MD-11…Ending Of An Era

Yes…..really…..all day long. As long as ATC clears them, there is no restriction if a required piece of equipment for RVSM fails in flight. The difference between Dispatch (MEL) requirements and enroute.

Please show me one time where I ever indicated I knew what caused 111. I challenge you.

If you look back through the thread you’ll see I indicated from the first mention that no one knows what really caused it, any other assertion is merely wishful thinking on your part. It IS true that 111 is YET ANOTHER tragic and regrettable crash resulting in loss of life from the flawed DC10/MD11 series. I’m can’t figure out why you’re so combative and protective about “the airplane that killed off the Douglas Commercial airplane division” when it seems pretty apparent from the record that they’re pretty dangerous airplanes (see my graphic with the hull loss statistics from Boeing.

I’m not combative about the MD-11, I know it has it’s issues but I’ve been flying on it for 15 years at max take-off and landing weights and I’m still here. What i am “combative” about is some of the inane drivel you speak. This thread was about the retirement of KLMs airframes until it was hijacked by yourself and one other person. You obviously don’t have a pilot or engineering background reading some of your posts.

By the way, there’s also a big difference between a piece of RVSM-required equipment failing en-route and hand-flying!

One can, can they? All day long? Really? I find it hard to believe they would accomodate a 4000′ block request when spacing is at only 1000′ vertically! You’d be going down to Non-RVSM altitiudes straight away believe me.

By the way, you were indicating you knew what happened to SR111 purely because it was an MD-11. Now you’re bringing your ladder up.

Yes…..really…..all day long. As long as ATC clears them, there is no restriction if a required piece of equipment for RVSM fails in flight. The difference between Dispatch (MEL) requirements and enroute.

Please show me one time where I ever indicated I knew what caused 111. I challenge you.

If you look back through the thread you’ll see I indicated from the first mention that no one knows what really caused it, any other assertion is merely wishful thinking on your part. It IS true that 111 is YET ANOTHER tragic and regrettable crash resulting in loss of life from the flawed DC10/MD11 series. I’m can’t figure out why you’re so combative and protective about “the airplane that killed off the Douglas Commercial airplane division” when it seems pretty apparent from the record that they’re pretty dangerous airplanes (see my graphic with the hull loss statistics from Boeing.

I never said I knew what caused 111, in fact, I said no one really does.

One CAN hand fly in RVSM airspace all day long…….as long as ATC clears you to do it. One cannot FILE or PLAN to fly in RVSM airspace with certain items on MEL, but if they fail enroute, and ATC can block the space (4000′) for you, they can and sometimes will allow you to fly there.

One can, can they? All day long? Really? I find it hard to believe they would accomodate a 4000′ block request when spacing is at only 1000′ vertically! You’d be going down to Non-RVSM altitiudes straight away believe me.

By the way, you were indicating you knew what happened to SR111 purely because it was an MD-11. Now you’re bringing your ladder up.

Thats a real shame. I guess the Martinair airframes will be around for a while?

Well PH-MCY is now in storage but will be re-activated. PH-MCT will be retired by next year. So from 2013 only six MP MD-11’s.

Thats a real shame. I guess the Martinair airframes will be around for a while?

Scrapping or long-term storage? Have flown in her many times over the years. Ship741 probably has a copy of this one on his toilet wall with a crucifix hanging over it:dev2: Someone told him to do it.

Scrapping yes 🙁

I am a pilot, but that’s irrelevant. It’ll only disconnect on it’s own if the control loadings resist the movement of the AP actuators in moderate/heavy turbulence to a set level. This doesn’t mean to say you cannot re-engage it. No human can fly as accurately as an AP, and a pilot induced pitch moment can induce mach stall if you are flying near coffin corner. There are various tables used to determine speeds & altitudes to fly in known turbulence to prevent mach stall, so it “shouldn’t” happen, but we all know what Murphy’s Law says hey.

Aren’t you assuming it doesn’t disconnect on its own? From the jumpseat (I’m not a pilot, apparently you are) I’ve seen it disconnect on it’s own in a mountain wave. I was glad the guys flying knew how to fly “up high” that night.

I’ve heard of the AP disconnecting after an engine failure, though I have not seen that on my own.

I’m curious…..everyone seems to have been saying the last few years that AF447 crashed due to pilot error, yet several people seem to be making the case on this thread that poor flying qualities at high altitude (ala MD-11) don’t matter because its not ever necessary to hand fly up there in any event…..you guys seem to be saying, “why worry about crappy high altitude handling, we don’t ever do that anyway….”

Of course this all digresses from the main point, the MD-11’s treacherous landing characteristics, proven by the record in actual service.

