Lufthansa MD-11F Crashes in Riyadh

The Mandarin was lost in passenger service. However, if you look at the weather that the aircraft was attempting to land in (typhoon) maybe the best course of action was to go to the alternate. Other aircraft types MAY have faired the same way. There is a video on youtube of this approach, I’ll try and post a link.

The accident proved the tendency of the MD11 to suffer severly from hard landings. The cause of the accident is probably not attributable to the MD11 itself.

Suprised to see that Lufthansa assigns their best crews to a particular type of A/C,I always assumed that crews picked their assignments(including routes,and A/C types)by bidding on jobs determined by seniority,I thought this was pretty much universal(at least in the west)Is this just a US practice?

Let me correct my statement: only the better pilots are accepted for MD11, of course only if they apply.

I have posted that IMHO there will be additional landing accidents on this airplane type. To those of you who feel that the grounding is unjustified at the current time, I pose the following question: at what point (how many more accidents) is grounding justified?

When paying customers need to be protected.

Munch munch chomp

11.08.10
In addition to this, the evaluation of the black boxes was carried out by the Office for Aviation Accident Investigations (BFU) in Braunschweig. According to initial investigations, the final approach was followed by a routine touchdown. This was followed by two other contacts with the ground. Thereupon the tail broke off directly behind the main gear. The landing took place on the intended segment of the runway.

After approximately 2,400 meters the airplane left Runway RWY 33 L on its left side. In the last phase, the nose gear buckled. After another 375 meters the airplane came to a stop in the sand and caught fire. The crew was able to leave the airplane together by means of the slide 1 L which deployed flawlessly.

At this time, more than the above mentioned information may not be published on account of legal regulations. The involved parties (e.g., the BFU, the US National Transportation Safety Board as well as Lufthansa Cargo) may not release their own information without approval. Any kind of internal or external publications must be approved by the „Investigator in Charge“(IIC) in Saudi Arabia. Conceivably, a Preliminary Report could be released in autumn. However, this requires a questioning of both pilots. This inquiry is planned to take place in a few weeks in Germany.

The responsible bureau of investigation in Saudi Arabia has tentatively promised that the final investigation report will appear in approximately one year. Up to its release Lufthansa Cargo will not take part in speculations whatsoever concerning the cause of the accident.

In the meantime, the wreck of the aircraft has been removed from the scene of the accident. Presently it is being disassembled and the separate parts are being scrapped in Saudi Arabia.

:eek:;)

Good, perhaps you can read this post as well.;)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98112

Please don’t lock it on my account, I’m done with it and will view only from now on.

I am waiting when this thread stops going around in a circle, and there is an agreement to disagree on whatever points that are causing the disruptions.

I really don’t want to break my record of not locking a relevant thread, until now. Just another reminder here….be nice. :rolleyes:

Utter nonsense:eek:

I have watched the battle of skills and wits with a wry smile

Hi Guys,

After reading the posts – battle of skills and wits, brings a wry smile to my face.

My personal opinions –
1. Every accident involving an aircraft that occurs at a regular (high throughput) airport is an expensive risk that if it can be reduced or avoided would be excellent.
2. At a busy airport (even with a second runway) if a crash blocks and/or damages a runway or it’s surrounds this can cause untold havoc to other airlines in cost, lost customers and flight crews being over their time limits due to delays and replacement crews being in the wrong place. (just to mention a few likely problems)
3. To those pilots who fly the MD-11 and love it. Great that is again a personal opinion of enthusiasts. Nothing wrong with having aircraft you love flying but possibly consider getting them out of the busy airways and airports.
Or in future moth ball some for posterity at museums or collectors airfields.
May I add though to your families or relatives and to the world of flying you enthusiatic highly skilled pilots are better alive than dead in a tragic MD-11 freighter accident.
4.Boeing should soon be able to commercially decide whether they see a long future for the MD-11 (freighter/passenger) and in what sectors.
5.Maybe the best commercial value could come from salvage of all the supposed on-board high tech instruments, systems and controls including HUD.
To this effect may I suggest if you haven’t already please watch or get a copy of Channel 5’s Documentary 30 September 2008 – “Megastructures: 747 Demolition”.

This was referred to in this section of the Forum previously
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=84793
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=91809&highlight=megastructures

You guys sure kept the moderators busy with the personal mud slinging on this thread.

In my opinion in commercial aviation it’s always worth looking forward especially at increased passengers, comfort, safety, fuel efficiency, and increased revenue. Let history take it’s course with some aircraft that may be should become enthusiasts ‘fun to flys’ at air shows.

Aircraft with more than 2 engines don’t seem to be too popular these days. 747s are fairly scarce (and not seen on many runs anymore where they used to be common), A340s haven’t set the world on fire with sales records, and the A380 is in a class by itself.

There’s certainly something in this. Why run an aircraft on three engines when the job can be done by one with two?
As for the types mentioned, the B747 is less common now because its getting old and many have been replaced with B777’s; the A340 has a drink problem, I believe and the A380, of course, needs its four engines.
It will be interesting to see whether the B747-8 ever takes off (sales-wise) or whether what market remains for large four-engined types is sewn up for a long time by Airbus.

Unflattering nicknames aside…
Did AA and other MD-11 operators say why they retired them?

Well, they could have get a good price for them, above the level of a used aircraft in this class…….
It is said, that the 747 200 F consumed 25% more fuel (per ton of transported cargo) than the MD……

Unflattering nicknames aside…perhaps it was the cost associated with the third engine that helped pushed plane out the door?

Anyone know facts rather than just rumors, employee “scuttlebutt” and not to funny jokes aside?

Aircraft with more than 2 engines don’t seem to be too popular these days.
747s are fairly scarce (and not seen on many runs anymore where they used to be common), A340s haven’t set the world on fire with sales records, and the A380 is in a class by itself.

So rather than continued speculation…and badmouthing an airplane few here have direct knowledge of…
Did AA and other MD-11 operators say why they retired them?

I have never seen any public comment on why they retired them. You make a good point, and I agree with you to a point. The twins are/have definitely taking over.

However, not being an economist or accountant, I’m not qualified to quantify the amortization concerning replacing payback. I’m not sure I worded that correctly, but what I’m trying to address is the marginal efficiency gain of the twin versus the tri against the fact that the tri is an owned asset. If a 777 cost $200 million, how long would it take to make that up with the marginal fuel savings difference? It seems to me that the MD-11 investment cost was hardly amortized. We arent’ talking Singapore or one of the Middle Eastern carriers here…..:), they seem to change airplanes every few years just because they can.

For example, both American and Delta both retired their MD-11 fleets at a ridiculously young age. American only operated the beast for 11 years and Delta 12ish. That is almost laughable, considering that both have 767’s that are approaching 25 years old….

Unflattering nicknames aside…perhaps it was the cost associated with the third engine that helped pushed plane out the door?

Anyone know facts rather than just rumors, employee “scuttlebutt” and not to funny jokes aside?

Aircraft with more than 2 engines don’t seem to be too popular these days.
747s are fairly scarce (and not seen on many runs anymore where they used to be common), A340s haven’t set the world on fire with sales records, and the A380 is in a class by itself.

So rather than continued speculation…and badmouthing an airplane few here have direct knowledge of…
Did AA and other MD-11 operators say why they retired them?

Moderator Message

I’m sure you are a journo.

Let’s drop the personal stuff, shall we?

Any time right now will do nicely.

Thanks

GA

American Airlines seem to have had a bad time with the Mega Death 11. At one point due to it poor reliability it was called “The Scud” because once it left the ground nobody knew were it would land!!!!

Rgds Cking

Yeah, the Mega Death 11 was the follow on from the Death Cruiser 10:D I remember the “Scud” nickname from it’s early AA days too.

HA HA, thats not the first time I’ve heard that. Still funny.

American Airlines seem to have had a bad time with the Mega Death 11. At one point due to it poor reliability it was called “The Scud” because once it left the ground nobody knew were it would land!!!!

Rgds Cking

The reason I love it is because I have been working and flying on it for 14 years and I’m still here. I don’t care what you’ve previously stated and how many times, I’m just tired of reading it. Interesting that you bring up the Swissair incident too, that was obviously the MD-11’s fault, being a fault with an aftermarket IFE system and the crews decision to stay in the air to dump fuel rather than get it on the ground, albeit overweight. I’m sure you are a journo.

Sorry, I normally trip-out after the first sentence. Not question dodging. I love the MD-11 and NO, I do not think a grounding is justified. Anytime a 737/A320 has an accident I don’t think that justifies a grounding either. Obviously by your authoritive posting you already know what the cause of the LH hull loss was so why don’t you tell us (of course, you could always wait for the official report)

I’m sorry that I sounded so authoritive. (is that a word?). I’ve stated at least twice that it APPEARS that this accident was due to a fire in the cargo. You make a good point that perhaps I and others have jumped the gun and should wait on the report. Perhaps it will be more conclusive than the Swissair MD-11, which to my mind really didn’t tell give us much firm information. All we REALLY know about that one is that another passenger MD-11 crashed.

I would argue that love of an airplane type pre-disposes one to a reasoned view of it’s attributes. I neither love or hate it, emotion doesn’t enter into it…for me the record suffices, and the record is not worthy of love.