America's FAA Grounds MD-11s After Tuesday's Crash in Kentucky (aviationweek.com) 89
UPDATE (11/9): America's Federal Aviation Administration has now grounded all U.S. MD-11 and MD-11F aircrafts after Tuesday's crash "because the agency has determined the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design," according to an emergency airworthiness directive obtained by CBS News.
American multinational freight company UPS had already "grounded its fleet of MD-11 aircraft," reported the Guardian, "days after a cargo plane crash that killed at least 13 people in Kentucky. The grounded MD-11s are the same type of plane involved in Tuesday's crash in Louisville. They were originally built by McDonnell Douglas until it was taken over by Boeing."
More details from NBC News: UPS said the move to temporarily ground its MD-11 fleet was made "out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of safety." MD-11s make up 9% of the company's air fleet, it said. "We made this decision proactively at the recommendation of the aircraft manufacturer. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our employees and the communities we serve," UPS spokesman Jim Mayer said... FedEx said early Saturday that it was also grounding its MD-11s. The UPS rival has 28 such planes in operation, out of a fleet of around 700, FedEx said.
Video shows that the left engine of the plane caught fire during takeoff and immediately detached, National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman said Wednesday. The National Transportation Safety Board is the lead agency in the investigation.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader echo123 for suggesting the article.
American multinational freight company UPS had already "grounded its fleet of MD-11 aircraft," reported the Guardian, "days after a cargo plane crash that killed at least 13 people in Kentucky. The grounded MD-11s are the same type of plane involved in Tuesday's crash in Louisville. They were originally built by McDonnell Douglas until it was taken over by Boeing."
More details from NBC News: UPS said the move to temporarily ground its MD-11 fleet was made "out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of safety." MD-11s make up 9% of the company's air fleet, it said. "We made this decision proactively at the recommendation of the aircraft manufacturer. Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our employees and the communities we serve," UPS spokesman Jim Mayer said... FedEx said early Saturday that it was also grounding its MD-11s. The UPS rival has 28 such planes in operation, out of a fleet of around 700, FedEx said.
Video shows that the left engine of the plane caught fire during takeoff and immediately detached, National Transportation Safety Board member Todd Inman said Wednesday. The National Transportation Safety Board is the lead agency in the investigation.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader echo123 for suggesting the article.
Re: that's what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is what happened?
Re: that's what happens (Score:5, Informative)
They're making a reference to AA191 [wikipedia.org] where damage to the pylon caused by removing the engine with a forklift caused it to detach on takeoff. I haven't heard any suggestion that this was the same thing. It's been 45 years.
How is the FAA still open for business? (Score:2, Offtopic)
(Why did you [beelsebob] propagate the vacuum?)
My reaction to any "federal" mention these days is to wonder if they are getting paid for their work. If not, and they are just doing it for love, why should we ever bother to pay them? But I think it will be funny if the shutdown lasts until the next election...
Just joking, but...
Re: (Score:2)
If not, and they are just doing it for love, why should we ever bother to pay them?
Maybe because paying someone for their work is expected and required in a society that demands "work or no food"?
God, I hate these types. People who think they are entitled to someone else's labor without providing any compensation for said labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I was about as explicit as I could be about going for funny. How about this attempted joke:
You couldn't pay me to fly when the ATCs aren't being paid to keep my plane in the air. (But I haven't flown since around 2005...)
Re: How is the FAA still open for business? (Score:2)
Then why the fuck did you bring it up yourself? Are you paid to write propaganda or just do it for fun?
Re: (Score:2)
NAK
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So Boeing recommends using a crane, maintenance company ignores that advice, and your conclusion is that the airplane is junk?
Show me your workings.
Re:that's what happens (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No it is off topic. Not sure why what happened in 1979 to a different aircraft applies to this incident.
The preliminary reports coming out now don't support your assertions at all, particularly the bit about retracting the the slats stalling the wing. The plane did not climb because ultimately 2 of the 3 engines failed.
Re: (Score:1)
That comment is not offtopic. That is precisely what caused the engine pylon to break off of the American Airlines flight 191 out of Chicago in 1979
I had to look this up to double check but it would seem that we are currently discussing UPS flight 2976 out of Kentucky in 2025, so yes it very much is off topic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We do know that changes were made to increase the strength/durability of the pylon and that using a forklift is considered an acceptable way to remove the engine(according to the manufacturer) since the crash in 1979.
Could the forklift operator been clumsy and damaged the pylon during maintenance/inspection? Sure. But it could just as well been any number of other things. Maybe a mechanic had a bad day and didn't torque bolts to spec. The wing engine could have injested something that broke off turbine b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never said it was a fantastic design or that McDonnell Douglas was an awesome company. All I stated was that the forklift issue that caused the crash in 1979 was supposedly fixed. The FAA/NTSB was satisfied with it. If the FAA/NTSB approval is not enough, then there's a bigger issue in the commercial flight industry.
The AA191 causes were supposedly resolved to the FAA's satisfaction. The issue with that DC10 was that using a forklift cut the maintenance time from over 60 hours to under 30. On flight 191 t
It's in the effort. (Score:1)
Compressor stall on the right engine. This plane can fly on two engines.
