Fedex DC10 stalls in holding pattern
 

I just heard about this...does anyone want to post it and talk about it? Sounds like another case of button pushing and forgetting to fly the darn thing.

Report: Fedex DC10 near Raymond on Jun 14th 2008, aerodynamic stall while in holding

I wonder how the damage was caused?

It seems to be a DC10 thing. If I remember correctly a Ghana 10 had similar damage a few years ago when getting into a low speed regime near top of climb.

From the above link
"...the stickshaker activated 5 seconds later and continued to operate for about one minute. A series of pitch oscillation between 2 and 12 degrees nose up occured. While the stick shaker was active, the airplane descended from FL340 to FL306 and subsequently reached FL290 at 230 KIAS.

Hard work for elevators and stabilizer I'd imagine
Pete

It was an MD-10.....

Indeed it was and the same massive wing root must have some really dirty air flying off it when in low speed buffet, no wonder there was damage. I'm just waiting for one or two of my FE mates to claim it wouldn't have happened with a third pair of eyes in the FD. Whatever the argument I certainly felt more comfortable with them behind me be it in the 10 or the 74.

It's the disturbed air off the wing that tears up the flippers. Stall will damage the ailerons, too.

Back in Septober 1979, a grossed out Aeromebbe DC10-30 climbing out of MAD was in Altitude Capture mode to 310, with 1500 fpm selected on the VS hold. The engines couldn't hold 1500 fpm beyond FL 270, so the nose came up until it stalled - deeply. Overhead panels fell in the cabin, etc.

The Capt didn't recognize the stall, (no STALL indicator lamp in his face like a DC-9) so he declared Mayday. For some reason, he decided #3 engine was vibrating, so pulled it back. That put the plane into a spiral, which he recognized. After recovering at 10K feet, he canceled the Mayday and continued on to KMIA. When he was met by ground ops, he reported everything normal. Only on the walkaround did they see both elevator horns missing, and other damage, so he quickly wrote up a report.

For that he was busted back to F/O for six months, in spite of a prior history - crashed DC-8, and a DC-10 in which he tried to deploy reversers for a speed brake, like with a DC-8.

If you ever get a chance to watch a conventional horizontal stab during a stall, do it. That's what gives the plane the shakes. Warning, you may have the shakes afterward. Like one McDouglas DC-10 flight mech said after I showed him, "I wish now I'd never seen that!"

GB

Piper Tomahawk's are good for this. Sobering.

huck, you are right...the tomahawk, with its T tail and large rear window is indeed a sobering view during a stall, or even worse a SPIN (over the top...ouch)...

but for all the DC10 problems, it did manage to land in basically one piece. Other planes haven't been so lucky (can you say'bus)???????????

If the airspeed isn't in your scan once every second, you may be doing something wrnog!!! (pun intended)

Hey Lurkio... #6

I'm squarely behind your FE mates with this, and also in a general sense!

Even though the news article mentions 3 crew, it's a MD-10, so they don't carry an FE, much to their discomfort, as with others!

Cheers...FD...:E

Third Crew Member
 

Great to see that there are still those out there who remember the worth of having a F/E on multi-engine aircraft. Somehow I think the "bean counters" did the aviation industry a dis-service in convincing the operational side that there was a cost saving in dispensing with us, often, grey headed old beggars. Happy flying fella's.

I thought max flap extension altitude is FL200 in most transport jets.

Just another case of improper stall recovery. I wonder why they never lowered the nose to break the stall. The report says pitch oscillated between negative 2 and plus 12. can you imagine having plus 12 up at the flight levels? yikes!

Got a feeling these guys were trying to minimize the legal repercussions before worrying about saving their asses. I wonder if this was also going through the mind of the Colgan captain that crashed in BUF.

At some point you have to ditch CYA and worry about saving your ass.

just another case of improper stall recovery????????HA

what happened to stall avoidance....

the only time you should stall a plane is when you say, well in advance, I plan to stall this plane.

Anytime you are near min clean speed in cruise, or min speed in any configuration you should be on guard...lose one knot and you should be wide awake...five knots and you should be about to slam the throttles up and get the nose down...and when you actually get a stall warning...well you shouldn't get that far.

And to settle the argument, though there doesn't seem to be much of one going, have you ever seen one of these new flight warning computers/FMGS etc. etc get out and fix a leaky toilet downroute? No, didn't think so.

FE 1. New tech 0.

And how do they always manage to find those really cheap breakfasts?

I'm still waiting for my FMS to get its first round in.

We have a winner.

And they were above the Mach limit as well.

The MD10-10, MD10-30 and MD11 are so different that the Limitations chapter of the AOM is about 50 pages. It is hard to stress all the fine points, so some stuff gets skipped. Besides, the FMS is there to save the day anyway, right?

I'm really sorry about this, but lots of you seem to be banging on about flap extension above 20,000 feet.

Where exactly does it say that the crew extended flaps above 20,000 feet? Where exactly does it say that the crew extended the flaps at all?

For that matter, where exactly does it say that flaps cannot be extended above 20,000 feet on the DC-10?

What we are talking about here folks are slats - not flaps.

I flew the DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30 as a captain for a fair few years. Holding could always be a bit of a problem if you wanted to do it with a clean wing and also meet the holding speed limits.

I can remember holding inbound to JFK for a considerable time one day. I asked NYC if I could hold at 270 knots and the response was "no problem, just stay within 5 and 15 DME".

Just 1,000 feet below me was a Nigerian Airways DC-10 which was going round the hold with the slats out and a deck angle that made him look like a praying mantis. (For those of you who don't have slats, they can be worth 70 knots). Can you just imagine how much fuel he must have been burning?

The DC-10 is (was) a very efficient piece of kit but, like the MD-11, it needed a certain amount of understanding from the crew. It was built like a brick-built sh*t house but you had to know your aeroplane.

An example; the DC-10 had a sensor that isolated the outboard ailerons above 250 kts IAS and reduced the trim rate on the stabiliser to half rate.

It was later realised that the situation could arise where the aircraft could end up in the situation whereby the IAS could fall below 250 knots when the aircraft was climbed above FL390 or thereabouts and the stab suddenly went back to full speed because of the speed switch.

A modification (a pressure switch) that not only looked at IAS but also looked at altitude was introduced. This modification came in after several aircraft had been built (frame 46951 rings a bell).

I found myself in a pre-46951 airframe one day and the F/O wanted to go up to FL410 (where the IAS was obviously going to be below 250 knots). I let him do it having pointed out that the slightest amount of turbulence might make him want to change his mind.

We went up and came down again pretty quickly.

I don't suppose Kenny ever did that again.

JW411
 

It is nice to see someone who knows their plane. You obviously do. Kudos.

I am amazed at how quickly people want to ''go high'' and not leave an out for turbulence...and I'm speaking of buffet margin here, not just passenger comfort.

MD10, MD11 whatever...I wish to only speak in general airmanship terms.

American use to fly MD11's from San Jose, California USA to Tokyo, Japan. MD11 had to fly clean at speeds well above regulation for ATC...below TCA/Group B airspace and below 10,000'.

And they got the approval to do so.

gentleman...don't let regs fly your plane, or ATC...if you need speed...DO IT!!!!!

And if you can't get what you want, you may have to use high lift devices. Just don't forget them when you speed up!

Way back when...I saw a movie called: "The Pilot" with Clif Robertson...about an alcholoic airline pilot. Early on in the film, he avoided a high altitude jet upset by knowing his plane and the signs of Clear Air Turbulence.

I wanted to be this pilot...except for the booze!!!!

go out of your way to KNOW things...and when you don't...ASK until you get a good answer. Answers like: we SHOULD be ok...that kind of equivication stinks.

be careful and be good...and don't drink.

