Causal factors aside - it was still a mishap associated with 50% of the fleet.

USMCFLYR

 

Really, when you put the MD-11 behind 2 first generation jetliners (707/DC-8) and all the associated teething problems with introducing a totally new concept in aircraft (jets vs props) and training pilots who never flew a jet, then the MD-11 looks pretty bad. I give credit to all my brothers flying them. I flew the DC-8 and alot of folks were scared of the beast, but it was honest if not workload intensive, the MD on the other hand has some gremlins that are always lurking to bite the unsuspecting. Hats off to those who fly them, your better men than I!!

 

Not an airliner, but the Cessna 411 is up there.

 

Concorde went from best safety record in airline history to worst in about four minutes.

 

Vito, when was the last time you flew the MD-11?

 

Adlerdriver,
Never flew an MD-11, but you can't tell me its a great plane, easy to fly etc when there are so many incidents and accidents associated with them. Like the old saying goes, "Boeing builds jets, Douglas builds character" I believe that the MD is similar to the DC-8 in that you fly it by the book, and any deviations from that, there are possible consequences to pay with little margin for error. The other day I was taking a 767 into Lancing, Michigan. Our jumpseater was an MD-11 F/O who couldn't believe we could land a 767 on an 8500ft runway at Lancing, it was a non-event but he was surprised! That told me alot about the MD, as well as 160+ knot approach speeds and greater than 1000vvi on a 3 degree glideslope...You have to admit those parameters are pushing the scale, Thats why you have my respect...If the aircraft was designed better those numbers wouldn't be on the upper end of the speed and VVI range compared to other jets of the same category. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Or how about the night we had to land on RWY 29 at Louisville due to high winds. RWY 29 is approx 7300ft long, and surprise surprise an MD blew tires trying to stop on it, shut the operation down, or the MD that couldn't turn onto a taxiway and drug its gear into the mud (to be fair a 747-4 did it too on the same taxiway on the same night) Just alot of incidents and near "misses" occuring on a recurrent basis, that keep me from ever wanting to fly it..and I enjoy challenges!
Vito

 

...with too small of a rudder. Enter the 414, essentially the same plane with more vertical surface. :-)

 

I spent 4 years flying F/O on the MD911 at Delta, 1996-2000. In those 4 years, we had 5 landing 'incidents', ie. hard landings or tailstrikes. 3 of the 5 incidents were being flown by management pilots and/or sim instructor pilots (line pilots who spent 70% of their time in the box). The other two incidents were being flown by line check airmen.

After much investigation, it was found that in every incident, the airplane had a very aft CG at landing, around 32% was the number I heard.

Normaly, we would take off with a CG between 26-29. The MD911 moves fuel to the tail during climb, to get to a more efficient CG for cruise, which MD said was about 32%. Then on descent, it is supposed to run the tail fuel fwd (if there is any left) to get back to a 'normal' CG (26-29ish) for landing.

On 4 of the incidents, they flew a very short hop, ie. SEA-PDX, or LAX-SFO, and came down quickly. If I recall, fuel movement ceases around 17000' (?) on descent. If you only climed up to say, 250, then came down quickly, you will still have lots of fuel in the tail, and an aft CG for landing...and when you go to flare, it will 'swap ends', ie. pitch up much quicker than you are used to, and you'll get a tail strike.

I, being a former KC135 guy, was always very aware of our CG, all the time. I hand flew the MD911 up to cruise all the time, but you had to be very gentle with it, use just one thumb and one finger, like milking a mouse, because the higher you got, the more aft the CG was, so by the time you got up above 31000, it was very pitch sensative. Some guys refused to hand fly it above 10,000. Oh, it also has an auto-pitch trim system, and it will trim off any forces less than 2lbs. so you had to be gentle to keep from fighting with the trim system and getting into a PIO.

The MD has a CG readout displayed on the EICAS, and I always briefed the CG for landing, though not required, I wanted to know what I was dealing with, but there were no limits in our books about how far aft a CG you could land with. I never had a bad landing in it, but then I never landed it aft of 29.

