Fedex cargo plane crashes at Narita Airport, Japan

You know, if all the experts who are ‘actually involved in investigating‘ this accident had just come on this forum first they would’ve had it all wrapped up in a jiffy!!! :rolleyes:

-Dazza

I am sufficiently experienced to publically make educated guesses.

You know, if all the experts who are ‘actually involved in investigating‘ this accident had just come on this forum first they would’ve had it all wrapped up in a jiffy!!! :rolleyes:

Huh? Unless I’ve missed something most of this thread has been purely hypothetical? :confused:

Paul

You know, if all the experts who are ‘actually involved in investigating‘ this accident had just come on this forum first they would’ve had it all wrapped up in a jiffy!!! :rolleyes:

-Dazza

Oh please get a grip,all aircraft have fault’s as do cars and every thing else man made,a fact of life accident’s happen even if things are or are not your fault!!!!

Well said…i guess that’s why they call them “accidents”

I’m just glad my efforts have not gone unnoticed.

Not at all. You’re very good at being a professional pot-stirrer! 😀

Paul

, but then again, only stirring the pot… :diablo:

Leave that to us professionals lad!!!

On the flip side, you could argue that the aircraft meets all airworthiness criteria required for it’s type certificate, and that these accidents are a flight crew training issue – however generalised that viewpoint may be, but then again, only stirring the pot… :diablo:

Meeting certification criteria does not necessarily mean latest safety standards. Think of the rudder control mechanism of the A300-600 or the take-Off configuration warning of the MD-8x series. I guess there are other systems which are subject to improvement after certification is issued, and these improvements prevent incidents.
The certification authority neither have time nor resource to check every tiny aspect of an aircraft. They rather have to rely on the manufacturer. The system works quite OK, but “being certified” should never the justification for keeping a system in service which has demonstrated shortcomings.

Let’s leave it there, shall we?

Agreed!

but then again, only stirring the pot… :diablo:

You’ve been quite good at that recently, haven’t you?! :D:diablo:

Paul

only stirring the pot… :diablo:

You are indeed:D:D

Then I have bad news for you: you are basically dead or crippled.
Everything around you (cars, home electronics, food) has more safety issues than any MD-11, especially as YOU are allowed to mishandle it (which is not the case with any MD-11, as long as you are not the pilot). So, be afraid and panic as much as possible, because with your unrealistic attitude towards safety you have a lot of things to worry about.

Do not patronise me, Schorsch. I’ve been travelling constantly for 15 years by every common mode of transport and I’m intelligent enough to formulate an opinion. I’ve said I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Let’s leave it there, shall we?

Paul

Oh please get a grip,all aircraft have fault’s as do cars and every thing else man made,a fact of life accident’s happen even if things are or are not your fault!!!!

But if – as one member has shown – one aircraft (call it the MD-11) has a one magnitude higher probability for a hull loss than an aircraft comparable in many respects (B767), then I would say it makes sense to withdraw this aircraft from passenger service.
Actually not solely due to the tendency to have messy landings, but because it tends to roll over and catch fire when messing up the landing, which it does quite frequently.

Then I have bad news for you: you are basically dead or crippled.
Everything around you (cars, home electronics, food) has more safety issues than any MD-11, especially as YOU are allowed to mishandle it (which is not the case with any MD-11, as long as you are not the pilot). So, be afraid and panic as much as possible, because with your unrealistic attitude towards safety you have a lot of things to worry about.

Oh please get a grip,all aircraft have fault’s as do cars and every thing else man made,a fact of life accident’s happen even if things are or are not your fault!!!!

I understand your point entirely but I’d still rather see an aircraft deemed to be somewhat more likely to have an accident grounded completely rather than demoted to cargo operations.

Paul

Then I have bad news for you: you are basically dead or crippled.
Everything around you (cars, home electronics, food) has more safety issues than any MD-11, especially as YOU are allowed to mishandle it (which is not the case with any MD-11, as long as you are not the pilot). So, be afraid and panic as much as possible, because with your unrealistic attitude towards safety you have a lot of things to worry about.

The flaws we see result in a messed landing, most likely causing ordinary scrap, less likely causing burned scrap, even less likely causing burned scrap with dead bodies inside.
Of course, there is the remote chance of an aircraft hitting something of value, i. e. humans, but if we multiply the number of aircraft flying with the accident rate of other aircraft (not MD-11), the chance of being killed by a falling A320 or B737 is 10 times than that of a rogue MD-11 (compare 6000 aircraft in service times 4 cycles a day with 200 aircraft in service times 2 cycles a day: 24000:400 = 60:1).

So we have to leave the feet on the ground: this aircraft is less safe than other, but it is not totally dangerous. Taking it out of passenger service is the easiest (and least costly) way of reducing the possibly death toll.
Please imagine the blame Boeing/FAA/Airline would get if such an aircraft with passengers inside would crash at landing with 3 similar accidents (and a ****load of incidents) occurred before. Actually, from a legal point of view, I would get rid of those aircrafts from my passenger operation asap.

I understand your point entirely but I’d still rather see an aircraft deemed to be somewhat more likely to have an accident grounded completely rather than demoted to cargo operations.

Paul

Tell that to the families of those on the ground who may be killed in such an incident. Having an aircraft that has known flaws in the air makes no sense whatsoever on any level. :rolleyes:

Paul

P.S. I’m not saying the MD-11 does have flaws, even though it would appear it actually does. I’m merely responding to your views.

The flaws we see result in a messed landing, most likely causing ordinary scrap, less likely causing burned scrap, even less likely causing burned scrap with dead bodies inside.
Of course, there is the remote chance of an aircraft hitting something of value, i. e. humans, but if we multiply the number of aircraft flying with the accident rate of other aircraft (not MD-11), the chance of being killed by a falling A320 or B737 is 10 times than that of a rogue MD-11 (compare 6000 aircraft in service times 4 cycles a day with 200 aircraft in service times 2 cycles a day: 24000:400 = 60:1).

So we have to leave the feet on the ground: this aircraft is less safe than other, but it is not totally dangerous. Taking it out of passenger service is the easiest (and least costly) way of reducing the possibly death toll.
Please imagine the blame Boeing/FAA/Airline would get if such an aircraft with passengers inside would crash at landing with 3 similar accidents (and a ****load of incidents) occurred before. Actually, from a legal point of view, I would get rid of those aircrafts from my passenger operation asap.

only the people who messed it up have to pay for it. And normally the pilots flying those aircraft are aware of the dangers and act accordingly, and if not, crash accordingly.

Tell that to the families of those on the ground who may be killed in such an incident. Having an aircraft that has known flaws in the air makes no sense whatsoever on any level. :rolleyes:

Paul

P.S. I’m not saying the MD-11 does have flaws, even though it would appear it actually does. I’m merely responding to your views.

First time I’ve ever heard that. It may be true. I confess I don’t know.

Having said that, does it matter? How long does it take to descend from 100 feet to the rwy on a standard approach? (Ans/not long) If the airplane is “unbalanced,” ie., severely out of trim because the pilot has been fighting the LSAS all the way down the glideslope, does it magically make everything all better if it disengages at 100 feet? When I was learning to fly, they always trained me that it was generally very easy to make a nice landing after a good approach, but very difficult to salvage a good landing from a bad approach.

History: My first experience with LSAS was shooting a landing in a simulator while a senior line check pilot at a major fiddled around. This was about 1999, and he was a friend of mine. He was fooling around with what has now become RNAV RNP approaches and just wanted someone to sit in the other seat. I ended up trying to hand fly the landing. I flew the simulator the way I have flown every other simulator or plane I had ever flown. I ended up in the PIO. We tried it again after some coaching. He told me after I made a pitch change to “wait. Don’t make any other pitch changes. The stabilizer is still moving.” I said, “the stabilizer is still moving?” Thats when he told me about the LSAS, and thats when I started paying attention to how many landing incidents there were. I talked to other, very senior pilots, and found very few who liked the airplane. I had one guy tell me the B-52 had better handling characteristics. Another told me that it was the worst handling airplane he had ever flown.

Thanks for your insightful posts.
I agree with your points, having heard similar stories from other sources.
However, I wouldn’t recommend grounding the aircraft, I would rather recommend to put it out of passenger service as soon as possible.
Flying boxes is a different kettle of fish, if something goes wrong, only the people who messed it up have to pay for it. And normally the pilots flying those aircraft are aware of the dangers and act accordingly, and if not, crash accordingly. Applied Darwin’s law.

I talked to other, very senior pilots, and found very few who liked the airplane. I had one guy tell me the B-52 had better handling characteristics. Another told me that it was the worst handling airplane he had ever flown.

You’re not the first person I’ve seen ranting about it.

I was shot down here for once suggesting the MD-11 was a pig to fly.

In what way exactly do you mean this? Just so I don’t get you completely wrong could you clarify it a little?

Paul

All I meant was: what happened in the cockpit in the last moment?
I’m not suggesting anything. I just want to know what went on.

LSAS does not operate under 100ft, which would be during the landing, no? :diablo:

First time I’ve ever heard that. It may be true. I confess I don’t know.

Having said that, does it matter? How long does it take to descend from 100 feet to the rwy on a standard approach? (Ans/not long) If the airplane is “unbalanced,” ie., severely out of trim because the pilot has been fighting the LSAS all the way down the glideslope, does it magically make everything all better if it disengages at 100 feet? When I was learning to fly, they always trained me that it was generally very easy to make a nice landing after a good approach, but very difficult to salvage a good landing from a bad approach.

History: My first experience with LSAS was shooting a landing in a simulator while a senior line check pilot at a major fiddled around. This was about 1999, and he was a friend of mine. He was fooling around with what has now become RNAV RNP approaches and just wanted someone to sit in the other seat. I ended up trying to hand fly the landing. I flew the simulator the way I have flown every other simulator or plane I had ever flown. I ended up in the PIO. We tried it again after some coaching. He told me after I made a pitch change to “wait. Don’t make any other pitch changes. The stabilizer is still moving.” I said, “the stabilizer is still moving?” Thats when he told me about the LSAS, and thats when I started paying attention to how many landing incidents there were. I talked to other, very senior pilots, and found very few who liked the airplane. I had one guy tell me the B-52 had better handling characteristics. Another told me that it was the worst handling airplane he had ever flown.