16 ms·

UPS plane crashes near Louisville airport

421 points by jnsaff2 11mo ago

haunter 11mo ago
Video of the crash, left (?) engine was already engulfed in flames while taking off https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Edit: just the mp4 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/vid/avc1/540x720/-1ukL3Zhf7nPK1sd.mp4?tag=12 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/... There is an incredible amount of ground damage! Just wow, this is very bad https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976
- justsid 11mo ago
  The damage on the ground is scary to look at. I think the only silver lining here is that it was "just" a sparser industrial area and there weren't any homes. I'm really curious about what the investigation will reveal in a few months. This doesn't look like a "regular" engine fire from a bird strike or so, you would normally expect the flames to come out the back and not over the wing. And at least in theory the MD-11 should be flyable with just two engines, although flames on a wing is probably "really really bad" just by itself already. Too early to speculate about what happened though.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 11mo ago
    > And at least in theory the MD-11 should be flyable with just two engines Flying with two engines and taking off without an engine in a loaded aircraft are two very different things. A lot more thrust is needed during takeoff than after.
    - andy99 11mo ago
      I specifically remember watching a flight test doing an aggressive takeoff and having the voiceover say that aircraft (two engine) need to have enough power to take off full with one engine. And so can take off very steeply empty with two engines. Would that not also be the case for these planes?
      - justsid 11mo ago
        Yes, planes are designed to be able to take off with a lost engine. Usually this will extend the roll a bit because the speeds are different for engine out operations. This isn't the first MD-11 with an engine out take off, 5 years ago a FedEx MD-11 took off with a failure in the left engine[1]. Slightly different case, obviously, but it's certainly something that is accounted for when designing planes. [1] https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4dfd50b9&opt=0%20 https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4dfd50b9&opt=0%20
        bobthepanda 11mo ago
        That being said, depending on how you lose the engine it can really mess up the takeoff; AA191 was lost when an engine detached from the plane on takeoff and took out part of the wing and hydraulic system with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
        anonymars 11mo ago
        > when an engine detached from the plane on takeoff... https://imgur.com/a/NYlrLYO https://imgur.com/a/NYlrLYO https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/757091156717862935/1435446018098331648/Screenshot_2025-11-04_193907.png?ex=690bfec8&is=690aad48&hm=7a065142e6359edd8e41f00ed0bf70e18c1bdffef825d01ba209a16d893af4d7& https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/757091156717862935/14... Source: https://reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1ooms7t/ksdf_accident/nn5wrfh/ https://reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1ooms7t/ksdf_accident/n...
        rob74 11mo ago
  - roygbiv2 11mo ago
    Looks like a compressor stall on number two engine two seconds into the video.
    - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
      I don’t know, that looks like a lot more than just a stall. There was a ton of flame that looked like it was coming out of the front or top of the engine, rather than just something shooting out the back.
      - loeg 11mo ago
        I think you're looking at the left wing (number 1) engine; GP is talking about either the tail or right wing engine. (I think tail is number 2 on MD-11.) There's a brief explosion visible through the smoke at about 1-2 seconds in, to the right of the engine visibly on fire; that's probably what he's talking about. Freeze frame: https://imgur.com/a/c3h8Qd3 https://imgur.com/a/c3h8Qd3
        FabHK 11mo ago
        And having 2 out of 3 engines fail (or underperform) would explain the insufficient climb thrust.
        loeg 11mo ago
        Right!
        appreciatorBus 11mo ago
        Yup makes sense. Now seeing photos of the entire left engine on the ground by the runway and the implication that however it failed it might have damaged the tail engine.
        positron26 11mo ago
        Agree, looks like an engine disruption. The rotation already exacerbates the flow into that engine. Change in flow geometry gets more smoke in its way when it's already eating turbulent air. We don't know if it just had a disruption or a full-blown stall, but give the way it made it to takeoff speed and then just gave out, stall seems likely.
  - JCM9 11mo ago
    Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industrial would be permitted while residential and commercial use is not. Scarily there are communities that have ignored such logic and permitted dense residential development right next to an airport.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
      > Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people Queens, NY has entered the chat…
      - globular-toast 11mo ago
        Some of the larger townships in Cape Town are right in the flight path too. Not many white people there either.
      - chronciger 11mo ago
        >Queens, NY has entered the chat… You’re correct, but at least LaGuardia airport generally has takeoffs over water. LaGuardia aircraft landings may happen over dense apartment buildings, but less likely for catastrophic damage (glide path, less fuel, engines are <10% throttle, etc)
        ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
        It also has JFK, on the South side.
    - Thorrez 11mo ago
      Probably also due to noise.
      - SilasX 11mo ago
        Yeah I was going to say, that sounds like a much more salient reason not to live near an airport than the possibility of that rare crash.
  - imglorp 11mo ago
    An accident on takeoff means full tanks - some 38000 gallons(?) spread along the site like a napalm strike.
    - wlesieutre 11mo ago
      A particularly large amount of fuel because it was flying to Honolulu
      - WorldMaker 11mo ago
        A particularly large amount of fuel also because it was loaded with heavy cargo intended to make it all the way to Honolulu.
  - alchemism 11mo ago
    The ground damage in the recent North Philadelphia Airport crash was only due to a chartered jet, but it practically wiped out a residential city block.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- anonymars 11mo ago
  The second video here shows an incredibly close view of the impact from a nearby dashcam. https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explodes-while-taking-off-from-louisvilles-airport/article_9fe53459-c8a1-441a-b576-7954f1bfedcd.html https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explode... > There is an incredible amount of ground damage! It's fortunate it wasn't taking off the other direction, towards the adjacent downtown of Louisville (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+Airport/@38.1792845,-85.7617048,11670m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88690dc8ba633a81:0x3a065c1a65f01bf5!8m2!3d38.1706549!4d-85.7307673!16zL20vMDFuNTVj?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+A...)
  - rodface 11mo ago
    That is an incredible video.
  - The_President 11mo ago
    News site - video obfuscated.
    - anonymars 11mo ago
      I would say it's easy to see the list of videos with no undue nonsense, the list is augmented as new footage is available, it contains more context on the accident (also augmented with subsequent information), and the local news deserves the traffic more than twitter
      - The_President 11mo ago
        Linking to raw video directly is a more efficient use of time.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
  - caminanteblanco 11mo ago
- guerrilla 11mo ago
  Oh wow...
- tonmoy 11mo ago
  From what I read they engine caught fire right after they hit V1, so basically the only option was to take off and solve the problem in the air
digdugdirk 11mo ago
[flagged]
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  Likely no impact. It was departing with ~75 tonnes of fuel and suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure. https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/ups-md-11-crashes-departing-louisville/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/majo...
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    > suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure But was un-discoverable? Or un-preventable? Seems plane inspectors and safety-related roles were affected and have been furloughed: > But for the people involved in inspecting our planes to ensure they follow Federal Aviation Administration safety standards, the situation is more complicated. While principal aviation inspectors were told to keep working, assistant-level inspectors and other support staff were sent home and then had to be recalled. https://archive.ph/rEpTx https://archive.ph/rEpTx
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - alephnerd 11mo ago
      The maintenance and inspection tends to be done by MROs, and any institutional issue within UPS's MRO would have been identified before the shutdown by the FAA and other regulators. But based on your comment history, you aren't from the US, have not ever visited America, do not care to visit America, and haven't interacted with Americans, so I doubt you have on the ground experience with the US. But that also leads to the question of why you even care to comment on our affairs if you dislike us to such a degree.
    - avalys 11mo ago
      Of course it was not unpreventable, though it might turn out that preventing it would have been unreasonably expensive. But, the FAA inspectors are not responsible for making sure planes are safe to fly. They are responsible for making sure the people whose job that actually is, are doing their jobs effectively. That’s a critical difference. It’s UPS maintenance personnel who are responsible for making sure that UPS planes are safe to fly. Yes, it’s possible that there is some institutional failure at UPS, that could have been caught if FAA inspectors were working in the past 30 days, but this isn’t the most likely scenario, and the root cause and responsibility (in this hypothetical) would still lie with UPS and not the FAA and the shutdown.
octaane 11mo ago
This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario. Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else, instead of go beyond the runway at that speed. Accelerating a fully loaded jet plane at ground level beyond the runway has obvious consequences. They had one choice. Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by before this, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground like a mousetrap by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over. Physics took over. Plane flipped and rolled upon loss of port wing, smearing a rolling fireball of the remaining fuel load from the starboard wing for another half a mile. Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Respect to the flight crew; rest in peace, they made the best they could out of a really shitty scenario. They flew it all the way down. Footage: https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46
- gizmo686 11mo ago
  > they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.
  - 11mo ago
octaane 11mo ago
This is probably the worst way a plane could go down. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario. Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else. Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by then, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over. Plane flipped, continued to smear half of the fuel load for another half a mile. Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Footage: https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46
- loeg 11mo ago
  > They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. To know this, they would have to know they had lost multiple engines. Clearly this is the case by the end, but it's not clear who realized what at what time. The NTSB investigation will bring more light.
  - octaane 11mo ago
    Agreed, only the NTSB investigation will provide a full account. But if you look at where they were on the runway, they had passed V1.
1970-01-01 11mo ago
[Off-topic] >The police department also urged those in the area to turn off any air intake systems as soon as possible due to the smoke in the area. Excellent edge-case for IFTTT thermostat. Localized air quality alert --> Intake offline.
- hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
  LLM reading the news could do this too!
  - SpaghettiCthulu 11mo ago
    You really want an LLM hallucinating that everything is ok and turning your air back on? Or hallucinating that everything was always ok and not turning your air off in the first place?
    - hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
      Hallucinate off is fine then send message to me with decision criteria.
kirykl 11mo ago
Side view https://x.com/TexasHodlerMom/status/1985870817133985970 https://x.com/TexasHodlerMom/status/1985870817133985970
pseingatl 11mo ago
Another DC-10/MD-11 crash. Does UPS perform their own engine maintenance, or do they outsource the work? What is the effect of the recent layoff of 40,000 and the current cost-cutting project?
- jacquesm 11mo ago
  Maybe wait with the judgements until the report is in? There are so many possible reasons why this could have happened that have nothing to do with the two items you listed (though it maybe that it does, it is just a bit pointless to assign blame before you know what the cause of the accident was).
  - bombcar 11mo ago
    I mean the engine is laying on the side of the runway and the plane is seen on fire trying to take off; I'm going to go out on a limb and say maintenance was somehow involved. Well-maintained planes don't do that.
    - hypercube33 11mo ago
      There has been at least one crash due to manufacturing defects that no one knew about beforehand or could therefore diagnose. We will find out what happened in about a year once the investigation is complete.
