Played out the scenario out in the CAE level D 747-400 simulator a few times last night. Unsurvivable with a full thrust max weight takeoff outboard engine separation at V1 followed by compressor stall in an adjacent engine at V1 + 10 (Vr - 5). Only by delaying the compressor stall on the second failed engine until V2 and about 50 ft AGL did it become survivable, clearing the landfill about 1/2 mile south of the runway by about 20ft.
In the MD-11 it would undoubtedly be worse losing 66% of thrust as opposed to losing 50% as the 747 would in this scenario. Furthermore there is the unknown question of wing and slat/flap damage from the separation/fire, compounded by the potential for reduced control authority from hydraulic/pneumatic failures, and possible landing gear/tire damage from engine debris further impeding acceleration. They might’ve lost hydraulics for gear retraction and even if they hadn’t, when the gear doors open for retraction there is a momentary drag penalty in many types. There was hardly time to do so in any case.
The crew consisted of 3 pilots, the captain with near 25 years of experience at the company, F/O with about 4. The relief pilot/IRO who was presumably sitting in the flight deck observer seat during the takeoff was the #1 most senior MD-11 pilot of the company’s ~300 pilots on type (#5 out of 3400 overall) with over 35 years of experience at the company and likely 15+ on the MD-11. Experience doesn’t always correlate directly with aptitude but it usually doesn’t hurt, all things held equal.
There was a successful reject after V1 with this type of airplane in Seoul some years ago due to a body gear failure. However in the Louisville case if there was in fact no engine failure or fire indication to the crew prior to V1, it seems there is little they might’ve done to alter the outcome. A reject after V1 in this case may have been equally if not even more catastrophic due to the massive warehouse they skimmed the top of being a direct hit instead.
In the MD-11 it would undoubtedly be worse losing 66% of thrust as opposed to losing 50% as the 747 would in this scenario. Furthermore there is the unknown question of wing and slat/flap damage from the separation/fire, compounded by the potential for reduced control authority from hydraulic/pneumatic failures, and possible landing gear/tire damage from engine debris further impeding acceleration. They might’ve lost hydraulics for gear retraction and even if they hadn’t, when the gear doors open for retraction there is a momentary drag penalty in many types. There was hardly time to do so in any case.
The crew consisted of 3 pilots, the captain with near 25 years of experience at the company, F/O with about 4. The relief pilot/IRO who was presumably sitting in the flight deck observer seat during the takeoff was the #1 most senior MD-11 pilot of the company’s ~300 pilots on type (#5 out of 3400 overall) with over 35 years of experience at the company and likely 15+ on the MD-11. Experience doesn’t always correlate directly with aptitude but it usually doesn’t hurt, all things held equal.
There was a successful reject after V1 with this type of airplane in Seoul some years ago due to a body gear failure. However in the Louisville case if there was in fact no engine failure or fire indication to the crew prior to V1, it seems there is little they might’ve done to alter the outcome. A reject after V1 in this case may have been equally if not even more catastrophic due to the massive warehouse they skimmed the top of being a direct hit instead.
Last edited:
