When McDonnell-Douglas was halfway into designing the MD-11 back in the 80's, they tried every trick in the book to reduce fuel burn without a full redesign of the original DC-10. The extension of the fuselage meant that they had to shrink the tail section compared to the DC-10 in order to reduce weight, drag and also to increase cruising speeds. Along with that, they also added a fuel tank inside the tail section, which made landing the MD-11 manually would be a challenge for pilots due to its higher landing speeds. Therefore, in what would be typical of the 80's fascination with automated systems, the MD-11 was equipped with sensors that would correct the fluctuation with angle of attack and sink rate in real time and assist pilots during landing operations. Unfortunately, even with this system the MD-11 is notorious for being "bouncy" during landing which had resulted in a few hull losses.
Actually the MD11 was a big improvement over the 10 in many ways. But alas, you would have to have some sensitivity to land them that's a fact. But that was true for the 10's too. I've flown them both and would easily pick the 11 over the 10.
I have to say most of the comments about the MD11 are spoken with great authority, but very little in the way of facts. Yes there is a fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer which can hold around 14,000 lbs of fuel. The only time it holds fuel is when you have full tanks or fuel is automatically pumped there after takeoff based on CG. The fuel is saved by having an aft CG, not a new concept in the late 1980s. I flew the Super VC10 in the early 70s and we also had a fuel tank in the tail except it was in the vertical fin. In those days the Flight Engineer had a chart that determined how much fuel would be transferred and he would then pump it there. This on an airplane that first flew in the early 60s. Fuel is not normally in the tail tank during landing. Fuel starts being transferred automatically in the low 20s during arrival. If the crew manages to trap the fuel by extending the slats very early so landing with fuel in the tail is no problem. Fuel in the tail does not increase landing speeds, weight increases landing speeds. Approach speeds of over 160 knots was not challenging. A heavy airplane always flys better than an empty one.The only real problem with speed was ATC and spacing on landing. I always told Approach Control our minimum speed until touchdown. In the USA that info tended to go over the controller’s head but in Europe they understood we needed more distance between us and traffic landing ahead because they would be 30 knots slower from the OM to touchdown. I think you are talking about the LSAS when you mention sensors but it was nothing the pilot would notice. I flew the MD11 for about 18 years and never heard about or experienced it being bouncy. All airplanes can bounce J3 or MD11.
@@georgeconway4360 I’ve heard only good things about the VC-10 from the pilots who flew it so I would assume the fuel management is something that the flight engineer can obviously do without much interference. Meanwhile, the fuel management in the MD-11 was greatly simplified during the design process that it only took one switch to complete a process that would otherwise took 18 switches on the original DC-10. It goes to show that with modern automation the flight engineer position gets eliminated and less tasks for the instruments. While I’m not a pilot myself, certainly not someone highly respectable with DECADES worth of experience flying fine planes only some of us got to see in movies, as an engineer I do know a thing or two about aerodynamics and fluid mechanics. In most engineering design solutions for a commercial passenger plane it’s a desirable strategy to put fuel tanks as close as the centre of gravity. However, complication starts when the centre of gravity gets shifted around as the original design gets tweaked around. For example, the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 had upgraded General Electric LEAP engines compared to the good old CFM-56 engines which was physically bigger. But, of course the management wouldn’t want to put taller landing gears, the 737 HAD to have short legs as part of the legacy and cost-saving measures. So instead the engines were moved forward which throws the CG forward. Since the CG gets thrown forward it now behaves weirdly in-flight enough that sensors detecting the angle of attack would be implemented and automated systems would control the plane for them by pitching the nose forward if the AOA detects an upward angle beyond the threshold of the preset. BUT unlike the MD-11 this design change was not briefed to pilots in full detail, and this MCAS system took down two planes within months and hundreds of people with it. My moot point is that it does take a competent pilot to fly planes manually, more so when its flight characteristics are wildly different than any others. Automation certainly helped much in flying the thing, but over-reliance to automation does not help when risky engineering decisions add in unnecessary risk factors in the name of profit.
The system the OP is referring to is called Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System, or LSAS. It gives some limited pitch authority to the flight control computers full time in order to dampen pitch oscillations. This is to be used in conjunction with dynamic center of gravity control performed by the Fuel System Controller. These systems are functional mostly to reduce trim drag during cruise flight, and I doubt either system had any effect on this accident. The fact is that the DC-10 and MD-11 land at a higher speed than other aircraft in a similar weight class and are prone to bounced landings. FedEx has lost a couple, China Airlines lost one in a storm. In two of those incidents they hit the ground hard enough for the gear to shear from the attach points, causing the aircraft to break up and burn. MD-11 pilots I’ve talked to told me they’re much more strict about their approach speeds than they are in other types for this very reason. It’s just not an airplane that you want to be careless with.
I think these were nothing more than human errors caused by not realizing some things and not a case of negligence. I hope the two were not fired from their jobs. I remember reading about the crash in the papers but not a great amount of detail was mentioned. One again Allec delivers an excellent video.
The wikipedia article about the crash doesn't say if they were fired or not. That old MD11 is just the younger brother of the DC10, so problems with the aircraft is nothing new.
I'm surprised that a go-around wasn't initiated when they realized (or should've realized) that the approach was far from stabilized. Below the glideslope and fluctuating 10 - 20 knots faster than their target approach speed.
The approach was stabilized. the airplane went 1/2 a dot low and the speed fluctuated 10 knots 160 to 170 with a Vref of 158 which would call for a 163K Approach speed. The median speed was 166k according to the accident report. The initial touchdown was just short of the 1000’ mark. Since there was no real flare it was close to being ideal. It was the F/Os 18th PF landing in the MD11. The Captain made everything worse. More than half of the Captains flying experience had been in the MD11 with more than 1300 hours as Captain. The Captain never said “MY AIRPLANE”. The result was two pilots trying to fly. Sad fact appears the very inexperienced F/O was more correct.
@@georgeconway4360 thanks for sharing and clearing up a lot of questions I had. Thank God no one perished I've seen a number of these videos where the captain. Calls out my Air plane and collapses the landing gear. I feel so sorry for him. Thanks again
Thank you Allec, this was far more interesting than I had expected.. the erroneous perceptions the pilots can experience sitting so far forward of the aircraft's CG... I should know by now that your content is *always* interesting. Cheers!
