FEDEX Flt 80 MD-11 Crash

[ChasenSFO]

Oh god...this is horrible. Must have been a terrifying last few moments for the crew. My thoughts are with their loved ones.

 

[seagull]

There are now, perhaps.

They have been installed on the airplane since they arrived on the property. You might be thinking about UPS, I think they had an issue with that?

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: FEDEX MD-11 Crash

You pop the reversers before there is a nosewheel on the ground to steer you if only one reverser deploys? Personally I was taught, and agree with the philosophy, that that way of operating is not good for one's career...

On the old 737 it was a good way to get a bucket and on the MD-80 it is a good way to blank out the rudder which isn't good with the nosewheel in the air. Still.. I flew with guys who were sure aero-braking was the way to go. ???

 

[jtrain609]

Re: FEDEX MD-11 Crash

On the old 737 it was a good way to get a bucket and on the MD-80 it is a good way to blank out the rudder which isn't good with the nosewheel in the air. Still.. I flew with guys who were sure aero-braking was the way to go. ???

I flew a turn with a guy that decided that aero-braking was all the rage. He managed to put the nose wheel down softly on his landing, but I fully expected to have the nose wheel come straight through the center console once I realized what he was doing.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: FEDEX MD-11 Crash

The logic in the system would prevent you from doing anything too stupid. I'm obviously the anti current right now, but I believe you could still use one bucket/reverser if you had the other bucket MELed. Further, the airplane won't let you bring them out until you get weight on wheels (every once in a while you'd get a ding while bringing your nose wheel down because you had the thrust levers behind the gate, but the airplane was not convinced that the airplane was on the ground yet, so you'd get an EICAS message about it and the buckets would not deploy). Further, you can't spool the engines up until you have the nose wheel on the ground.

On the old 737-300/400 you could open the buckets when less than 50ft in the air. So not all aircraft depend on WOW logic to keep buckets closed.

And yes, you can dispatch with a reverser inop. Not routine but also not unusual. Did it on the 727, 737, 757, MD-80 and A320 family.

Remember also the -320 in South America had a reverser inop and it was one of the many factors that contributed to the accident.

 

[Orange Anchor]

Re: FEDEX MD-11 Crash

I flew a turn with a guy that decided that aero-braking was all the rage. He managed to put the nose wheel down softly on his landing, but I fully expected to have the nose wheel come straight through the center console once I realized what he was doing.

What you were seeing was a guy who can not adapt to the requirements.. or a rogue.

We did aero braking in the -38 and that was the last hot machine I flew but most fighters use/used it. But too, except for the Saab Viggen and one other (Rafale?), no other fighter had a reverser on it. So you use aero, a chute and then brakes.

On the other machines I flew, we used autobrakes to cut down on brake wear. According to who you talk to and the study you read, it increases/decreases brake wear so I just figured if the company said use it and there were no discernable decreases in safety, use it.

FWIW, the 727 would STOP! So would the 737-300/400. Less so with the MD-80 and the A320 often found you turning on the brake fans at the gate after landing.

 

[MikeD]

Re: FEDEX MD-11 Crash

What you were seeing was a guy who can not adapt to the requirements.. or a rogue.

We did aero braking in the -38 and that was the last hot machine I flew but most fighters use/used it. But too, except for the Saab Viggen and one other (Rafale?), no other fighter had a reverser on it. So you use aero, a chute and then brakes.

.

This, plus the brakes on a -38 weren't all that great, and tire blowouts were easy to do. So doing what could be done to minimize brake usage was what we did (aero, then brakes). Oddly enough, on the -38, we never use......nor train to use....the speed brakes on landing.

Taking care of the brakes had an odd opposite effect too. In the 117, you couldn't really aerobrake well because the whole aircraft underneath was a wing. With no drag chute, you can do it, but have to be very careful not to get airborne again...due to the "lifting body" wing underneath you. With a drag chute, you hardly had to use the brakes at all, and when you did apply the brakes for any more than brief periods of time, the accumulated gunk on the brakes/pads would immediately burn off and begin smoking heavily. So at fields other than home field, if brakes were used this way, tower immediately declared you hot-brakes, sent you to the hot brake holding area, and sent the CFR trucks out, even though it usually wasn't.

 

[MikeD]

Here's the real story. I got it from the FedEx safety guy. And the assumption that the guys were just "saving their Xmas presents" is false.

The problem was there is only one evac slide installed. Its on the L1 door. As you can see from the video, the airplane is laying on its right side, elevating the L1 door. What you don't see is the wind blowing from the left. When the slide was originally deployed, it went under the aircraft. When it inflated, it either detached or was destroyed.

The part I was remembering on that accident is here....from the NTSB AAR 05-01. I don't know the accuracy of it, just what was written:

During postaccident interviews, some of the nonrevenue FedEx pilots who had
been seated on the courier seats in the cabin indicated that they threw bags out the L1 door and the left cockpit window while they were waiting to exit the airplane through the left cockpit window. The airplane occupants indicated that many of the bags contained
international passports (which the pilots needed for international FedEx flight segments),
as well as clothing, uniforms, and holiday presents.42 During postaccident documentation
of the airplane, investigators found no occupants bags remaining.

The part about the ARFF crews surprise as to the number of pax aboard is here:

Arriving ARFF units were surprised to see 7 personnel egress the aircraft. A
briefing with the cargo operator after the accident revealed that on its MD-10
aircraft, there could be as many as 27 personnel on board, at any time.
Additionally, in some configurations, personnel are located in the rear of the
fuselage section. This is usually used during livestock transportation with the
handlers in the rear, but may occur for other reasons.

If, after the accident, the crew was unable to advise ARFF of the total personnel
on board, some passengers could be trapped based on an assumption of expected
and limited crew.

The FAA suggests that airport operators and/or ARFF crews contact their cargo
operators and explore avenues to determine the number of personnel that could
possibly be expected on a particular aircraft. If possible, pre-plan with cargo
operations for a way to obtain personnel manifests for incoming flights. At the
minimum, expect that there could be a far greater number of personnel aboard
than expected.

Good info for both operators as well as ARFF crew personnel to consider. I know I never made this assumption when I worked ARFF back in the day....we assumed that civil cargo planes were the flightcrew, and maybe a jumpseater or two....or a few in the immediate forward cabin, only. This is a good fact to know, even with the fire contract work I do today.

Another interesting fact in this accident, is that this accident is the first real-world use of a Snozzle, as designed, in fighting of an aircraft fire. The Snozzle is a foam agent nozzle thats shaped like a nail and designed to pierce the fuselage of an aircraft in order to apply foam agent in a spray/mist to the interior of the aircraft; far easier than firefighters attempting to advance a hoseline up a ladder or through an emergency exit. It's located on the end of an articulating boom atop ARFF trucks that are so-equipped with said boom. Pictured here is a USAFR P-19-1500 with Snozzle boom.

 

[TallFlyer]

A briefing with the cargo operator after the accident revealed that on its MD-10
aircraft, there could be as many as 27 personnel on board, at any time.

27 people? What do you have to add to the aircraft to configure a MD-10/11 cargo bird to carry 27 people? I mean, I've seen guys sleeping behind the curtain but not 25 more people aside from the crew.....

 

[ERfly]

The last MD-10 I was on, which was 2 hours ago, could only hold 7. Three in the cockpit and 4 in the Courier section.

 

[A300Capt]

27 people? What do you have to add to the aircraft to configure a MD-10/11 cargo dirb to carry 27 people? I mean, I've seen guys sleeping behind the curtain but not 25 more people aside from the crew.....

He probably meant 2 to 7 people not 27.

 

[BajtheJino]

A memorial service was held last night in the one of the corporate hangars at MEM between 12-300am local. I only saw one of the coffins, not sure if the other pilot was there or not. Service was complete with USMC honor guard. After the service one of the coffins was escorted over to a -10 and loaded for transport. Very somber moment.

 

[USAFplt]

In the -10 we are procedurally taught to open the reversers upon main wheel touchdown. I fly with a few guys in my sq that fly the -11 for FedEx so Ill have to ask them what their procedure is. Ground spoilers are a mute point. We daily practice touch and goes with spoilers armed. Upon throttle advancement, the spoilers will retract. The FE's procedure is to make sure the spoiler handle has retracted . I would be willing to bet that the -11 system is the same way. Again, I've never flown the -11 so it is pure speculation on my part, but if they had wanted to it would have been no problem for them to get the plane back in the air as long as reverse thrust wasnt initiated. Sadly I think they had much greater issues at the time trying to wrestle with the plane then trying to get back in the air.

 

[USAFplt]

What exactly does flying the nosewheel down entail?

funny sounding I know. In most previous planes Ive flown it is pretty easy to control the nose and let it slowly fall to touchdown. In the -10 you have to forcefully push the nose down to initiate the nose going down and then be sure to flare it off right close to getting it on the ground.

Not sure if that is similar to other airliners that you guys fly, but from what my IPs that are airline guys have told me, its a bit trickier than most.