Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

FedEx MD-10 on fire at Fort Lauderdale airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

FedEx MD-10 on fire at Fort Lauderdale airport

Old 30th Oct 2016, 04:24
  #41 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
I have extensive flight experience in the MD10-10, MD-10-30 and MD-11 aircraft.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in the landing characteristics of the MD-10. They're just old, and we land them at or very near max landing weight, typically.

And we make a lot of turns on our ramps that pax carriers don't. It's not uncommon to make five or more 90 decree turns in a cramped parking area in Memphis. It's got to be hard on the gear.

This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.
Huck is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 05:16
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Earth, where else?
Posts: 225
Finally a wise answer! You might be 100% right Huck
EK380 is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 08:01
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 129
posted on DC10 FB group

''‎Bill Griffith‎ to DC-10 Appreciation Group
9 hrs ago
I had an up close and personal seat yesterday, at the demise of N370FE here in FLL. Very shocking, and especially sad for me, as it was an airplane my Dad had flown for UAL. Strong crosswind landing, and they hit hard left main first, which then collapsed. They left a 3000 foot long trail of flaming jet fuel on the runway. Absolutely unreal, and I was right there.
rog747 is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 15:22
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,820
Originally Posted by Huck View Post
This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.
Sure does, a photo of the earlier mishap aircraft is in this post:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2745703
Airbubba is online now  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 15:30
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Side by side comparison with DC10(MD10) and MD11 shows the MD11 to have significantly smaller tail section than the 10-version.

Based on nothing other than a general understanding of aerodynamics, wouldn't the small tail section contribute to tricky landing?
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 15:36
  #46 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
The theory is that an active stabilization system in pitch - sort of a pitch-damper - would compensate for the smaller tail. It's always worked fine in my experience. But no, you don't ever doze off on short final in an MD11.....
Huck is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 15:37
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 44
Posts: 443
Found a wikipedia picture.

MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 19:16
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 737
MD11 to have significantly smaller tail section than the 10-version...
With the longer moment arm due to the longer fuselage, based purely on principles of aerodynamics a smaller control surface should be equally effective. There has to be more to it.
andrasz is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2016, 19:27
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 129
this crash has nowt to do with MD11 design - this a/c at FLL landed hard it seems in a crosswind and the gear went - thats it what we know so far

pilots i know say the DC10 is a delight and easy to land (not so the MD11 where you have to have your wits about you and understand the botched landing technique and escape route which is normally a GA and nothing else will save the day)

please i think the MD11 is nothing to do with this
rog747 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2016, 00:39
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Nice piece of video showing the end of the landing roll, wing already burning hard:

https://www.facebook.com/C130MRO/videos/981560475324167
ion_berkley is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2016, 01:47
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,200
In the two previous FedEx MD-10 gear failures one was the result of a vendor error on the gear boss plating, and the other was a higher than design load sink rate. The sink rate of these incidents was ~ 2 and 14 fps respectively



Calling an impact with the runway at 840 FPM a 'landing' is a bit of a stretch.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2016, 07:36
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,076
Originally Posted by ion_berkley View Post
Nice piece of video showing the end of the landing roll, wing already burning hard:
More than 2 minutes between the first appearance of fire and the ARFFS showing up. Bloody hell.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2016, 09:00
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Standard response time in the US is 2 minutes, measured from the time ARFF receives notification to the time they start foaming the aircraft.

From the video I can see the first fire truck applying foam by the 1:52 mark. Without knowing when exactly the crash call happened, I'd give ARFF the benefit of the doubt that they met the required SLA.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2016, 12:04
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 468
Given that fire trucks may easily need to travel for a mile (or possibly more) to reach a wreck -- and dodge stopped planes blocking taxiways, 2 minutes between notification and foam being sprayed seems rather good. These vehicles aren't Formula 1 racers.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 14:34
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,820
From a November 22, 2016 NTSB investigative update:

FedEx Express MD-10 Landing Gear Failure

FedEx Express flight 910, a Boeing MD-10-10F (registration N370FE) experienced a left main landing gear collapse and subsequent fire in the left wing after landing on Runway 10L at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Oct. 28, about 5:51 p.m. EDT. The airplane came to rest on the side of Runway 10L. The two flight crew members evacuated the airplane via the cockpit window and were not injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The cargo flight originated from Memphis International Airport, Memphis, Tennessee.