      - jacquesm 11mo ago
        Phase of flight is a major contributor to accident statistics with take-off and landing much more often associated with accidents than the rest of the flight. Take-off asks a lot from the engines, and one nasty bit about manufacturing defects is that they can take a while to show up, but the bulk of them usually surfaces when the aircraft are relatively new. But: this plane was delayed before the flight due to maintenance on engine #1, so that's the first place where I would start looking for issues without any kind of judgment beforehand on what you would expect to find. And that's the main issue with that comment, it assumes a conclusion, that's not how these investigations work because then you might miss the actual cause. And given how critical these machines are it doesn't take much. All it takes is a single, tiny mistake. The really bad luck here is that it seems as though the failure of engine #1 took the center engine right along with it. That's one of the issues with that particular design, if you have debris from one of the forward engines it could easily get ingested by the rear mounted one.
blueflow 11mo ago
https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=1 https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=1
Cortex5936 11mo ago
[flagged]
metalman 11mo ago
that the engine tore off meakes the likelyhood of significant damage to critical flight control systems quite high, any such damage would have been asymetric and counteracting forces inducing a roll may have been impossible. you know they tried
cjrp 11mo ago
The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things, rather than MSM: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0 > Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run, the center engine emitted streaks of flames, the aircraft impacted a UPS warehouse and ploughed through other facilities before coming to rest in a large plume of fire and smoke.
- Hendrikto 11mo ago
  https://archive.is/cdKm0 https://archive.is/cdKm0 My IP was blocked, for some reason.
  - nielsbot 11mo ago
    You mean AV Herald? The site says you can't use a relay service to access it. For example, Apple Private Relay.
- mrb 11mo ago
  Oh woah, very insightful discussion thread you found there. So the tl'dr is: the leading very preliminary theory is that the MD-11's left engine fell off the wing just like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 (a DC-10, the immediate predecessor of the MD-11) which was caused by maintenance errors weakening the pylon structure holding the engine.
  - rob74 11mo ago
    This video from an aviation youtuber contains a picture of the engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q2ORhIQQc&t=526s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q2ORhIQQc&t=526s (the video itself is also worth watching in full IMHO). What strikes me as odd is that this looks like the "naked" engine, without the cowling/nacelle that usually surrounds it? Anyway, if an engine departs the aircraft shortly after (last-minute) maintenance was performed on it, that's indeed suspicious...
ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
I didn’t realize the MD-11 was still in use. It has had a difficult time in passenger aviation. Looks really nasty. It seems to have come down in an industrial area, which will significantly reduce casualties. I can’t even imagine this, in a residential area.
- kmarc 11mo ago
  Happened in the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 40+ people died in that one, it's a miracle it wasn't more.
  - hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
    Unrelated but this was interesting: > It departed from runway 01L Zwanenburgbaan (now known as runway 36C) Magnetic field change?
    - russdill 11mo ago
      Yes, see relevant cgp grey video
- russdill 11mo ago
  I had just seen and admired a UPS MD-11 making it's climbing turn after takeoff from ONT earlier that day. They are quite capable and a beautiful aircraft.
- PrairieFire 11mo ago
  I think it's fair to say the MD11 has had a difficult time, but I would caveat that it performs well for an aircraft of its vintage, and is still an acceptably safe aircraft. There have been something in the neighborhood of 2.4 million successful missions completed with the MD11, and around 12 hull losses with fatalities, around 14 hull losses total, over the 35 years the MD11 has been flying. Yes, it's below average compared to modern wide bodies (a330, a350, newer 777/787) which are incredibly (truly incredible to me) safe. I do expect this incident will accelerate the retirement of the balance of the fleet that is still flying and the MD11 will complete its disappearance from the skies in the US before the end of the decade.
quantumVale33 11mo ago
Early reports suggest the left engine separated during takeoff after maintenance work earlier that day. It’s a tragic reminder of how even small mechanical issues can turn catastrophic in seconds. Hope the NTSB can clarify what went wrong to prevent future accidents.
neonate 11mo ago
https://archive.is/cdKm0 https://archive.is/cdKm0
bob1029 11mo ago
It looks like they also lost the tail engine in the video. Debris from the left engine probably took it out. It seems like it happened fairly late in the sequence. Not sure how much of a difference it would have made.
ferguess_k 11mo ago
From wikipedia, Boeing stopped producing MD-11 since 2,000. Does that mean any MD-11 flying is at least 25 years old? I know 25-year is not particularly old for aircrafts, but MD-11 is not exactly reliable. Is there any reason UPS is flying these planes?
- geoffeg 11mo ago
  Airframes have a limited lifetime, partially defined by takeoffs and landings (and pressurization cycles). Cargo planes experience fewer cycles than passenger airlines since cargo carriers' aircraft usually only make a one or two flights a day, whereas passenger aircraft a flown back to back as frequently as possible. Historically, cargo carriers would buy used aircraft and convert them, but that's changing.
  - ferguess_k 11mo ago
    Thanks for the explanation. I'll see if I can find some data on cargo planes.
  - fransje26 11mo ago
    The gist is correct, but the subtleties are hiding in the details. Wide-body (long-haul) airplanes are generally limited by flying hours since they rarely reach their maximum allowed flight cycles. In contrast, wide-body cargo planes typically fly shorter legs compared to when they are used as passenger carriers. And as a result, they are much more likely to hit their critical cycle limit.
  - pacoWebConsult 11mo ago
    This particular aircraft was acquired by UPS in 2006 and converted for cargo missions. It was originally delivered as a passenger aircraft to Thai Airways International in 1991. [1] I actually saw this exact aircraft at RDU International in August of this year and took a photo, since tri-engine aircraft in general are not very common these days. [1]: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/ups-md-11-crashes-departing-louisville/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/majo...
sys32768 11mo ago