While your theory about the reasoning behind the captain's initial input makes sense, there is an alternative: He didn't believe his first officer slammed the plane into the ground hard enough and wanted him to try again. But in all seriousness, they have detectors on the landing gear to let the plane know it's made contact with the ground. On various models this helps to unlock thrust reverse, activate the speed brakes, cue passengers to stand up & retrieve their luggage and a whole host of various functions. But none of them seem to change the status of the gear indicator in the cockpit. Why? During flight the lights are off, deploy landing gear you get three (or four in this case) greens. When the wheels touch down they should turn blue (or sound a buzzer once all wheels are down) so the pilots know, without relying on their spatial awareness, that the plane is or is not on the ground.
I just made a similar comment but instead of a buzzer on contact - which BTW should remain buzzing to enable a bounce detection - a verbal warning like "bounce" when ground contact is lost. It's more triggering like a "sink rate", "bank angle", or "Terrain, pull up" warning.
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
The MD-11 has a reputation for bouncing and being an extremely hard airliner to land. I think it has the highest landing speed of any commercial airliner. I’m pretty sure MD-11 accidents were caused by botched landings. Which is unfortunate because I think it’s one of the prettiest commercial planes out there.
For comparison, the Boeing 757 has an approach speed of 132 knots and a stall speed of 87 knots, while the MD-11 has an approach speed of 166 knots. Occasionally, this has forced an MD-11 to go around when it approaches a 757 too fast (which has its own wake vortex problem).
there's a Ex World Airways DC 10 sitting in IIRC Baltimore that suffered a hard landing back in the 80's or early 90's. it bounced so hard it oilcanned the fuselage and totaled the airframe! it's still there today being used by the fire department for training. it was World 8535. there is a RUclips video of its "landing"
The MD-11 is known to be a particularly tough aircraft to land. See FX14 at EWR, which flipped upside down and caught fire, and FX80 at NRT, which bounded 3 times and then caught fire, for examples (the latter was fatal).
Read the actual accident report. Google LH 8460 accident. There were three touch downs 2.1g, 3.0g, 4.4g. The rear of the airplane was ruptured, dragging down runway. The spoilers were deployed.
@@Capecodham bro why are you here. you show up in the comments of every allec video to tell him how much you hate his work, you pick fights with other commenters who refer to his videos as "films" or "vids," and you even went on a racist tirade with another troll making fun of allec's last name once. like what's your deal
@@entamology581 well said and agreed. He’s the reason I no longer comment. A vicious and mean-minded troll. Thank you for speaking up. Note how “Burt the Brave” disappears when someone takes him on?
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
Like the Fedex one in Japan a while back. Couple of hard bounces, left gear collapse, left wing hit runway and broke off causing the right wing (which still had lift) to flip the plane over to the left and onto its back. Sadly both pilots died😢
Depends on whether it was arrogance or ignorance that crashed the plane. Usually if it’s genuine human error, going through retraining is enough to get them back into the job. If you crashed the plane due to knowingly breaking procedure, then you lose your job for good and even may face criminal charges
Crop duster, brillant fun and this time you know your gonna bin bag it. If you can right off a cargo plane, you can treble roll an Agcat into a field of beans.
the part I don't feel comfortable with is the Captain deciding that the co-pilot should land, as it is his first time there, then touching controls. if the other guy is landing the plane - don't touch the controls.
It's true the Captain did not follow proper protocol. But it was the Co-Pilot who let the aircraft drift below glideslope which contributed to the high airspeed. Hard to know if the Captain's control inputs made the situation better or worse, but yes - only one person should be in control.
*sigh* Poor Charlie Quebec, mashed and then destroyed by a crew that had its worst day... Sadly, we are all guilty of having gone on to land when a go-around was called for, so no first stones shall be thrown. The only good thing is that both pilots lived to learn from the accident and could go on flying!
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
Good Question. I have wondered the same.. I had heard such systems are under development. I'd guess the main tech hurdle to overcome is the Pilots Union lol.
@@psalm2forliberty577 almost all medium large airliners are equipped with such a system. The reason we dint use it much is nothing to do with unions. The autoland doesn’t work everywhere. It needs a particular (expensive) ground installation at the airport and ti be fully reliable it needs the runway area be kept free of other aircraft. It also can’t be used in some weather conditions. So, half the time we cannot use it and we use most of the rest of the landings to keep up our proficiency so we don’t mess it up when we have to do it. Most of us do complete a handful of autolands a year though, to keep familiar with that.
@@peteconrad2077 Great to hear that Pete, what I somewhat suspected. I was being goofy with my "pilots union" quip. Sounds like genuine "two edged sword' where it's a genuine potential benefit with clear negative effects if relied upon overmuch: degradation of your Manual landing skill set.
Dear Allec Joshua, two questions: 1. At 2:54 It Seems that They Never Applied Spoilers even in the second attempt with the MD-11 on the Ground. Am I right? 2. At 7:25; Boeing Training? Thank You, Allec Joshua.
The spoilers extended with wheel spin up as the airplane bounced 4 feet after the 2.1 g touchdown. Then extended fully when nose strut was compressed at the second touchdown at 3.4 g and bounced 12 feet with full spoilers to touch down again at 4.4 g. The fuselage was broken behind the wing. All was caused by actions of the Captain. The Captain had over 4400 hours in the MD11 with just over 1300 hours as MD11 Captain.
Are cargo carryong aircraft more likely to suffer issues of drifting below the glideslope, than passenger aircraft? Would the weight and balance have a bearing on stability when landing?
What's sad is, like similar MD-11 incidents, the recovery should've taken just a bit more positive & consistent aft force on the yoke 'til the aircraft stabilized, at which point the pilots could've resumed their initial flare & let the aircraft glide back down to a smooth & safe landing. HOWEVER, it's just an opinion since I've never had to land an MD-11 under these conditions.
