Ya, the pylon not with the rest of the crash is not good.

Rapier108 said:

---

NTSB obviously found something concerning enough for the FAA to issue the air worthiness directive.

---

Yep. Between Boeing and now FAA saying ground and inspect, further operation until inspections complete prohibited gives the impression they have a really good idea what happened for the pylon and engine to separate.

Jetpilot86 said:

---

Ya, the pylon not with the rest of the crash is not good.

---

I thought they said in one of the press conferences that the pylon was with the plane.

Pinochet said:

---

Jetpilot86 said:

---

Ya, the pylon not with the rest of the crash is not good.

---

I thought they said in one of the press conferences that the pylon was with the plane.

---

As I understand it thus far, the #1 engine separated with the engine, then the engine separated from the pylon after hitting the ground.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

NTSB obviously found something concerning enough for the FAA to issue the air worthiness directive.

---

Yep. Between Boeing and now FAA saying ground and inspect, further operation until inspections complete prohibited gives the impression they have a really good idea what happened for the pylon and engine to separate.

---

It sure does. It also seems to indicate they think it could re-occur or at least needs to be guarded against; that this wasn't some kind of perfect storm outlier.

agAngeldad said:

---

titan said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

insulator_king said:

---

Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.

---

They probably had very little time to react. Other than "oh crap" and "TOGO". The engine looks like it fell off at V1.

I can only think of 3 maybe 4 times an engine has failed off an aircraft and 2 on TO. Horrible.

---

Its actually better in flight (not for those below) as one of those times I clearly remember not only was it in flight at high altitude, but was able to land safely without crack up. The engine I don't think killed anyone, but it crushed a building or house if recall correctly.

---

Agree. SWA lost and engine in flight and AAL lost one in a 727 out west over the desert. Both landed with out incident. SWA might have had one that fell loose but was still hanging on, not including the one that a piece went the window and killed a lady. AAL lost one on TO in 79 and then this one. I'm sure there's another but those are the only ones I recall in US.

TO and Landing are critical phases of flight and don't allow much recovery time.

---

The' 79 AA DC-10 crash at O'Hare was the first thing I thought of when I saw this crash and then thought no way out could be the same cause. In that crash, it was found that AA mechanics were performing maintenance the #1 and #3 engines by removing the front pin and letting the engine swing down on the rear pin instead of removing both pins and lowering the engine from the wing to perform maintenance, which saved time and money. On takeoff, the rear pin failed and the engine swung down and forward, and then over the top of the left wing, shearing off the leading edge slat, which caused the left wing to stall in the airplane rolled over and crashed.

stetson said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

titan said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

insulator_king said:

---

Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.

---

They probably had very little time to react. Other than "oh crap" and "TOGO". The engine looks like it fell off at V1.

I can only think of 3 maybe 4 times an engine has failed off an aircraft and 2 on TO. Horrible.

---

Its actually better in flight (not for those below) as one of those times I clearly remember not only was it in flight at high altitude, but was able to land safely without crack up. The engine I don't think killed anyone, but it crushed a building or house if recall correctly.

---

Agree. SWA lost and engine in flight and AAL lost one in a 727 out west over the desert. Both landed with out incident. SWA might have had one that fell loose but was still hanging on, not including the one that a piece went the window and killed a lady. AAL lost one on TO in 79 and then this one. I'm sure there's another but those are the only ones I recall in US.

TO and Landing are critical phases of flight and don't allow much recovery time.

---

The' 79 AA DC-10 crash at O'Hare was the first thing I thought of when I saw this crash and then thought no way out could be the same cause. In that crash, it was found that AA mechanics were performing maintenance the #1 and #3 engines by removing the front pin and letting the engine swing down on the rear pin instead of removing both pins and lowering the engine from the wing to perform maintenance, which saved time and money. On takeoff, the rear pin failed and the engine swung down and forward, and then over the top of the left wing, shearing off the leading edge slat, which caused the left wing to stall in the airplane rolled over and crashed.

---

American (and Unitedand Continental) decided it would be easier (and safer they argued) to remove the pylon from the wing while attached to the engine rather than removing the engine then the pylon as Douglas intended. Further, they used a forklift to do it. The pylon was completely detached but when the forklift lost some hydraulic pressure it settled. It either caused the damage then by tilting or when they adjusted it to reattach.

Also, a three foot section of the leading edge was torn away but the slats outboard of the engine retracted because the hydraulic lines that kept them locked in place were severed. That lowered the the stall speed of the left wing to below V2 and they stalled and rolled left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191

I stumbled upon this. I have no idea if it means much or anything. From 2006:

Quote:

---

"The MD-11 has also had three major ADs issued against it, which have all been dealt with across the fleet, but which have added a large number of MH to complete the modification," continues Leskinen. "The first of these was the engine pylon upper spar modification, which used about 900MH per engine pylon.

---

AD (for those of us not in the know): airworthiness directives
MH: man hours. (Article doesn't define it, but it seems pretty clear).

