Yes, I still fly them.

We have ~60 MD-11's and ~80 MD-10's.

The MD-10 is a former DC-10 with the MD-11 cockpit, new wiring and a few other improvements.

We have both "dash 10" and "dash 30" MD-10's.

The controversy was over the common type rating. Fedex MD-11 pilots also fly the MD-10.

Probably not a factor in this case, as the accident crew were PANC based, where there are no MD-10's.

Why did the aircraft bounce? Because it hit hard. Spoilers won't stop that.

Other than that, time will tell.

By looking at the video link, it looks like he was just about to go into the flare mode bounced hard and then the tail lifted. It then looks like they tried to recuperate the nose down attitute but, to late as they then bounced hard (nose wheel first) loosing lateral control and flipping over. At 50' the throtles go into retard mode and as already mentioned if, the stabilizer was trimmed fully aft they would not have had much pitch control. The MD11 can be tricky with crossswinds and or wind shifts. As usual to speculate is not appropiate but, my comments are soley in reference to the video and my personal experience of 10 yeaars flying this aircraft.

The MD-11s handling issues are well established- so is its nasty prediliction for flipping over.

But that does not mean that such issues caused this crash- we will all have to wait.

However, Rainboe is not wrong - the thing is a mis-configured mess. Whatever the DC-10s problems, it had a huge, full authority tailplane (stabliser for our American readers) and this was reduced in area when the MD-11 was mutated from the DC-10.

Facts are that McDonnell Douglas justified the DC-10s oversized tailplane at launch with the aerodynamic area rule principal - and wind tunnel tests to establish control authority in a heavily flapped config. In fact so oversized was the DC-10- tailplane that it suffered from spar fatigue in the mid 1980s - a series of FAA / JAA inspections followed.

So the obvious question is, if they knew why they put such a large tailplane on the thing in the first place, what kind of logic prevailed to remove it for the MD-11- a fact made worse by the MD-11s fuselage stretch and consequent need for more elevator authority due to the change in the moment arm calculus..

So they knew....

Economic ruled the day- lighter tailplane, less weight, and a computer to control its incidence....

At American Airliens they MD-11 was called' the scud' as you never knew where it was going to land.

Oh and should we be criticising this Fed Ex pilot for attitude changes as per the video that we do not know the casue of? even if he did over control the nose angle inputs, what chance did he have? Very little.

My friends at KLM were masters of the MD-11 landing technique- esp crosswind -- but even they had to practise it regualrly- they knew you see...

Holding a glider off a bounced landing (as I sometimes do) and NOT moving the stick and allowing it to settle its phugoid out without a PIO is one thing, buth that theory aint going to work on an MD-11 chaps.

Over and out...

I looked closely and it appears to me that at the 2nd touchdown, the number 2 engine (tail), broke off. Then the airplane starts to bank.

MD11 Accidents
 

A stretched fuse would not in itself imply a larger tailplane, the tail volume ratio actually increases for a tailplane of the same area.
So MD presumably took advantage of that to reduce the surface area, to reduce profile drag.
That then upped the induced drag in mis-trimmed cruise conditions, requiring another drag reduction programme, involving amongst aother things, dynamic CoG movement, a la Concorde.

But then the downside! Low-speed and flapped control authority...

The original MD developments of the DC-10 were quite seriously below advertised range, always an uphill struggle to rectify when it's probably within the very nature of the beast.

WHBM.......:ugh::=

Slats One, I flew the '10 for 12 yrs, including 6 as a trainer. Douglas did not want to build de-icing equipment into the DC10 tail assembly, so they oversized it in case icing trials showed a tendency toward heavy ice buildup - in the event it didn't. (You have to remember that it was designed at the end of the '60's)
When McDD designed the MD11 they kept the DC10 wing and put winglets on. The horizontal stab was reduced in size as it was clear that the DC10's stab was indeed too large and led to issues such as weight, drag & structural as outlined above. Launch customers said the a/c would not achieve its payload/range targets so they "tweaked" the wing with aerodynamic tricks. I believe LSAS was added during testing as a result of initial flight tests, but am not 100% sure.
The result was a reasonable product but one that required a deft hand on the stick

I'm trying to understand the MD11 design. It has "relaxed" longitudinal stability, but has LESS stabilizer and elevator authority than the DC10. Then it also has an LSAS system to compensate for all of this. :confused:

In looking at the video I posted earlier, I've only previously seen fighter aircraft stabilators work that hard on approach. Even though fighters are designed with "relaxed" longitudinal stability (for agility), they compensate with very large pitch authority (which helps in landings and the transonic region).

DK FCI,
Post 114,
Scary stuff. If the x/wind landings don't get you, the electrical fires or high altitude upsets will.

Can't say I am too sorry not to have flown this "gem" :=

CptPlaystation:
Quote: If the x/wind landings don't get you, the electrical fires or high altitude upsets will.



Wouldn't that be like saying the A320 is a computerized pos?! Cause if your inexperienced FO won't get you, the computer will?!

I've read some of your previos comments on different agendas and found them to be quite objective-respect.
Not this one though.

Flight Safety

It has a lot to do with trim-drag and profile drag in the cruise... and then the low-speed consequences. Don't get sidetracked by relaxed stability, that was unlikely an original design goal - but became necessary to increase range.
This is a long story , and i bet a good few McD design aerod and project staff are grey or short of hair as a result.

Airbubba: Your link in #118 is "deja vu all over again"!

Video from Narita is eerily reminiscent of the Sioux City DC-10 crash video - one wing vertical, the other trailing a sheet of flame off the side of the runway after a loss of control. (And, yes, I know the situations were otherwise very different!)

act700, just seems to me that , either by failure to achieve adequate training, or , in the case of the electrics by design or legislation, that these 3 "nasties" have been a bit repetitive to be brushed off. Think I would leave the last word with Moody Blue, but his excellent post has "vanished" :confused: :hmm:

I absolutely loved my time on the DC-10. It was a delightful aeroplane to fly - a real pilot's aeroplane. It was easy to land nicely and it was excellent in a strong crosswind (wing-down technique) and in rough conditions.

Later in my flying career, I spent a lot of time with a CAA examiner (from another European authority) who had a lot of MD-11 time and I was amazed to hear (over several beers) how they had screwed up a really nice flying aeroplane by trying to save money by chopping down the size of the horizontal stabiliser and so ended up having to fit a computer (LSAS) and God knows what else to make good this defecit.

(As a matter of interest, the span of the DC-10 horizontal stabiliser (tailplane) was the same as the wingspan of the DC-3).

It was quite difficult to bounce the DC-10 but it might be of interest to know that the recovery technique was to ease (and I mean ease) forward on the control column. This might not work well on an MD-11?

My guess is that the start of this accident might well have begun with windshear at a very late stage on finals; too late to prevent a heavy landing.

The LSAS was an example of designers running to stand still.

The fly-by-wire 777 and Airbus types were getting way ahead and the flying qualities could be tweaked electronically during flight test.

The MD-11 belonged to that intermediate generation like the A310/A300-600, not fully manual but not fully computer controlled, which scared many.

There are defenders of the old way, and many FBW supporters, but few I think who prefer the 'half way house'.

The result is very much like Faro.
 

Rog 747,

You are right to refer to Faro, there control was lost , one of the main gears gave away and the wing came of , thereafter the aircraft rolled over. Why control was lost will be the issue to investigate. I 'am afraid the small stab. on the long MD 11 fuselage is playing a important role in the loss of control.

In 1994 a MD 11 at SMX. was nearly lost after control problems with the stab.and available landing distance. Here a aborted landing was made which saved the plane and pax. The aborted landing was made after selecting reverse thrust. Luckily the engines spooled up evenly.

Good Flying!


John

@Dysag

I'm afraid to agree with you, cause than I'll be banned.....

regards

It's not so much the tip which causes the problem. The MD11 gear is designed to break off under horizontal impact but not vertical. If the vertical stress is high enough, it breaks the rear wing spar. The opposing forces (good wing still lifting, engine on bad wing already on runway) cause the wing to fold at the main-gear point, between engine and fuselage. Once that happens there's nothing to stop the aircraft rolling inverted.

Once on its back it stays there because the other wing hasn't been weakened by gear impact stress. Very similar inversion dynamics in the Mandarin and previous FedEx accidents.

The issue is how to avoid banging the thing on the deck in the first place.

Am I right in thinking that the MD11 has a couple of features to assist in the lowering of the nose-wheel upon touch down?

-Ground spoilers deploy only initially to 45deg until the nose-wheel strut is compressed, then the spoiler handle continues to the 60deg (full position).

-Engine 2 is limited to idle reverse until the nose-wheel strut is compressed.

Is this correct?

Good Memories, would like to know more about this incident - if you can share it?

"In 1994 a MD 11 at SMX. was nearly lost after control problems with the stab.and available landing distance. Here a aborted landing was made which saved the plane and pax. The aborted landing was made after selecting reverse thrust. Luckily the engines spooled up evenly."

SMX came up (IATA code) as Santa Maria, CA; is this correct; can you recall which airline it was and whether there was any official report done on it?

Princess Juliana
 

Probably a typo for SXM - St. Marteen
KLM flies there with 11s regularly

Cheers
BF

Md11 Vrg Mex
 

Besides this list there was the incident in Mexico City MD11 Varig and some others bounced almost crash, LOTS of them.

We have to consider the fact that this was a cargo aircraft. Did it have a
C of G problem from improperly loaded cargo. If not, how long after the first bounce did the cargo start to move, causing the C of G to move. If the cargo started to move, it could have quickly become imposible to controll.

Hi Akerosid, I see you are a sollicitor so I rather not give you the details, but the airport was St Maarten ,2000m runway, non precision approach ,at night. I was on the investigation team and one of our recommendations was not to operate there during night time with wide bodies.
The involved company and authority did not follow that advise. I have been flying 747's in there myself for 15 years.

John

Don't worry, I'm asking that question as an enthusiast, not as a lawyer!

I also recall that the Brazilian airline VASP had a serious MD11 incident at SFO.

Mandarin / CAL at HKG
 

Let's not forget this one.

The only video I've seen (not here) is of lousy quality, but appears to show the right wingtip or engine touching first, with the result you can see.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../6/0044639.jpg

Harrymann, so normal positive longitudinal stability has some tailplane drag (both trim and profile). Then for range considerations, they decide to remove the trim drag with low positive or neutral longitudinal stability with a CG change, and then reduce the profile drag with a reduced tailplane, never mind what happens to the tailplane authority with reduced speed and 50 degree flaps. After this, they try to address created issues by "fixing it in place" with the LSAS and other things.

I understand now. :ugh:

With respect to the center of gravity issue, I had a friend who worked as ground crew for FedEx loading aircraft. He told me what a nightmare the MD11 was compared to the DC10 in terms of CG being so far back that the nose had a tendency to come off the ground while parked if not loaded just right. So, that would seem to add some weight to the notion that aircraft's CG could have played a role in the nose up pitch.

It was a factory MD-11.

The MD-10 conversions lack the winglets of the -11.

But the MD-10 retains the original larger tailplane of the DC-10.

And no FADEC.

Leo

If the aircraft was misloaded, it would probably manifest itself on departure.

With an aft cg (out of limits aft that is) you'd get either a tail tip on the ramp, lack of nose-wheel steering authority during taxi or the aircraft trying to take off before VR. Going back to the ramp, the trained eye would see the nose-strut massively extended and wonder why...

I've no idea if the aircraft was full/empty or somewhere inbetween. Loadshift? Hmm. Full, that would be impossible, empty obviously impossible too. Assume it was partially loaded for argument's sake and also for argument's sake one ULD was not locked. This 3-4T ULD (being FEDEX I doubt it would be more) shifts a position or two (1 position = 10ft); would it make a difference balance-wise? I doubt anyone would even notice.

New Hub
 

FedEx Express (FedEx), a subsidiary of FedEx Corp. (NYSE: FDX), and the world’s largest express transportation company, began operations at its new Asia Pacific hub located at the Baiyun International Airport in Guangzhou, China on Feb. 6, 2009. This hub is now the company’s largest outside of the United States.
-------------------
About 7 weeks of service from the new hub....something that will be looked at by the investigators as a possible factor I would suspect.

Re: The Turtle
 

I recall American Airlines pilots in Narita referring to the MD as the "SCUD". Due to mechanical issues, the feeling was, once airborne, one never new where it was going to land....does anyone know if Narita is back to both runways??? Timbob.

Just a question (observation) so please don't shoot me!

Everybody seems to be going on about the reduced tailplane authority of the MD-11 but how can this be when any pitch moment goes through a longer 'arm'. ie. The stretched fuselage. (Think somebody posted something like that earlier). Is it not more likely that the operators/manufacturer are more worried about tail strikes? Maybe that is where the problem stems from. But what do I know? :}

And please remember this is a public forum. No more nonsense about banning aircraft. Don't forget what they go through at testing.

My thoughts are with the families and friends.

If you look at the video linked to by Green Granite in post #65, you'll also see that the Starboard wing breaks away at the pylon when the roll to Port is at about 100 degrees.

Read the whole thread, but didn't spot it being mentioned.

Main gear fractured it or unopposed lift bent it off?

Surely this must be the key..The "recovery" here was a desperate overflare to prevent NLG damage but no thrust.A/C airborne again but resettles with less speed and more pronounced nose-down attitude.Reverser application,not MLG touchdown is the PNR in any landing.Its a mindset thats hard to break even in experienced and skilled pilots sometimes.

tchman
 

the DC10 series had a larger elevator/empanage that was not anti iced.
the MD11 has a smaller empanage and is anti/deiced.
The therory was even with ice the bigger tail was adequate with an ice build up.
In ten years of flying DC10-30, I only ever had severe airframe icing, and would you believe it: it was on my first Command flight on a 10
The 10-30 was one of the best airframes I ever flew and I was lucky because I had 10 years on the " Big Cherokee"

Looking at this video YouTube - ??????????????2009.03.23??Landing accident

Note the pitch of the aircraft before landing. It appears low then just before touchdown there is a sharp pitch up, possibly to arrest a increasing descent rate. However, this drives the main gear into the runway as it sits behind the CoG.

After the 1st touch down, I think the pilot may have reacted to the sharp pitch up and pushed the column forward to stop a tail strike. Realising that the correction had been too aggressive then checks back to hold off the 2nd bounce. The pitch looks perfect for a 3rd firm touch down, but he was all out of airspeed and the aircraft stalls. From the photos of the aircraft here Tokyo Plane Crash: Two Pilots Die As FedEx Cargo Plane Bursts Into Flames At Narita Airport, Japan | World News | Sky News the third touch down is so hard the nose wheels shear off, but the nose gear does NOT collapse.

To sum it off, I believe he got himself into a Pilot Induced Oscillation (PIO). I have got myself into one of these on landing before. The motions of the aircraft ring very similar to my crash. I was lucky my incident turned into a very expensive and useful lesson.

My thoughts are with the families of the ones lost.

Starboard Wing
 

snapped off outboard the Pylon, at ~100~ degrees Roll, as reported.
At rest, the a/c is obviously missing the right wing.