UPS MD-11 crash

Engine 1 and its debris was photographed sitting in proximity of the runway. Shortly afterwards the aircraft went out of control and crashed with a significant rightwards roll. Eerily reminiscent of American Airlines 191.
1762322679341.png
1762322714855.png
 
 
Last edited:
Airborne2001 said:
From aaronrheins on Instagram:
View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQspPcBDbQz/?igsh=MXcweWNhM3c2cjBsZg==

This is probably the closest and clearest footage we have of when the aircraft as briefly in the air. You can see how the left engine was already missing from the aircraft at this time.
Click to expand...

Also very telling is that the aircraft is in level flight, which verifies that earlier posts about 'significant roll' and 'out of control' are wrong. Roll and attitude during crash are consistent with functional flight controls and simply stalling out due to lack of airspeed. This and appearance of brief flames from exhaust of #2 engine (visible in videos at about the point of normal takeoff) suggests that #2 either failed or was producing little thrust, likely as a result of ingesting debris from #1.

publiusr said:
The central engine didn't have enough thrust to save it? Controls freeze up?
Click to expand...

Very likely #2 engine ingested debris from #1 failure and failed at about the moment of takeoff. The maintenance of level flight and attitude during the crash is consistent with controlled flight.

Similar to Air India 171 earlier this year, it's as simple as a loss of thrust during the critical phase of takeoff having predictable results. Again like AI171, the more complex question is why there was a loss of thrust. Proximal cause here is pretty clearly #1 engine parting ways with the aircraft, though undoubtedly there's a complex story behind why it did so.
 
Last edited:
sdmuleman said:
Also very telling is that the aircraft is in level flight, which verifies that earlier posts about 'significant roll' and 'out of control' are wrong.
Click to expand...
The posts about 'significant roll' may relate to the right wing becoming briefly visible passing through vertical as the fireball erupts in some of the footage, but that's post-impact, not in-flight.
 
sdmuleman said:
Proximal cause here is pretty clearly #1 engine parting ways with the aircraft, though undoubtedly there's a complex story behind why it did so.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping it was due to a large-bird strike.

Because the other option is "somehow people forgot what happens when you crack the engine mounts" when we learned that lesson 34 44 years ago.
 
Last edited:
sdmuleman said:
Also very telling is that the aircraft is in level flight, which verifies that earlier posts about 'significant roll' and 'out of control' are wrong.
Click to expand...
You're right, I posted the "significant roll" comment before we had the new footage.


------


In other news, death toll has risen to 13 and there are 9 people missing as of right now.
 
publiusr said:
A FED-EX jet was at least that low as it passed over a hill with Tarrant-Huffman Road atop it. One engine ingested the crowns of loblolly pines:
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2014/08/one_year_after_ups_flight_1354.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPS_Airlines_Flight_1354
The central engine didn't have enough thrust to save it? Controls freeze up?

--in unrelated news
https://simpleflying.com/us-judge-d...st-boeing-related-to-2-fatal-737-max-crashes/
not surprised.
Click to expand...
I remember the Birmingham crash. I think it was ruled as controlled flight into terrain
 
CFITs can happen when mountains "rise" more steeply than a pilot can pull up--assuming he pulls up at all.

There was a bit more going on at B'ham.

Work was being done, and I think some lights were out. Also at the airport, a display fell and crushed a kid to death (he shouldn't have been climbing it...still.)

I knew one of the individuals on the Airport authority....a real skinflint, that's all I'll say here.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ts-md-11-planes-after-deadly-louisville-crash
The story (looks like everyone has pretty much the same one from Reuters) gets it the wrong way round and really should lead on Boeing advising the groundings 'in an abundance of caution'.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131601

" With safety as our top priority, we recommended to the three operators of the MD-11 Freighter that they suspend flight operations while additional engineering analysis is performed. This recommendation was made in an abundance of caution and we will continue coordinating with the FAA on this matter."

(That's the entire update).
 
DWG said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ts-md-11-planes-after-deadly-louisville-crash
The story (looks like everyone has pretty much the same one from Reuters) gets it the wrong way round and really should lead on Boeing advising the groundings 'in an abundance of caution'.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=131601

" With safety as our top priority, we recommended to the three operators of the MD-11 Freighter that they suspend flight operations while additional engineering analysis is performed. This recommendation was made in an abundance of caution and we will continue coordinating with the FAA on this matter."

(That's the entire update).
Click to expand...
Can't do that, Boeing is Evil(tm)!
 
The FAA just issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive barring flight of MD11s without an inspection and resolution of any issues found.

"FAA’s Determination

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD prohibits further flight until the airplane is inspected and all applicable corrective actions are performed using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA"


https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExt...88588539020251108211920.0001?modalOpened=true
 
DWG said:
The FAA just issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive barring flight of MD11s without an inspection and resolution of any issues found.

