TrainViation
Member
Rest in peace to those on-board. Wow.
Last edited:
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Louisville UPS MD11 Crash
- Thread starter TrainViation
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,667
Brutal crash. Poor crew never stood a chance, on fire on the runway beyond V1.
I hope that area on the ground wasn't too densely occupied by people.
I hope that area on the ground wasn't too densely occupied by people.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
From what I can gather, not much in the way of residential property but a lot of industry. Just seen a press briefing that mentioned a Ford Motors plant in the area which lost power but was not directly affected.
Awful for the crew. Looks like the engine flamed out too late to abandon the take off, at that point the only option is try and get airborne anyway and then either attempt a go-around, or try to put down in an unpopulated area.
Speculation alert, but my first thought for a possible cause is a bird strike.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,162
Looks like a very tragic incident.
I have seen a few clips online (where you never can be certain what's real/ AI or what's old/ from this), and it looks like severe damage to the number one engine (left side imagining you are sat on the plane). Possibly the number one separated.
The MD-11 had a crash previously where severe uncontained damage to the number one engine damaged the number two engine (the rear middle engine) and damaged the hydraulic system. In that case the plane is going nowhere but down.
Really hoping that ground casualties are minimal because there's the possibility this isn't the case.
Just a few technical thoughts.
Engines can flame out for a lot of reasons, but, discounting severe damage to the engine, a flame out is typically a relatively minor problem . There typically isn't significant immediate yaw (sideways movement), but a slow spool down and a gradual increase in yaw. The engine can then typically be restarted in flight. Lots of relativity/ typically as there are many degrees of seriousness and different scenarios in which this might happen.
Though note we have basically no facts and a lot of this is purely speculative - It looks more to me like there was a severe uncontained engine failure with significant flames coming from the number one engine.
A go-around can only be conducted on an approach. This plane was taking off. With an engine failure on take-off, typically the crews would go to a point close to the airport to enter a hold at a safe altitude, run checklists and go through their company's decision making process and make a plan.
With the take-off, there will be different speed. V1 and VR are the two key ones here. V1 is the 'decision speed'. It's a stop/ go barrier and at V1, the pilots are trained to go. V1 is typically calculated using the planes weight, the runway length and characteristics, weather etc. VR would be the speed the pilot flying begins to rotate. There's another speed called V2 - the take-off safety speed - which is the speed the plane can safely fly with an engine failure.
I have seen a few clips online (where you never can be certain what's real/ AI or what's old/ from this), and it looks like severe damage to the number one engine (left side imagining you are sat on the plane). Possibly the number one separated.
The MD-11 had a crash previously where severe uncontained damage to the number one engine damaged the number two engine (the rear middle engine) and damaged the hydraulic system. In that case the plane is going nowhere but down.
Really hoping that ground casualties are minimal because there's the possibility this isn't the case.
Just a few technical thoughts.
Engines can flame out for a lot of reasons, but, discounting severe damage to the engine, a flame out is typically a relatively minor problem . There typically isn't significant immediate yaw (sideways movement), but a slow spool down and a gradual increase in yaw. The engine can then typically be restarted in flight. Lots of relativity/ typically as there are many degrees of seriousness and different scenarios in which this might happen.
Though note we have basically no facts and a lot of this is purely speculative - It looks more to me like there was a severe uncontained engine failure with significant flames coming from the number one engine.
A go-around can only be conducted on an approach. This plane was taking off. With an engine failure on take-off, typically the crews would go to a point close to the airport to enter a hold at a safe altitude, run checklists and go through their company's decision making process and make a plan.
With the take-off, there will be different speed. V1 and VR are the two key ones here. V1 is the 'decision speed'. It's a stop/ go barrier and at V1, the pilots are trained to go. V1 is typically calculated using the planes weight, the runway length and characteristics, weather etc. VR would be the speed the pilot flying begins to rotate. There's another speed called V2 - the take-off safety speed - which is the speed the plane can safely fly with an engine failure.
NSEWonderer
Established Member
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,667
Oh wow. I think that guys reaction says it all.
The pictures of the engine off the side of the runway indicate a fairly spectacular I contained engine failure at some point in the sequence.