In 1986, I lived a mile or so from where a mid-air collision sent a DC-9 crashing into a neighborhood, which killed 15 people on the ground: https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/08/30/cerritos-plane-crash-30-years-ago-you-either-died-or-you-didnt/ https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/08/30/cerritos-plane-cras... Every time I board a plane, I think what a crazy thing I am doing, but then I remember that I could be safe and snug in my house and still be in a plane crash.
- dmd 11mo ago
  > Every time I board a plane, I think what a crazy thing I am doing, but then I remember that I could be safe and snug in my house To be fair, statistically, your living room is far more dangerous than the cabin of an airplane.
  - coddingtonbear 11mo ago
    Forgive me, but by what possible metric: miles traveled in it?
    - dmd 11mo ago
      Given an hour spent flying in a commercial US-flagged airliner or an hour spent in your living room, and you're (far) more likely to get hurt or die in your living room.
      - watwut 11mo ago
        Is that actual statistic?
        rogerrogerr 11mo ago
        Airliners are hilariously safe. One of my favorite stats is that it’s the second safest form of transportation per passenger mile (elevators win).
throwmeaway307 11mo ago
[flagged]
- advisedwang 11mo ago
  Care to link to a source of those reports?
usermac 11mo ago
Relative of mine is a real estate agent in the Louisville area. This year she sold two homes to two UPS pilots. One of them, his first day was yesterday. The day of the crash. He was bumped from that very flight.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  From my understanding "bumped" means removed? Jesus I wonder how he feels right now. It's like a lottery.
  - tclancy 11mo ago
    "You take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan." - Shirley Jackson
    - hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
      Yes this pilot knows he avoided death. Whereas everyone else may have "got lucky" without realising. Every crash you drive past on the motorway for example!
junaid_q 11mo ago
the fact that stuff like this still happens (despite the relatively low probability/ incident rate) is truly mind boggling. the acceptability threshold for this need to be lower
yalestar 11mo ago
This really reminded me of a colleague who had a part-time night job flying cancelled checks from Centennial Airport (KAPA, south of Denver) to SLC. A bunch of us went out to lunch on a Friday in December 2005. That night, on his return to KAPA, he crashed his Mitsubishi MU-2 about a mile short of the runway. He and his co-pilot were gone, just like that. On Monday you could see the wreckage and cleanup from our office which was near the airport. It was so surreal.
- HaZeust 11mo ago
  KAPA is a beautiful airport too, and its restaurant "Perfect Landing" on the second floor is S-tier. I've never heard about this case there, though. Do you have a flight number?
  - yalestar 11mo ago
    I don't have a flight number, but here's an archived news article of the incident. https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/13/19866420/model-of-plane-that-crashed-near-denver-has-fatal-history/ https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/13/19866420/model-of-plane-t... Oh I guess it was 2004, not 2005. Yes, Perfect Landing is a great restaurant!
SamuelAdams 11mo ago
It does make me wonder: why are aircraft takeoffs and landings not recorded more often, with higher quality cameras and more angles? If I can watch an NFL replay in 4k a few seconds after the ball is snapped, why not record (and overwrite) all flights that take off and land at every airport? Like a dash cam, they can save the footage only if there is a problem. Surely that would be much better than splicing together many third party camera recordings.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- lesuorac 11mo ago
  Have you seen dash cam footage? High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive.
  - ProllyInfamous 11mo ago
    >High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive. This is absolutely archaic thinking. Reminds me of when I worked in data centers, pre-Snowden, and the official position on recording was how could we possible afford enough hard drives to store everything?!.
- njovin 11mo ago
  Most frequently the actions/evidence that lead to a crash would not be captured on airport-located cameras. The holes in the swiss cheese usually start lining up either in the maintenance hangar, en route, or in the briefing room, not on the runway. The NTSB (and many of their non-US counterparts) are incredibly adept at accident investigation using debris, black boxes and CVRs. Even in cases where the black boxes are damaged and video evidence is available, the video evidence is usually not so helpful as to be able to determine a root cause. If you take into account that the cameras would be mostly useless in low-light or poor visibility conditions, and the costs associated with maintaining a nationwide network of high-res cameras that cover all runways at all major commercial airports (and ensures their lines of sight and operation through the never-ending renovations going on at these airports), I'm not sure that the benefits of having the cameras make sense.
ekelsen 11mo ago
Is V1 recalculated based on the runway length at each airport / loading of the plane / etc.? If you have a long runway and a long runout, you have a much higher V1 than a short runway with tall clearance right at the end, right?
- john-h-k 11mo ago
  Yes
mmooss 11mo ago
One AVHerald comment, by a tech who works on the same kind of engine that fell off, says, > I pray they did not use a forklift for the installation of the engine, onwing. Does anyone understand that? Why wouldn't you use a forklift? Why would that lead to an engine falling off? It seems like you'd need to support the 10,000 lbs engine somehow when reattaching it.
- theultdev 11mo ago
  That's referring to American Airlines Flight 191 (May 25, 1979). https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N110AA https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid... I watch a lot of airplane disasters. TLDR: you are supposed to properly disassemble and use a proper lift to lower the engine, not shove it in with a fork lift (even though it's quicker). I don't think this was the cause of this accident though, the engine was on fire before takeoff. Not an airplane engineer, but I very much doubt anyone has used a forklift to install an engine since 191. Procedures got much more strict.
  - mmooss 11mo ago
    Thanks.
Jean-Papoulos 11mo ago
> Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run Some people are gonna have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Not putting blame on humans here, but hopefully this triggers a tightening of procedures, as these kind of tragedies tend to.
rurban 11mo ago
This was a McDonnell Douglas MD-11, and everybody knows since their failing engineering taking over good engineering at Boeing (in fact MD management took over Boeing Seattle and moved it away), suddenly made their new planes fall from the skies.
globalzhituilyy 11mo ago
[dead]
globalzhituilyy 11mo ago
[dead]
globalzhituilyy 11mo ago
[dead]

421 points by jnsaff2 11mo ago

Video of the crash, left (?) engine was already engulfed in flames while taking off https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://xcancel.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 Edit: just the mp4 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/vid/avc1/540x720/-1ukL3Zhf7nPK1sd.mp4?tag=12 https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1985845862409334784/pu/... There is an incredible amount of ground damage! Just wow, this is very bad https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg https://files.catbox.moe/3303ob.jpg

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976
justsid 11mo ago
The damage on the ground is scary to look at. I think the only silver lining here is that it was "just" a sparser industrial area and there weren't any homes. I'm really curious about what the investigation will reveal in a few months. This doesn't look like a "regular" engine fire from a bird strike or so, you would normally expect the flames to come out the back and not over the wing. And at least in theory the MD-11 should be flyable with just two engines, although flames on a wing is probably "really really bad" just by itself already. Too early to speculate about what happened though.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- Jtsummers 11mo ago
  > And at least in theory the MD-11 should be flyable with just two engines Flying with two engines and taking off without an engine in a loaded aircraft are two very different things. A lot more thrust is needed during takeoff than after.
  - andy99 11mo ago
    I specifically remember watching a flight test doing an aggressive takeoff and having the voiceover say that aircraft (two engine) need to have enough power to take off full with one engine. And so can take off very steeply empty with two engines. Would that not also be the case for these planes?
    - justsid 11mo ago
      Yes, planes are designed to be able to take off with a lost engine. Usually this will extend the roll a bit because the speeds are different for engine out operations. This isn't the first MD-11 with an engine out take off, 5 years ago a FedEx MD-11 took off with a failure in the left engine[1]. Slightly different case, obviously, but it's certainly something that is accounted for when designing planes. [1] https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4dfd50b9&opt=0%20 https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4dfd50b9&opt=0%20
      - bobthepanda 11mo ago
        That being said, depending on how you lose the engine it can really mess up the takeoff; AA191 was lost when an engine detached from the plane on takeoff and took out part of the wing and hydraulic system with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
        anonymars 11mo ago
        > when an engine detached from the plane on takeoff... https://imgur.com/a/NYlrLYO https://imgur.com/a/NYlrLYO https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/757091156717862935/1435446018098331648/Screenshot_2025-11-04_193907.png?ex=690bfec8&is=690aad48&hm=7a065142e6359edd8e41f00ed0bf70e18c1bdffef825d01ba209a16d893af4d7& https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/757091156717862935/14... Source: https://reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1ooms7t/ksdf_accident/nn5wrfh/ https://reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1ooms7t/ksdf_accident/n...
      - rob74 11mo ago
- roygbiv2 11mo ago
  Looks like a compressor stall on number two engine two seconds into the video.
  - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
    I don’t know, that looks like a lot more than just a stall. There was a ton of flame that looked like it was coming out of the front or top of the engine, rather than just something shooting out the back.
    - loeg 11mo ago
      I think you're looking at the left wing (number 1) engine; GP is talking about either the tail or right wing engine. (I think tail is number 2 on MD-11.) There's a brief explosion visible through the smoke at about 1-2 seconds in, to the right of the engine visibly on fire; that's probably what he's talking about. Freeze frame: https://imgur.com/a/c3h8Qd3 https://imgur.com/a/c3h8Qd3
      - FabHK 11mo ago
        And having 2 out of 3 engines fail (or underperform) would explain the insufficient climb thrust.
        loeg 11mo ago
        Right!
      - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
        Yup makes sense. Now seeing photos of the entire left engine on the ground by the runway and the implication that however it failed it might have damaged the tail engine.
      - positron26 11mo ago
        Agree, looks like an engine disruption. The rotation already exacerbates the flow into that engine. Change in flow geometry gets more smoke in its way when it's already eating turbulent air. We don't know if it just had a disruption or a full-blown stall, but give the way it made it to takeoff speed and then just gave out, stall seems likely.
- JCM9 11mo ago
  Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people, precisely to limit casualties during an event like this. Industrial would be permitted while residential and commercial use is not. Scarily there are communities that have ignored such logic and permitted dense residential development right next to an airport.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
    > Zoning guidance generally prohibits land use near an airport that has a high density of people Queens, NY has entered the chat…
    - globular-toast 11mo ago
      Some of the larger townships in Cape Town are right in the flight path too. Not many white people there either.
    - chronciger 11mo ago
      >Queens, NY has entered the chat… You’re correct, but at least LaGuardia airport generally has takeoffs over water. LaGuardia aircraft landings may happen over dense apartment buildings, but less likely for catastrophic damage (glide path, less fuel, engines are <10% throttle, etc)
      - ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago
        It also has JFK, on the South side.
  - Thorrez 11mo ago
    Probably also due to noise.
    - SilasX 11mo ago
      Yeah I was going to say, that sounds like a much more salient reason not to live near an airport than the possibility of that rare crash.
- imglorp 11mo ago
  An accident on takeoff means full tanks - some 38000 gallons(?) spread along the site like a napalm strike.
  - wlesieutre 11mo ago
    A particularly large amount of fuel because it was flying to Honolulu
    - WorldMaker 11mo ago
      A particularly large amount of fuel also because it was loaded with heavy cargo intended to make it all the way to Honolulu.
- alchemism 11mo ago
  The ground damage in the recent North Philadelphia Airport crash was only due to a chartered jet, but it practically wiped out a residential city block.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
anonymars 11mo ago
The second video here shows an incredibly close view of the impact from a nearby dashcam. https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explodes-while-taking-off-from-louisvilles-airport/article_9fe53459-c8a1-441a-b576-7954f1bfedcd.html https://www.wdrb.com/news/ups-plane-catches-fire-and-explode... > There is an incredible amount of ground damage! It's fortunate it wasn't taking off the other direction, towards the adjacent downtown of Louisville (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+Airport/@38.1792845,-85.7617048,11670m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88690dc8ba633a81:0x3a065c1a65f01bf5!8m2!3d38.1706549!4d-85.7307673!16zL20vMDFuNTVj?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTEwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D https://www.google.com/maps/place/Louisville+International+A...)
- rodface 11mo ago
  That is an incredible video.
- The_President 11mo ago
  News site - video obfuscated.
  - anonymars 11mo ago
    I would say it's easy to see the list of videos with no undue nonsense, the list is augmented as new footage is available, it contains more context on the accident (also augmented with subsequent information), and the local news deserves the traffic more than twitter
    - The_President 11mo ago
      Linking to raw video directly is a more efficient use of time.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
- caminanteblanco 11mo ago
guerrilla 11mo ago
Oh wow...
tonmoy 11mo ago
From what I read they engine caught fire right after they hit V1, so basically the only option was to take off and solve the problem in the air

digdugdirk 11mo ago

[flagged]

