Pilots eject from DC-10

Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
Those are not good numbers...:(
Click to expand...
No, I mean yeah, they're not good. The main gear was designed to absorb energy equivalent to a maximum descent rate of 12 fps (about 720 fpm). The accident aircraft experienced about 14.4 fps (about 864 fpm) descent rate when the right main gear touched down.
 
So, according to the NTSB, the airplane made a normal landing and rolled down the runway for 12 seconds before the gear collapsed.
 
GlennAB1 said:
No, I mean yeah, they're not good. The main gear was designed to absorb energy equivalent to a maximum descent rate of 12 fps (about 720 fpm). The accident aircraft experienced about 14.4 fps (about 864 fpm) descent rate when the right main gear touched down.
Click to expand...
Are these numbers from the 2006 Memphis accident or the recent one?

I can't find the NTSB report online, but this news report says the NTSB found the plane landed "normally."

http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/ntsb-releases-cause-of-fedex-plane-fire/469899245
 
GlennAB1 said:
2003, nothing has been released on the most recent.
Click to expand...
Oh. 2003. You made it sound like those were numbers from the recent one (that's how I read it). Yeah, Newark (2003) was a hard landing. 2006 was not. The 2006 crew landed with zero crab well within the allowable descent rate. Gear failed from stress fracture due to nickle plating getting into an air valve, which lead to corrosion and subsequent failure.

I'm betting this latest one (2016-FLL) was similar. Normal landing by crew, MLG fails.
 
GlennAB1 said:
That's the crews story and they're sticking to it.
Click to expand...
Well, it actually sounds like (from the news report, at least) that that's the FDR's story.

"Preliminary information from the flight data recorder indicates the airplane’s touchdown appeared normal and the airplane rolled on the runway for about 12 seconds before the left main landing gear collapsed"
 
Sluggo63 said:
The 2006 crew landed with zero crab well within the allowable descent rate. Gear failed from stress fracture due to nickle plating getting into an air valve, which lead to corrosion and subsequent failure.
Click to expand...
There's no mention of corrosion in the NTSB probable cause.

Probable cause was due to fatigue cracking in the filler port due to the presence of stray nickel plating.

The report also states "At some point in the life of the LMLG, there was a load event that compressively yielded the material in the vicinity of the Air filler valve hole causing a residual tension stress. During normal operations the stress levels in the Air filler hole were likely within the design envelope, but the addition of residual stress and the intensity stress factor due to the nickel increased these to a level high enough to initiate and grow a fatigue crack on each side of the filler valve hole".

"Load event" on a landing gear. What does that mean? Hard landing, or landings... that were never reported?
 
Last edited:
FedEx MD-10 Landing Gear Failure
FedEx Express flight 910, a McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F (registration N370FE) experienced left main landing gear collapse and subsequent fire in the left wing after landing on runway 10L at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Oct. 28, at about 5:51 p.m. The airplane came to rest on the side of runway 10L. The two flight crew members evacuated the airplane via the cockpit window and were not injured. The airplane was substantially damaged. The cargo flight originated from Memphis International Airport, Memphis, Tennessee.

Initial findings include the following:

  • The airplane was manufactured in 1972 and configured for passenger service. It was converted to a DC-10-10F freighter in 1999 and further modified to an MD-10-10F in 2003. It had accumulated 84,589 total flight hours with 35,606 total flight cycles at the time of the accident.
  • Investigators retrieved the flight data and cockpit voice recorders shortly after arriving on scene. The recorders were transported to the NTSB recorders lab for download. Both recorders contained good quality data.
  • Preliminary information from the flight data recorder indicates the touchdown of the airplane appeared normal and the airplane rolled on the runway for about 12 seconds before the left main landing gear collapsed.
  • After the left gear collapsed, the left engine and left wingtip contacted and scraped the runway, rupturing fuel lines and the left wing fuel tank. Fuel from the left wing ignited as the airplane rolled down the runway. The fire continued to burn after the airplane came to rest, resulting in fire damage to the left wing. The fire was extinguished by airport fire and rescue.
  • The NTSB, with assistance from investigative party members and Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, documented runway damage and debris on the runway. The first damage to the runway occurred at about 3,750 feet from the runway 10L threshold. The airplane came to rest about 6,600 feet from the threshold.
  • Both members of the flight crew were interviewed in the days following the accident. They reported a stabilized approach to the airport and no anomalies with the gear retraction or extension during the accident flight.
  • Investigators completed the examination of the airplane and identified several parts of the left main landing gear for further examination. Those parts were transported to the NTSB lab for metallurgical examinations focusing on detailed characterization of the left main landing gear fracture surfaces.
The NTSB team completed their on-scene work and will continue further examinations of recovered parts and recorded information at the NTSB laboratories in Washington. FedEx Express, the Air Line Pilots Association, Boeing, and the FAA have been named parties to the investigation.