MD and later Boieng wrote down an specific procedure for bounce recovery, something like you have mention. Also, they need to be trained in this bouncy issue because is a limitation of this jet
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
The instruments give all sorts of verbal warnings like "sink rate" or "terrain, pull up". How difficult can it be to create another verbal warning when the landing gear has touched town but afterwards has no load on it to give a warning like "bounce" triggering the pilots to refrain from pushing the nose down hard - which worsens the situation - or initiate a Go Around. As said both the DC-10 and MD-11 have had accidents initiated by unnoticed bouncing. A warning would have been nice in those cases. It BTW doesn't seem only a problem with these older types. I've seen a video of an ANA 767 bouncing and landing on its nose gear first afterwards resulting in the fuselage bending and crumpling. Although the landing succeeded and the crew, passengers and cargo remained intact the aircraft was substantially damaged. ruclips.net/video/Jw-aUVa3a0U/видео.html
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
As I read thru this, my mind kept adding "Spoilers," I don't know if they would aid or detract the process. Also, thinking about "long fuselage" I never heard of this on the DC8-61 & 62. Eastern had a bunch also United. "
The hardest landing I ever experienced was in a AA DC10. I was in first class and there were a few AA flight crew there as well. Back in those days AA had TV screens in the cabin where you got a cockpit view of the takeoffs/landings. I thought we were high on short final. When we touched down (or dropped down) the overhead luggage doors popped open. I always thought the DC10 was a POS compared to the L1011. Much nicer pax experience, smooth ride and never experienced a rough landing.
Sounds nasty. Glad everyone was ok, if a little shaken. The L1011 was a superb aircraft. I never got the chance to ride in one but from what I’ve read and accounts of passengers like your good self, it was the best airliner of its era. Perhaps a good analogy is that the DC10/MD11 was designed by accountants whereas the L1011 was designed by engineers without constraint. Thst S-duct rear, centrally mounted engine was a lesson of form and function and no doubt contributed to its stable and smooth flight.
@@alantoon5708 Copied from PPRUNE: I've been avoiding weighing in, but here goes. Read the accident reports. Yes there have been seven hull losses. Swissair - improperly installed aftermarket IFE system with no way to shut it off... Korean - Captain decided to put aircraft into a low-level, steep dive when he got confused over feet vs. meters (at a time when KAL was writing off 1 widebody per year) FedEx over-run Subic Bay - surely you can't be serious about blaming the design. Avient Shanghai - No official report yet but those in the know would tell you the design was probably not a factor (ask yourself why an aircraft would fail to get airborne on takeoff roll on 13,000' runway...). That leaves the 3 roll-overs. Again, read the reports. I'll give you this though - The MD-11 is demanding and not terribly forgiving. She has a high wing loading and high approach speed and must be flown by the book. She does not like rough handling, and a bad or unstable approach is probably best salvaged by going around. The fact that the wing broke when design loads were exceed is not good - witness the BA 777 that glided into LHR for a better failure mode. However, if you want to be truly informed, read the reports find out why the design loads were exceeded. That said, of the three rollovers, including one aircraft full of passengers, there have been 5 fatalities. Douglas always did build robust machines...
@@georgeconway4360 Yes, Douglas always did build very strong and durable airframes. I have flown the DC-3, -4, -6, -8 and -10, and the DC-8 was the strongest of all and was exempt from the aging aircraft rules by the FAA. That Korean MD-11 crash in Shanghai was so hard into the ground at almost supersonic speed that seismometers showed it as an earthquake. It made quite a crater. Regarding the Mandarin MD-11 at Chek Lap Kok during the typhoon, I landed there the next day and had to land on the other runway and taxied past the airplane upside down in the drainage canal with the landing gear sticking up in the air. Really weird sight... Hard to believe so few were killed. You have made some very insightful comments in your posts and I have enjoyed reading them. I sure wish I could have flown or ridden in the Super VC10!
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
Yes, they could have left the auto-throttle on. Initially at my airline leaving the auto throttles on was Captains discretion, then it was changed to mandatory at all times, then after a number of incidents the policy was changed to allow, actually encouraging turning off the auto throttles off in good conditions. Using auto throttles while the auto pilot was off worked fine. They could be overridden with a very light touch.
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
MD. 11s tend to bounce, FAA, got involved, changing hot to land the MD 11, as they tend to want to fly, as compared to DC10, , bounced so bad @EWR, it became inverted,and burned, 2 crew just fell out of cockpit, without need for rope. Pay checks , was the main load,,,,, 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
FWIW, a poster in another thread stated "I flew the MD11 for about 18 years and never heard about or experienced it being bouncy. All airplanes can bounce J3 or MD11." Perhaps because the MD-11 has design attributes many people aren't familiar with, false impressions get created. For example, I've seen many posts (not yours) stating with great certainty that the smaller horizontal stabilizer on the MD-11 gave it inadequate control authority. Yet looking at what happened in the accident they're speaking of, if anything the problem was overcontrolling as opposed to not having enough.
25 seconds between the ILS was not centered anymore and the 1st impact on the runway, in a clear blue sky day! The first officer flew the aircraft 25 seconds only and succeeded in crashing it! He messed up the only manual action they really perform on airliners: should contemplate a ground job ... Appalling
What a surprise, an MD-11 has a bounced landing. That's what happens when you stretch the fuselage 20ft but don't compensate for it by changing the dimensions of your vertical & horizontal stabilizers. 🤔🧐
@@georgeconway4360 I never suggested it didn't fly just fine. I simply implied that adjustments needed to be made on the part of the crew to compensate for the landing/handling characteristics brought about by a 20ft stretch in the fuselage while still using the original DC-10 dimensions for the horizontal & more importantly vertical stabilizer. I'm sure it flies just fine buddy. 😉✌️✈️ 🛫
@@dodoubleg2356 The adjustments were included. That allowed them to upgrade DC10s to MD10s so MD11 pilots became MD10 pilots with a short difference class and a Simulator period.
@@coconutdreams1238 really?? I was unaware of that. I mean look at the 747SP. When Boeing basically cut the standard 747 in half, they at least had enough sense to increase the dimensions of the stabilizers. I dunno what McDonnell Douglas was doin'. 🤔🧐
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America" Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
I bounced a cessna 150 on my first training flight, it was bad but I made a better job of it than these two. I'm thinking they're loading cargo now, cause Lufthansa wont be letting them loose in the skies after trashing a jet.
