Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Despite similarities to other accidents, don’t draw conclusions in UPS accident
By Scott Hamilton
Nov. 5, 2025, © Leeham News: Yesterday’s crash of a UPS Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) MD-11F evokes memories of American Airlines flight 191 in Chicago and the Air France Concorde crash in Paris.
The moment of impact of a UPS Boeing MD-11F freight that crashed on take-off from the Louisville (KY) airport. Credit: USA Today.
The UPS plane’s No. 1 engine apparently separated from the wing at around V1, the take-off speed, at the Louisville (KY) airport, where UPS’ main US hub is located. This is similar to the engine separation of the No. 1 engine of the American McDonnell Douglas DC-10 at a similar point on its take-off roll at O’Hare Airport. (This was the first aviation accident that I had as a reporter.)
American’s flight did not catch fire on take-off, but the slats on the left wing retracted after the engine damaged the hydraulic lines along the leading edge of the wing. There is a famous aviation picture of the DC-10, with its wings vertical to the ground, missing the engine, seconds before the plane crashed in a trailer park next to the airport. Valves were later added to the DC-10 to prevent such a retraction in the future.
The UPS MD-11, a derivative of the DC-10, did catch fire. So did the Air France Concorde, after running over a part that was on the runway at Charles de Gaulle Airport that fell off a preceding flight (ironically, a Continental Airlines DC-10). The Concorde’s tires threw the part into the wing fuel tank, which ignited. There is a famous picture of the Concorde, committed to take off, aloft on fire.
The UPS flight sequence, captured on multiple videos, is eerily similar to the American and Air France crashes. One video shows the MD-11 with its wings vertical to the ground, as the left wing sliced through a building seconds before impact.
Despite similarities, exercise caution in drawing conclusions.
How could it happen?
Even as fires raged, the Internet was alive with theories and questions about how and why the accident happened.
Given the lessons learned from the DC-10 crash, at least in theory, the slats shouldn’t retract, allowing the left wing to stall. Yet the flight’s characteristics look like what happened to the American aircraft.
A retired Boeing employee, whose duties during his career included safety, told LNA that a massive, catastrophic uncontained engine failure could have taken out the hydraulics and ignited fuel. This brings to mind the uncontained engine failure on the Qantas Airways Airbus A380 flight 32 after departure from Singapore. A major failure of the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine caused damage to hydraulic lines and ruptured the wing fuel tank. Fortunately, there was no fire despite the streaming fuel, and the flight crew safely landed the plane.
With the MD-11’s engine alongside the runway, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will be able to determine pretty quickly if there was a massive structural or part failure of the GE Aerospace CF6 engine. While rare, such failures are not unknown. Think of the United Airlines DC-10 failure on flight 232 that crash landed at Sioux City (IA) or the American Airlines Boeing 767-300ER that was on its take-off roll at O’Hare. This take-off was successfully aborted. The resulting engine fire burned through the starboard wing. This aircraft remains remotely parked at O’Hare to this day. In the United and American 767 cases, a fan disk ruptured.
Don’t draw conclusions
Could any of these accidents have a bearing on the UPS flight? Maybe yes, maybe no. Don’t draw conclusions, even as the similarities are intriguing. As noted, the presence of the No. 1 engine along the runway will yield clues quickly for the NTSB. Recovery of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder will be crucial to the investigation. However, the fires’ intensity could pose a problem if the damage to the recorders is severe.
There are reports, as yet unconfirmed, that the flight experienced a two-hour delay for maintenance on the No. 1 engine. Obviously, this will be an area of investigation by the NTSB.
As a matter of routine, so will the following, listed in no particular order of importance:
- Engine and aircraft maintenance history;
- Pilots’ history;
- Runway conditions and whether there may have been a ground collision with something that could have caused the engine to separate from the airplane;
- Weather and wind conditions;
- Why wasn’t the airplane able to get airborne, above the 150-175 feet tracked by Flight Aware? The MD-11 should have been able to continue the takeoff successfully on the two remaining engines.
- Was there an uncontained failure of the engine of such magnitude that the hydraulic lines were punctured and which ignited fuel?
- As a matter of routine, the FBI is an initial participant in an air crash investigation until a criminal action is ruled out.
The NTSB is prompt and thorough in its press briefings following an accident. Some answers should emerge fairly quickly. Boeing and GE will assist in the probe.
Will the government shutdown in the USA hamper the investigation into the crash? I am assuming NTSB are impacted in someway and that their staff are not being paid.
State officials last night said the NTSB was sending 28 people to Louisville today.
To add to that, what will get slowed down will be smaller crashes per the general aviation group (small aircraft, not working commercial)
Sadly many of those are not learnable in you tend to find a mechanical issue, its caused by pilot actions or a series of actions and decisions.
Common for a light twin is the marginal nature of flight with an engine out, there virtually is no room for anything other than perfect response.
I terrible irony is that some of those are caused by training for engine out. An area that should have minimums performance specs for single engine ops that does not put you in that position.
Often said that a light twin has twice the chance of an engine failure and significant chance it will crash when it does.
would an uncontained engine failure allow/lead to the engines detachment?
( I don’t think so. )
Post crash engine images seem to not show parts of the pylon?
Aerial footage shows a nearly km long fiery trace.
Fuel must have gushed out in significant amounts.
It was going to Hawaii from the US East coast, so yes, fully laden with fuel (or max fuel on board).
Louisville KY- where the flight originated- is not on the East Coast.
Close enough
700 miles is apparently “close enough” for you, I guess.
More “beach front” properties! 🤣
> … with the Gulf of Mexico being the nearest large body of salt water. 🤪
Too bad these writers have never heard from our sage:
https://www.wdrb.com/news/is-louisville-in-the-south-or-midwest/article_3cbc753a-a682-5c10-b36e-8995e985c6f1.html
Isn’t that now the Gulf of America?
😅 Sorry, not an American. The Google map here (outside the US) still says the Gulf of Mexico.
“Gulf of America”
?
_The Donald’s Pond of Follies_.
I think TWs point is that the plane had a fuel load for a very long (9+ hour) flight.
Yep but the Trio Lights off as expected.
More like 600 miles but who is counting?
you need a hole to spray the path with fuel.
… independent of tanks being full or only half full.
There’s regular MD11F UPS flights from Honolulu to Sydney most days of the week , so Im guessing that was the ultimate destination
https://16right.com/spotting/cargo
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/DC-10_engine-pylon.svg/783px-DC-10_engine-pylon.svg.png
refers to DC10 but should be valid for MD11 too.
engine on tarmac seems to show no traces of the pylon structure?
Not entirely sure that the wing is what sliced through the building. Part of me wonders that it was the rear fuselage that slammed into it as the plane kept its nose pointed to the sky trying to climb. The damage looks relatively blunt, with the building seeming burn/soot free.
The bump could´ve then raised the tail slightly while dropping the nose, avoiding the rest of the building but losing the slight altitude it had.
sorry NonPC link: https://www.rt.com/news/627342-ups-cargo-jet-crash/
( but the most unlittered one )
plane comes into view attitude nose up one wing slightly up
traverses right to left while turning along the longitudinal axis till one wing (engine attached) is nearly upright, starting to cartwheel .
the runway perspective video shows the plane settling into the buildings nose level, the dashcam video shows the plane rolling wing up after impact.
sure looks like wing rotation was due to the left wing being ripped off and the right wing still having a lot of lift.
+1
Thanks for publishing this, Scott.
The FDR/CVR will provide good information… hopefully they can be located and they’re in relatively good shape to read the data.
Folks, I’ve been involved in an air accident investigation when working for my former airline, it has to this day a deep effect on me.
Keep UPS in your prayers, especially the families.
Hear, hear.
Please keep in mind it was not just UPS personnel that died.
“According to data from aviation analytics site Cirium, the freighter was built in 1991 and delivered in passenger configuration to Thai Airways International. It operated until 2006, when it was sent for conversion, and delivered to UPS in 2007 for freighter operations.”
“Cirium data also shows that UPS has a fleet of 26 in-service MD-11Fs, with six more aircraft in storage.”
https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/ups-md-11f-crashes-after-taking-off-from-louisville/1080864.article
So, the frame was 34 years old, and working as a freighter for 18 years.
6 UPS frames in storage would suggest that UPS is in the process of withdrawing the type from service.
30-35 y/o is quite common for cargo aircraft, but there are also many (much) younger cargo aircraft in service. The average age of in-service cargo aircraft is 25 y/o.
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/publications/economic-reports/the-older-cargo-fleet-hampers-emissions-reductions/
Debris, heat taking out also #2, doomed. RIP crew and condolences to all involved.
Well put.
I appreciate this article. It was insightful to read the history of various crashes and how they compare or do not compare to the recent crash.
About the article, I also want to tell you I appreciate your correct grammar and spelling in this article. That stood out to me as it was refreshing to read. A lot of sites anymore do not seem to catch small errors.
Hopefully the Flight data recorder is quickly found and can decide if it was an engine failure that ripped the engine from its mounts or the pylon from the wing. Also how the tail engine was effected by this. Will be interesting to see how many cycles the fan disk and 3-9 /11-15 HPC spools had since new.
It’s been stated on AA191, if the pilots went max thrust on the two remaining engines they would have been able to fly out the situation. Landing would have been an issue though. The copilot flying had no sticker shaker and did not know he was close to stall and lessened thrust per their training at the time.
Williams.
The AA191 flight was flyable without touching the throttle settings. A checklist misinterpretation was the straw that broke the camels back. The DC10 flight manual says if you have an engine fail during takeoff, fly V2 and continue the climb. the aircraft was in excess of V2 when the slats retracted on the left wing due to hydraulics bleeding out. They were somewhere around v2+25 when the slats on the left wing hit the slats up stops. At V2+25, the aircraft had enough yaw and roll control to have survived the event. The Crew training says to fly V2 on an engine loss. In 191s case, they pulled up, gained a bit of altitude and slowed the airplane to V2 where it no longer was controllable due to the asymmetric slat deployment. A manual update was made, and the phrase was changed to V2 OR BETTER to prevent the pitch up that bled energy.
While it’s true that exceeding V2 may have saved the aircraft, there were also aircraft design elements that contributed, by not allowing the crew to anticipate what was happening.
The first is that unlike other aircraft of the era, the DC-10 did not have anti-bleedout valves to isolate systems from hydraulic pressure loss. Which meant that all hydraulic systems in the affected wing failed.
The second is that both warning systems that could have signaled impending asymmetrical lift were disabled by the loss of the engine.
Afterwards, both issues were corrected. Warning systems became powered by both engines and the safety valves were mandated. As well as addition of stick shaker to the right side of the aircraft, which had been optional at the time.
Thanks for this article, and condolences to all the people affected by this horrific crash.
As Scott noted, first clues will be the engine. FDR will validate what that evidence shows.
It may be well a loss of data with the kind of damage an engine departing the aircraft would do for whatever reasons it departed.
The metallurgists can tell if it sheared, came off due to loose fasteners, previous hit damage (if there) etc.
IMHO- since engine at full power departed before or at liftoff- either fatigue or missed maintenance item re attachment/reattachment.
Is it likely we are going to experience an uptick of accidents?
One can ask oneself how prudent it is for carriers in a developed country to be using 34-year-old frames…regardless of how “well maintained” one believes those frames to be.
I’m reminded of the almost incessant “mad dog” MD-80/90 breakdowns at US carriers, before the decision was finally taken to retire them.
@Abalone. Remember, cargo airplanes tend to fly fewer hours a day than passenger airliners. So calendar age isn’t necessarily a good measurement.
Yes, and fewer cycles in general.
Still, 34 is OLD.
Just wait until the litigation starts: I can already hear lawyers talking about recklessly old frames 🙈
I wouldn’t be surprised if UPS retires its remaining MD-11s sooner, now that this has happened.
UPS had one of its facilities off the end of the runway, a number of other businesses on the crash path and fire.
Awful. A number of missing people.
While it was noted no reported Haz on the aircraft (cargo) there will be haz materials on the ground in the crash path.
All fire departments in the area responded keeping it from spreading and being even worse.
In line with the criticism of the embankment placement in the Jeju crash, shall we now scorn the decision to locate a fuel processing depot just off the end of a busy runway, which greatly exacerbated the outcome of this crash?
I think a lot of airports locate their fuel farms at the end the runways. I know Seattle-Tacoma has its main jet fuel storage tanks located a the end of 16L.
Well, perhaps such decisions will now be revisited…
Abalone wrote
Well, perhaps such decisions will now be revisited…
Abalone.
The fuel tanks location with respect to runway 16 Left poses no real hazard. The tanks are located 1000 feet to the left of the runway centerline. For an aircraft to get there, it needs to exit the left side of the runway, cross the entire 500 foot runoff zone, cross a 100 foot taxiway and another 400 feet of flat ground to get to the tank farm.
It meets the rules, what more do you think is necessary
There was once a chemical plant to the south-west of 07L/25R (Runway Northwest) at Frankfurt Airport. N 50.029064° E 8.485438°. The plant was relocated before the runway was opened for traffic. This was due to the so called Seveso guidelines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_2012/18/EU
A sensible precaution, and a wise law.
Abalone,
The aircraft cleared the runway.
The aircraft cleared the runway overrun area,
The aircraft cleared the airport boundary fence.
The aircraft impacted structures outside the airport or airport jurisdiction,
This is in sharp contrast to the Jeju incident where a nonsensical earthen structure was erected inside the airport boundaries under the control of the airport authorities.
Two completely different situations…….
Both incidents involved a structure impacted by an aircraft, causing further exacerbation of the crash outcome.
In both cases, the structure was located in relative proximity to the end of the runway, and on or near the runway axis.
In both cases, the structure could have been located elsewhere.
If this FedEx crash had happened in India, we’d be hearing how stupid it was to put a fuel depot near the end of a runway.
You can be sure that this issue will receive ample illumination during the inevitable litigation in Kentucky.
https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/ntsb-says-footage-shows-left-engine-detaching-from-wing-during-takeoff-before-deadly-ups-crash-251408965730
Good video footage in that link, from 2 angles.
Apparently, both flight recorders have now been retrieved — at least one has fire damage.
Death toll is up to 11.
There is a frame by frame video on X which seems to show two compressor stalls of the number 2 engine around rotation, presumably due to ingestion of heavy smoke and/or debris.
That would have left them with at best one engine making full power, one making partial power, and one making none.
This amazing dashcam video shows the plane just before impact.
The plane has zero roll, pitch up, and is missing its left engine.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/video/dash-cam-ups-plane-missing-engine-ldndigvid-vrtc
The federal judge in the fraud case against Boeing, has accepted the motion to dismiss, in accordance with the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that requires Boeing to pay $1.1B in fines, accident family restitution, and strengthening of Boeing safety culture.
The judge said he disagreed with the DoJ in dismissing criminal charges, but he has no authority to substitute his conclusion, as DoJ is compliant with the law, including the Crime Victims Rights Act.
Under the NPA, Boeing will hire an independent monitor that reports to the DoJ. This had been the judge’s earlier objection to the previous guilty plea, which he rejected.
The dismissal:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.342881/gov.uscourts.txnd.342881.358.0_3.pdf
The NPA:
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/media/1401531/dl?inline=
Regarding today’s ruling by the court in Texas, the opera isn’t over yet 🤔
The crash victim families have already resolved to appeal the decision:
“Families who lost loved ones in the 2019 crash of a Boeing 737 MAX 8 jet said today, through counsel, that they intend to file an expedited writ of mandamus to appeal the decision of a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, dismissing the criminal conspiracy charge against Boeing for the crashes that killed 346 people seven years ago.”
““Judge O’Connor recognized that there are, in his words, ‘compelling’ arguments against the non-prosecution deal. But he reluctantly concluded that he was powerless to do anything about the reprehensible deal. We believe that the courts don’t have to stand silently by while an injustice is perpetrated. We will be rapidly going to the Fifth Circuit to ask it to reverse this decision, enforce the rights of the victim’s families, and deny the Government’s effort to simply drop these charges,” said Paul Cassell, pro bono attorney for the families and professor of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.”
““Families of multiple Lion Air victims also oppose the order and support the immediate filing of a writ by Professor Cassell,” according to Sanjiv Singh, counsel for 16 families who had joined with Cassell’s group to fight the dismissal.”
https://www.cliffordlaw.com/families-of-boeing-max8-crash-victims-to-file-expedited-writ-of-mandamus-to-federal-appellate-court-to-overturn-district-court-judges-order-issued-today-dismissing-criminal-charge-against-b/#:~:text=Families%20who%20lost%20loved%20ones,crashes%20that%20killed%20346%20people
Just to clarify: the appeals court is free to appoint a special prosecutor and order a trial if it feels that the CVRA merits that.
Notably the district judge relied heavily on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in his ruling, citing multiple cases where they established the courts cannot act as prosecutor.
The sole function of the court is to establish compliance with the law, within prosecutorial behavior. The judge found DoJ was compliant, so the appeal would have to argue that finding was incorrect, on procedural grounds.
I don’t see any evidence of that in the ruling. But the families have the right of appeal.
Unless the Fifth Circuit reverses their own precedent, this case is not likely to prevail.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit has previously indicated that it would be unconscienable if no company officer were to be held accountable for a crime such as that for which BA has been arraigned.
Looks as if — for a second time — the court in Texas is seeking an explicit 5th circuit blessing to rule in a “controversial” direction.
O’Connor said in his ruling that the current NPA won’t protect the public.
Just to clarify, the district judge made those comments, but he is the same judge that just dismissed the case.
The Fifth Circuit Appellate Court has not made any statements regarding this case, nor would it be appropriate to do so.
Just to clarify: the 5th circuit court of appeal made lengthy statements about this case when it referred it back to the court in Texas in December, 2023.
In referring the case back to Texas, the 5th circuit amplified its own jurisprudence relating to the CVRA, and indicated how that case law should guide the lower court.
“The Fifth Circuit found that its earlier ruling in In re Dean (5th Cir. 2008) provided a helpful analogy for resolving this case. In Dean, the Government and a corporate defendant secretly negotiated a plea deal in violation of crime victims’ rights—and the Fifth Circuit instructed that the district court should carefully protect the victims’ rights in subsequent proceedings. The same concern is present in this (the Boeing) case:
“With the above in mind, the logic of our court’s decision in In re Dean, is instructive and, in application here, determinative. As in Dean, the victims’ families “should have been notified of the ongoing [DPA] discussions and should have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government . . . before a deal was struck.” 527 F.3d at 395. That is particularly true if the deal, in ultimate outcome as approved by federal court, means no company, and no executive and no employee, ends up convicted of any crime, despite the Government and Boeing’s DPA agreement about criminal wrongdoing leading, the district court has found, to the deaths of 346 crash victims.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/18/fifth-circuit-rules-that-victims-families-challenge-to-the-boeing-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-premature/
As noted, the district judge referenced this very opinion in his ruling, and stated that DoJ had satisfied the requirements of the CVRA, as well as the concerns of the Appellate Court.
The CVRA only gives victims the right to notice of prosecution, and the right to appear in their own interests. It doesn’t give them the right to govern the prosecution.
According to the ruling, the DoJ fully notified and consulted with the families. In addition, the judge has given them two opportunities to appear in court and testify in their own interests.
The families don’t agree with the outcome, but their rights under the law have been upheld. Unless they can show evidence to the contrary, the appeals court will find the same.
As noted, Judge O’Connor was unable to follow the prior instruction of the appeals court regarding the Dean jurisprudence, because of the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute. Since the referral back by the appeals court in Dec. 2023, the DOJ had converted the original DPA into an NPA.
When the families appeal this decision and it goes back to the appeals court, the appeals court can direct the DOJ to prosecute — and can appoint a special prosecutor if the DOJ fails to comply. The appeal by the families in itself serves as a clear demonstration that they feel that they have not been served justice under the CVRA. The Dean jurisprudence then *requires* that BA be prosecuted.
Buckle up: this case is going to continue for years…which is a bitter pill for those eager to put the matter to bed.
I have to respectfully disagree.
The pattern of this case has been that the judge has repetitively expressed a subjective view of guilt that would be cause for his removal in a criminal trial.
If the judge argues for guilt from the bench, either before or during the trial, that’s clear grounds for a mistrial. I believe that played a role in the DoJ decision on the NPA, once Boeing said they would go to trial.
Within the DPA case, the judge wrote a manifesto from the bench that was factually incorrect and panned by the accident investigation community. It also had nothing to do with the actual charges.
Then he did it again with the guilty plea, writing from the bench that he disfavored the DEI requirement and the role of the DoJ in monitoring Boeing. None of which had to do with the charges or the plea.
At that point Boeing was done with the judge. Even pleading guilty was not enough for him. And it put the DoJ in an impossible position, if they had to try the case. There could be no question of a fair trial if the judge has proclaimed guilt from the bench, before it even begins.
Now he has done it a third time, again writing about guilt from the bench. But notably although he is standing on the line, he hasn’t crossed it. His rulings are in opposition to his statements about guilt, as they must be to follow the law.
That really tells you everything you need to know. His behavior is very much in line with what we see here. A willingness to discard factuality and due process in favor of belief and ideology. But you can’t do that in a court of law.
Whatever the judge personally believes, he’s supposed to remain impartial. He threw away a guilty plea because his beliefs were more important to him than justice.
I’m confident that the appellate court will see it the same way. The judge gave the only lawful ruling he could in this instance. And the appellate court will likewise uphold the law.
Ostensibly the judge did these things because he has sympathy for the accident families. But in some ways he and their attorney have victimized them again, by holding out the false hope of criminal conviction when none is substantiated by the facts of the case.
This is evident by two thirds of the families withdrawing from representation by the attorney, and a third siding with the DoJ and the NPA instead.
This matter will be determined by the judiciary — not by commenters who “disagree”, or accuse judges of writing “manifestos” (sounds Trumpian).
Judge O’Connor made it quite clear in his ruling that he felt that the NPA should be rejected, but that he lacked the authority to do so. However, the court of appeal certainly has such authority, and has previously indicated which legal path is pertinent in this case. The new appeal by the victim’s families puts the ball squarely back in the 5th circuit court…where the narrative has thus far been far from conducive to BA’s cause.
This case is full of twists and turns … not good for BA investor sentiment 🙈
Ok, Abalone. I told you this would be the outcome, and that assessment was correct. We’ll see what the appellate court says, but it won’t likely be any different.
As before, you are free to believe otherwise, until the facts resolve.
Boeing has already moved on, they are ready to fulfill the NPA and the payment, as noted in the earnings call. They too anticipated this outcome.
NTSB Briefing: the FDR and CVR are both downloaded and are undergoing analysis.
Engine fan blade debris was found on the runway. The San Antonio 6 weeks of aircraft maintenance is also under analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srB2ezbnP24
The complete engine that ‘fell off’ was also on the runway, and not with the debris trail from the crash
not in one place though.
You see the bare (compact) engine core sans fanblades, shroud and the fan shroud in a separate position.
An interesting question is exactly how this case wound up before a judge in Texas? This is not the location of Boeing headquarters or anything especially relevant to the case.
Did the legal department of Boeing cherry pick a friendly jurisdiction?
@John: The DOJ in the first Trump Admin for some reason elected to bring the case to the North Texas Fed Dist Court.
@Scott, the reason was that the FAA unit that Boeing defrauded reports to the Southwest Regional Administrator. So Texas was the scene of the crime, as it were.
Regarding the UPS crash, I thought I saw an article reporting that the plane had a fuel tank repaired in September. If the fire began before the engine separated this repair might have been cause.
Everybody: All this speculation is useless. The NTSB is already reading the CVR and FDR and its got the engine and pylon, so metalurgists will be able to figure what’s what with these. The NTSB is holding regular briefings. There will be *facts* coming out soon.
Full on with Scott.
We can see the gross aspects but behind that is the details.
As one guy said, in this day of CCTV and other Video, we can cross ref with what is seen with what the data set shows (FDR/Wreckage analysis)
A lot of years ago a DC-8 carrying cattle crashed on takeoff from Anchorage.
They did an analysis of how the corals broke and could say 100% it was the crash and not failed before. That ruled out a factor they did not have to pursue.
Flip is its one data set, you may revisit aspects ruled out as other evidence is revealed.
As some point the facts will tell you what direction to go.
Right now they know it involved the left engine and or pylon.
Trans
What a change of attitude from your reaction after the Jeju Air crash!
That was a foreign crash, with a foreign carrier and foreign pilots…which therefore justifies pressing the “autoblame” button.
Same with the Air India 787.
In such cases, one is allowed to apportion blame based purely upon sketchy preliminary observations.
The FedEx crash is a purely USA affair, so it merits “velvet gloves” treatment.
In such cases, one must wait for all the facts before suggesting any blame.
🙈
Scott:
I was a co-op engineering student with McDonald Douglass in 1970, ’71 & ’72 in St. Louis. There was some concern by engineers at that time that problems would arise because the design work on the left wing was directed to the St. Louis office whereas the rest of the plane was designed in California. Remember that this was before the Internet. Information was exchanged via snail mail. I believe that was a factor that should be considered in the Chicago and Tennessee crashes.
Juan Browne at Blancolirio has a new YT video up with the latest NTSB info and useful commentary on the UPS MD-11 crash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuhEWr8rmxY
UPS has grounded their MD-11 fleet.
From the horse’s mouth:
https://about.ups.com/us/en/newsroom/statements/ups-statement-on-md-11-fleet.html
Precautionary measure based on recommendation of the manufacturer. Not clear if that is the airframe or the engine.
This seems very strange to me. I’d expect a statement from NTSB or FAA. The FAA has a legal obligation to inform all operators of the aircraft of safety issues, and advise them as to the required mitigation.
Unless the issue is specific to UPS maintenance. Guess time will tell.
In the current environment I would not expect FAA to perform to spec.
MD-11 active : 58 (via airfleets.net) :
FEDEX 28
UPS 25
WesternGlobal 5
( really only US users? )
have to watch how FEDEX decides?
Fed-Ex has now grounded too, issuing an almost identical statement as UPS, same language.
Hard to believe that FAA would be unable to address a safety of flight issue. Boeing has declined to comment.
Something weird going on here, but no idea what.
“FEDEX too”
bbc just brought it too:
“UPS said the decision to ground MD-11 models followed instructions from manufacturer Boeing, while rival delivery giant FedEx confirmed it would follow suit.”
Boeing now on the record:
“With safety as our top priority, we recommended to the three operators of the MD-11 Freighter that they suspend flight operations while additional engineering analysis is performed,” Boeing said in a statement early Saturday.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/08/us/ups-fedex-cargo-planes-grounded.html
@Rob: The way these investigations work, the initial exam of the pylon and engine by the Boeing team and NTSB most likely revealed enough information to warrant Boeing issuing its recommendation operators. Service Bulletins and such often come from the OEM well before regulators. With what’s been revealed by NTSB so far (and what’s not) combined with Boeing’s look-see, I bet that’s what’s behind this.
Thanks Scott, I agree. Another factor may be that Boeing as a party to the NTSB investigation, cannot publicly discuss the findings.
So perhaps the NTSB will have further comments at their briefing today. The media are sure to ask.
I heard a statement from NTSB that the engine separated from the aircraft with most of the pylon. That’s strange to me. In case of massive engine vibrations the engine should detach from the pylon and not the pylon from the aircraft.
Side note
Lufthanse received the very last MD-11F in 1998 and retired the complete fleet in 2021.
Also the pylon itself was fragmented, only a part of it was still attached to the engine. Hard to say as yet whether that was causal or post-accident damage. The NTSB will be able to tell.
engine and parts of the (still) attached pylon was situated beside the runway.
(other) parts of the pylon where found to be attached to the (crashed) wing ( whatever remained).
correct?
that would indicate that the pylon “destructed” and released the engine from the airframe.
This is from an email to me from a retired Boeing employee:
It takes a lot of force to rip the engine off the pylon. This is caused almost 100% of the time by a sudden stop of the rotating internal mass and typically caused by a large disk failure. It could be in the compressor section (front) or in the back in the hot section. The massive rotating force at take off power will snap the pylon bolts clean. This is a design feature to save the aircraft. However, all of the fuel, hydraulic and electrical systems don’t disconnect from the pylon in a nice clean manner. Additional problems are caused from the hot engine parts striking the bottom of the wing and penetrating the fuel tanks.
The NTSB should be able to tell us soon since it has the engine, pylon, CVR and FDR.
Hamilton
Thanks Scott, this makes sense. It’s also why the LEAP (and other modern) engines have the LRD devices, although those only protect against fan events.
We had an engine come off a 747 over our part of Anchorage (I was at work, my wife saw it). High thrust as it was fully loaded Freighter (Evergreen) that had refueled.
It was a clean shear, one of those, you should not you have to concerning corroded thrust pins (break off). They kept it in the air and limped around immediately for a landing.
The key was the break off feature is not intended to deal with an uncontained engine failure, force imbalance for whatever reason. Irregular mass could trigger the break off.
Not intended in the case of an uncontained engine with fragments penetrating wing and depending on how long it hung on, fire possible.
Uncontained should not happen but it has and does.
