If memory serves the path would be through railroad tracks, recycling businesses, auto salvage yards, semi trailer marshaling yard, and a fair sized business/services industry park. Lots of people.

According to the Aviation dub on Reddit, an unauthorized to speak UPS pilot says the #1 engine separated from the wing and the plane was carrying a full of fuel. The plane had just been released after a 2hr delay over a mechanical issue for that same engine. It also completed a heavy check on the 18th.

That is horrific. The explosion was massive. Prayers for those lost. There had to be loss of life on the ground from seeing that.

For transport category aircraft, the decision speed V1 is calculated for each takeoff based on weight, runway length, runway condition (wet, snow, etc), and weather conditions. Prior to V1 there is enough runway to stop.

After V1, two things are true. 1) There is not enough runway to stop. You will go off the end, through any buildings, roads, or other obstacles. 2) The aircraft will fly with one engine failed at or after V1.

In the event of an engine failure or engine fire at or after V1, you continue and take the airplane in the air. You can return to the field to land if there is an immediate need, but in fact the airplane will fly fine with one engine inop. No need to rush unless there is another problem such as an uncontrolled fire or a flight control problem.

Pilots practice and get tested in the simulator ad nauseam for all variations of when an engine failure or fire occurs. It is actually a fairly calm, relaxed procedure. This aircraft failing to fly suggests there was something else happening rather than a simple engine failure.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:


I'm no pilot, but I would much rather take my chanes over running the runway while still on the ground than lose an engine on take off.

You would rather take a 500,000 pound missile off the end of the runway at 150 mph, loaded with 40-50 thousand gallons of jet fuel? Rejecting a takeoff after V1(incorrectly) had led to more crashes than taking a jet single engine into the air. It's what we train for. Your assumption goes against decades of research, training and knowledge. Nothing good comes from aborting a takeoff beyond the Takeoff Decision Speed.

Thank you to all the pros on this thread for sharing their knowledge. And very well educated opinions.

Thank the lord it was “only” a cargo jet and not loaded with 200-300 people headed with a full load of fuel to Hawaii .

reports are it hit a petroleum recycling plant? That can’t be good, assume that’s part of the black smoke cloud ?

With what appears to be cowling/engine parts on the runway, it's likely that electrical and/or hydraulic systems were also damaged by flying shrapnel or local structural failure, leading to possible control surface issues. Black boxes and time will tell.

^^^Spectacular.

Catastrophic wing damage? With that roll, looked like the left wing was gone or severely damaged. Or had already struck something solid enough to render it ineffective.

Immediate area to the south of where the fires were is heavily mixed use/commercial/residential. Crash was horrible enough; to have the plane any further south would be unspeakable chaos. I used to live near there/travel through there.
May God’s mercy protect those souls lost and injured.
Blackhorse4

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

I'm no pilot, but I would much rather take my chanes over running the runway while still on the ground than lose an engine on take off.

You would rather take a 500,000 pound missile off the end of the runway at 150 mph, loaded with 40-50 thousand gallons of jet fuel? Rejecting a takeoff after V1(incorrectly) had led to more crashes than taking a jet single engine into the air. It's what we train for. Your assumption goes against decades of research, training and knowledge. Nothing good comes from aborting a takeoff beyond the Takeoff Decision Speed.

He has a long history of posting nonsense regarding aviation topics.

<Caution: Speculation Zone Ahead>

Watching both videos it is apparent (to me) that the tail engine was ingesting the heat/flames of the uncontained fire. This much heat going down the intake will severely degrade the performance of a turbine engine, so it is no surprise that the crew barely got it airborne after V1. Assuming MD-11 V1 speed calculations are based on two remaining and fully operational engines (like the B-727 calculations were), there is no way this accident could have been avoided without external notification over the radio that they were on fire well before V1 was reached.

It will be interesting to find out when external fire indications became apparent to airport cameras and people watching during the takeoff roll.

