|
FedEx MD-10 on fire at Fort Lauderdale airport
|
|
Two ground widebody aircraft fires in one day? :eek:
|
Three major incidents in 24 hours if you include Donald Guff and his minion!
|
Plus one off the end of a runway... Things happen in threes they say.
|
Yikes
N370FE from TV news chopper video
|
2 Wide body likely Write-offs in one day
|
It doesn't take much to write-off an MD-10...
|
|
From a well placed source who has reported reliably in the past, the plane was FedEx 910, MEM-FLL landing on runway 10L.
Wind given when cleared to land was 050 at 18 gusts to 23. Later tower wind before landing was 050 at 14 gusts to 22. The tower reported the left engine on fire, the aircraft off the runway by A4, debris on the runway. Is this their first hull loss since the tragic mishap at NRT in 2009? |
Thank the deity she didn't roll..
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9559795)
It doesn't take much to write-off an MD-10...
|
|
This aircraft first flew in 1972, it was nearly 45 years old! This seems to be a landing mishap rather than 'an engine fire' as the TV coverage is focusing on. Interestingly though, it is also a GE CF-6 engine, like the 767 in Chicago earlier.
Surely this aircraft (and the other MD10s) should have been resigned to the bin years ago? |
Originally Posted by readywhenreaching
(Post 9559806)
During cruiseflight, the aircraft experienced a catastrophic failure of its left engine. The pilots managed to make an emergency landing at Pensacola, FL. |
I don't think this narrative at jacdec.de makes any sense, PNS and FLL are not close to each other: Quote: During cruiseflight, the aircraft experienced a catastrophic failure of its left engine. The pilots managed to make an emergency landing at Pensacola, FL. 2016-10-28 FedEx MD-10F gear collapse and fire on landing Ft. Lauderdale » JACDEC |
Some of the chopper video shows a piece of the aircraft near the approach end of 10L. It is marked by an orange cone and looks to me like possibly part of a flap actuator and fairing. There is also a long dark streak on the left side of the runway.
Until today, I believe FedEx had gone over seven years without a mainline hull loss. I would definitely say that is a record for them. I don't believe they had gone over five years without a crash previously. Is this possibly the seventh FedEx Mad Dog loss (two at MEM, SFS, SWF, EWR, NRT)? I've also heard rumors of a broken wing spar from a landing at ANC years ago. |
Is this possibly the seventh FedEx Mad Dog loss (two at MEM, SFS, SWF, EWR, NRT)? I've also heard rumors of a broken wing spar from a landing at ANC years ago. For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10. The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much... While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50. At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati... |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9559865)
Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9559865)
Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10. The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much... While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50. At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati... https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20000922-0 https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19970906-1 https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20000607-1 |
Aircraft exploded after it stopped http://twitter.com/alex_robles44/sta...28738729295872 (you can turn the sound on) |
|
No connection with the MD-11 accident. That was a dual rear spar failure from overstress on landing. This looks like a gear strut failure. Has happened twice before at FX in MD-10's.
|
Sounds plausible. There was no emergency declared by the aircraft prior to landing so the engine failure reports seem false.
|
Another "AIRCRAFT EXPLODED" rubbish reporting. What you can see is the left wing tank vapour explosion blowing off a very large piece of the top wing skin. This was also seen on the recent Dubai crash. These post-accident tank explosions seem to be a great risk to passenger survival (on pax flights) and a huge risk crash-crew.
|
How about "something attached to airplane exploded" then? Something did explode. Quite possibly a tire.
|
touched down OK and something went wrong - LH gear collapsed
LH engine damaged caught fire - a/c left runway soon after stopping LH wing large fuel tank explosion crew left cockpit OK via escape ropes landing weather says maybe a cross wind? with Gust 20>25kts (what is the c/w max for DC10?) landing runway 10L |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9559865)
Airbubba - I don't think those were all MD-10s, at least one was an MD-11.
For those who might not know, roughly 20 years ago FedEx picked up a bunch of DC-10s and worked with MacDac to install updated flight decks on them - turning a DC-10 into an MD-10. The engine was most likely a CF6-50, which I noted in the American 767 thread has a long history of uncontained turbine disc failures - there are several associated AD's which don't seem to have helped much... While of the same general 'series', the CF6-80C2 on the American 767 is a very different engine relative to the CF6-50. At any rate, not pleasant times in Cincinnati... |
MD10 is very unforgiving of a messed up landing. An arrival that would have you waiting until the passengers had all got off until you left the flight deck on most other aircraft, could have you cartwheeling in flames on this type.