The 777 engine loss (Denver?) was a sad commentary on the FAA. P&W never finished a procedure on how to inspect their engines subject to that. Ergo, it got through when it was a known condition that P&W kicked the issue down the runway endlessly. Fortunately they landed safely on one engine.
CF6 has a history of blade off and some of the reading seems to show its an inspection and hope they catch the issue before it happens.
“… most of the pylon structure remained attached to the left wing”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G5N_otYbIAQcKEH?format=jpg&name=large
Is this another way of saying “the pylon came apart” ?
i.e. structural failure of the pylon?
vs
failure of connecting elements ( bolts, clamps, .. )
This appears to be a reporting error. The NTSB statement was that the majority of the pylon was attached to the engine, with other pylon parts found along the runway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSB75gTV6XA
AFAICS:
The available images of the engine don’t show the pylon.
should stick out on the aft end?
I’m not really sure.
In other forums, people have said the engine is resting on it’s side with the top pylon facing away from the camera. You can kind of see the protrusion sticking out behind the engine in the photo. But it’s low resolution and blurry.
I think NTSB would be pretty certain before they’d make that statement, so for now it seems plausible.
Speculating changes nothing. Where the Pylon was or is, meaningless in this case.
NTSB has all the evidence and metal forensics will tell them what happened (as well as all other evidence but the Pylon, engine, wing for obvious reasons will be their area of Focus.
That does not mean they will ignore other areas or evidence that might change the trajectory.
Juan Browns presentation is well worth a view. In his case a possible smoking gun was shown.
Regardless, NTSB will or won’t release more info and the fleet is grounded be it precaution or they found something actionable.
“Speculating changes nothing.”
Who’s “speculating”?
What’s occurring here is called “discussion”…a perfectly normal (and useful) process.
Discussions are intelligence discourage. This fails miserably.
FAA has issued a grounding order:
https://drs.faa.gov/browse/ADFREAD/doctypeDetails?modalOpened=true
Yep, they have enough concern or evidence to push it there.
Anything is going to be preliminary though it could be gross preliminary.
They can tell immediately if there was uncontained blades.
Inspections not catching a developing blade issue would be one cause to ground immediately.
Equally a PW type issue where PW never came up with an approved inspection and was allowed to go on forever.
Those tend to fall directly on the FAA for not doing its job.
It’ll take awhile…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G5RUI-wbIAEo7Kp?format=jpg&name=large
> The FAA said it determined “the unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.” The directive requires inspections of all MD-11s and said flights may resume after “all applicable corrective actions are performed.”
Can UPS manage the holiday season? It’ll take some effort.
The quote above comes from the NBC news.
Really impossible to say at this point, since there is not a compliance method prescribed yet. It would depend on how invasive the inspection is.
On the subject of groundings: Indian 787s just can’t catch a break:
“Air India grounds three Boeing planes for ‘extensive investigations’ after crash that killed 241 on board”
“Air India has grounded three of its Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners for “extensive investigations,” nearly five months after a crash that killed 260 people.”
“According to the Air India CEO, three Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners have been grounded at specialist heavy-maintenance hubs for the time being. All three reportedly entered service between 2012 and 2013.”
“The decision comes less than a month after Air India Flight 154, en route from Vienna to Delhi, was diverted to Dubai following multiple auto-flight and autopilot failures mid-air.”
“In July, an Air India plane’s power generator caught fire shortly after landing in New Delhi from Hong Kong, while in a separate incident passengers were disembarking from an Airbus at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International when its auxiliary power unit (APU) ignited, and just 24 hours earlier, another Air India jet skidded off the runway at Mumbai International Airport, bursting three tyres and damaging its engine cowling.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/air-india-boeing-planes-extensive-investigations-b1257245.html
***
Just to clarify: Air India isn’t having major issues with other aircraft types.
Abalone wrote
Just to clarify: Air India isn’t having major issues with other aircraft types. Even though his article quotes an APU fire on an Airbus 321 and a runway overrun with an A320
“In July, an Air India plane’s power generator caught fire shortly after landing in New Delhi from Hong Kong, while in a separate incident passengers were disembarking from an Airbus at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International when its auxiliary power unit (APU) ignited,
For more about these issues
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/another-air-india-mishap-delhi-bound-flight-ai315-catches-fire-aircraft-grounded-for-probe/articleshow/122838590.cms
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/air-india-a320-skids-mumbai-crash-b2792793.html
And did any of those incidents occur mid-air? Or require an emergency landing? Or result in a crash?
I did use the qualifier “major” 👀
Air India has 125 A320-family aircraft in service, but only 30 787s.
There are numerous incidents for Air India Airbus aircraft with emergency landings, according to AVHerald.
Also there are incidents with automation failures in Airbus aircraft. Including loss of systems, as reported here earlier. And in a recent Florida incident, an A320 elevator control computer caused an uncommanded upset that injured passengers and required 15,000 feet to recover. Fortunately in that case it happened during cruise at high altitude.
That incident is under investigation, because although the faulty computer was easily replaced, the redundant fly-by-wire system is supposed to be immune to upsets from single points of hardware failure.
As noted here many times, the incident reporting records can be cherry picked to present any statistically incorrect interpretation. That is a common tactic of attorneys and other pundits, but it’s not the method used by FAA or EASA or other regulators.
“There are numerous incidents for Air India Airbus aircraft with emergency landings, according to AVHerald.”
And what percentage of those is recent?
And/or follows within a few months of an Airbus crash?
And/or involved, for example, multiple systems failures?
Both incidents I cited ocurred after the AI-171 accident. And they both involved multiple failures.
However the timing is irrelevant, unless you are implying that there is a dependency between events. Which there clearly is not. So I don’t want to lend credence to another false argument.
This article is essentially clickbait. It admits the airline CEO, when asked about the reason, stated that there was nothing extraordinary about these servicings. Then the article claims there was no reason given. 🤦♂️
Just to clarify: “Servicings” does not equate to “airframe state”.
Airlines don’t just ground 10% of a fleet at heavy maintenance facilities for fun.
The article is on multiple news outlets, also outside of India.
One wonders if Air India has been in contact with Cynthia Kitchens…🙈
Again, airlines routinely pull aircraft for servicing. To pull 3 out of 70 would not be unusual.
You’re trying awfully hard hard to imply nefarious intent, but without any actual evidence. That really is entirely inappropriate. But you already know that.
Again, the article that I posted below makes it clear that these groundings — which represent 10% of the 787 fleet — are far from routine.
Looks like someone is trying very hard to suppress an inconvenient narrative 😉
Lol!! In your world perhaps, but not in reality. Your agenda is showing again, unfortunately.
Rob
Exactly correct. I bet that the 787s are up to their first round of D checks and reporting them as grounded is actually true. You cant D check an aircraft without an extended shop visit. Abaloney also is discounting that the Indian Press is doing everything it can to make this, and quite honestly many other incidents, the manufacturers problem. Airbus was burned at the stake when the Indian Pilots found a way to sit in an airplane that flew straight thru the MDA and dug a big airplane shaped hole in the ground when they programmed it in descent hold instead of Capturing the ILS. The crew was completely blameless in the Indian Press.
ABALONE said
Just to clarify: “Servicings” does not equate to “airframe state”.
Airlines don’t just ground 10% of a fleet at heavy maintenance facilities for fun.
The Air India 787 fleet Aircraft are undergoing inspections for 2 events. An enhanced inspection ordered by the DGCA and normal D check work. This Enhanced Inspection is an action is specific to Air India as a result of their accident. D checks are normal for everybody.
The fact that 2 787s were already in Victorville for D checks was not in the skimpy article you quoted. We do know that a large number of the Air India fleet is currently scheduled for D checks on an overlapping schedule. Air India’s Boeing 787 D check schedule at the Victorville facility in California began with the first aircraft (VT-ANT) flying there in July 2025. The second aircraft is scheduled to depart for Victorville in October 2025. The first two aircraft are expected to return to service by December 2025. This is part of a broader retrofit and Reliability Enhancement Program for Air India’s legacy 26 Boeing 787-8 aircraft. scheduled maintenance (D checks) at Victorville to ensure long-term operational safety and reliability. The entire retrofit program for the 787-8 fleet, including these D checks, is projected to continue through mid-2027.
The typical duration range for a Boeing 787 D check at the Victorville maintenance facility is about 3 to 4 months (roughly 90 to 120 days). A Boeing 787 D check at Victorville typically requires an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 man-hours to complete. The maintenance crew composition for such a major heavy check generally includes a multidisciplinary team of technicians and engineers specialized in airframe, avionics, powerplant, electrical systems, interiors, and structural repair. The team usually comprises several dozen skilled personnel working concurrently across different systems and zones of the aircraft to meet the complex inspection, repair, retrofit, and refurbishment tasks involved in the D check. This crew includes mechanics, inspectors, avionics technicians, interior specialists, and engineering supervisors coordinating the work. The large man-hour figure reflects the extensive depth and breadth of the D check, which is one of the most comprehensive maintenance events an aircraft undergoes
In summary, the D check schedule for Air India’s 787s at Victorville started in mid-2025, with multiple aircraft set to be sent in succession roughly every few months, continuing until the retrofit program’s anticipated completion in 2027
Some interesting new data on the AI 787 crash, obtained from court filings:
Various electrical faults on AI171 in the days — and minutes — prior to the crash.
“There was a CAT C MEL for core network degradation since June 9, and a CAT A MEL on the NGS power/control line since June 10, 2 days before the crash”
“According to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition in the Supreme Court, 15 minutes before takeoff at 1:23pm IST (7:53 UTC), both the left and right BPCU controllers began faulting — which meant that AI171 could not reliably decide which generator should power which electrical bus — leading to a situation where power can be routed incorrectly, switched at the wrong time, or dropped altogether”
https://thefederal.com/category/exclusive/air-india-boeing-787-dreamliner-ahmedabad-crash-pilots-system-failure-215137
In the later RAT deployment incident in Birmingham, the AHM detected a fault in the BPCU.
Just to clarify, the BPCU gateway fault recorded on AI171, is essentially a network error, similar to a dropped packet. It means that a status polling request was not acknowledged by the gateway, and therefore the power bus status could not be determined for that request.
It’s an instantaneous fault that is corrected at the next status request. The BPCU takes no action for instantaneous faults. If communication is lost entirely, that generates a different fault, that did not occur for the AI171 flight. The BPCU recorded loss of power from both engines, as the initiating event for RAT deployment.
Similarly for the uncommanded RAT deployment flight in the UK, the BPCU had a different fault, due to sensing error, such that it deployed the RAT as a part of failure contingency logic. It’s a programmed action. There was no loss of bus power in that incident either.
Ethernet networks are asynchronous, such that packet loss is expected and handled transparently. The allegations of such faults causing engine shutdown, are not valid since a different series of faults would be required for that to happen.
Just to clarify, the article contains a detailed elucidation of the “peculiar” wiring/control architecture used on the 787, as well as its cross-system sensitivity to glitches.
Every week, we’re getting more news about anomolous electrical issues on Air India 787s.
Again these are baseless claims. They do not acquire a factual basis by repetition.
If you have evidence for them, please post it. If you don’t, then please stop.
Just to clarify: these aspects of the 787’s electrical system are well described in the link, and multiple other sources.
“Inconvenient” does not equate to “non factual”.
As noted, the allegations are baseless. They fall within the norm of aircraft operation. There is no causal link between random maintenance events and fault messages, with the accident that occurred with AI171.
If you can show a causal link, then please post it. If you cannot, then please stop.
Each time you are asked for proof, you dodge the request. There can only be one reason.
Some interesting fleet information in this article:
“UPS and FedEx halt MD-11 flying to conduct safety review”
“There are about 70 MD-11 freighters currently in service. UPS operates 27 of the tri-engine aircraft. FedEx (NYSE: FDX) operates 28 MD-11s. Western Global, a Florida-based carrier that has struggled financially for several years, has 12 MD-11 aircraft on its operating certificate, but only six of them are currently operating, according to aircraft tracking site Flightradar24. The rest of Western Global’s MD-11 fleet has been inoperative for 90 days or more.”
“MD-11s are approximately 9% of the UPS Airlines flee”
“The MD-11 represents about 9% of FedEx’s mainline fleet of 387 aircraft.”
“In February 2023, UPS began a planned retirement of aging MD-11 freighters with the goal of replacing them with more fuel-efficient aircraft and reducing excess capacity at a time when airfreight and parcel volumes were falling or growing much slower.”
“FedEx in May said it would delay final retirement of the tri-engine MD-11 fleet from 2028 until 2032 in response to rising demand for international nonparcel freight service. In fiscal year 2024, FedEx retired nine MD-11s.”
“FedEx figures at the end of August showed 34 MD-11s in the fleet. The company didn’t respond to queries seeking an explanation for the exit of six aircraft from the fleet in the past two months. In the first half of 2024, FedEx operated 37 MD-11s.”
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/ups-and-fedex-halt-md-11-flying-to-conduct-safety-review
Just to clarify, rotations of MD-11 into and out of storage are common for both UPS and FedEx fleets. There’s nothing whatever unusual about that. Or about aircraft retirements.
The accident aircraft tail number, N259UP, was not recently in storage, but it did undergo heavy maintenance from September 3rd to October 18th. That in itself also is not unusual, it was likely a routine required check, since no unusual maintenance events were recorded prior to servicing.
“There’s nothing whatever unusual about that. Or about aircraft retirements.”
Sure…which is why FedEx didn’t respond to queries on the matter 🙈
One might imagine that Fed-Ex has better things to do than explain routine retirements of their fleet. Nor are they accountable for that to anyone. And especially when the premise of the question is false.
One might imagine that, shortly after a crash of a 34-year-old frame with 14 fatalities, Fed Ex would be motivated to provide as much clarity as possible…unless, of course, there’s a rat under the carpet.
McCarthyism in full bloom. Imply nefarious intent without proof, then insist that the allegation be disproved. How many times do we have to go over this? It’s just not a valid method of argument.
I’ve noted that this commenter is regularly critical of Trump, yet they use the exact same methods as Trump. Which in turn are derived from McCarthy. One wonders at the obvious hypocrisy involved.
Narrative deformation in full bloom.
There’s no “implication” of nefarious intent — there’s discussion of FedEx’s silence on an important issue, including general consideration of reasons why companies tend to withhold comment in such instances.
Commenter is resorting to drama, and also unnecessarily introducing politics.
There is no importance or relevance to fleet retirement, thus there is no significance attached to silence on that issue.
That is the origin of your false allegation, as there is no evidence to support your view whatsoever.
Fleet retirement is very important and relevant in the context of the crash of a very old frame.
It has no relevance at all, as there is no evidence connecting the two events.
It’s just something you can use to insinuate and smear organizations by shifting the burden of evidence from yourself to them.
But we know what you are doing and why you do this, so it serves no purpose but to needlessly clutter the thread.
The decision of the FAA to issue an EAD pertaining specifically to the MD-11 fleet worldwide reinforces the need to examine recent fleet strategy / retirements regarding the type.
No smear campaigns — just thorough investigation.
Really no need for drama.
The EAD makes no mention of retirement. That is entirely your false invention.
The A350 is a disaster.
There we go.
ABALONE WROTE
The decision of the FAA to issue an EAD pertaining specifically to the MD-11 fleet worldwide reinforces the need to examine recent fleet strategy / retirements regarding the type
No smear campaigns — just thorough investigation.
Really no need for drama.
ABALONE
The last step in the AD notes Inspection Sequence. They fully expect to return the aircraft to service
These steps aim to detect any latent structural weaknesses or defects that could lead to catastrophic engine separation during flight, ensuring the continued safe operation of the MD-11 fleet once reauthorized to fly.
@PNW
“They fully expect to return the aircraft to service”
The FAA doesn’t devise solution or inspection method, so ultimately it’s not up to the FAA’s “expectation”.
“… but it did undergo heavy maintenance from September 3rd to October 18th. That in itself also is not unusual, it was likely a routine required check, since no unusual maintenance events were recorded prior to servicing.”
Structural and fuel tank repair?
it was such a nice Sunday ..
other topic ( network comms, ethernet, lost packets ):
( back in the 80ties I used to “live” in ethernet as a design engineer. )
dropped packets indicate a deterioration in wiring connections. receive margins contested by noise.
Well designed systems should cope but nonetheless it is an early warning sign that should not be ignored.
What is it with the water ingestion rumors in the 787 electronics bay(s)?
Water intrusion issue hasn’t gone away — that US attorney that was recently in the news on this subject is still talking to witnesses and gathering documents. It will be interesting to see where that leads.
We know from the MAX that BA is quite capable of sub-standard wiring practices.
And we also know from various reports that, for example, chafing wires can cause all manner of issues on aircraft. So can crosstalk.
Perhaps Ms. Kitchens’ data will be published in more detail one of these days:
“Ms Kitchens, who left Boeing in 2016, also claimed employees had been told to overlook substandard work, and said defective wiring bundles, containing metallic shavings within their coatings, had been deliberately installed on planes – creating a risk of dangerous short-circuits.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyq7vgq2e5o
This is yet another implication without evidence. All of these accounts were investigated by the FAA and found to lack substantiation.
Just please stop posting this crap here. Why don’t you ever post the outcome? Any fool can make or post a false allegation. Without evidence or proof, it’s not only meaningless, but malicious.
Others here are discussing the topics appearing openly in the aviation press — without any obligation to tailor those discussions to suit the taste of a particular commenter…especially a commenter who very rarely backs up his particular opinion using links 🙈
Commenter refers to McCarthy…but himself actively seeks to censor inconvenient discussion.
Abalone, as you’ve been told a thousand times here by myself and others:
It is your burden to support your own statements, which you rarely do. It is not the burden of others to disprove them.
If you have substantiating evidence for your claims, then please provide it.
If you don’t, then please stop polluting the thread with baseless insinuations.
“It is your burden to support your own statements,”
Also applies to our commenter…though he evidently considers himself to be an exception 👀
I post relevant links in virtually every comment. The mere fact that those links are inconvenient doesn’t mean that they’re not relevant.
Deflection, please post the evidence or stop.
Uwe, every Ethernet network has dropped packets. Just run a packet sniffer and statistically reduce the data. Your statement is ridiculous
Ethernet by design allows packet collisions, because it’s asynchronous. It’s the most fundamental aspect of the protocol.
Yep.
If he worked in networks, you can be assured they did not work.
I was not an expert, more a victim of networks but that I knew. I was not even an engineer nor did I (generally) work on networks.
well I plugged our network back in when the IT guy decided to free up a port.
Rob you should not answer posts that are out of your depth.
collisions are handled via retransmits.
dropped packets indicate differences in reception
at different drop points.
@TW: that applies to you as well.
I am a bit fed up with the Zelig characters posting here.
@Uwe: Watch it. It is not up to you to monitor others, who may feel about you as you do about them. Furthermore, personal attacks are a violation of Reader Comment Rules. Don’t make me suspend you.
Hamilton
@ Mr. Hamilton
It’s unfortunate that you have to intervene in order to keep the tone civil.
Respectfully, if you care to use the “search in page” function to search for “crap” and “fool” in the comments section, you’ll find another commenter who may need to be reminded of the reader commenting rules.
Any comment yet from GE?
Any statistics on prior incidents with the GE engine used on the MD-11?
Simple Flying says this:
“The National Transportation Safety Bureau (NTSB) investigation revealed that four other aircraft have experienced uncontained failures with the GE CF6 turbine just at O’Hare International Airport (ORD), according to NBC 5 Chicago News.”