As much as I would like to put the blame on the DC-10 (excuse me MD-10). After reading the Aviation Hearld Report and the postings here the cause of this incident seems to be a simple case of bad airmanship.

How can you sit there for over one minute with the stick shaker going off? Just push the yoke forwards, right?

bighitdh

how can someone who claims our's as a profession even let the shaker get on in the first place????????

the shaker should only come on during the ground test, at the gate (when selected).

I agree, shoot, even then it's kind of scary.

Now after saying that, in my check ride in the 727, which was given by the FAA, when I say the FAA I mean the real FAA, the guy in the right seat was FAA, the FE was FAA and the examiner was FAA, I had to take the dirty stall to the stick shaker.

Let me tell you, the split second I felt the yoke start to vibrate, I went to full power and flew that sucker out of the shaker envelope. Managed not to lose a foot of altitude either.

I did okay, but I sure didn't like it.

Well, **** happens. No one is immune from a mistake, and from the story it sounds like alot was happening all at once. I'm not normally one to judge, but seriously, one minute of stick shaker, 12 deg nose up, speed low, autoslats... :ugh:

It's how you deal with it that counts.

Guys I'm not defending what happened, but these pilots were trained that the max slat speed indicators would keep them safe.

Obviously the max slat speed indicator was giving them erroneous information - it wasn't taking into account max Mach. Once they dropped the slats the computer changed its mind, dropped the max slat speed to .51 Mach and pulled the throttles to idle.

Their first big mistake was retracting the slats - but they were, indeed, overspeeding them.

After that it was just a high alt/weak thrust/heavy weight/low speed scenario. Sure, they should have hit the big red button, dumped the nose and maxed the power. But they were also in very congested airspace.....

Like I said, I'm not defending their actions, but they thought they could trust the max slat speed indicator....

Add power, fwd control pressure to lower angle of attack comes to mind. Works in all aircraft. How many times do you get an unplanned stick shaker in an airliner. Never sounds about right. Many times training in the sim but not with real passengers.

I know quite a few Fedex pilots who are all true pros. They have a fine training program so this incident is hard to understand. Allowing the pitch to increase to 12 degrees with stick shaker is hard to figure. Going to max power would cause a pitch up but all pilots know that and would coordinate forward control pressure to counteract that not allowing the power to increase beyond what could be controlled with pitch control.

That problem was fixed - after the Turkish Airline crash in Paris in the 70's. Didn't happen again.

Not so much - remember the donkey in the tail.

I do about six of these a month, testing them. The stall doesn't scare me. Having a wing engine cough when you bring them up DOES scare me. It happened to a friend of mine - he ended up on his back at 12,000' in an MD-11....

How could he end up on his back at 12,000 ft? He had to be doing over 250 knots. I know the MD10 has one engine above the wing and two below. Even in the 727 adding full power without a pitch up can only be accomplished by trimming down and fwd yoke. Once power is applied speed increases and the nose will pitch up. How could you end up 12 degrees nose up in a standard stall recovery?

You're mixing up events. The inadvertent roll was an approach to a stall to do a functional check on the stall warning system. When my friend recovered he pushed up the throttles and one wing engine compressor stalled. He was sitting there at about 105 knots with MCT thrust on one side only.....

Speaking statistically, nearly every transport craft from this era went through a similar evolution. (Speaking of evolution, the MD-10 is now the purvue of Boeing, after McDonnell-Douglas was purchased by them, and Douglas was purchased by McDonnell.)

Huck

You are wasting your time as unfortunately the likes of p51guy / protectthehornet like to shoot from the hip and talk of WIWO ... instead of reading and understanding the posts. I and many others knew what you were describing!

The point of this thread is what protectthehornet? Another excuse for you to vent your bias?

devil's advocate...
 