Honestly I'm surprised that the pilots survived, that wreckage left me thinking that it was unsurvivable. Also, am I the only one who felt uncomfortable with the fact that the captain wanted the first officer to land at the airport because it's his first time there, or am I out of my mind?
Number one, the first officer has to learn sometime. Number two, having lived in Riyadh, I can tell you that the airport, along with many of the others in the desert region are some of the most straight-forward to fly into as they have nothing around them and one could line up for the runway tens of kilometers away. I used to fly from Dubai to Kuwait a couple of times a month (about a 70-80 minute flight) and I swear that the pilot could line up for the runway in Kuwait soon after leaving Dubai. Riyadh is not much different. Compared to say, the old Hong Kong airport, where the pilot was flying between buildings and passengers could see people outside the window hanging up the laundry, or Ronald Reagan airport in Washington DC, where there's so much restricted airspace, Riyadh would be a piece of cake.
When an aircraft type nicknamed 'Bouncers', bounces, you shouldn't be too surprised. It's basically a reskinned DC-10, so it had a penchant for death and destruction before it ever flew.
Not at all. This is normal for cargo and short haul work. You can’t get the hours until you do some flying. You can’t jump into your first aircraft won’t 20,000 hours.
@@jefferyindorf699 There is no difference between cargo and passengers and in many cases the pilots fly both for the same airline. The only real difference is that cargo airplanes usually have a much heavier payload so landing speeds may be higher.
i keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine je
I looked through all the accident data, and it turns out you should never board a four-engine or a twin either. I guess we'll all have to pile into a Vision Jet or a LAR-01. Sorry, no carry-on bags will be allowed.
I think that the first officer thought he was going blind and feared they would pull his certificate and deliberately crashed the aircraft. There are no mountains to fly into in Saudi Arabia and there were no passengers in the back, so this was a little different than the usual German psycho Lufthansa pilot suicide.
@@peteconrad2077 Stupid, unless you are flying with a suicidal Lufthansa psycho crew who thinks they are going blind. But, don't worry, the German Government will cover it up and seal all records.
i don't believe for a second that this clown is actually a retired schoolteacher. way too mean-spirited and small-minded to ever have worked in education
![Pilotseye.tv - Lufthansa Cargo MD-11 - Departure from Sao Paulo [English Subtitles]](/img/1.gif)
When McDonnell-Douglas was halfway into designing the MD-11 back in the 80's, they tried every trick in the book to reduce fuel burn without a full redesign of the original DC-10. The extension of the fuselage meant that they had to shrink the tail section compared to the DC-10 in order to reduce weight, drag and also to increase cruising speeds. Along with that, they also added a fuel tank inside the tail section, which made landing the MD-11 manually would be a challenge for pilots due to its higher landing speeds. Therefore, in what would be typical of the 80's fascination with automated systems, the MD-11 was equipped with sensors that would correct the fluctuation with angle of attack and sink rate in real time and assist pilots during landing operations.
Unfortunately, even with this system the MD-11 is notorious for being "bouncy" during landing which had resulted in a few hull losses.
Actually the MD11 was a big improvement over the 10 in many ways. But alas, you would have
to have some sensitivity to land them that's a fact. But that was true for the 10's too.
I've flown them both and would easily pick the 11 over the 10.
I have to say most of the comments about the MD11 are spoken with great authority, but very little in the way of facts. Yes there is a fuel tank in the horizontal stabilizer which can hold around 14,000 lbs of fuel. The only time it holds fuel is when you have full tanks or fuel is automatically pumped there after takeoff based on CG. The fuel is saved by having an aft CG, not a new concept in the late 1980s. I flew the Super VC10 in the early 70s and we also had a fuel tank in the tail except it was in the vertical fin. In those days the Flight Engineer had a chart that determined how much fuel would be transferred and he would then pump it there. This on an airplane that first flew in the early 60s. Fuel is not normally in the tail tank during landing. Fuel starts being transferred automatically in the low 20s during arrival. If the crew manages to trap the fuel by extending the slats very early so landing with fuel in the tail is no problem. Fuel in the tail does not increase landing speeds, weight increases landing speeds. Approach speeds of over 160 knots was not challenging. A heavy airplane always flys better than an empty one.The only real problem with speed was ATC and spacing on landing. I always told Approach Control our minimum speed until touchdown. In the USA that info tended to go over the controller’s head but in Europe they understood we needed more distance between us and traffic landing ahead because they would be 30 knots slower from the OM to touchdown. I think you are talking about the LSAS when you mention sensors but it was nothing the pilot would notice. I flew the MD11 for about 18 years and never heard about or experienced it being bouncy. All airplanes can bounce J3 or MD11.
You flew the M(echanically) D(effective) 11 for 18 years?
You deserve a medal.
@@georgeconway4360 I’ve heard only good things about the VC-10 from the pilots who flew it so I would assume the fuel management is something that the flight engineer can obviously do without much interference. Meanwhile, the fuel management in the MD-11 was greatly simplified during the design process that it only took one switch to complete a process that would otherwise took 18 switches on the original DC-10. It goes to show that with modern automation the flight engineer position gets eliminated and less tasks for the instruments.
While I’m not a pilot myself, certainly not someone highly respectable with DECADES worth of experience flying fine planes only some of us got to see in movies, as an engineer I do know a thing or two about aerodynamics and fluid mechanics. In most engineering design solutions for a commercial passenger plane it’s a desirable strategy to put fuel tanks as close as the centre of gravity. However, complication starts when the centre of gravity gets shifted around as the original design gets tweaked around. For example, the new Boeing 737 MAX 8 had upgraded General Electric LEAP engines compared to the good old CFM-56 engines which was physically bigger. But, of course the management wouldn’t want to put taller landing gears, the 737 HAD to have short legs as part of the legacy and cost-saving measures. So instead the engines were moved forward which throws the CG forward. Since the CG gets thrown forward it now behaves weirdly in-flight enough that sensors detecting the angle of attack would be implemented and automated systems would control the plane for them by pitching the nose forward if the AOA detects an upward angle beyond the threshold of the preset. BUT unlike the MD-11 this design change was not briefed to pilots in full detail, and this MCAS system took down two planes within months and hundreds of people with it.