“In 2000, a Varig Airlines Boeing 767 aborted takeoff in Lima, Peru, when its engine burst into a fireball on the runway, as the Aviation Safety Network records. The NTSB files record that an American Airlines (AA) 767 experienced an uncontained CF6 failure in 2006 and again in 2016. The 2016 incident was attributed to a production defect. In 2021, another GE CF6 exploded during the takeoff roll of a flight by a Transcarga Airways Airbus A300.”
“When American Flight 191 crashed under virtually identical circumstances to the mishap on Tuesday, it was found that technicians used a forklift to handle the engine and pylon as a single unit. That was contrary to the GE recommendation, and the improper use of equipment had caused damage and stress fractures to the pylon structure.”
https://simpleflying.com/mcdonnell-douglas-md-11-cf6-engine-firey-history/
***
“In video evidence, the left engine appeared to separate from the wing at the same time that the plane rotated for liftoff.”
Takeoff rotation of the frame causes the angular momentum vector of the spinning turbine parts to change direction. The law of conservation of angular momentum then produces a strong (sideways) counter-torque. A compromised engine mount may/will fail under influence of this counter-torque.
Notably the direction of the force developed by the angular momentum change at rotation, is to resist the rotation of the wing. The engine wants to continue along its current path. There is no additional sideways torque for that circumstance.
It’s also counterbalanced by the engine moment developed around the engine mount, when it produces thrust. So the net force is reduced during rotation.
Engine mounts and pylons are designed to handle those forces, on the order of a hundred thousand flight cycles. There are many thousands of rotation events every day.
Unless this mount or pylon had an undetected flaw, there would be no reason for separation. We’ll know more when Boeing releases the service advisory or bulletin for the inspections.
“There is no additional sideways torque for that circumstance.”
Back to physics basics:
Attempting to change the direction of a spinning body produces a precessional torque perpendicular to the direction of change.
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/physics0312chooge/chapter/10-7-gyroscopic-effects-vector-aspects-of-angular-momentum/#:~:text=The%20torque%20produced%20is%20perpendicular,always%20horizontal%20and%20perpendicular%20to
Repeating once again:
“A compromised engine mount may/will fail under influence of this counter-torque.”
Again, no counter torque produced in the engine during aircraft rotation. It’s a matter of basic physics.
You are referring to the engine rotor slowing if it has an internal issue, which is what Scott posted quite a ways above. And Uwe mentions below.
ABALONE WROTE
Repeating once again:
“A compromised engine mount may/will fail under influence of this counter-torque.”
OK….. You guys are getting hung up on terminology. Torque is a very different load than what ABALONE is describing. ABALONE is talking about Gyroscopic Precession Loads, and I agree with him that as pitch and yaw excursions occur, engine gyroscopic recession loads must be reacted out. On the subject of if precession loads are a torque I’ll remain silent because its a rabbit hole I’m not particularly interested in
When he’s wrong, I point it out and that requires that when he is right, I should point it out.
The precession load thing seems to have come from a Juan Brown video. He was pointing out that precession is what would cause the engine to drift to the side of the runway where it was found, after it separated. That is correct.
He also said that the precession force is the greatest force acting on the pylon, but I believe he was referring to the greatest *lateral* force in normal operation. It’s definitely not the greatest absolute force. The thrust force, the inertia force from vector change in angular momentum during aircraft rotation, and the braking torque force during engine failure, are all much larger. Even the gravity force from weight is larger.
For the pylon to fail from the precession load at rotation, it would have to be substantially weakened. Which is definitely possible, but it would be a rare event.
@ PNW
Thank you.
Although the basic vector algebra in the link that I posted is clear enough.
If you want to call it a couple, moment or rotational force instead of a torque, that’s fine. The point is — as some here don’t want to accept — that this torque produces a *sideways* rotational force on the engine. If the engine mount is weakened for some reason, this sideways rotational force will cause the mount to fail.
Looks like some other commenters here have never tried to move a spinning gyroscope…
ABALONE AND ROB.
The precession loads can be calculated but I suspect their significance is quite low. The engine is cantilevered well forward of the Ironing Board, the main vertical load titanium multiplate assembly containing 2 large spherical bearings connecting the pylon to the wing forward of the front spar. The aft pylon mount is an aluminum machined bulkhead with a boss with a spherical bearing in it. It connects to the wing lower skin and some stuff inside the tank. it is designed to break in a gear up landing to maintain tank integrity. The pylon is designed to support the loads of the weight of the engine hanging in space under whatever flight loads are required, but I’m sure it isn’t sized to resist the loads an engine would impart on it in an HPT failure. Im real familiar with it.
@ PNW
You’re talking about the *nominal* mount structure.
I think you’ll agree that a sub-nominal structure can fail in circumstances wherin a nominal structure would not?
For example, if the structure were improperly maintained / re-attached and/or damaged.
There’s “fork lift” talk in maintenance circles — see the quote in one of the links I posted here. If someone took a shortcut during maintenance, it could greatly compromise structural integrity.
Spin up, spin down is reactionless.
Focus here is on energy release when you brake the rotor(s) against the stator in a very short timeframe due to heavy damage.
That is a lot of momentum that torques the engine longitudinally against the pylon.
Keep in mind that while the Pylon and or engine is intended to separate on applied loads, its not a feature to deal with a Blade out disaster.
And no I am not saying that is what happened. The indicators are it did, but its not been released as to what they have found.
The gross evidence is there, AD is out so they have no reason to put out more until confirmed or disproven.
I believe there were 3 747 engine tear offs. Two crashed but no fires. The system is not designed for a pin to fail. It designed for out of spec forces (sideways I believe but it may well have a fore and aft aspect)
As for the comment GE has not said anything, wake up and pay attention, they are a PARTY to the investigation. GE is legally not allowed to say anything.
Only the NTSB can release information.
If you are going to comment you should be informed.
Thanks for that.
Its much more likely that uncontained engine failure and fire occurred during high weight takeoff roll. That failure led to a compromised pylon support so the engine detached during rotation plus some other stuff which meant 2 remaining engines couldnt maintain climbout under pilot control. My guesses which leaves a lot of unknowns but we’ll see what is released.
An ironicaly-timed article on Simple Flying:
“How FedEx Is Modernizing Its Fleet”
Amusing sentence:
“The primary platform that is being introduced as the next generation of the FedEx Fleet is the Boeing 767-300F. ”
“Next generation” in the same sentence as a 44 year old design is an oxymoron…especially as that design is not compliant with the new ICAO emissions standards.
But, at least the 767s currently in the FedEx fleet aren’t as ancient as the MD-11: the oldest 767 in the fleet is 12.2 y/o, whereas the MD-11s are *on average* 31.1 y/o.
https://simpleflying.com/fedex-modernizing-fleet/
What a great deal of nonsense.
You should word police yourself first.
@TW: For this one, too: Watch it. It is not up to you to monitor others, who may feel about you as you do about them. Furthermore, personal attacks are a violation of Reader Comment Rules. Don’t make me suspend you.
Hamilton
ABALONE
The 767F is the best new freighter for Fefex’s mission. They have informed Boeing they will take every one they can build between now and line closure. They even went to get legal opinions on how the language in the law could be exempted in the USA creating Defacto Domestic 767Fs. They were willing to place orders beyond the cutoff fate if hard orders on the book were a way around the regulations. They Really want the airplane and have many older less efficient aircraft in the fleet to replace. FedEx is in fact modernizing their fleet, even if you have difficulty seeing it……. BUT the good thing is that it has EICAS
It’s noteworthy that:
1) BA announced to stop making any 767F after 2027;
2) Fred Smith has passed the torch at FedEx since 2022!
3) more recent info from poster Enrigh
“Regarding the 767:
– the 767F has a backlog of 29 orders, 12 from Fedex and 17 from UPS; Fedex has options for 43 more 767Fs, as it canceled 7 options earlier this year. If Fedex cancels more options, 767F production could actually terminate before the end of 2027.
– The 767F is not compliant with the current wire separation regulation. In 2012, the FAA granted Boeing a temporary 3-year exemption that was later extended to 2019 and then 2027. To continue producing the 767F after 2027 without having to make it compliant with wire separation rules, Boeing would have to convince the FAA to further extend this “temporary” exemption.
https://leehamnews.com/2024/10/11/boeing-announces-preliminary-significant-q3-loss-cuts-767-freighter-program-delays-777x-eis-major-layoffs/#comment-525993
4) reality is both FedEx and UPS are cutting down their fleet size to improve RONA!!
Fixing an incorrect reality check…..
PEDRO wrote.
the 767F has a backlog of 29 orders, 12 from Fedex and 17 from UPS; Fedex has options for 43 more 767Fs, as it canceled 7 options earlier this year. If Fedex cancels more options, 767F production could actually terminate before the end of 2027.
Really Now…….
Common core math will not save you.
Let’s assume your numbers are correct
The line rate is a bit over 1 after you deduct 767-2C requirements. So that means in Nov and Dec 2025 will produce 2. 2026 and 2027 combined will produce 24. This means total freighter delivery slots today are insufficient to get all the hard orders built. Boeing will throttle the rate a bit over the next 2 years to complete the hard orders and fulfill the contractual obligations. As it sits now FedEx has sufficient options in hand to purchase all the open line positions that would occur if the 767-2C AND UPS orders vanished tomorrow. FEDEX Trimmed their option holdings to a number reflecting this reality. Doing so reduces its future equipment expenses on its 10Q. This is business as usual.
It also demonstrates your cluelessness on how options can be used as hedges to acquire airframes otherwise unavailable to you. AS stated FEDEX will take every airplane they can get their hands on thru to line closure and maintains sufficient options in hand to do so.
