Talk:FedEx Express Flight 80

Deletion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who wants to delete this article? is an aircraft accident..why would it be deleted? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 FedEx Crash Spikydan1 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. This is a very significant and notable accident, because it appears to be the result of deficient design of the aircraft itself. The MD-11 was deliberately designed with a dynamically unstable pitch mode. It has a significantly smaller horizontal stabilizer than other airliners. That, plus the shifting of its center of gravity further aft, all to reduce drag and thus fuel burn, causes it to be unusually light on the controls. That design, known as "relaxed stability," is common to fighter planes, but is not normally found in the pitch axis of a civilian airliner. It makes it more likely that the pilot will over control and exacerbate the situation, during a recovery attempt after a high altitude upset, or during a hard and/or bounced landing. That deficient design, combined with a lack of in-depth pilot training for upset recovery in the MD-11, was the cause of the December, 1992 upset accident, as well as 4 other upset incidents. The November, 1994, May, 1996 accidents, (both at Anchorage), as well as the June, 1997, July, 1997, August, 1999, and November, 2001 accidents, were linked to that dynamically unstable pitch mode, which was and still is part of the deficient design of the MD-11. And, after watching the film of the Narita crash yesterday, it appears that will again be the result of that deficient unstable pitch design.

You can find the details on that at http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm . I am reluctant to write about that deficient design myself (in the main Wiki articles which are related to the MD-11) simply because I wrote that article, 10 years ago. It is likely that I would be accused of POV, OR or even spamming for my own website, if I did. Thus, I suggest that others discuss that issue (of deficient design), because it is a factual part of the MD-11 history. I think it both necessary and proper to discuss the issue of deficient design in an airliner, when it results in accidents that led to the loss of human lives. EditorASC (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, you would be accused of all of those, because the article isn't the place to discuss your own opinions on the design of the MD-11 (and it is an opinion no matter how you try to spin it). JoeD80 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of getting the record straight, my entire website article is not mere opinion. Yes, it does contain some of my opinion within the article, but the vast majority of the article discusses the actual facts about the design of the aircraft (like the FACT that it is dynamically unstable in the pitch mode, because the HS is considerably smaller than most other modern jet airliners), as well as many of the accidents and why they happened (NTSB's conclusions, not mine), and ADs. In other words, my article is loaded with facts about the MD-11 history. Further, I never suggested that it was appropriate for me to discuss my mere opinions about the MD-11 in any Wiki article about the MD-11. I simply suggested that there would be less problems if others would raise the issue of deficient design, simply because I had written an extensive article on that subject. EditorASC (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can, however, list crashes of MD-11s and cite their cause. If there were, say, a trend, and you had supporting articles (such as airlinesafety.com) and cited them properly, then there's no reason why that information would be inappropriate or POV. Wikipedia is not the place for original research - but, if the original research is somewhere else, then who's to say it's just your opinion? Also, oppose deletion, even though that debate has already come to keep consensus. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tail Number?

I managed to pause the footage shown by BBC News Channel just as the reporter signed off and could clearly see the number "620" (albeit upside-down) on one of the nosegear doors. I therefore suspect that this was N620FE. Obviously, since this is a breaking-news article it would be best to wait for official confirmation from the owners. Therefore I do not intend to make an edit but merely wished to drop in this remark just to say what I had seen. EatYerGreens (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

N526FE should redirect here, if that is the tail number. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The info would probably be okay on wikinews Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

taken to a local hospital

taken to a local hospital

Which hospital? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The news media, and the airline, reported NO survivors 64.90.242.74 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

reuters reports that the pilots were pronounced dead on arrival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.132.124 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Airline" name

Should I say "FedEx Flight 80" or "FedEx Express Flight 80"? Coz seems earlier FedEx incidents were simply FedEx, and the extended form "Federal Express Express" looks strange... – PeterCX&Talk 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The airline's name is "FedEx Express" so calling the flight by that name seems wholly appropriate. --Resplendent (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The airline's name is FedEx Express...The parent company of FedEx Express is FedEx Corp. The company changed its name and all of it's subsidiaries in 2000. Between 1994 and 2000 was a transition period where "FedEx" was used and before 1994, only Federal Express was used. FedEx is no longer an abbreviation for Federal Express. Spikydan1 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Video of the crash