My moot point is that it does take a competent pilot to fly planes manually, more so when its flight characteristics are wildly different than any others. Automation certainly helped much in flying the thing, but over-reliance to automation does not help when risky engineering decisions add in unnecessary risk factors in the name of profit.
The system the OP is referring to is called Longitudinal Stability Augmentation System, or LSAS. It gives some limited pitch authority to the flight control computers full time in order to dampen pitch oscillations. This is to be used in conjunction with dynamic center of gravity control performed by the Fuel System Controller. These systems are functional mostly to reduce trim drag during cruise flight, and I doubt either system had any effect on this accident.
The fact is that the DC-10 and MD-11 land at a higher speed than other aircraft in a similar weight class and are prone to bounced landings. FedEx has lost a couple, China Airlines lost one in a storm. In two of those incidents they hit the ground hard enough for the gear to shear from the attach points, causing the aircraft to break up and burn. MD-11 pilots I’ve talked to told me they’re much more strict about their approach speeds than they are in other types for this very reason. It’s just not an airplane that you want to be careless with.
This is a case of a highly unusual and very interesting mix of illusions, both optical and physiological. Good choice Allec.
I think these were nothing more than human errors caused by not realizing some things and not a case of negligence. I hope the two were not fired from their jobs. I remember reading about the crash in the papers but not a great amount of detail was mentioned.
One again Allec delivers an excellent video.
The wikipedia article about the crash doesn't say if they were fired or not. That old MD11 is just the younger brother of the DC10, so problems with the aircraft is nothing new.
Whatever I know about flying I’ve learned through Allec’s videos. Very informative. Even an old guy like me can learn something new! Great job!
I'm surprised that a go-around wasn't initiated when they realized (or should've realized) that the approach was far from stabilized. Below the glideslope and fluctuating 10 - 20 knots faster than their target approach speed.
The approach was stabilized. the airplane went 1/2 a dot low and the speed fluctuated 10 knots 160 to 170 with a Vref of 158 which would call for a 163K Approach speed. The median speed was 166k according to the accident report. The initial touchdown was just short of the 1000’ mark. Since there was no real flare it was close to being ideal. It was the F/Os 18th PF landing in the MD11. The Captain made everything worse. More than half of the Captains flying experience had been in the MD11 with more than 1300 hours as Captain. The Captain never said “MY AIRPLANE”. The result was two pilots trying to fly. Sad fact appears the very inexperienced F/O was more correct.
@@georgeconway4360 thanks for sharing and clearing up a lot of questions I had. Thank God no one perished I've seen a number of these videos where the captain. Calls out my Air plane and collapses the landing gear. I feel so sorry for him. Thanks again
@@georgeconway4360 They could have used a few grey hairs on that flight. Maybe Leslie Nielsen.
Thank you Allec, this was far more interesting than I had expected.. the erroneous perceptions the pilots can experience sitting so far forward of the aircraft's CG... I should know by now that your content is *always* interesting. Cheers!
While your theory about the reasoning behind the captain's initial input makes sense, there is an alternative: He didn't believe his first officer slammed the plane into the ground hard enough and wanted him to try again.
But in all seriousness, they have detectors on the landing gear to let the plane know it's made contact with the ground. On various models this helps to unlock thrust reverse, activate the speed brakes, cue passengers to stand up & retrieve their luggage and a whole host of various functions. But none of them seem to change the status of the gear indicator in the cockpit. Why? During flight the lights are off, deploy landing gear you get three (or four in this case) greens. When the wheels touch down they should turn blue (or sound a buzzer once all wheels are down) so the pilots know, without relying on their spatial awareness, that the plane is or is not on the ground.
I just made a similar comment but instead of a buzzer on contact - which BTW should remain buzzing to enable a bounce detection - a verbal warning like "bounce" when ground contact is lost. It's more triggering like a "sink rate", "bank angle", or "Terrain, pull up" warning.
7/27/2010
Lufthansa 8460
Route: Frankfurt-Riyadh
Future route: Sharjah, Hong Kong
Captain: Unknown, ??, 8270h
FO: Unknown, ??, 3444h
On Board: 2
Age: 17
Type: MD-11F
Status: Landing Mishap
Survivors: 100% (All Injured)
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
@@TechnoBlogGuru What happened to the pilots, any disciplinary action.
@@cariza5 German Data Protection Law will made that this will be never known publicly.
The MD-11 has a reputation for bouncing and being an extremely hard airliner to land. I think it has the highest landing speed of any commercial airliner. I’m pretty sure MD-11 accidents were caused by botched landings. Which is unfortunate because I think it’s one of the prettiest commercial planes out there.
For comparison, the Boeing 757 has an approach speed of 132 knots and a stall speed of 87 knots, while the MD-11 has an approach speed of 166 knots. Occasionally, this has forced an MD-11 to go around when it approaches a 757 too fast (which has its own wake vortex problem).
there's a Ex World Airways DC 10 sitting in IIRC Baltimore that suffered a hard landing back in the 80's or early 90's. it bounced so hard it oilcanned the fuselage and totaled the airframe! it's still there today being used by the fire department for training. it was World 8535. there is a RUclips video of its "landing"
If it was composite Airbus it would have turned to dust on impact. Douglas made as to last ... Look, firefigther still using it LOL
Does anyone else make that "whooosh" sound along with the sound effect at the beginning of Allec's videos? 😁💨
The MD-11 is known to be a particularly tough aircraft to land. See FX14 at EWR, which flipped upside down and caught fire, and FX80 at NRT, which bounded 3 times and then caught fire, for examples (the latter was fatal).
Read the actual accident report. Google LH 8460 accident. There were three touch downs 2.1g, 3.0g, 4.4g. The rear of the airplane was ruptured, dragging down runway. The spoilers were deployed.
Your films are always very interesting and informative keep up the good work.
films?
@@Capecodham videos or posts or whatever you wish to call them it's doesn't matter what you label them.
