MD-11/10 Safety Article
03-24-2009, 06:31 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
I did the same (didn't notice the date).
To read the NTSB's version of the same article you can read the Fed Ex EWR NTSB report.
It does appear the the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 has been involved in a statistically significant # of gear/wing failures upon landing resulting in subsequent roll-over compared to other aircraft. Can you think of the last time an L-1011, A330, 767, or 777 (similar sized aircraft, similar structure of low-wing with engines hung off the wing) had a gear/wing failure resulting in roll-over that occurred on the runway of intended landing? I can't, but maybe that's b/c I lack the proper background in aviation accident investigation.
With that said, each accident is unique, and I'm not one to speculate as to why this seems to occur so often with one particular subset of aircraft.
To read the NTSB's version of the same article you can read the Fed Ex EWR NTSB report.
It does appear the the DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 has been involved in a statistically significant # of gear/wing failures upon landing resulting in subsequent roll-over compared to other aircraft. Can you think of the last time an L-1011, A330, 767, or 777 (similar sized aircraft, similar structure of low-wing with engines hung off the wing) had a gear/wing failure resulting in roll-over that occurred on the runway of intended landing? I can't, but maybe that's b/c I lack the proper background in aviation accident investigation.
With that said, each accident is unique, and I'm not one to speculate as to why this seems to occur so often with one particular subset of aircraft.
Last edited by Sniper; 03-24-2009 at 06:35 AM. Reason: added 'gear/wing' failure. Both seem to be factors
03-24-2009, 06:57 AM
#22
AAmerican Way for AA Pay
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: B-737 Pilot
Posts: 1,617
Very interesting article. I flew a DC-10, but not -11. I always wondered about the longer fuselage, roughly same-size wing and small empennage. I also noted many times as an MD-11 landed, the nose always came up immediately. Must have been spoiler deployment causing that rapid pitch up. You gotta fly the nose back down to the runway, right? Thanks for posting.
03-24-2009, 09:07 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Safety is something that is sacrificed for the bottom line (despite all the lip service it is given). Enders report, EWR crash, MEM crash, FAA dropping the extended crew rest requirements for ultra long range aircraft... Just the way it is. Money drives it and until the bottom line is impacted nothing will change.
03-24-2009, 09:58 AM
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 245
I agree with Tony. I would never speculate on what the crew did, right or wrong. I heard some mechanic talking about it, though, like he was some sort of expert. Talked about "how strong the winds were" and what a huge crab angle they were coming in at (like he was out there watching landings on 18R at noon on a Friday, YEAH.) He has no idea. He does not know what the winds were when these guys touched down. I doubt he is privvy to the info on the FDR with regards to touchdown speed and force. If he was, he wouldn't be able to be spouting off a bunch of crap. He would be under strict confidentiality and wouldn't be saying a thing.
03-24-2009, 12:04 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,631
One of these days, this WILL catch up to Fedex and bite them in the arse. It will not only cost them ops wise, but there will probably end up being some law suits. Hopefully it will not be due to loss of life.
If you ask me, this whole situation goes back to a flaw in the MD11. There was a flaw in the flight control system software that MD knew needed to be fixed, but they didn't want to admit to the problem (because of law suits). Along comes FRED, who wants a good deal, so he agrees to request to have his DC10's converted to MD10's, so that they could make the necessary changes to the MD11 software (for FRED), thus fixing the makers problem, without admitting any guilt in the original software, at a large discount to Fedex for the conversions. Or, maybe I'm just paranoid?
If you ask me, this whole situation goes back to a flaw in the MD11. There was a flaw in the flight control system software that MD knew needed to be fixed, but they didn't want to admit to the problem (because of law suits). Along comes FRED, who wants a good deal, so he agrees to request to have his DC10's converted to MD10's, so that they could make the necessary changes to the MD11 software (for FRED), thus fixing the makers problem, without admitting any guilt in the original software, at a large discount to Fedex for the conversions. Or, maybe I'm just paranoid?
03-24-2009, 01:47 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 2,934
I have friends on the MX side. Interestingly I was talking to them last week while they were pinning a T/R (I was working my second job) and one of the things they talked about was the issues with the main gear. The company that was rehabbing them was using a different coating on the struts. That coating was causing corrosion and they have had a number of struts basically open up like zippers.
I'm not going to speculate anything. I'll leave that up to the NTSB and the Japanese counterpart. In the mean time I'll say a prayer for my friends at FedEx and their lost friends.
I'm not going to speculate anything. I'll leave that up to the NTSB and the Japanese counterpart. In the mean time I'll say a prayer for my friends at FedEx and their lost friends.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AUS_ATC
Hangar Talk
0
03-08-2006 06:56 PM
