they did issue a report today with additional pictures...
UPS MD-11 Crashes on Takeoff
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
they did issue a report today with additional pictures...
MolaKule
Staff member
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 10,253
You guys think the MD-11 will ever fly again, or will the companies that fly them use this as the reason to throw in the towel? As I understand it, they are gas hogs compared to the twin engine cargo planes.
Nobody cares about the fuel consumption - cargo operators don’t fly many hours a day.
But it may not be up to the FAA, or the operators, because they may get the pilot’s unions themselves putting their collective feet down.
If I were an MD-11 pilot, at a major carrier, and I saw how that pylon came off, I would not be available for any future assignments, until I had finished training on a different airplane.
It’s just that simple. That action, taken by a union, collectively, is enough to kill that airplane at that operator.
I would guess that conversations along those lines are taking place right now.
Since fatigue failures were found, which may have been the first failures which in turn caused the overstress failures also found, it may be that the contractor personnel didn't properly perform required inspections. It may also be that the spherical bearings were not lubricated as required, leading to failure.
This may turn out to be a case in which a crew and their aircraft were lost, along with a number of people on the ground, as a consequence of improper maintenance practices.
That finding would bring substantial scrutiny of the contract MRO industry as a whole.
This may turn out to be a case in which a crew and their aircraft were lost, along with a number of people on the ground, as a consequence of improper maintenance practices.
That finding would bring substantial scrutiny of the contract MRO industry as a whole.
Or the inspections were not adequate to detect a defect. Additional fleet inspections will help to determine this.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,205
I would exercise my right to refuse dangerous work and not fly it. Good luck trying punish pilots refusing to fly it.
An airplane should be able to handle an uncontained engine failure ( or extreme vibration ) better than that.
A three engine ( or two ) aircraft should not crash on take off because one engine fails, even catastrophically in my books.
We, along with other airlines, have had severe engine failures ( uncontained, extreme vibrations ) but never has an engine ripped off the wing ( which can cause a wing fire ).
Edit: But even if the #1 engine had not come off ( and caused a wing fire which would have doomed the flight even if it didn’t also lose thrust on the tail engine ) , the FOD being ingested ( not confirmed by the NTSB despite saying engine debris was on the runway ) would cause a Tri Motor jet to crash because they can’t climb out after losing two engines anyways.
Either way, that MD11 was doomed because of the catastrophic engine failure and third engine in the tail being impacted as a result most likely ( to be confirmed but why else would it have not been able to only climb to 30 feet ).
An airplane should be able to handle an uncontained engine failure ( or extreme vibration ) better than that.
A three engine ( or two ) aircraft should not crash on take off because one engine fails, even catastrophically in my books.
We, along with other airlines, have had severe engine failures ( uncontained, extreme vibrations ) but never has an engine ripped off the wing ( which can cause a wing fire ).
Edit: But even if the #1 engine had not come off ( and caused a wing fire which would have doomed the flight even if it didn’t also lose thrust on the tail engine ) , the FOD being ingested ( not confirmed by the NTSB despite saying engine debris was on the runway ) would cause a Tri Motor jet to crash because they can’t climb out after losing two engines anyways.
Either way, that MD11 was doomed because of the catastrophic engine failure and third engine in the tail being impacted as a result most likely ( to be confirmed but why else would it have not been able to only climb to 30 feet ).
Last edited:
Source: Reuters 11/20/2025
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...-cracks-fatal-ups-cargo-jet-crash-2025-11-20/
“……Brickhouse said investigators need to figure out why the crack was not discovered as part of the plane's maintenance, a search that could go back for years.
U.S. safety investigators have already said they are probing the maintenance history of the 34-year-old UPS cargo plane that was in Texas for repairs weeks before crashing in flames after takeoff. That maintenance was done at a site belonging to Singapore's ST Engineering.
According to the report, the plane had not flown enough cycles to warrant special detailed inspections of the part.”
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 490
I honestly think it’s done. I don’t think it will return the service.
I did some minor work on this exact airplane, maybe 3 1/2 years ago. Certainly nothing of the nature like an ancient change or any kind of pylon work but, stuff like this does make me lose sleep.
I know from previous discussions with UPS maintenance reps, they certainly don’t care care a whole lot for the MD
If UPS, FedEx, and Western Global can make it happen they will fly it. It is Boeing who has seen the MD-11 as a liability for years and really doesn’t seem to want them still flying in my opinion.
The backlog for new airplanes and lack of passenger to freighter conversions means the cargo airlines will do everything they can to make the MD11 fly again unless the NTSB/FAA/Boeing force them not to.
