Good MD-10 Article

[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!

 

[Purpled]

All of this thread is just speculation,

Welcome to FlightInfo.

At least the speculation in this thread attempts to give the benefit of the doubt to the aircrew in this latest MD-10 incident. Usually there is a burning at the stake before the crash crew has arrived.

 

[skiandsurf]

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

.

This is from my first post on this topic. And I still feel that if a passenger carrier had this many incidents, the FAA would shut them down.

I do not, nor do I want to work for FedEx. I have never flown a DC10, MD10, or and MD11. I do know that UAL, AA, DAL and NWA have operated some form of the -10 without ever putting one on its backside or in the water at the end of the runway.

You guys can try and blame the design of the plane till your blue in the face, but like you guys always say, "boxes dont complain". I guess they dont get scared either. But they do burn real good. EWR....MEM...MEM...

 

[Lindy]

Research, please

skiandsurf -- you really need to perform a little more research

UAL lost a DC-10 in Chicago back in the 1970's for mx issues. It was a very unfortunate accident, claiming hundreds of lives.

As for AA, Cali mean anything? Little Rock? Hasn't AA had 5 hull loses in the the last 7 years? Again, very unfortuante accidents.

NWA? How about DTW.

I do not understand what your problem is with FedEx (besides sounding/acting arrogant, irascible, and ignorant).

 

[fartknocker]

I do know that UAL, AA, DAL and NWA have operated some form of the -10 without ever putting one on its backside or in the water at the end of the runway.

Check your facts. Here is a link to the NTSB website with AA's DC-10 accident history.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp?spage=3&x_page_size=10&sql=Y&p1=1%2F1%2F1980&p2=8%2F8%2F2006&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=Air&p7=&p8=&p9=&p10=&p11=&p12=american+airlines&p13=&p14=&p15=&p16=ev%5Fdate&p17=Desc&p18=&p19=&p20=&p21=121&p22=&p23=&p24=dc%2D10

Look at the third page. 6/27/1985. N129AA. San Juan. Here is an excerpt from the accident report:

THE CAPT REJECTED THE TAKEOFF USING MAX BRAKING. UNABLE TO STOP
ON THE REMAINING RWY, HE ANGLED THE ACFT TO THE SAFEST AREA. THE ACFT STOPPED WITH ITS NOSE IN A LAGOON. ​

Here is another incident I found, not the same, but along the same lines we are talking about, gear failure:​

THE ACFT EXPERIENCED A COMPLETE TRUCK BEAM FAILURE AFTER TOUCHDOWN. METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION REVEALED A CRACK NEAR THE RIGHT REAR TRUCK PIVOT PIN LUBRICATION HOLE WHICH SHOWED PROPAGATION TO THE LOWER END OF THE GREASE HOLE ON THE MATING SURFACE. GREASE HOLE WALLS SHOWED PITTING & CORROSION. TIME INTERVALS FOR SERVICE BULLENTIN INSPECTIONS EXCEEDED THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER.​

From 12/7/83, N103AA, Newark, NJ.

Here's another link so you can research before you post again.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start​

I don't mind disputing with other people. I just don't like it when people say things when they have no idea what they are talking about.​

 

[ils2minimums]

This is from my first post on this topic. And I still feel that if a passenger carrier had this many incidents, the FAA would shut them down.

I do not, nor do I want to work for FedEx. I have never flown a DC10, MD10, or and MD11. I do know that UAL, AA, DAL and NWA have operated some form of the -10 without ever putting one on its backside or in the water at the end of the runway

AA did, in fact, put at least a couple of DC-10's to rest... One in the 1970s in ORD, and one in the 1990's in DFW (non-fatal)... And does Sioux City ring a bell? The list goes on...

As for your statement about passenger carrier incidents, again, I think you're wrong. AA has had an abysmal safety record in the last 10-12 years, and in the 1990's it seemed like everytime I looked, USAir had one in the drink or in a field, yet both carriers are still operating. Accidents happen, pilot error happens... FedEx is just having some bad luck lately, but I'm certain that'll change.

 

[skiandsurf]

I looked at the "incident reports", didnt find that AA put one on its back. Also didnt find one burning on the runway due to a hard landing. ( did find a hard landing where tha captain died on landing and the FO and FA steered it to the gate.....no fire).

You guys (and gal) can defend your safety record all day long, but if ASA or Mesa or Comair or Airwis or ********************taugua or Shuttle America or Trans States or Skywest or.................... you get the idea. If they were doing this, 2 in 2 days, you guys would be running to your company saying, "we are not going to be deadheading on XYZ commuter airlines till they get there house in order".

Am I right about that? ......and be honest.

 

[ss9e]

I looked at the "incident reports", didnt find that AA put one on its back. Also didnt find one burning on the runway due to a hard landing. ( did find a hard landing where tha captain died on landing and the FO and FA steered it to the gate.....no fire).

You guys (and gal) can defend your safety record all day long, but if ASA or Mesa or Comair or Airwis or ********************taugua or Shuttle America or Trans States or Skywest or.................... you get the idea. If they were doing this, 2 in 2 days, you guys would be running to your company saying, "we are not going to be deadheading on XYZ commuter airlines till they get there house in order".

Am I right about that? ......and be honest.

be honest, you're wrong.

 

[FedExFlyer]

Am I right about that? ......and be honest.

Let me be honest.....you're a tool

 

[JP4user]

UAL lost a DC-10 in Chicago back in the 1970's for mx issues. It was a very unfortunate accident, claiming hundreds of lives.

That was an American DC-10.

 

[Attkpuke]

SKI...16000 hours flying time and you talk like this. Thats alot of time and/or experience around airplanes. You're either a liar or a guy who's busted a lot of check rides. I dont know anyone with more than 1500 hours that has such a simple minded view of this profession. You know what they say..."God protects fools and drunks!"