Was it an engine fire? The video I've seen is from too far a distance to see anything other than fire on the wing. Considering there are pictures of the entire engine being alongside the runway it's perfectly possibly that the engine was ripped off its mounting and then fire followed.
The engine itself is confirmed to have detached from the wing. The fire may also have destroyed the hydraulics as well as affecting the aerodynamic viability of the aircraft.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I seem to recall with AA191 that what happened was that the engine detaching caused leaking hydraulics on that wing, which caused the flaps and slats to retract and thus that wing to stall while the other one was still producing lift, and there just wasn't time for the crew to do anything about it if anything was indeed possible at all. It is noticeable that this crash seems to have caused a similar roll towards that wing as it lost lift.
Tragically, I fear this might be an accident of a very similar sort of cause.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
With AA191, the detached engine rotated across the upper surface of the wing because the rear mount on the pylon failed first; it was the going across the top of the wing which destroyed all the control systems on that side. The detachment in that instance happened because short cuts were being made in the maintenance procedures which led to cracking of the mounts.
One would have to hope it was not the same cause here - that particular lesson should have been learned in 1979.
Ted633
Member
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 570
On AA191 it wasn’t just the engine that detached, the pylon came with it. Looking at the pictures from this incident, it’s only the bare engine itself left on the ground.
Obviously, you can’t initially tell much from a mangled wreck, but I’d be hesitant to say this is a similar incident.
Additionally, the aircraft wing was on fire which was not the case of AA191.
To me, this looks like the #1 engine has failed spectacularly and separated, with the debris puncturing the fuel tank and causing a large fire.
Reports also suggest #2 was spitting flames, indicating it possibly ingested debris from #1. With or without a fire, 1 engine out and another spluttering, the pilots stood little chance with the aircraft at MTOW.
Obviously, you can’t initially tell much from a mangled wreck, but I’d be hesitant to say this is a similar incident.
Additionally, the aircraft wing was on fire which was not the case of AA191.
To me, this looks like the #1 engine has failed spectacularly and separated, with the debris puncturing the fuel tank and causing a large fire.
Reports also suggest #2 was spitting flames, indicating it possibly ingested debris from #1. With or without a fire, 1 engine out and another spluttering, the pilots stood little chance with the aircraft at MTOW.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 9,667
Engine 2 would be right in line to take debris for engine 1 at rotation losing 2/3 engines with full cargo and fuel would logically lead to exactly what we saw. But we will see I suppose.
I have seen a photo somewhere that I think shows the pylon at side of runway. I'll go try find it.
Strathclyder
Established Member
Bloody hell that's nightmare fuel incarnate. A completely appropriate reaction there, no question. Just about the worst aviation accident footage I've seen in a long time. God rest the crew, they didn't stand a chance.
BBC now reporting 11 fatalities.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Yet another Boeing in flames on the ground.
My suspicion too is that it is going to be a maintenance failure.
My suspicion too is that it is going to be a maintenance failure.
It wasn’t though. Look at El-Al 1862 in 1992.
Ted633
Member
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 570
McDonnell Douglas. This airframe was built before the merger
Strathclyder
Established Member
McDonnell-Douglas. The MD-11 involved here was built at least 6 years before the merger in July 1991 for Thai Airways International. Was converted into a freighter and delivered to UPS Airlines in 2006.
Last edited:
NSEWonderer
Established Member
These were Runway images of the engine that was left on depature.
Ted633
Member
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2018
- Messages
- 570
Only bits that are recognisable there are the core of the engine itself (photo 1 & 3) and the inlet cowl (photo 2 & 4)
There is some other debris in the top photo, but it’s pretty mangled. The fan cowls and thrust reverser ducts will be somewhere.
There is some other debris in the top photo, but it’s pretty mangled. The fan cowls and thrust reverser ducts will be somewhere.
TravelDream
Member
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 1,162
This frame was built years before the Boeing merger, and designed over a decade before it.
Note Boeing didn't want McD's commercial programme. The MD-95, later Boeing 717, limped on for a few years longer, but it was mostly shut down asap.They wanted McD's substantial military contracts.
