Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 29, 2016, 11:34:48 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: No coverage in your area? If you are near your local airport contact us to learn about becoming a volunteer


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Fedex Crashes in Japan
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Fedex Crashes in Japan  (Read 26818 times)
Amante de Aviones
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« on: March 22, 2009, 07:47:47 PM »

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/japan.planecrash/index.html
Logged
UAramper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2009, 07:56:18 PM »

Video of the crash.

 Warning, it was a bit graphic.

http://news.tbs.co.jp/newseye/tbs_newseye4089545.html

« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 07:59:30 PM by UAramper » Logged
Silenus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2009, 07:58:33 PM »

CNN has been showing video of it every now and then. Quite chilling. Looks like it came down too hard, because it bounces back up twice and on the second bounce it comes down hard enough to drive the tail down into the ground and it's completely lost from there.

I hope everyone made it out alright. The CNN anchor said it looked like one person got out of it, but they haven't released any further information yet.
Logged
kea001
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2009, 08:15:46 PM »


Shut the guy up in the background. "Oooowwwaaahhhhh".  huh

UPDATE: Looks like they did. Replaced the narration with a lady.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 08:37:19 PM by kea001 » Logged
UAramper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2009, 08:25:08 PM »

You would hope after the first bounce they tried to go around instead of touching down, bouncing up, then pushing the control column down to land again.
Logged
Silenus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2009, 08:26:06 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7958367.stm

BBC is saying two crew members on board were killed. My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and families of those involved.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2009, 08:38:36 PM »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29828648/

Here is a link from MSNBC. It's short, but the dialog is in english.
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
kea001
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2009, 08:39:14 PM »

This flight, Fedex 80, goes to Anchorage then usually to Indianapolis.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FDX80
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2009, 08:42:26 PM »

http://www.airdisaster.com/news/article.php?id=49

Airdisaster.com isn't saying much yet either...

All that is known for sure is it was an MD-11F. No word on registration number yet.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 08:44:07 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2009, 09:00:22 PM »

CNN is confirming two dead.  cry

Also saying high winds may have been a factor:
"According to observations at the airport, wind gusts were reported to be between 30 to 50 mph around the time of the crash."


http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/japan.planecrash/index.html
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
cessna157
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 708



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2009, 09:11:25 PM »

Wow, that video is incredible.  It appears that the mains touched down, and while the nose was coming down they got a huge gust of wind (or they were carrying way too much speed) and the aircraft became airborne again.  (I wonder if the lift dumpers even came out?)  Airborne again, with not enough flying speed, so the nose comes down hard, and it looks like the nose gear failed at this point.  Judging by the way the aircraft then rolled, I would guess the left MLG also failed.

I have seen Cessnas start porpoising and crash in this manner, but not an MD-11


You would hope after the first bounce they tried to go around instead of touching down, bouncing up, then pushing the control column down to land again.

At this point in the roundout, a go around is not an option.  The engines would have already been brought back to idle.  Had the crew applied power (and they may very well have), the engines wouldn't have spooled up until long after the nose hit the 2nd time, causing it to fail.

Low energy go-arounds are never recommended for turbine aircraft, due to engine spool time.  Taken from my aircraft's flight manual:

Low energy landing regime is defined as:
- Flaps and landing gear in the landing configuration
- Aircraft is in a descent
- Thrust has stabilized in the idle range
- Airspeed is decreasing
- aircraft's height is 50 feet or less above the runway elevation

The decision to place an aircraft in the low-energy regime is a decision to land.  If there is any doubt regarding the probability of a safe landing, a go-around must be initiated prior to entering this regime.  An attempt to commence a go-around or balked landing while in the low-energy landing regime is a high-risk, undemonstrated maneuver.

In the extreme case that such action is required, pilots must understand that ground contact is likely.  Any attempt to commence a climb before the engines have achieved go-around thrust may result in aerodynamic stall, loss of lift, roll off, and possible uncontrolled ground contact.  It is important to note that turbo-fan engines may require as long as eight ( 8 ) seconds to accelerate from idle to go-around thrust.  Because of this lag, normal "go-around" procedures cannot be employed until such time as go-around thrust is achieved.



Basically, the book says that once the power is back to idle, you're going to land, whether you like it or not.

