"Too low. Gear."

TFaudree_ERAU said:
Because they don't bounce.
Click to expand...

I've heard the DC-10 is a far more stable platform than the MD-11. They kept the Horizontal stab the same size as the DC-10 when building the MD-11. They built in an LSAS (Lateral Stabillity Augmentation System) to make the MD-11 easier to control in pitch.

GX said:
I've seen one gear up landing, and it was, by far, the most epic gear up ever. Well, maybe the Barney in The 'Stan is on par with this....
450x269i2.jpg
Click to expand...

I've heard about this one. Poor bird...
 
JustinS said:
I've heard about this one. Poor bird...
Click to expand...

Ole -132 is back flying. With some parts taken from a bird that had a post-landing fire at Anderson AFB, as well as parts shipped over from the boneyard at Tucson, it was put back in the air.
 
MikeD said:
Ole -132 is back flying. With some parts taken from a bird that had a post-landing fire at Anderson AFB, as well as parts shipped over from the boneyard at Tucson, it was put back in the air.
Click to expand...

Almost a year after the incident... 9 mos, or something IIRC. I'm still looking for the pics from the 1st flight.
 
GX said:
I'm sure I'm going to get this all screwed up, but here is my best interpretation of the DC-10/MD-11 FedEX planes.

They were DC-10's that got converted to the MD-11 cockpit, and became MD-10's, essentially. The DC-10-30 had the center bogie, as did the -40. The -40 was the predecessor to the MD-11, and fell notoriously short of all of the pre-production numbers. The MD11 fell even shorter of its pre-production numbers, falling short in both range and MTOW, and as a result, the airplane didn't do as well as it could have done in the market.

EASILY my favorite airplane to fly on, though. MD had ergonomics down in the 80's and 90's. And the Air Force.... Sleeping in a boom pod is the way to fly 15 hours.

I've seen one gear up landing, and it was, by far, the most epic gear up ever. Well, maybe the Barney in The 'Stan is on par with this....
450x269i2.jpg
Click to expand...
So, do military pilots get canned for this sort of thing? Curious, an interested taxpayer.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
So, do military pilots get canned for this sort of thing? Curious, an interested taxpayer.
Click to expand...

The AF has something called a Flight Evaluation Board, where a panel of pilots will review the relevant facts and determine what will happen to the pilot(s) with respect to their flying careers.

The FEB can recommend pilots go back to flying, have certain restrictions on types/airframes, or never fly again. Ultimately it is just a recommendation to their 4-star MAJCOM Commander, who can rubber-stamp the board's recommendations or not, whatever he or she wants.
 
Hacker15e said:
The AF has something called a Flight Evaluation Board, where a panel of pilots will review the relevant facts and determine what will happen to the pilot(s) with respect to their flying careers.

The FEB can recommend pilots go back to flying, have certain restrictions on types/airframes, or never fly again. Ultimately it is just a recommendation to their 4-star MAJCOM Commander, who can rubber-stamp the board's recommendations or not, whatever he or she wants.
Click to expand...
"B-1B LIMITED TO SIC PRIVILEGES ONLY"
 
Autothrust Blue said:
So, do military pilots get canned for this sort of thing? Curious, an interested taxpayer.
Click to expand...

In the case of the B1 incident, it was the AC's second incident of significance. There were large quantities of rumors, speculating, scuttlebutting, and fact telling going around The Brit Club in the days, and weeks following the incident. Fraternization tends to be put on hold when there is only one bar at which to commiserate at, and often, I would find myself standing in a circle of O4's and above under the influence. Great source of accurate intel.
The crew of 132 were promptly voted off of the island, never to be heard from in an Air Force cockpit again.

On the other side, sometimes things happen out of the control of the crew, and airplanes break. They tend to get 2nd chances.
 
GX said:
In the case of the B1 incident, it was the AC's second incident of significance. There were large quantities of rumors, speculating, scuttlebutting, and fact telling going around The Brit Club in the days, and weeks following the incident. Fraternization tends to be put on hold when there is only one bar at which to commiserate at, and often, I would find myself standing in a circle of O4's and above under the influence. Great source of accurate intel.
The crew of 132 were promptly voted off of the island, never to be heard from in an Air Force cockpit again.

