UPS MD-11 Crashes on Takeoff

[MolaKule]

In case some of you missed it, see post #202 and #203 for the latest report:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA26MA024.aspx

and

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA26MA024 Preliminary Report.pdf

 

[Skippy722]

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.

I believe Juan (blancolirio) said they could take off with 2 engines but definitely not with just one in an earlier video.

 

[dkryan]

From the preliminary report:

"Maintenance and Inspections

At the time of the accident, N259UP had accumulated a total time of about 92,992 hours and 21,043 cycles.

The accident airplane was maintained under a continuous airworthiness maintenance program (CAMP).

A review of the inspection tasks for the left pylon aft mount found both a general visual inspection (GVI) and a detailed visual inspection of the left pylon aft mount, required by UPS's maintenance program at a 72-month interval, was last accomplished on October 28, 2021.

A 24-month/4,800 hour lubrication task of the pylon thrust links and pylon spherical bearings was last accomplished on October 18, 2025.

A special detailed inspection (SDI) of the left pylon aft mount lugs would have been due at 29,200 cycles and of the left wing clevis support would have been due at 28,000 cycles.

The accident airplane records showed these two SDI tasks had not been accomplished (the airplane had 21,043 cycles)."

 

[Exhaustgases]

Here are some snapshots of the take off roll shared by the NTSB. It’s a very high probability #2 engine took in FOD.


View attachment 311216

So the engine came off almost like the DC-10 years ago. This was just on the news to day as well. Showed broke mount eye.

 

[dkryan]

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.

This………..

 

[greenjp]

The NTSB is evidence-driven, not conspiracy-driven.

You believe this will remain true given recent events?

 

[Owen Lucas]

You believe this will remain true given recent events?

What is there to hide here? Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

 

[Skippy722]

You believe this will remain true given recent events?

The NTSB only cares about the "why" and issuing guidance (not rules or laws, they can not do so) to help prevent similar failures in the future. That guidance is then sent to the relevant authorities (FAA in this case) for them to do with as they see fit.

 

[billt460]

This looks like a total repeat of American 191. With the exception of the flames knocking out the tail mounted engine. (If that's what in fact took it out).

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

Not really a complete repeat of 191, there’s quite a bit of differences.
But the one constant is yes, it had a pylon failure and an departed
The amount of flames and debris shown from #1 would certainly have created a compressor stall, and a reduced power of the tail mounted engine.

 

[billt460]

When you look at the design of the wing mounted engines, they seem to be mounted a great deal forward of the wing, placing a lot of stress and leverage on the pylon assembly itself. Is this done solely to achieve ground clearance?

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

When you look at the design of the wing mounted engines, they seem to be mounted a great deal forward of the wing, placing a lot of stress and leverage on the pylon assembly itself. Is this done solely to achieve ground clearance?

To a degree, yes. It also has to do with air flow.

Side note, the 737 Max, its issues were created due to the engine pylon mounting the engine forward and up. Ground clearance driven created a situation where it wants to pitch the aircraft nose upward.

Searching for ground clearance, because of newer, larger and more fuel efficient engines can create negatives. Most all aircraft have a relatively similar pylon design as the MD’s engine positioning

 

[bunnspecial]

With the obvious comparisons to AA 191, especially, since if I understand it correctly, both started with failure of the aft pylon mount that put the rest of the events into motion...

From the NTSB report yesterday, the separation looks to have happened just like AA 191, with the #1 engine going up and over the plane. As we know, though, and the photos yesterday show, with UP 2976, a wing fire happened either with or almost immediately after the separation. With AA 191, at least from what I've seen and read of the crash in the past two weeks, there was no fire until the crash.

Is there a possible explanation for why the wing fire happened on separation in the UPS crash, and not in AA 191.

And, just to extend the similarities/differences a bit further-at least from what I understand, the AA 191 separation didn't impact the other engines, while on UP2976, there was at least dramatic reduction in thrust if not a complete failure of #2(probably from ingesting debris associated with #1 and/or the wing fire). AA 191 crashed because of the hydraulic failures associated with losing #1, and redudancy/safely redesigns put in place after that crash would keep that same sequence of events from happening on any DC10/MD10/MD11 still flying today.

Would it be reasonable speculation to say that had it not been for the fire(and likely associated failure of #2) that this plane could have at least completed take off? I know there are a lot of what-ifs in that, but I guess what I'm asking is, can we speculate that even though the starting point of the failure is similar to AA 191(#1 pylon separating at rear attachment), the fixes implemented after AA191 did their job?