The investigation dockets for each event, containing factual group reports and other investigation-related material, will be opened at a future date. Additional information will be released as warranted.
 
GlennAB1 said:
"Load event" on a landing gear. What does that mean? Hard landing, or landings... that were never reported?
Click to expand...
Who knows? These things are flown close to max weights much more often than they were when they were passenger DC-10s and MD-11s. These things are flown heavy and often landed within a few hundred pounds of MLGW. Crews will write up "hard landings" if they think they had a hard landing. They also get a printout at flight close out of the landing "G" and deck angle at touchdown. Anything over 1.7 has to be written up and inspected. Doesn't mean it's a hard landing, though. Also, FedEx has a pretty robust FOQA program, so they are getting a lot of data that way, too. I don't think a hard landing is going to go unnoticed.

It seems like you are quick to want to blame the crews for crappy landings and breaking the plane, and to be sure, some of our hull losses were due to exactly that, but there are also times when fatigue sets in on old airplanes, flown heavy with lots of cycles on them. Sometimes things break. Sometimes 737 fuselages open up, sometimes ring cowlings fail, sometimes MLG struts shatter.
 
I just know that historically, pilot error far out weighs any other accident 'cause'. Don't take it personally, pilots for sure have the most opportunity to er. Someone else was quick to blame corrosion and I can't find that listed in an NTSB probable cause report, only in the AD for something to inspect for.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
I just know that historically, pilot error far out weighs any other accident 'cause'.
Click to expand...
Are we talking aviation in general or part 121 like the FedEx that's the subject of this thread? For part 121 that's not the case. As far as Part 121 accidents go, do you want to k now what the major cause is...in-flight turbulence. In order to supersede that you have to lump all HUMAN error together (pilots, controller, ground personnel, and even cabin crew/passengers).

Now if you throw GA into the mix, you are right that pilot error itself causes just over half of the accidents.

Oddly the ratios of pilot error vs mechanical failure vs. weather vs. even sabotage has been fairly constant over the past 50 years. The overall accident rate has declined but the percentages remain more or less the same.
 
Maybe Sluggo would like to chime in about pilot Enhanced Oversight Program that came about in 2004, as a result of a series of accidents and incidents. It's in the 2003 accident report. Or about the "remedial" training due to Narita.
 
Last edited:
I have some connections, and I have actual video footage from their ejection. The quality isn't great, but you can see what they had to go through.

 
GlennAB1 said:
Maybe Sluggo would like to chime in about pilot Enhanced Oversight Program that came about in 2004, as a result of a series of accidents and incidents. It's in the 2003 accident report. Or about the "remedial" training due to Narita.
Click to expand...
Yes, FedEx has an Enhanced Oversight Program (EOP) as do most (all) Part 121 carriers and the Air Force (SMS). It does what it says. It's to keep pilots who are struggling "in the sights" to make sure they are proficient and maintaining proficiency.

What can I say, sometimes the hiring practice doesn't work and ones slip through the cracks. If you read the accident report on this FO, you scratch your head on how they got hired and how they remained hired. I don't know. I can tell you that once you're on property, the company will do everything thing they can (within reason) to get you through training.