I added in the External Links section a YouTube video that starts with helicopter footage of the crash aftermath and then at about 0:30 shows the crash itself. If it's taken down on YouTube because it's a copyvio, I'm thinking this second portion will fully qualify for fair use and eventually the link should be a link to the crash footage itself, should someone take the time to capture and post only the crash footage apart from the helicopter shot. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd need better sourcing info before you have any hope for a fair use claim. Currently it appears to be from a media source which means it is unlikely to qualify for fair use although the media source probably doesn't own the copyright. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Best not to use Youtube at all as a source, it has zero credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.47.122.188 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft type

Listing the a/c type as an MD-11F is misleading, as this was not a purpose-built freighter. Regardless of what the FAA registration says, this plane was built as a passenger aircraft and then converted to a freighter, which is fairly clear in the pictures of the wreckage showing the rows of windows (as opposed to a purpose-built freighter, which would have none). It therefore seems better to list it as a -BCF instead of just -F, as the two are different. --Resplendent (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, either just list it as an MD-11 to keep things simple and generic...or it should be listed as an MD-11BCF because it was not one of the 53 MD-11Fs built. Spikydan1 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me as long as it is listed consistently throughout the article, however the FAA Registry and all other places on the net where I have seen it identified calls the plane an MD-11F, not BCF. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the FAA lists that, I looked up a bunch of other FedEx MD-11s regs and they are all listed as MD-11F...Maybe they just list it that way because the aircraft is no longer certified to carry passengers? Anyways, the whole section about the aircraft's operations with Delta shows that it was not MD-11F model.Spikydan1 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While the conversions of the former Delta and other air carrier MD-11 passenger aircraft to freighters for FedEx were all apparently accomplished using the BCF protocol, FedEx itself designates both the converted airframes and those built originally as freighters as "MD-11F" models. As examples of this usage see the FedEx Fleet List, and an FAA Grant of Exemption made in favor of FedEx (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0370, Dated August 25, 2008) in which FedEx is quoted as writing in their petition that “Nine (9) subject MD-11F airplanes, registration numbers; N577FE, N574FE, N576FE, N575FE, N526FE, N527FE, N524FE, N523FE, and N521FE were converted by the Boeing Company, from passenger configured MD-11 airplanes to all freight MD-11F airplanes after September 2, 2005, the effective date of § 121.312."

This seems to indicate that "MD-11F" is clearly the preferred designation for all of the FedEx aircraft of this model whether they are conversions of former passenger models or purpose built freighters. The section that I added to the FedEx Flight 80 article makes clear that the accident aircraft (N326FE) was one of the converted ex-Delta MD-11s (as opposed to a purpose built freighter) so there should be no confusion about its origin on the part of those reading the article even if the BCF designation is not included. For that reason it is probably best to leave the designation "MD-11F" in the article for this aircraft as opposed to using "MD-11BCF" even though the later is technically correct as well. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

An "MD-11" (a passenger plane) and an "MD-11F" (an airfreighter) are two quite distinct aircraft types (or sub-types) within the broad DC-10/MD-10/MD-11 family with quite different purposes and characteristics, as opposed to an "Airbus A320" (as a type or family) and an "Airbus A320-214" as a specific passenger model within that family in the USAirways 1549 accident. (See also my comments immediately above.) The MD-11 and converted (or purpose built) MD-11F types are different in appearance as well as capacity, range, airframe configuration, weight and balance properties, and some handling characteristics, and the conversion from one configuration to the other takes up to four months to accomplish. Therefore, I believe, using the USAirways 1549 article (to which I have been a major contributor) as a precedent to effectively misidentify the actual type (or sub-type) of aircraft involved in the Narita accident (a freighter) as opposed to a model within a type in the FedEx Flight 80 article does not really seem to be a persuasive argument to me because A320-214 is a model within a type (or family) whereas MD-11F is a distinctive sub-type within a family. For that reason I think it is incumbent to identify the FedEx aircraft as an MD-11F throughout the article as opposed to just an MD-11 which is less specific and therefore tends to be misleading. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

I think that it is pointless and not needed to keep listing the "F". On first reference it should...after that is should not.

