UPS MD-11 Crashes on Takeoff
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
There have been several. All involved MD-11's......
FedEx Express Flight 14 (July 31, 1997): Crashed at Newark Liberty International Airport after bouncing on the runway, resulting in the aircraft inverting and catching fire. All five people on board survived.
China Airlines Flight 642 (August 22, 1999): Crashed at Hong Kong International Airport after attempting to land during a typhoon. The aircraft touched down hard, flipped over, and caught fire, resulting in three fatalities.
FedEx Express Flight 80 (March 23, 2009): Crashed at Narita International Airport near Tokyo, Japan. The aircraft bounced repeatedly, collapsed its landing gear, rolled left, and caught fire, resulting in the deaths of both pilots.
Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460 (July 27, 2010): Crashed upon landing at King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The aircraft broke into pieces, but both crew members survived.
The MD-11's demanding landing profile, faster approach speeds, and flight control characteristics made it a notoriously unforgiving aircraft to land, drawing extensive National Transportation Safety Board scrutiny.
https://share.google/aimode/Fl62mCF72SxOenOxt
Last edited by a moderator:
There were some changes after these crashes though:
* Revised landing gear design so in case of severe downward impact it would break away rather than breaking the wing spar causing the wing to come off. This is a more survivable situation since with the wings intact the plane would tend to slide on its belly instead of spinning and rolling over. Other airliners already followed that principle.
* Pilot training now emphasizes never try to land anyway in case the plane bounces, always go around.
* Revised landing gear design so in case of severe downward impact it would break away rather than breaking the wing spar causing the wing to come off. This is a more survivable situation since with the wings intact the plane would tend to slide on its belly instead of spinning and rolling over. Other airliners already followed that principle.
* Pilot training now emphasizes never try to land anyway in case the plane bounces, always go around.
Last edited:
The MD-11 seems to require an unusually close compliance with proper approach speeds and profile, so if a stabilized approach cannot be achieved there is probably no saving the approach and the crew must miss the approach and go around. Airlines that emphasized strict compliance with this in training, like KLM, operated the type for years without incident, with KLM flying the final pax MD-11 flight in 2014.
Note too that a common factor in MD-11 landing accidents appears to be PF forcing the nose down, a guaranteed method of achieving a bounced landing with all of the potential drama that involves.
Even us lowly Cessna pilots know not to try to land nose gear first. If you have room, let it float losing speed and if not, go around. An MD-11 is carrying a lot more energy in the form of multiples of mass and speed, so any bounce is going to be a far more violent event.
Note too that a common factor in MD-11 landing accidents appears to be PF forcing the nose down, a guaranteed method of achieving a bounced landing with all of the potential drama that involves.
Even us lowly Cessna pilots know not to try to land nose gear first. If you have room, let it float losing speed and if not, go around. An MD-11 is carrying a lot more energy in the form of multiples of mass and speed, so any bounce is going to be a far more violent event.
The numbers alone tell a scary tale. The MD-11 has a total of 418 sq. ft. less horizontal stabilizer than the DC-10.... (DC-10 = 1,338 sq. ft..... MD-11 = 920 sq. ft.). Add to that the fact they lengthened the fuselage by a full 18 feet over the DC-10.
So, that makes for an airplane almost 20 feet longer, with almost 420 square feet less horizontal stabilizer to control it with. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but that had to have made that airplane a handful to control when compared to the DC-10.
Especially at landing airspeeds, at high gross weight with everything hanging. Add in crosswinds, slick runways, and I'm willing to bet there were a lot of DC-10 pilots with sweaty hands trying to land that thing. It had to have felt like a completely different aircraft.
So, that makes for an airplane almost 20 feet longer, with almost 420 square feet less horizontal stabilizer to control it with. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but that had to have made that airplane a handful to control when compared to the DC-10.
Especially at landing airspeeds, at high gross weight with everything hanging. Add in crosswinds, slick runways, and I'm willing to bet there were a lot of DC-10 pilots with sweaty hands trying to land that thing. It had to have felt like a completely different aircraft.
FedEx has quite a few Naval Aviators in its ranks - that said, the MD-11 has a reputation of being difficult - and there are many MD-11 crashes that happened on Landing.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_642
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_087
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Express_Flight_80
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Cargo_Flight_8460
From Wikipedia:
The MD-11's unique handling characteristics and flight control systems have contributed in several accidents and incidents since the aircraft's introduction.[76] The initial design of the slat/flap lever in the cockpit left it prone to being accidentally dislodged by a crew in flight. The defect has been corrected since 1992.[77] In the early 2000s, Boeing improved the flight control software at the urging of the FAA to reduce the possibility of violent unintentional pitch movements.[76]
To improve fuel efficiency, McDonnell Douglas designed the MD-11's center of gravity to be farther aft in cruise than that of other commercial aircraft by utilizing a fuel-ballast tank in the horizontal stabilizer. The tank would empty, shifting the center of gravity forward before landing. The design enabled a significantly smaller tailplane than the DC-10's to improve fuel efficiency, but this was found to inhibit the MD-11's stability during crosswind landings due to the reduced pitch damping. Furthermore, the MD-11's wings have one of the highest wing loadings of any airliner, further reducing drag and making it more comfortable during cruise.[78] However, these design features, which contribute to standard landing speeds 10–20 knots (20–35 km/h) faster than those of comparable aircraft, reduce the MD-11's margin for error during the takeoff and landing phases, making it more difficult to handle than the smaller DC-10.[10][79] On several occasions, pilots tended to overcontrol the aircraft in a phenomenon known as pilot-induced oscillation as a result of the MD-11's slower but greater response to flight control inputs when compared to the DC-10. Several operators have introduced special training to assist crews in safely handling the MD-11's critical phases of flight.[80]
As of the end of 2024, the MD-11 had the highest hull loss rate of any wide-body commercial jet airliner manufactured outside of the former Soviet Union or People's Republic of China, with a rate of 3.12 per million departures.[81]
Wow!
What´s the hull loss rate on something like a 777?
Maybe that Boeing software really helped and that´s why I see smooth landings?
There is a lot about the 777 that makes it easier to land. Boeing made the airplane both responsive and stable. It has great control authority, and it lands at relatively low speed. The main landing gear “trucks“ are tilted as the airplane touches down absorbing modest descent rates and making every landing feel smooth.
Mcdonald Douglas made the conscious decision to try and squeeze every mile per gallon out of the MD 11. It was a three engine airplane, competing with big twins. The twins have a lot of advantages in fuel burn and simplicity.
Boeing got even better fuel efficiency out of the 777, but they didn’t compromise tail plane size, or any of the control responsiveness. The fly by wire helps a lot. The twin engine drag reduction vs. 3 engine helps a lot.
Last edited:
How old is this data?
The reason I ask is that it caught my eye that it shows no B787 hull losses while we know that there was one with fatalities. This data would then also fail to reflect the accident that is the topic of this thread.
Check this out.....Any landing you can walk away from is a good one! LOL.
That’s the old Hong Kong (Kai Tek) airport, pretty stiff left crosswind from the wind sock. Not an easy approach.
Looks like quite a ride for those passengers!
One thing I do love about the DC-10/MD-11 is the gargantuan windows on the cockpit. I would imagine it has one of the best views among commercial aircraft.
Similar threads
