Roberto

Thanks. I wasn't thinking that the plane was still flying, but I suppose the good wing at that instant still is...

fdx727pilot

I assume you are talking MD11Fs, as the launch customers for the MD11 were Finnair, Delta, and American, all getting jets before we did.

Busboy

They kept ours for a while, as the test aircraft. But, the first couple of MD-11s off the line, were ours. But you're right about other airlines taking delivery of theirs, before us.

That's why I said we've been flying them almost from day one.

LivingInMEM

First, that was said to break the mood just slightly - this board has been full of Boeing vs Airbus (not US vs Europe and where the dollars should stay, but these these vs those) and who knows what else for a lot longer than this last week. I did not even have to look at your profile to know you fly the MD-11, I got that from the assumption that you have that I am attacking the MD-11. I am addressing the overall safety process - want a Airbus issue that should be addressed - brake-by-wire and at least two accidents that have resulted from runway overruns where I think there is credible evidence that the pilots were actually pressing the brake pedals. Talk it up. You just the airplane, it isn't your child, it can take the criticism.

There have been many examples of "so what about this XXXX issue with this YYY airplane" being followed by "have you ever flown that airplane, well I have and there is no problem." I don't have any examples of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were instances of some 737 pilot saying "there's no rudder problem" or "I've never had a rudder problem" or whatever before it was FINALLY announced that there was a rudder problem.

So, to clarify for you: unreasonable defensiveness is defined as the responder not answering the specficis of the questions, but attacking the questioner and asking him how much experience he has in said airplane instead.

Reasonable defensiveness is defined as an objective analysis of the facts at hand to answer the question in the light of which it was asked. By the way, I have experience with the Airbus, and I reasonably defended the issues of the vertical stab (not composite rudder - different issue) and the characteristics of application of rudder specific to that aircraft on many occasions to many classes. Not once did I say "So, how many Airbus hours do you have, there's no problem with the vert stab."

Worldguy

14 years in left and right seat of the MD11. I think it flies like an airplane but maybe I have forgotten what an "airplane" flies like. I think the issue with FDX and MD11 accidents is purely empirical. They fly many more cycles in the airframe than anyone else. I feel the airplane is safe. Would have given it up long ago if if I felt otherwise.
WG

FDXFLYR

She crashed an MD-10.

AerisArmis

And who defines whether the analysis is objective, the giver or the receiver? That's the conundrum between reasonable and unreasonable. Kinda like an argument with your wife, no?

TimoC

A conundrum is generally when you are faced with multiple dilemmas to solve. Breaking down the elements may help to find a solution. Aeris maybe you are a young lad, "wet behind the ears", especially with matters regarding the missus, here is how I solve a dilemma regarding the wife, "nordstroms credit card."

MD11Fr8Dog

So, you give your wife a Nordstrom card to keep her in line, or do you take it away?

No "conundrum" for me on which credit card to bribe/threaten my wife with - she has NO store credit cards (just the family Visa, MC and debit/ATM/checkcard cards).

LivingInMEM

It usually isn't difficult to determine if the analysis is objective, by either the do'er or the reader. If the do'er is influenced by factors such as: avoiding conclusions which may bring a perceived increased liability against the company, avoiding conclusions which may give the appearance that individuals were lacking in their responsibilities, avoiding conclusions which may result in un-bearable costs by the manufacturer, steering towards conclusions that may be more favorable to supervisors, etc - then the do'er knows he/she is not being objective. And, when the facts don't match the conclusions, the reader knows that the analysis was not being objective. In addition, when certain factors (fatigue / flight control software / crew pairings / etc) are placed off-limits from the beginning - well, that would not be objective. Last, if the results are kept from the crew force, well.....

There is still right and wrong in my world, as well as objective and slanted.