I do know of one case where an airline that flies the same jet that I do had this exact scenario happen.  Gusty winds on approach.  Aircraft touched down hard, nose fell to ground, causing aircraft to become airborne again, with power at idle and decreasing airspeed.  The captain applied full thrust (non-fadec equipped engines on this model), but the aircraft impacted the runway 2 more times before engine response.  They declared an emergency and made an immediate traffic pattern to landing.
Logged

CRJ7/CRJ9 F/O, Travel Agent
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2009, 09:27:16 PM »

I was going to say something along the same lines. Simply based on spool up time, a go-around at that point in time was out of the question. Even aircraft in flight in approach configuration will struggle to climb, even after TOGA has been initiated. I'm reminded of Delta 191 in Dallas, L-1011 landing in a thunderstorm. Encountered a microburst containing windshesr. On the CVR, you can hear the Captain yell "TOGA!" and you hear the engines spool up, but it was too late. The aircraft bounced down short of the field on a road, back into the air, and finally collided with a giant water tank.

Below is a link to the CVR from Delta 191:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/MP3s/rcvrdel191.mp3

And here is the text version if anyone is interested:

 http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cvr850802.htm
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 09:42:14 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
frantzy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2009, 10:56:16 PM »


Also saying high winds may have been a factor:
"According to observations at the airport, wind gusts were reported to be between 30 to 50 mph around the time of the crash."



RJAA 222230Z 30018KT 9999 FEW030 12/M03 Q1001 WS R34R TEMPO 31020G30KT RMK 1CU030 A2959 2218 MOD TURB BLW 500FT ON FNA RWY34R B767
Logged
EdGeneer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2009, 12:22:14 AM »

Whats interesting, is on a couple of the youtube videos, there are folks commenting that seem to have many hours of experience flying the md11s and admit to the interesting balance issues on landing that would make wind gusts and windshear a huge hazard as opposed to other heavy a/c such as a 747 which does not seem to 'porpouse' as bad. Especially when spoilers and reversers are deployed.

But, sad, nonetheless. My prayers go out to their families....
Logged

joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2009, 06:55:32 AM »

Here is the latest from my ISP:

"We have information that strong winds caused the plane to divert from the runway," a Narita Airport spokeswoman said.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20090322/INTERNATIONAL-US-JAPAN-PLANE/

This leaves a grey area...was it a gust or a windshear? If I'm correctly reading frantzy weather reprot above, it indicates windshear by the "WS". It also says "Moderate Turbulance Below 500FT On Final Approach, Runway 34R."


It's been a while since I've read one of these...please correct me if I'm reading it wrong!

« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 06:57:08 AM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
Delta Echo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2009, 10:18:25 PM »


I do know of one case where an airline that flies the same jet that I do had this exact scenario happen.  Gusty winds on approach.  Aircraft touched down hard, nose fell to ground, causing aircraft to become airborne again, with power at idle and decreasing airspeed.  The captain applied full thrust (non-fadec equipped engines on this model), but the aircraft impacted the runway 2 more times before engine response.  They declared an emergency and made an immediate traffic pattern to landing.

How about
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/atcaviation-audio-clips/fll-runway-incursion-chilling-audio/

This was a B757 that was over the numbers. The controllers say the miss was very close!!

DE
Logged
bogman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2009, 11:14:43 PM »

Here is the latest from my ISP:

"We have information that strong winds caused the plane to divert from the runway," a Narita Airport spokeswoman said





Does anyone know if other aircraft complained about the wind as they were landing before the crash?

My prayers to the crew and thier families....

Bogman
Logged
flygirltammy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 73



« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2009, 11:59:04 PM »

Wow, that video is incredible.  It appears that the mains touched down, and while the nose was coming down they got a huge gust of wind (or they were carrying way too much speed) and the aircraft became airborne again.  (I wonder if the lift dumpers even came out?)  Airborne again, with not enough flying speed, so the nose comes down hard, and it looks like the nose gear failed at this point.  Judging by the way the aircraft then rolled, I would guess the left MLG also failed.

I have seen Cessnas start porpoising and crash in this manner, but not an MD-11


You would hope after the first bounce they tried to go around instead of touching down, bouncing up, then pushing the control column down to land again.

