UPS MD-11 tailstrike
 

Seems that two MD-11 management pilots had an MD-11 tailstrike in SDF on 10/14. They are TH and MH

Takeoff or landing?

It happened on landing

Ups elite force has done it again. Time for promotion:rolleyes:

The report shows that it happened during an autoland. It will be interesting to see what the data recorders show on this one.

think TH should stick to writing threatening letters to his scab squad then flying MD11.

Only 200 MD-11s built and 13 accidents. Wonder what other aircraft has this good (:D) of a record.

Since the left the door was left open with just "aircraft", I'll submit the XB-70 :D:eek: YOWZAA!

USMCFLYR

Among airliners the Concorde has the highest accident rate, followed by the 707 and DC-8.

http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf

You can't blame the Valkyrie for another plane running into it.

MBB

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.

Timbo,
Some of the numbers you're talking may have changed since you flew the MD-11 and/or we just operate it differently than Delta. There has also been a change to the flight control system using LSAS (longitudinal stab aug system) that induces a nose down pitch on landing to counter the pitch up you mentioned.

The fuel comes forward out of the tail on descent through about 27K and doesn't stop until you configure. It's pretty fast, so the chances that any would be still back there after a normal descent are small.

You also don't get tail fuel management at all unless the total FOB is greater than 60K. So, unless the aircraft was tankering fuel, it's unlikely there would be any transfer of fuel aft for a short leg like LAX-SFO or SEA-PDX. Perhaps this is a change since you were flying them?

Normal takeoff CG we use is usually in the ball park of 24%. Once we're at or getting close to cruise altitude, it will go back to an absolute max of 32%. During descent it returns to something close to the takeoff CG or less (since normal fuel burn always brings it forward of where it was for takeoff). It sounds like Delta loaded your aircraft a little differently. For us, landing anywhere close to 32% would require a seriously aft takeoff CG to start and/or alot of tail fuel still trapped in the tail tank.

Cheers,
AD

They were constantly 'improving' the LSAS logic with many updates, there were 3 updates in the 4 years I was on it, and I will bet that the fuel system changes you mentioned, were a direct result of the aft CG incidents I mentioned.

The tail fuel would stop going fwd descending through the high teens, I can't remember if it was 19,000 or 17,000, but it would stop at some point on descent and you were stuck with what ever CG you had.

There was quite a fuss made about it after we had our rash of misshaps, so no doubt it was 'fixed' after that.

Also, we had one clown who decided he was smarter than the fuel managemet computer, who went to 'manual' while it was pumping tail fuel to the #2 engine so they flamed out #2. They quickly restarted it, but the airplane had already ratted them out to ATL MX. MX sent them a message, "Did you guys just lose #2??"

"Um...No, why do you ask?"

Did they fix that too?

I don't think they did. I think, now, conventional wisdom is that none of us are smarter than the computer.

If we are going to go manual, we need one of those old joke "decision trees" (the one with "is it broken?", "can you hide it?", "can you blame it on someone else", etc.)
1. To go manual, first pull up the fuel synoptic page.
2. Did it take longer than 5 seconds to figure out what it was doing with the fuel? If yes, then don't mess with it right now.
3. Did you actually say out loud "Why's it doing that?" If yes, then don't mess with it right now.

You get the idea. :D

Which one will get the promotion to VP of Flight Ops?

It was always an adventure flying that thing! ;^)

Most of us were smart enough not to try to -outsmart- it! But we had some guys who came right off the 727 left seat, to the left seat of the MD-11, who were spring loaded to pulling CB's anytime they thought they had an issue.

As you well know on the MD11, pulling/resetting CB's was...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m80ky_7SrPs


Not Allowed.

It actually does more 'stuff' than the 777 does, without asking, or telling you!

Adlerdriver,
Thanks for the great response to my post. I agree that Boeings have a very large envelope and are very forgiving. Coming off the DC-8, I kept asking my 767 IP's, "Whats gonna bite me on this plane?" because on the DC-8 a typical training event was "don't let the engineer flame out an engine" "Watch the panel, when fuel balancing" "Watch your main gear on taxiways" "Watch your engine pods on a crosswind" etc etc. One 727 captain told me I'm crazy going to the DC-8, he said "If your engineer doesn't flame out one of your engines, you'll drag a pod during a crosswind, or taxi into the mud trying to turn it!" So when I asked my 767IP "whats going to bite me on this jet?" he paused for a few seconds and said "nothing really" and its true...it was nice , after flying the 8.

Tom Goodman,
I was the F/O on a 727 inbound to Philly one morning and the Captain was extolling the short field capabilities of the 727 during a conversation. As we flew the approach into RWY 27left I noticed he was dipping low on glidepath, we were visual, VFR, he acknowledged and then landed about 400 feet down and slammed on the brakes so hard I banged my head on the glareshield! we turned off on taxi-way Uniform into the UPS ramp which was about 2800ft from the approach end (Flaps 30, not 40 also) It was quite impressive, but the Engineer didn't like the fact that the Captain surprised us about the STOL demo and reported him to Pro-Standards!!! plus I had a welt on my forehead! If you really want to be impressed, come on over to McGuire AFB or any C-17 base and watch a real short field approach (Lots on You-Tube) we routinely land on 3500ft strips up to 500,000 gross weights with room to spare. Its an aircraft carrier approach, utilizing AOA, landing in the "zone" and MASSIVE manual braking! (No tail Hooks) challenging and Lots of fun
Thanks guys
Vito

I was on the 11 a decade ago. I'm sure there have been many upgrades since then. While I didn't find the airplane unsafe if operated properly, it certainly requires more finesse and attention. I went to the Bus and find the 320/330 to be much better for my tastes. Fifi can make you lazy if you don't fly her manual to keep up the stick skills but it never feels on the edge like the MD did. I would rather stay far into the safe zone and if you call that over engineered, well, I say so be it. I call it well engineered as opposed to pieced together and good enough. The 11 never really felt settled to me, safe enough, but a little raw if you ask me.