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
Likely no impact. It was departing with ~75 tonnes of fuel and suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure. https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/ups-md-11-crashes-departing-louisville/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/majo...
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  > suffered an unrecoverable mechanical failure But was un-discoverable? Or un-preventable? Seems plane inspectors and safety-related roles were affected and have been furloughed: > But for the people involved in inspecting our planes to ensure they follow Federal Aviation Administration safety standards, the situation is more complicated. While principal aviation inspectors were told to keep working, assistant-level inspectors and other support staff were sent home and then had to be recalled. https://archive.ph/rEpTx https://archive.ph/rEpTx
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - alephnerd 11mo ago
    The maintenance and inspection tends to be done by MROs, and any institutional issue within UPS's MRO would have been identified before the shutdown by the FAA and other regulators. But based on your comment history, you aren't from the US, have not ever visited America, do not care to visit America, and haven't interacted with Americans, so I doubt you have on the ground experience with the US. But that also leads to the question of why you even care to comment on our affairs if you dislike us to such a degree.
  - avalys 11mo ago
    Of course it was not unpreventable, though it might turn out that preventing it would have been unreasonably expensive. But, the FAA inspectors are not responsible for making sure planes are safe to fly. They are responsible for making sure the people whose job that actually is, are doing their jobs effectively. That’s a critical difference. It’s UPS maintenance personnel who are responsible for making sure that UPS planes are safe to fly. Yes, it’s possible that there is some institutional failure at UPS, that could have been caught if FAA inspectors were working in the past 30 days, but this isn’t the most likely scenario, and the root cause and responsibility (in this hypothetical) would still lie with UPS and not the FAA and the shutdown.

octaane 11mo ago

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down in terms of damage caused. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario. Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else, instead of go beyond the runway at that speed. Accelerating a fully loaded jet plane at ground level beyond the runway has obvious consequences. They had one choice. Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by before this, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground like a mousetrap by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over. Physics took over. Plane flipped and rolled upon loss of port wing, smearing a rolling fireball of the remaining fuel load from the starboard wing for another half a mile. Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Respect to the flight crew; rest in peace, they made the best they could out of a really shitty scenario. They flew it all the way down. Footage: https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46

gizmo686 11mo ago
> they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level Do runways have some sort of barrier between them and the next "important" thing. It seems like that would be prudent both for cases like this, and breaking failures following landings.
- 11mo ago

octaane 11mo ago

This is probably the worst way a plane could go down. Maximum effect in term of damage. Cargo plane apparently reached V1 (go/no go speed) on the runway, and suffered a catastrophic engine failure. They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. Engine was shedding large debris, including the housing (!!!) which is a shrapnel shield. They were on fire just as they reached V1. Plane was fully loaded with 38,000 LB of fuel for 12 hour flight to hawaii. Worst case scenario. Pilots did the heroic thing - they tried to take off instead of accelerate past the runway at ground level at 160 MPH to minimize collateral damage (highway and warehouses at the end of the runway) and crash and die somewhere else. Instead, they clipped the UPS factory because they were so low, they tried to clear it but did not. Plane then hit the ground port wing down, shearing it off entirely, smearing a fireball of jet fuel across half a mile (not an exaggeration) before the plane flipped. Crew were likely dead by then, footage shows the cockpit being slammed into the ground by the flip once the port wing was gone and gravity took the starboard wing over. Plane flipped, continued to smear half of the fuel load for another half a mile. Louisville is now a firestorm as a result. Footage: https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1985845987684855969?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985849267152699741?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985848132500885995?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46 https://x.com/faytuksnetwork/status/1985843126934614297?s=46

loeg 11mo ago
> They passed V1, so they knew they were going down. To know this, they would have to know they had lost multiple engines. Clearly this is the case by the end, but it's not clear who realized what at what time. The NTSB investigation will bring more light.
- octaane 11mo ago
  Agreed, only the NTSB investigation will provide a full account. But if you look at where they were on the runway, they had passed V1.

1970-01-01 11mo ago

[Off-topic] >The police department also urged those in the area to turn off any air intake systems as soon as possible due to the smoke in the area. Excellent edge-case for IFTTT thermostat. Localized air quality alert --> Intake offline.

hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
LLM reading the news could do this too!
- SpaghettiCthulu 11mo ago
  You really want an LLM hallucinating that everything is ok and turning your air back on? Or hallucinating that everything was always ok and not turning your air off in the first place?
  - hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
    Hallucinate off is fine then send message to me with decision criteria.

kirykl 11mo ago

Side view https://x.com/TexasHodlerMom/status/1985870817133985970 https://x.com/TexasHodlerMom/status/1985870817133985970

pseingatl 11mo ago

Another DC-10/MD-11 crash. Does UPS perform their own engine maintenance, or do they outsource the work? What is the effect of the recent layoff of 40,000 and the current cost-cutting project?

jacquesm 11mo ago
Maybe wait with the judgements until the report is in? There are so many possible reasons why this could have happened that have nothing to do with the two items you listed (though it maybe that it does, it is just a bit pointless to assign blame before you know what the cause of the accident was).
- bombcar 11mo ago
  I mean the engine is laying on the side of the runway and the plane is seen on fire trying to take off; I'm going to go out on a limb and say maintenance was somehow involved. Well-maintained planes don't do that.
  - hypercube33 11mo ago
    There has been at least one crash due to manufacturing defects that no one knew about beforehand or could therefore diagnose. We will find out what happened in about a year once the investigation is complete.
    - jacquesm 11mo ago
      Phase of flight is a major contributor to accident statistics with take-off and landing much more often associated with accidents than the rest of the flight. Take-off asks a lot from the engines, and one nasty bit about manufacturing defects is that they can take a while to show up, but the bulk of them usually surfaces when the aircraft are relatively new. But: this plane was delayed before the flight due to maintenance on engine #1, so that's the first place where I would start looking for issues without any kind of judgment beforehand on what you would expect to find. And that's the main issue with that comment, it assumes a conclusion, that's not how these investigations work because then you might miss the actual cause. And given how critical these machines are it doesn't take much. All it takes is a single, tiny mistake. The really bad luck here is that it seems as though the failure of engine #1 took the center engine right along with it. That's one of the issues with that particular design, if you have debris from one of the forward engines it could easily get ingested by the rear mounted one.

