Good MD-10 Article

[skiandsurf]

Since you wont answer the question, I will assume it is true. Again, very scarey and dangerous.

I did a little research......
This is a quote from a newspaper......


"Friday's accident was second in as many days to befall the company.
On Thursday, a FedEx 727 cargo plane went off an airport runway in Louisville, Ky., after the pilot aborted takeoff. Friday's accident also marked the 12th incident at Memphis International Airport involving a FedEx aircraft since 1994, according to records at the NTSB."

 

[Purpled]

Since you wont answer the question, I will assume it is true. Again, very scarey and dangerous.

Won't answer what question? It's in the stinkin article, bone head. In fact, that's what this whole freakin' discussion is about. Try and keep up with the adults here.

Scary and dangerous? Maybe. It's my a$$, not yours.

 

[Purpled]

I did a little research......
This is a quote from a newspaper......


"Friday's accident was second in as many days to befall the company.
On Thursday, a FedEx 727 cargo plane went off an airport runway in Louisville, Ky., after the pilot aborted takeoff. Friday's accident also marked the 12th incident at Memphis International Airport involving a FedEx aircraft since 1994, according to records at the NTSB."

You didn't have to go any further than http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=83320

Oh yeah, that one was mechanical failure too. Crew's back flying already, so I'm told.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

...this article is mostly about design flaw and structural integrity issues. It specificly points to how minor deviations made by the pilot should not have resulted in such an outcome.

That's where it lost it's credibility with me. According to the article, the "young F/O never quite got the drift out" and "touched down firmly"

They made it sound like it happened all the time.

Whether an actual "landing" occured or not is debatable. What is certain is that the initial touchdown happened at a vertical speed of 750/870 FPM...far in excess of the design limits, and "firm" enough to rip an otherwise servicable MLG strut the size of a tree-trunk out of the wing.

Touching down at -800 FPM might constitute (to use your words) a "minor deviation" at some companies, but at most it would be cause for a meeting with somebody from management and some time in the sim. Assuming that you are correct, and that the problem is somehow related to the airframe and not to the pilots or the training they receive, to what would you attribute the fact that only one carrier seems to be having these accidents?

This whole discussion reminds me of the day my step-daughters boyfriend totaled her Toyota. He had received several tickets for speeding in the car, but that's not what caused the accident. Nope...according to him, he was going around a corner at the normal speed, when due to some mysterious, unidentified problem both the steering AND the brakes "went out at the same time" causing him to jump a curb and take out several parked cars. I'm still waiting for Toyota to issue an emergency recall of that model...

 

[Purpled]

Whether an actual "landing" occured or not is debatable. What is certain is that the initial touchdown happened at a vertical speed of 750/870 FPM...far in excess of the design limits, and "firm" enough to rip an otherwise servicable MLG strut the size of a tree-trunk out of the wing. ...

It's late, so perhaps my eyes are failing me, but I don't see 800 fpm in the article. There is a mention of 500fpm, firm but well within structural limits (at least once). There is also mention of a hard touchdown due to windshear, but I don't see a number associated with it.

Touching down at -800 FPM might constitute (to use your words) a "minor deviation" at some companies, but at most it would be cause for a meeting with somebody from management and some time in the sim....

I never said 800fpm was a 'minor deviation.' Keep your words in your male-pleaser.

Assuming that you are correct, and that the problem is somehow related to the airframe and not to the pilots or the training they receive, to what would you attribute the fact that only one carrier seems to be having these accidents? ...

We are the only carrier flying MD-10s; and they are quite different, as the article points out, than the DC-10.

We are not the only carrier who has had MD-11 problems, see the China Air similarities to Newark.

This whole discussion reminds me of the day my step-daughters boyfriend totaled her Toyota. He had received several tickets for speeding in the car, but that's not what caused the accident. Nope...according to him, he was going around a corner at the normal speed, when due to some mysterious, unidentified problem both the steering AND the brakes "went out at the same time" causing him to jump a curb and take out several parked cars. I'm still waiting for Toyota to issue an emergency recall of that model...

