BravoOne wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Boy this topic is ripe for a locking isn't it?

Why would you want to see this locked??

Did you not see the pissing contest between an experienced MD-11 pilot and an internet troll earlier?

WPvsMW wrote:

CC, you're correct, 12ºNU at MEM. The 7ºNU was in a different report.

yeah 12º is probably a strike. Anything around 10º is scary. The 7ºNU was the conclusion to the NRT accident. It didn't happen immediately at all. It was well after the final investigation. I think the instinctive reaction to a hard bounce would be to get it back on the ground but in this case it was disastrous to unload the elevator considering the big bounce. The 7º NU would be good for a go around and not a strike. I never had to do it in real life but did have a capt. tell be they were doing a CATIII into CDG and at the last minute they had a hard touchdown. He said the 7º saved their butts. He thought maybe a weird ILS signal close in.

or microshear?

426Shadow wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Boy this topic is ripe for a locking isn't it?

Why would you want to see this locked??

Did you not see the pissing contest between an experienced MD-11 pilot and an internet troll earlier?

The thread is now stabilized and on to ADs, SBs, and 7ºNU.
The mods can delete the pissy posts... but the other content is good (IMO) and ongoing.

747Whale wrote:

KCharlie wrote:

Yikes, 168 knots at max landing weight? Are there any other airplanes that high?

Now days, there's no way an airline would ever buy a new airplane with such a high approach speed.

You've never flown a 747, have you?

Here we go again..


You could just answer the posters question


KCharlie


At maximum landing weight and or approaching with high surface winds or when you have various different types of systems failures your VREF approach speed on a large jet can be quite high



160-180 knots is not unheard of, I had a slat assymetry issue in a 767-400 and we had a final approach speed close to 180 knots as they were locked out and would not extend


However, the 767 is a stable and forgiving aircraft unlike some !

426Shadow wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

426Shadow wrote:

Boy this topic is ripe for a locking isn't it?

Why would you want to see this locked??

Did you not see the pissing contest between an experienced MD-11 pilot and an internet troll earlier?

Sorry, I see nothing here but opinions based on either misinformation or experience. I have 5000 hours in the MD11 and don't get offended if someone does not like an airplane that they have never touched, much less flown. I just chalk it up to ignorance.

Get three pilots in a room and you will get five different opinions. Just the nature of the animal. Use to work for an airline that had a joint Flight Training/Flight Standards meeting one a month. Get about 60 pilots all in one room debating a particular subject. It was almost hand to hand combat at times but when everyone left the room after the meeting, they were all on the same page. Not a place for fragile egos.

Funny enough the same airplane was widely regarded as the safest outside of Concorde prior to the SWR111 accident, and despite all it’s so-called “flaws” - I don’t remember any of these accidents mentioned about happening during passenger service either.

Means the crews of KLM World Airways, Swiss etc must have been doing something right compared to the FedEx crews.

I don't think that's a fair statement to say. You weren't at any any of these places nor familiar with the any situations . I'll leave it at that.

CosmicCruiser wrote:

I don't think that's a fair statement to say. You weren't at any any of these places nor familiar with the any situations . I'll leave it at that.

So how else would you explain the vast majority of these accidents only apparently happening to Fedex and one or two other freight operators....and none of these attributed to the the operators running them in passenger service? Mind you many of these freighters are converted from passenger variants.

I’m more inclined to believe it’s poor pilot technique as opposed to a flaw in design. I haven’t read any NTSB accident reports stating that the H-stabs were “too small” - I’ve only heard that in mainstream media (not exactly the most reliable source when it comes to aircraft).

I fly one such “unsafe” design (the MU-2) and it’s been proven that proper training and airmanship was the key to reducing the incidence of accidents, despite many outlets claiming the airplane was “full of flaws”.

I think the comparison requires incidents/thousand operations. FX dwarfs all other operators historically, and certainly now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... _operators
All of FX's MD-11s are BCFs.

WPvsMW can I PM you?

WPvsMW wrote:

I think the comparison requires incidents/thousand operations. FX dwarfs all other operators historically, and certainly now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... _operators
All of FX's MD-11s are BCFs.

That data is not current or correct.

That said, FedEx does fly 130+ MD11's and MD10's, with the next nearest fleet size a third of that at UPS, with 38 MD-11's.

You're correct that given the considerably higher amount of hours flown by FedEx in the MD11, a statistically higher proportion of mishaps can be expected, strictly bi virute of aircraft numbers and hours flown.

FedEx is not known for poor training or personnel; FedEx and UPS are two of the top airlines in the world for pay, training, quality of life, quality of equipment, etc. When it comes to any aspect one might care to name, both re the gold standard, and for those who would stand back and pick apart their mishap history based on a rendering of obsolete data and a lack of understanding of the aircraft and it's operation, little more than gross ignorance of the topic is evident.

FedEx and UPS MD11's are in constant use, with a much higher fleet utilization than any other operator, with far more hours flown, and far more aircraft.

There is no question that the public mishaps involving pilot induced oscillation and subsequent breakup of the aircraft were pilot induced, not aircraft induced. The nature of the MD-11 compared to the DC-10 does involve higher weights, higher speeds, a smaller horizontal stabilizer, lower tolerance of a bad landing, and even less tolerance of improper handling following a bounce.

Like most fleets, the MD11 has evolved, despite being out of production. The only equipment available to replace it and do what it does is the 777. The MD11 is unique in several respects, not the least of which is the limited fleet size; a MD11 type rating is a "dead rating" in that one can't really go very many places to use the rating. Few operators fly them, few remain, but those operators who do use them utilize the hell out of them around the clock. Those operators that are phasing the MD11 out are not parking them, but passing them to other operators who will continue to use them. For how long is anybody's guess, but certainly until they are no longer economically viable.

The fact that highly reputable operators such as Lufthansa continue to operate the MD11 speaks volumes. The same can be said for FedEx and UPS.

Western Global's entire operation, save for two 747's, is staked on the MD11, and more are being added to the fleet, with ownership of others that are presently in use by other operators. The Boeing MD11 simulator is in use around the Clock in Miami, and Anchorage. A great many of those on the MD11 have many thousands of hours in type, and a lot of years, but there are also new-hires coming into the airplane that have flown nothing but regional aircraft, who do quite well. It's not an airframe that only experienced aviators can fly.

There are numerous myths about the airpalne, from the wild notion that the center gear springs the MD11 back into the air (untrue) to the notion that it has insufficient elevator (untrue), to the wild idea that the wing attachment and engine attachments are weak and insufficient (untrue). It's just another aircraft, and takes of and lands like any other, so long as flown properly. It does not require superhuman aviation skills, but it does require being flown within the parameters established. FedEx's three rules cover most of what one needs to know to keep each landing safe. Beyond that, if maintained properly, they're still very good aircraft, with very good technology and cockpits, and still feature some of the best automation in the industry.

I'd stand by the observation a colleague once made, that the idea setup would be the 747 with the MD11 cockpit and avionics suite. The airplane has seen steady improvements here and there in procedure, software, and function, and those who fly it or have flown it can easily recognize the unsubstantiated conjecture over the truth. It's interesting that those who cry loudest about the design have no experience on type.

Max Q wrote:

However, the 767 is a stable and forgiving aircraft unlike some !

You are writing about exceptional situations.

In that context the MD11 could IMU come it at 200+ knots?
( min speed given as 170kn, add 20 kn for adverse conditions add more kn for some flaps issue.
Thats a rocket.( Landing speed of the Shuttle Orbiter ?

The accident rate per million departures (1959-2017) per aircraft type, provided by Boeing (now reponsible for the MD11) is very clear !

See page 11/14 : http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingd ... tatsum.pdf

No other aircraft built in the same period (A340, A330,744, 767, 757) has a accident rate that comes close to high accident rate of the MD11. .

WIederling wrote:

( Landing speed of the Shuttle Orbiter ?

185 to 196knots , looked it up

WIederling wrote:

WIederling wrote:

( Landing speed of the Shuttle Orbiter ?

185 to 196knots , looked it up

Not true, I flew it for 12 yrs. At Max Ldg Wgt Vapp was 168kts. If you mean some abnormal config like no flaps it was 186 best I remember.

CosmicCruiser wrote:

WIederling wrote:

WIederling wrote:

( Landing speed of the Shuttle Orbiter ?

185 to 196knots , looked it up

Not true, I flew it for 12 yrs. At Max Ldg Wgt Vapp was 168kts. If you mean some abnormal config like no flaps it was 186 best I remember.

OK, so you flew the Shuttle for 12 years ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M0k4HoZQC8

CosmicCruiser wrote:

WIederling wrote:

WIederling wrote:

( Landing speed of the Shuttle Orbiter ?

185 to 196knots , looked it up

Not true, I flew it for 12 yrs. At Max Ldg Wgt Vapp was 168kts. If you mean some abnormal config like no flaps it was 186 best I remember.

The Shuttle or the MD11?
Because if you want to go extreme with two engines inoperative and flaps/slats retracted and a GW of 230.000kg you would have a Vapp of 255... according to the QRH. I looked that one up just for fun.

426Shadow wrote:

Did you not see the pissing contest between an experienced MD-11 pilot and an internet troll earlier?

Read more like one MD-11 Pilot p*ing against the wind

Horstroad wrote:

CosmicCruiser wrote:

WIederling wrote:

185 to 196knots , looked it up

Not true, I flew it for 12 yrs. At Max Ldg Wgt Vapp was 168kts. If you mean some abnormal config like no flaps it was 186 best I remember.

The Shuttle or the MD11?
Because if you want to go extreme with two engines inoperative and flaps/slats retracted and a GW of 230.000kg you would have a Vapp of 255... according to the QRH. I looked that one up just for fun.

Not sure where your data is coming from but I did the 2 eng out no flap/slat many times in the sim and I remember that it was within a couple of knots of max tire speed which was around 204kts and there was no flare to be made. No way could you stop doing 255kts ! I still have my manuals to look at but can guarantee you it wasn't 255kts.

I'm looking at the 2 engines inoperative QRH for the MD11F. It's an inclusive checklist with the speed and distance tables. Minimum flaps up, slat retracted speed (Vmin +30) is 255 KIAS at 230,000 kg.

Flaps up, slats extended Vmin+30 at 230,000 kg is 212. That makes Vmin +15 197 KIAS. Once speed is below Vmin +30, go around is no longer possible, as is the case with gear extended, or when less than 1,000' AGL. on the approach.

Final speed to touch down will be Vmin +15

The speed with Engines operative but hydraulic 1 & 3 inoperative, with flaps 28 and slats retracted, is 209 KIAS (Vref +5) at 230,000 kg.

Even at 160,000 kg, with two engines-out, the UP/RET Vmin + 30 minimum speed is 217 KIAS.

Looking at the MD11 and it’s contemporaries, not a single
A300 / A310 / A330 / A340 / B747 / B767 / B777 aircraft has rolled over on landing after the wing spar failed


Those are facts that cannot be disputed even if you disparage reading


All of those aircraft have been mishandled and suffered from hard landings from time to time yet their redundant, structural design held up or when it failed did not do so in such a disastrous manner


Furthermore as they are more forgiving aircraft to fly and land it’s less likely you’ll have an incident or accident to begin with



You don’t have to have flown the MD11 to know this, the information is easily obtained from NTSB accident reports



In fact, personal affection for a particular aircraft type can often cloud your judgment and ability to objectively analyze its good and bad characteristics

747Whale wrote:

I'm looking at the 2 engines inoperative QRH for the MD11F. It's an inclusive checklist with the speed and distance tables. Minimum flaps up, slat retracted speed (Vmin +30) is 255 KIAS at 230,000 kg.

Flaps up, slats extended Vmin+30 at 230,000 kg is 212. That makes Vmin +15 197 KIAS. Once speed is below Vmin +30, go around is no longer possible, as is the case with gear extended, or when less than 1,000' AGL. on the approach.

Final speed to touch down will be Vmin +15

The speed with Engines operative but hydraulic 1 & 3 inoperative, with flaps 28 and slats retracted, is 209 KIAS (Vref +5) at 230,000 kg.

Even at 160,000 kg, with two engines-out, the UP/RET Vmin + 30 minimum speed is 217 KIAS.

i must stand corrected on one thing. I don't think we did no flap no slat 2 eng outs. We did do 2 eng out slats/ no flap and Vapp and at what ever wgt we dumped to Vapp was about 204kts. I've still been to lazy with the holidays to pull my books out.

zeke wrote:

BravoOne wrote:

When you poor pilot technique tends to bring the worst design flaws. None of these hull losses would havee occurred had the pilots flown the airplane according to the procedures set forth by MD.

It is not poor pilot techniques, it is a poor design. Have a look at the carriers that have some of these hull losses, very experienced pilots on types, and a number of them from top first world airlines.

First, the MD-11 is essentially a stretched DC-10, with winglets, a 2-crew cockpit (one fewer than on the DC-10), and a few other nips and tucks. Significantly, the designers increased the operating weight and the length of the aircraft, without re-engineering the wing and rudder. As a result, the aircraft has rather sluggish roll and yaw responses to control input at low speeds, i.e., on short finals and during the landing flare.

The second significant factor that affects the MD-11s landing performance is speed. In order to compensate for the MD-11’s higher operating weight and reduced rudder authority, its approach speeds can be substantially higher than other comparable commercial jets. This is due to the higher Vmca of the MD-11. The term refers to the minimum airspeed at which an airborne multiengine aircraft is controllable with one engine inoperative (the MD-11 has three engines). For example, the approach speed (Vapp) for the MD-11 at maximum landing weight (213.8 tons) is around 168 knots, give or take 1-2 knots. This is increased further – by up to 20 knots – if allowances for high winds or gusts are factored into the landing calculations. As a consequence, the sink rate on a heavy approach is usually a few hundred feet per minute higher than on most other transport-category aircraft.

