Fedex Tokyo MD-11 Update
Guest
Posts: n/a
There is no better tutorial for LG issues than the Narita deal. Watch the video as often as it takes to watch the airframe sacrifice integrity bit by bit around the attach/join of the mains (and especiaaly the NLG).
Both wings snapped at the LG attach. She rolled due to the conspiring physics of drag and no attached wing on one side and rapidly increasing lift on the other. Dwell on the ironic picture of her on her back with her Landing gear pointed skyward, complete with tires (!).
Pay particular attention to the last "Bounce" on her nose gear.
It is an interesting corporate history that features such stout legs. Wing loading, touchy finals, and gear that would support an aircraft carrier 'landing'. Wait.......
Both wings snapped at the LG attach. She rolled due to the conspiring physics of drag and no attached wing on one side and rapidly increasing lift on the other. Dwell on the ironic picture of her on her back with her Landing gear pointed skyward, complete with tires (!).
Pay particular attention to the last "Bounce" on her nose gear.
It is an interesting corporate history that features such stout legs. Wing loading, touchy finals, and gear that would support an aircraft carrier 'landing'. Wait.......
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gretchenfrage,
Although I've never flown the MD-11, I agree with the points that you have made. I would like to correct you on one thing though. The accident runway in NRT is not the short one. Rwy 34L is 13,100 ft (4000 m) long. Definitely not a short runway.
Although I've never flown the MD-11, I agree with the points that you have made. I would like to correct you on one thing though. The accident runway in NRT is not the short one. Rwy 34L is 13,100 ft (4000 m) long. Definitely not a short runway.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft crashed in HKG had both its wings still neatly fixed, and it was a bounced landing with subsequent flip.
Look, the wings breaking and the gear collapsing are secondary effects. The one that leads to the bounce is the initiating problem. The second hard landing, or wing scratching just increases the damage already done.
If you want to do something against such accidents, it would be pi$$ing into the Mississipi if you'd attach the gear differently, or less rigidly.
Try with training the pilots first NOT to do the hard landing leading to a bounce in the first place.
Look, the wings breaking and the gear collapsing are secondary effects. The one that leads to the bounce is the initiating problem. The second hard landing, or wing scratching just increases the damage already done.
If you want to do something against such accidents, it would be pi$$ing into the Mississipi if you'd attach the gear differently, or less rigidly.
Try with training the pilots first NOT to do the hard landing leading to a bounce in the first place.
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 18th Jul 2011 at 19:13.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD11 flight642, wings still attached?
that's not really true Gretchen, from Wiki, but basically an excerpt from the accident report;
You're right about the initial reasons being pilot judgement related rather than
just design related.
Still, a somewhat shoddy design IMHO.
At about 6:43 P.M. on 22 August 1999, B-150, a McDonnell Douglas MD-11, was making its final approach to runway 25L when Typhoon Sam was 50 km NE of the airport. At an altitude of 700 feet prior to touchdown a further wind check was passed to the crew: 320 deg/28 knots gusting to 36 knots, while maximum crosswind component limit for the aircraft was 24 knots. The crew neglected this and continued the landing. During the final flare to land, the plane rolled to the right, landed hard on its right main gear and the No. 3 engine touched the runway. The right wing separated from the fuselage. The aircraft continued to roll over and skidded off the runway in flames. When it stopped, it was on its back and the rear of the plane was on fire, coming to rest on a grass area next to the runway, 1100 m from the runway threshold. The right wing was found on a taxiway 90 meters from the nose of the plane.[2] As shown in photos of the aircraft at rest, the fire caused significant damage to the rear section of the aircraft but was quickly extinguished due to the heavy rain and quick response from rescue teams in the airport.
just design related.
Still, a somewhat shoddy design IMHO.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latetonight, yea mate about as irrelevant as saying it's 13,000', point is this is where following the GS puts you, what air distance the md-11 uses from the threshold I don't know, especially since they had a CAS of about 170kts you assume they crossed the threshold at 50'.
The third touchdown where it breaks is between 2,500 & 3,000' with a CAS of 150kts, where does that fit in your 50'?
The third touchdown where it breaks is between 2,500 & 3,000' with a CAS of 150kts, where does that fit in your 50'?
Last edited by SMOC; 19th Jul 2011 at 00:24.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that too many of todays pilots came through the new automation religion and are simply lacking the basic skills of flying. A simple bulletin, a sim session or two and some well intended but cheap words of a chief instructor will not suffice imho.
The MD11 is out of our time. But I loved it.
The MD11 is out of our time. But I loved it.
Amen, fact is that there are many pilots who have expectations based on flying other modern (and a few older) jets who just do not have the aptitude to operate this fine machine that was the end of a legacy because most of their experience was on airframes that need less from them to operate saftely. Sadly a bad situation and a bit of complacency (training and judgment) results in disaster.
Last edited by grounded27; 19th Jul 2011 at 01:03.
Sticking my neck out as SLF . Experience of MD 11 limited to one LHR-RIO round trip on VARIG.
Read all these comments and on other threads with great interest and had a couple of questions
1 How did the MD 11 get approved by the FAA if as seems a common thread it can be a handful for?
Inexperienced pilots
Tricky weather –especially wind shear/shifts low down
Someone having an ‘off day’
I do not in the least want to impugn any ones professionalism because people do have below par days in every profession and job and indeed have great admiration for the airline pilot community doing a job that can be very very very different from almost all other professions when circumstances combine badly.
Isn’t a ‘fail safe ‘ approach something intrinsic in the design and acceptance process and approving an aircraft that apparently needs a seemingly higher level of skill/care/awareness than other comparable aircraft seems to be something of a risk when compared with all the other efforts made to make modern airliners the reliable safe machines they are.
However surely the Certifying authorities and indeed Chief pilots of companies that assessed/bought MD 11 had a duty to flag up the fact that the MD11 has some quirks that seem just not to be there on 747s 777s 330/340 series. Or was this a situation again where traditional pilot skills (and concerns) were just not given sufficient weight in a no doubt very commercially driven process.
Sorry to intrude on the debate just a view from ‘down the back’-where of course it is somewhat limited anyway
PB
Read all these comments and on other threads with great interest and had a couple of questions
1 How did the MD 11 get approved by the FAA if as seems a common thread it can be a handful for?
Inexperienced pilots
Tricky weather –especially wind shear/shifts low down
Someone having an ‘off day’
I do not in the least want to impugn any ones professionalism because people do have below par days in every profession and job and indeed have great admiration for the airline pilot community doing a job that can be very very very different from almost all other professions when circumstances combine badly.
Isn’t a ‘fail safe ‘ approach something intrinsic in the design and acceptance process and approving an aircraft that apparently needs a seemingly higher level of skill/care/awareness than other comparable aircraft seems to be something of a risk when compared with all the other efforts made to make modern airliners the reliable safe machines they are.
However surely the Certifying authorities and indeed Chief pilots of companies that assessed/bought MD 11 had a duty to flag up the fact that the MD11 has some quirks that seem just not to be there on 747s 777s 330/340 series. Or was this a situation again where traditional pilot skills (and concerns) were just not given sufficient weight in a no doubt very commercially driven process.
Sorry to intrude on the debate just a view from ‘down the back’-where of course it is somewhat limited anyway
PB
Dodgy Aircraft.
Unfortunately we don't always bring our 'A Game'
A Civilian Jet Transport should not require above average levels of skill from it's Pilots.
We all have bad days, fatigue, jet lag, poor scheduling and many other factors can combine to produce less than stellar performances on occasion.
In a Boeing or Airbus, however the result is not usually fatal.
Unfortunately we don't always bring our 'A Game'
A Civilian Jet Transport should not require above average levels of skill from it's Pilots.
We all have bad days, fatigue, jet lag, poor scheduling and many other factors can combine to produce less than stellar performances on occasion.
In a Boeing or Airbus, however the result is not usually fatal.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spoken to a MD11 qualified pilot about these issues, he said (and that was before the LH and FedX accidents) there is one golden rule for the MD11:
Bounce = go around and try again. Period.
And they train wave-offs in the sim.
It seems that all the accidents are loss of control after a bounce.
But then again, loss of control is rapidly becoming nr1 cause for accidents, and not only on the MD11.
Bounce = go around and try again. Period.
And they train wave-offs in the sim.
It seems that all the accidents are loss of control after a bounce.
But then again, loss of control is rapidly becoming nr1 cause for accidents, and not only on the MD11.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answering to the last three posts:
It is a fact that the MD11 is less forgiving than the recent Airbus and Boeing models. Having said that, we could simply ban the Maddog and live happily ever after. But .....
It was controllable for the more specifically trained and experienced pilots, or those having flown DC10 or MD80, in general older models with more hands on requirements.
If we settle for the more gentle aircraft of today and accept the more limited pilot skill level as to fly those, we will most probably continue down the automation/protection road. The new pilots being operators, good ones, but only operators. The newer generation models will be even more forgiving and protected and their pilots even less required to have any rear side skills no more.
We will all be fat, dumb and happy, however ......
As we discover more and more, even the highly developed automatics have their bumps and programing every possible event is impossible. As we see, automation when it senses errors or no data, simply throws the aircraft back to the pilots. That's per design!!
In recent incidents we unfortunately detect, that many pilots seem unable to cope with such situations.
Either we achieve an absolutely foolproof design, or we have to keep the pilots up to speed, as to be able to at least stabilize an aircraft that momentarily goes into manual with sometimes erratic displays.
The choice is simple and coming back to the MD11 example, we are already in a catch 22 with this model.
Either train the pilots and let them get experience, or scrap the model.
