Another MD11 Accident:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sand pit
Age: 54
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most Md Airplanes are built like tanks... however they do not like a firm bounce followed by unloading the wing with the subsequent touchdown at 6 g's and the next at 8 g's. ( Im guessing most airplanes wouldnt).
Almost all of these crashes are the same....bounce, push nose over, drop like brick, yank bank , bounce, then do it again harder and harder.
Almost all of these crashes are the same....bounce, push nose over, drop like brick, yank bank , bounce, then do it again harder and harder.
Question regarding responsibility for removing aircraft from runway
Shortly after the Centurion gear collapse at Viracopos I read in some local news report that an Infraero spokesperson had said it was Centurion's responsibility to remove the aircraft from the runway.
Interesting situation, particularly since Viracopos was recently concessioned, and is now in the process of ops being transferred from Infraero to the concessionaires.
In the end, I'm not sure who removed the DC-10 from the runway, Centurion, Infraero or the new concessionaires or a combination of them. But I'm interested to know how other - especially single-runway - airport authorities deal with similar accidents. Do they have lifting and haulage equipment of their own or of others' standing by? Or do they just leave wreck removal to the accident aircraft's operator and to hell with other operators' schedules?
Interesting situation, particularly since Viracopos was recently concessioned, and is now in the process of ops being transferred from Infraero to the concessionaires.
In the end, I'm not sure who removed the DC-10 from the runway, Centurion, Infraero or the new concessionaires or a combination of them. But I'm interested to know how other - especially single-runway - airport authorities deal with similar accidents. Do they have lifting and haulage equipment of their own or of others' standing by? Or do they just leave wreck removal to the accident aircraft's operator and to hell with other operators' schedules?
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD11 bounce landing = immediate go around...if not this is the result.
I have to agree with doors to automatic on this subject. It is generally not pilot technique which, more frequently on DC10/MD11 than most types, ends with the landing gear pointing skywards.
I believe that this marque of aircraft has a design flaw which has its roots in the development competition between Douglas and Lockheed, in the 1960's, to get a trijet wide body jet into production. Lockheed were initially well ahead with their programme but Douglas, starting late, rushed their programme for the DC10 under the motto 'fly before they roll'. That philosophy has cost many lives since: The poorly designed cargo door and cabin pressure relief killed hundreds in Paris. Lack of hydraulic redundancy leads to Sioux City accident. Poor slat locking design kills hundreds in Chicago. Lack of development time leads to installation of No 2 engine as a 'straight through' design, robbing valuable area from the rudder. Consequence? The wing engines were mounted further inboard to retain adequate directional control. Consequence of that? A wing gear collapse on landing results in the wingtip digging into the landing surface. Wing breaks, aircraft rolls inverted. QED. That does not happen when the engines are further outboard, as on L1011,B777, etc, as they prevent excess roll when they contact the ground.
I flew both DC10-30 and all Tristar (L1011) types. The former was a capable Ford, the latter a Range Rover: an uneconomic engineering jewel.
It is certainly not fair to blame pilots for the engineering shortcomings of the DC10/MD11. This MD11crew was lucky, the wingtip seems to have skated on a hard surface and not damaged the wing.
I believe that this marque of aircraft has a design flaw which has its roots in the development competition between Douglas and Lockheed, in the 1960's, to get a trijet wide body jet into production. Lockheed were initially well ahead with their programme but Douglas, starting late, rushed their programme for the DC10 under the motto 'fly before they roll'. That philosophy has cost many lives since: The poorly designed cargo door and cabin pressure relief killed hundreds in Paris. Lack of hydraulic redundancy leads to Sioux City accident. Poor slat locking design kills hundreds in Chicago. Lack of development time leads to installation of No 2 engine as a 'straight through' design, robbing valuable area from the rudder. Consequence? The wing engines were mounted further inboard to retain adequate directional control. Consequence of that? A wing gear collapse on landing results in the wingtip digging into the landing surface. Wing breaks, aircraft rolls inverted. QED. That does not happen when the engines are further outboard, as on L1011,B777, etc, as they prevent excess roll when they contact the ground.