Well thats a pretty important time isn’t it!?

I cited the AF447 reference. How about when encountering a mountain wave? How about drifting down after an engine failure?

No more important than hitting a mountain wave up high when you are in the realms of Coffin Corner. When you are up high taking the AP out in wave activity can induce Mach stall near coffin corner, so the autopilot stays in for obvious reasons. Mountain wave activity does not dictate you take out the AP.
Drift Down after engine failure – AP stays in, period, there is no need to take out the AP after an engine failure. The only thing you cannot do in the event of an engine failure is couple the approach mode to the AP. By the way AF447 had no choice but to hand fly, the IAS mismatch etc they got due to icing would have hit it out anyway.

Yes they do. It is only you who seem to think it was something else.

Anyway, tell your mate, best of luck hand-flying in RVSM airspace, I’m sure he’s popular with ATC.

Only 1 to go now

1. Please tell me definitively what started the fire, if you can find that in the TSB report.

2. WRT handlflying in RVSM airpace: You now agree! Thank you! When I pointed out the difference of dispatch versus enroute requirements, you went from saying it can’t be done, to tacitly admitting that it can be done but that ATC won’t allow it.

Well thats a pretty important time isn’t it!?

I cited the AF447 reference. How about when encountering a mountain wave? How about drifting down after an engine failure?

Editorial Comment: I never said I was a commercial pilot…….if you are trying to “prove” I’m not, you’ve won already, I’m not.

I haven’t seen anyone post anything factual to dispute that the MD-11 is a dangerous airplane and has a horrible record, yet I have posted anecdotal and manufacturer data to support the assertions. All the attention on what my personal qualifications may or may not be don’t change that.

…..there are numerous times when it is necessary to hand fly up high.

Ship, I can’t think of any, maybe you can enlighten us. We’re not allowed to handfly even in busy TMA airspace. The only time it is necessary to handfly in RVSM, or “high up” is if you are in trouble.

I never said I knew what caused 111, in fact, I said no one really does.

Yes they do. It is only you who seem to think it was something else.

Anyway, tell your mate, best of luck hand-flying in RVSM airspace, I’m sure he’s popular with ATC.

Only 1 to go now

Here is some data to chew on……Hull loss summary by aircraft type…….Boeing data……I see one particular aircraft that kind of sticks out…..I’ve placed a red box over the airplane type…….I didn’t come up with this information on my own, someone told me the data: Boeing.

It’s quite a testament to the training and quality of the KLM pilots that they’ve never lost one, given the records that other carriers experienced.

Scrapping or long-term storage? Have flown in her many times over the years. Ship741 probably has a copy of this one on his toilet wall with a crucifix hanging over it:dev2: Someone told him to do it.

Your arguments will gain more credence if you refrain from the personal attacks.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the AF 447 reference, which I posted after you said “why would you want to hand fly at FL300 anyway?”……there are numerous times when it is necessary to hand fly up high.

Really! “Your friend” has obviously failed to understand what RVSM even stands for. You cannot hand fly the aircraft in RVSM airspace. End of.

From TGL 6
An automatic altitude control system is required capable of controlling altitude within ±20 m (±65 ft) about the selected altitude,

I think if you really know what caused Swissair 111 then you need to let the authorities in on it as well.

My BS detector is in the red now.

I never said I knew what caused 111, in fact, I said no one really does.

One CAN hand fly in RVSM airspace all day long…….as long as ATC clears you to do it. One cannot FILE or PLAN to fly in RVSM airspace with certain items on MEL, but if they fail enroute, and ATC can block the space (4000′) for you, they can and sometimes will allow you to fly there.

BTW, the slat handle was INADVERTENTLY engaged…..it was a design flaw not a pilot mistake

This you are correct on. The slat/flap handle was modified with a spring loaded secondary lock lever as a result of this incident.

Scrapping or long-term storage? Have flown in her many times over the years. Ship741 probably has a copy of this one on his toilet wall with a crucifix hanging over it:dev2: Someone told him to do it.

Her she is just before she went to the desert for scrapping.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7422345

Very sad to see this happen . Luckely I have plenty of work with the red MD-11’s in Holland:)

He said in RVSM airspace that he would request a block of 4000′ if he ever had to do it.

Really! “Your friend” has obviously failed to understand what RVSM even stands for. You cannot hand fly the aircraft in RVSM airspace. End of.

From TGL 6
An automatic altitude control system is required capable of controlling altitude within ±20 m (±65 ft) about the selected altitude,

I think if you really know what caused Swissair 111 then you need to let the authorities in on it as well.

My BS detector is in the red now.