It's really a shame that you weren't able to counsel the designers, but there's still time to educate the crews who fly them daily. Most would jump at the chance to gain your insight, one would think.
Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
Max Q wrote:You have provided a lot of informative context and are very loyal to the aircraft, that’s not uncommon
I'm not "loyal" to the aircraft. it's a chunk of metal, rubber, steel, and carbon.
It's just that I know what I'm talking about, and I'm qualified to talk about it. That maybe what's got you confused. My information didn't come from reading about it on the internet.
Max Q wrote:Blaming them for the weakness of the design is unfortunate and unfair though
Nothing I've said involves blame. Just facts. There's a difference.
Max Q wrote:And despite your detailed and comprehensive defence that’s what it is by any standard, you claim it does ‘not have a weak structure’ so how do you explain several landing accidents where the wing spar failed and the aircraft rolled over ?
You don't read or comprehend very well.
Already explained. I linked a video. It's clear that the crew drove the aircraft into the runway after inciting a pilot induced oscillation, and crashed the airplane. That's not a weak structure. That's a crash.
Max Q wrote:I’ve seen my share of hard and harder landings, some where the aircraft had been flared so late the aircraft was basically flown into the ground and yes I’ve done a few myself
That wasn't a hard landing. It was a crash. Now you're attempting to assert experience, after saying it wasn't necessary, because after all, you can read accident reports, and are therefore an expert.
Except you don't have that experience. Make up your mind.
Max Q wrote:In other words, if you’d been in any of the Boeing 7 series and done the same thing you might bend something but you’re not going to have a fatal accident
Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda. They crashed the damn airplane. It wasn't a hard landing. It was a crash.
Aircraft frequently break up in a crash. Duh.
Max Q wrote:If you’ve read ‘handling the big jets’
one of the points the author repeats throughout the book is that a transport aircraft should be designed for an average pilot, a higher than normal level of skill must not be expected or needed due to inadequacies in the design and there’s quite a few average pilots even at the major airlines
Of course I've read it.
The author had a love affair with the B747, and what's not to love. I've been a captain on it, myself. But we're not really talking about the 747, and a lengthy treatise about it is really quite irrelevant. The MD-11 continues to be flown daily by experienced and inexperienced pilots alike.
What's really needed is your expertise. There are no more passenger MD11 operations; they're all cargo. The cargo operations are full of pilots with 10-20 years experience on type, who fly them every day, and who have been responsible for setting up multiple training programs and standing up entire MD11 programs at multiple operators. What the operators really need is someone like yourself, who has no experience in type, no rating or qualification, to show them the danger, the error, and help them understand. Perhaps you could help modify some of the training programs, show them their mistakes and errors, teach them how dangerous the aircraft really is, and save some lives. Be sure to mark on your introductory letter that you read about it on the internet. If that doesn't send them scrambling to bring you onboard to counsel them, nothing will.
Max Q wrote:And after all, you can know the aircraft inside out but even the best pilots have bad days, fly exhausted, misjudge a flare and or suffer a combination of these factors and others
Your commentary reminds me of a senior pilot at a major global carrier who approached me about flying fires (I have a fairly extensive background with fire aviation). He told me he wasn't far from retirement, and thought it looked like something fun to do when he retired. He asked me to tell him about the industry. I did. When I was done, he asked if anyone knew how dangerous it was. He said he was horrified and was going to begin a crusade to let everyone know. He planned to write letters to the FAA to warn them about those dangerous fire operations, contact the media, get the word out because good god, how could anyone ever allow something like that.
Not all things in life are so forgiving as to be made of foam rubber, surrounded by white horses and rainbows, and move at the speed of blubber to prevent injury or a scratch. As pilots, when we get in the cockpit, we're responsible for the safe outcome of the flight: we get paid for our judgement, and for delivering the airplane safely to it's next point of landing. Failure to deliver it safely is on account of many possibilities, but the consequences are usually severe.
It's unfortunate that you won't be able to convince the MD11 community to ground their fleets, but perhaps they just don't know what you know, and once they do, they'll immediately park the aircraft, shutter the simulators, and send the crews off for some well needed vacation and post traumatic stress debriefing. Possibly some extended counseling, so that they may learn just how close to death they've been living.
It's fortunate for you that you're unexposed to the danger of such a poorly designed, underbuilt aircraft, but you should probably take the precaution of not living near airports where the MD11 operates, or under any airways possibly used by the MD11, lest one fall on you. They must be raining down en masse.
Thank you for the education. I've flown 80+ different aircraft types, so far not "loyal" to a single one of them, but all I can say is thank god you've been able to educate me on the type design, so that I'll know to stay away from it in future. I can only imagine what might have happened had I not been schooled on this important matter.
Have you considered writing a white paper?