The third factor is the center-gear of the main landing gear. Quite unlike the center-body gear on the B747, which is quite forgiving, the center-line fuselage gear on the MD-11 is primarily designed to support the stretched airplane’s increased ramp weight. Its position at the fuselage center, slightly aft of the main gear, has a significant effect on the landing characteristics of the aircraft. For this reason, it is imperative that the pilot does not continue to flare the aircraft when the radio altimeter callout reaches 10 feet. There should be no continued flare even if the aircraft is not in the desired landing altitude. If the pilot continues to apply back pressure on the control column past this 10 foot radio altitude point, the flare has the effect of driving the center gear onto the runway, which in turn creates a large “up” force on the tail section of the aircraft – which in turn drives the nose gear onto the tarmac and creates a bounce.

Fourth, because of the airplane’s small horizontal stabilizer, a computerized longitudinal stability augmentation system (LSAS) was installed to improve handling qualities (and also the airplane’s shortfall in range). But this system does not operate when the autopilot must be disconnected and the aircraft hand-flown to touchdown.

Please chime in if younthis this is inaccurate or unfair. The aircraft also has a hull loss rate per 100,000 landings about 5-10 times higher than other airliners.

What’s interesting reading this conversation is that in my view you’re both right. MD-11 certainly is/was a disaster in waiting. Just needed the wrong crew at the wrong time doing the wrong thing to inadvertently contribute to their own demise. In a plane that made this all too easy to happen.

CosmicCruiser wrote:

i must stand corrected on one thing. I don't think we did no flap no slat 2 eng outs. We did do 2 eng out slats/ no flap and Vapp and at what ever wgt we dumped to Vapp was about 204kts. I've still been to lazy with the holidays to pull my books out.

Looking at the QRH again right now, the procedure with 2 engines out is:
Throttles Max Continuous Thrust
Flaps (unless on final) UP
Speed (Unless on Final) (DRIFTDOWN OR UP/RET Vmin + 30
Gear (unless committed) UP
Slats (unless on final) RET
ENG IGN OVRD Switch ON.

The following note is given:
During a two-engine approach, if a second engine fails on final and the gear is down, add power as required. Set flaps to Flaps 28, maintain speed to reach Vref + 5 for FLAPS 28 and continue the approach. Move GPWS Switch to FLAP OVRD, conditions permitting.

The accompanying table provides that the flaps zero, slats retracted speed at 230,000 kg is 255 knots. With flaps zero, slats extended, the speed is 212 knots, both for Vmin+30.

The following notes are provided for missed approach with two engines inop:
CAUTION: Do not attempt a go-around under any of the following conditions:
--Less than 1,000' AGL
--Airspeed below 0/EXT Vmin + 30
--Gear is extended.
--Hydraulic 1 or 3 failed and Service Bulletin MD11-27-062 or production equivalent incorporated (outboard slats will not retract). "SLAT DISAG" alert will be displayed when flap/slat handle is in the 0/RET position.
--Weight, altitude, and temperature in excess of those shown in the following chart....(table provided)

The landing note states "NOTE: For go-around protection, maintain 0/EXT Vmin + 30 until committed to land (1,000' AGL). Achieve Vmin +15 at or above 50'."

It's clear that the direction is to maintain Flaps 0 with slats retracted until final, extend slats only and maintain the minimum speed + 30 knots until 1,000' AGL, at which time the speed can be reduced 15 knots. 204 knots is the speed provided for 210,000 kg, slowing to 189 knots by 50' (0/EXT Vmin + 15). In the event it's a two-engine approach and one of those engines is lost while on final, the procedure is to retract flaps to 28 and fly the Flap 28 speed (slats extended) to a landing. That speed will be dependent on weight, and because configured beyond flaps zero, slats extended, and because below the Vmin + 30 speed for that configuration, a go-around is not possible. (Not that one ought attempt it anyway).

yes 747whale agree and at that speed it would float if you tried to flare. no flare.

Yeah...the QRH makes a note in the case of the two-engine touchdown:

NOTES: Do not attempt to achieve a smooth touchdown. At threshold, reduce throttles to idle and use a slight flare. Excessive flare will result in float, excessive use of runway and possibly tail strike.

Auto Ground Spoilers will not deploy until nose gear touchdown.

747Whale wrote:

--Hydraulic 1 or 3 failed and Service Bulletin MD11-27-062 or production equivalent incorporated (outboard slats will not retract). "SLAT DISAG" alert will be displayed when flap/slat handle is in the 0/RET position.

I'm kind of curious as to how you would know if the service bulletin had been incorporated. I guess you could check the maintenance log, but do you really have time to do that.