Well, if those were the 'facts' of the accident then his history had nothing to do with the accident. Perhaps he isn't a good insurance risk, but if he were traveling at normal speed and the auto failed then the auto failed.

Fortunately, in aircraft, we can recover the data and will eventually find out what happened. If it turns out to be a hard landing, then it does; but if there wasn't one, then what do you propose the problem is?

Personally, I do think there is a training problem here at purple. Too much of it and not focused on the right areas. Add to this the differences that Huck pointed out earlier and you could certainly see why a mishap might occur...but probably not this many of the same type in the same airframe.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

It's late, so perhaps my eyes are failing me, but I don't see 800 fpm in the article. There is a mention of 500fpm, firm but well within structural limits (at least once). There is also mention of a hard touchdown due to windshear, but I don't see a number associated with it.

It's not in the article...it's in the NTSB report, page 26. The left gear touched down at 12.5 fps, the right at 14.5. Those correspond to sink rates of 750 and 870 fpm respectively.

I never said 800fpm was a 'minor deviation.' Keep your words in your male-pleaser.

Oh really? This is what you said...

this article is mostly about design flaw and structural integrity issues. It specificly points to how minor deviations made by the pilot should not have resulted in such an outcome.

That is why the article was flawed...it (and you, or so it seemed) characterized the pilots complete failure to flare as "not quite getting the drift off" (whatever that means) and the touchdown at -870fpm as "firm." In fact, it was roughly equivalent to hoisting the aircraft to a height of 8-10 feet straight and dropping it straight to the tarmac. There are very few things one can drop from that height without breaking them.

There were no questions of "design flaws" or "structural integrity" identified in the report. When flown onto the runway at those rates of descent, the landing gear failed, just as McDonnell-Douglas could have predicted it would 35 years prior when the aircraft was certified.

FFR-I'll be responsible for what comes out of my "man pleaser" as you put it. I would suggest that you get your facts from source documents where available, and not rely upon highly-spun (and inaccurate) narratives printed in magazine articles.

We are the only carrier flying MD-10s; and they are quite different, as the article points out, than the DC-10.

I have no experience with either type, which is why I asked the question. Many airplanes have "Achille's Heels," failure modes or crash sequences often discovered only after certification, and after a series of accidents under similar circumastances. (The Mu-2 and Lear come immediately to my mind...I'm sure the military has it's own list) Whether FedEx's problems with the MD-10/11 are a result of engineering or operational deficiencies, I don't know. But they DO sound like airplanes that are highly unforgiving of rough and/or bounced landings for whatever reason.

 

[USMCFDX]

Sorry, my computer is acting up and it is hard to type.


And I didnt mention the "hijacked" DC10 that was totaled. Surely, wasnt the crews fault, but a total hull loss none the less.

Don't blame it on your computer, your computer is fine. It's your brain that is slow. Sorry you can not upgrade that, it's genetic and you are stuck with it.

The "hijacked" DC-10 is alive and well today on the line as an MD-10.

 

[ss9e]

When I am taxiing out and see a FedEx plane on final, I start looking for the firetrucks. I prepare myself for a lengthy delay.

If they were a passenger carrier, the FAA would have shut them down.


EWR.....mid 90s. DC10 or MD11 flips over on landing.
Kuala lumper (sp)...few years ago. DC10 or MD11, lands long and goes in the water.
FLL...few years ago. 727 lands short and crashes. Glideslope out of service, wasnt caught on the ATIS.
MEM...few years ago. DC10 or MD11 lands hard on landing. Burns up.

was there another on Juy 30th? scarey.

did you read this before you wrote it? there is something wrong with 3 out of the 4 points you are trying to make. we didn't crash in KUL or FLL. it was SFS and TLH. the glideslope wasn't out of service. the crew was attempting to land on a rwy at night without an ILS and the tower was closed. please reread what you wrote about MEM. "lands hard on landing." isn't that a little redundant?

you go on later in this post to talk about the latest MEM accident and the incident in SDF. don't you think that you are rushing to judgement a little here? neither the NTSB or the company have completed their investigations yet. seems to me that all indications would point to mechanical malfunctions in both cases. how many pilots do a rejected t/o and can't keep the a/c on the rwy? how does the a/c in MEM make it 7000 feet down a 9000 foot rwy and then the gear collapses? do you really think that this was the result of 1 hard landing?

think...