Though, sadly, whilst they kept the Boeing name, they kept McD's culture of cost cutting and minimizing development budgets. Boeing was quite a different company pre- and post- merger and I have no doubt it contributed to their current problems. But the managers who made big bucks in the mid 90s have taken their payouts and are long gone.
A bit early to tell what's gone wrong. It could be maintenance. It might not be too different to American 191 on the DC-10 (MD-11's predecessor)
Yes I was going to say surely it's another McDonald Douglas in flames on the ground just as, arguably, all the other crashes have been since it was their corporate culture that seems to have eventually won out in the merged company rather than Boeing's...
Though of course we have no real idea what has happened to bring down this aircraft. Could be entirely unrelated to anything that the manufacture did.
NTSB confirmed the bulk of the pylon detached from the wing along with the engine. Heavy focus must now be on the maintenance that was recently carried out on the aircraft.
aviationweek.com
NTSB: Left Engine Pylon Broke Away During UPS MD-11 Accident Sequence | Aviation Week
The left engine that came off the UPS MD-11 leading to its fatal crash Nov. 4 had most of its pylon attached when it separated, NTSB investigators determined.
aviationweek.com
Deepgreen
Established Member
Something that amazes me having looked at the crash site on maps is that there is/was a petrol recycling centre just off the end of the runway! I can't help think that this is not the best location for, basically, a fuel dump...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Agreed - however it seems almst impossible for it to have been anything other than a maintenance failure (even as simple as poor rivets/fixings on the pylon?) or metal fatigue (which should have been picked up during significant maintenance anyway). Almost certainly not something that McDonnell Douglas did 34 years ago.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Canvey Island was neatly lined up with the runway at Southend, although not so close...
Back on the subject, the BBC is reporting that all MD11s have been grounded for checks - not really a surprise in the circumstances.
Deepgreen
Established Member
UPS and FexEx have, but Western Global also have two, and there has been no word from them yet. It would seem likely.
Strathclyder
Established Member
As rare as it is, it's worth noting that engine seperations have occurred and the aircraft has managed to land safely, see the case of Nationwide Airlines 723 in November 2007 - a 737-200 that lost it's right/#2 engine during takeoff at Cape Town due to metal fatigue-induced failure of the aft cone bolt mounting the engine to the wing - is perhaps one of the better-known examples of this in the last 20 or so years.
Defintely getting echoes of American 191 and El-Al 1862 here. I doubt anything McD did in 1991 had any bearing on what happened here and as you say, focus must now turn to the maintanence N259UP underwent in the weeks/months before the crash.NTSB confirmed the bulk of the pylon detached from the wing along with the engine. Heavy focus must now be on the maintenance that was recently carried out on the aircraft.
NTSB: Left Engine Pylon Broke Away During UPS MD-11 Accident Sequence | Aviation Week
The left engine that came off the UPS MD-11 leading to its fatal crash Nov. 4 had most of its pylon attached when it separated, NTSB investigators determined.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The pylon is apparently designed to shear off cleanly if forces become excessive, to avoid damaging the wing. In the case of American 191 one pylon fixing gave way due to being damaged, which caused the other one to fail in a different way that took a piece of the wing and the electrics and hydraulics with it.
The left hand engine was apparently found to the right of the runway, so I think this was more than a simple separation of the pylon. Also debris was probably ingested into at least one of the other engines, leaving it without enough thrust to keep flying, and that suggests a disintegration rather than a separation in one piece.
The left hand engine was apparently found to the right of the runway, so I think this was more than a simple separation of the pylon. Also debris was probably ingested into at least one of the other engines, leaving it without enough thrust to keep flying, and that suggests a disintegration rather than a separation in one piece.
With them only having two aircraft is it possible they've already done the checks? When you're dealing with 27 (UPS) and 26 (FedEx) that will take a bit longer to work through!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
From what I can tell (based mainly on the video below) the FAA has not yet defined what will need to be done to allow return to service, and probably won't until they have a much better understanding of what went wrong. So these aircraft are grounded until further notice. I'm not sure if any non-US airline operates MD11s but I guess the relevant authorities will ground them too.