Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Seconds from catastrophe. This arriving aircraft touched down while the departing aircraft was still on the runway finishing its takeoff roll. A few seconds either way, and this could have become one of aviation’s darkest accidents. ✈️ Put yourself in the cockpit: If you’re the arriving pilot and you...

104,368 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The MD-11 has always had a critical design flaw. It was manageable until someone screwed up. To improve fuel efficiency and range, its horizontal stabilizer was made smaller than those of earlier DC-10 variants. While the design delivered performance benefits, it also reduced the aircraft's natural pitch stability, particularly at slower speeds during approach and landing. To help compensate, the MD-11 relied heavily on computerized stability augmentation systems. Many crews also preferred flying slightly faster approaches, which improved pitch stability but could make the aircraft more challenging to manage during touchdown due to its weight and sensitivity in roll and yaw. These characteristics became evident in several high-profile accidents. In 1997, a FedEx MD-11 arriving at Newark was reportedly operating under the belief that runway length was limited, prompting the crew to aim for an immediate touchdown. The aircraft landed hard, bounced, and became unstable. Instead of executing a go-around, attempts to salvage the landing resulted in another severe impact, collapsing the landing gear and destroying the aircraft in a post-crash fire. All five crew members survived. The accident highlighted a key lesson: when an MD-11 bounced significantly after touchdown, a go-around was often the safest option. That lesson resurfaced in tragic fashion in 2009 at Narita, Japan. During strong and gusty crosswinds, a FedEx MD-11 touched down hard and bounced. Believing the aircraft could still be recovered onto the runway, the crew attempted to continue the landing. The resulting control inputs led to an even harder impact, loss of control, and a crash that destroyed the aircraft and claimed the lives of both pilots. 📹: buybygb

Turbine Traveller

206,274 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Another ill-fated take-off over V1 (in this case, V2!) June 13 1996: Garuda Indonesia Flight 865, a DC-10, crashes in Fukuoka (Japan) 3 of 275 aboard die. On take-off, the jet had just left the ground when one of the engines failed. Crew opted to reject the maneuver; the aircraft was unable to stop safely and left the runway: landing gear collapsed, and the airplane caught fire. Inquiry noted pilot actions by aborting takeoff above V1, where SOP dictated pilots should have continued takeoff and deal with the engine later. More info below from Aviation Safety Network – Aftermath video is from Aircrashdaily (go give them a follow on YouTube) “The DC-10 accelerated for takeoff. The nose was raised, and at a speed of 158 kts, the first officer called "Rotate". It was 12:07:40. Three seconds later, at a radio altitude of 9 feet, a fan blade of the 1st stage HP turbine from the no. 3 engine separated. The N1 dropped to 23,7% within a few seconds. At 12:07:45, the flight engineer called "Engine failure number one." Takeoff was aborted at about the V2 speed, and the airplane contacted the runway one second later at a vertical acceleration force of 2.1 Gs. The thrust reversers were deployed and ground spoilers were extended. The DC-10 skidded off the runway through a ditch, fence and a road, before coming to a halt 620 m past the runway threshold. Investigation revealed that the turbine blade that failed, had operated for 30913 hours and 6182 cycles. General Electric had advised customers to discard blades after about 6000 cycles. Accident cause Although the Aircraft was well in excess of V1 and the aircraft had already lifted off from the runway, the takeoff was aborted. Consequently, the aircraft departed the end of the runway, came to rest and caught fire. It is estimated that contributing to the rejection of the takeoff under this circumstance was the fact that the CAP's judgement in the event of the engine failure was inadequate."

Francisco Cunha

157,331 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat