propellerhead
 

dear sir,
as i mentioned above dont forget Faro too

But wasn't the DC-10 in Faro windshear??:ugh:

That's the second FedEx Express major accident this year: USA: FedEx

... and the second MD-11F. The other two MDs they lost in '03 and '06 were -10s.

Actually, with Souix City, engine number two.:rolleyes:

Its actually the 3rd MD-11F. EWR, SFS and now the sad NRT incident.

Different camera view
 

Additional view of the crash on a liveleak video LiveLeak.com - Plane Crash Lands In Japan

Yes, beg your pardon. Please forgive me (I was thinking of it as the third engine)! Edited above post for accuracy.

flightmech
 

i understood Faro dc-10 crash was over crosswind limits ?
and also windshear and other factors

Yes, believe can see weight coming back off nosegear. My goodness what a nasty thing to cope with floating back up after a heavy intial contact.

What a heavily compromised aircraft this is: once you start having to 'tweak' all manner of aerod.& stability systems for cruise-drag reduction, it is very easy to start chasing your tail to regain low-speed handling. In this case, and IMHO, the large pitch inertia makes this even more awkward.

The propensity to roll-over is probably augmented by the relatively high CoG, with an inertial axis that slopes down from aft fwds. This itself can increase maingear loads when out-of-line.

It may well have all been out of the crew's hands after the initial touchdown, which state will become apparent only with FDR.
Very upset that Japanese news clip is showing just the second touchdown (repeatedly!)... very ghoulish! I can only imagine what is going through FedeX minds right now... both pilots & management.

Hi guys, just a suggestion. How about a Baulked landing? If not the bounce is probably one of the most stable bounces I have ever seen. How about the pilot flying initiated a baulked landing then the PNF said to put the a/c down? I say this as the initial part of the bouce looks more like a climb away with TOGA than an unstable bounce.

Floats - yes reminds me almost exactly of the NTSB reconstruction of DAL191's approach in DFW.

This plane was one of Delta's last MD-11s, sold in 2004.

-drl

The picture referenced by ManAdaSystem in post 19 showing a KLM MD11 on final approach and the tailplane angle indicates a real problem. I have seen MD11s with this absurd tailplane incidence many times. Does it not show a fundamental misdesign? The wing is evidently too far back- it even looks it. The tailplane is desperately trying to provide enough downforce. Put yourself in a baulked landing with low airspeed and you then have a real problem trying to hold the nose up. If the pilots had full back elevator and the nose still fell like that, then this aeroplane should be withdrawn from service.

I would guess the wing has to be so far aft to allow sufficient attitude for ops without tailscrapes being a common occurence. But attaching the engines at the back, particularly DC10 style where the centre engine hangs off the very rear of the fuselage, is not a good idea for a stretched aeroplane like the MD11. For years there have been stories circulating what a nasty handful it can be on landing.

Rainboe - actually the first touchdown looks very violent as if recovering desperately from wind shear - his tail strikes something leaving a small visible puff, well beyond the threshold and it appears near the roadway underpass at that end of 16L, before the main hard touchdown with its large debris cloud. The initial contact could be the left wing contacting a light standard or part of the landing light structure. In any case there is contact with something at the very end of the runway a good 1.5 seconds before the first major impact, indicating his altitude was rapidly decaying - his pitched up nose indicates a GA attempt just as in Dallas - that L1011 at least had the same flight dynamic issues as the MD-11 if not the same specific handling peculiarities.

-drl

This video shows that initial touchdown. They do indeed look a long way into the undershoot of the displaced 34L threshold. You can get some nasty windshear down that end with a westerly wind and have gotten airborne into some particularly unpleasant 'mush' when departing 16R

carnage (blimey wot a username)
 

carnage, thanks for that clip.
it really shows the whole sequence which is yukky and horrid...poor chaps.

from what the MD11 drivers have noted here earlier, a GA maybe was started and it all goes horribly wrong?

am sure this clip will be helpful however, coupled with the recorders and weather info to to a quick analysis of this accident and why it happened.

these MD11's and DC10's all seem to flip over, grrrr

Read the thread, follow the links before you post links to videos that have already been posted. Why do you think half this thread has already been deleted?

That x-wind landing is on page 4.

Absurd tail-plane incidence?
 

Rainboe - it depends on the CG at the time. Aft CG (circa 26.0% MAC) and trim is about 8.5 ANU. In a baulked landing with the MD11, pressing the GA switch will immediately advance the throttles to GA thrust, and command a pitch up attitude to maintain VrefGA or current IAS, which normally results (3 engines) in a pitch up attitude of about 25 deg ANU. You wouldn't want to have a hell of a lot of back-pressure on the stick when you hit the GA switch. If a GA was initiated AND the GA switch was pressed, then there would only be one flight path achieved - UP.

The wings too far back? No, that has to be a wind-up.:=

Now, some are talking of the #2 engine producing a downward moment when thrust is applied; that is correct. However, what is happening to the #1 and #3 engines at the same time? Remaining at idle? (a rhetorical question). These engines will negate any nose down moment caused by #2 engine, and give the airplane a nose-up moment (see above).

For those who have flown the MD11, I doubt any will opine other than when landing, it can be a handful (not impossible or unsafe) in adverse conditions, hence the correct landing technique must be used.

Someone mentioned autoland: AFM limitation - no autoland when windshear forecast/suspected (or h/wind >25kt, x/wind >15kt, or t/wind >10kt).

I would beg to differ.
You never ever run out of pitch authority with the L1011, with it's very powerful, large all-moving design... a Lockheed exclusive.
Can you have windshear that no amount of thrust can overcome, as with DAL 191?
Most certainly, especially with the -22B powered airplane, but to run out of pitch authority with the Lockheed design...not possible.
The last link published by Carnage Matey was most interesting...and disturbing.:sad:

why, the whole left wing separated, so why is it surprising the left mlg is on the ground? Am I missing something?

edit, OK, maybe it's still attached?

Horrible stuff. Condolences to the families and friends....
Landing rollovers:
MD11 fedex July 97
MD11 mandarin [ci] August 99
MD11 fedex 23rd mar 09
Co-incidence?:=

Never flown an MD or DC with a number geater than -9 so can't comment on the handling qualities mentioned. Although, can someone explain the MD11's 'LSAS' to me? Quite a hot topic at certain ANC bars.

Have to agree with 411a reference the mighty TRISTAR, however there is a thin connection and evidence that NRT is worth avoiding around the ides in a 3-holer: CX Tristar MAR 24[!] 1990. NRT 16 [now 16R].

Interesting quote from avherald.com

"Emergency services needed two hours to extinguish the blaze. Although the fire brigades were able to keep the fire away from the cockpit, the crew could not be saved. The impact forces as well as the weight of debris in the cockpit had already killed the crew.

"

spleener:

MD-11 LSAS, Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System.

This is copied from the MD-11.org web study guide (great page, by the way)

LSAS provides:
1) Pitch Attitude Hold and Automatic Pitch Trim –With no force
on the control column, and bank angle less than 30 degrees,
LSAS holds the current pitch attitude. LSAS holds this attitude
by deflecting the elevators as much as 5 degrees. The
horizontal stabilizer is automatically adjusted to relieve the
sustained elevator deflection and maintain a full 5 degree
elevator authority.
2) Pitch Attitude Limiting –LSAS maintains pitch attitude to less
than 10 degrees of dive, or less than 30 degrees of climb.
3) Pitch Rate Damping – Increases the apparent static stability to
reduce the chance of over-control in pitch. It is active
throughout the flight envelope. 100% of max damping is
available above 20,000ft, decreasing linearly to 30% below
16,500 ft.
4) Speed Protection – If the autopilot is not engaged and the
autothrottle is not available (or able to maintain a safe speed),
LSAS Speed Limiting will engage to provide overspeed or
stall protection. LSAS overspeed protection is accomplished
by changing pitch. LSAS does not provide flap, slat or gear
overspeed protection.
5) Stall Protection – At 75-85 pct of the angle of attack required
to activate the stick shaker, the LSAS stall protection engages.
LSAS reduces pitch until the AOA is sufficiently reduced.
6) Pitch Attitude Protection and Positive Nose Lowering -During
takeoff rotation, LSAS provides Pitch Attitude Protection
(PAP) to reduce the possibility of a tail strike. During landing,
after spoiler deployment is commanded, LSAS initiates
Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) to assist in transitioning the
nose wheel to the runway after main gear touchdown.


