You must have missed my earlier post then :)

Lomapaseo, I was in major multitasking mode when I first read your post, and your phrase "ground pool fire" went right past me. Not enough brain cells allocated to the task I guess. :)

Don´t know about the hard landing. But, what´s evident from the photo is that the upper part on the mid-section fuselage is, burned. If, a fire was caused by the nose collapsing and scraping the runway creating sparks to fly aft and igniting leaking fuel, the underside should also be completely burned? If, the hard landing caused the centre tank to rupture and then ignite it would also have the same result?

If this crash was indeed caused by the landing itself rather than a pre-landing emergency then surely it is high time this aircraft's air worthiness certificate was withdrawn.

The aircraft seems to be a flying disaster area!!

Note the word is AIRworthiness

The standards for rough handling have to end somewhere. Beyond that you take your chances in the outcome.

It's impossible to define all outcomes of a mishandled landing, thus you can not regulate a sucessful outcome. What you do is regulate some capability. Exactly where this plane stands relative to the regulation of abusive use is unknown to me. Thus I can't form an opinion of what certificate is at risk (design, operation, pilot training etc.)

All I would say is that no other plane has flipped over so many times when landing in often benign conditions, especially given how relatively few of the type were ever built.

NTSB has sent a team of investigators to Riad in order to assist the investigation.

From the NTSB factual report (click to download full version of the report as pdf):

Airworthiness
 

Lompaseo,

I do hope yr post was "tongue in cheek".

Until now, I have understood that acquisition of an airworthiness certificate includes validation of the design and procedures to land and taxi to the parking point at least as often as other similar aircraft with similar pilots in similar conditions.

According to the NTSB report quoted by TheWanderer the routing was SHJ-RUH? Probably it's not really important for finding out what happened but all other sources mentioned the routing FRA-RUH and onto SHJ. Either they were wrong or there's a mistake in the NTSB report.

Nothing especially wrong with the MD-11F, IF the pilots that fly it follow the book, and use due caution.
These airplanes are nearly always landed at (or near) max landing weight, so....reasonable pilot(s) handling skills are needed, without fail.
In other words...old experienced hands on deck...for the drill.
This lets the new(er) Airboos types...firmly out.

Now, having said all this, the Lufty guys are plenty experienced, so....I still think there was a problem before landing, so what do you think...smoke and/or fire before landing ( possibly), which then needed the airplane on the deck, pronto?

Edit to add, I personally know some Lufty guys, and they are top notch, in every respect.
However, the MD-11 is an unusual airplane (apparently), requiring good basic pilot skills...old fashioned pilot skills, just like in the 'old' days.

We await the investigation, to its conclusion.
Facts...will tell the tale.:ok:

daikilo

Your points of course are valid as I hope mine are as well :)

All I try to do is to add balance to the discussions.

Yes it is troubling why so many MD11 end up that way. But we can't always expect to correct it via withdrawing a valid airworthiness certificate as suggested.

The final result of a sucessful outcome to the passengers and crew is also a balance between capabilities in design, operation and airmanship and we need to address the balance before calling for groundings by withdrawing a design certificate.

lomapaseo
What makes it even more troubling is the fact MD11 was operated so far by reasonably reputable carriers only (one can argue about Avient, ok). So is our bet would be no MD11 will survive till 3rd grade/cowboy outfits can afford them, or this type will make a world record on built/loss ratio?

On the contrary, by its record it is evident there is plenty wrong with the MD11.

that bet is just your guess...

P.S.
cowboys were better on the horse then many others who can be compared with today computer educated (auto)pilots

Green Guard

MD11 is pretty much on the right track. Out of any modern acft types it already holds the top position on hull loss accidents. Out of heavies still on service, it is 3rd after 707 and DC8. Coincidence?

One might be led to believe that the periods between 1990-1997 and then 2000-2008 saw all MD-11s grounded, since there were no accidents during these intervals. How did such a dangerous aircraft survive 7-8 straight years (twice) without crashing?

Maybe this plane is just too far beyond the skill level of most of those who currently fly her?

There are comments regarding an urgent landing due to inflight fire or similar.
This is all very well, but why would these experienced pilots not flare the machine? Any experienced guy would overcome that sinking feeling when so close to the ground.....without thinking about it!

Think there is a little more to it....or maybe it was just a terrible 'normal' landing.

:uhoh:

fact
 

it's HIGH bounce and hard landing...., that's what it is....

A bit of thread drift here, but has anyone heard anything substantive on FedEx Tokyo?

I cannot remember an accident where so little information has been released so long after the accident.

I'm most likely speaking out of turn here, this isn't the first aircraft to be called fundamently unsafe by people. The aircraft either meets certification criteria or it doesn't.

If it does, then maybe that criteria needs to be revisited, or a look at the common human factors involved. I seem to remember the same witch hunt on about the little MU2, sorry not in the same league as the MD11. But from the little I understand it had a big improvement in its accident rate after a lot of retraining and understanding.