UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
UPS MD-11 crash Louisville
43,755 Views |
364 Replies |
Last: 17 days ago by 87IE
UPS is part of the NTSB investigation team along with Boeing and GE technical experts. They have more insight / knowledge of everything the NTSB is seeing than we the public. The NTSB is carefully articulating pertinent info to the public in their briefings, but they are only relaying facts. The briefing this afternoon really alludes to the number 1 engine being a high-focus area of their investigation.
UPS could be taking the opportunity to do inspections of the remaining MD-11's in their fleet based on knowledge from the investigation. I'm speculating, but something happened around engine #1 and given the impact that's enough reason to go check all the identical units. Maybe they are ahead of the FAA, but it would appear to be a prudent decision.
Jet engines are remarkable and quite reliable pieces of equipment, but they are not without challenges and areas that have to be inspected and maintained.
UPS could be taking the opportunity to do inspections of the remaining MD-11's in their fleet based on knowledge from the investigation. I'm speculating, but something happened around engine #1 and given the impact that's enough reason to go check all the identical units. Maybe they are ahead of the FAA, but it would appear to be a prudent decision.
Jet engines are remarkable and quite reliable pieces of equipment, but they are not without challenges and areas that have to be inspected and maintained.
titan said:Jetpilot86 said:
UPS announced they were grounding their MD-11's about 30 minutes ago.
Precaution or do they think there is some design flaw? Isn't it more likely maintenance of that particular aircraft, or even that terminal was below par?
Given how long the MD-11 has been in service, a design flaw would seem to be unlikely.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.
frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
FedEx apparently has about 30 still in service
Jetpilot86 said:
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
3:35 - He says if it had been a "run of the mill engine fire" and not an engine falling off, they would have been fine. I don't know about "run of the mill", but they would have had control of the plane and most likely could have circled around to land.
Also, this seems like this isn't the NTSB guy's first rodeo.
torrid said:Jetpilot86 said:
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
3:35 - He says if it had been a "run of the mill engine fire" and not an engine falling off, they would have been fine. I don't know about "run of the mill", but they would have had control of the plane and most likely could have circled around to land.
Also, this seems like this isn't the NTSB guy's first rodeo.
Another thing related to that--- it may be being underestimated what role the altitude - or insufficient - altitude played. That plane clearly hits obstructions --- does it maintains some control and at least stabilize enough to do something on one engine if it doesn't clip those buildings, wires, and then tanks?
titan said:torrid said:Jetpilot86 said:
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
3:35 - He says if it had been a "run of the mill engine fire" and not an engine falling off, they would have been fine. I don't know about "run of the mill", but they would have had control of the plane and most likely could have circled around to land.
Also, this seems like this isn't the NTSB guy's first rodeo.
Another thing related to that--- it may be being underestimated what role the altitude - or insufficient - altitude played. That plane clearly hits obstructions --- does it maintains some control and at least stabilize enough to do something on one engine if it doesn't clip those buildings, wires, and then tanks?
He also said the the other engine suffered compressor stall and lost power. The plane was unflyable.
Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.
UPS and FedEx have grounded their MD-11 fleet, AP is saying it was based on the recommendation of the manufacturer/Boeing.
https://apnews.com/article/ups-plane-crash-explosion-kentucky-md11-32f96f28019c286031befe6d05bb424f?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Quote:
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) UPS and FedEx said they are grounding their fleets of McDonnell Douglas MD-11 planes "out of an abundance of caution" following a deadly crash at the UPS global aviation hub in Kentucky.
The crash Tuesday at UPS Worldport in Louisville killed 14 people, including the three pilots on the MD-11 that was headed for Honolulu.
MD-11 aircrafts make up about 9% of of the UPS airline fleet and 4% of the FedEx fleet, the companies said.
"We made this decision proactively at the recommendation of the aircraft manufacturer," a UPS statement said late Friday. "Nothing is more important to us than the safety of our employees and the communities we serve."
FedEx said in an email that it will be grounding the aircrafts while it conducts "a thorough safety review based on the recommendation of the manufacturer.
https://apnews.com/article/ups-plane-crash-explosion-kentucky-md11-32f96f28019c286031befe6d05bb424f?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Hopefully it's an abundance of caution. Would be crazy to find a new failure mode in such an old airframe
insulator_king said:
Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.
They probably had very little time to react. Other than "oh crap" and "TOGO". The engine looks like it fell off at V1.
I can only think of 3 maybe 4 times an engine has failed off an aircraft and 2 on TO. Horrible.
agAngeldad said:insulator_king said:
Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.