Please show me the math that proves your point that if FEDEX cancels more options, the 767 line could close early.YOU own the burden of proof to support your statements, I merely point out the foolishness of them…. Show your work, just like High School
@ PNW
You may have noticed that Mr. Hamilton is making reprimands in order to improve civility in the comments section.
In that spirit, it isn’t necessary — or conducive to a pleasant discourse — to assert “cluelessness”, “foolishness”, etc., of another commenter.
It’s possible to make a counterpoint without name-calling.
Note what Mr. Hamilton said above: others may also think of you what you think of them…
ABALONE WROTE
@ PNW
You may have noticed that Mr. Hamilton is making reprimands in order to improve civility in the comments section.
In that spirit, it isn’t necessary — or conducive to a pleasant discourse — to assert “cluelessness”, “foolishness”, etc., of another commenter.
It’s possible to make a counterpoint without name-calling.
Now Now, lets do the analysis of my comment EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. I said this…….
It also demonstrates your cluelessness on how options can be used as hedges to acquire airframes otherwise unavailable to you.
That is far different than what you accuse me of. I did not say that PEDRO was clueless as a general overreaching comment regarding him as a human being. I was very exacting in that I described a very specific concept of using options as a purchasing hedge to acquire. I showed the math behind my statement, it was accurate. In this specific concept he DEMONSTRATED CLUELESSNESS
I find your attempt to besmirch my character in this instance offensive. Note for the record that your offensive action towards me with this action being called out as such is far different than if I was to actually make a general statement about you being offensive. I limited my comment to a specific thing with an easily defended specific rationale.
That my friend is something you need to understand here, context. I did nothing as egregious as to ask you DOES SOMEBODY NEED TO TELL YOU TO BREATHE, that was a low shot delivered by somebody else at you as a person. It was inappropriate and flagged as such. I don’t do that, I address the concept or idea and if IT is actually clueless, I am still free to point that out.
Have a great day
@PNW
First of all, that’s what I quoted from another poster which was clearly stated in my post with link provided! So stopped putting words in mouth! Thanks.
Clearly we have posters who fail comprehension miserably here.
Where is your source that the 767F line rate is about one? OTIH it was reported last year that, according to Boeing (!!!), the company was producing three 767 per month! Another case where BA boasted its production rate without delivery to backup??
IIRC that’s about the breakeven rate of 767; at the rate of one per month you stated above, BA is losing its shirt!
FedEx has not indicated they’re about to exercise their options. There’s only one here who kept repeating such outdated and baseless claim which doesn’t match reality on the ground as at November 11, 2025.
For all your questions, please direct at the poster who made the post, not me. Thanks.
BA announcement:
> Beginning in 2027, the company will solely produce 767-2C aircraft in support of the KC-46A Tanker program.
My understanding is the 767F program ends with empty production slot not utilized.
PEDRO WROTE
First of all, that’s what I quoted from another poster which was clearly stated in my post with link provided! So stopped putting words in mouth! Thanks.
What are you arguing about? You’re wrong. You’re wrong to make excuses. You’re wrong to misquote old data without checking it. You’re wrong for not owning up to your mistakes.
YOU are responsible for what you post. The accuracy of the post is on you. In this case you posted data from 2024 that is no longer current and then point me to the author of the outdated data for clarification…. NOPE
What you are suggesting is that anyone can repost all the evil sniping rude inflammatory comments floating around here with absolute impunity as its possible to refer back to the original poster that said the nasty stuff…. ALSO, NOPE
IN conclusion, you’re wrong.
@ PNW
Great that FedEx is “modernizing” its fleet.
My issue was with the inaccurate use of the descriptor “next generation” when referring to the 767…I clearly said that in my post.
“Next phase” — okay.
“Next generation” — nope.
Note the repeated, enduring exemptions Boeing has gotten (to this day and on) for the 767 wiring separation..
FG: Embraer cancels next-generation turboprop concept
No unexpected news there.
Far more interesting is last week’s LNA article on a potential mainline narrowbody from Embraer. Such an offering would certainly shake up the landscape, with mainline narrowbody jets then being offered by 5 different OEMs…3 of them from BRICS.
Not going to happen.
Embraer already has its narrowbody, E2 series.
Only way it ‘might’ happen if Japan and India got on board with Brazil as major suppliers/risk sharers.
Japan -wing
India- fuselage sections
Other nations firms who are suppliers to Embraer ( very little of E series is made by Embraer)
Whiles there’s 10s billions for AI data centres very little risk money for a new design 757 type airliner
We saw how the one nation approach almost failed for Bombardier (CS) and did fail for Japan(Spaceliner) for lower cost projects.
@Duke
Reality check:
> Embraer was considering developing a new family of turboprop regional airliners in the 50–70 seat range, *complementing the E-Jet E2*
Drowned at birth
https://simpleflying.com/embraer-scrapped-next-gen-turboprop/
No partners is the obvious problem
‘The 70-90 seat design was set to have rear-mounted engines. It was expected to operate a 250 nautical mile (460 kilometer) sector, with a 5% less fuel burn if compared to the ATR-72, or 8% less fuel if going head-to-head with the Dash-8-400.’
Nothing like being out of date over the western aircraft industry
“Not going to happen.
Embraer already has its narrowbody, E2 series”
I’m quite sure those working at Embraer would have better idea if their development project is complementary with their current lineup or not. 🙄🤣
“Bell sounded in cockpit as UPS cargo plane crashed after takeoff, NTSB says”
“A repeating bell sounded in the cockpit for 25 seconds as pilots tried to control a UPS cargo plane that caught fire, had an engine fall off and crashed during takeoff this week in Louisville, Kentucky, a National Transportation Safety Board member said Friday. The crash killed at least 14 people, including the three pilots on board.”
“Inman said there could be different types of alarms with varying meanings, but investigators know there was a fire in the plane’s left wing and will use flight data to help determine a clearer picture of what happened.”
“Jeff Guzzetti, a former federal crash investigator, told The Associated Press the bell likely was signaling the engine fire.
“”It occurred at a point in the takeoff where they were likely past their decision speed to abort the takeoff,” Guzzetti told The AP after Inman’s news conference Friday. “They were likely past their critical decision speed to remain on the runway and stop safely. … They’ll need to thoroughly investigate the options the crew may or may not have had.””
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ups-cargo-plane-crash-bell-sounded-cockpit-ntsb/
Unfortunately, no EICAS in the MD-11 🙈
Does someone have to tell you to breathe?
Truly stunning the ignorance (well as Rob has put it so well not ignorance, agitation)
@TW: Watch it. It is not up to you to monitor others, who may feel about you as you do about them. Furthermore, personal attacks are a violation of Reader Comment Rules. Don’t make me suspend you.
Hamilton
Guilty.
ABALONE
You are wrong again. The MF11 has Honeywell EICAS. The Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) for the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 was supplied largely by Honeywell under a partnership agreement with McDonnell Douglas. Honeywell provided much of the specially designed avionics equipment specific to the aircraft, including the Electronic Instrument System (EIS) that contains the EICAS displays and alerting functions. This arrangement involved system integration shared between McDonnell Douglas and Honeywell, making Honeywell the key supplier for the MD-11’s EICAS system as part of its avionics suite
In this specific event sequence, the EICAS data would not have been timely as all the messages would have to have been read out in seconds… EICAS is not always the savior of crews you may think it is.
What else would you like to learn today.
Well, it’s a Neanderthal version of EICAS compared to what’s available today…and it certainly isn’t ECAM.
My broader point was that, although continuing to fly very old frames may be (sort-of) economically attractive, there’s a price to be paid in other respects.
The sub-standard 737 CAS has been pointed to as an exacerbating factor in (at least) 6 crashes. When the MD-11 CVR transcript is released, we’ll see to what extent the crew knew what was going on…and if the “bell” was help or hindrance.
And, to reinforce that point:
“MD-11 crisis & HK 747 crash just rewrote air cargo’s risk equation”
“The past month has delivered the air freight industry an uncomfortable reality check.
“Two seemingly separate events: a 32-year-old Emirates 747 freighter crashing into the sea in Hong Kong and UPS’s sudden grounding of its MD-11 fleet after a deadly accident in Kentucky, have converged into a single message – the world’s logistics engine is running on borrowed time and borrowed machinery.”
https://theloadstar.com/md-11-crisis-hk-747-crash-just-rewrote-air-cargos-risk-equation/
Important to note that as of yet, neither of these accidents has been attributed to age of the aircraft.
Important to note that a discussion of freighter age can be conducted regardless of whether it it (yet) shown to be a contributing factor to crashes.
Yes, as part of an agenda to distort the truth. But not as part of a factual discussion.
As is almost always the case, there is no evidentiary basis for your statement.
No need to resort to your usual conspiracy theories, Rob.
Not every discussion is required to pass your particular requirements as regards “evidentiary basis”.
ABALONE
RE MD-11 EICAS
You actually have no broader point. Broader points normally require more than a single incorrect sentence. You stated the MD-11 lacks EICAS. You remain incorrect here.
This is another of your falsehoods you wish to turn into truth through repetition. It doesn’t matter how many time you repeat falsehoods, they will not become the truth
You might want to read the rest of my comment about the mysterious, non-descript “bell” to which investigators can currently assign no clear significance.
Meanwhile:
“While the MD-11’s Electronic Instrument and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) was an advancement from earlier technologies, its EICAS lacked the full automation, integration, and detailed visual feedback of modern systems found in aircraft like the Boeing 777 or the Airbus A350. For example, some simulators have issues with inaccurate warnings or a less user-friendly display compared to other modern aircraft.”
***
My Z80 computer had a “processor” — though it could hardly be called that by today’s standards 😉
ABALONE.
YOU CLEARLY STATED Unfortunately, no EICAS in the MD-11.
You were proven to be incorrect
Now you backpedal even farther. Instead of graciously admitting, again, that you were wrong, you now describe the MD-11 EICAS unit that you said doesn’t exist, using unattributed quotes from who knows where, to conclusively prove you were wrong. We all understand you were wrong here.
