Is the MD-11 unsafe??
02-03-2007, 01:08 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Is the MD-11 unsafe??
Came across this site a few days ago... It is pretty scary.
http://airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
Thoughts??
http://airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
Thoughts??
02-03-2007, 01:34 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by ryane946
Came across this site a few days ago... It is pretty scary.
http://airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
Thoughts??
http://airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm
Thoughts??
02-03-2007, 02:08 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Ok, I just went to the homepage of the site I posted the link to and I realize it is an anti-union site with some type of agenda....
Sorry, my bad.
Still, Is the MD-11 unsafe?? Here is a link to the NTSB accident database for MD-11's, and of the 190 in service, there have been 56 incidents. Kinda scary.
Not to mention several high profile DC-10 accidents...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.a...3=&p24=MD%2D11
Sorry, my bad.
Still, Is the MD-11 unsafe?? Here is a link to the NTSB accident database for MD-11's, and of the 190 in service, there have been 56 incidents. Kinda scary.
Not to mention several high profile DC-10 accidents...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.a...3=&p24=MD%2D11
02-03-2007, 03:03 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by ryane946
Ok, I just went to the homepage of the site I posted the link to and I realize it is an anti-union site with some type of agenda....
Sorry, my bad.
Still, Is the MD-11 unsafe?? Here is a link to the NTSB accident database for MD-11's, and of the 190 in service, there have been 56 incidents. Kinda scary.
Not to mention several high profile DC-10 accidents...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.a...3=&p24=MD%2D11
Sorry, my bad.
Still, Is the MD-11 unsafe?? Here is a link to the NTSB accident database for MD-11's, and of the 190 in service, there have been 56 incidents. Kinda scary.
Not to mention several high profile DC-10 accidents...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.a...3=&p24=MD%2D11
Ok, here is my .02
I flew from civilian to gliders to military. MD-11 was one of my favorite airplanes to fly and I always felt very safe, although the airline I worked for at the time lost one offshore of Halifax.
Landingwise, it is a challenging airplane to land, especially with strong crosswind, but not unsafe.
02-03-2007, 04:32 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,223
I am a former aeronautical engineer and flight test engineer for the USAF and Lockheed.
I am a current MD-11 F/O at FDX. I was an MD-11 captain at Gemini. I have also flown the DC-10 and the MD-10.
The control issues the writer was spasming about were real, and they were dealt with by software changes in the ~1999 timeframe. Prior to that, LSAS relaxed its inputs just as the aircraft entered the flare. After the mod, LSAS stayed online all the way down, with some extra pitch-down bias introduced when the spoilers deploy. It took care of the pitch sensitivity problem, although the aircraft is still a little light in pitch on final, especially when loaded aft.
Crosswinds are challenging, in my humble opinion, because of the culture of over-reliance on autothrottles that we have created. I just watched my captain shoot the first auto-throttle off approach and landing I have seen in all my time on the DC/MD at FDX. He then talked me into trying it. Lo and behold, we didn't die, and both our landings were spot on.
At Gemini, I never turned off the autopilot without turning off the autothrottles. The reason: I couldn't find a reason NOT to, other than laziness. I just ain't going to do it in the right seat if the captains won't.
Anyway, if you get into a crosswind landing, the company wants the boot fully in by 300 feet. So you got all this ~190' fuselage plowing along sideways, creating tons of drag. Then, at 50', the A/T's pull the power to idle. This happens even faster on the MD10. So the bottom drops out just as you start flaring and--- boom!
The taught technique is to just override the A/T's in the flare. Number one, this requires only one hand on the yoke, in a big airplane in a crosswind. Number two, and this one is about to get real interesting given a certain recent event: WE ARE OVERRIDING AN AUTOMATIC SYSTEM WITHOUT CLICKING IT OFF FIRST. I can think of few habit patterns that are more dangerous to develop. Remember the crew going around in MEM after a bad autoland? Remember SFS last year?
All that said, I love the aircraft and this is one of the most enjoyable I have flown (over 60 makes/models in my logbook so far). Believe it or not, my middle son's middle name is Douglas, after the 10 and the 11....
I am a current MD-11 F/O at FDX. I was an MD-11 captain at Gemini. I have also flown the DC-10 and the MD-10.