@@Capecodham bro why are you here. you show up in the comments of every allec video to tell him how much you hate his work, you pick fights with other commenters who refer to his videos as "films" or "vids," and you even went on a racist tirade with another troll making fun of allec's last name once. like what's your deal
@@entamology581 well said and agreed. He’s the reason I no longer comment. A vicious and mean-minded troll. Thank you for speaking up. Note how “Burt the Brave” disappears when someone takes him on?
@@malcolmgibson6288 Do you call a car a horseless carriage?
Love these videos!!!!!!!
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
why?
@@Capecodham buzz off burt
@Stevi Robinson then watch something you enjoy
@@lindadavies6109 He is hoping Allec ebay will improve.
Happy the crew survived. A bounce can end up in a much worse manner.
Like the Fedex one in Japan a while back. Couple of hard bounces, left gear collapse, left wing hit runway and broke off causing the right wing (which still had lift) to flip the plane over to the left and onto its back.
Sadly both pilots died😢
They should have done a Go-Around - as simple as that. Btw.: Lufthansa Cargo has fleeted their MD-11 out now.
Thank you very much for the Video!👍
Another great video, and another accident caused (at least at first) by continuing an unstabilized approach instead of going around and trying again.
35 years in the airline industry as a flight attendant, and MD was a piece of crap manufacturer. We all hated working those planes. ALL of them!
If you crash a cargo plane, what's left, sightseeing tours?
If you crash a cargo plane, then you go get a job flying for RyanAir.
Depends on whether it was arrogance or ignorance that crashed the plane. Usually if it’s genuine human error, going through retraining is enough to get them back into the job. If you crashed the plane due to knowingly breaking procedure, then you lose your job for good and even may face criminal charges
Shovelling shit in Shanghai.
You win some. You lose some.
Crop duster, brillant fun and this time you know your gonna bin bag it. If you can right off a cargo plane, you can treble roll an Agcat into a field of beans.
For a sec, I was wondering what Boeing had to do with an MD-11, then I realized, yeah, that would be their responsibility now.
ond
There were definitely too many people trying to fly this airplane at the end.
Eerily similar to the FedEx Tokyo and Anchorage (?) MD-11 crash.
Correction: Newark
@@sharksman20rocks thank you!
@@vxllfire you’re welcome
Yes. That's because the MD-11 is known to do bouncy landings. It's a lot harder to land than other airliners due to it's "odd" characteristics
the part I don't feel comfortable with is the Captain deciding that the co-pilot should land, as it is his first time there, then touching controls. if the other guy is landing the plane - don't touch the controls.
It's true the Captain did not follow proper protocol. But it was the Co-Pilot who let the aircraft drift below glideslope which contributed to the high airspeed. Hard to know if the Captain's control inputs made the situation better or worse, but yes - only one person should be in control.
*sigh* Poor Charlie Quebec, mashed and then destroyed by a crew that had its worst day... Sadly, we are all guilty of having gone on to land when a go-around was called for, so no first stones shall be thrown. The only good thing is that both pilots lived to learn from the accident and could go on flying!
Great video... If you can upgrade from fsx to any other high end plane games to make these type of videos... It'd be awesome!
This seems similar to to what happens to those fedex md 11s
Indeed.
This is like how FedEx flights 14 and 80 faced their fate, unrecoverable bounced landings, just like this one
The pilots suffered various injuries, including bruised ego and wounded pride
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
In the 60s the Trident had a complex autoland system. Why do later aircraft not have or use such a system to prevent landing mishaps?
Good Question.
I have wondered the same..
I had heard such systems are under development.
I'd guess the main tech hurdle to overcome is the Pilots Union lol.
Seriously though if any commercial pilots can comment on this pertinent question I'd LOVE to hear their informed opinion, please.
@@psalm2forliberty577 almost all medium large airliners are equipped with such a system. The reason we dint use it much is nothing to do with unions. The autoland doesn’t work everywhere. It needs a particular (expensive) ground installation at the airport and ti be fully reliable it needs the runway area be kept free of other aircraft. It also can’t be used in some weather conditions. So, half the time we cannot use it and we use most of the rest of the landings to keep up our proficiency so we don’t mess it up when we have to do it. Most of us do complete a handful of autolands a year though, to keep familiar with that.
Auto land was developed to allow landing in very low visibility conditions. Restrictions require relatively low surface winds.
@@peteconrad2077
Great to hear that Pete, what I somewhat suspected.
I was being goofy with my "pilots union" quip.
Sounds like genuine "two edged sword' where it's a genuine potential benefit with clear negative effects if relied upon overmuch: degradation of your Manual landing skill set.
Dc 10....a great epoca. A Very powerful and manouvrable aircraft. Easy
When will you upload more aviation music videos like few years ago?
Dear Allec Joshua, two questions:
1. At 2:54 It Seems that They Never Applied Spoilers even in the second attempt with the MD-11 on the Ground. Am I right?
2. At 7:25; Boeing Training?
Thank You, Allec Joshua.
After 1996 all the MD products became Boeing's and so their support. They even renamed the MD95 to 717.
The spoilers extended with wheel spin up as the airplane bounced 4 feet after the 2.1 g touchdown. Then extended fully when nose strut was compressed at the second touchdown at 3.4 g and bounced 12 feet with full spoilers to touch down again at 4.4 g. The fuselage was broken behind the wing. All was caused by actions of the Captain. The Captain had over 4400 hours in the MD11 with just over 1300 hours as MD11 Captain.
Dankje
Are cargo carryong aircraft more likely to suffer issues of drifting below the glideslope, than passenger aircraft? Would the weight and balance have a bearing on stability when landing?
What's sad is, like similar MD-11 incidents, the recovery should've taken just a bit more positive & consistent aft force on the yoke 'til the aircraft stabilized, at which point the pilots could've resumed their initial flare & let the aircraft glide back down to a smooth & safe landing. HOWEVER, it's just an opinion since I've never had to land an MD-11 under these conditions.
MD and later Boieng wrote down an specific procedure for bounce recovery, something like you have mention. Also, they need to be trained in this bouncy issue because is a limitation of this jet
"This flight is boring, you land because you've never done it before."
SMH
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
SMH why? What didn’t you understand?
