Payload
 

When this MD-11 was loaded with freight would there be less rigour in a place like China as to the total mass of the load.

If the load was more than what was stated on the paperwork would the crew have known at take-off?

So
1. Was the payload correct? Was it balanced?

2. Are ALL ground facilities competent in measuring payload?

3. If the load was different than the paperwork stated would the crew have known at take off?

One of the big causes of the Faro accident was the reducing of thrust to idle at 150 feet leading to a descent rate of 1000'/min which could not be arrested during a last second intervention of power by the captain(they were in a thunderstorm at the time).

Apparently the landing technique on the DC-10 with and without CWS is significantly different and the fact that the CWS was turned off quite low may have led to the abrupt flare.

Here's the problem - you're teaching your hand to override an automatic system.

And an MD-10 in a crosswind is a totally different beast. Much higher control forces. Throw in a female pilot and I think it's easy to predict - both hands on the yoke. Then the A/T's do their thing at 50 feet and you're sitting there at idle power with lots of yaw-induced drag.

MD was fixated on the A/T's with this airplane. I had an MD ground instructor tell me - the initial concept was no throttles at all - just a push-button engine system.

So, to answer the question, I'd say 90 % of the pilots I fly with never click off the A/T's on the MD11, ever. They override them when they feel the need.

I do not see any problem in overriding the AT's in this case and I would agree that most pilots tend to use the AT's through the touchdown and this is very comon in some Boeing aircraft.

As I recall you moving on up :ok: to the 777 soon. The AT system in the this airplane is very similar to the MD11 although it may react just a little quicker. Point here is that just becasue you have the automation working does not mean that you are not part of the solution in getting the airplane on the ground.

Where I flew the MD11 we encouraged the pilots that if they were inclined to turn off the AT's prior to touchdown, go ahaed and do it around 1000' AGL and get into the stck and rudder mode early in the game, thus not clicking them off at 100' and finding yourself not part of the game.

Was The Payload Accurate?
 

Is there a way to check if this MD-11 was carrying the weight it was supposed to be carrying?

The way posters are scooting around this question means it may be difficult to answer.

Md11 Ats
 

The recommendation from MDC (now Boeing) is that if the ATS is available, it SHOULD be used. This is different from the BAC philosophy - if AP is disconnected, ATS should also be disconnected.

Our company follows the MDC recommendation, so ATS generally always engaged.

Way back when... my IOE instructor was a MDC test pilot with the MD11 program and he also stated that if MDC had their way, the MD11 would have be installed with only start switches and no throttle levers per sic.
:ok:

Hi Derg,

All FDX ramps throughout the network use the same W&B procedures same ppwk for DG etc,you also have two ramp agents doing the W&B(P.S.T)
as for finding out the weight of each ULD&pos the origin station would have a printout of the maindeck&lower deck config and closeout slips for each ULD(including weight, dest etc)

Weapons Hot

Based on the history of the MD-11, might have turned out better if MDC built it with throttles and no start switches. :} :}

GF

Auto Thrust
 

Hi, just wanted to mention that in my company almost nobody is flying the approaches on the MD11 with autothrust. That means: very, very close to a 100%. That is the philosophy here in my company.

Also I would like to mention that there are speeds that need to be added during the approach at gusty or strong winds that might add up pretty significantly to the Vref. Just because this was stated further up (170 to 154kts Vapp ).

For me the MD11 is a very sporty aircraft and operating it, you all the time seem to be on the edge of the performance envelope.

Unless I'm doing an auto-land [CAT-II, CAT-IIIb] . . . I click off the automatics and hand fly the approach with my left hand on the wheel, and I move my 4 thrust levers with my right hand. Why? Because it feels good to be doing something after 12 hours of doing nothing. Get it? :ooh:

Glueball - Obvious Problem
 

Glueball
Your problems are obvious:
The MD11 has THROTTLES (not thrust levers) and only THREE (not four).
(All said with tongue firmly in cheek) :rolleyes:

Spooky 2
to answer your question (ATS and X-winds):
There are no restrictions, either in FCOM Limitations or Normal Operating Procedures requiring ATS to be disconnected with ANY cross-wind.
Having said that, here is an autopilot auto-land cross-wind limitation of 15 knots (max) (nothing to do with ATS).

Huck
I agree with you about overriding the ATS when necessary. What I have experienced is that the younger ones have their eyeballs glued to the speed trend and over-react to the trend (not the actual airspeed variances) by use of a fist-full of throttle and then massive and fast throttle retardation, instead of letting the ATS sort it out, which, for 99.9% of the time, does so without me getting an off-the-scale pukka factor.

