Thread: A UPS plane has crashed on take off in Louisville KY.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I think they did not assume anything - but there is a suspicion that it could be an airframe failure, and that is enough.

On the other hand, don't forget that these are old aircraft, and they were not designed by nor built by the current holder of the certificate (Boeing), so, since the FAA will be heavily influenced by the holder of the certificate, and they in turn might just welcome the opportunity to drop support of this aircraft, and would not be unhappy if they were permanently grounded!

Ooops.. the md11 can never fly again. Can I interest you in a 767 Freighter?

No wonder we don't have a bloody clue what's really going on. OK, I know that most of us are aware of the rising tide of AI fakes, but...


Oh yeah, it has a sponsored section...

Right on rotation one engine fails and breaks off and takes out the second engine.

Or maybe the engine doesn't fail .. maybe it just breaks off. I'm told rotation is one of the highest centripetal loads on everything.

Prelim report :
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/up...4-UPS-MD11.pdf

Originally Posted by BradC

Prelim report :
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/up...4-UPS-MD11.pdf

Thanks. So looks like the pylon separating was the cause.. not an engine failure causing the pylon to fail.

Right on rotation. They were just passengers going to the scene of the crash.

Yep. Looks like a structural failure. That explains why they grounded the entire type.

Yes, it was a structural failure, but was it initiated by :- design, maintenance design, maintenance practices*, or engine vibration outside design parameters.

My guess is the fatigue failure of the mount long predated this flight, which seems to exonerate the engine.


*see the DC-10 crash resulting from unauthorised practice of removing engine plus pylon instead of engine alone.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Yes, it was a structural failure, but was it initiated by :- design, maintenance design, maintenance practices*, or engine vibration outside design parameters.

My guess is the fatigue failure of the mount long predated this flight, which seems to exonerate the engine.


*see the DC-10 crash resulting from unauthorised practice of removing engine plus pylon instead of engine alone.

The way the engine lifted suggests that the rear mount failed first. It just pulled itself up and then broke the front mount. That it took out the #2 on the way through.. so unlucky.