blueflow 11mo ago

https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=1 https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=1

Cortex5936 11mo ago

[flagged]

metalman 11mo ago

that the engine tore off meakes the likelyhood of significant damage to critical flight control systems quite high, any such damage would have been asymetric and counteracting forces inducing a roll may have been impossible. you know they tried

cjrp 11mo ago

The AVHerald is usually the best source for these things, rather than MSM: https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0 https://avherald.com/h?article=52f5748f&opt=0 > Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run, the center engine emitted streaks of flames, the aircraft impacted a UPS warehouse and ploughed through other facilities before coming to rest in a large plume of fire and smoke.

Hendrikto 11mo ago
https://archive.is/cdKm0 https://archive.is/cdKm0 My IP was blocked, for some reason.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  You mean AV Herald? The site says you can't use a relay service to access it. For example, Apple Private Relay.
mrb 11mo ago
Oh woah, very insightful discussion thread you found there. So the tl'dr is: the leading very preliminary theory is that the MD-11's left engine fell off the wing just like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 (a DC-10, the immediate predecessor of the MD-11) which was caused by maintenance errors weakening the pylon structure holding the engine.
- rob74 11mo ago
  This video from an aviation youtuber contains a picture of the engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q2ORhIQQc&t=526s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4q2ORhIQQc&t=526s (the video itself is also worth watching in full IMHO). What strikes me as odd is that this looks like the "naked" engine, without the cowling/nacelle that usually surrounds it? Anyway, if an engine departs the aircraft shortly after (last-minute) maintenance was performed on it, that's indeed suspicious...

ChrisMarshallNY 11mo ago

I didn’t realize the MD-11 was still in use. It has had a difficult time in passenger aviation. Looks really nasty. It seems to have come down in an industrial area, which will significantly reduce casualties. I can’t even imagine this, in a residential area.

kmarc 11mo ago
Happened in the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862 40+ people died in that one, it's a miracle it wasn't more.
- hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
  Unrelated but this was interesting: > It departed from runway 01L Zwanenburgbaan (now known as runway 36C) Magnetic field change?
  - russdill 11mo ago
    Yes, see relevant cgp grey video
russdill 11mo ago
I had just seen and admired a UPS MD-11 making it's climbing turn after takeoff from ONT earlier that day. They are quite capable and a beautiful aircraft.
PrairieFire 11mo ago
I think it's fair to say the MD11 has had a difficult time, but I would caveat that it performs well for an aircraft of its vintage, and is still an acceptably safe aircraft. There have been something in the neighborhood of 2.4 million successful missions completed with the MD11, and around 12 hull losses with fatalities, around 14 hull losses total, over the 35 years the MD11 has been flying. Yes, it's below average compared to modern wide bodies (a330, a350, newer 777/787) which are incredibly (truly incredible to me) safe. I do expect this incident will accelerate the retirement of the balance of the fleet that is still flying and the MD11 will complete its disappearance from the skies in the US before the end of the decade.

quantumVale33 11mo ago

Early reports suggest the left engine separated during takeoff after maintenance work earlier that day. It’s a tragic reminder of how even small mechanical issues can turn catastrophic in seconds. Hope the NTSB can clarify what went wrong to prevent future accidents.

neonate 11mo ago

https://archive.is/cdKm0 https://archive.is/cdKm0

bob1029 11mo ago

It looks like they also lost the tail engine in the video. Debris from the left engine probably took it out. It seems like it happened fairly late in the sequence. Not sure how much of a difference it would have made.

ferguess_k 11mo ago

From wikipedia, Boeing stopped producing MD-11 since 2,000. Does that mean any MD-11 flying is at least 25 years old? I know 25-year is not particularly old for aircrafts, but MD-11 is not exactly reliable. Is there any reason UPS is flying these planes?

geoffeg 11mo ago
Airframes have a limited lifetime, partially defined by takeoffs and landings (and pressurization cycles). Cargo planes experience fewer cycles than passenger airlines since cargo carriers' aircraft usually only make a one or two flights a day, whereas passenger aircraft a flown back to back as frequently as possible. Historically, cargo carriers would buy used aircraft and convert them, but that's changing.
- ferguess_k 11mo ago
  Thanks for the explanation. I'll see if I can find some data on cargo planes.
- fransje26 11mo ago
  The gist is correct, but the subtleties are hiding in the details. Wide-body (long-haul) airplanes are generally limited by flying hours since they rarely reach their maximum allowed flight cycles. In contrast, wide-body cargo planes typically fly shorter legs compared to when they are used as passenger carriers. And as a result, they are much more likely to hit their critical cycle limit.
- pacoWebConsult 11mo ago
  This particular aircraft was acquired by UPS in 2006 and converted for cargo missions. It was originally delivered as a passenger aircraft to Thai Airways International in 1991. [1] I actually saw this exact aircraft at RDU International in August of this year and took a photo, since tri-engine aircraft in general are not very common these days. [1]: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/ups-md-11-crashes-departing-louisville/ https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/majo...

sys32768 11mo ago

In 1986, I lived a mile or so from where a mid-air collision sent a DC-9 crashing into a neighborhood, which killed 15 people on the ground: https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/08/30/cerritos-plane-crash-30-years-ago-you-either-died-or-you-didnt/ https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/08/30/cerritos-plane-cras... Every time I board a plane, I think what a crazy thing I am doing, but then I remember that I could be safe and snug in my house and still be in a plane crash.