In a strong crosswind, it is highly recommended to carry power all the way to touchdown. The autothrottles will reduce power at the programmed RA, regardless of cross-control induced drag and/or remaining elevator authority. With control wheel and rudder input approaching maximum throw at crosswind landing limits, said premature power reduction results in a landing very similar to that experienced by a set of car keys tossed out a fifth-story window.

Disconnect, or prevent them from retarding (a counter-intuitive push in my opinion).

Either that,or carry extra speed. The beast is already a very fast lander, even the longest runways sometimes become short, not my first choice.

My sentiments exactly....

Overweight
 

No result from investigation yet BUT.....

This aircraft looks overweight to me.

DERG,

and you come to that conclusion from what exactly:=?

Seems to arrive at a hell of a speed and rate of fall....hard to believe that this was a FedEx with all the experience they have with this machine.

As it bounces on the first touch you would expect a full throttle application and a go around. If this was a cowboy outfit I could rest easy.

Overweight?
 

DERG

Okay, I'll bite - how do you form the view of it being overweight?

I am sure FDX has checks/x-checks, ticks in boxes, etc. to ensure that ALL structural limitations are not exceeded for all phases of flight, including MLW. Reputable trash-haulers ensure the correct mass is loaded into the correct position. (That is not to say, that on occasion, the system is let down by the humans). I do not work for FDX (hence I do not know their loading system) but I would need a lot of convincing to change my opinion that the flight was anything but within limitations.

With the AQP/FIDS systems installed on the MD11, it would be a very brave pilot (or cowboy) that would intentionally land overweight; the soon-to-be arranged "fireside chat" would definitely get interesting.

I'll entertain quite a few theories and rumours with respect to this accident, but I'll pass on it being an overweight landing (unless you think a >1.0g IVTG counts as being "overweight").:confused:

weapons hot

having worked for FDX for over eight years in ground ops two ramp agents do the W&B and it's x checked,the ULD's are checked for airworthyness before loading begins they are then checked again before been loaded onto the acft.

and all FDX locations use the same system through out the network.

It wasn't overweight. And CG was normal.

Is overweight even possible?
 

Please somebody explain if if is at all probable that an MD11 having flown 2600 km from KOW (Guangzhou, China) could be overweight on landing at NRT.

Ask DERG, he seems to have a handle on it:ugh:

loading issues
 

Derg has salmonella poisoning and is in hospital so he asked me to relay the following.

Was the china stop for refuelling or loading cargo?
If it was just for refuel then fine..no issue.

However if cargo was loaded in China I fear that the numbers on the paperwork might not match the reality of the payload.

The FedEx crew are some of the best in the business and this approach just looks ALL wrong.

There must halve been a hell of a wind shear to drop the machine on the floor just as it did... If they went for TOGA that same hole in the air must have been empty enough to make the three jets useless.

Opinions requested please.

While there has no been no official report released there is obviously some information that has been obtained, confirmed and discussed by the authorities and FedEx. I think there are enough of us who work for FedEx who have contributed to this thread who can confirm that a) The aircraft was below MLW/payload not above structural max and b) the aircraft was within CG limits. You don't need to fear.

Once CG and MGW are known to be within limit here, they cease to be the issue. The fatal crash was caused by dynamic CG and GW; Once bounced beyond certain maximums, no a/c is controllable in any true sense of the word. A lightly loaded MD11 planted on the mains can snap either or both main wing spars, and once rebounded off a nose plant, the CG could be behind the a/c. Once any airframe is given a specific (and over limit) amount of energy, pilots are on a thrill ride. Demonstrably, as in this case, the Landing gear is "too robust" failing the spars and rotating the nose with such massive energy that the wings reloaded, folding them back against an already compromised structure. I think unforgiving is the word.

FedEx Tokyo
 

The Japanese Transportation Safety Board has issued a progress report on the MD-11 accident at Tokyo.

Crash: Fedex MD11 at Tokyo on Mar 23rd 2009, turned on its back while landing in gusty winds

Thanks Shore Guy.

Here is the direct link to the report. It's takes time to download.

http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft...416-N526FE.pdf

Differently inserted link:

http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft...416-N526FE.pdf

Is it me or does 166 KIAS seem a little high even when allowing for gusts.


vfd

Not for the MD11, it's well known for having a high Vref.

This is apparently shaping up to be an occurrence of a bad landing followed by the crew's decision to not go around. It sure looks like a hard/bounced landing and an attempt to salvage it with disastrous results.

Contrary to popular belief, the MD11 is not that hard to land, but it requires strict attention to procedures. The reported winds were just not that bad, and the shear reported wasn't severe. The ref speed was fairly typical.

Vref - here are some numbers
 

With a MLW of 213.8T, the MD11 VREF is 163KIAS. VAPP is nominally VREF +5 = 168KIAS. With a gust factor of 20kt or additives to VREF of up to 20kt, VAPP can get as high as 183KIAS.

I seem to recall that FEDEX has a higher certified MLW than 213.8T; in this case, then at MLW, a VAPP could be in excess of 183KIAS.

Certainly makes for a quick approach from the final fix - it also catches the ATCO's off-guard. 5nm in trail on final is quickly gobbled up by a heavy (and hot) mad dog.

As I observed here in 2006:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2746987

It was nearly three years from the second MEM landing hull loss in the thread above to the fatal crash in NRT.

Shore Guy gives this list of earlier losses on the 2006 thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2747577

Fedex does indeed have a troubling history of landing accidents in recent years. Larger U.S. pax carriers like AA, UA and DL have had far fewer hull losses in combination over the same period. Is this run of bad luck a continuing statistical fluke? I don't claim to know the answer.

Whether cargo operators should be held to the same safety standards as pax operators has been debated here and elsewhere. In recent discussions of rest rules, ALPA has called for 'one level of safety' for both freight and pax ops:

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_air_...s/3.3_ALPA.pdf

In the post 911-BK era, Fedex pays pilots more than AA, UA and DL and they are profitable in these down times, so lack of money for training and maintenance does not seem to be an issue.

Looks to me that FedEx needs a detailed audit of their flight operations department.
Has one been accomplished, and by whom/when?
Not to find 'fault' but to detect operations and training deficiencies.

FedEx have just in the last month or so, external hired a guy into a newly created position of Vice President, Flight Training and Standards, within the Air Operations Division.

PS. The FedEx MD-11 MLW is 481.5K (around the 218T mark)

IF this fellow reportes directly to the CEO/Board Chairman, than this could be a step in the right direction.
If not, it may well not be very effective.

Usually, for improvements to be implemented, an outside firm is hired, and the report goes to the top guy, the CEO.
It is then up to him and the Board of Directors to make the necessary changes....or not.

'The MD11 is not that hard to land'


In one piece ?

We've been shown that sequence of pictures for about 6 months now in recurrent training.

Afterward, emphasis in the sim was on bounce recovery. They bring you in to short final, VFR, then "freeze" you in space right over the numbers, with the aircraft still flying, just stopped in place. Then they let you play around with pitch until you can identify and hold 7.5 degrees by external references only.

The bounce drill, therefore, is just to maintain 7.5 and add power to go around. They had an interesting exercise to drive this home: they gave me a VFR landing, then ASKED me to bounce it - see how many touch-and-goes I could make on the length of the runway, all while holding 7.5 pitch. I got three - supposedly the record is eleven.....

Yes, there has been a fundamental change in training. Yes, the new guy will probably make alot of changes. Narita was one hell of a wake up call.

Another top-notch contribution from Stilton there:ugh: Where have you been? Missed you.

Help me out here... but after 30+ years of flying large transport category transport aircraft the drill for bounce recovery has always been the same... hasn't it?


"If the airplane should bounce, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and add thrust as necessary to control the rate of descent. Thrust need not be added for a shallow bounce or skip. When a high or hard bounce occurs, initiate a go-around. Apply go-around thrust and use normal go-around procedures. Do not retract the landing gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may occur during the go-around."

So what has changed in the "bounce recovery" in some 30 plus years?

It's quite possible that, though this was in the book, it was not emphasized so much in training. I'm not saying that was the case - I'm saying it's possible.

Thirty years ago you had three pilots and non-computer-optimized schedules.

You also didn't have FANS or CPLDC or Datalink or L888 procedures or RVSM or RNP requirements or VNAV approaches or ACARS or cockpit security procedures or CRM topics or ..... All that stuff takes away training time from stick-and-rudder skills. I'm not saying THAT's the case, either, but it might be.

Huck says

Let's not forget a better quality of cabin crew, layover hotels, pay and benefits, Pan Am, Eastern, & TWA:{... Ahhh the good old days. Oh yeah... the good old reliable B727;).