On the other side, sometimes things happen out of the control of the crew, and airplanes break. They tend to get 2nd chances.
Click to expand...
"[you know] happens" and procedural intentional noncompliance are, as you know, different. :)
 
JustinS said:
I've heard about this one. Poor bird...
Click to expand...

I hear ya here, but consider this: The engineers who designed the B1 said that it would be "impossible" to land a B1 gear up, and that doing so would result in a cartwheeling aircraft. Either they missed some critical data, or the crew achieved the "impossible".

That it was put back into service is remarkable.

I don't know this as fact, but procedures for facing a gear up landing included "Ejection" as the best option.
 
GX said:
The crew of 132 were promptly voted off of the island, never to be heard from in an Air Force cockpit again.
Click to expand...

FWIW, FEBs are a very long process and there is nothing "prompt" about it, aside from the initial grounding of the crew after the incident.

It is unlikely that you would have heard if the members of that crew were "never to be heard from" while you were still on Diego for a particular deployment. It would have probably taken 6 months to a year just for the FEB to take place and for the recommendation to make its way through the chain of command to be ruled on.

They may have been sent back to the CONUS, and were grounded awaiting the FEB process, in the "days and weeks following the incident", but there had barely even begun to be any determination about their future employment as AF aviators in that time frame.
 
JustinS said:
I've heard the DC-10 is a far more stable platform than the MD-11. They kept the Horizontal stab the same size as the DC-10 when building the MD-11. They built in an LSAS (Lateral Stabillity Augmentation System) to make the MD-11 easier to control in pitch.
...
Click to expand...

Not everything you hear is true.
 
Hacker15e said:
FWIW, FEBs are a very long process and there is nothing "prompt" about it, aside from the initial grounding of the crew after the incident.

It is unlikely that you would have heard if the members of that crew were "never to be heard from" while you were still on Diego for a particular deployment. It would have probably taken 6 months to a year just for the FEB to take place and for the recommendation to make its way through the chain of command to be ruled on.

They may have been sent back to the CONUS, and were grounded awaiting the FEB process, in the "days and weeks following the incident", but there had barely even begun to be any determination about their future employment as AF aviators in that time frame.
Click to expand...

I was talking about them being voted off of the island, never to be heard from again during the deployment. They were sent back to Dyess, and were grounded. It was meant more of a joke, slightly tongue in cheek. Too soon to make jokes?

When the crew came out from Dyess to test 132, the FEB had been completed, and the AC was grounded, and the SIC had a Letter of Reprimand (is that what it's called in the AF?) I was curious about what happened to the crew obviously, because they were (this) close to being my 6th fatalities in 3 years of my time in the Navy. And I knew I'd be talking about that incident years later. It's been 5 years, so my recollection of all of the details is a bit fuzzy.
 
seagull said:
I doubt any maintenance manuals say anything about handling qualities, it would be far outside the scope.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was just referring to the LSAS part of it which was designed for that purpose of proper pitch control. The reasons why, were because of the inadequate horizontal stab surface. I have also talked with a FedEx DC-10/MD-11 captain about the handling of the two planes (no not on the internet but actual face to face conversation...). I figured he knows what he's talking about. :)
 
JustinS said:
Ah, I was just referring to the LSAS part of it which was designed for that purpose of proper pitch control. The reasons why, were because of the inadequate horizontal stab surface. I have also talked with a FedEx DC-10/MD-11 captain about the handling of the two planes (no not on the internet but actual face to face conversation...). I figured he knows what he's talking about. :)
Click to expand...

Don't count on it, most people flying airplanes have little knowledge of handling qualities beyond a superficial level, and often their own personal techniques are masking any actual affects. Most MD-11 and MD-10 pilots have no idea why the MD-10 appears heavier on landing, and most also likely think that the elevator is less effective in the MD-11 due to the surface being smaller (actually, the MD-11 elevator is MORE effective). The LSAS was NOT added due to "inadequate horizontal stab surface", contrary to anything you might have read. It was added to allow for operating with more aft CG's to reduce fuel consumption.
 
The DC10/MD11 is such a good looking airplane. This video is pretty dang interesting, certainly a goof. I don't think they broke anything regulatory, but for you airline guys, do you think the pilots on this flight will catch a little heat from this from the company? Surely they will find out about it with it already starting to circulate. Clearly this was some kind of goof and not SOP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top