Two Plane Crashes Today (Sunday 3/22/09)

CNN is reporting two separate plane crashes today. In Butte, MT, a Pilatus PC-12 crashed while attempting to land. FAA is reporting 17 dead. In Tokyo, a FedEx MD-11 crashed while landing. Video of the crash is on a Japanese website:
http://news.tbs.co.jp/newseye/tbs_newseye4089545.html

It looks like it bounced a couple of times on the mains and the nose gear (porpoising), then rolled and the left wing struck the ground. The aircraft burst into flames and rolled over. Initial reports say the crew survived.

Wow it looks like they came down hard on the nose gear! I can't believe how it bounced up like that

Wow, amazing video. I hope the crew survived such a crash. It's almost like they never flared to land- I wonder what happened...

Reports are the crew did not make it. Wouldn't be surprised if the nose impact did them in or knocked them out at the least, that was a violent impact.

In this video from youtube that starts much earlier they originally did flare and land on the mains then make a HUGE bounce, the original video starts after the bounce.



Reminds me a lot of UA 232 at SUX in 1989.

I am AMAZED that multiple video's of the actual accident happening are avilable to the media and hence the public less than 2 hours after the accident. Can anyone ever remember that happening? Scenes from the site and smoldering wreckage yes but the accident actually happing, amazing IMO.

We should all be thankfull this was a freighter, a full passenger MD-11 or similar size wide body and I am afraid we could be talking about 200-300 fatalities I am afraid.

LGA777

Both crewmembers onboard the FedEx flight are reported dead, according to CNN. :-(

Ron your right this video did reminded me of the cripled UA DC-10 crash in Sioux City just in the way that it crashed. What a shame to see this incident.

There is something REALLY not right here! This video is very Scary, not for this incident but how the aircraft seems to
handle. I really want to see the simulation from the data.

For a long time I have been very concerned with the fact that almost all the MD-11 incidence with high speed runway issues
result in a wing overs. In this video the aircraft lost control as the pilot would never input that much nose down. It was
almost like the elevators were in effective, kind of like the Trident in a stall. I will be very interested in the data to see
what the aircraft did with the inputs given. This will answer all of my questions about the DC-10/MD-11.

Based on Aviation Saftey.net this aircraft used to be N813DE. It was the only Delta Airlines MD-11 painted into the "Wavey Gravy" Colors.
31L 2002.
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/xn813de.jpg
Senga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SengaB

Based on Aviation Saftey.net this aircraft used to be N813DE. I was the only Delta Airlines MD-11 painted into the "Wavey Gravy" Colors.
31L 2002.
http://www.nycaviation.com/hosting/xn813de.jpg
Senga

---

Unbelievable it had to be this aircraft, I just saw a few shots of it on A.net while looking up whos flying MD-11s, thats crazy.

The wingover doesn't seem to be the big thing, as I'm sure it was caused by the gear collapsing after a VERY hard "2nd landing".

It's tough to see, but it almost looks as though the mains first touched down and maybe bounced a little, coming back in the air. Then the nose still came down, even though the main gear bounced back up off of the ground. I wonder if the pilot then pulled back on the yoke at this point to prevent the nose from being the only part of the plane contacting the runway, over-correcting, and creating the even bigger bounce next. Almost fully airborne again, but decelerating, the plane came down heavier than it was able to take I'm sure, causing the gear to collapse and roll as seen.

Very sad, and RIP to the crew.

It also seems as though fire might not have gotten to the cockpit, but that the cockpit was crushed.

I would like to commend Tokyo's rescue team, for not only responding fast, but for covering much of the body recovery with tarps to protect a more grim scene from the many watching cameras.

Another angle:

wow! looking at parts of the video you just posted philit really does look windy there. look at the portion where the firefighters are crowding around the blue tarp, looks like the were trying to block the wind for someone in the center.


i wanna see the metar for that airport at that time.

Here you go:

METAR RJAA 222300Z 30018G29KT 9999 FEW030 13/M04 Q1002 WS
R34R NOSIG RMK 1CU030 A2960=

SPECI RJAA 222238Z 30019G32KT 9999 FEW030 12/M03 Q1002 WS
R34R RMK 1CU030 A2959=


About a 21 Knot crosswind at the surface using the highest gust reported (32KTS)....

Anyone remember the Newark MD-11 crash in the 1990s?

Sounds like a similar situation (minus the xwinds)...

Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_63805245

Flight Global has compiled a somewhat disturbing list of MD-10/11 accidents that occurred during landing. Yesterday's was the 13th such incident, the third fatal one. Not a great record for a type used in relatively small numbers. It sounds like the plane simply has no forgiveness if anything odd happens during approach.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusu ... age-4.html

NTSB says the Pilatus that crashed in Montana was apparently overloaded, and it was not certified for commercial flights.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/story? ... 042&page=1

When pilots lose control of those MD-11s on landing they sure like to flipover.