But again, we will be back to square one in a few years with the minimalistic and way too synthetic training we give our successors.
It is a fact that the MD11 is less forgiving than the recent Airbus and Boeing models. Having said that, we could simply ban the Maddog and live happily ever after. But .....
It was controllable for the more specifically trained and experienced pilots, or those having flown DC10 or MD80, in general older models with more hands on requirements.
If we settle for the more gentle aircraft of today and accept the more limited pilot skill level as to fly those, we will most probably continue down the automation/protection road. The new pilots being operators, good ones, but only operators. The newer generation models will be even more forgiving and protected and their pilots even less required to have any rear side skills no more.
We will all be fat, dumb and happy, however ......
As we discover more and more, even the highly developed automatics have their bumps and programing every possible event is impossible. As we see, automation when it senses errors or no data, simply throws the aircraft back to the pilots. That's per design!!
In recent incidents we unfortunately detect, that many pilots seem unable to cope with such situations.
Either we achieve an absolutely foolproof design, or we have to keep the pilots up to speed, as to be able to at least stabilize an aircraft that momentarily goes into manual with sometimes erratic displays.
The choice is simple and coming back to the MD11 example, we are already in a catch 22 with this model.
Either train the pilots and let them get experience, or scrap the model.
But again, we will be back to square one in a few years with the minimalistic and way too synthetic training we give our successors.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is simple, really, if you want to improve aviation safety.
Pay enough money to attract the right talent.
Insist on top-shelf flying skills or fire them.
We cannot engineer out the need for first-class flying skills. The recent AF A330 accident proved that.....
Just last week I completed my six-month simulator ride on the 777F. The last maneuver was a hand-flown closed circuit following a V1 cut with a fire that wouldn't go out in HKG. Complex engine-out procedure, heavy weight, initial climb rate was 300 feet per minute, dodging the ships. Went around Lantau island and rolled out on a 5 mile visual for an overweight landing at 190 knots, using most of the ~13000' runway. No way to fake it, no way to sneak through without the requisite talent.
At the end of the day, somebody onboard's still got to have some skills.
Pay enough money to attract the right talent.
Insist on top-shelf flying skills or fire them.
We cannot engineer out the need for first-class flying skills. The recent AF A330 accident proved that.....
Just last week I completed my six-month simulator ride on the 777F. The last maneuver was a hand-flown closed circuit following a V1 cut with a fire that wouldn't go out in HKG. Complex engine-out procedure, heavy weight, initial climb rate was 300 feet per minute, dodging the ships. Went around Lantau island and rolled out on a 5 mile visual for an overweight landing at 190 knots, using most of the ~13000' runway. No way to fake it, no way to sneak through without the requisite talent.
At the end of the day, somebody onboard's still got to have some skills.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FedEx folks seem to have a fairly cushy contract.
Do they fly enough hours every month to stay proficient; not legal, but proficient ?
that may have been a mitigating factor??
Do they fly enough hours every month to stay proficient; not legal, but proficient ?
that may have been a mitigating factor??
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lack Of Elementary Flying Skills
A whopping 4.9 degrees nose down input after the last bounce must have been a case of momentary insanity, especially in a transport category airplane.
Elementary flying skills learned from day one in flight school had taught most of us that after a bounced touchdown, if not initiating a go-around, then we would add a touch of power, level the pitch for a second flare and touchdown.
Never ever to dive the nose into the ground as these FedUp guys had done.
Elementary flying skills learned from day one in flight school had taught most of us that after a bounced touchdown, if not initiating a go-around, then we would add a touch of power, level the pitch for a second flare and touchdown.
Never ever to dive the nose into the ground as these FedUp guys had done.
Huck I am confused, are you saying FX training has improved as a result of the Narita accident or was it always excellent? I appreciate you are now on a different aircraft, but presumably you still have an insight.
If I understood you correctly you earlier said that experience also did not play a role with the Narita crew. If we rule out training and experience it looks like the average pilot on a bad day in the MD11 may simply be unable to cope with what would be no big deal on most other aircraft.
The two recent accidents, LH and FX we have been discussing, happened to airlines who are well up the league table in terms of pay and conditions. Maybe the aircraft needs to be treated like Concorde with additional selection and presumably rewards for those who are above average within the company.
By the way the guys at BA who failed the Concorde course did not get fired they just went back to their previous aircraft.
If I understood you correctly you earlier said that experience also did not play a role with the Narita crew. If we rule out training and experience it looks like the average pilot on a bad day in the MD11 may simply be unable to cope with what would be no big deal on most other aircraft.
The two recent accidents, LH and FX we have been discussing, happened to airlines who are well up the league table in terms of pay and conditions. Maybe the aircraft needs to be treated like Concorde with additional selection and presumably rewards for those who are above average within the company.
By the way the guys at BA who failed the Concorde course did not get fired they just went back to their previous aircraft.