Re:It's in the effort. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but "caught fire and DETACHED" points at something considerably worse than a compressor issue.
Re:It's in the effort. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:4, Insightful)
He should have put the plane down and aimed to rip the wings off between buildings to absorb energy.
They were heading to Hawaii with lots of fuel, ripping the wings and gear off wouldn't have helped anyone.
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hahaha, what?
You say the pilot in control should have intentionally sheered off the wings (FULL OF JET FUEL) off during a dual-engine failure? You obviously have no idea about planes.
There is nothing that could have been done. They were past V1. There was no arrester pit at the end of the runway (which wouldn't have done much). We're talking about a vehicle loaded with 10,000s of lbs of fuel. Sheering the wings off would have spread chaos and destruction.
There is nothing that could have been done.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely agree. But my first reaction to this accident was (and is): why are they allowing so much stuff- buildings, etc., right past the end of a major runway?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:2)
Whelp. They're demolished now.
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer makes sense, but then my question becomes: why allow the runway expansion? We've seen several airplane accidents fairly recently that might have been less disastrous if there were flat fields past the end of the runways. One way or another it should be an absolute no. (Suddenly I feel like Ralph Nader or someone in the 50s or 60s campaigning for seat belts in cars...)
There's a small airport near me- supposedly small jets can fly in and out. Used to be empty open space at the ends of the runway,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely agree. But my first reaction to this accident was (and is): why are they allowing so much stuff- buildings, etc., right past the end of a major runway?
The buildings were there first. SDF used to have a smaller footprint and a _much_ smaller terminal. UPS came to town in the 80s, SDF's terminal expansion was completed in 1987, and things just continued to grow. Through the 90s UPS, and the airport in general, continue to expand South and West... gobbling up places like the International Harvester plant and neighborhoods like Highland Park.
Worldport is is UPS' main next day air hub, and that place is _busy_. I used to live almost directly under the flight p
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it worked, you're thinking the pilot could, in 5 seconds at best, decide between attempting to climb out, finding a less lethal course to suffer the crash with minimized ground casualties, or immediately dive into the nearest obstacle to contain the damage in some way.
Nope. The flight crew may have even trusted the #3 engine failure was not real, but instrumentation failure. The roll would prove them wrong, but too late to change anything. They were already in uncontrolled flight. No recovery.
This i
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the second guessing of the pilot seems to assume the pilot could press pause and work out the alternatives on a chalkboard for an hour or two and then resume real-time with a solution in hand.
The fact is, it all happened in a handful of seconds. I doubt the pilot even had time to fully assess the problem before hitting the ground.
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:2)
I would be surprised that the pilot could l had time to do more then try to correct the roll. Already with the stick back climbing, it's looking like they were 7-12 seconds airborne to crash. Probably never really knew what happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me you're a fucking idiot, without telling me you're a fucking idiot.
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:3)
Even without the direct path (which there is) theres easily enough energy to go straight theough the fuselage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s happened before. There absolutely are such scenarios.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no concievable scenario where turnbine blades from the left engine would destroy the right enginer while under power. Your comment about V1 is accurate but the cause remains under invetigation.
"Turbine engine failures have resulted in high velocity fragment penetration of adjacent structures, fuel tanks, fuselage, system components and other engines on the airplane."
https://www.faa.gov/regulation... [faa.gov]
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:2)
More likely the shrapnel went backwards into the tail engine.
Re: (Score:1)
This pdf from another post talks about "fragment spread angle" (look for 'Figure 1' on page 15):
https://www.faa.gov/regulation... [faa.gov]
The tail engine is well outside that angle.
Were you perhaps thinking that debris (shrapnel that no long has any significant kinetic energy) was ingested by the tail engine?
Maybe, but it would have been a complicated path for it to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know what direct line of sight is, yes?
Go look at some airplane designs from profile view and note the engines hang well below the fuselage, thus meaning one can blow and throw shrapnel straight at the opposite engine.
In fact, the FAA has reports of exactly this happening.
Re:It's in the effort. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. This is the general rule, and V1 is general "decision speed". That said, this is not meant to be an automatic and unthinking rule. There are explicit conditions in which pilots are taught to abort no matter the speed: fire, loss of directional control and total loss of power.
The balance at this point is that there is no longer sufficient time to stop, and so the pilot needs to judge whether is the plane better off overrunning the runway versus taking off on a climb and coming around. That's a intricate question, although the installation of EMAS [wikipedia.org] in a lot of airports actually makes a runway overrun significantly less dangerous that it used to be. But for sure a plane that's (for example) totally lost control authority (e.g. due to a complete hydraulic failure or a complete computer failure) is better off just plowing past the end of the runway than trying to takeoff and land without any functioning controls.
Finally, I'd add that this is in no way a criticism of the pilots (RIP) -- they probably had a handful of seconds by which to make the decision. In retrospect, knowing what we know now, we can absolutely say that even past V1 they should have just slammed it down and prayed, but there is likely no way they could have known that at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but "caught fire and DETACHED" points at something considerably worse than a compressor issue.