There are a number of times in the past here where you have done this. Put down your shovel and quit digging an ever-deepening hole. Your one sentence statement denying the existence of MD-11 EICAS doesn’t improve at all the more you describe the Honeywell MD-11 EICAS system you said doesn’t exist. Good Chess players resign their position when it is hopeless.
Maybe PEDRO will ride across the horizon and save you from yourself.
The real question relates to the CF6-80 and impact on the 747s/ A3oo and 767s (some other applications)
AVHerald reports a third AI171 petition was filed with the Indian Supreme Court over the weekend, therefore they cancelled the hearing today and rescheduled for Thursday November 13th, to provide time for all parties to review.
https://avherald.com/h?article=528f27ec&opt=0
Comment has deteriorated!
How much of this could have been avoided if the B877x had been on time?Or even entered service on a realistic timescale. I would guess that the MD11 would be long gone with hundreds of B777x in service and plenty of cargo feedstock available. The mayhem inflicted on interior,engine,etc,manufacturers must be immense
How much of the delay was actually due to the MAX effect.Was it really the result of “state capture” of the FAA resulting in declining safety standards at Boeing.This is equally applicable to Airbus (or any other manufacturer)as we know that ethics were not the number one priority there either.
I’m not sure that’s relevant. There aren’t that many orders for the 777X freighter, and it was only announced a few years ago, with the first delivery estimated in 2026. So there wouldn’t have been mass retirements of the MD-11 due to the 777X.
Also as Scott noted above, aircraft life is measured in flight cycles rather than years. So many of the MD-11’s in service are only middle-aged, despite their EIS dates. As long as they are maintained properly, there shouldn’t be an issue with age.
The average freighter age is 25 y/o.
The crashed MD-11 was 34 y/o, and flew 17 years in high-cycle passenger service with Thai before FedEx acquired it.
The average MD-11 age at FedEx is 31.1 y/o.
Frames this old shouln’t still be in active service in developed countries.
As Scott noted, that age is routine in freighter service, for which aircraft life (in years) is typically 30 to 40 years. That’s about 10 years on average greater than equivalent passenger service.
This aircraft just underwent a heavy maintenance check, from which it ostensibly emerged with a clean bill of health. We don’t yet know what happened, so might be prudent to wait for understanding before proclaiming fault or judgement.
“…for which aircraft life (in years) is typically 30 to 40 years”
Perhaps in the US, but the average freighter age worldwide is 25 y/o…I posted a detailed link on the subject above.
Regardless of the cause of the crash, it has thrown a useful spotlight on the issue of keeping old freighters in service…I also posted a separate link on that above.
Apples to oranges. I referenced aircraft life, you countered with average age.
Not the same metric at all, and the agenda is clear as average age necessarily must be less than aircraft life.
Nor is it relevant to the factual point that Scott, I, and many others have made, about cycle life being the figure of merit for freighters.
Above you made reference to being called out here, this is a good example of why that happens. It’s not a good faith argument to substitute a different metric. So you are called out once again.
Actually, Rob, you referenced “typical” aircraft life (in years)…which is certainly not an apples-to-oranges comparison to average age.
From Merriam-Webster:
“Synonyms for “typical” include average, normal, standard, and usual. Other words that can be used depending on the context include common, representative, ordinary, classic, and conventional. “
” in freighter service, for which aircraft life (in years) is typically 30 to 40 years.”
For major cargo airlines like Emirates/Turkey/UPS/FedEx, etc :
Where is your proof? I want to see your evidence. Thx.
@Grubbie:
I disagree with that. I worked around the MD-11Fs,
UPS realized how well they fit and went out and got the used Pax ones and converted. You should note the rest of their fleet is new builds.
DC-10 was good enough FedEx converted them to what is called an MD-10 (same cockpit as the MD-11)
UPS and FedEx work in very different manners but they cross at the MD-11 (or did and the 757s)
Both would have bought A380F if that endear had not fallen apart.
The 777F matches the MD-11F almost exactly, the 777X-F does not and neither have ordered it. The 777F is a bit better than the Pax conversion Fs.
Obviously I don’t know what UPS/FedEx will do in the future, a lot is iffy, but the 777X-F has nothing to do with the MD-11 still flying.
Both have been retiring the MD-11F, but FedEx has the 777F they wanted and UPS went all in on the 747-8F.
A300F > MD-11F !!
Time is not frozen, not yet.
Apparently, both UPS and FedEx have roughly double the number of A300Fs than MD-11Fs
Earlier there was discussion here about allegations made in the Indian court petitions for the AI-171 accident, that imply other causes for engine shutdown than the crew throwing the fuel cutoff switches.
Although there is a strong backlash in India to crew involvement, and hence a desire to propose other theories, from a purely engineering perspective, there is a straightforward way to resolve the issue.
Each switch has 4 contacts that control two redundant channels in both the FADEC (which controls the engine directly) and the data concentrator (which feeds the aircraft network, and by extension the data recorder and the cockpit overhead engine/fuel control panel). The FADEC also has a separate connection to the aircraft network, and thus to the recorder. Therefore it’s a 2×2 matrix, that creates 4 places to check to see if the switch was thrown.
AAIB should find that both channels of the FADEC see the switch transition, and that both channels of the concentrator show the same transition, at the same time. If all 4 agree, then it’s probable that the switch was thrown. If they don’t agree, then something else happened.
For that not to be true, would require a common mode error that would affect both channels of both devices at the same time. I’m sure AAIB will be investigating that, given the skepticism that exists in Indian society. But it’s an improbable outcome.
Another common mode possibility is a data transmission error across the network, such that the received packets at the data recorder incorrectly represent the switch transitions. That too is improbable, and it should leave other evidence behind in the network statistics.
The preliminary report did not go into any of that detail, which is normal. The final report should provide a detailed analysis. It should be possible to conclusively determine the timing of the 4 state transitions. The FADECs also have separate non-volatile memory, if they survived the crash in readable form. That could provide additional confirmation.
“But it’s an improbable outcome.”
Also improbable is the assertion that an experienced flight crew — without any recorded suicidal tendencies, mental health issues, and/or over-fatigue indications — would cut off fuel to the engines.
The default pilot-blaming narrative isn’t going to stick as easily in India as some might hope.
The final report in this crash is going to be very interesting.
I posted the above because this issue has become a contest between belief and engineering.
Pilot suicide is a well established occurrence at this point, so from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not outside the bounds of credibility or belief, as some would claim.
But regardless of belief, there is an engineering approach that resolves the question, based on evidence. I’m confident AAIB will utilize that approach within their investigation.
Electrical malfunction is also “a well established occurrence at this point, so from an evidentiary standpoint, it’s not outside the bounds of credibility or belief, as some would claim.”
Luckily for the rest of the world, AAIB would appear to be taking this aspect very seriously.
Again the point is that there is an engineering test that can resolve the question, regardless of any speculation about other electrical problems. They wouldn’t be necessary to explain the accident.
The direct evidentiary basis would be established to determine the cause, rather than hunting for a cause without an evidentiary basis.
That is the objective of the electrical theories, which are founded on belief rather than evidence. If AAIB were to do that, we’d end up with another rebuttal from NTSB.
However I don’t think AAIB will do that, they will follow the engineering methods and the evidentiary basis. They have already signalled this in the preliminary report, by noting that the switches transitioned states to shut down the engines.
Again, the point is that the Indians are looking at a whole list of possible electrical glitches in the 787…and, until such time as they finish, those uncomfortable with loose ends and open questions will just have to bite their lips.
No need whatsoever to try to rush the investigation with imagined “tests”.
And also no need to believe that the Indians will in any way be impressed by any form of “rebuttal from NTSB”.
@Rob: We have a case of refusing to believe a fact to further a vendetta. Nothing more or less to it than that.
We know the Fuel Switches were turned off, then back on. Period.
Nothing more to it than that as a cause, huge amount to it in loss of life in the aircraft and on the ground. Major spin off in pilots mental health.
De-Nial is a river in Egypt.
India regards the NTSB, all reports are they are completely respected (as is BEA) – Egypt is the worsts followed by countries like Ethiopia .
India wants to be in that NTSB and BAE group, not because of deferring to them, they understand the top standard and want to stand in that respected group (Unlike China)
India does not fear the NTSB, they do want to be a Top Standard and the forms and process the NTSB and others have formed are the basis of Top Standard air crash investigation. India is not going to try to put a standard up that is at least in lip service, the basis of the world doing these types of investigation. Sadly all too much experience.
“Pilot suicide is a well established occurrence at this point”
How many _uncontested_ pilot suicides cases do we actually have?
Germanwings Flight 9525 :: definitely uncontested.
( IMU, IMHO:
the allegation is a cheap and backstabbing solution to undesired investigation into hardware problems. )
+1
We can *suspect* pilot malfeasance in a handful of other cases, but we don’t have irrefutable evidence thereof.
Interesting how loosely the concept of “well established” is used when it suits a particular narrative.
On the other hand, we do have *very* well established evidence of all sorts of electrical malfunctions in the aviation world.
[Edited as a violation of Reader Comment rules.]
“UPS MD-11F crash probe focuses on engine mounts”
“Investigators probing the fatal 4 November crash of a UPS Boeing MD-11F in Louisville are examining whether an engine mount failure contributed to the left engine separating from the wing during take-off, according to a source familiar with the investigation.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ups-md-11f-crash-probe-focuses-on-engine-mounts/165244.article
Wow who would have thought that.
In fact the entire interaction of the engine and pylon is a major focus now.
@ All
Excellent, informative and very interesting Leeham article appeared today on AIN:
“Evaluating Next Generation Airliner Contenders: Part 1”
“Leeham News and Analysis assesses the first five of 13 possible new commercial airliners”
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2025-10-26/fdfd