I have read a lot of nonsense in pprune. But that has to take the cake :ugh:

My addled grey cells seem to recall that a while back there was a bit of a fuss because the FAA wanted to merge DC10 and MD11 licences - despite the aircraft having distinctly different handling characteristics..
For my pennyworth the MD11 never 'looked' right...appearing in take off configuration almost as if it were in landing mode, an awful lot of flap out..
I remember the first time I saw one when working for AA. It looked mishapen, parts put together rather than a complete design.
If it don't look right - then it don't fly right!

One would think the simple imbalance of wing on one side, no wing on the other side would be enough to roll the aircraft inverted. The MD11 seems to have a disturbing tendency towards wing failure at the root following a hard impact. Maybe it's a weakness of the wing root plug design from when they stretched the DC10 wing, maybe not, but it's not often you see another type of aircraft with it's wing cleanly detached at the root.

The main gear landed successfully in the first touch down. Why did it bounce when the nose gear touched down (which seems to be soft)?
Were the ground spoilers deployed?

Not to judge, just to say what I see/ saw: Looks like oscillating bounces followed by a gear collapse an/ or loss of control causing the aircraft to hit the ground with its left wing and roll. Amazing though that it pretty much slided on its back and did not roll further. Notice the nose, right main and centre gear pretty much still there on the pictures.

As a former FedEx employee, my condoleances to the relatives and friends of the pilots.

Ptt,

And that makes 4...3 fedex and one china/air china?? same scenario..hard landing wing root failure, over she goes...something wrong here??

The Toxic One will have a go at me I'm sure but....

It seems to me that it all happened during the initial touchdown. Looking at all the clips that are available the aircraft (a) appears to be moving very fast for a final approach (b) the touchdown was very firm (given the amount of tyre smoke that can be seen) and (c) the nose comes down very quickly. You expect to see the nose being kept high for several seconds to allow the lift to decay after the mains have made firm contact. Not so here.
I can't tell whether the spoilers deployed or not. If the trigger to automatically deploy them is firm weight on the nosewheel then it looks as if that was never achieved because the nose came back up again very rapidly and may not have touched the ground at all.
Can it be that we looking at a "computer commands one thing - Pilot Flying tries to do the right thing but is over-ridden" scenario here?

Having worked for FedEx for 13+ yrs, I am still close to many crew and staff. It's painful to see the unfolding events as I know FedEx crews are well trained and the company takes its role as an airline seriously.

My sympathies to the family, friends and staff at FedEx.

Thanks Burger T. makes more sense than in humpys at dark o'clock.
May not be relevent in this case [let's see the official report], but does the LSAS inhibit stall protection at low altitude - eg 'bus below 100'ra?

Also the statement:

"During landing, after spoiler deployment is commanded, LSAS initiates
Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) to assist in transitioning the
nose wheel to the runway after main gear touchdown."

...is a bit chilling after seeing the video - and I guess explains the requirement for bounced landing training on this type.

Ironbutts57 - sorry I had the count wrong?

L-1011
 

Sorry to digress but, in response to earlier posts, yes the TriStar was a different animal. CX drivers may remember the "Hump" at the end of the runway at the old Payar Lebar airport in SIN and how she would just sit there over the hump on landing, in any conditions. Memories. Sorry, back to topic!