At this point in the roundout, a go around is not an option.  The engines would have already been brought back to idle.  Had the crew applied power (and they may very well have), the engines wouldn't have spooled up until long after the nose hit the 2nd time, causing it to fail.

Low energy go-arounds are never recommended for turbine aircraft, due to engine spool time.  Taken from my aircraft's flight manual:

Low energy landing regime is defined as:
- Flaps and landing gear in the landing configuration
- Aircraft is in a descent
- Thrust has stabilized in the idle range
- Airspeed is decreasing
- aircraft's height is 50 feet or less above the runway elevation

The decision to place an aircraft in the low-energy regime is a decision to land.  If there is any doubt regarding the probability of a safe landing, a go-around must be initiated prior to entering this regime.  An attempt to commence a go-around or balked landing while in the low-energy landing regime is a high-risk, undemonstrated maneuver.

In the extreme case that such action is required, pilots must understand that ground contact is likely.  Any attempt to commence a climb before the engines have achieved go-around thrust may result in aerodynamic stall, loss of lift, roll off, and possible uncontrolled ground contact.  It is important to note that turbo-fan engines may require as long as eight ( 8 ) seconds to accelerate from idle to go-around thrust.  Because of this lag, normal "go-around" procedures cannot be employed until such time as go-around thrust is achieved.



Basically, the book says that once the power is back to idle, you're going to land, whether you like it or not.

I do know of one case where an airline that flies the same jet that I do had this exact scenario happen.  Gusty winds on approach.  Aircraft touched down hard, nose fell to ground, causing aircraft to become airborne again, with power at idle and decreasing airspeed.  The captain applied full thrust (non-fadec equipped engines on this model), but the aircraft impacted the runway 2 more times before engine response.  They declared an emergency and made an immediate traffic pattern to landing.

Thanks for the info. I am nowhere near flying the big ones yet but try learn what I can about procedures.
Logged

joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2009, 06:58:08 AM »

Here is the latest from my ISP:

"We have information that strong winds caused the plane to divert from the runway," a Narita Airport spokeswoman said





Does anyone know if other aircraft complained about the wind as they were landing before the crash?

My prayers to the crew and thier families....

Bogman

I believe several types mentioned windy conditions. Including larger types, B767, and so on.
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
Buzzard
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2009, 03:44:20 PM »

Old Article on MD-11


FedEx Burns Another
Safety Lessons from the Latest Accident of a FedEx Aircraft
Air Safety Week 08/07/2006


It's been an article of faith among multi-engine pilots that if you
drive your bird in a little hard, forget to flare or kick off the drift,
then all that will happen is that touchdown will feel significantly
different, a few fuel-tank seams might weep tears of fuel, and the
engineers might rib you for causing them extra work.

Of course, you will have admitted your sins to them, written up the bird
and waited anxiously while they carry out a heavy landing inspection.
That check will progressively indicate, item by item, whether you've
permanently bent anything, or whether they need to check more deeply
because of what they've found. Most of the time, you will not have bent
anything and the procedure is quite perfunctory. It could happen that
you've bottomed out the oleos and witness-marked an indicator. Rarely
will a heavy landing blow or even scrub a tire, let alone damage the
gear or airframe.

After the latest FedEx MD-10 burning on runway 18R at Memphis, Tennessee
on July 30, the company's pilots might be forgiven for surrendering up
the above article of faith. In fact, they may be pondering why their
"Mad Dogs" are so lame that their legs collapse at will. FedEx pilots
are made of sterner stuff, so they will just take it on the chin and
polish their landing techniques, making sure to properly adrenalize
before each and every landing. "Failure is not an option" I seem to
recall someone famous saying, while baying at the moon. Evidently the
Mad Dogs 10 and 11 never got that message. They appear to be
particularly weak-kneed.

It Seldom Happens In the latest accident, the left landing gear failed
on the airplane during landing, sending sparks into dry grass beside the
runway that ignited a fire. Three people on board used an emergency
landing chute on the right side of the plane to safely escape, avoiding
the burning engine on the other side. Fire crews responded quickly and
doused the fire with foam, containing it to the engine area and
preventing it from spreading to the rest of the aircraft. The plane,
identified as FedEx Flight 630, had departed from Seattle, Washington.
Les Dorr, an FAA official in Washington D.C., said landing gear failure
is a rare occurrence. "A landing gear collapse on a large transport-type
aircraft is a pretty rare event," Dorr said. "It seldom happens."

