UPS Plane Crash

[worldwide]

My comment uses the term "familiar ring" to it because FedEx operates the world's largest fleet of the one of the world's most dangerous aircraft, the MD11. Only the TU-154 gets lower marks for safety with a lot of pilots. The "Deathstar" (MD11) has killed a lot of pilots, but it's still in the air.

Incorrect. Using the data of Ascend London insurance consultancy, the MD-11 is #10 of the "most dangerous" aircraft on the basis of the air crash quantity with fatal outcome. The # 1 "most dangerous" aircraft (based purely on # of fatalities) is the Boeing 737 JT8D. # 2 and 3 are Russian aircraft, # 4 is the Airbus A310. Many Russian aircraft are sold to third world countries and pilot skill level is often not at Western standards. So, this study is flawed as it simply looks at passengers killed and not the reason for the crash. Most crashes happen due to pilot error and other flaws versus strictly mechanical issues (i.e. weather, ATC, etc.). Some planes are inherently more challenging to fly so an inexperienced crew may have issues with the aircraft while a more seasoned crew would not.

[/QUOTE]UPS is notoriously cheap when they spec aircraft. Their Boeing 767s are the most Spartan cargo versions ever built.[/QUOTE]

So by "notoriously cheap" you have data and links to back this up since being notorious is "publicly or generally known", there must be a wealth of information on this. How are UPS 767's outfitted tht differ from other cargo operators of 767's (not counting the brand new 767's that Fedex is getting to replace their ancient MD-10's?

Just this year, UPS spent millions by adding winglets to all 767's to increase the overall efficiency of the aircraft, saving fuel by reducing drag while also lowering noise emissions by improving take-off performance. Is that the "notoriously cheap" part you mentioned?

[/QUOTE]I don't know how the A300-600 was equipped.[/QUOTE]

And yet just a few sentences ago you said that "Their Boeing 767s are the most Spartan cargo versions ever built." So which is it?

[/QUOTE]Nobody knows what happened yet, but we do know that both UPS and FedEx will do almost anything to save time (and money), and flying a "hurry-up" approach into an airport with known terrain issues is both dangerous and foolhardy. It increasingly looks like they struck trees and/or terrain and that engines and everything else were fully functional.[/QUOTE]

So nobody knows what happened but you infer UPS somehow made the pilots perform this "hurry-up" approach? There are standard approach paths to every airport that Fedex, UPS and all major airlines use. The pilot in command is just that - the decisions the flight crew makes are their own. Did the UPS pilots follow the standard approach path for this particular runway on the morning of the accident? Time will tell. The pilots acknowledged that they had the airport in sight, the conditions were VFR but the aircraft struck trees nearly 3/4 of a mile from the end of the runway.

Regardless of the reasons, it was a tragic accident. Let's wait for the actual facts of the case to reveal themselves as opposed to using your "facts."

 

[MrFedEx]

Incorrect. Using the data of Ascend London insurance consultancy, the MD-11 is #10 of the "most dangerous" aircraft on the basis of the air crash quantity with fatal outcome. The # 1 "most dangerous" aircraft (based purely on # of fatalities) is the Boeing 737 JT8D. # 2 and 3 are Russian aircraft, # 4 is the Airbus A310. Many Russian aircraft are sold to third world countries and pilot skill level is often not at Western standards. So, this study is flawed as it simply looks at passengers killed and not the reason for the crash. Most crashes happen due to pilot error and other flaws versus strictly mechanical issues (i.e. weather, ATC, etc.). Some planes are inherently more challenging to fly so an inexperienced crew may have issues with the aircraft while a more seasoned crew would not.

UPS is notoriously cheap when they spec aircraft. Their Boeing 767s are the most Spartan cargo versions ever built.[/QUOTE]

So by "notoriously cheap" you have data and links to back this up since being notorious is "publicly or generally known", there must be a wealth of information on this. How are UPS 767's outfitted tht differ from other cargo operators of 767's (not counting the brand new 767's that Fedex is getting to replace their ancient MD-10's?

Just this year, UPS spent millions by adding winglets to all 767's to increase the overall efficiency of the aircraft, saving fuel by reducing drag while also lowering noise emissions by improving take-off performance. Is that the "notoriously cheap" part you mentioned?

[/QUOTE]I don't know how the A300-600 was equipped.[/QUOTE]

And yet just a few sentences ago you said that "Their Boeing 767s are the most Spartan cargo versions ever built." So which is it?

[/QUOTE]Nobody knows what happened yet, but we do know that both UPS and FedEx will do almost anything to save time (and money), and flying a "hurry-up" approach into an airport with known terrain issues is both dangerous and foolhardy. It increasingly looks like they struck trees and/or terrain and that engines and everything else were fully functional.[/QUOTE]

So nobody knows what happened but you infer UPS somehow made the pilots perform this "hurry-up" approach? There are standard approach paths to every airport that Fedex, UPS and all major airlines use. The pilot in command is just that - the decisions the flight crew makes are their own. Did the UPS pilots follow the standard approach path for this particular runway on the morning of the accident? Time will tell. The pilots acknowledged that they had the airport in sight, the conditions were VFR but the aircraft struck trees nearly 3/4 of a mile from the end of the runway.

Regardless of the reasons, it was a tragic accident. Let's wait for the actual facts of the case to reveal themselves as opposed to using your "facts."[/QUOTE]

You pointed it out yourself...the study is flawed. Please notice I said pilots. The MD11 is widely considered to be a very dangerous aircraft due to inherent design compromises. The TU-154 is simply a deathtrap. UPS added winglets after the 767's were in-service. As-delivered, they are the most Spartan group of 767's Boeing has ever produced. UPS was the launch customer for the 767F. The Boeing 737 is a very safe aircraft, and when you mention JT8D's, that means 100 and 200-series aircraft, which are probably in the hands of Third World operations. The A310 is also no longer a first-line aircraft in the First World.

Based on the rapid descent, the approach could very possibly considered "hurry-up". I mentioned that FedEx frequently does this too, and know from first-hand experience as a jumpseater. The 727 (out of service at FedEx) could drop a lot of altitude very quickly, but other aircraft may or may not have this ability. I've spent plenty of time in FedEx Airbuses, MD11's, DC10's, and MD10's, and have never experienced a "hurry-up" approach, except on the 727. I have never flown on a FedEx 757 or 777. This is not to say they aren't done in these aircraft, just that I have not personally been on one that had.

My post was opinions, just as your was. I agree that it was a tragic accident and would prefer to see it not be repeated.