Alex eBay is getting worse.
The instruments give all sorts of verbal warnings like "sink rate" or "terrain, pull up". How difficult can it be to create another verbal warning when the landing gear has touched town but afterwards has no load on it to give a warning like "bounce" triggering the pilots to refrain from pushing the nose down hard - which worsens the situation - or initiate a Go Around. As said both the DC-10 and MD-11 have had accidents initiated by unnoticed bouncing. A warning would have been nice in those cases.
It BTW doesn't seem only a problem with these older types. I've seen a video of an ANA 767 bouncing and landing on its nose gear first afterwards resulting in the fuselage bending and crumpling. Although the landing succeeded and the crew, passengers and cargo remained intact the aircraft was substantially damaged.
ruclips.net/video/Jw-aUVa3a0U/видео.html
How about putting force sensors on the wheels to let the pilots know whether they're in contact with the ground?
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
As I read thru this, my mind kept adding "Spoilers," I don't know if they would aid or detract the process. Also, thinking about "long fuselage" I never heard of this on the DC8-61 & 62. Eastern had a bunch also United.
"
Many dc10 hard landing hull losses have occurred over the years. It seems it’s a perculiarity of this tri jet.
Especially the MD-11...
The hardest landing I ever experienced was in a AA DC10. I was in first class and there were a few AA flight crew there as well. Back in those days AA had TV screens in the cabin where you got a cockpit view of the takeoffs/landings. I thought we were high on short final. When we touched down (or dropped down) the overhead luggage doors popped open. I always thought the DC10 was a POS compared to the L1011. Much nicer pax experience, smooth ride and never experienced a rough landing.
Sounds nasty. Glad everyone was ok, if a little shaken.
The L1011 was a superb aircraft. I never got the chance to ride in one but from what I’ve read and accounts of passengers like your good self, it was the best airliner of its era.
Perhaps a good analogy is that the DC10/MD11 was designed by accountants whereas the L1011 was designed by engineers without constraint. Thst S-duct rear, centrally mounted engine was a lesson of form and function and no doubt contributed to its stable and smooth flight.
@@alantoon5708 Copied from PPRUNE: I've been avoiding weighing in, but here goes. Read the accident reports.
Yes there have been seven hull losses.
Swissair - improperly installed aftermarket IFE system with no way to shut it off...
Korean - Captain decided to put aircraft into a low-level, steep dive when he got confused over feet vs. meters (at a time when KAL was writing off 1 widebody per year)
FedEx over-run Subic Bay - surely you can't be serious about blaming the design.
Avient Shanghai - No official report yet but those in the know would tell you the design was probably not a factor (ask yourself why an aircraft would fail to get airborne on takeoff roll on 13,000' runway...).
That leaves the 3 roll-overs. Again, read the reports. I'll give you this though - The MD-11 is demanding and not terribly forgiving. She has a high wing loading and high approach speed and must be flown by the book. She does not like rough handling, and a bad or unstable approach is probably best salvaged by going around. The fact that the wing broke when design loads were exceed is not good - witness the BA 777 that glided into LHR for a better failure mode. However, if you want to be truly informed, read the reports find out why the design loads were exceeded. That said, of the three rollovers, including one aircraft full of passengers, there have been 5 fatalities. Douglas always did build robust machines...
@@georgeconway4360 Yes, Douglas always did build very strong and durable airframes. I have flown the DC-3, -4, -6, -8 and -10, and the DC-8 was the strongest of all and was exempt from the aging aircraft rules by the FAA. That Korean MD-11 crash in Shanghai was so hard into the ground at almost supersonic speed that seismometers showed it as an earthquake. It made quite a crater.
Regarding the Mandarin MD-11 at Chek Lap Kok during the typhoon, I landed there the next day and had to land on the other runway and taxied past the airplane upside down in the drainage canal with the landing gear sticking up in the air. Really weird sight... Hard to believe so few were killed.
You have made some very insightful comments in your posts and I have enjoyed reading them. I sure wish I could have flown or ridden in the Super VC10!
Same accident like the Fedex cargo plane in Tokio, but both pilots died.
No, the wing came off and the airplane turned upside down at Narita.
Wow this is kinda like FedEx flight 14 & 80 how Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460 bounced at the same time and lands and crashed in the airport runway.
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
@@TechnoBlogGuru Wow thanks I’ll watch it Techno Blog.
Good thing it was cargo and not passengers in the back
What happened to the pilots, any disciplinary action.
Could they not have just left the Autothrottle Armed, coming in like a Fighter Jet will Induce a Bounce.
Yes, they could have left the auto-throttle on. Initially at my airline leaving the auto throttles on was Captains discretion, then it was changed to mandatory at all times, then after a number of incidents the policy was changed to allow, actually encouraging turning off the auto throttles off in good conditions. Using auto throttles while the auto pilot was off worked fine. They could be overridden with a very light touch.
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
You already posted this upthread.
...somwhere near the airport !!!
probably load or cargo has shifted duriong the flight causing to alter the center of balance or gravity or whatever maybe.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good one...?
MD. 11s tend to bounce, FAA, got involved, changing hot to land the MD 11, as they tend to want to fly, as compared to DC10, , bounced so bad @EWR, it became inverted,and burned, 2 crew just fell out of cockpit, without need for rope. Pay checks , was the main load,,,,, 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
FWIW, a poster in another thread stated "I flew the MD11 for about 18 years and never heard about or experienced it being bouncy. All airplanes can bounce J3 or MD11."
Perhaps because the MD-11 has design attributes many people aren't familiar with, false impressions get created. For example, I've seen many posts (not yours) stating with great certainty that the smaller horizontal stabilizer on the MD-11 gave it inadequate control authority. Yet looking at what happened in the accident they're speaking of, if anything the problem was overcontrolling as opposed to not having enough.
25 seconds between the ILS was not centered anymore and the 1st impact on the runway, in a clear blue sky day! The first officer flew the aircraft 25 seconds only and succeeded in crashing it! He messed up the only manual action they really perform on airliners: should contemplate a ground job ... Appalling
The aircraft actually hit the runway at a sink rate of 13 feet per second? No wonder there was so much bouncing and a collapsed landing gear.
