9 ms·

Video of the crash, left (?) engine was already engulfed in flames while taking off https://x.com/BNONews/status/1985845907191889930 https://x.com/BNONews/stat

• toomuchtodo 1y ago
  UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976 https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UPS2976
• justsid 1y 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 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • Jtsummers 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
  • roygbiv2 1y ago
    Looks like a compressor stall on number two engine two seconds into the video.
    • appreciatorBus 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
          And having 2 out of 3 engines fail (or underperform) would explain the insufficient climb thrust.
          • loeg 1y ago
            Right!
        • appreciatorBus 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
        Some of the larger townships in Cape Town are right in the flight path too. Not many white people there either.
      • chronciger 1y 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 1y ago
          It also has JFK, on the South side.
    • Thorrez 1y ago
      Probably also due to noise.
      • SilasX 1y 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 1y ago
    An accident on takeoff means full tanks - some 38000 gallons(?) spread along the site like a napalm strike.
    • wlesieutre 1y ago
      A particularly large amount of fuel because it was flying to Honolulu
      • WorldMaker 1y 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 1y 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 1y ago
    [deleted]
• anonymars 1y 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 1y ago
    That is an incredible video.
  • The_President 1y ago
    News site - video obfuscated.
    • anonymars 1y 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 1y ago
        Linking to raw video directly is a more efficient use of time.
        • deleted 1y ago
          [deleted]
  • caminanteblanco 1y ago
• guerrilla 1y ago
  Oh wow...
• tonmoy 1y 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