Do you feel the same way about the 737? more people have died on 737s due to Boeing design flaws and coverups than on MD-11s, by a country mile.

 

How many 737s were built vs MD11s? How many hours have 737s flown vs MD11s? Hull losses per departure/hours flown shouldn’t be that difficult a concept for someone who considers themselves a professional in this industry. FWIW, I flew the MD11 for a bit. I generally liked it. But the airplane has its flaws & they are no longer worth fixing. Let that jet die.

 

Never flown it. Noted. Good grief - it's just another airplane. If they do fly them again, the next revenue flight will likely be one of the safest MD flights. Boocoo inspections complete and pylons good to go.

 

Hull loss per departure is not a bad metric for determining the safety rating of a jet, but it's far from perfect/comprehensive and definitely not a great representation of the "big picture." The "I would never step foot on an MD-11 again" mindset is irrational fear based upon irrational logic.

 

Of course its not perfect. There is no perfect metric. But if you think there is a better way to quantify the inherent safety characteristics of an airplane then I'm all ears. As far as not wanting to set foot on the airplane again being irrational, I think I've hinted at a rational argument...but I'll make the argument plainly so that you can point out my irrationality:

1) Flying carries a certain level of risk because the consequences of a mishap are often high (up to loss of life).
2) I desire to continue living.
3) Therefore in the context of flying aircraft, if given the choice, I should choose the safest aircraft which accomplishes the mission/task.
4) The MD-11 is (by a metric which, though not perfect, is "not a bad metric") 20-25 times less safe then similarly situated aircraft, which are available for me to choose to fly.
Conclusion: I will not fly or ride in an MD-11

Please point out which part of these premises are incorrect, or demonstrate the flaw in my reasoning.

 

No doubt the next revenue flight will be extremely safe. But thats not the one that I'm concerned about. Its revenue flight number 2,473 from now that is the problem.

Is it necessary to have flown the aircraft to understand the statistics and consequences? Though experiential learning is excellent, it is not the only type of learning available. If the airplane comes back online and you want to fly it, have at it. I'm not in a position to make that judgement for you. My only intent was to highlight the significant (negative) safety record of the airplane with a statistic that is easy to understand so that folks can make an informed decision.

 

As far as landing issues (hard landings, elevated risk, etc), the MD-11 is the safest fleet in the company right now per the metrics. If you had any idea of the training MD-11 pilots go through, you'd retract your statement. The MD-11 training department is the best in the company (Purple). I was disgusted by how awful the 767 training was during my stint on it. And when/if she comes back, she'll be the safest, most scrutinized jet we have.

But, if you still insist that you'll never step foot on one, let us know who you are so we know not to look for you on the jumpseat.

 

Let’s examine the hull losses and relative danger of the MD-11.

The vast majority of these losses are from bad landings, often in gusty conditions. While the hulls were loss, lives mostly were not. Another loss was due cockpit fire from an unfortunate DC power modification.
None of the other millions of departures resulted in pylon failures.

Pylon failures have existed in this industry, I know of 3 or 4 on the B747 that were survivable. Change the engineering and increase inspections and the airframes persevere.

To condemn the airframe for this extremely rare occurrence is not a proper use of the statistics.

I have a buddy who was a top engine guy at the NTSB and he believes the airframe is getting a bum rap largely due to the FAAs knee jerk grounding and the subsequent apprehension it caused the public to feel.

 

I think the MD-11 is so dangerous I don't even ship things on UPS or FedEx. I only use DHL or Purolator.

 

I don’t think anyone is blaming the training department.