Every recent accident that I have looked at uses the full name for the aircraft's first reference and then uses it's common name after that. Very recent examples: Colgan Air Flight 3407, it is listed as Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 at first but then refrenced to every other time as a Q400. Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 says the aircraft as a Boeing 737-800 on first reference and then just says Boeing 737. The same type of thing happend with US Airways Flight 1549. There are huge diffrences between an Airbus A320-100 and an Airbus A320-200...and much larger diffrences between a Boeing 737 Classic and the Next Gen models. Also, all the other FedEx accident articles list "F" on first refrence and then the basic model on second and futher refrences. Spikydan1 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the difference between an MD-11 and an MD-11F is a difference in basic type and function of the two airplanes: i.e MD-11s are passenger planes designed to transport people while MD-11Fs are dedicated freighters designed to carry only cargo and not people. The differences in all the other aircraft cited above are not in basic type (passenger vs cargo), but as to models within a single type as they all serve the same function as passenger airliners and not freighters. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I have to disagree. Pilot type ratings are required for the pilot to legally fly airliners of different types. In the US, the FAA designates various types of aircraft, which do require specific type ratings for their pilots. I believe the FAA designations are consistent with ICAO's recognition of those types.

What constitutes different “types” has mostly to do with the design of the cockpits, controls and the required pilot training for those types. If there is a high degree of commonality in such then the pilot needs only one type rating to fly different models of a family of planes. An example would be the B-767 and the B-757. The cockpits and training are almost identical, so one pilot can fly both models, while holding just one type rating which is good for both planes. On the other hand, the B-737-200 is so different in the cockpits and training, from the other versions of the B-737 (dash 300 thru 900 versions), that there is one type rating for the B-737-200, and another for all the other versions (which are “glass” cockpits).

An airliner that comes in a passenger version, or a “combi” version, or a freighter version, is just one type, as far as the pilot rating and training, if all the cockpits have that high degree of commonality. Thus, a MD-11 freighter is not a different type of aircraft, for pilot rating and training purposes, than the passenger model.

The differences between the A320-100 and the A320-200 were not huge at all. Same plane, same cockpit, same size. But, the -200 version had a higher ZFW and MAXATOG, which gave it longer range, even though they both carried about the same amount of passengers. Only one pilot type rating is required for all the versions of the A318, 319, 320 & the 321. It doesn't matter if they are passenger or freighter versions. All are the same type of aircraft.

The B-747-400 requires a separate type rating than the one required for the B-747-100, 200 & 300 versions, since the cockpits are totally different. Again, whether the planes are used for passengers or freight, has no relevance as to type designations and pilot type ratings. EditorASC (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you. I was misusing the term "type" (not thinking about its connection to "type ratings" when I used it) when I really meant and should have said "versions" and therein lies the confusion I think. I understand, for instance, that the cockpits in a DC-10 (three aircrew), and an MD-10 (two aircrew; "glass") are two quite different "types" even though they are quite similar in most other respects. They both also have passenger and freight ("F") "versions." (Centpacrr (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, your comments do make sense, when a word such as “version” is substituted for the word “type.”

You are correct about the DC-10 conversions to the MD-10. That one caused me great concern too, as they were initially going to have only one required type rating for the MD-10 and the MD-11, since their cockpits would be almost identical. But, as evident by the history of accidents on the MD-11, it flies much differently than the DC-10 or MD-10. Pilots who fly the MD-11 need lots of extra ground school and sim training, just to enable them to handle the very unique unstable pitch mode of the MD-11, which is apparently greatly exacerbated when gusting cross-winds are present during landing. EditorASC (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

http://airlinesafety.com/letters/Md10Md11.htm

http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/faq9.htm

Thanks for the note and links. I have read quite a bit about the MD-11 horizontal stabilizer overcontrol and instability issue (I had already seen the second link above) as well as the full NTSB report on the 1997 Newark FedEX MD-11F landing accident. The CCTV video that shows how fast the landing went sour in the FedEX Narita accident certainly seems to provide a sobering example thereof. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Regarding repetition of the 'F' throughout the article, my only thought is that, when someone uses a search engine, they get shown the words immediately surrounding their search term and use that to assess relevance for themselves. If they specify 'MD11F' (so as to filter out piles of MD11(pax) articles which are of no interest to them) then they will fail to receive hits on all the 'MD11(space)' entries in the Wiki article and it will get a low relevance score thanks to it having the 'F' appear only once. EatYerGreens (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ahead of the facts?