My plane. Your plane.
The MD11 is simply a bad plane. By definition, a plane that is extremely difficult and unforgiving to land is a bad design.
What a surprise, an MD-11 has a bounced landing. That's what happens when you stretch the fuselage 20ft but don't compensate for it by changing the dimensions of your vertical & horizontal stabilizers. 🤔🧐
The MD11 flys just fine.
@@georgeconway4360 I never suggested it didn't fly just fine. I simply implied that adjustments needed to be made on the part of the crew to compensate for the landing/handling characteristics brought about by a 20ft stretch in the fuselage while still using the original DC-10 dimensions for the horizontal & more importantly vertical stabilizer. I'm sure it flies just fine buddy. 😉✌️✈️ 🛫
@@dodoubleg2356 The adjustments were included. That allowed them to upgrade DC10s to MD10s so MD11 pilots became MD10 pilots with a short difference class and a Simulator period.
Not only didn't they change the size of the horizontal stabilizer, they made it even smaller than on the DC-10.
@@coconutdreams1238 really?? I was unaware of that. I mean look at the 747SP. When Boeing basically cut the standard 747 in half, they at least had enough sense to increase the dimensions of the stabilizers. I dunno what McDonnell Douglas was doin'. 🤔🧐
Thank you! Please make VASP 168 (Brazil)
The Last Push | Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460
The Last Push | Lufthansa Cargo Flight 8460
@@anandguruji83 We know that now.
Check out my latest video "Boeing 737 Breaks Up in Mid-Flight | Disintegrating and Falling Apart Over Central America"
Watch Now: ruclips.net/video/ZwDUeZYa5Vc/видео.html
pilots: (keep switching between nose up and nose down)
me: Jeez, guys! Just pick a yoke position and stick with it.
Rookies.
Das ist gut und schlect!
Basically the cause of this was human errors
I bounced a cessna 150 on my first training flight, it was bad but I made a better job of it than these two. I'm thinking they're loading cargo now, cause Lufthansa wont be letting them loose in the skies after trashing a jet.
Unstable approach they should have gone around
"Oops."
Honestly I'm surprised that the pilots survived, that wreckage left me thinking that it was unsurvivable. Also, am I the only one who felt uncomfortable with the fact that the captain wanted the first officer to land at the airport because it's his first time there, or am I out of my mind?
You are not out of your mind.
Number one, the first officer has to learn sometime. Number two, having lived in Riyadh, I can tell you that the airport, along with many of the others in the desert region are some of the most straight-forward to fly into as they have nothing around them and one could line up for the runway tens of kilometers away. I used to fly from Dubai to Kuwait a couple of times a month (about a 70-80 minute flight) and I swear that the pilot could line up for the runway in Kuwait soon after leaving Dubai. Riyadh is not much different.
Compared to say, the old Hong Kong airport, where the pilot was flying between buildings and passengers could see people outside the window hanging up the laundry, or Ronald Reagan airport in Washington DC, where there's so much restricted airspace, Riyadh would be a piece of cake.
Why did they miss the glideslope? Windshear? Also excess speed plus bouncing... just go around.
And mad dogs, always unsafe. Hate 'em.
Both Pilots are survives
What In the ever lovin hell were they thinkin?! Lol
g
When an aircraft type nicknamed 'Bouncers', bounces, you shouldn't be too surprised. It's basically a reskinned DC-10, so it had a penchant for death and destruction before it ever flew.
Copa Airlines Flight 201
Seems like a pretty low time flight crew.....
That's why they were flying cargo, and not passengers.
Not at all. This is normal for cargo and short haul work. You can’t get the hours until you do some flying. You can’t jump into your first aircraft won’t 20,000 hours.
@@jefferyindorf699 There is no difference between cargo and passengers and in many cases the pilots fly both for the same airline. The only real difference is that cargo airplanes usually have a much heavier payload so landing speeds may be higher.
i keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jet. and here you go... it was a superstition decades ago, and this is why.
i keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine jei keep saying this: NEVER board a 3 engine je
You must know that superstitions are normally held by primitive people that don’t have or understand facts.
I looked through all the accident data, and it turns out you should never board a four-engine or a twin either. I guess we'll all have to pile into a Vision Jet or a LAR-01. Sorry, no carry-on bags will be allowed.
Was the aircraft repaired and returned to service?
Not if you are making a joke or not, by the picture in the video they didn’t have enough of the plane left to repair!
@@waltradcliffe4482 sure it’s repairable. That shit will buff right out.
Yes. It's currently flying with Hells Angels.
Setting up for a downwind landing was the first hole in the swiss cheese (340 at 14, runway 33).
Wind of 340° on runway 33 means the wind was 10° off the nose of the aircraft. Not a downwind landing at all !
@@markbradley2367 Yes, I brainfaded on that, aargh.
😃😄
Hiccups on landing are not good for your health...
3 days before i born
Why do you keep stating “normal” G when in fact it is anything but!!……don’t post such uninformed nonsense!
I think that the first officer thought he was going blind and feared they would pull his certificate and deliberately crashed the aircraft. There are no mountains to fly into in Saudi Arabia and there were no passengers in the back, so this was a little different than the usual German psycho Lufthansa pilot suicide.
What a stupid comment.
@@peteconrad2077 Stupid, unless you are flying with a suicidal Lufthansa psycho crew who thinks they are going blind. But, don't worry, the German Government will cover it up and seal all records.
@@SSN515 but that very obviously isn’t what happened here. So as I aid, stupid comment.
@@peteconrad2077 Like, that's just your opinion, man.
@@SSN515 Well, he's not completely alone on that...
You talk a lot of technical jumbo jumbo which you have no understanding of!…..
What was the captains name, the thirty second officer's name? Thir date of birth? Their mother's maiden name? You usually provide useless details.
We don’t know
Are you still here yoi whiney little brat?
Can't you be nice? We have too much hate in the world and if we are not careful it will do us in.
i don't believe for a second that this clown is actually a retired schoolteacher. way too mean-spirited and small-minded to ever have worked in education
@@deepthinker999 I am guessing he is an ok guy, just has issues doing a good video.