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Yesterday, 23:42

skiandsurf This message is hidden because skiandsurf is on your ignore list

 

[Mr Zog]

I did a little research......
This is a quote from a newspaper......


"Friday's accident was second in as many days to befall the company.
On Thursday, a FedEx 727 cargo plane went off an airport runway in Louisville, Ky., after the pilot aborted takeoff. Friday's accident also marked the 12th incident at Memphis International Airport involving a FedEx aircraft since 1994, according to records at the NTSB."

Hey idiot. Do a little more research before spouting. Incidents can be minor, all airlines have them. Go to www.ntsb.gov and hit aviation accident database. Do a search on American Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest, Delta, any airlines. You will see plenty of "incidents". I am not saying we are perfect, but you make it sound like FedEx is the only one that has "incidents"

 

[JP4user]

The most important thing is, and no one has mentioned it...is that no one was seriously injured in these incidents.

 

[JP4user]

Again, very scarey and dangerous.

Are you in the third grade?

 

[ptarmigan]

NWA has what, 14 DC-10s, all used on long haul. FedEx has how many MD-11/DC-10/MD-10s, used on short haul as well as long haul? Look it up and then reconsider.

 

[Purpled]

It's not in the article...it's in the NTSB report, page 26. The left gear touched down at 12.5 fps, the right at 14.5. Those correspond to sink rates of 750 and 870 fpm respectively.Oh really? This is what you said... That is why the article was flawed...it (and you, or so it seemed) characterized the pilots complete failure to flare as "not quite getting the drift off" (whatever that means) and the touchdown at -870fpm as "firm." In fact, it was roughly equivalent to hoisting the aircraft to a height of 8-10 feet straight and dropping it straight to the tarmac. There are very few things one can drop from that height without breaking them.

There were no questions of "design flaws" or "structural integrity" identified in the report. When flown onto the runway at those rates of descent, the landing gear failed, just as McDonnell-Douglas could have predicted it would 35 years prior when the aircraft was certified.

FFR-I'll be responsible for what comes out of my "man pleaser" as you put it. I would suggest that you get your facts from source documents where available, and not rely upon highly-spun (and inaccurate) narratives printed in magazine articles.I have no experience with either type, which is why I asked the question. Many airplanes have "Achille's Heels," failure modes or crash sequences often discovered only after certification, and after a series of accidents under similar circumastances. (The Mu-2 and Lear come immediately to my mind...I'm sure the military has it's own list) Whether FedEx's problems with the MD-10/11 are a result of engineering or operational deficiencies, I don't know. But they DO sound like airplanes that are highly unforgiving of rough and/or bounced landings for whatever reason.

Go back and re-read the article. It is not about one specific incident, but the commonality with the gear problems.

If you think that certain items aren't left out of a report for political reasons, then you're either on the wrong side of the team or you haven't been around this process long enough.

I'm not in the business of defending a 750-870 fpm landing, but even that is within the 150% of the design load limit where structural damage(not failure) should start to occur. Hard landing? Absolutely. Gear collapse and wing failiure? Not at that point.

 

[ptarmigan]

I'm not in the business of defending a 750-870 fpm landing, but even that is within the 150% of the design load limit where structural damage(not failure) should start to occur. Hard landing? Absolutely. Gear collapse and wing failiure? Not at that point.

Actually, without a lot more data, there is no way to determine that. It is not just the rate of descent that determines the forces, it's a whole lot more complicated than that.

All of this thread is just speculation, including the somewhat misinformed initial article. There are a lot of factors, which is why it takes NTSB so long to complete the investigation. How about this for a novel idea: Let them do their job!