It points to turbine failure, including compressor failure. The engine is mounted to the wing structure using shear bolts so that if the turbine seizes, the torque breaks the engine free without destroying the wing structure, which appears to be exactly what happened.
shrapnel (Score:5, Informative)
Re: It's in the effort. (Score:2)
Yes, but these planes can fly, and even climb with an engine entirely missing, even with a fire stalling part of the wing. The commenter is discussing what might have ultimately caused it to fail to climb at all. A compressor stall in a second engine because of FOD ingestion would do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What will make up that lost capacity (Score:1)
Why of course we'll have to increase prices now. Aww shucks folks, really wish there was another way but you know, unforeseen market circumstances, we have no control!
Re: (Score:2)
I have a UPS package shipped Overnight/Saturday Delivery on Friday and it now appears to be on a truck near Chicago. It was originally scheduled to transit from South Dakota to New England.
New delivery date is Tuesday. I hope the sender gets his money back!
(I didn't need it that quickly but the sender was making good on a delivery date guarantee, at a loss of his profits).
What happens to other MD11 pilots? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MD-11 pilots shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks to train and recertify on a different aircraft in the same class (multi-engine large jet transport), it's not uncommon for pilots to be trained in most if not all of the various types of aircraft a carrier uses. An MD-11 is **OLD**, most newer aircraft have a lot more automation and much better ergonomic design (the 737 MAX being a glaring exception to that generalization) so it should be comparatively easier to recertify on a newer plane than on one
Re: What happens to other MD11 pilots? (Score:3)
On the contrary, MD11 pilots have the most to learn about the automated systems. Just because its automated, doesnt mean you dint need to know how it works, when it works, what it looks like when itâ(TM)s not working, what you still get when it doesnt work, what you dont get when it doesnt work,â¦
Some of the worst Airbus crashes for example have been caused when the automation has suddenly degraded from normal law to either alternate of direct law, and the pilot has not understood that they
Re: (Score:2)
Really? That's the opposite of what I thought it would be. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't pilots usually train and certify on just one type of aircraft?
Absolutely not. In fact before you even get to flying larger aircraft you're certified to fly smaller ones without even considering that multiple different certifications are done in parallel since pilots do not always fly just one aircraft. It's not many, but it's usually more than one.
Knee-Jerk reaction. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Now talk about sidewalks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars occasionally run onto the sidewalk and hurt someone. More often than planes cause injury around airports I expect. Putting sidewalks right beside roads seems like a terrible idea. Why not have at least a buffer zone? Say, a football field (choose your type) of buffer?
Same for airports. Airports do have buffers around them, especially at the ends of runways. Very, very occasionally it isn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
why don't we require huge buffer zones around an airport?
It's cheap land. But often not owned by the port authority that builds the airport. If the PA had to acquire buffer zones, nothing would ever get built. So the land remains in private hands. And the uses it is put to are often low rent. Like warehouses, scrap metal yards, dive bars, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I realize it probably took decades for all those warehouses and neighborhoods to develop around the airport and it would now be hard to relocate - air travel is very safe right up until it isn't.
You do know that Louisville is THE major distribution hub for UPS in the US, right? Even if the UPS warehouses were not already built decades ago, it seems to be pure common sense that UPS would build warehouses to hold cargo . . . for their cargo hub.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably caught power lines on its way down. Planes don't generally dive straight down into the ground, in fact most can't.
Re: Electricity failure? (Score:4, Informative)
No assumption needed, theres video of the planes gear tearing through power lines, causing arcing all over the place.
9%, a pittance (Score:2)
Nine percent of the total fleet by quantity of airframes, I assume? How many percent of UPS's *ton-miles* do the MD-11 fleet represent? I take it the majority of brown aircraft are feederliners like ATRs or Caravans.
Re: 9%, a pittance (Score:2)
No. 96 767s, 71 757s, 45 A300s, and 40 747s. No ATRs or Caravans.
Re: (Score:2)
How many percent of UPS's *ton-miles* do the MD-11 fleet represent?
The person who can't get their parcel doesn't care how many ton-miles an aircraft does. If we follow your logic and assume the mileage on other air frames is higher, and you use a different airframe to replace what the MD-11 was doing then not only is 9% not a "pittance" it would actually be a far bigger impact in capacity loss for UPS than just 9%.
we lost an engine (Score:2)
When someone says "they lost an engine on takeoff", ths is not what they usually mean...
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the trouble ticket/mechanics responses that made such humorous reading:
Flight crew: Engine No. 1 is missing.
Maintenance: Found Engine No. 1 on the left wing where it's supposed to be.
Seriously, "lost an engine" can mean so many different things.
More accurately... (Score:2)
Boeing was taken over by McDonnell Douglas, who took on the Boeing name because they'd already tarnished their own. Now they've done the same to Boeing.
Re:More accurately... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having lived in the Puget Sound area for most of my life, I can tell you that Boeing did a competent job of tarnishing its own name in the years preceding the McDonnell-Douglas merger.
What FAA? (Score:2)