FedEx MD-11 crash at Narita

[flyboy2548m]

The FedEx MD-11 fleet has a wind shear detection system installed. The system does not predict, it detects and notifies the crew of a wind shear when the aircraft encounters one.

So, looks like Yomiurihatsutaka (or whoever) was wrong after all. What a surprise.

[flyboy2548m]

I thought usable fuel in the center tanks is excluded from ZFW, provided it is to be burned before the (or at least the vast majority of the) fuel in the wings.

You thought wrong.

[Ancient Mariner]

The FedEx MD-11 fleet has a wind shear detection system installed. The system does not predict, it detects and notifies the crew of a wind shear when the aircraft encounters one.

So, looks like Yomiurihatsutaka (or whoever) was wrong after all. What a surprise.

Suzhondamura-san said predict, Moore-san said detect. Per-san says slight difference. No?
Per

[flyboy2548m]

The FedEx MD-11 fleet has a wind shear detection system installed. The system does not predict, it detects and notifies the crew of a wind shear when the aircraft encounters one.

So, looks like Yomiurihatsutaka (or whoever) was wrong after all. What a surprise.

Suzhondamura-san said predict, Moore-san said detect. Per-san says slight difference. No?
Per

Let's all just go out for some teryaki chicken.

[Ancient Mariner]

So, looks like Yomiurihatsutaka (or whoever) was wrong after all. What a surprise.

Suzhondamura-san said predict, Moore-san said detect. Per-san says slight difference. No?
Per

Let's all just go out for some teryaki chicken.

Cool, I'll sponsor the sake and Kirin beer.
Per

[3WE]

I just viewed a slow motion replay.

It SEEMS like they hit a little hard, and a little nose-low and maybe some extra smoke from the left main gear (blown tire/s?) (That could probably have been caused by a wind gust/death of the wind/shear/whatever).

THEN it seems the rear of the aircraft almost rears up and shoves the nose forward in a FIRST bounce (this is kind of subtle- but I think it's there), AND THEN you get the BIG pitch up-take-flight/big pitch down.

Amazingly, it almost seems like the plane survives the second HARD touchdown, but then the wing starts folding.

My point/question- what could have broken/gone wrong during that first, subtle-LOOKING touchdown, to lead to big pitch up???

I agree with those who say it LOOKS LIKE a PIO, but a PIO from a clueless person like me, NOT a professional pilot....thus I'm not comfortable saying PIO, but wonder if "something broke".....what could have?

[Giles]

but wonder if "something broke".....what could have?

your reasoning.

[3WE]

but wonder if "something broke".....what could have?

your reasoning.

Two reasons in particular:

1) It is illogical and unlikely for an experienced pilot to make a huge PIO- yanking the plane ~30 feet into the air and then pitching over so strongly that the plane hits nosewheel first.

2) It is also illogical that a typical 20-40 knot wind would cause such responses- Flyboy handles such winds as a non event.

I conceed, it could be PIO, OR winds OR both...I just want to belive that ITS's coworkers have airmanship skills to deal with that.

[Giles]

1) It is illogical
2) It is also illogical

[3WE]

Judging by your childish reply, and the amount of effort you went to to find or generate such a picture, it would appear that you are afflicted with the same illogical human emotions as Dr. McCoy.

Fascinating.

[Giles]

Any updates (on the crash, not 3WE) ?

[Giles]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100416004826.htm

The fatal crash of a cargo jet landing at Narita Airport in March last year may have been caused by pilot error as the plane's nose dipped too much during strong winds, according to a report released Friday by a board investigating the accident.

The accident killed the two U.S. pilots aboard the FedEx Corp. MD-11 jet.

The Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Ministry's Transport Safety Board said in a progress report that the plane's control stick was tilted too far forward causing the plane to lower its nose excessively before landing.

Earlier, it was speculated that wind shear might have been responsible for the first fatal accident at Narita Airport, which opened in 1979.

However, the board said there was no dangerous wind shear at the time of the plane's landing.

According to the plane's flight recorder and other sources, the control stick was pushed too far forward, making the plane touch down at the wrong angle and then bounce.

About a second later, the nose lowered again. The plane then made contact with the runway a second time, causing the jet to bounce about five meters.

The control stick was again pushed forward, causing the plane to make a much larger contact with the runway. One of the wings broke off, and the plane swiveled, flipped over on its back and burst into flames.

According to the board's report, it was strange that the control stick was pushed too far forward before landing.

The board plans to draw up another report after investigating whether the control stick was pushed far forward to compensate for the strong winds or whether it was manipulated differently from other planes because of its characteristics.

(Apr. 17, 2010)

[Giles]

some pics
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -over.html

In its update the JTSB shows that preceding aircraft had faced turbulent winds during the approach to Narita. A Nippon Cargo Airlines flight landing immediately before the FedEx MD-11F informed the tower that final approach conditions were "really rough", with winds "plus-minus 15kt below 1,000[ft]".

Two minutes before the crash the tower controller cleared the FedEx jet to land on 34L and advised of winds from 320° at 29kt but added: "Maximum 36, minimum 17."

Some 40sec later cockpit-voice recorder information captured the captain possibly referring to a turbulent approach - "Yee haw, ride 'em cowboy" - after the jet descended below 1,000ft.

After the MD-11F's central aural warning system called the height at 500ft, the captain stated: "Cleared to land 34L, stable." Four seconds later, the first officer commented: "Sheee."

The JTSB's update does not indicate any further comment from the crew before the impacts at touchdown.

It states that the aircraft landed at 166kt. As it bounced the jet's pitch reduced to level flight and the aircraft contacted the runway harder, with an impact of 2.21g.