Source: https://www.aircraft-commerce.com/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-commerce-docs/Aircraft%20guides/MD-11/ISSUE%2047-MD-11%20MTCE.pdf

My guess is that these upgrades (probably) occurred such a long time ago that any defects would have shown up sooner. However, maybe the upgrade only had so much of a life span.

Centerpole90 said:

---

---

I was most impressed by his demonstration of the gyroscopic precession forces using the bicycle wheel.
Especially that the RPM of the turbine is so incredibly high, the force is also much greater to try and twist the pylon off the wing so to speak.

If there has been degradation [microscopic cracking] of the pylon, then the moments after rotation are when it would be most likely to fail. Yikes!

Praying for those that are affected.

Couple websites reporting the original EAD for the MD-11 has been expanded to cover multipe other airframes (MD-10 / DC-10 / KC-10 variants) citing that they all share similar engine pylon structure / design elements. Full EAD can be found at link below.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/aviation-news/aviation-safety/faa-expands-emergency-airworthiness-directive-to-dc-10s/

Edit for spelling.

Hmmm. Given how long they have been flying, wonder if the investigation is also finding that it may be an age-related deterioration for these variants. That the risk is greater after this period of time despite apparently not being often to date.

Looks like 9 DC-10s still in service. Two with cargo airlines, the Orbis flying hospital, Omega Aerial Refueling Services has two, and the four DC-10 fire fighting tankers.

The KC-10 was retired in Sept. 2024 and the fleet is just sitting around Davis-Monthan.

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like 9 DC-10s still in service. Two with cargo airlines, the Orbis flying hospital, Omega Aerial Refueling Services has two, and the four DC-10 fire fighting tankers.

The KC-10 was retired in Sept. 2024 and the fleet is just sitting around Davis-Monthan.

---

Samaritan's Purse retired their DC-8 literally yesterday, I think the last one flying.

titan said:

---

Hmmm. Given how long they have been flying, wonder if the investigation is also finding that it may be an age-related deterioration for these variants. That the risk is greater after this period of time despite apparently not being often to date.

---

Could also be that there is a replacement part(s) which was found to be defective in some way. Since the part could be used on either the DC-10 or MD-11, all will need to be checked.

Since the DC-10 has been in service since the 70s, and the KC-10 since 1981 and flew with the USAF for 40+ years, an age problem with an original installed part seems unlikely.

torrid said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Looks like 9 DC-10s still in service. Two with cargo airlines, the Orbis flying hospital, Omega Aerial Refueling Services has two, and the four DC-10 fire fighting tankers.

The KC-10 was retired in Sept. 2024 and the fleet is just sitting around Davis-Monthan.

---

Samaritan's Purse retired their DC-8 literally yesterday, I think the last one flying.

---

Yep, it was the last of the DC-8s in service and the last of the first generation airliners to be retired. Replaced it with a 767 which gives them a lot more cargo capacity.

The 707 went out of service years ago except for military variants like the E-3 and E-6. Even those will be gone in the coming years. The KC-135 is technically different, being based on the 367-80 and not the later 707.

So what is more stressful on an airliner, flying passengers or flying cargo? I would thing passengers, as the planes typically do multiple take-offs and landings per day. Cargo planes, though always fully loaded, I expect fly one leg out and out leg back per day.

Of course, most cargo planes are former passenger planes nearing the end of their useful life.

JFABNRGR said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Jetpilot86 said:

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

frankm01 said:

---

UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.

---

They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.

---

I've personally taken a 757 in there. Lets just say there is little room for error.

---

I flew into Burbank once on Southwest and it was the most abrupt landing I've ever experienced. When the plane stopped rolling forward we were no more than 100'-150' from the perimeter wall. Barely had room to turn the plane around without scraping the wing tip on the wall. Scared the crap out of me.

---

LOL try a couple of tactical landings on an unimproved strip in a C130…..one of several reasons smarter paratroopers push through the red light.

---

Land perfectly safe or end up in whatever obstacles/powerlines/frozen rivers exist past the DZ

Yeah that's Army smart for you

YouTuber Captain Steeeve predicted last week that remaining MD11s will all be decommissioned because of this crash.

FWIW, I used to live spitting distance to final assembly of MD-80's and MD-11's at Long Beach airport. Watched many of these matriculate thru the outdoor line and subsequent delivery out of LGB.

Sid Farkas said:

---

YouTuber Captain Steeeve predicted last week that MD11s will all be decommissioned because of this crash.

FWIW, I used to live spitting distance to final assembly of MD-80's and MD-11's at Long Beach airport. Watched many of these matriculate thru the outdoor line and subsequent delivery out of LGB.

---

MD11s will only be decommissioned if the money makes sense.

If the fix is too expensive that will be the reason, not the crash.


Mishaps are a part of doing business in aviation.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

YouTuber Captain Steeeve predicted last week that MD11s will all be decommissioned because of this crash.

