Pilots eject from DC-10

O

over50

Pre-Flight
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
38
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
over50
Wasn't aware FedEx had modified it's DC-10s with ejection seats. Interesting idea though. This is an excerpt from a USA Today story on Oct 28th by Melanie Eversley. Maybe it was her attempt at humor or just an interesting choice of words. Not sure.

A FedEx plane caught fire early Friday evening after the landing gear failed as it traveled from Memphis International Airport to Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood International Airport, causing both pilots to eject, according to the Federal Aviation Administration and a witness.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/10/28/fedex-plane-catches-fire-fort-lauderdale/92909130/
Click to expand...
 
Here's what one FEDEX pilot had to say over in airlinepilot.com:

S.O.S. (same old sh**t). Old DC-10, corrosion in the strut, lots of heavyweight landings, strut fails.

Anybody wanna bet against me
 
I seriously question whether that was posted by a real FedEx pilot; the ones I have spoken to speak well of the maintenance, and like the -10s.
 
SCCutler said:
I seriously question whether that was posted by a real FedEx pilot; the ones I have spoken to speak well of the maintenance, and like the -10s.
Click to expand...

Could be, but it was on the FEDEX forum @airlinepilotforums.com
 
mscard88 said:
Could be, but it was on the FEDEX forum @airlinepilotforums.com
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that it was. But (and this could come as a surprise to some of you), sometimes, people on the Internet lie about who they are and what they know.

Seriously, they do.

Anyone remember Cowboy Pilot? ;-)
 
SCCutler said:
I seriously question whether that was posted by a real FedEx pilot; the ones I have spoken to speak well of the maintenance, and like the -10s.
Click to expand...
I don't know that it is necessarily shoddy maintenance, but this is not the first time a MLG has collapsed on landing. From the FedEx guys on some of the professional boards, this is becoming a concern with the aging airframes.
 
When I was at ASA/ExpressJet we had a couple on the CRJs fail. But I think those were from those Emery Riddle grads we hired. :p:D
 
Last edited:
I think it was likely a hard landing too due to the gusty winds at the time. Think for just a minute how many people would have been hurt/killed if FedEx hauled people instead of boxes. Think about it - they've had a lot of hull losses.
 
Somebody in Blowfish Wyoming is saying, "Where the hell is my order?"

Veiled reference to my favorite line in "Dances With Wolves."
 
GlennAB1 said:
I'll take that bet and wager it's pilot error like most of them.
Click to expand...

Well go on over to airline pilot central/forums and tell him yourself! :)

FEDEX forum @airlinepilotforums.com
 
Interestingly, about this most recent accident in Fort Lauderdale, Wikipedia states that #1 engine was on fire before the gear collapse.

Similar to the 1997 MD-11 crash in Newark?
 
GlennAB1 said:
Interestingly, about this most recent accident in Fort Lauderdale, Wikipedia states that #1 engine was on fire before the gear collapse.

Similar to the 1997 MD-11 crash in Newark?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put too much value in that right now.

Anyone can write a Wikipedia article. It's kind of like 'experts' on POA.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Interestingly, about this most recent accident in Fort Lauderdale, Wikipedia states that #1 engine was on fire before the gear collapse.

Similar to the 1997 MD-11 crash in Newark?
Click to expand...
Newark was different. This one is eerily similar to FDX630 in 2006:
http://avherald.com/h?article=3e5ffef3&opt=7680

DC-10-10s (MD-10-10s) had an AD put out after FDX630 due to corrosion in the main gear strut.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...b04098228625743d0058f655/$FILE/2008-09-17.pdf

I'm hoping it's that, not a hard landing causing MLG failure. But you never know.
 
Hey, if the FAA says they ejected, well then, they ejected.
 
Saw a new one to add to the list of funniest things Engineers have said... "Aircraft may continue operations for a maximum of 10 cycles to get aircraft to location where corrosion can be completely removed provided the following: Manufacturer recommendation to the pilots is to perform smooth and soft landings and the use of maximum thrust reversers to include soft braking upon landings."

LOL, I **** you not!
 
GlennAB1 said:
Saw a new one to add to the list of funniest things Engineers have said... "Aircraft may continue operations for a maximum of 10 cycles to get aircraft to location where corrosion can be completely removed provided the following: Manufacturer recommendation to the pilots is to perform smooth and soft landings and the use of maximum thrust reversers to include soft braking upon landings."

LOL, I **** you not!
Click to expand...
So I guess the ex-Navy pilots won't get that trip.
 
I can't think of a Heavy jet more in need of ejection seats... I admit I haven't any recent examples, but the initial accident record for that airframe was dismal....
 
skyline223 said:
Could eject mean they simply exited via the cockpit windows?
Click to expand...
All it means is they evacuated the airplane, although looking at the picture I can't tell how they did it
I don't see any slides from the doors or ropes from the cockpit windows.
 
Last edited:
Begs the question, what is the heaviest/largest aircraft that does have ejection seats? C-17/C-5/C-130 all lack them. B-52 perhaps?
 
Mike I said:
Begs the question, what is the heaviest/largest aircraft that does have ejection seats? C-17/C-5/C-130 all lack them. B-52 perhaps?
Click to expand...
In the US inventory, it would be the B-52 with the greatest physical dimensions and ejection seats, although the B-1 can carry a bigger payload.
 
The F111 pod failed a few times too.....cable cutters didn't cut them all.

Frank
 
Sluggo63 said:
Interesting, but the B-1 didn't end up with the pod. Just 4 ejection seats. The F-111 had a crew ejection pod, though.
Click to expand...

Yeah completely forgot about the 111. Yeah I see now it's ejection seats for the B1.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
All it means is they evacuated the airplane, although looking at the picture I can't tell how they did it
I don't see any slides from the doors or ropes from the cockpit windows.
Click to expand...
They used the rope out of the FOs window. One video that's out there shows it.
 
GlennAB1 said:
That is their normal escape path.
Click to expand...

Not at the airline I flew at. Our primary exit was the way we came in, if possible. Using the ropes out the windows and/or escape hatch was secondary.
 
Sluggo63 said:
I'm hoping it's that, not a hard landing causing MLG failure. But you never know.
Click to expand...
Like the 2003 accident. Landing energy analysis showed 473,478 ft-lb energy dissipation on the left main gear and 563,478 ft-lb on the right main landing gear, with a design requirement of approximately 419,255 ft-lb each.
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Like the 2003 accident. Landing energy analysis showed 473,478 ft-lb energy dissipation on the left main gear and 563,478 ft-lb on the right main landing gear, with a design requirement of approximately 419,255 ft-lb each.
Click to expand...
Those are not good numbers...:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top