"FAA’s Determination

The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD prohibits further flight until the airplane is inspected and all applicable corrective actions are performed using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA"


https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExt...88588539020251108211920.0001?modalOpened=true
Click to expand...
Was just about to post that.

It's a little more formal than a precautionary grounding, mostly in terms of not giving anyone the option to keep flying on the strength of their own internal engineering thinking they know better than Boeing.

Note that there are NO Required Corrective actions listed at this time. Just a general "inspect the things and fix everything."
 
if that information is right
Had the Aircraft maintenance and repairs prior the crash.

The 1979 crash had that aircraft prior it crash also maintenance.
Here they use a Forklift for remove and attach the left engine
this damage the engine suspension on Wing...
 
Michel Van said:
if that information is right
Had the Aircraft maintenance and repairs prior the crash.

The 1979 crash had that aircraft prior it crash also maintenance.
Here they use a Forklift for remove and attach the left engine
this damage the engine suspension on Wing...
Click to expand...
Using a forklift instead of a dedicated engine cradle/trailer has been banned since 1979.
 
Foo Fighter said:
Agreed, fuel shutoff should have stopped fire in it's tracks. No fuel escape, no fire.

Maintenance shortcuts?
Click to expand...
Depends on where the lines were damaged. IIRC fuel shutoffs would be on the engine proper, not on the pylon or in the wing.

Even with the FSOVs clear up in the wing, if the engine departed the same way that the DC10 did (up and over the wing), it's possible the force could have ripped the FSOV off the pipes. And that still gives you a fire from spraying jet fuel into 150knot airstream.

You'd need to engineer in a weak point for the fuel line to the engine to break instead of taking the FSOV with the engine if the pylon failed.
 
Not the first issue with (Potentially) insufficient runoff and or the threshold creating a need to get the aircraft in the air for a go around/diversion for landing the aircraft.

Homes/industrial units are far too close and these bigger aircraft NEED more space either end of the runway imho.

With more space they 'might' have come out of that, just as they might in the Concord incident and many others.

Is joined up thinking just THAT out of favour?
 
Foo Fighter said:
Not the first issue with (Potentially) insufficient runoff and or the threshold creating a need to get the aircraft in the air for a go around/diversion for landing the aircraft.

Homes/industrial units are far too close and these bigger aircraft NEED more space either end of the runway imho.

With more space they 'might' have come out of that, just as they might in the Concord incident and many others.

Is joined up thinking just THAT out of favour?
Click to expand...
Any time the airports request to buy that land, everyone complains about the "expansion"

Plus, dumbasses always buy the land under the flight paths because it's cheapest. And then complain greatly when their house is getting buzzed by aircraft.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Any time the airports request to buy that land, everyone complains about the "expansion"

Plus, dumbasses always buy the land under the flight paths because it's cheapest. And then complain greatly when their house is getting buzzed by aircraft.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, wisdom is applied.
And ...
It is always a question how long that wisdom will last ...
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/virginia-beach-buys-land-near-nas-oceana/291-375079516
Author: WVEC Staff and WVEC.com (WVEC)
Published: 10:05 AM EST November 29, 2011
Updated: 10:05 AM EST November 29, 2011
VIRGINIA BEACH (AP) -- The city of Virginia Beach has bought nearly 800 acres of farmland and woods to protect Naval Air Station Oceana from encroaching development.
The city said Tuesday that it bought 792 acres between Indian River Road and the North Landing River for $5 million from Rock Ministries. It is the largest single land purchase in the city's six-year program to protect Oceana by buying property and development rights around the master jet base's flight path.
Click to expand...

(while Dad was a Naval aviator only briefly at the beginning of his 28 year career, we lived in VA Beach when he retired from the USN)
 
southwestforests said:
Sometimes, wisdom is applied.
And ...
It is always a question how long that wisdom will last ...
https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/virginia-beach-buys-land-near-nas-oceana/291-375079516


(while Dad was a Naval aviator only briefly at the beginning of his 28 year career, we lived in VA Beach when he retired from the USN)
Click to expand...
It is much easier for the Navy to get land from another government than from individual private owners.

But as long as VABeach is holding that land with the thought "to protect the base paying for much of our town" it'll work.
 
That one.
Where port engine semi-detaches, folds upwards, does a sorta back-somersault over wing and debris FODs the centre-line engine....

That's a 'Murphy Bomb'.
{ Weep... }
 
Preliminary report here.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA26MA024.aspx (scroll, just above videos).

Fatigue failure of aft pylon mounts. Note that this differs from AA191 - overall morphology of engine separation and twist back over wing is the same, but in AA191 the aft bulkhead flange failed, whereas here the bulkhead is intact and lugs failed. (in AA191 the lugs also failed, so pictures of the AA191 wreckage have the same broken half round lugs, but this occurred after the initial failure of the pylon bulkhead).

1763680979775.png

1763681112902.png
1763681153237.png
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom