Another MD11 Accident:
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the centre gear didn't "collapse". The drag strut/brace eye-end fractured and allowed the centre gear to rotate rearwards. The autoland was within limits structurally.
It happens, I recall someones 747-400F taking the runway in HKG a while back and the wing (?) gear strut outer cylinder just decided to fracture. Not long out of overhaul too.
It happens, I recall someones 747-400F taking the runway in HKG a while back and the wing (?) gear strut outer cylinder just decided to fracture. Not long out of overhaul too.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were only allowed to operate through the CWS - manual flying banned
So LESS hand-flying was the percieved solution.....
-----
I flew the MD11 until 2 years ago, when I moved to the 777F. In the right seat for both.
I will happily move back to the Mighty Dog as soon as I can hold the left seat. I love both aircraft. And the MD has a much quieter cockpit.....
Thread Starter
'It happens, I recall someones 747-400F taking the runway in HKG a while back and the wing (?) gear strut outer cylinder just decided to fracture. Not long out of overhaul too. '
However, you can go back to 1969 and the 747's first flight and you won't find one incident of it's WING BREAKING OFF.
And it's been around a lot longer than the MD11, same with the L1011, A300, 767, 777, pick a widebody, none of them have an accident record like the MD11.
And none of them break apart like it either.
However, you can go back to 1969 and the 747's first flight and you won't find one incident of it's WING BREAKING OFF.
And it's been around a lot longer than the MD11, same with the L1011, A300, 767, 777, pick a widebody, none of them have an accident record like the MD11.
And none of them break apart like it either.
Last edited by stilton; 24th Oct 2012 at 04:07.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really for sorry for the guys involved in the accident and also the remaining crew of Centurion, who will very likely be affected by this accident. In these days, it is a tough environment if you have to move on and try to find another job if you don't have a "popular" rating. I have several thousand hours on the MD-11, now on an Airbus Widebody. Personally I think McDonnell Douglas put in all their resources they had to build an aircraft with a state of the art Cockpit and Systems (I have to laugh about the peeps in this thread who talk about the MD-11 systems despite having absolutely *no clue* 
). If they had been in a financial better position at the time of designing this aircraft, MDD would have probably designed a different (bigger, aerodynamically enhanced) wing. Luckily for Airbus, they haven't, because otherwise the A340 would have been dead on arrival...
However, it is what is is now. A fast machine, with a high wingloading resulting in a VREF of ~165 knots at heavy weights. The margin of error is therefore relatively low compared to other types. Does it behave strangely? Personally I don't think so. Just pay attention on the flare.
One thing I like to point out, though: smaller airlines like Centurion most likely won't have the budget to send their crews around the world to train in the latest generation of simulators. My guess is, that they will use Alteon in Miami, which operates the oldest MD-11 Simulator (used to be in Long Beach). And I am not so sure, if in the older generation of training devices, things like Bounced Landings can be "accurately" simulated. I have used MD-11 simulators in the past where the examiner told us, that recovery from bounced landings are tough to train, because the simulator has a hard time to reproduce a bounce. Huck stated, that in FedEx is is trained now, but I am sure, FedEx has much better equipment to train in.
Still miss the MD-11 and its fantastic cockpit, tough. When I look at my Airbus overhead panel, the FCU and the Flight Guidance systems, I can't really agree with the proud people in Toulouse, stating that this is *the best and most modern cockpit*. I go even one step further and say, that the automation and flight guidance on the MD-11 is in fact much better. Which should not surprise in fact, because the Airbus cockpit layout is based on their first FBW Model, the A320, which first flew in 1987 and hasn't really changed that much. The MD-11's cockpit design is a bit younger.
). If they had been in a financial better position at the time of designing this aircraft, MDD would have probably designed a different (bigger, aerodynamically enhanced) wing. Luckily for Airbus, they haven't, because otherwise the A340 would have been dead on arrival... However, it is what is is now. A fast machine, with a high wingloading resulting in a VREF of ~165 knots at heavy weights. The margin of error is therefore relatively low compared to other types. Does it behave strangely? Personally I don't think so. Just pay attention on the flare.
One thing I like to point out, though: smaller airlines like Centurion most likely won't have the budget to send their crews around the world to train in the latest generation of simulators. My guess is, that they will use Alteon in Miami, which operates the oldest MD-11 Simulator (used to be in Long Beach). And I am not so sure, if in the older generation of training devices, things like Bounced Landings can be "accurately" simulated. I have used MD-11 simulators in the past where the examiner told us, that recovery from bounced landings are tough to train, because the simulator has a hard time to reproduce a bounce. Huck stated, that in FedEx is is trained now, but I am sure, FedEx has much better equipment to train in.