The MD-10 was a valiant attempt by FedEx/MD (and then MD's takeover
merchant Boeing) to use up the remaining life in the plentiful old DC-10
airframes by upgrading the cockpit to an MD-11 style two-man standard,
simultaneously rewiring and freighter-converting it. Like the two-man
MD-11F operation, it promised to be a very economical long-haul
freighter. The DC-10-10 had a Max Gross Weight increase to 446,000lbs
and the DC-10-30 to a massive 580,000lbs in the Series 30 MD-10. That
boost in cargo-carrying capability required "structural changes".

The Advanced Common Flight Deck was intended to allow FedEx pilots to
operate either the MD-10 or MD-11 interchangeably, for maximum
scheduling efficiencies. However, when the FedEx pilots got their hands
on the MD-10, they protested vociferously. They considered that there
were sufficient dissimilarities as to make any dual qualification
unsafe. Unlike the 757/767 and the A340/A330 combos, the MD-10/MD-11
basic designs and handling qualities were of two entirely different
eras. The company didn't agree and the FAA and Boeing backed FedEx, so
the pilots got to operate both. One wonders whether the Flight
Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) program has since disclosed any
lingering safety interludes for those who fly both, interchangeably.
FOQA regularly checks data-recorders for any pilot handling quirks that
would be better if they were ironed out with counseling or added
training. One could also speculate as to whether any such handling
difficulties, particularly the touchdown, might have carried over into
longer term aircraft fatigue damage. The MD-11 has had to undergo a
number of flight-control software patches in an attempt to cure it of
some of its near-the-ground vices. It is reportedly very unforgiving of
a one gear first hard touchdown, as the pilot of a Mandarin Airlines
passenger flight found on his arrival in Hong Kong on the night of Aug.
22, 1999.

Turning Turtle That aircraft lost its right gear and wing, inverted and
caught fire, killing 3 passengers.

The pilot had disconnected the autopilot but left the autothrottle
engaged, which failed to compensate for the gusting crosswind. An
amateur video showed the aircraft's quite normal approach in turbulent
conditions, followed by a high-rate descent beginning at around 50 ft RA
(radar altimeter). Wind-shear had caused a sudden loss of around 20kts
and the autothrottle failed to respond. That was the height it was
software-scheduled to throttle-close for the flare (or landing
round-out).

Near to max landing weight, and in an unremarkable less than 4 degree
right wing down attitude (for the crosswind), the aircraft hit with a
high rate of descent. This allowed the RH oleo to bottom out, the #3
engine to touch the runway and break off, taking the RH wing with it.
Looking at the relative positions of the wing-gear and the engines
(further outboard), it's not surprising that the weight of the engine
should allow its downward inertia to lever the wing off above the gear
in a hard touchdown.

It's this lack of robustness that gives the MD-11/MD-10 its undoubtedly
unique characteristic, for a wide-body, of being able to shed a wing and
achieve an inverted attitude on the ground. Other MD-11 pilots expressed
surprise that an experienced MD-11 driver would have left the
autothrottle engaged in these conditions. Most had found that the
programmed throttle closure in the flare could often, as in this case,
prove to be the opposite of what conditions (particularly rapid onset
wind gusts) demanded. The only other available solution for arresting a
high-rate descent near the ground is backstick. Unfortunately in the
MD-11, that means an automatic hard tailstrike and a million dollar
damage bill. Pilots are taught to freeze the pitch attitude and "fly
out" of any high rate descent near the flare with added power. That
might kill the speed bleed and extend the landing roll but it precludes
the tailstrike. In the Mandarin case, with a nasty wind-shear, the
throttles auto-closing at just the wrong moment and the pilot
pre-programmed NOT to use backstick, the accident deal was already
closed.

On Dec. 21, 1992 a Martinair DC-10 PH-MBN touched down hard in gusty
conditions at Faro, Portugal. It was again a right gear first touchdown
-- and the wing separated. On July 31, 1997, a FedEx MD-11F touched down
hard at Newark, New Jersey with a 500 ft/min descent rate and a slight
right bank. The right wing-spar broke and the aircraft ended up on its
back, burning. The finding was that the landing was over-controlled and
a go-round should have been carried out. On Dec. 18, 2003 it happened
again, to an MD-10 at Memphis on runway 36R, after a quite stable
approach. A young F/O never quite got the drift off and touched down
firmly on the right gear with a very slightly banked attitude. The RH
gear collapsed and the aircraft burnt out. The NTSB faulted the pilot
and the flight captain, who was also a check and training pilot. The
company changed its training regimen after that accident.