I feel that the MD-11 isn't hard to fly, it's just not as forgiving if the pilots screw up. I flew the -11 up to 2012. I've landed a plane full of Hadj pilgrims, at max pax landing weight, on a 8200 ft long, ungrooved runway and had no problems turning off at mid field. When I started flying the plane, guys were afraid to hand fly it and scared to disconnect the autothrottles. It can do everything for you and Boeing wants you to let it do it. I find that it's very easy to let your skills slide. Since I did't write the checks, I flew it the way the manufacture and my airline wanted me to fly it, but I took advantage of every situation where they allowed me to turn the magic off.

Or google "Davis Island C-17"

I'll second what JJP said - I actually enjoyed flying the -11. The other big difference I found between it and the "native" Boeing products (and even the DC-10) is the -11 is VERY light on the gear after touchdown. On the other similar aircraft I've flown, once the ground spoilers deploy it feels like you're pretty well planted. The -11 feels like it's more than willing to still go flying for a while afterwards.

Not a bad airplane, but like JJP said, not overly forgiving. I like the way one captain put it: "Every airplane you fly they always emphasize that you should fly a stabilized approach. Most airplanes you can get away with not doing so (even though it's a bad practice to do so) - on the MD-11, you'd really better be flying a stabilized approach."

The way it was explained to me was, MD basically put a longer, heavier fueselage on the same DC10 wing, with winglets, but they upped the MGTOW by about 100,000 and added that pogo stick center main gear.

I know we had to advise ATC we would be flying 265 (ias) below 10,000' as that was clean speed when we departed ATL for NRT fully loaded, with the aux fuel tanks. Then we could only climb up to FL280 for the first 4-5 hours, until we had burned off enough fuel to get higher.

Oh, and they said the reason for that whole LSAS system was, the horizontal stab. was too small but MD didn't want to put a bigger one on it, (more drag, more wt.), so they just tweaked the one they had.

You may recall that when AA first got them, and they were burning a lot more fuel than advertised, they sued MD and won some money to pay back for the extra fuel burn. The rumor at DL was, if you bought an MD11, you got two MD88's for Free!

Actually it is similar to the DC-9 morph into MD-88.

The MD-11 did increase the fuselage length
It has a different Wing that has much less drag
The Center Gear was also on the DC-10-30 No Change.
The MD-11 added a Tail Fuel Tank (and auto Tail fuel management) which gave an aft CG for better fuel economy. It actually worked very well and was required for extra long leg segments.
The Fuel economy was fine, it just didn't quite have the Advertised Range when it was fully loaded. MEM (or ATL)-NRT in the winter time was about it's limit.
The horizontal Stab on the MD-11 was different than the DC-10's. It was smaller and slotted and very pitch sensitive because it was further back from the CG than the older DC-10.
They added LSAS , which worked well. You just had to get use to it when hand flying.

It did have the highest approach speed of any Transport category aircraft that I know of.
The safety flight envelope on the MD11 might be a little smaller than say a 777 or 747, but it is still a safe aircraft if operated properly. BTW many fully grossed Heavy aircraft probably have to exceed 250 "clean" on departure.

It may not be a 777 but The MD-11 is a fine aircraft. It has it's quirks like any aircraft.
You can easily Tail strike any Heavy Aircraft if you aren't stable.

RickAir77

You wrote: "Or google "Davis Island C-17"

Talk about good brakes!!!! I'm privy to info about this incident and the C-17 brakes should win an award for stopping power, probably 99% of aircraft in the same situation would be in the Bay.

Like I said back at the beginning of this thread, I flew it for 4 years and never had a problem with it, but I know lots of guys who did. You had to watch the CG, and fly it like milking a mouse. I never had a bad landing in it, but I knew lots of guys who did...most were instructors and LCA's landing it with an aft CG.

Hard to believe a guy who says he never had a bad landing in a airplane he flew for 4 years. :D Seriously once flew with a Captain who said the same about a empty Airbus 310. He then proceeded to punish the runway for the next week, made me wonder what he thought a bad landing was.:eek:

Well as F/O on a 3 or 4 pilot crew, we didn't get but one landing a month...if we were lucky! So, I had to make each one count.

I had a really good instructor when I checked out on it (the 'milking the mouse' guy). He flew the KC10 and the DC 10, as well as the MD911, so he passed on quite a bit of his 'tricks' to keep you out of trouble. "Maintain your pitch, and don't get slow!"

MX guys are saying it happened on take-off.

A tail strike on takeoff took out an MD-11 in PVG not too long ago. If it did indeed happen on takeoff those guys are lucky to be alive.

You can make that comparison when you're doing it at night, your runway is swinging 30' up and down, your "zone" is 40' long, and your landing area is only 400' long. :D:p

Grumble,
All good points, you have my respect, I was explaining the way we land in such a short distance was utilizing the same procedures as what you guys use to land on a carrier deck with precision and accuracy consistently. But don't try to make carrier landings the stuff of mythical legend, you guys "always have a head wind, and never have to flare, you have 4 f%^cking wires, How can you miss!!":D

Vito:)

You heard their new album? It's nothing short of awesome.

Watched the Moose guys land on the assault strips in theater more than a few times, freakin' awesome.