FWIW, I used to live spitting distance to final assembly of MD-80's and MD-11's at Long Beach airport. Watched many of these matriculate thru the outdoor line and subsequent delivery out of LGB.

---

MD11s will only be decommissioned if the money makes sense.

If the fix is too expensive that will be the reason, not the crash.


Mishaps are a part of doing business in aviation.

---

Captain Steve agrees. MD11s apparently are expensive to operate and maintain. The crash is the straw that will break the camel's back.

Sid Farkas said:

---

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Sid Farkas said:

---

YouTuber Captain Steeeve predicted last week that MD11s will all be decommissioned because of this crash.

FWIW, I used to live spitting distance to final assembly of MD-80's and MD-11's at Long Beach airport. Watched many of these matriculate thru the outdoor line and subsequent delivery out of LGB.

---

MD11s will only be decommissioned if the money makes sense.

If the fix is too expensive that will be the reason, not the crash.


Mishaps are a part of doing business in aviation.

---

Captain Steve agrees. MD11s apparently are expensive to operate and maintain. The crash is the straw that will break the camel's back.

---

Talked with a retired FedEx pilot who flew the MD-11 about this crash and he said the same thing; expensive to operate and high maintenance costs.

FedEx has already started scheduling simulator trainings for MD-11 pilots to get their landings (3 landings required every 3 months for pilots to stay current). Makes me think they are anticipating this grounding to last a while….

They're also paying them anyway whether they fly or not so keeping them current makes sense

I don't think it's necessary a cost issue with the airframe.

It's a small fleet problem. Every flight hour is more expensive when specialists, equipment and other fixed costs are spread across less aircraft.

Would be curious to know if UPS has pilots that aren't rated to fly any of their other jets (747, 767, etc.). With the dwindling MD-11 fleet size, would think being rated in multiple types would be a priority for their pilots.

UPS and Fedex between them have around 300 MD-11F pilots, and each carrier operates around 25 aircraft. One had planned to retire the type by 2027 already, the other going out to 2030-2032 (the engines are common to other types, and they have around 7 just for spares in the desert).

It's been a very efficient cargo hauler actually but it's time has obviously come, or will soon. Probably half of those pilots are both retirement eligible already, and might just take it, vs. switching to another type.

The FAA inspection guidance is for the pylon/nacelle structure for various types of the old Tri-Holer using the CF-6 engines (not the engines themselves, FAA AD2025-23-51). None are in commercial passenger service at this point I believe.

Yes and no, there's a clause in their contract that says they are basically sitting standby if they had a trip get cancelled. They have 12 hours notice during the footprint of their trip if the company calls them to get where they would need to go. So if they don't have a crash pad in their domicile then they're on their toes during the duration. At least that's how it was explained to me.

Are they efficient? Google says 777F is about 15-16% more fuel efficient per ton of cargo.

777 is more efficient but the cargo carriers are still operating MD-11s because they're able to carry more than a 767 or airbus. At one point FedEx thought they would replace them domestically with 767s 1:1 but that was a largely failed experiment, and they ended up having to supplement those routes with a 757 to pick up the slack. As far as the 777 goes, 15 years ago MD-11 had almost all of FedEx's international routes. Now they've lost those to the 777 and MD-11 has been limited largely to AK, HI, and the lower 48 transcon with a few other PacRim routes. They've been slowly phasing them out in favor of the more efficient 2-engine airframes but it's still cheaper to operate an MD-11 that's owned at a higher operating cost than to finance a new 777 outright.

Gotcha, would be curious to know how many out of those 300 are rated for another type that they also have in their respective fleets. You're probably right that the ones that are only rated on the MD-11 and close to retirement may just go ahead and retire, especially if the company incentivizes them vs. having to pony up the expense of a new type cert for a bunch of them.

Yeah I'm saying they're making whatever their min monthly guarantee is whether they fly or not. If the company decides to keep them in limbo when they know they aren't flying on short notice, that's their prerogative I guess.

SupermachJM said:

---

777 is more efficient but the cargo carriers are still operating MD-11s because they're able to carry more than a 767 or airbus. At one point FedEx thought they would replace them domestically with 767s 1:1 but that was a largely failed experiment, and they ended up having to supplement those routes with a 757 to pick up the slack. As far as the 777 goes, 15 years ago MD-11 had almost all of FedEx's international routes. Now they've lost those to the 777 and MD-11 has been limited largely to AK, HI, and the lower 48 transcon with a few other PacRim routes. They've been slowly phasing them out in favor of the more efficient 2-engine airframes but it's still cheaper to operate an MD-11 that's owned at a higher operating cost than to finance a new 777 outright.

---

How does the 747F factor in to the phase out of the MD-11s? I know (or at least think) UPS still uses them though I think FedEx long phased them out.

Seems like it would be a solid replacement of the MD-11 particularly on the routes you mentioning the MD-11 is / was flying.