As far as the "remedial" landing training... It's not "remedial." It's refining. I know there will be naysayers, but the MD-11 is "different" than most other large transport category aircraft. It is. It's not harder, but it does require more attention in the flare than other large aircraft. Its design and dimensions conspire to create some visual illusions that can bite a crew if they have a bad day and mistime their flare. The NTSB agrees. Read their April 2014 Safety Recommendations (http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A-14-004-007.pdf)

Add to that the fact that FedEx pilots are the only ones in the industry to fly the MD-10, and fly it concurrently with the MD-11 just compounds the issue. The two variants do not land the same. They don't. As much as McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) tried to reprogram the MD-11 to make it fly like the DC-10, it doesn't and it won't.
 
They already had SMS, before EOP.

And I believe the accident report points more blame on the PIC for allowing the FO to crash land the aircraft.

I know about the MD-11. The Japanese government considered not allowing them to land there after Narita.
 
Last edited:
Art VanDelay said:
I think it was likely a hard landing too due to the gusty winds at the time. Think for just a minute how many people would have been hurt/killed if FedEx hauled people instead of boxes. Think about it - they've had a lot of hull losses.
Click to expand...
What happens to all the Ebay and Amazon packages, do they have to pay to replace the items?
 
GlennAB1 said:
They already had SMS, before EOP.
Click to expand...
We may be talking about different SMSs. I think you're talking about the Safety Management System. What I said was the AF has an SMS (Special Monitoring Status) for pilots who are struggling in flight school. Either academically, flying or even "Military SMS," for those unfortunate one who can't get their s*** straight. The AFs SMS is akin to FedEx's (and others) EOP.

GlennAB1 said:
And I believe the accident report points more blame on the PIC for allowing the FO to crash land the aircraft.
Click to expand...
Right. And anyone who is a flight instructor knows that there is a fine line that you have to straddle when you are giving in-flight instruction. You can't be spring-loaded to "take the jet" too quickly, because your student will never learn. Nor can you let them go too far, because the result may be bent metal or worse. It gets even more dicey the bigger, faster, and/or more unforgiving the airplane. The MD-11 is all of the above. The PIC in this case (2006) was a Line Check Airman giving a remedial line check to the FO. The Captain was at the top of their game and extremely proficient in MD-11 flying and instructing. I'm sure he knew the background of the FO he was flying with. I'm sure he was giving that FO every chance to pass that line check. He let the FO go a bit too far over the line and they broke the jet. It's unfortunate, but that's the risk you run when you sign on to be an LCA.

Add to that, that in the MD-11 everything can look good until it looks really bad, and you have a razor thin wire to walk.

I saw the FDX80 simulator video, where they took the FDR and back-drove the sim with the data. They filmed it and we watched it. I'll tell you, watching that video, a room full of experienced MD-11 pilots all said the same thing. That approach looked normal until the nose pitched down. Then it looked bad, but there was nothing that could be done at that point.

GlennAB1 said:
I know about the MD-11. The Japanese government considered not allowing them to land there after Narita.
Click to expand...
You know about the MD-11. Have you flown it? The Japanese MD-11 ban was a rumor floating around, but I never saw anything besides crew bus rumors. I also heard it about Europe. I'm not saying that it's not true, or it wasn't thought about, but I never saw anything in writing.
 
I heard the "rumor" directly from the VP Safety & Airworthiness, whom, at the time, was a "retired" Captain, but has since officially retired.

I guess it's possible he picked it up on the crew bus when traveling jumpseat.
 
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
Yes, FedEx has an Enhanced Oversight Program (EOP) as do most (all) Part 121 carriers and the Air Force (SMS).
Click to expand...

Also from the 2003 NTSB accident report:

"The Safety Board's review of FedEx's pilot training procedures and oversight at the time of the accident revealed that, consistent with other operators in the aviation industry, it focused on a pilot's performance on the day of the check ride with little or no review of that pilot's performance on checkrides months or years earlier."

So, according to the NTSB, prior to EOP, FedEx pilot training and oversight was consistent with other operators.

Was FedEx one of the first 121 operators to have a program like EOP?

You made me think that FX played catch up to other operators, with EOP, but the NTSB report makes me believe otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, you pointed out that someone blamed corrosion in the landing gear, and again, I can't find that listed in an NTSB probable cause report.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top