 

[billt460]

I know with AA 191 they were in the air long enough for the front slats to retract on the left wing. This crash was airborne for much less time. And AA 191 didn't have the center engine go out. Both were doomed when they left the runway. But AA 191 had a few more seconds.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

With the obvious comparisons to AA 191, especially, since if I understand it correctly, both started with failure of the aft pylon mount that put the rest of the events into motion...

From the NTSB report yesterday, the separation looks to have happened just like AA 191, with the #1 engine going up and over the plane. As we know, though, and the photos yesterday show, with UP 2976, a wing fire happened either with or almost immediately after the separation. With AA 191, at least from what I've seen and read of the crash in the past two weeks, there was no fire until the crash.

Is there a possible explanation for why the wing fire happened on separation in the UPS crash, and not in AA 191.

And, just to extend the similarities/differences a bit further-at least from what I understand, the AA 191 separation didn't impact the other engines, while on UP2976, there was at least dramatic reduction in thrust if not a complete failure of #2(probably from ingesting debris associated with #1 and/or the wing fire). AA 191 crashed because of the hydraulic failures associated with losing #1, and redudancy/safely redesigns put in place after that crash would keep that same sequence of events from happening on any DC10/MD10/MD11 still flying today.

Would it be reasonable speculation to say that had it not been for the fire(and likely associated failure of #2) that this plane could have at least completed take off? I know there are a lot of what-ifs in that, but I guess what I'm asking is, can we speculate that even though the starting point of the failure is similar to AA 191(#1 pylon separating at rear attachment), the fixes implemented after AA191 did their

Fuel lines broke when the engine/pylon separated from the wing which caused a wing fire with UPS. Raw jet fuel contacting a very hot engine will cause a fire. No clue why the DC10 never had a fire when its engine came off.

All planes have an aircraft manufacturer fuel leak checklist in the very rare ( never had it, don’t know anyone who has either ) event they detect a fuel leak. A fuel leak can be the result of a puncture in a wing tank ( no fire risk , just a fuel leak problem ) or from an engine , or pylon. If the leak is coming from the engine, or pylon, crews are instructed to shutdown the engine because the concern is raw fuel coming into contact with very hot engine components can cause a fire. This My engine fuel leak checklist analogy is not relevant to this MD11 wing fire, I wish just trying to explain how a fire could start.

Obviously, when the engine/pylon came off, fuel was pumping at a tremendous rate and it ignited from sparks or after having contacted the hot engine causing a wing fire.

Two engine/ 3 engine jets are certified to safely fly after a complete loss of thrust on only one engine, no more.

What seems ( NTSB hasn’t said anything about this yet but why else would it have problems climbing ) to have happened is as bizarre as when a DC10 lost total hydraulics ( not supposed to be able to happen ) because the tail engine disintegrated and parts cuts through all three hydraulic lines rendering it uncontrollable with respect to the normal flight controls ( elevator, ailerons, rudder ).

Same thing seems to have happened with the UPS flight - the unthinkable. #1 engine fails, FOD ( maybe even hot gasses from the wing fire also ) gets sucked into the tail engine and causes it to lose total thrust or partial ( compressor stall ).

 

[MolaKule]

You believe this will remain true given recent events?

I am not sure what you're insinuating but a resounding yes. I have worked with them in the past on two incidents and they are fact finders, with a great record of finding root causes of accidents.

Their labs and experts are very thorough.

 

[edyvw]

You believe this will remain true given recent events?

Please elaborate!

 

[greenjp]

There's a recent, high profile example of a previously trusted, science based organization making an abrupt and questionable about face on a topic long considered settled. Between that and some of the things I observe in my job (DoD) I think we should all maintain a healthy skepticism about what our government tells us. Molakule I'm glad your experience with these particular folks has been positive

 

[Faawrenchbndr]

The NTSB has been and will always remain to be fact driven. They don’t speculate. If they don’t have a solid answer, they don’t comment. No conspiracy, no politics just fact based info

 

[edyvw]

There's a recent, high profile example of a previously trusted, science based organization making an abrupt and questionable about face on a topic long considered settled. Between that and some of the things I observe in my job (DoD) I think we should all maintain a healthy skepticism about what our government tells us. Molakule I'm glad your experience with these particular folks has been positive

The government is the people. People make up institutions. Institutions are relationships between people. Government are your friends, cousins, buddies etc.
NTSB are pure professionals. Either something happened or did not. These people devoted their entire careers to this and they won’t budge if someone gets some wild idea to use this for their own personal agenda. Like in DoD, 99% of people do their job best they can tuning out political noise and with that moving institution forward every day and fulfilling mission.
Next, information is out in open! It is not like someone can hide what happened.