It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zimbabwe registered MD-11 down in China; 3 dead

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
An MD-11 taking off on a cargo flight crashed in Shanghai, killing three of seven crewmembers on board. Witnesses said that the tail appeared to strike the runway, causing the aircraft to veer to the side and catch fire. From the picture with the article there was very little wreckage left after the fire. The three crew killed were all Americans. The other crew were various nationalities wirth one other American surviving. The aircraft was operated by Avient Aviation, and was bound for Kyrgystan.

[edit on 11/28/2009 by Zaphod58]




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
According to the FlightGlobal article on the accident, Avient received their first MD-11 about 4 days ago. They chose the MD-11F to replace their DC-10-30F fleet. Their first aircraft (not known if that is the one in this accident) was an 18 year old airframe. The US NTSB is sending investigators to assist the Chinese investigation.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Over-rotated is my guess. But we will have to wait to see what experience the crew had in terms of flight hours in type.

Condolances to thier families.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Here's a picture of the plane a couple of days before it crashed:

www.airliners.net...



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
theres a comment on pprune that the delivery flight was postponed several times due to fuel pump issues - and eye witnesses say it actually got airbourne then came down again.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
IIRC, the engines can run on suction alone if need be. Maybe a weight and balance issue?


Also, the crew were ex-Gemini air cargo, highly experienced, American, pilots. Apparently the plane was is registered in Zimbabwe, but ran from Europe.

[edit on 29/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
IIRC, the engines can run on suction alone if need be. Maybe a weight and balance issue?


Maybe a load broke lose right after rotation ???



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
how does this happen?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dre5000
how does this happen?


How does what happen? The crash itself? Cargo shifting? over rotation?

Plane crashes are usually a series of events that include mechanical failure or human error, or sometimes both.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dre5000
 


To expand on what FredT said, no one event leads to a plane going down. There is always a chain of events leading to the accident. Break the chain at any point and the accident doesn`t happen. In this case IF, and any thoughts on cause are pure speculation, a cargo pallet broke loose it could have been a strap that failed, or a clamp, or even a floor lock. But again that`s pure speculation and we`ll have to wait for the report.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
IIRC, the engines can run on suction alone if need be.


Not #2. If it stop delivering thrust during takeoff the MD11 would be a handfull to handle due to #1 and 3 causing a very strong pitch up motion.
And with the limited elevator authority on the MD11 at low speed one could end up with an attitude from where recovery is not possible that close to the ground.

(I'm not saying that's what happend, but it is possible)



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Most probably weight and balance issue. If the crew do not keep a close eye on the loading of the cargo or even miscalculate weights, the aircraft will have an aft c of g. This airplane behaved like the center of gravity was too far aft on take off. Ironically a similar situation occured with an MK Cargo 747 based out of the UK but operated by Zimbabwe crew. Training (of crew) is probably at the root of this problem.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Could also be as simple as a loader not making sure all the load locks were secured.



posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
IIRC, the engines can run on suction alone if need be. Maybe a weight and balance issue?[edit on 29/11/2009 by C0bzz]

Generally thats where the tank mounted Jettison/Override pumps have failed. The engine mounted boost pump would still be functioning and able to create enough suction to continue feeding the engine(s). However I suspect the other poster is correct that on a DC-10/MD-11 the #2 engine is simply too high and too greater length of run for a sufficient fuel flow rate to be maintained.

Which brings me to ask anyone here who has worked on these trijets what provision if any is made for the engine mounted pump failing? Can the jettison pumps supply enough to keep it running during the critical takeoff phase?

LEE.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
The aft engine in the MD-11 is fed by tank two (center) which contains four fuel pumps:

  • Two aft mounted boost pumps.
  • One forward mounted boost pump.
  • One forward mounted transfer pump.

The pumps are all powered from different electrical buses, and in case of total electrical failure, one of the pumps in the center tank can be run from the Air Driven Generator (ADG). Each boost pump is capable of supplying fuel at takeoff fuel flow rate to two engines.

I do not think the center engine can operate from suction alone - but it is incredibly unlikely for that to be required. Also, the fuel system is usually completely automated, with no intervention required during flight at all.

[edit on 1/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The FDR and CVR have both arrived in Beijing and are being analyzed. Both were said to have suffered damage in the crash.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzzI do not think the center engine can operate from suction alone


It can't. The fuel system on the MD11 is rather complex, there are a few failure modes that could have played a role in this accident.

The MD11 is not a very forgiving aerocraft, they made the beauty in to a beast DC10> MD11 by adding FBW, glass cockpit and a very complex fuel system, then add a much smaller vstab.

I've never flown it, but my brother do.

From his mouth: It's the only aircraft that have really scared me, several times.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

The fuel system on the MD11 is rather complex, there are a few failure modes that could have played a role in this accident.

Which are?




And if the aft engine failed it should not make the aircraft crash, even on the MD-11. On PPRUNE a pilot siad that in the sim he had the thrust reverser deploy on takeoff, apparently that was "very difficult, but manageable". I don't buy that a failed aft engine will cause the plane to crash for a second.


& yes I am fairly familiar with the MD-11 including LSAS.

[edit on 7/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I think that we`re either looking at a cargo shift, or over rotation/tail strike. They still haven`t said whether it got airborne after the strike. We won`t know for sure until the transcripts are released.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I don't normally hear about cargo flights having major issues with pallets breaking loose. I don't normally look for that sort of news though too. Does it happen more often then I would think when people doesn't normally hear about it?

Also from what I can tell from doing some leg work the likely hood of losing a MD-11 or DC-10 if #2 engine fails is really low. In some situations though losing #2 engine at the right point in a chain of events I'm sure could be the final problem that makes the situation unrecoverable.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join