I understand that; but if that turbine blade disinterested; It would've thrown shrapnel everywhere. Like being shot out of the sky. Again, very old plane and lots of hours on those engines. If the engine fans and air frame wasn't x-rayed for micro-fractures - anything could've gave way. They could've justified, in their own minds, the short-cuts by saying it's a cargo plane, not a passenger plane. Unfortunately; I've seen a lot of that too. I'll refuse sign-off, so management will turn to a younger, less experienced person for that sign-off. They become management's favorite and gets promoted. Never seeing consequences for that small short-cut invites more sort cuts and larger bonuses for keeping cost down. It's a vicious cycle. It got so bad, when inspectors were around, management would give me the day off with pay - so I wouldn't 'accidentally' run into an inspector or talk to them. I eventually got out of there, on my own terms - and I knew management wouldn't "bad-mouth" me, because I knew where all the 'bodies' were buried and I knew my way around the database, so I could've dug up even more dirt.. Boeing already got caught twice, in a decade.
Engine manufacturer GE may have a hot seat next to UPS' maintenance management team. I would reject the idea that cargo planes should maint less. If anyone asked They share common airspace and some do take off with a bellyful of jet A.
Engine casings are designed, and supposed to, contain these blade failures. Not spit them out the side. Yes, I'm aware that sometimes it doesn't work. This plane had its most recent heavy maintenance, the D-check, last month.
Wow, the D-check! That takes 'everything' apart for examining. If any planes have ever augured in a month after D-checks, they must be few in number.
The seat ain't that hot for a cargo plane because you aren't talking about thousands of loved ones grieving over hundreds killed. This is also likely what executive told themselves when the cut corners with their airplane maintenance standards.
Looks like the left engine detached before the aircraft cleared the runway, and the plane only 'flew' for a few seconds before they drug a wing through a nearby warehouse and mushed into...........an oil recycling facility! Even if the aircraft didn't have a full bag of gas - the resulting fire would have still been a 'crowd pleaser.' SDF's location and all those trash haulers flying in and out make me wonder a little bit about things like noise abatement and corporate fuel efficiency 'requests.' I fix phones for a living and I'm not even rated to fly armchairs, but I'm thinking that when a bird reaches V1 it is always going to be too fast to be a ground vehicle and too slow to be an aircraft. ME?? I would want V2 to be reeeeeallly close to V1 and as far away from the end of the runway as possible. Noise abatement and fuel cost concerns may have been a factor and although the human in the left seat has the authority to override those (limits?) they might be incentivized to lean the other way. The MD-11 is 'not' under-powered.
Some news reports are mentioning similarities between this crash and another crash by the same model in 1979. That would appear to be the AA 191 crash of a DC-10 at O'Hare on May 25, 1979: American Airlines Flight 191 - Wikipedia ... which is the same event I alluded to yesterday: The MD-11 is essentially an updated DC-10. If this turns out to be the same thing, the legal settlements will be very expensive.
One needs engines for thrust. They can be on wings or empannage at manufacturers' choice. These MDs and many smaller jets have engines aft. Aft placement may not be optimal as separations (if/when they happen) can compromise function of flight control surfaces back yonder.. More than this aft-engined failure may be required to move engines across the fleet to main wing. If that is even a better design.? -- All jets take about 35 seconds for engines to pull airframes to flying speeds V2. 45 seconds for heavies. During those seconds, pull of engines on airframes is uniquely large. One must plan for that in first design, and assure non failure for entire life of all airframes, That's all I wan na say.
Watching the footage of this crash... holy sheepshite. Reminds of the old late-'70s crash of AA FL191 at O'Hare, that L wing stall and vertical plow with a giant wall of flame. And agree on the uncontained engine failure -- unfort there's a reason old passenger planes tend to become cargo haulers... and since they don't carry anyone but minimal crew... cutting corners w/ maint to keep them in the air working, is a major temptation w/ brinksmanship rewarded... until this happens. Fascinated w/ aviation, but have not served in any capacity in it, just as a casual enthusiast watching the reality show of ATC videos (VAS Aviation) on YT at the mo. Had flown small craft like Cubs briefly over water, hopping to the neighbor islands on invitation by the pilot (one of my amazing octogenarian clients who'd retired from Pan Am and kept up his licence flying rentals). How the hell a guy can carry a full conversation with me w/ one hand, his feet and other hand sawing wildy on the controls, landing in the difficult crosswinds at OGG so smoothly, felt like being in a heavy... in a compressible fluid... is boggling to my brain. I had trouble even comprehending the 3-dimensionality of it, whilst performing all your other pilot responsibilities besides 'fly the damned plane' Just feel lucky none of my packages needed to come from the Midwest -- that were a bad one, 12 dead.
Last time I rode an MD-11 would have been spring 1997, LAX-CGK with tech stops at HNL & DPS along the way. A buddy of mine lost a family member in the Swissair 111 incident which was what turned the tide, all the MD-11s got converted to freighters promptly after that.