The control issues the writer was spasming about were real, and they were dealt with by software changes in the ~1999 timeframe. Prior to that, LSAS relaxed its inputs just as the aircraft entered the flare. After the mod, LSAS stayed online all the way down, with some extra pitch-down bias introduced when the spoilers deploy. It took care of the pitch sensitivity problem, although the aircraft is still a little light in pitch on final, especially when loaded aft.
Crosswinds are challenging, in my humble opinion, because of the culture of over-reliance on autothrottles that we have created. I just watched my captain shoot the first auto-throttle off approach and landing I have seen in all my time on the DC/MD at FDX. He then talked me into trying it. Lo and behold, we didn't die, and both our landings were spot on.
At Gemini, I never turned off the autopilot without turning off the autothrottles. The reason: I couldn't find a reason NOT to, other than laziness. I just ain't going to do it in the right seat if the captains won't.
Anyway, if you get into a crosswind landing, the company wants the boot fully in by 300 feet. So you got all this ~190' fuselage plowing along sideways, creating tons of drag. Then, at 50', the A/T's pull the power to idle. This happens even faster on the MD10. So the bottom drops out just as you start flaring and--- boom!
The taught technique is to just override the A/T's in the flare. Number one, this requires only one hand on the yoke, in a big airplane in a crosswind. Number two, and this one is about to get real interesting given a certain recent event: WE ARE OVERRIDING AN AUTOMATIC SYSTEM WITHOUT CLICKING IT OFF FIRST. I can think of few habit patterns that are more dangerous to develop. Remember the crew going around in MEM after a bad autoland? Remember SFS last year?
All that said, I love the aircraft and this is one of the most enjoyable I have flown (over 60 makes/models in my logbook so far). Believe it or not, my middle son's middle name is Douglas, after the 10 and the 11....
Last edited by Huck; 02-03-2007 at 04:52 PM.
02-03-2007, 06:07 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
Proclaimed Reliability & Safety Of Md-11 Not Supported By Data
Air Safety Week, Sept 14, 1998 The reliability of the MD-11 may not be nearly as good as other aircraft of similar vintage in worldwide service, and basing an airplane's safety record on the number of hull losses could give a misleading picture.
It is possible, using widely-available service difficulty reports, to compare one aircraft to another, and to produce useful insights, claims aviation safety researcher Dr. Alex Richman. Based on service difficulty reports (SDR's) filed by U.S. operators on 347 MD- 11s and Boeing 757s over a five-year period, statistically significant differences were found.
Further, despite Richman's belief that outright accidents and hull losses "are insufficient criteria of safety," he calculates the MD-11 hull loss rate is "the third highest among all models in the U.S. commercial jet fleet".
Richman's tabulation reveals that the MD-11 ranked worse in 12 out of 17 categories compared to the 757. In the 14 areas where the differences were statistically significant, the MD-11 was higher in nine.
Among his findings:
* Nearly a quarter of MD-11s with SDR's took the precautionary measure of dumping fuel, compared to no such reports for 757s.
* Almost 40 percent of the MD-11's with SDR's reported engine shut downs, while nearly three-fourths reported unscheduled landings.
* Multiple failures were reported for 9.3 percent of MD-11s and 1.3 percent of 757s, a difference of 615 percent.
* The reports of inadequate manufacturing quality seem to be more a telling indicator for the MD-11. Even though the small number of such reports meant the difference was not statistically significant, the number of such reports for the MD-11 was 600 percent higher.
