UPS MD-11 Crashes on Takeoff

[y_p_w]

This is common at Chicago O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta Hartsfield, as well as several of the major airports in this country, and around the world. They are not really "Petroleum Plants" per say.

But rather very large tank farms and storage facilities, in order to accommodate the massive amounts of fuel required to keep these large aircraft fueled. They all pump ungodly amounts of fuel per day.

They have to be located close by. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Delta Flight 191, (Lockheed L-1011), that hit a microburst and crashed at Dallas Ft. Worth back in 1985, slammed into one of these large tanks that was located on airport property, and put a massive dent in it.

View attachment 308899

Those were water tanks though.

https://www.weather.gov/fwd/delta191​

The airplane then struck a couple of large water tanks located on the north-side of DFW International Airport. The impacts with the ground and the water tanks resulted in a large fireball which consumed a majority of the airplane.​

 

[mk378]

What if those buildings were there before the runways were extended?

Then part of the expansion project should have been to condemn and buy out the buildings to maintain an exclusion zone. If you make a heat map of where planes crash other than inside an airport perimeter, the area close by in the approach path is white hot and should be off limits to any dense occupancy of people, or facilities that would be especially hazardous if a plane crashes into them.

Of course it would have been less expensive to not allow them built in the first place. Runways often get extended.

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

We do a lot of stupid stuff as humans. An airport in a big city, or expanding a city around an airfield is just nuts.

We are lazy. Most don’t want to have to leave the city and travel 50 miles to the airport.

 

[bunnspecial]

SDF was built in 1941 as a small airport, and expanded a bit to become Louisville's main airport in 1947.

The 17L/17R runway pair, which is where most of the UPS operation takes place, were built in the late 1980s. 17R, which if I'm not mistaken was where this most recent incident happened(it's the biggest of them) was extended in 2007.

As it is now, 17R basically runs from the Waterson(I-264) to some pretty significant CSX track. L&N's main yard and shops were a few a few blocks north and west of the north end of 17R(current site of Cardinal Stadium), and even though the facility is no longer there, that trackage is a major ROW for CSX. CSX still operates a much smaller yard just west of and basically parallel to 17R. In different circumstances, if the plane in question had veered right on takeoff before crashing, it could have planted right on top of the yard.

Tucked into the southeast corner of SDF is the Ford Louisville plant. This flight wasn't really close to it, but it would be a potential target if something like this had happened on 17L instead of 17R.

The Ford plant has been there since 1955, when 17L and 17R didn't even exist. The former L&N yard has been there in some form or fashion since roughly the 1880s.

If I'm not mistaken, Ford is the second largest private employer in Louisville behind UPS(GE might be the only other one in contention). Who wins that battle? It's not like you can pick up an auto factory and move it, and even though Ford is a few years newer than SDF, they would have been well outside the exclusion zone and not in line with a runway when they built.

No one was going to mess with L&N in 1941-in fact if I had to guess the proximity to the L&N shops was probably a big selling point. This yard and shop facility WAS L&N's main shop-there again you don't just pickup and relocate a major service facility. Even though in 1985, when a big expansion took place, the shops, which would have been either Seabord or CSX then, were slowing down, they were still significant. The hump yard that is by 17R is still a major one for CSX-no one wants a rail yard in their back yard, much less a hump yard, and they're not cheap to build. How does that get relocated, especially to a place that CSX would agree to?

And again, with the north end being against I-264, no that's not moving.

When SDF was built, it was very much in the suburbs. Yes, you had L&N nearby, plus U of L a few blocks away and Churchill Downs even closer, but those were still several miles from the fairly small airport. It was out of town then, but I suspect that some of the choice was intentional. How exactly does one solve all of this issue? Truth be told, I'm doubtful that SDF could even grow any more if they wanted to...

 

[IndyFan]

If the improper procedure was used to hang the engine it could have damaged the pylon. It's weird how much weight and thrust an engine pylon can handle yet side to side it wasn’t designed for. The image is interesting it looks like fuzz or grass on the top front. Also wasn't the engine facing the opposite way on the runway?

I'm pretty sure I saw in the first NTSB briefing that when they confirmed the engine coming off and showed a picture, they said it was grass and earth or mud packed into the front of it.

 

[IndyFan]

We do a lot of stupid stuff as humans. An airport in a big city, or expanding a city around an airfield is just nuts.

We are lazy. Most don’t want to have to leave the city and travel 50 miles to the airport.

Hard to avoid being somewhere along an approach path in a big city. It would take a lot of land to avoid that.

 

[Number_35]

Tank farm. What is your solution?
Denver Airport was built far away from city bcs. noise etc. Well, now city caught up with airport. City of Aurora, like most city councils, plays into hands of developers. They built again close to airport. Then, house owners sued airport for noise, and won!
It is the most ridiculous thing. Not airport fault that things get built close by.

That's one of the subplots in Arthur Hailey's 1960s potboiler Airport.