Fedex Newark
China Airlines/Mandarin Airlines in Hong-Kong
and now this Fedex MD-11

Senga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

NTSB says the Pilatus that crashed in Montana was apparently overloaded, and it was not certified for commercial flights.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Travel/story? ... 042&page=1

---

Maybe it wasn't overloaded after all. Investigation now focusing on icing.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200903 ... 3P9O1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GothamSpotter

Maybe it wasn't overloaded after all. Investigation now focusing on icing.
http://apnews.myway.com//article/200903 ... 3P9O1.html

---

icing could definately have been a factor. the PC-12 is configured with pneumatic boots, just like the Q400. i do still think that the airplane was overloaded. i've never seen a "commuter" conversion for the cabin of a PC-12, the airplane normally comes from the factory with eight seats in the cabin and two in the cockpit. why on earth anyone would put 14 people on an airplane meant to carry 10 max is beyond me.

Not so sure I buy the overloading argument. Seems like there were 6 grown adults (who looked to all be under 200lbs), 7 kids (all under the age of 10, most probably nowhere near 100lbs), and 1 pilot. The young children were most likely on the laps of some of the adults as well. Maybe not the most prudent or "legal" idea, but may not be the sole cause of the crash.

The group was also going skiing - not moving their household, which means they probably weren't carrying much in the way of luggage. And, the aircraft had just flown a moderately long leg (meaning it was probably fairly light). Unless the CG was completely off (which still seems unlikely given the circumstances), icing sounds like a more probable cause. If the aircraft was building up ice on the wings, and the anti-ice was either ineffective or not on, and the pilot started to configure the aircraft for landing (i.e. flaps/gear), it may explain why the aircraft suddenly pitched nosed down and crashed into the ground.

Icing can be a pretty big deal especially during the configuration and landing stages. On somewhat related note, in the T-1, if icing is encountered for more than 10 minutes during flight with a RAT colder than -8 degrees C, we can only go flaps 10 for landing.

Icing or not, it still sounds overloaded. The PC-12 is not a "household moving" aircraft, so it isn't built for that weight. 14 people alone sounds heavy, in addition to winter/ski trip gear! That's a LOT actually. That's why airlines use different passengers weights in the winter and summer....its makes a difference.

Even if it was icing, the pax count is very negligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

On somewhat related note, in the T-1, if icing is encountered for more than 10 minutes during flight with a RAT colder than -8 degrees C, we can only go flaps 10 for landing.

---

Amazing, six months ago, Clark couldn't spell "pilot" and now he's quoting procedures from the flight manual! I see you've been paying attention down there. :D

I think I solved the mystery of why the PC-12 made the unscheduled landing in Butte, enroute to Bozeman. Seven young children, approx 2 hour flight from California, no lav onboard. If anyone has ever taken a car trip with young kids you know even with 1 or 2 after about 2 hours somebody will need to go to the bathroom. And while they youngest where probably in Diapers at least 4 where old enough to probalby not be and need to go.

I am not trying to downplay the seriousness of this accident, but I think some of you will agree my point does make sense.

RIP families and pilot.

LGA777

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose135

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

On somewhat related note, in the T-1, if icing is encountered for more than 10 minutes during flight with a RAT colder than -8 degrees C, we can only go flaps 10 for landing.

---

Amazing, six months ago, Clark couldn't spell "pilot" and now he's quoting procedures from the flight manual! I see you've been paying attention down there. :D

---

Haha, well I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night! Just don't ask my IPs about how well I correlate the book knowledge into actual application in the cockpit ;)

In these days of UAVs, PC-12s and other weird aircraft no one knows about (i.e. airplanes I don't really want to fly), gotta finish strong to have at least some say in what you get when it's all over (in a few months... hopefully). Only thing I can really control is the book knowledge (and I should probably do better at that)...

But you're right, 7 months ago all I knew about flying was from a computer game. 4 months later I soloed an 1100HP $4.5M airplane after 12 rides, got to do full aerobatics at 250+ MPH in formation, got to solo in formation and fly an ILS through the weather in form 10 feet from my friend (did I mention formation flying is pretty fun, lol ) and am now in a pretty "gucci" corporate type jet - it's quite a progression in a short period of time...

Now, I'm just longing for the days when I get to be a co-pilot and become really good at making radio calls, coffee and a good person to blame everything on!