Still miss the MD-11 and its fantastic cockpit, tough. When I look at my Airbus overhead panel, the FCU and the Flight Guidance systems, I can't really agree with the proud people in Toulouse, stating that this is *the best and most modern cockpit*. I go even one step further and say, that the automation and flight guidance on the MD-11 is in fact much better. Which should not surprise in fact, because the Airbus cockpit layout is based on their first FBW Model, the A320, which first flew in 1987 and hasn't really changed that much. The MD-11's cockpit design is a bit younger.
Last edited by Burger Thing; 24th Oct 2012 at 04:13.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He might be young and on Airbus, but he's correct!
Written by a almost 60 year old Capt with knowledge of Airbus, Boeing and MD11. BTW do you have MD11 knowledge??
Written by a almost 60 year old Capt with knowledge of Airbus, Boeing and MD11. BTW do you have MD11 knowledge??
He hasn't told us what his experience/qualification on the MD11 is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, it has a nice flight guidance system and overhead
So what ?
So what ?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burger Thing
Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.
Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!
Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.
Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!
I would never profess to be an expert in the MD-11s flying characteristics as the only flying experience I have in real types is 2 hours in a 737-800 Level D simulator!
However I do have a background in statistics and know that the combined number of landings of the 737,747,757,767,777,A320,A330,A340 outweighs those of the MD11 by a factor of hundreds if not thousands.
As far as I am aware none of them have ever suffered complete destruction after a bounced/hard landing. Even if the MD11 had suffered one that would be very unusual but to suffer so many is way way beyond any normal statistical distribution.
So for me, looking at this in completely independent terms for anyone to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd.
However I do have a background in statistics and know that the combined number of landings of the 737,747,757,767,777,A320,A330,A340 outweighs those of the MD11 by a factor of hundreds if not thousands.
As far as I am aware none of them have ever suffered complete destruction after a bounced/hard landing. Even if the MD11 had suffered one that would be very unusual but to suffer so many is way way beyond any normal statistical distribution.
So for me, looking at this in completely independent terms for anyone to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd.
Last edited by Doors to Automatic; 24th Oct 2012 at 12:11.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one can prove otherwise. Stats can only be countered by stats.
Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?
As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0. That can be just as much "way beyond normal statistical distribution".
To cite you once more, "to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd", would mean that there is something wrong with the one product, wouldn't it?
This is to show that stats can be traitorous!!
Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?
As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0. That can be just as much "way beyond normal statistical distribution".
To cite you once more, "to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd", would mean that there is something wrong with the one product, wouldn't it?
This is to show that stats can be traitorous!!
Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?
And even if these were directly caused by FBW (rather than a consequence of a chain of events where FBW contributed) the sum total is still way less in absolute terms (let alone rate per landing) than the number of hull destructions following a hard landing experienced by the MD-11 fleet.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics vrs. statistics...
If we wait long enough, the problem solves itself. After awhile, there will be no more of these 'aircraft' left, just a trail of broken wings and upturned gear off the side of various runways...how long before the next? Sam
If we wait long enough, the problem solves itself. After awhile, there will be no more of these 'aircraft' left, just a trail of broken wings and upturned gear off the side of various runways...how long before the next? Sam
8 hull losses so far out of 200 built. By way of comparison over 1000 777s have been delivered with only 1 hull loss so far and only 3 hull losses for the A330 for a similar number delivered to the 777 (excluding two blown up by Tamils and one damaged beyond repair by corrosive chemicals). Edit - MD11 has had 9 hull losses.
Last edited by Doors to Automatic; 24th Oct 2012 at 16:19.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sand pit
Age: 54
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not an expert by ay means ...I have 6000 hours in the MD, with more than half as Captain. The md-11 is very advanced and wonderful plane to fly. It handles nicely but I cant deny statistics and obviously when they cut 40% of the tail off it became less stable.
I do think one contributing factor is the MD-11 often has the nose rise on landing with spoiler deployment. LSAS is a partial fix but still has tendency to do this. I remember one of my first landings I thought we bounced and were airborne again......actually mains are on ground but you need to counter this and push nose down. Another difference on MD-11 is you cant go into reverse fully until nose wheel is on ground, so again your pushing nose down more rapidly.
I think often with many small bounces that pilots are in the habit of pushing nose down maybe not knowing they are airborne....if the plane is actually airborne this unloads the wing and sets up for a much harder bounce off the nose.
In most cases the plane lands well. I actually prefer heavy weight landings vs very light weight. In some cases such as a crosswind, and at 50 feet you kick in rudder and start slip the drag increases greatly and simultaneously the auto-throttles start a retard....that can often set up a high sink rate that needs to be countered with thrust.
Its hard not to love that plane, albeit she is like a latina woman and may kill you while sleeping.
I do think one contributing factor is the MD-11 often has the nose rise on landing with spoiler deployment. LSAS is a partial fix but still has tendency to do this. I remember one of my first landings I thought we bounced and were airborne again......actually mains are on ground but you need to counter this and push nose down. Another difference on MD-11 is you cant go into reverse fully until nose wheel is on ground, so again your pushing nose down more rapidly.
I think often with many small bounces that pilots are in the habit of pushing nose down maybe not knowing they are airborne....if the plane is actually airborne this unloads the wing and sets up for a much harder bounce off the nose.
In most cases the plane lands well. I actually prefer heavy weight landings vs very light weight. In some cases such as a crosswind, and at 50 feet you kick in rudder and start slip the drag increases greatly and simultaneously the auto-throttles start a retard....that can often set up a high sink rate that needs to be countered with thrust.
Its hard not to love that plane, albeit she is like a latina woman and may kill you while sleeping.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burger Thing
Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.
Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!
Don't be too harsh with stilton. He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident .......
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.
Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
Therefore it matters!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's from the new Airbus infected generation who are painstakingly forced to eternally repeat, that cockpit architecture and design have nothing, but nothing at all to do with any incident or accident
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
If it's no Airbus, then it's the aircraft, if it's Airbus then it's the pilots. Basta.
No-one's saying that the Airbus FBW layout has no drawbacks - simply that those drawbacks are less important than you think they are.
To me it's a bit of everything. The MD11 has some weaknesses in aerodynamics, agreed. But it's manageable with skill, just as one should be able to prevent a 330 from stalling.
Other aircraft have other weaknesses, some even in cockpit design.
*All* designs have "gotchas", it's in the nature of engineering.
No one can prove otherwise. Stats can only be countered by stats.
Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?
As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0.
Having your background in statistics, however, have you ever made one about the modern aircraft with FBW versus fatalities?
As of today, with your statistical argumentation, one FBW aircraft series should be under similar scrutiny, compared to the competitor.
Any number is too big versus 0.
To illustrate the point, the very first fatal widebody hull loss involved the design that was arguably the safest and most advanced (L-1011 EAL401). By 1980 the number of fatal civilian accidents involving widebodies tallied as 2 for the L-1011, 3 for the DC-10 and *6* for the B747 - and yet this tally gives an inaccurate picture because neither of the L-1011 fatals and only one of the B747 fatals were due to purely technical failures.
To cite you once more, "to suggest this is down to bad piloting in the context of these stats is absurd", would mean that there is something wrong with the one product, wouldn't it?
I find it interesting that a minority of pilots (including yourself) consistently denigrate the design coming from a single manufacturer, when even a short period of reviewing the evidence behind most of the mud thrown in that direction can only draw the researcher to the conclusion that most of the controversy is unsubstantiated. And yet the reputation of another manufacturer (McDonnell-Douglas), a company not only proven to have gambled with the lives of passengers and crew in the face of a known and proven design deficiency but also proven to have leveraged political connections to sweep those problems under the carpet, is considered sacrosanct - because they did things the old-fashioned way (and in the process didn't consider the consequences of more than doubling the air volume in a widebody design).
I understand how you feel. I may not be a pilot, but there's not a day that goes by where I don't pine for the way things used to be in my field - bit-flipping on the hardware and being in total control. However, I have to confess that looking at things objectively, the modern technology and processes that help me do my job at the expense of the subjective loss of feeling in control down to the bare metal means that I can get my job done faster, with less hassle and if I'm honest at least 99% of the time a whole load better and more consistent than I could have managed on my own.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy, you’re wearing me out. I admit defeat here.
Concerning the MD’s, statistically they do not look good. So for the peace of everyone here, they are no longer in production, so may they rest in peace and may the remaining jockeys enjoy what was for me the best aircraft I was priviledged to fly.
Concerning the Airbus, you definitely must be right, at least taking into account the number of always differing arguments to match it’s superiority.
To me however, Airbus is like the chutes and ladders game. They made two big steps forward (FBW and SS), but unfortunately one step back by taking away the tactile feedback.
In aviation I prefer the only one step forward, but none backward, thus I am very happy on the B777.
My last request would be to spare us with an answer. Thanks.
Concerning the MD’s, statistically they do not look good. So for the peace of everyone here, they are no longer in production, so may they rest in peace and may the remaining jockeys enjoy what was for me the best aircraft I was priviledged to fly.
Concerning the Airbus, you definitely must be right, at least taking into account the number of always differing arguments to match it’s superiority.
To me however, Airbus is like the chutes and ladders game. They made two big steps forward (FBW and SS), but unfortunately one step back by taking away the tactile feedback.
In aviation I prefer the only one step forward, but none backward, thus I am very happy on the B777.
My last request would be to spare us with an answer. Thanks.
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 25th Oct 2012 at 07:08.