 

[97prizm]

Tank farm. What is your solution?
Denver Airport was built far away from city bcs. noise etc. Well, now city caught up with airport. City of Aurora, like most city councils, plays into hands of developers. They built again close to airport. Then, house owners sued airport for noise, and won!
It is the most ridiculous thing. Not airport fault that things get built close by.

Actually I've been following this. For at least the last 10 plus years all homes near DIA have mandatory avigation easements. Meaning if you buy a home near DIA you can't sue for noise etc.
"A Denver International Airport (DIA) avigation easement is a legal agreement granting the right for aircraft to fly over property near the airport, including the right to associated noise, dust, and vibration. This easement ensures an unobstructed flight path and can restrict property owners from building tall structures, planting tall trees, or creating electromagnetic interference. If a property is in the airport's influence district, it's typically required to grant this easement before subdividing or obtaining a building permit".
People have sued but lost.

 

[Owen Lucas]

NTSB video published 2 hrs ago.

@ 57 seconds you can see the impact / debris field.

 

[Owen Lucas]

Is it common for airports to have cameras recording the runway?

There are likely 100s of cameras inside the airport. Surely the airport authority can place a few on / near the runway or even point a few from the building at the the runway.

Maybe there are and the footage hasn't been released?

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

Hard to avoid being somewhere along an approach path in a big city. It would take a lot of land to avoid that.

Yeah, it’s called…….don’t live in a big city.

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

Is it common for airports to have cameras recording the runway?

There are likely 100s of cameras inside the airport. Surely the airport authority can place a few on / near the runway or even point a few from the building at the the runway.

Maybe there are and the footage hasn't been released?

Oh yeah, that’s a guaranteed. They’ve already spoken about the CC TV being reviewed.

 

[IndyFan]

Yeah, it’s called…….don’t live in a big city.

Lol, yeah. I grew up right under an approach to the busiest runway at Indianapolis International Airport, so I survived and actually loved sitting on the front porch growing up and watching airplanes come and go. I'm sure the odds of having a plane crash into me were greater than if I grew up in the Bayous of Louisiana next door to Troy the Alligator hunter, but it's still a pretty low likelihood.

 

[billt460]

Is it common for airports to have cameras recording the runway?

There are likely 100s of cameras inside the airport. Surely the airport authority can place a few on / near the runway or even point a few from the building at the the runway.

Maybe there are and the footage hasn't been released?

One would certainly think so. Nothing gets cheaper faster than electronic technology. If they can have recording cameras guarding both sides of every isle of the local 7 / 11, it should be without question they would have them recording every runway and taxiway at major airports.... Even not so major ones.

 

[IndyFan]

I doubt they will make any of that video public unless they think there is a good reason. The only other way would be a leak by an employee or someone with access.

 

[97prizm]

NTSB video published 2 hrs ago.

@ 57 seconds you can see the impact / debris field.

It looks like there is a junkyard located there.

 

[97prizm]

It was a petroleum RECYCLING FACILITY (not a tank farm) at the end of the runway, and a wrecking yard as well, at least that is what I heard in the news reports.

Maybe underground or off site tank farms should be the norm for jet fuel. All that fuel to the tank farms for at least SEATAC airport is not trucked in it is piped in. And no reason not to have the tank farm some miles from the airport and pipe the fuel to smaller under ground receiver tanks to load out the fuel from. Sure beats having a plane hitting them, and the resulting deaths.

Yeah development should not be allowed near large airports. Its like allowing development near a car race track, we have that close to here as well. Some people like it and some don't. When selling any homes in such areas there should be something the buyers sign saying they can not complain about the noise.

Most towns have avigation easements but it's buried in the paperwork. People tend to sign then only later realize what they've signed.

 

[Exhaustgases]

What if those buildings were there before the runways were extended?

I find.these questions incredibly ridiculous.

Yes, but a C97 didn't have such thing.

I just find it very strange that a purposely weakened bolt would be used to transmit incredible amounts of thrust to the airframe and also carry the G loads for huge engines that weigh around 7 tons or more. Purposely weakened bolts that could form stress cracks and then fuse when they should not be fusing.

In the flight 191, it was a failed eye of the fitting where a pin fit in that failed. So more like a fuse fitting in that case, seems like a dent below or above that eye area is what is always shown. I'd sure like to see a good photo of it that is not a blurr.

 

[rszappa1]

It looks like there is a junkyard located there.

Yes it is ....It was a you pull type salvage yard...

 

[fdcg27]

Yes, but a C97 didn't have such thing.

The C-97 didn't have engines carried in underwing pods either.
The type did have its share of problems in service, as well as in the civil airliner model B-377.
Of the 55 377 civil aircraft built 13 were involved in hull loss accidents, a loss rate significantly worse than the MD-11.
Not much to brag about since the MD-11 has seen a total of ten hull loss accidents of the 200 built, but it has also remained in service for far longer than that vintage piston Boeing.