching it off?

[Spooky 2]

I think they call it lazy.

[bugg smasher]

The MD-11 AT's reduce power to idle at a specific rad alt, they do not account for the energy state of the aircraft in any way. Nothing to do with lazy, quite the opposite in fact.

Flying a cross-controlled Mad Dog in strong and gusty cross winds close to the ground, as so often happens in Anchorage winter flying, is a very challenging maneuver in this beast. The AT's work against any semblance, mindlessly so, of a smooth landing in said conditions.

My recommendation has always been, and will continue to be, disconnect the AT's somewhere on short final while the engines are at a steady-state spool-up, and carry that thrust to touchdown. Should make up for any loss of energy once cross control in applied.

Always keeping in mind, of course, that the MD-11 with her very high approach speeds, consumes available landing distance at a disconcertingly alarming rate.

[Semaphore Sam]

411A...L-1011 one of the best I ever flew....I love Lockheed, flew 7 years C-141A's, went to airline, flew F/E, F/O, Capt, Sim IP on the wonderful L1011, and loved every minute. A Crewmember's Dream! It was over-engineered (too safe, means too expensive), and much too heavy. The DC-10 was rushed to market, under-engineered (example Souix City, Paris Turkish, and many others), and the MD-11 derivative greatly under flight-controlled, resulting in multiple flip-crashes. Airlines love it. They can absorb financial losses due to crashes and deaths of crew, because of long-term financial pluses of flying under-engineered death traps with small fuel burns, great loads. DROP THE TALK OF THE L-1011. The MD-11 lives, dangerously for crew, financially valuable for airlines, and the Tri-Star is financially DEAD, to my deep chagrin. Sam

[PBL]

Originally Posted by Semaphore Sam

The DC-10 was rushed to market, under-engineered (example Souix City, Paris Turkish, and many others)

I have heard this opinion many times. I wonder what it is supposed to mean.

Nobody seems to worry too much about, say, the Boeing 787 being "rushed to market", despite Boeing announcing at the beginning that it was to be a very short development time (which got somewhat stretched, as these things will).

The accident history of the DC-10 may be viewed at, for example, Aviation Safety Network's DC-10 Hull Loss page. There have been 30 hull losses. There have been nine accidents with significant fatalities:

1974 Turkish Bois d'Ermenonville
1979 AA ORD
1979 Western Air Lines Mexico City
1979 ANZ Mt. Erebus
1982 Spantax Malaga
1989 United Sioux City, IA
1989 Korean Tripoli
1989 UTA Temere Desert
1999 AOM French Guatamala City

Of these, the accidents which had anything to do with engineering are 1974 Turkish, 1979 AA and 1989 United.

1979 Western landed off-centerline with gear in the grass. 1979 Mt. Erebus was a data-entry management thing. 1982 Spantax Malaga was an RTO above V1 (indeed, above V_R). 1989 Korean Tripoli was a crash short, in v. poor visibility without a functioning ILS. 1989 UTA was a bomb. 1999 AOM was a runway overrun on landing. None of these had to do with the airplane engineering.

1974 Turkish was the result of a weakness discovered during certification testing (pressurisation tests) which through very poor regulatory practice was allowed to continue into production aircraft. After the Windsor incident, some bargaining went on to avoid issuance of an AD, and Turkish slipped through the cracks.

All large airplanes have such engineering issues. The Boeing 777 had low-frequency fuselage oscillations which gave aircraft-pilot coupling problems. The Boeing 787 had weaknesses mating wing to wing box. The Boeing 777 had a configuration problem with its fault-tolerance SW for the ADIRUs, which arose in-flight in 2005. And so on. Airplanes are very complex beasts and such things are to be expected. The difference nowadays is the much more rigorous handling on both sides, manufacturer and regulator, of engineering issues which arise during certification, partly as a result of this accident and its history.

1979 AA was largely a result of non-standard and non-approved maintenance practices. There was an airplane issue, in that slat position was not directly shown to the crew. A similar issue arose recently with Boeing 747 aircraft, in which high-lift devices retract automatically upon sensing thrust-reverser unlock, which required a finely executed escape manoeuvre by a BA crew on takeoff out of Johannesburg.

1989 Sioux City is well-known to all as a textbook example of common-cause failure. It could be argued that certification standards (still) do not deal very well with common-cause failure. Another, more recent, common-cause failure issue has arisen with the most venerated of sensors, the pitot tube, first at low altitude in heavy rain with A320-series aircraft; later with apparent ice-particle icing at cruise altitudes in A330/340-series aircraft.

None of this comes anywhere near justifying a judgement of the DC-10 as

Originally Posted by Semaphore Sam

under-engineered death traps

But it appears almost impossible to shake a reputation derived from one momentous screw-up. Which observation also gives the lie to any suggestion that, for example, airlines

Originally Posted by Semaphore Sam

can absorb financial losses due to crashes and deaths of crew, because of long-term financial pluses....

PBL

[MPH]

Whether you disengage the A/T for landing (manual) or not is up to the individual. But, MD designed this plane to land with A/T on. It goes to idle at 50´ but, as someone suggested. Yes, if you don’t feel comfortable at 50´manually take over. Now, each company can print their own SOP´s and flight technique´s. That does not alter the original idea that MD had in mind. This A/C was set up to be as fully automated as possible. Whether they (MD) got a perfect package that would be a matter of opinion!!

[Spooky 2]

Bugg Smasher I repsectively disagree with your comments. It is true that the AT's start retarding based upon RA height of 47' as I recall. I assume you would have your hands on the thrust levers and either resist this movement if you were slow. The point is disconnecting the AT's at 50' simply does not put you in the energy loop. If you want them off, disconnect them well above the threshold, like maybe 1000' and fly the airplane to the touchdown.

Does your company use 35 flaps for all landings or do you use 50 most of the time?