The 5 guys who had 'issues' were all landing with around 32% and not prepared for the extra-rapid pitch-up when the boards deployed.

We had two pet names for it, the MD-911 (as in: Emergency!) and the Scud, because just like Sadam Housain's Scud missles, once you launched, you never knew were you were going to land!

 

I do think it’s a great aircraft and it is easy to fly. Since I have actually flown it, perhaps I can weigh in with a few counters to your opinions. It’s not like I’m trying to sell it, so I have no reason to puff it up or make it seem better than it is. It certainly doesn’t have “gremlins” that bite unsuspecting pilots. You just have to fly it properly. I’ve flown a few other transport type aircraft (737, A320, 757, 767). The MD-11 is just another aircraft, in my opinion. It has strengths and weaknesses just like any aircraft. The systems are phenomenal when it comes to pilot interface, simplicity and redundancy. The best by far of any of the aircraft I’ve operated.

For the first two years I flew it, I never heard any of this “boogie man” reputation that’s been bestowed on it recently. I didn’t fly it any differently than any of the other aircraft I had flown up to that point (still don’t). At no time while I was flying it did I think something like “Wow, this really flies tremendously different from the ______” (insert any of my previous aircraft). It wasn’t until I arrived at Fedex and began flying it there that I started to hear things similar to your opinions. I think some of that stuff becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if enough people perpetuate the line of thinking.

I don’t deny that you must fly the MD-11 well and most likely from an engineering as well as an aeronautical perspective, it has a smaller margin for error than Boeings. However, that target is attainable routinely and doesn’t exceed “normal” pilot skills at our level. Just because many of us have become complacent thanks to the huge envelope for successful flying Boeing manages to create with their great products, that doesn’t mean an aircraft like the MD-11 is “bad”. It takes a little more finesse and precision to fly in certain situations.

The conclusion you should draw from your MD-11 jumpseater’s opinions is that he really doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about. It sounds like he considers the 767 and MD-11 similar when they are really quite a bit different. Comparing landing capabilities of an MD-11 with a 767 is an apples and oranges situation. The max landing weight of an MD-11 is 60K-70K lbs. greater than the max takeoff weight of the 767s I flew in the pax world. Of course they’re going to have different landing requirements and capabilities. Why would that surprise him? That being said, with a flaps 50 approach and the wonderful brakes available on the MD-11, landing on 8500 feet would be a non-event for us too. The fact that your jumpseater was surprised just tells me he’s been operating the MD-11 in the “heart of the envelope” and hasn’t seen much else.

Yes, when we get close to max landing weight, you can see approach speeds in excess of 160 knots. Not that big a deal, IMO. VVI on an ILS is usually 800 fpm, maybe 900 fpm at the high end unless you have some kind of tailwind situation. Under normal circumstances, I’ve never needed 1000 fpm or higher to fly an ILS. So, as far as the VVI, I guess I’m correcting you because your information isn’t accurate.

From what I can tell, the Boeings are much more tolerant of extremes. The extremes that get you into trouble in an MD-11 are still pretty extreme. You really have to screw up royally to end up with an incident or worse. There are some pretty hard, fast “don’ts” in the MD-11. You don’t land in a crab. You don’t land with the wing unloaded. You don’t try to save a sinker by honkin’ back on the yoke and you don’t try to salvage a bounced landing.

Guess what? I learned not to do those things about 22 years ago when I first started flying jet aircraft. Just because someone can get away with some of those “don’ts” in another aircraft doesn’t mean they should. If pilots fly the MD-11 like any aircraft should be flown and not rely on Uncle Boeing’s over-engineering to pick up their slack, they’ll find it flies quite nicely and quite safely as well. Just my .02

 

For sheer stopping power, it was hard to beat a 727 @ 40 flaps, full reverse, and stomping on the pedals hard enough to engage the nose wheel brakes. Saw that done once on a short, wet runway, and we used less than 4000 feet.