And Moose, you can be my wingman anyday............(though for the safety of you and those around you I strongly advise against it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Icing or not, it still sounds overloaded. The PC-12 is not a "household moving" aircraft, so it isn't built for that weight. 14 people alone sounds heavy, in addition to winter/ski trip gear! That's a LOT actually. That's why airlines use different passengers weights in the winter and summer....its makes a difference.

---

while not a household moving airplane, for it's size it's got a great payload. empty weight of a -12 is around 2500-2600lb while the MGTOW is around 4500. for the 8 seats that are fitted in the cabin that kind of a payload is more than enough. i don't for the life of me understand why anyone would stick 14 people onto that airplane. normally, they're configured for 8 in the cabin and 2 crew. (ron, i know i said 6 the other night but i was thinking back to the one i test-flew which had 2 removed for cargo.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

But you're right, 7 months ago all I knew about flying was from a computer game. 4 months later I soloed an 1100HP $4.5M airplane after 12 rides, got to do full aerobatics at 250+ MPH in formation, got to solo in formation and fly an ILS through the weather in form 10 feet from my friend (did I mention formation flying is pretty fun, lol ) and am now in a pretty "gucci" corporate type jet - it's quite a progression in a short period of time...

---

maybe someday you'll get to do some real flying: 200kts, 50ft off the deck with a 70-ft rotor spinning wildly above your head...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancidas

i don't for the life of me understand why anyone would stick 14 people onto that airplane. normally, they're configured for 8 in the cabin and 2 crew. (ron, i know i said 6 the other night but i was thinking back to the one i test-flew which had 2 removed for cargo.)

---

Playing devil's advocate...

What's the difference between 8 passengers each weighing 200lbs vs. 13 passengers, of which 3 weigh 200lbs, 3 weigh 140lbs, and 7 weigh on average 60lbs? (pretty generous assumptions based on the pictures of the families I saw). Assuming most of the kids were either on their parents laps I would also assume weight distribution to be fairly similar to that of each seat being occupied by a grown adult.

One thing to keep in mind is that the military has been using the PC-12 for spec-op troop insertion among other things in remote areas around the world. Talking super big picture about weight issues (I don't know what calculations or precautions the USAF takes in terms of how many people they carry, where etc... etc...) I would think I'd be more concerned about dropping off a plane full of special forces/secret squirrel people with gear, than 3 families (6 adults (3 women, 3 men) and 7 young kids) going skiing for the weekend...

If weight was a concern (especially in a smaller aircraft like the PC-12), wouldn't most problems normally occur more so on takeoff (assuming your CG remains the same and is in limits) than during landing when you've got a lot less fuel?
I'm no expert on the PC-12, it's systems or it's limitations, but I think these are somewhat valid points to discuss in dealing with this incident that I'm sure investigators will go over...

Quote:

---

maybe someday you'll get to do some real flying: 200kts, 50ft off the deck with a 70-ft rotor spinning wildly above your head...

---

No thanks. I'm not trying to kill myself! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

If weight was a concern (especially in a smaller aircraft like the PC-12), wouldn't most problems normally occur more so on takeoff (assuming your CG remains the same and is in limits) than during landing when you've got a lot less fuel?

---

you're right, if it were overweight and out of balance it would have had a hard, if not impossible time getting airborne in the first place. the PC-12 is a very capable airplane, but if not reated properly she'll, like most a/c, not wanna fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07

No thanks. I'm not trying to kill myself!

---

hey, i'm still alive and kicking after years of playing in the bushes. c'mon, it's fun!

NRT has had some pretty sporty winds recently. here are a couple of arrivals filmed in Feb on 34R which is the shorter of the 2 NRT runways

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHG750R

NRT has had some pretty sporty winds recently. here are a couple of arrivals filmed in Feb on 34R which is the shorter of the 2 NRT runways

---

WOW! this may come as a shock to those who know me, but in a rare moment of relative sanity let me say publicly that if heavy airplanes (B744 and MD11) are getting tossed around the sky like that....






...then i will keep my keister on the ground with the airplane/ helo safely tied down! holy crap that's windy!

Forgive me guys if this is a stoopid question. Shows how much of a rookie I am. But why didn't the FedEx crew abort the landing after the first hard bounce? Were conditions that adverse or did they just think they could nail it when they touched down again?

They may have tried to gun the engines and go around, but they were already close to stall speed and it takes time for the engines to gain enough power to liftoff again....they simply didn't have enough time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

They may have tried to gun the engines and go around, but they were already close to stall speed and it takes time for the engines to gain enough power to liftoff again....they simply didn't have enough time.

---

Makes sense. Thanks Phil. Guess the poor guys really did, as the cliche goes, "never even have a chance".