MD11 crash in Riyadh update, not good news.
08-05-2010, 08:05 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Cap.
Posts: 72
[QUOTE=MD11;851260]
Forgive me if I made it sound as though the accident aircraft originated from HKG... that was not my intention. On one occasion we proved an overweight condition after arrival (a/c departed HKG). Just an example that people make mistakes but not necessarily always from HKG.
Ok, I think I've got it. You've determined the accident ws caused by an overweight condition. I'll check back with you when the accident report comes out.
Originally Posted by wldplt
Forgive me if I made it sound as though the accident aircraft originated from HKG... that was not my intention. On one occasion we proved an overweight condition after arrival (a/c departed HKG). Just an example that people make mistakes but not necessarily always from HKG.
08-05-2010, 10:50 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Out of Regional Jet flying
Posts: 296
[quote=wldplt;851266]
Ok, I think I've got it. You've determined the accident ws caused by an overweight condition. I'll check back with you when the accident report comes out.
Of course I am not claiming to know the cause. Somebody asked a question and I offered a personal experience. Take it or leave it... I don't care. I thought these forums were to share info... I guess not. Profuse apologies.. I will keep my experiences to myself.
Originally Posted by MD11
Ok, I think I've got it. You've determined the accident ws caused by an overweight condition. I'll check back with you when the accident report comes out.
08-05-2010, 11:33 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: B757
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Grumble
Wasn't there a witness report that the jet was smoking on final?
This is all rather odd.
08-05-2010, 12:01 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 104
[quote=wldplt;851266]
Ok, I think I've got it. You've determined the accident ws caused by an overweight condition. I'll check back with you when the accident report comes out.
Which accident report are you referring too, we are waiting for a few now
Originally Posted by MD11
Ok, I think I've got it. You've determined the accident ws caused by an overweight condition. I'll check back with you when the accident report comes out.
08-05-2010, 12:22 PM
#16
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Cap.
Posts: 72
[QUOTE=MD11;851379]
Of course I am not claiming to know the cause. Somebody asked a question and I offered a personal experience. Take it or leave it... I don't care. I thought these forums were to share info... I guess not. Profuse apologies.. I will keep my experiences to myself.
Don't take it personally. I just object to speculation surrounding any aspect of an accident investigation for a few reasons. One, we're not on the investigation board so we have zero access to information about what actually happened. Witness the confusion even on this thread about whether or not an emergency was declared prior to the landing. Your suppositions are plausible but there is absolutely no indication that any of that happened. But "journalists" (and I use that term very loosely) surf aviation websites for just such speculation and sometimes report it. I just prefer to keep my mouth shut and let the pros do their work.
Originally Posted by wldplt
Of course I am not claiming to know the cause. Somebody asked a question and I offered a personal experience. Take it or leave it... I don't care. I thought these forums were to share info... I guess not. Profuse apologies.. I will keep my experiences to myself.
08-07-2010, 05:09 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Looking for "Confirm Engine Out" button
Posts: 147
[QUOTE=wldplt;851218]
The question you're replying to was about the gear design on the -11, not the horizontal stab. Your scenario for a nose gear strike presupposes a situation where the aircraft is substantially heavier than advertised. I've worked the Lufthansa contract and I can assure you that if there is any freight operator in the world who would be least likely to make that mistake it is Lufthansa. Also, if you're grossly over planned weight you will get a heads up long before the approach in the form of increased fuel burn and inability to climb to your planned cruising altitude.
Thanks for the help, WLDPLT. It was intended to be a simple question about gear designs and speculations. We all know what nasty bounce-landings can to do an MD11... or any airplane for that matter. The -11 was the most rewarding plane to land, as one had to work hard and stay completely focused on the task at hand until clear of the runway. More so than any other plane I've ever flown. Planes like the B727 were much easier to land and more forgiving to minor brain cell failures.
Originally Posted by MD11
The question you're replying to was about the gear design on the -11, not the horizontal stab. Your scenario for a nose gear strike presupposes a situation where the aircraft is substantially heavier than advertised. I've worked the Lufthansa contract and I can assure you that if there is any freight operator in the world who would be least likely to make that mistake it is Lufthansa. Also, if you're grossly over planned weight you will get a heads up long before the approach in the form of increased fuel burn and inability to climb to your planned cruising altitude.
08-27-2010, 07:02 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Right Seat A320
Posts: 57
[quote=md11retiree;852332][quote=wldplt;851218]
. The -11 was the most rewarding plane to land, as one had to work hard and stay completely focused on the task at hand until clear of the runway. More so than any other plane I've ever flown.
You've obviously have never flown a T-6. The work starts when the wheels get on the ground, and it really ain't over until you're parked..
Just giving you a hard time. There have been cases of MD-11's rolling off the end of runways after touching down in the touchdown zone. I agree with you, it does require some serious attention on landing and rollout, especially after a 10 hour leg on the backside of the clock, on day 12 of a 16 day trip..
. The -11 was the most rewarding plane to land, as one had to work hard and stay completely focused on the task at hand until clear of the runway. More so than any other plane I've ever flown.
You've obviously have never flown a T-6. The work starts when the wheels get on the ground, and it really ain't over until you're parked..
Just giving you a hard time. There have been cases of MD-11's rolling off the end of runways after touching down in the touchdown zone. I agree with you, it does require some serious attention on landing and rollout, especially after a 10 hour leg on the backside of the clock, on day 12 of a 16 day trip..
04-10-2019, 06:53 AM
#20
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by md11retiree
I loved flying the MD11 for twelve years and yes, you do get the occasional firm landing. Obviously, you get worse if you don't stay completely focused throughout the landing regime. Here's a question: could've all/most of the MD11 landing accidents been avoided if the landing gear was designed similar to the 747 or A330 trucks (four main trucks, consisting of two body gear and two wing gear)? I've heard 747 pilots consistently praise the landing performance of their jet and not the same from the MD11 crews. What's your opinion about the gear structure?
The MD-11 is a poor intent to stretch an already large airframe. Trying to make it "more efficient" by reducing the aerodynamic drag would be perfectly acceptable... BUT; reducing the drag by reducing too much the horizontal stabilizer and elevators, placing the C.G. to far back, and keeping the Landing Gear placement to correspond to the main structure of the DC-10 (to save bucks, mainly) is stoopid and an example of bad engineering, period.
Now MD-11 pilots will start to say that this bird is beautiful, it fies nice but demands a "true pilot", and so so... OK, every pilot is enamored with his plane, isnīt it?, But the truth is that when management and bean-counters intervene in the design process, this type of thing happen. Look at Boeing with the 737MAX, where they decided that relocating the engines was straigtforward "and that magical software" will fix it, somehow..." That's idiotic!
Now, on your question on Landing Gear placement: YES, you are 100% right... the damn L.G. was a poor intent to save money by using as much of the old DC-10 design as they WISHED was OK (wishful-thinking, that is)... it WAS-NOT. Just look at the many "hard landings" that resulted in accidents. But, again, speaking as an engineer, the L.G. design is just half the problem: to really fix this airframe you need to REDESIGN IT to correct the Too-small stabilizer and elevators, relocate the C.G. to DC-10 placement, revise the structure and get rid of any idiotic electronic "Aerodynamic" corrections or patches. Are you reading, Boeing young engineers??? (I suggest Boeing to revert to their OLD but PROVEN design philosophies from the 747 era, and to refrain to try to fix everything with software).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
