Busboy

You are joking, right?

tennesseeflyboy

I understand the LANDING GEAR is a focal point of concern on this aircraft, that the MD-11 landing gear cannot withstand any amounts of Negative G forces, such as might be encountered by "pushing the nose over" in an attempt to unload the wings and that most if not all landings have to be made with the main landing gear all contacting the landing surface at one time. I just wonder ................... what the Liability is for the Company and Boeing at this juncture with these other known and recorded accident data ??? BTW, the Color Guard Ceremonies last night were very appropriate and the extent to which the Company went to provide a venue for such reflection was truly remarkable .............................. God Bless those Families and Friends and our CrewForce

Commando

Didn't FDX also have a major incident in MEM a couple years ago. It may have been a MD-10 though. IOE/Check airmen/Female FO.

MEMA300

Very thoughtful and somber time last night.

LivingInMEM

Why the hangup with "Flaw"? There is no perfect aircraft, they are overly attracted to the ground when conditions go awry. There are "characteristics" (there is a better term, I just can't think of it now), however.

I previously spoke of the T-38, would you call the fact that you can develop a quickly developing/possibly unrecoverable sink rate in the final turn if you got slow a flaw. My answer is no, but you would certainly call that a characteristic of that aircraft - and you train and operate in a way to avoid that condition.

Every aircraft is a sum of a different set of compromises to meet a specific set of goals. That's why we have all or none of things such as swept wings, flaps, slats, spoilers, etc. The point is that each sum of compromises brings a different set of characteristics that must be dealt with individually. In reality, those differences may be enough that a mindset or set of skills from one aircraft may not transfer to another - or they may if slightly modified - or they may without modification.

The point is, the numbers are out there and these things need to be figured out. While it is true that FedEx may fly a higher number of hours, is the accident ratio the same as the other carriers or is it higher? If the rate in the last 10 years is that FedEx has had 3 times more mishaps as the next carrier, have they also had 3 times as many hours? What if we isolate the accidents to landing accidents (vs. things such as the SwissAir fire), then what does the ratio look like when we compare exposure per number of landings amongst carriers? What was the cumulative fatigue level on all of those accidents? What was the weather - was there a common hesitation to divert?

By the way, these are all just a fraction of the questions that need to be asked and answered across the spectrum to really figure out how to stop this. And there have to be real answers, with real fixes if they are found to be factors. This needs to be a black-white thing, right now it seems like a political contest sometimes.

FLMD11CAPT

I would be interested to know if the Main Gear attachment ties into the main wing spar as it joins the fuselage. A brutal single main touch down could play in a scenario like that. No speculation intended.

tennesseeflyboy

OK, they are all built differently and they handle differently ................. The Aircraft certification process is complex, at times could be construed to be a "rubber stamping" of sorts and I do believe it would prove quite interesting to get that data of how the MD-11 was actually certified, and even more interesting in the "common type rating program" for MD-11, MD-10. The loss of precious lives in any crash, is unacceptable at any level, but we should try to understand the HOWS, WHYS, WHENS so that there is hopefully no repeat of such circumstance again.

LivingInMEM

TNFLYBOY,

That is the whole point. I was addressing the defensiveness people have been getting about the aircraft they apparently fly. You can call it Strengths and Weaknesses, or whatever you want - and I do understand that some of those characteristics can be big negatives. As long as there is an honest assessment and the concerns are addressed directly and objectively.

(Rhetorical question - don't answer - no intent of thread creep)
As a sideline, is this unreasonable defensiveness and attachment to the aircraft we fly (as if it was our own creation) a common sickness amongst pilots? I always noted that accountants (my wife is from that background) never showed the same attachment to their calculators.

MD11Fr8Dog

Here's an experiment for you, take your rubberband powered, balsa wood plane and take a wing off. Now scoot it across the floor and tell us what happens when you have one wing and it is generating some lift.

AerisArmis

Unreasonable defensiveness= you don't agree with an assertion from someone about a jet he has never flown, but you have.
Reasonable defensiveness= neither of you have flown the jet but you still think he's full of it.
That about right? BTW, rolling a steaming turd into the middle of the room, then telling everybody to ignore it, just doesn't work around here.