If the MD10 had 4 engines instead of 3 they would have gone the way of the B742 years ago. |
I think you are confusing this with the MD11. To my knowledge with the exception of the United Airplane at Sioux City there are no events of a MD10 (DC10) cartwheeling in flames as you describe.
|
Tankfully the crew got out of this one, hopefully with nothing worse than burnt hands from the escape ropes.
|
Originally Posted by Metro man
(Post 9560315)
MD10 is very unforgiving of a messed up landing. An arrival that would have you waiting until the passengers had all got off until you left the flight deck on most other aircraft, could have you cartwheeling in flames on this type.
If the MD10 had 4 engines instead of 3 they would have gone the way of the B742 years ago. |
the only ''similar'' messed up DC-10 landing springs to mind is Martinair 1992 at Faro but that was bad TS on app
messed up app and then heavy rain and wind-shear hard bounced landing which took out landing gear on one side - think it cartwheeled most pax and crew got out but around 50 or so out of 300 sadly did not |
The DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30 were very easy to land. I would imagine that the same applies to the MD-10. I understand that the MD-11 was altogether a different ball game.
|
Horizontal Stab
I read somewhere that the horizontal stab on the MD-11 was redesigned from the original DC-10, thus making landings more interesting. Does anybody know if the FedEx MD-10s have the DC-10 stab or the MD-11 stab?
|
AFAIK no DC-10's had any structural MD-11 modifications when converted to MD-10's
only instrumentation and 2 crew handling plus max weights increased (beefed up structure) etc MD-10 Program |
Originally Posted by Council Van
(Post 9560379)
FedEx crash record appears to be awful, if they were moving people no one would travel with them. Would the aviation authorities even allow them to continue to operate. I guess the insurance premiums are sky high as well.
>>by now FED EX must have one of the worst hull loss records in the industry! Sadly, FedEx seems to have a widebody hull loss every two or three years. If they were a pax carrier there would be enormous adverse publicity and probably many casualties as well. I've got friends over at FedEx who tell me the FAA has been all over their training for years now. Instead of annual AQP sim checks like most U.S. carriers, they are under a closely monitored old style six month program. The pilot flying in the December 2003 MD-10 hard landing and fire at MEM had a history of busted checkrides before she was hired. In April, 1994 the feds pulled her ATP after an FAA inspector observed her performance. She took more training and got the ATP back and was hired by FedEx in 1996. At FedEx she had more checkride failures, a couple of DUI's and an altitude bust that set up the fateful Mad Dog line check back into MEM. Is it possible that "diversity" was promoted over performance in this case? A possibly similar precedent at FedEx was the overlooked poor employment history of Auburn Calloway who brutally attempted to hijack a FedEx DC-10 in MEM in 1994. Traditionally, FedEx has had very high employment standards for the freight world, i.e. almost all pilots have college degrees (well, there are some Naval Academy graduates <g>) and many are like the founder, Fred Smith, ex-military aviators [I was later corrected on this point, Fred was a Marine officer but not an Aviator - Airbubba]. The company is consistently profitable and maintenance is excellent by most accounts. Still, the mishaps and hull losses continue at what everyone agrees is an unacceptable rate... Whether lower safety standards are acceptable for cargo airlines continues to be a hotly debated question for the unions, the companies and the feds. |
FEDEX are on of the best paying companies to fly for and could therefore be quite fussy about who they employ. Hull loss rates like these are similar to the bad days of Korean Air or China Airlines, though still better than MK Airlines.
A freighter accident generally involves an old airframe with much lower value and a known cost of the cargo rather than hundreds of lawsuits from families of passengers involved. No shipper is going to stop using a company with a poor safety record as long as they are the lowest bidder. Perhaps these are the reasons things have got to this stage. |
This looks like a gear strut failure. Has happened twice before at FX in MD-10's. FedEx is replacing their MD-10s (and eventually MD-11s) with new-build 767F. However they're taking the new 767Fs at about one/month, so it's still going to take a few years to replace all those MD-10s. |
Sink Rate
In a few days the FDR data should be available.
In the two previous FedEx MD-10 gear failures one was the result of a vendor error on the gear boss plating, and the other was a higher than design load sink rate. The sink rate of these incidents was ~ 2 and 14 fps respectively One could expected the investigation to turn one in one direction or the other once the touch down parameters are known. The MD-11 tail plane / pitch control system is significantly different than that of the MD-10, and nether of the above MD-10 incidents are related to the MD-11 landing incidents. .. Due to the statistics of small number it easy to infer correlation is present were none is existent |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.