They likely had this latest security footage for several days and kept operating until the FAA forced the grounding, if that indicates how much they desire to keep the MD-11 flying.
I dont think the IPA (UPS pilots’ union) will stand in the way if the FAA finalizes a return to service plan. If they retire the MD-11, pilot furloughs are quite possible and I would assume that is something they wish to avoid if it can be done reasonably safely. What’s more, in the meantime UPS is allowed to outsource all of the MD-11 flying to contractors and the pilots definitely do not want that long term. The problem is there are not many other airplanes available. Replacements should’ve been ordered 5 years ago.
MolaKule
Staff member
Who is they?
This is footage from airport security cameras that went to the NTSB, as Inman reported earlier. The NTSB wants as much frame-by-frame footage as possible to study before they generate any new reports. The NTSB is evidence-driven, not conspiracy-driven.
In the short term, the grounding is certainly appropriate. At this point, speculation as to whether this is the end of the MD-11 is premature.
Was this a terrible tragedy and a failure? Yes. Do the investigators know all the reasons why this failure happened yet? Definitively no.
Was there a specific incident in the aircrafts past that damaged something? Poor maintenance? Not following maintenance requirements or s shortcut somewhere? Or some other design flaw that had not revealed itself until this incident.
These planes were workhorses for their cargo carriers and their fuel burn was not as big of an issue to them. The ability to pack them full of cargo and get the job done was what kept them going after they were retired from passenger service. At UPS they are being replaced by 767's - that carry 64% of the payload as an MD11 and 8 less cargo containers per plane. They have been targeted for eventual retirement, but even that was not imminent. Fedex extended their plan to 2032 earlier this year.
The preliminary report also offers no insight into whether inspections on other planes have revealed something... but that will come out in due time.
Was this a terrible tragedy and a failure? Yes. Do the investigators know all the reasons why this failure happened yet? Definitively no.
Was there a specific incident in the aircrafts past that damaged something? Poor maintenance? Not following maintenance requirements or s shortcut somewhere? Or some other design flaw that had not revealed itself until this incident.
These planes were workhorses for their cargo carriers and their fuel burn was not as big of an issue to them. The ability to pack them full of cargo and get the job done was what kept them going after they were retired from passenger service. At UPS they are being replaced by 767's - that carry 64% of the payload as an MD11 and 8 less cargo containers per plane. They have been targeted for eventual retirement, but even that was not imminent. Fedex extended their plan to 2032 earlier this year.
The preliminary report also offers no insight into whether inspections on other planes have revealed something... but that will come out in due time.
UPS. The angle of the footage is from their ramp area. They have tons of security cameras there. I’m sure it took a few days for the NTSB to receive it. All I’m saying is that UPS probably want to keep the MD-11 flying if there is a way the regulators will allow it.
MolaKule
Staff member
From the frame-by-frame footage, it appears the aft wing/pylon attach fitting failed first because the engine is tilting upwards and pivoting on the FWD wing/pylon attach fitting before it failed and went over the wing.
Note: The NTSB will very likely assign some or all blame to maintenance. Regular inspection of the parts in question is almost certainly required.
After such an event, a scanning electron microscope can count the fatigue failure cycle marks like tree rings, and using available data, can assign with a high degree of accuracy, each takeoff by date and location. Unless the section of the mount in question is completely hidden from view during inspection, the NTSB and the FAA will state that maintenance missed it
It will be interesting to see if this part can simply be replaced.
Here are some snapshots of the take off roll shared by the NTSB. It’s a very high probability #2 engine took in FOD.
Thing is that both UPS and FedEx have built their ground interchange infrastructure around aircraft with no more than 170' of wingspan. This is why both are still taking delivery of factory new 767s rather than mining the used market and doing A330 passenger to freight conversions, despite the availability of plenty of retired A330 frames cheap.
This is also the reason that they've bought so many P2F 767s and 757s and the reason that they both keep A300s in service.
Another thirty or so feet of wingspan just won't fit in their infrastructure at scale.
This is also the reason that they've bought so many P2F 767s and 757s and the reason that they both keep A300s in service.
Another thirty or so feet of wingspan just won't fit in their infrastructure at scale.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 2,205
These pictures don’t show problems with engine #2 but another video seems to show some flames coming out of the engine ( did with an engine with the Concorde crash ….caused engine to compressor stall after sucking in ).
I wonder if Engine #2 may have also sucked in flames/hot gasses, in addition to FOD, from the wing fire and that might have caused problems as well.
It couldn’t climb which would seem to indicate it lost power on more than one engine even though the NTSB hasn’t said anything about the tail engine.
Similar threads