Initial findings include the following:

The airplane was manufactured in 1972 and configured for passenger service. It was converted to a DC-10-10F freighter in 1999 and further modified to an MD-10-10F in 2003. It had accumulated 84,589 total flight hours with 35,606 total flight cycles at the time of the accident.

Investigators retrieved the flight data and cockpit voice recorders shortly after arriving on scene. The recorders were transported to the NTSB recorders lab for download. Both recorders contained good quality data. The CVR Group convened last week at the NTSB recorders lab and completed a draft transcription of the event’s audio recording.

Preliminary information from the flight data recorder indicates the airplane’s touchdown appeared normal and the airplane rolled on the runway for about 12 seconds before the left main landing gear collapsed.

After the left gear collapsed, the left engine and left wingtip contacted and scraped the runway, rupturing fuel lines and the left wing fuel tank. Fuel from the left wing ignited as the airplane rolled down the runway. The fire continued to burn after the airplane came to rest, resulting in fire damage to the left wing. The fire was extinguished by airport fire and rescue personnel.

The NTSB, with assistance from investigative party members and Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport personnel, documented runway damage and debris on the runway. The first damage to the runway occurred about 3,750 feet from the runway 10L threshold. The airplane came to rest about 6,600 feet from the threshold.

Both flight crew members were interviewed in the days following the accident. They reported a stabilized approach to the airport and no anomalies with the gear retraction or extension during the accident flight.

Investigators completed the examination of the airplane and identified several parts of the left main landing gear for further examination. Those parts were transported to the NTSB lab for metallurgical examinations focusing on detailed characterization of the left main landing gear fracture surfaces.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20161122.aspx
Airbubba is online now  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 22:28
  #56 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
From a November 22, 2016 NTSB investigative update:



http://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-relea...R20161122.aspx
Makes nice reading for the flight crew involved.
ZFT is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 22:44
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by Huck View Post
I have extensive flight experience in the MD10-10, MD-10-30 and MD-11 aircraft.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong in the landing characteristics of the MD-10. They're just old, and we land them at or very near max landing weight, typically.

And we make a lot of turns on our ramps that pax carriers don't. It's not uncommon to make five or more 90 decree turns in a cramped parking area in Memphis. It's got to be hard on the gear.

This does indeed look remarkably like the strut failure that occurred in 2006. We shall see.
Is that young lady still with the company, BTW?
Amadis of Gaul is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2016, 01:24
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,820
Originally Posted by Amadis of Gaul View Post
Is that young lady still with the company, BTW?
I believe you are thinking of the FedEx MD-10 Memphis strut failure crash in 2003, not the one in 2006 that Huck was referencing.

The 2003 crash was the one with the jumpseat riders tossing Christmas presents and crew bags out the cockpit window while the plane was in flames:

https://youtu.be/yV5SbaIZ-G0

The freighter had a slide on the door but one of the jumpseat riders released it instead of inflating it so everyone went out the cockpit windows using the ropes.

The check captain retired after the 2003 crash and I think the pilot flying went on leave and never came back to FedEx. Huck would probably know.

Sadly, she passed away in 2013 after suffering an intra-cerebral hemorrhage.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2016, 13:05
  #59 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
That is all correct. I do believe, though, that the 1L slide did inflate, but due to the bank angle of the fuselage and the ~20 knot crosswind it curled underneath. The jumpseater thought it was uninflated and mistakenly pulled the disconnect lanyard instead.

As to saving the bags... there was only one window up front that was usable, and there were 6 or 7 people aboard... it takes time to go down the strap, so a line formed waiting to go. The guys at the end of the line were just standing there so they threw the baggage out the open door. I'm not sure what else they were supposed to be doing.....
Huck is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2016, 14:37
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 794
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post

The check captain retired after the 2003 crash and I think the pilot flying went on leave and never came back to FedEx. Huck would probably know.

Sadly, she passed away in 2013 after suffering an intra-cerebral hemorrhage.
Oh my... Didn't know that.
Amadis of Gaul is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.