The MD-11F bounced into the air a second time, pitching to 6.7° nose-up and reaching a height of 16ft before pitching to 4.9° nose-down. The third impact registered 3.06g and resulted in serious structural wing damage in the region of the left-hand main gear.

JTSB investigators have yet to reach conclusions on the crash. The broad dynamics of the accident sequence parallels that of several events in which MD-11 aircraft have rolled over after a heavy landing.

[3WE]

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100416004826.htm

the plane's nose dipped too much during strong winds

However, the board said there was no dangerous wind shear at the time of the plane's landing.

the control stick was pushed too far forward,

The control stick was again pushed forward,

it was strange that the control stick was pushed too far forward before landing.

Thanks for your updates- but wow, is that all the better they can do over one year later?- they pushed over too much?...gee, I'm thinking there was unsubstantiated parlor talk saying the exact same thing within an hour of the crash?

I would consider the bolded statement to be useful- except that it was sure as hell windy, bumpy and challenging based on CVR comments and the comments from the crew of the other airliner, when do we cross the line from extremely rough to a little bit dangerous? No dangerous wind shear? No danger at all...whatsoever?

[Giles]

but wow, is that all the better they can do over one year later?

no.

wait for the final report.

[3WE]

wait for the final report.

Ok. I guess we'll just have to cool it and start waiting.

[ocelot]

After thinking about this for a while and looking at the old postings, I'm starting to think the problem is likely not wind but something about the landing gear -- maybe some kind of unsuspected oscillatory mode, or maybe some property of the MLG shocks tends to create a pitch coupling under stress, or something like that.

There have been other MD-11 wrecks arising from hard landings, but as far as I know (maybe that's not very far though) there's no particular history of MD-11 wrecks connected to rough winds.

On the subject of PIO, given an experienced crew and the MD-11's known twitchiness in pitch control I think ordinary PIO can be ruled out: an experienced crew will be on top of the pitch issues and won't be caught out except under substantially worse conditions than apparently prevailed. (And perhaps not even then.)

But, the flip side of this is that faced with pitch excursions caused by something else, like by hypothesis the landing gear, having a different characteristic frequency and different response characteristics, their instinctive reactions will be all wrong and PIO is a real possibility. Being experienced, they'd probably realize what was going on and break out of it after no more than one or two iterations, but in this situation that'd be too late.

This is all the worst kind of speculation, of course...

[flyboy2548m]

After thinking about this for a while and looking at the old postings, I'm starting to think the problem is likely not wind but something about the landing gear -- maybe some kind of unsuspected oscillatory mode, or maybe some property of the MLG shocks tends to create a pitch coupling under stress, or something like that.

There have been other MD-11 wrecks arising from hard landings, but as far as I know (maybe that's not very far though) there's no particular history of MD-11 wrecks connected to rough winds.

On the subject of PIO, given an experienced crew and the MD-11's known twitchiness in pitch control I think ordinary PIO can be ruled out: an experienced crew will be on top of the pitch issues and won't be caught out except under substantially worse conditions than apparently prevailed. (And perhaps not even then.)

But, the flip side of this is that faced with pitch excursions caused by something else, like by hypothesis the landing gear, having a different characteristic frequency and different response characteristics, their instinctive reactions will be all wrong and PIO is a real possibility. Being experienced, they'd probably realize what was going on and break out of it after no more than one or two iterations, but in this situation that'd be too late.

This is all the worst kind of speculation, of course...

What?

[3WE]

After thinking about this for a while and looking at the old postings, I'm starting to think the problem is likely not wind but something about the landing gear -- maybe some kind of unsuspected oscillatory mode, or maybe some property of the MLG shocks tends to create a pitch coupling under stress, or something like that.

There have been other MD-11 wrecks arising from hard landings, but as far as I know (maybe that's not very far though) there's no particular history of MD-11 wrecks connected to rough winds.

On the subject of PIO, given an experienced crew and the MD-11's known twitchiness in pitch control I think ordinary PIO can be ruled out: an experienced crew will be on top of the pitch issues and won't be caught out except under substantially worse conditions than apparently prevailed. (And perhaps not even then.)

But, the flip side of this is that faced with pitch excursions caused by something else, like by hypothesis the landing gear, having a different characteristic frequency and different response characteristics, their instinctive reactions will be all wrong and PIO is a real possibility. Being experienced, they'd probably realize what was going on and break out of it after no more than one or two iterations, but in this situation that'd be too late.

This is all the worst kind of speculation, of course...

What?

Summary: "It's hard to belive that experienced airliner pilots would have "simply" botched it and done such huge PIO's, so could there be some other significant contributing factor that overwhelmed their skills?"

[Giles]

[quote="3WE"]

Summary: "It's hard to belive that experienced airliner pilots would have "simply" botched it and done such huge PIO's, [quote]
No, it is not hard to believe.

shit happens

[Procede]

I remember Don Moore saying something about the 'third landing' usually being disastrous. This confirms his story. Landing nose gear first is never a good idea.

[ocelot]

What?

Sorry, must have been channeling Gabriel

[GlennAB1]

Some interesting reading...

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2 ... 68-069.pdf

[B77W-QOTS]

Some interesting reading...

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2 ... 68-069.pdf

Nice find Glenn I will put it out there for ITS to have a read and share his thoughts.

[3WE]

Ok, I missed the release of the final report and will probably have to read it a few times.

But if get the attached letter- it's suggesting that on occasion with DC/MD 10/11 aircraft, pilots have attempted to quickly "derotate" (kinda seems natural- you land, now get the nose on the ground so you don't take flight again if there's a big wind gust)...

But maybe the pilots don't realize that they have genuinely bounced back up into the air...

So they wind up "diving" back into the ground.

and throw in the PIO, repsonse time, etc. stuff.