Way back in 1979 an American DC-10 had an engine fall off during take-off at ORD, all 271 aboard died in the crash plus two people on the ground. The investigation concluded maintenance procedures had weakened the pylon.

https://www.aerotime.aero/arti...rlines-crash-chicago

The DC-10 crashed on the site of an abandoned airstrip:

https://airfields-freeman.com/...ago_N.htm#ravenswood

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Catastrophic wing damage? With that roll, looked like the left wing was gone or severely damaged. Or had already struck something solid enough to render it ineffective.

at 31 seconds into the video you can see the plan had already rolled over to the left and that wing was gone.

No Chance to take off, other video shows that engine clearly on fire during the takeoff as it went down the runway.

Where it hit has the least chance of life being lost as it's commercial business and after 5pm.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

I'm no pilot, but I would much rather take my chanes over running the runway while still on the ground than lose an engine on take off.

You would rather take a 500,000 pound missile off the end of the runway at 150 mph, loaded with 40-50 thousand gallons of jet fuel? Rejecting a takeoff after V1(incorrectly) had led to more crashes than taking a jet single engine into the air. It's what we train for. Your assumption goes against decades of research, training and knowledge. Nothing good comes from aborting a takeoff beyond the Takeoff Decision Speed.

He has a long history of posting nonsense regarding aviation topics any topic.

Fixed it for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Way back in 1979 an American DC-10 had an engine fall off during take-off at ORD, all 271 aboard died in the crash plus two people on the ground. The investigation concluded maintenance procedures had weakened the pylon.

https://www.aerotime.aero/arti...rlines-crash-chicago

The DC-10 crashed on the site of an abandoned airstrip:

https://airfields-freeman.com/...ago_N.htm#ravenswood

I was a kid in the west suburbs when that happened. This one reminded me of it because the sudden loss of weight caused a hard roll.

quote:

I was a kid in the west suburbs when that happened. This one reminded me of it because the sudden loss of weight caused a hard roll.

Not actually true. In an ironic twist of fate it was rigid adherence to procedure that ultimately caused the rollover. When the engine broke away it severed the hydraulic line(s) on the left wing which caused the leading edge slats to retract from aerodynamic forces. This raised the stall speed of the left wing compared to the normally functioning right wing. Initially the airplane was flying above that speed, however following procedure for an engine failure the crew slowed towards V2, which is/was the target for such an occasion. This brought them below the increased stall speed at which point the left wing stalled and the airplane subsequently uncontrollably rolled over.

I don't know if it's always been the case, or if it was in response to this accident, but our procedure for an engine loss in the 737 during/after takeoff is to speed up to V2 if currently below it. Maintain current speed if between V2 and V2+20, or slow to V2+20 if above that. Also, again can only speak for the 737, the aircraft is designed to fly just fine with the loss of an engine. And by loss I mean it decides to abandon ship and detach. It is actually designed to do so in extreme cases to (hopefully) avoid further damaging the rest of the aircraft. Obviously this assumes it doesn't take out any hydraulics with it, which in theory it shouldn't. I believe following the ORD accident the DC10 slats were modified to not retract with loss of hydraulic pressure. Not sure if this is the case on the 737 and hopefully won't ever find out.

That was hard to watch . First and foremost the loss of life is incredibly tragic. There's something awful about watching that plane trying to get off the ground and the idea that they had to know they weren't going to make it, but trying everything they could up until the last second anyway .

I've also always loved airplanes. I was a huge aviation nerd in high school...so much so that I was kinda into plane spotting and would hang out at the airport and just watch the traffic. There's nothing like that where I live now in rural Indiana, but we drive through Louisville on I65 every time we go to the in-laws and it always takes me back to my HS days to see all the heavy UPS traffic flying out of there that we don't get to see around here, particularly those old three-holers. Watching one go down like that really sucks.

Tragic event. Tomorrow isn't guaranteed for any of us; live accordingly!