SDF UPS down

Jim K said:
One of the articles I read was that FedEx and UPS were already phasing out the 11's, and already would have if they could've gotten new planes to replace them.

Juan Brown mentioned that the potentially bigger impact is in aerial firefighting as the 10&11 are finding a third life in that business and there's nothing big enough and cheap enough to replace them.

Do the Qatari's have any more 747's sitting around?
Click to expand...

Both announced plans to continue operating them into 2032 prior to this accident.
 
Ten to 1 the 10s and 11s will end up firefighting and have a reasonable solution for any post-AD requirements. Definitely a plus for the firefighting fleet.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
NTSB update came out. Bearing race fractured for the pylon mount.

I bet it was never greased or even inspected.
Click to expand...

For what its worth, the report does say "Remnant grease-like material was found within the spherical bearing assembly".
 
midwestpa24 said:
For what its worth, the report does say "Remnant grease-like material was found within the spherical bearing assembly".
Click to expand...
The bearing was unlikely to fail if it was greased on a Hrly/Cal schedule. Along with an NDI inspection.

Remnant grease found tells me it was dry and fragmented.

If the maintenance logs were gundecked, someone needs to go to prison.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Remnant grease found tells me it was dry and fragmented.
Click to expand...
Given that area was exposed to the post-crash fire per the update, I think any remanent grease is a sign it was greased and the base oil was burned off leaving the thickener. I would expect a lot more fretting on the ball if there was no grease. However, there's no update on what caused the bearing mount lugs to fail especially since the update noted from the service letter a bearing failure would not result in a flight safety issue, assuming the lugs where still there to contain it. Regardless, they found a failure mechanism and hopefully will have the exact cause pin-pointed sooner than later.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
The bearing was unlikely to fail if it was greased on a Hrly/Cal schedule. Along with an NDI inspection.

Remnant grease found tells me it was dry and fragmented.

If the maintenance logs were gundecked, someone needs to go to prison.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the four other known failures were not greased either?
 
Supposedly FedEx complied with all the SB's that Boeing put out about the engine mounts, and UPS decided not to.
 
Bell206 said:
However, there's no update on what caused the bearing mount lugs to fail
Click to expand...
Appears the lug failure was addressed earlier and found both fracture points on aft lug had evidence of fatigued cracks and the forward lug fractures showed fatigue cracks on the inboard point and only overstress on the outboard point. If I was a betting man given the service letter bearing failure limits, I would put my money on the lugs failed first.
 
Pretty interesting commentary from Juan in that the documentation from Boeing it shows that Boeing knew about this and didn't think it would result in a safety of flight issue.
 
francisco collazos said:
Pretty interesting commentary from Juan in that the documentation from Boeing it shows that Boeing knew about this and didn't think it would result in a safety of flight issue.
Click to expand...
That information comes from the NTSB update, not from Juan.
 
You’d think after Chicago they’d be on the more conservative side with those pylons. Ask for AD vs issue SD.
 
francisco collazos said:
shows that Boeing knew about this and didn't think it would result in a safety of flight issue.
Click to expand...
The Boeing Service Letter only addressed the bearing race failure of which I believe there were 4 bearing failures with no flight safety issues. On the UPS 11, both mount lugs for that bearing failed which is different than the other noted failures.
 
Bell206 said:
The Boeing Service Letter only addressed the bearing race failure of which I believe there were 4 bearing failures with no flight safety issues. On the UPS 11, both mount lugs for that bearing failed which is different than the other noted failures.
Click to expand...
The YouTube commenter postulates race failure leading to fatigue of the lugs. Did the previous 4 failures get inspected/noticed before any fatigue was generated in the lugs? Did MD/Boeing think race failure would not cause fatigue, or did they think the inspection frequency would remove bad bearings before they would have a fatigue effect.
 
Is it lack of inspection/maintenance by itself, or is the process so miserable that nobody - meaning the carriers - want to do it? Not meant as a leading question, and not suggesting skipping maintenance is ever a good thing.

And is this just a single point that was missed, or does the MD-11 have lots of weird/bad things and that's one reason why no airlines fly them anymore?
 
JimLAFB said:
The YouTube commenter postulates race failure leading to fatigue of the lugs.
Click to expand...
Except when you look at the pictures of the lug fractures it doesnt follow that connection to the failed bearings . Fatigue cracking takes a long time to manifest, but it can be tracked and investigated. So I think they will determine what broke first and why.


Albany Tom said:
Is it lack of inspection/maintenance by itself, or is the process so miserable that nobody - meaning the carriers - want to do it?
Click to expand...
No. I think its just another example of flying 50+ year old designs and finding more things that may fail. Like wing spars on certain Pipers.

Albany Tom said:
why no airlines fly them anymore?
Click to expand...
Its my understanding, the evolution of twin engine ETOPs was their ultimate demise on the pax side and move to cargo ops.
 
Bell206 said:
Its my understanding, the evolution of twin engine ETOPs was their ultimate demise on the pax side and move to cargo ops.
Click to expand...
Any thoughts as to why the economics would be different between cargo and pax operations? The 3-2 engine switch came about because more powerful, more efficient engines lead to less maintenance and better fuel economy. Why doesn't that same factor set push cargo lines away from the -10 and -11? Clearly there's a reason. But I don't understand it unless the cargo planes are flying far less on a daily basis than the passenger types making fixed costs (acquisition cost) a larger factor in the overall cost.
 
kyleb said:
Any thoughts as to why the economics would be different between cargo and pax operations?
Click to expand...
Cost. Huge difference between cargo and pax ops on many levels. Its the reason you still see some operators use DC-3s or C-46s ops. The cargo and utility guys are usually the last to operate any old airframe.
 
kyleb said:
Any thoughts as to why the economics would be different between cargo and pax operations?
Click to expand...
For an airplane like the MD11, it is the range and weight carrying capability. That's why cargo operators have not retired the 747s and MD11s while the passenger airlines have.
 
Bacho said:
It’ll be interesting to see what FedEx does.
Click to expand...
Heard they plan to keep them for the foreseeable future and have informed the mx side of the potentional upgrades for the pylons but nothing definite.

Kenny Phillips said:
I wonder if they'll scrap them or offer them to a second-tier carrier
Click to expand...
I definitely see firefighting ops to pick up a few or more.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I wonder if they'll scrap them or offer them to a second-tier carrier (Kalitta, etc.)
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, most of the previously retired ones are Pratt & Whitney powered and have been cut up.

I’m guessing any more flying in another life might be limited to the GE powered ones.

There is also been a bunch of KC-10s for sale recently. I don’t know if that’s comparing apples to oranges as far as a possible firefighting modification is concerned.

I think it’s fair to say flying the MD11 was a cooperative effort.
 
I think FedEx just announced they're resuming the MD11 use.
 
TCABM said:
Pencilwhipped in Sailor.
Click to expand...

Correct. In the old square-rigged sailing ships, the gun deck was just below the main deck, so that things that happened on the gun deck were not visible to the officers or crew on the main deck. Doing it on the gundeck in naval slang usage means to do whatever with little or no scrutiny from the officers.

-Skip
 
And NEVER, EVER, gun deck gun decking… just sayin.

Now let’s talk cumshaw. (Easy mods… look it up!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top