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.