I flew both DC10-30 and all Tristar (L1011) types. The former was a capable Ford, the latter a Range Rover: an uneconomic engineering jewel.
It is certainly not fair to blame pilots for the engineering shortcomings of the DC10/MD11. This MD11crew was lucky, the wingtip seems to have skated on a hard surface and not damaged the wing.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Thessaloniki, GRECE
Age: 41
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is safe to say that after all these years, it's pretty evident that it is a crappy plane that doesnt tolerate errors at all. How many are still in passenger service?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is safe to say that after all these years, it's pretty evident that it is a crappy plane that doesnt tolerate errors at all
On the other hand it exposes this characteristic on landing only. Apart from SR111, which was doomed due to enhancement c@ck-ups, not one of them fell out of the air uncontrolled and stalled, like another make.
Same origin, certainly, inadequate operators, but just as much design flaws.
But as it seems, one designer gets the eternal blessing, the other the damning.
13 years of MD11 operation, not one hard landing, not one bounce.
I'll take it anytime, because in all these years I never heard "what is it doing now ....?" or "are you doing something or not???"
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 18th Oct 2012 at 01:57.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the main strut sheared. Just like the second Fedex MD10 accident in Memphis. Not a typical MD11 hard landing failure mode....
ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F N391FE Memphis International Airport, TN (MEM)
.
Last edited by Huck; 18th Oct 2012 at 12:34.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks to me like a failure initiated on the aft side of the strut and proceeded forward around the circumference on both sides. The strut would then have bent forward and torn a tab of metal off the top portion of the strut. Friction would then have brought the detached strut aft, still attached by its linkages as the weight transferred to the engine pod. Such an initiation point would likely be caused by some minor prior damage to the strut outer surface.
We'll have to see an up close view of the fracture to know for sure.
If it had been a strut explosion (due to hydraulic fluid combustion) the strut would likely have been 'shivered'.
We'll have to see an up close view of the fracture to know for sure.
If it had been a strut explosion (due to hydraulic fluid combustion) the strut would likely have been 'shivered'.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: >FL300
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 years ago I wouldn't believe that there's something wrong with the MD-11 ....but now
come on! you don't have to be an rocket scientist to figure that's something wrong with it...the facts are there
come on! you don't have to be an rocket scientist to figure that's something wrong with it...the facts are there
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ordinarily, the strut survives, and the spar breaks, or worse, so this outcome is not 'typical'.
Remember the Nose strut from Narita? After that last bounce? Awesome strength. There is nothing wrong with the airplane. Abuse, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is abuse, nonetheless.
Remember the Nose strut from Narita? After that last bounce? Awesome strength. There is nothing wrong with the airplane. Abuse, whether deliberate or inadvertent, is abuse, nonetheless.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks to me like a failure initiated on the aft side of the strut and proceeded forward around the circumference on both sides
Funny, looks to me like the failure initiated after a high side-load bounce, I am sure Captain Kangaroo did not expect this to happen, it is a shame he did not make it to the gate but a blessing all made it to the HOTEL. We will see a report, none the less I am sure a G/A would have saved the day. Pisser about the MD-11 is one wing does tend to stall hard before the other causing things like this to happen. May have mentioned it before, watching the P/F input full aileron authority during flare in windshear, I thought we scraped a motor.
g27.
If you had read and given some thought to the last few posts, you'd see that 120-180 fps was enough in a previous incident, and my guess would be that 1ft/min would have been fine until the brakes were applied. The fracture looks nothing like a compression failure. We all know that these airframes have a main spar made of margarine so that the leg can leave whenever it feels like it.
If you had read and given some thought to the last few posts, you'd see that 120-180 fps was enough in a previous incident, and my guess would be that 1ft/min would have been fine until the brakes were applied. The fracture looks nothing like a compression failure. We all know that these airframes have a main spar made of margarine so that the leg can leave whenever it feels like it.