They probably had very little time to react. Other than "oh crap" and "TOGO". The engine looks like it fell off at V1.
I can only think of 3 maybe 4 times an engine has failed off an aircraft and 2 on TO. Horrible.
Its actually better in flight (not for those below) as one of those times I clearly remember not only was it in flight at high altitude, but was able to land safely without crack up. The engine I don't think killed anyone, but it crushed a building or house if recall correctly.
titan said:agAngeldad said:insulator_king said:
Absolutely nothing the cockpit crew could do, absolutely nothing. Yet they continued to fly the plane as best they could. Much respect to them. RIP.
They probably had very little time to react. Other than "oh crap" and "TOGO". The engine looks like it fell off at V1.
I can only think of 3 maybe 4 times an engine has failed off an aircraft and 2 on TO. Horrible.
Its actually better in flight (not for those below) as one of those times I clearly remember not only was it in flight at high altitude, but was able to land safely without crack up. The engine I don't think killed anyone, but it crushed a building or house if recall correctly.
Agree. SWA lost and engine in flight and AAL lost one in a 727 out west over the desert. Both landed with out incident. SWA might have had one that fell loose but was still hanging on, not including the one that a piece went the window and killed a lady. AAL lost one on TO in 79 and then this one. I'm sure there's another but those are the only ones I recall in US.
TO and Landing are critical phases of flight and don't allow much recovery time.
SWA has had at least two uncontained engine failures in recent years, in both cases the engine remained attached, albeit with major damage and parts missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472
I've never heard of an instance of an engine detaching for them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472
I've never heard of an instance of an engine detaching for them
Rando on social media I came across was pushing a theory on this mishap. Showed schematics showing that the fuel supply for the number two engine (in the tail) is supplied from first the right wing tanks, then into the left wing before continuing aft to supply the engine, supposedly running near the number one engine. Theory is that a catastrophic failure/separation of the number one engine potentially could have severed the fuel supply to the number two engine. I have no experience with MD-11's so it may be BS but I found it interesting
First thing I'm sure they are all doing is checking when the last time maintenance in the engine was done.
Not sure if people remember the engine that fell off from a dc10 after maintenance didn't attach it correctly.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT2I1rm-u5E2-oqKLrV6ccu13_3B4aCHIpVgk0EmxUPUY2q241x6BHX5c&s=10
Not sure if people remember the engine that fell off from a dc10 after maintenance didn't attach it correctly.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT2I1rm-u5E2-oqKLrV6ccu13_3B4aCHIpVgk0EmxUPUY2q241x6BHX5c&s=10
GAC06 said:
SWA has had at least two uncontained engine failures in recent years, in both cases the engine remained attached, albeit with major damage and parts missing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_3472
I've never heard of an instance of an engine detaching for them
If you had a disk fail, that would explain the fire and subsequent vibration that caused the engine pylons to jettison the engine.
If the above is true, I expect the investigation to focus mostly on:
1: Manufacturing defects - met evaluation of initiation zone. Looking for something causing lower LCF/TMF life.
2: Quality records - defects accepted when new? Alloy right?
3: Repair records for the component, when last refurbished.
4: Operation history of the component- cycle counts. (Cycles being most important since failure happened during the highest transient thermals -takeoff).
5: Was the disk near end of life? New part, you focus on manufacturing records, older part, repair history operation.
Though circumstances are different, just as a matter of knowing what an aircrew is capable of, military bombers that lost one abruptly and were down to one engine generally could make it back also. As agAngeldad reminded, the deadliest phase is landing and take off when at relatively low power, low lift and insufficient air speed for really creative maneuvering. The landing in the Hudson River by Sullivan has to be one of the great classics. Remember that? Was it bird strike even?
torrid said:titan said:torrid said:Jetpilot86 said:
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
3:35 - He says if it had been a "run of the mill engine fire" and not an engine falling off, they would have been fine. I don't know about "run of the mill", but they would have had control of the plane and most likely could have circled around to land.
Also, this seems like this isn't the NTSB guy's first rodeo.
Another thing related to that--- it may be being underestimated what role the altitude - or insufficient - altitude played. That plane clearly hits obstructions --- does it maintains some control and at least stabilize enough to do something on one engine if it doesn't clip those buildings, wires, and then tanks?
He also said the the other engine suffered compressor stall and lost power. The plane was unflyable.
Which other engine? The right one or the tail one?
Decay said:
Hopefully it's an abundance of caution. Would be crazy to find a new failure mode in such an old airframe
There are a plethora of failure modes that can crop up on legacy designed hardware.
For a first of a kind failure on legacy hardware you try to identify what process variation of multiple factors may have lined in a new way.
Inspecting for on wing condition disk defects can be very challenging - new technology like PAUT, you can see cracks 2" deep in a part by only going in with some wires through a borescope hole.
You usually only develop stuff like that after the first problem though.
GAC06 said:
Rando on social media I came across was pushing a theory on this mishap. Showed schematics showing that the fuel supply for the number two engine (in the tail) is supplied from first the right wing tanks, then into the left wing before continuing aft to supply the engine, supposedly running near the number one engine. Theory is that a catastrophic failure/separation of the number one engine potentially could have severed the fuel supply to the number two engine. I have no experience with MD-11's so it may be BS but I found it interesting
Not a pilot and not knowing how engines would react under that scenario, in one of the earliest videos that surfaced the #2 engine appeared to have a compressor stall. Is it possible that the lack of fuel would give the same appearance? Or is it more likely that in the event of an uncontained engine failure in the hot stage of the turbine, some debris made it into the #2 causing an additional engine failure after having lost #1 and it having departed the airframe/wing with the pylon?
Ag with kids said:torrid said:titan said:torrid said:Jetpilot86 said:
Latest Juan Brown analysis. I'm guessing the grounding has something to do with the engine and the pylon failing off vs just the engine. Engines are designed to fall off at the lower attached points of the pylon in cases of extreme vibration.
3:35 - He says if it had been a "run of the mill engine fire" and not an engine falling off, they would have been fine. I don't know about "run of the mill", but they would have had control of the plane and most likely could have circled around to land.
Also, this seems like this isn't the NTSB guy's first rodeo.
Another thing related to that--- it may be being underestimated what role the altitude - or insufficient - altitude played. That plane clearly hits obstructions --- does it maintains some control and at least stabilize enough to do something on one engine if it doesn't clip those buildings, wires, and then tanks?
He also said the the other engine suffered compressor stall and lost power. The plane was unflyable.
Which other engine? The right one or the tail one?
In the 05NOV2025 video Juan points it out in the video, the #2 engine in the tail appears to suffer a compressor stall in one of the earliest videos that surfaced during the takeoff roll where the wing is already on fire and #1 engine had left the plane.
Would think a sudden faltering of fuel could indeed "simulate" or replicate a compressor stall. Have the net same effect.
Both of those seem plausible to me
HollywoodBQ said:frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.
I've personally taken a 757 in there. Lets just say there is little room for error.
Jetpilot86 said:HollywoodBQ said:frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.
I've personally taken a 757 in there. Lets just say there is little room for error.
I flew into Burbank once on Southwest and it was the most abrupt landing I've ever experienced. When the plane stopped rolling forward we were no more than 100'-150' from the perimeter wall. Barely had room to turn the plane around without scraping the wing tip on the wall. Scared the crap out of me.
These days if you were close to a wingtip distance to the perimeter fence you'd be well into the EMAS and not taxiing anywhere
I recommend watching the video I posted above as it has answers to some of the questions here.
In general, the first and last 1000' of a flight are where the most dangers lurk. The aircraft is much slower than in cruise and has less available excess energy to deal with, in particular, the loss of an engine.
Depending on where and when you lose an engine or two even, it is well within the skills of a crew to maneuver to a safe outcome for everyone. In particular, takeoff has the least margin of error.
For instance, in the 747 I fly, an engine failure where the MD11 lost theirs is an event practiced in the simulator every 6 months, so we are well prepared for an engine failure on takeoff. Should we lose 2 at once, every inch above 500' is very valuable as we are going to have to trade altitude to get airspeed so we can raise the gear, it's normally up by 500', and retract the flaps which provide lift, but create excess drag that when 2 engines have failed, is a huge liability. Once the wing is clean and we are traveling around 200kts(230mph) depending on weight, we can stagger away and return. Losing two engines on takeoff is the ONLY scenario where we would take any action below 1000' above the ground. Even then, in the video of the MD11 they would not likely be at altitude to do anything yet.
It is most probable the #2 engine, the tail engine on the MD11, had ingested debris from #1 and that was causing the compressor stalls. I'm going to assume it was for now, because there should have been sufficient thrust otherwise and the plane was clearly already sinking when it should not have been.
The caveat of this is how #1 failed. The tearing of the pylon off the plane, vs the engine separating cleanly, as designed, could have caused the methods of isolating things like the hydraulic shutoff to be compromised. The fuel cutoff certainly was.
