UPS nose gear collapse at Incheon
Thread Starter
UPS nose gear collapse at Incheon
UPS has left the pavement aborting a takeoff on 33L at ICN around midnight. The tail is high in the air with apparent nose gear collapse. From 3km away it looks like a MD11. Thankfully it looks survivable. Local mechanics say the gear collapsed during RTO, although that could be lost in translation and an overrun into grass caused the collapse. If that was a Korean carrier the boys and girls would be in custody by now. Curiously, although the runway is clearly unusable, there is no NOTAM or comment on the ATIS- lots of folk requesting the usual landing runway and wondering why not. This must surely be Incheon's first accident.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Curiously, although the runway is clearly unusable, there is no NOTAM or comment on the ATIS- lots of folk requesting the usual landing runway and wondering why not.
A0856/16 - RWY 15R ALS U/S DUE TO MAINT. 06 JUN 18:14 2016 UNTIL 13 JUN 15:00 2016. CREATED:
06 JUN 18:15 2016
A0855/16 - ILS/DME RWY 15R/33L U/S DUE TO MAINT. 06 JUN 14:29 2016 UNTIL 05 AUG 15:00 2016.
CREATED: 06 JUN 14:30 2016
A0854/16 - RWY 15R/33L CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT. 06 JUN 14:18 2016 UNTIL 06 SEP 14:17 2016.
CREATED: 06 JUN 14:19 2016
06 JUN 18:15 2016
A0855/16 - ILS/DME RWY 15R/33L U/S DUE TO MAINT. 06 JUN 14:29 2016 UNTIL 05 AUG 15:00 2016.
CREATED: 06 JUN 14:30 2016
A0854/16 - RWY 15R/33L CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT. 06 JUN 14:18 2016 UNTIL 06 SEP 14:17 2016.
CREATED: 06 JUN 14:19 2016
A0854/16 NOTAMN
Q) RKRR/QMRLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3727N12626E005
A) RKSI B) 1606061418 C) 1609061417
E) RWY 15R/33L CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT
Q) RKRR/QMRLC/IV/NBO/A/000/999/3727N12626E005
A) RKSI B) 1606061418 C) 1609061417
E) RWY 15R/33L CLSD DUE TO ACFT ACCIDENT
This 'I've got a secret' stuff needs to stop but it is traditional and that's the way we've always done it etc...
And of course, if you miss the NOTAM somehow, we all know who's fault it is...
If that was a Korean carrier the boys and girls would be in custody by now
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They always say there's no such thing thing as a stupid question but are both the #1 & 3 nose inlet cowls missing? Considering how they are held on with multiple bolts the only way they would come off is if the fan frame fractured? On both sides?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: <60 minutes
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They always say there's no such thing thing as a stupid question but are both the #1 & 3 nose inlet cowls missing? Considering how they are held on with multiple bolts the only way they would come off is if the fan frame fractured? On both sides?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Air OPS apply
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both covers are kaput, plus the right side of the #2 reverser (I don't have the picture of it). Don't know how that came off.


This A/C went through some force... Not surprising... The nose is wrinkled as well.


This A/C went through some force... Not surprising... The nose is wrinkled as well.
It'll be interesting to see if they did a high-speed RTO because the nose gear collapsed, or did the nose gear collapse after a high-speed RTO went off the end?
(The initial report I saw said "nose gear collapsed during TO")
(The initial report I saw said "nose gear collapsed during TO")
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
Just a quick glance from me, but I saw no markings on the runway, so maybe a collapse on the grass? He must have been going quite fast to make it that far into the overrun.
Just a quick glance from me, but I saw no markings on the runway, so maybe a collapse on the grass? He must have been going quite fast to make it that far into the overrun.

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 58
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As noted by other posters, it now states the front landing gear collapsed on the runway excursion, not on TO...
Always interesting to see the split winglet on the old aircraft.....now the new advanced max split and scimitar et al...
(I wont even mention that the MD wing surface looks clean, a lot like the AB wing...and does not have rivets and vortex tabs! line B wings....)
Always interesting to see the split winglet on the old aircraft.....now the new advanced max split and scimitar et al...
(I wont even mention that the MD wing surface looks clean, a lot like the AB wing...and does not have rivets and vortex tabs! line B wings....)
Got a good look at it out the left window after liftoff yesterday
Must have really been 'movin. Clear past the approach lights.
They built 200, how many have been written off?
(Sorry I would have snapped a pic upon takeoff from 33R yesterday after gear retraction but that would have been so so unprofessional and contrary to FCOM).
Must have really been 'movin. Clear past the approach lights.
They built 200, how many have been written off?
(Sorry I would have snapped a pic upon takeoff from 33R yesterday after gear retraction but that would have been so so unprofessional and contrary to FCOM).
Last edited by Koan; 12th Jun 2016 at 02:52.
Must have really been 'movin. Clear past the approach lights.
Brake/spoiler problem on RTO? Reject after V1 due unsafe/unable to fly? Whatever, must have been pretty scary...

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They built 200, how many have been written off?
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...df/statsum.pdf
as of December 31, 2014 there have been 9 MD-11 hull losses, 5 with fatalities.
Last edited by airman1900; 12th Jun 2016 at 11:48. Reason: vocab
TOTAL RUMOR ALERT.
A comment (not the main article) on Aviation Herald hints at insider info from the operator suggesting a blown nose-gear tire at V1 that compromised an engine and some hydraulics, including brakes.
Sounds like one of those "it could never really happen" scenarios the sim-check guys throw at you - except maybe(?) it did?
A comment (not the main article) on Aviation Herald hints at insider info from the operator suggesting a blown nose-gear tire at V1 that compromised an engine and some hydraulics, including brakes.
Sounds like one of those "it could never really happen" scenarios the sim-check guys throw at you - except maybe(?) it did?