UPS plane crash
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,553
- Location
- ST4
Fully laden with fuel too, nigh on 150k litres. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,600
awful
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 2,235
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 29,001
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Something has seriously gone wrong with the maintenance side of things. Especially on an plane which has been around for 40 years. Engine separation doesn't just happen.
Not sure I agree with the above post on slats. Left engine separation looks like it's caused a fire which had a further adverse effect on the tail engine. Full to the brim with fuel, heavy, and down to one engine on takeoff... 
Saw a rumour the plane was delayed for engine maintenance. Could be an engineer feeling beyond guilty right now.
Saw a rumour the plane was delayed for engine maintenance. Could be an engineer feeling beyond guilty right now.
Not sure I agree with the above post on slats. Left engine separation looks like it's caused a fire which had a further adverse effect on the tail engine. Full to the brim with fuel, heavy, and down to one engine on takeoff...
Saw a rumour the plane was delayed for engine maintenance. Could be an engineer feeling beyond guilty right now.
Crash: UPS MD11 at Louisville on Nov 4th 2025, burst into flames on takeoff
Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation
avherald.com
"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."
Well, certainly that needs to be looked into.
Last edited:
The MD-11 is essentially a DC-10 MAX, they were retired from passenger service globally over a decade ago and the cargo variants are only used by a couple of US shipping companies who are in the process of retiring them.
Considering the planes were in the process of being retired from service you have to ask how "on it" they will have been with maintenance.
Considering the planes were in the process of being retired from service you have to ask how "on it" they will have been with maintenance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 7,662
- Location
- London
Don't follow this guy but saw it in my feed, he's first to the doom market 
OK Cpt Steve has one up too .... man they don't half love profiteering
OK Cpt Steve has one up too .... man they don't half love profiteering
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 579
- Location
- Overclockers Forums
Terrifying.
RIP to those lost.
RIP to those lost.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,411
- Location
- Chengdu
The surveillance camera footage of it sideways into the ground is insane.
How does an engine just separate? Must be lack of maintenance?
How does an engine just separate? Must be lack of maintenance?
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 2,036
- Location
- Cheltenham
It has happened to the DC-10 before (the predecessor the MD-11):
American Airlines Flight 191 - Wikipedia
It wasn’t lack of maintenance (that isn’t a thing in aviation, but it’s a separate topic) but the engineers coming up with an alternative procedure that saved a lot of time and effort when removing the wing engines but caused other issues which led to the engine separation.
That was 1979 - times, processes and quality have Improved immeasurably since then, so the cause of this accident I would say will not be the same.
It looks like an older aircraft so manufacturing defect seems unlikely as the only things that would be relatively new in relation to the engine are likely to be the bolts/brackets and the engine itself and it's designed to be safe with a certain number of bolts/mounting points failing with enough leeway for it to be spotted in a routine timed/flight cycle check.
I suspect it's going to be a maintenance issue, either something not checked/missed in a check or someone messed up
It looks like an older aircraft so manufacturing defect seems unlikely as the only things that would be relatively new in relation to the engine are likely to be the bolts/brackets and the engine itself and it's designed to be safe with a certain number of bolts/mounting points failing with enough leeway for it to be spotted in a routine timed/flight cycle check.
I suspect it's going to be a maintenance issue, either something not checked/missed in a check or someone messed up
I'm far from an airline tech but I'm sure that bolts are changed frequently on them.
We need @Tefal to chime in here tbh.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 2,036
- Location
- Cheltenham
Actually no - they may have torque checks a number of hours after initial fitment or visual inspection for signs of rotation during deep checks but in my experience they aren’t lifed.
They may also be re-used when replacing the engine, but subject to non-destructive testing like x-ray or dye penetrant etc. for example.
Every manufacturer and airline will have different requirements and schedules though.