These statements seem a bit speculative since the investigation into the cause of the crash isn't complete and most of the facts are thus far unknown: "After making a hard landing on Runway 34L, the plane bounced three times coming back down on its nose gear first (a condition called "porpoising") resulting in the loss of directional and attitudinal control" and "The aircraft became destabilized at flare and touchdown resulting in an unrecovered "bounced" landing". Also, from the link it sounds like "porpoising" occurs when the plane initially touches down with its nose gear, which doesn't seem to be the case for FedEx Express flight 80. Does anybody agree? Lelavr (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing stated above is speculation, but is instead an objective description of the several accident events that can be clearly observed in the real time CCTV tape of the landing and crash linked in the footnotes. The plane makes an unambiguously hard landing (heavy tire smoke; bounces) with a visible total of three bounces coming down on its nose gear ("porpoising") accompanied by the loss of both directional (veers off the runway to the left) and attitudinal (inverts) control. The MD-11F is clearly destabilized during the bounced landing from which it does not recover (the plane crashes). The investigations will ultimately determine both the factors leading to, and causes for, these events, but these few basic observable elements of the accident described in the language above are all fully verified and supported by the already available real time CCTV video evidence of the accident. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

While I agree that it did make a hard landing, it is not valid to come to that conclusion from this type of offered “evidence”:

“The plane makes an unambiguously hard landing (heavy tire smoke; bounces)...”

Heavy tire smoke is caused by the tires being burned (reverted rubber) on the surface, simply because the tire is not in motion, when it first touches the runway while the plane's speed is in excess of 120 kts. That is a normal occurrence (heavy tire smoke) upon every landing of every airliner. The rate of descent of the plane, when it touches down for the first time, during the landing sequence, has no effect on the amount of smoke that the tires generate, when their surface rubber is reverted by high friction temperatures, that are instantly caused by the differential speeds of the tire and the plane itself. Thus, the amount of smoke visible from the tires, cannot be used as a valid indicator of the rate of descent at touchdown.

Also, it is possible for a plane to bounce after the first touchdown during landing, without the rate of descent being in excess of SOP standards. Thus, the fact that it bounced is not, in itself, a valid indicator of the rate of descent at touchdown. Bounces can be caused by excess flying speed at touchdown, in conjunction with the pilot inputing the wrong control movements, at the wrong time. Some types of airliners are much more likely to bounce, given those kinds of circumstances, than other types. EditorASC (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The tire smoke just seemed heavier than normal to me, but I agree I expressed that view much too firmly above. Your technical explanation is quite helpful to me in correcting my misconceptions about what can and cannot be drawn from that. I've read quite a bit about bounced landings (especially in the MD-11 type) and understand about the overly sensitive horizontal stabilizer design induced issues which can exacerbate them quickly to unrecoverable status. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

The JTSB have released a progress report. Details here. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources modified on FedEx Express Flight 80

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on FedEx Express Flight 80. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090327131759/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp:80/dy/national/20090324TDY01302.htm to http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20090324TDY01302.htm

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on FedEx Express Flight 80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606173033/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090324a1.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090324a1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506085016/http://www.asahi.com:80/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200903240088.html to http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200903240088.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327015413/http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp:80/e/fr/tnks/Nni20090323D23JF742.htm to http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/e/fr/tnks/Nni20090323D23JF742.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120217034823/http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=526FE&cmndfind.x=16&cmndfind.y=11 to http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=526FE&cmndfind.x=16&cmndfind.y=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326070116/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au:80/story/0,25197,25227602-12377,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25227602-12377,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)