I would suspect the fleet was grounded to inspect the pylon attach points, relative to the engine mounts, they are a much worse place to detach vs just the engine.
In general, the first and last 1000' of a flight are where the most dangers lurk. The aircraft is much slower than in cruise and has less available excess energy to deal with, in particular, the loss of an engine.
Depending on where and when you lose an engine or two even, it is well within the skills of a crew to maneuver to a safe outcome for everyone. In particular, takeoff has the least margin of error.
For instance, in the 747 I fly, an engine failure where the MD11 lost theirs is an event practiced in the simulator every 6 months, so we are well prepared for an engine failure on takeoff. Should we lose 2 at once, every inch above 500' is very valuable as we are going to have to trade altitude to get airspeed so we can raise the gear, it's normally up by 500', and retract the flaps which provide lift, but create excess drag that when 2 engines have failed, is a huge liability. Once the wing is clean and we are traveling around 200kts(230mph) depending on weight, we can stagger away and return. Losing two engines on takeoff is the ONLY scenario where we would take any action below 1000' above the ground. Even then, in the video of the MD11 they would not likely be at altitude to do anything yet.
It is most probable the #2 engine, the tail engine on the MD11, had ingested debris from #1 and that was causing the compressor stalls. I'm going to assume it was for now, because there should have been sufficient thrust otherwise and the plane was clearly already sinking when it should not have been.
The caveat of this is how #1 failed. The tearing of the pylon off the plane, vs the engine separating cleanly, as designed, could have caused the methods of isolating things like the hydraulic shutoff to be compromised. The fuel cutoff certainly was.
I would suspect the fleet was grounded to inspect the pylon attach points, relative to the engine mounts, they are a much worse place to detach vs just the engine.
Ag87H2O said:Jetpilot86 said:HollywoodBQ said:frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.
I've personally taken a 757 in there. Lets just say there is little room for error.
I flew into Burbank once on Southwest and it was the most abrupt landing I've ever experienced. When the plane stopped rolling forward we were no more than 100'-150' from the perimeter wall. Barely had room to turn the plane around without scraping the wing tip on the wall. Scared the crap out of me.
Generally speaking, we have 6 levels of braking, 5 automated and then literally "stand on the brakes". During certification, the amount of distance required for landing is calculated and now presented to us for each landing on a runway. Heavier the plane, more distance required, more braking required to stop in the distance. Midway and Burbank are two normal passenger airports that will get you to somewhere around MAX AUTO, or Max Manual because the people have to go there vs driving from LAX.
Airplanes and airports are a never ending juggling act between what you want to do, and what you can do.
Superb post.
Not surprisingly those same moments analog are the worst for carriers. For people who wonder how you could lose something like an F-35 overboard, that is how. Small wrinkles in power, and even wind can sabotage lift.
Ag87H2O said:Jetpilot86 said:HollywoodBQ said:frankm01 said:
UPS has about 275 aircraft. Only 25 or so are MD11's. The rest are a mix of B757, B767, B747 and A300's. UPS was slowly retiring the MD11's.
They used to fly a 767 out of Burbank which was crazy because it was so big compared to the 737s or smaller that frequent Burbank.
I've personally taken a 757 in there. Lets just say there is little room for error.
I flew into Burbank once on Southwest and it was the most abrupt landing I've ever experienced. When the plane stopped rolling forward we were no more than 100'-150' from the perimeter wall. Barely had room to turn the plane around without scraping the wing tip on the wall. Scared the crap out of me.
LOL try a couple of tactical landings on an unimproved strip in a C130…..one of several reasons smarter paratroopers push through the red light.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The FAA has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive for all MD-11 aircraft after an engine and pylon detached during takeoff. All operators must inspect their aircraft and complete any required corrective actions before further flight. pic.twitter.com/tPha4XHtSe
— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) November 8, 2025
FAA has issued an emergency airworthiness directive for the MD-11 pertaining to the #1 pylon, engine separation.
NTSB obviously found something concerning enough for the FAA to issue the air worthiness directive.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Featured Stories
See All
18:37
5h ago
2.0k
A chronological review of Texas A&M's January portal additions
by Ryan Brauninger
12:46
5h ago
2.8k
Keys to the Game: Texas A&M at No. 24 Tennessee
by Luke Evangelist
64:01
1d ago
9.8k
Terence Kitchens
Texas A&M adds former Houston Christian LB TJ Smith via transfer portal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
197
skoal_man12
Are we worried about not getting a big RB in the portal?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
DannyDuberstein
Coaches recommend easier redshirts - 9 games instead of 4
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
58