"There is little in these data to support the prevailing belief that the MD-11 is an exceptionally safe aircraft," Richman concluded. (with thanks to Dr. Richman for permission to print the tables summarizing his findings). >> Richman, tel. 902/423-5155 <<
Service Difficulty Report Comparison of 43 MD-11s and 300 B757s
(Percentage of aircraft with SDR's)
Statistical
MD-11 B757 Difference Significance
PRECAUTIONARY
PROCEDURES
Dump fuel 23.3 0 MD-11 higher **
Engine shutdown 37.2 20.0 MD-11 higher *
Unscheduled landing 72.1 51.3 MD-11 higher **
PROBLEMS
Vibration 27.9 7.7 MD-11 higher **
Fluid loss 41.9 23.0 MD-11 higher *
Warning indication 74.4 50.0 MD-11 higher **
Power source loss 2.3 9.3 B757 higher *
Other system affected 0 3.7 B757 higher **
Engine power loss 0 8.3 B757 higher **
No warning indication 0 4.7 B757 higher **
MECHANICAL GROUP
Hydraulic 39.5 14.0 MD-11 higher **
Landing gear 44.2 27.0 MD-11 higher *
Engine 46.5 30.7 MD-11 higher *
Nacelles/pylons 9.3 21.0 B-757 higher *
OTHER (not statistically significant)
Multiple failures 9.3 1.3 MD-11 higher NS
Smoke 32.6 24.7 MD-11 higher NS
Inadequate quality 7.0 1.0 MD-11 higher NS
* Probability is less than 5 times in 100
** Probability is less than one time in 100
NS Not statistically significant
Source: Dr. Alex Richman
Hull Loss Accident Rates
U.S. Fleet, 1987-1997
Model Hull Losses Rate per Million Departures
DC-8 7 5.6
B707/720 4 24.1
DC-10 4 2.2
B747 3 2.9
MD-11 1 5.0
Source: Boeing & Dr. Alex Richman
COPYRIGHT 1998 Phillips Publishing International, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
Air Safety Week, Sept 14, 1998 The reliability of the MD-11 may not be nearly as good as other aircraft of similar vintage in worldwide service, and basing an airplane's safety record on the number of hull losses could give a misleading picture.
It is possible, using widely-available service difficulty reports, to compare one aircraft to another, and to produce useful insights, claims aviation safety researcher Dr. Alex Richman. Based on service difficulty reports (SDR's) filed by U.S. operators on 347 MD- 11s and Boeing 757s over a five-year period, statistically significant differences were found.
Further, despite Richman's belief that outright accidents and hull losses "are insufficient criteria of safety," he calculates the MD-11 hull loss rate is "the third highest among all models in the U.S. commercial jet fleet".
Richman's tabulation reveals that the MD-11 ranked worse in 12 out of 17 categories compared to the 757. In the 14 areas where the differences were statistically significant, the MD-11 was higher in nine.
Among his findings:
* Nearly a quarter of MD-11s with SDR's took the precautionary measure of dumping fuel, compared to no such reports for 757s.
* Almost 40 percent of the MD-11's with SDR's reported engine shut downs, while nearly three-fourths reported unscheduled landings.
* Multiple failures were reported for 9.3 percent of MD-11s and 1.3 percent of 757s, a difference of 615 percent.
* The reports of inadequate manufacturing quality seem to be more a telling indicator for the MD-11. Even though the small number of such reports meant the difference was not statistically significant, the number of such reports for the MD-11 was 600 percent higher.
"There is little in these data to support the prevailing belief that the MD-11 is an exceptionally safe aircraft," Richman concluded. (with thanks to Dr. Richman for permission to print the tables summarizing his findings). >> Richman, tel. 902/423-5155 <<
Service Difficulty Report Comparison of 43 MD-11s and 300 B757s
(Percentage of aircraft with SDR's)
Statistical
MD-11 B757 Difference Significance
PRECAUTIONARY
PROCEDURES
Dump fuel 23.3 0 MD-11 higher **
Engine shutdown 37.2 20.0 MD-11 higher *
Unscheduled landing 72.1 51.3 MD-11 higher **
PROBLEMS
Vibration 27.9 7.7 MD-11 higher **
Fluid loss 41.9 23.0 MD-11 higher *
Warning indication 74.4 50.0 MD-11 higher **
Power source loss 2.3 9.3 B757 higher *
Other system affected 0 3.7 B757 higher **
Engine power loss 0 8.3 B757 higher **
No warning indication 0 4.7 B757 higher **
MECHANICAL GROUP
Hydraulic 39.5 14.0 MD-11 higher **
Landing gear 44.2 27.0 MD-11 higher *
Engine 46.5 30.7 MD-11 higher *
Nacelles/pylons 9.3 21.0 B-757 higher *
OTHER (not statistically significant)
Multiple failures 9.3 1.3 MD-11 higher NS
Smoke 32.6 24.7 MD-11 higher NS
Inadequate quality 7.0 1.0 MD-11 higher NS
* Probability is less than 5 times in 100
** Probability is less than one time in 100
NS Not statistically significant
Source: Dr. Alex Richman
Hull Loss Accident Rates
U.S. Fleet, 1987-1997
Model Hull Losses Rate per Million Departures
DC-8 7 5.6
B707/720 4 24.1
DC-10 4 2.2
B747 3 2.9
MD-11 1 5.0
Source: Boeing & Dr. Alex Richman
COPYRIGHT 1998 Phillips Publishing International, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