The common denominator for the generic DC-10 and its spawned sub-types
would seem to be an underbuilt wing that allows a coupled engine
inertia/main-gear response to break the wing or gear-mounts, in any
slightly wing-down, harder than normal arrival. When combined with the
aircraft's heightened pitch sensitivity and the
MD-10-10/MD-10-30/MD-11F's quirky differences, it would seem that a
FedEx pilot goes frequently in harm's way and must work harder than most
to "keep it all together."
     
 
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2009, 06:58:41 PM »

Aircraft info:

N-number: N526FE
Aircraft Serial Number: 48600/560
Aircraft Manufacturer: MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
Model: MD-11F
Engine Manufacturer: P&W
Model: PW4000 SER
Aircraft Year: 1994
Owner Name: FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
Type of Owner: Corporation
Registration Date: 21-Oct-2004
Airworthiness Certificate Type: Standard
Approved Operations: Transport

Delivered new to Delta as N813DE in 1994.
WDU in 2004, stored at KGYR
Sold to FedEx in 2006

Sad...aircraft was only 14 years old...
Below is a link to a pic of her departing PANC:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/FedEx-Express/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11(F)/1173246/L/&tbl=&photo_nr=8&sok=&sort=&prev_id=1221096&next_id=1014638
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 07:09:29 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
LOTPilot16
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11



« Reply #21 on: March 25, 2009, 12:21:11 AM »

I think when the plane hit the runway the first time the pilot pulled back for a go around and stalled and that's why the nose gear hit first. After the main hit, the left side collapsed making the left wing strike the ground and fold. Because the left wing folded, the right wing was still producing left rolling the MD-11 over. The same thing happened in '97 at Newark except the plane rolled to the right and everyone survived. The MD-11 can be easily over controlled.
Logged
EdGeneer
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79



« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2009, 01:55:49 AM »

What I dont like, is that they make a plane with glass structure, and then easily throw around terms like 'pilot error'... Instead of 'manufacturer design flaws , reducing options for fatigued pilots in bad situations'...

Im always against industry making decisions based on the bottom line, dis-regarding safety and practicality, then passing along as something someone has to 'deal with it'... oh well... I will always see the seemingly neglective industry side of it, and side with and feel for the pilots put in those positions, often costing their lives in the process...

The term 'tombstone technology' comes to mind all to often in the airline industry, and as usual, as long as the 'money keeps flowing'....

Just venting.... My prayers go out to the families....
Logged

joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1623


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2009, 12:27:02 PM »

I think when the plane hit the runway the first time the pilot pulled back for a go around and stalled and that's why the nose gear hit first. After the main hit, the left side collapsed making the left wing strike the ground and fold. Because the left wing folded, the right wing was still producing left rolling the MD-11 over. The same thing happened in '97 at Newark except the plane rolled to the right and everyone survived. The MD-11 can be easily over controlled.

I'm not so sure he attempted a go-around. Most pilots would say that a go-around was out of the question at that point in the approach, simply based on spool-up time (see the post by cessna157, and the next one by me on the previous page). At that point, with a heavy aircraft, your landing...like it or not.

I have spoken with my friend the Captain(B747-400 & A330 type rated) over at NWA on this crash. He says if you bounce on touchdown in a windshear situation, the gut reaction is to pull back on the stick to attempt to get some altitude back. The correct action for this case is after the bounce, push the stick forward, leveling the aircraft, allowing it to regain some forward momentum. Apply some power(take the throttles out of idle) so the autospoilers retract, and attempt to re-land the airplane. If you do not add power after a bounce, the auto spoilers will remain deployed. If he had pulled the stick back, added power, and attempted to go around, but stalled the aircraft, the tail would have made contact with the ground first, not the nose.

Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
mikenftsmith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2009, 09:50:49 PM »

God speed to the crew. Prayers go out to the families left behind. Sympathy for the men and women that fly the purple tail.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!