dmd 11mo ago
> Every time I board a plane, I think what a crazy thing I am doing, but then I remember that I could be safe and snug in my house To be fair, statistically, your living room is far more dangerous than the cabin of an airplane.
- coddingtonbear 11mo ago
  Forgive me, but by what possible metric: miles traveled in it?
  - dmd 11mo ago
    Given an hour spent flying in a commercial US-flagged airliner or an hour spent in your living room, and you're (far) more likely to get hurt or die in your living room.
    - watwut 11mo ago
      Is that actual statistic?
      - rogerrogerr 11mo ago
        Airliners are hilariously safe. One of my favorite stats is that it’s the second safest form of transportation per passenger mile (elevators win).

throwmeaway307 11mo ago

[flagged]

advisedwang 11mo ago
Care to link to a source of those reports?

usermac 11mo ago

Relative of mine is a real estate agent in the Louisville area. This year she sold two homes to two UPS pilots. One of them, his first day was yesterday. The day of the crash. He was bumped from that very flight.

ferguess_k 11mo ago
From my understanding "bumped" means removed? Jesus I wonder how he feels right now. It's like a lottery.
- tclancy 11mo ago
  "You take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan." - Shirley Jackson
  - hshdhdhehd 11mo ago
    Yes this pilot knows he avoided death. Whereas everyone else may have "got lucky" without realising. Every crash you drive past on the motorway for example!

junaid_q 11mo ago

the fact that stuff like this still happens (despite the relatively low probability/ incident rate) is truly mind boggling. the acceptability threshold for this need to be lower

yalestar 11mo ago

This really reminded me of a colleague who had a part-time night job flying cancelled checks from Centennial Airport (KAPA, south of Denver) to SLC. A bunch of us went out to lunch on a Friday in December 2005. That night, on his return to KAPA, he crashed his Mitsubishi MU-2 about a mile short of the runway. He and his co-pilot were gone, just like that. On Monday you could see the wreckage and cleanup from our office which was near the airport. It was so surreal.

HaZeust 11mo ago
KAPA is a beautiful airport too, and its restaurant "Perfect Landing" on the second floor is S-tier. I've never heard about this case there, though. Do you have a flight number?
- yalestar 11mo ago
  I don't have a flight number, but here's an archived news article of the incident. https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/13/19866420/model-of-plane-that-crashed-near-denver-has-fatal-history/ https://www.deseret.com/2004/12/13/19866420/model-of-plane-t... Oh I guess it was 2004, not 2005. Yes, Perfect Landing is a great restaurant!

SamuelAdams 11mo ago

It does make me wonder: why are aircraft takeoffs and landings not recorded more often, with higher quality cameras and more angles? If I can watch an NFL replay in 4k a few seconds after the ball is snapped, why not record (and overwrite) all flights that take off and land at every airport? Like a dash cam, they can save the footage only if there is a problem. Surely that would be much better than splicing together many third party camera recordings.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
lesuorac 11mo ago
Have you seen dash cam footage? High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive.
- ProllyInfamous 11mo ago
  >High quality cameras are actually really rare and expensive. This is absolutely archaic thinking. Reminds me of when I worked in data centers, pre-Snowden, and the official position on recording was how could we possible afford enough hard drives to store everything?!.
njovin 11mo ago
Most frequently the actions/evidence that lead to a crash would not be captured on airport-located cameras. The holes in the swiss cheese usually start lining up either in the maintenance hangar, en route, or in the briefing room, not on the runway. The NTSB (and many of their non-US counterparts) are incredibly adept at accident investigation using debris, black boxes and CVRs. Even in cases where the black boxes are damaged and video evidence is available, the video evidence is usually not so helpful as to be able to determine a root cause. If you take into account that the cameras would be mostly useless in low-light or poor visibility conditions, and the costs associated with maintaining a nationwide network of high-res cameras that cover all runways at all major commercial airports (and ensures their lines of sight and operation through the never-ending renovations going on at these airports), I'm not sure that the benefits of having the cameras make sense.

ekelsen 11mo ago

Is V1 recalculated based on the runway length at each airport / loading of the plane / etc.? If you have a long runway and a long runout, you have a much higher V1 than a short runway with tall clearance right at the end, right?

john-h-k 11mo ago
Yes

mmooss 11mo ago

One AVHerald comment, by a tech who works on the same kind of engine that fell off, says, > I pray they did not use a forklift for the installation of the engine, onwing. Does anyone understand that? Why wouldn't you use a forklift? Why would that lead to an engine falling off? It seems like you'd need to support the 10,000 lbs engine somehow when reattaching it.

theultdev 11mo ago
That's referring to American Airlines Flight 191 (May 25, 1979). https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/N110AA https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accid... I watch a lot of airplane disasters. TLDR: you are supposed to properly disassemble and use a proper lift to lower the engine, not shove it in with a fork lift (even though it's quicker). I don't think this was the cause of this accident though, the engine was on fire before takeoff. Not an airplane engineer, but I very much doubt anyone has used a forklift to install an engine since 191. Procedures got much more strict.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  Thanks.

Jean-Papoulos 11mo ago

> Ground observers reported the aircraft had been delayed for about two hours for work on the left hand engine (engine #1), the engine #1 separated during the takeoff run Some people are gonna have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Not putting blame on humans here, but hopefully this triggers a tightening of procedures, as these kind of tragedies tend to.

rurban 11mo ago

This was a McDonnell Douglas MD-11, and everybody knows since their failing engineering taking over good engineering at Boeing (in fact MD management took over Boeing Seattle and moved it away), suddenly made their new planes fall from the skies.

globalzhituilyy 11mo ago

[dead]

globalzhituilyy 11mo ago

[dead]

globalzhituilyy 11mo ago

[dead]