How do you know that is was typical, unless you know the CofG of that aircraft was typical then you can't say that the stab angle was typical. You being too simple.

From the MD11 FCOM (Systems):
Pitch Attitude Protection (PAP) reduces the chance of a tail strike during take-off and landing by adding nose down elevator if the aircraft is at serious risk of tail contact with the ground. PAP is a direct function of pitch attitude, radio altitude and pitch rate and is enabled below 100 feet RA. The pitch attitude limit will vary linearly from 30 deg at 40 feet RA to 9.5 deg at 0 feet RA.

Positive Nose Lowering (PNL) will apply 3 deg of nose-down elevator command when the FCC commands the Auto Ground Spoilers to extend at main wheel spinup. As the spoilers extend beyond 10 deg, PNL will increase the nose-down elevator command to 4 deg. The command fades out when FD mode cycles back to T/O, or if throttles are advanced for G/A.
During take-off and landing flight phases, when PAP or PNL is active, approximately 10-15 pounds of force on the control column is required to override LSAS.

Xeque: The ground spoilers are automatically retracted when #2 throttle is advanced, or they can be manually retracted if already extended. Also, with MLG spin-up, the ground spoilers will only deploy approximately 60% until NLG wheel spinup, when the ground spoilers will deploy to 100%.

LSAS stall protection: I cannot find a reference, either in the FCOM or AMM to a RA input/flight condition where LSAS stall protection is not available.

However, again from the MD11 FCOM:
...the pilot may counteract the LSAS overspeed or stall protection by pushing on the control column with enough force to defeat the LSAS elevator inputs. This force is approximately 50 pounds. If the pilot releases the control column force rapidly, LSAS will dampen the resulting elevator instability.
(my highlighting)

Really ? To the extent of building up the world's largest fleet of a type which is proven continually prone to this type of incident ? Who continue to enlarge their fleet with secondhand units of this type despite disaster after disaster ?

I seem to recall disaster after disaster affecting the 737 too. Best not fly any airline with any of those in there fleet then WHBM.:ugh:

I have an old friend who was flying MD-11's for another carrier, when I asked what plane he was on these days, he replied 'The Turtle'.

Here's an article posted by Huck (I think he still flies MD's for FedEx) a while back about MD landing issues:

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...ml#post2764418

It it tragic that FedEx's string of hull losses continues, this time with fatal results.

As I commented here after one of the earlier FedEx MD landing mishaps:

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

I believe it was the MD-10 (a glass cockpit, two pilot update of the DC-10) and MD-11. And, I'm not sure, did it go through?

The cause of the rollovers is simple: One wing breaks away at the wing root.

During the accident investigations of the '97 (FedEx) and '99 (Air China) rollovers the NTSB looked very closely into the forces and strength of MLG and main wing spar. Using DFDR data they where able to calculate that the forces where beyond design loads and safety margins. - Therefore the wing "was allowed" to break regarding the construction standards.

On the other hand other aircraft are much more stable: The 346 in Quito (overrun in 2007) "touched" down with > 3G and sustained no structural damage (apart from the Boogeys and wheels) until it overran.

When BA038 crashed in LHR last year the MLG was pushed through the wing but the wing structure itself did not fail.

Marcus

WHBM,

Pull your head in.

:*

Observing the video link posted by Carnage Matey, I seems that the plane touched down in a "normal" attitude - how hard I can't judge - but what I see next is:
-the MLG bouncing up a few feet before the NLG even touches the rwy;
-NLG hits the ground with MLG still up pushing it down again;
-After this second MLG touch down, the apparent porpoising effect seems almost controlled, with the plane in a G/A like attitude, but the speed drops in the middle of this second bounce.
-Plane hits the rwy NLG first this time, the A/C bounces again, sits and slides on its tail, wheels off the ground. Without LH or RH wheel lateral support it can tilt either way, gusts, cargo shifting do the rest, flipping it upside-down.