I might be called after my comment. But Im starting to ask myself why so many incidents and accidents to Fedex only? Many around the world fly the same types of aircraft , right? Are this pilots not well trained, tired ,fatigued, lack the necessary discipline the job demands? No PAX gives them the idea that they can do some stunts? Dont take me wrong but to many events in a very short period of time. Do some research of the last 10 years and you will be shocked.
I was not told, I saw it yesterday. A MD11 taking off ,probably half empty, no windshear or bad weather to avoid etc and after rotation I thought I was watching the space shuttle instead. Why fly the AC to its limits when is not necessary from a operational point of view? I may have a clue what was this take off all about because once I did the stupid maneuver. Low weight, flaps 15 , full thrust (26K) static T/O brake released and liftoff, literally. It was scary and DANGEROUS!
Again, just a thought not to nail anyone but to shift the attention to somewhere else and see if we can find some answers.

After landing the TRE said "well done", to which I replied "what do you mean, that was a total cluster ****". His repose was, "yeah, but it is how you recover that counts" :\

:ugh: You obviously have *no clue* how much performance/thrust an MD-11 has, even of the highest Flex Temperature setting. If you are taking off with low weight and not following your pitch bar on the FD, you would accelerate so quickly, it is not even funny. You couldn't probably even raise your gears... :rolleyes: In my experience, even if you are following the pitch bar on a low weight/max flex temp TO, by the time you have rotated and sitting there in a climb, you end up with a speed far greater then V2+10. This is not a 737, mate ;)

What looked dangerous to you, was most likely standard ops for a normally trained crew - following SOPs and MDDs MD-11 Flight Guidance System - Freight Dogs are flying on the extreme sides of the performance envelopes quite often (low/heavy weight).

VONKLUFFEN,

Have to agree with Burger Thing here. Was it a wet runway that you saw this "space shuttle departure"? If so, then per company SOP's "Standard" (or Max) power must be used (no flex). As i'm sure you're aware, the MD-11 has plenty of performance even using flex 50. You also might want to know the facts before you start using the word "stupid":=

As it happens, there was an Interflug A310 which pulled a silly amount of g's over Moscow, stalled several times and got down in one piece, so less of the bashing, if you please. ;)

J.

VONKLUFFEN: that's an uncalled for-comment.

No pilot would want to do stunts, knowing a mistake will also bury the pilot, not just the plane.

Various planes take off under variour power settings for various reasons ... and trying to do a space shuttle take off isn't one of them ..

And planes burn out faster - in simple terms, if you over do max-thrust take offs ...

And I have met a few Fedex guys, who are professionals, and value the profession and are least interested in showing off to the others ... := :=

This is why we got the high altitude holding speed changed to 265 above 14,000 almost 20 years ago, so crews wouldn't keep bugging ATC for a higher (read: safe) airspeed. Had the captain been in charge of the airplane he would have been at 265 knots IAS in the hold. (or some slightly lower speed if performance data supported such lower speed.) Improper holding procedures in the higher flight levels can burn you in a hurry.

At those altitudes normally it should always be right at 265 KIAS or the limiting Mach, if lower than 265.

I don't know about DC-10, but many years ago when annual "C of A" test flights required verification of stall, etc, we had a DC-9 that frightened everybody by stalling about 10 kts sooner than expected.
When being investigated, it had flown through a cloud of insects and what we thought was minor leading edge contamination was enough to cause a significant stall speed deviation.

Similarly, a brief passage through an almost invisible layer of stratus (as in climb-out) can put a thin layer of ice on L.E. that is not noticeable in a casual inspection. As the climb continues closer to the limiting altitude, it is silently sitting there waiting for the unwary.

Supercritical wings are efficient, but touchy.

edited for spelling

Zqa297/30
 

What a fine addition to this thread! That is the kind of thing I was looking for. The DC9 wing is close enough to the ground that a tall pilot can reach up and feel it...the leading edge that is.

Perhaps this is why our ancient pilots always added a few knots for the wife and kids? Bent wings,all sorts of things that degrade the plane must be accounted for by the prudent pilot.

Are MD-10/DC-10's equipped with "autoslats"?