Engine #2 was showing signs of trouble, probably from taking FOD from Engine #1.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

Or maybe they should have flown with their seatbelts off, so they could be thrown clear from the crash... Eh, Jimmy?

"...I'm not a pilot. ..."
First correct thing you've stated in this thread.

But, but, ... he's a Captain! Knows all, tells all.

Spoke to a friend who retired from the FAA. We talked after the event. The thing I was curious about was the fuel capacity. She told me the freighters carried more than the pax version. 42000 vs 38000 gallons. Weight of a single gallon averages 6.75 pounds. Max weight of the full bag of fuel was in the neighborhood of 283000 pounds.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
Damn, looks like had they had a clear path maybe they could of made it

I'd highly doubt it. Based on what I've seen they had just enough power (thrust) to get off the ground and into ground effect. It appears the highest they got was around 170 or so feet above the ground, which just happens to be almost the exact wingspan of the MD11 and where ground effect would begin. The gear being down is a big factor, will be interesting to learn if the crew attempted to raise it but that failed due to damage/loss of hydraulics, or if they left it down because they never had enough of a positive climb rate to call for raising it.

The combination of degraded thrust on one or both of the remaining engines plus the drag of the gear means they were never going to get any higher than they did, and from the looks of the latest videos they were descending during the final moments as the drag/loss of thrust was too much to overcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
The plane looks stable.

Well, it's losing altitude, so...

And that's a long ways from the airport. Not in air miles, but not right at the end of runway.

Wrong tire shop, 7005 Grade Lane is the correct one.

Once it left ground effect, along with the compressor stall about Vr (rotation speed), it is apparent it began sinking. It never reached 20-25 degrees, and did not look to be anywhere near 2.5 degrees per second rotation after leaving the runway, not did it likely achieve or sustain V2, the speed to ensure positive rat of climb prescribed for the type).
(this is seen in the videos)

Asymmetrical thrust from #3 and right rudder to counteract (and even possible right aileron/spoiler deflection to attempt to keep wings level) and loss of thrust on #2, the impact with the building all rapidly took needed airspeed, are all plausible to account.

Possible the 'rolling moment may have been left wing stall or the lift of the right wing coupled with adverse yaw, but the loss of the left engine alone, would not be such a great influence, aerodynamically speaking, it actually reduces drag and/or loss of lift on the left wing.

All of these things will come forth from data recorders and confirm or refute this.

And the videos do provide evidence and combined with knowledge and experience, it is not without merit.

Having been involved in USAF investigations of Class-A mishaps, things are discussed from findings, even though "speculation" is not condoned, supposition is indeed a part of the process, for example, an aircraft impacts off the runway and a vary large post fuel fed fire occurs, no one is "supposing" the aircraft did not have fuel, but looking into fuel sampling from all servicing equipment, storage tanks and other aircraft serviced through those sources would be a part. If an aircraft impacted off the runway, and witnessed stated the engines sounded like they were "winding down or not producing normal thrust/volume", and no post impact fire, and no evidence of fuel at the site, "supposing" insufficient fuel would not be considered incorrect.


If I had not been earning as much in IT (7 times) as I did, I would have continued and had considered NTSB after the USAF.

Initial data from the FDR shows a/c reached altitude of 450 feet and 183kph (210mph).

https://www.wave3.com/2025/11/...recorders-underway/#

Satellite before/after views of a/c crash site.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/s...lle-airport/69274450

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Initial data from the FDR shows a/c reached altitude of 450 feet and 183kph (210mph).

https://www.wave3.com/2025/11/...recorders-underway/#

Satellite before/after views of a/c crash site.
https://www.wlwt.com/article/s...lle-airport/69274450

There is something off about that altitude. There is no way they made it up to 450ft and clipped the top of that building right off the departure end. The speed makes sense.

Pressure altitude or indicated altitude during take off portion might well be skewed during take off or other factors (airfield is 500 feet ASL) and may not have been stable/accurate readings recorded.

When doing flight control systems rigging and testing with various settings of the test sets connected, I have seen some wild numbers due to air pressure inputs and weather conditions changing during tests.

There was so much fire off that engine, that the heat radiation possibly changed the ambient air temp/pressure skewing the pitot and static reading. That was a fuckton of fire spilling out of the left wing. Regardless, I agree, that wasn't 450 feet. No way no how.

quote:

Originally posted by Phantom229:
There is something off about that altitude. There is no way they made it up to 450ft and clipped the top of that building right off the departure end. The speed makes sense.

I don’t fly jets, so maybe their altimeters are different, but the altimeters I’m used to read altitude MSL, or altitude above mean sea level.

The allowable error for altimeters is 300’.

Additionally the recorded information may assume standard pressure (29.92” of mercury) like mode C encoders do and that may have been reported “raw” without adjusting for the local altimeter setting at the time.

If field elevation is 500’ and recorded information says they reached an elevation of 450’, it wouldn’t take much of an altimeter error or barimetric pressure difference from standard to explain the reading.

How high (AGL) would one guess they got? 50’? 100’? I’ve seen altimeters further off from that just from barimetric pressure change overnight.

Video shows the front gear wheels clipping a power lines before it hit the building and rotated, you can see the sparks in the video of the tire shop as the plane crosses.

Normal street level power poles are 30 to 60 ft.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

The allowable error for altimeters is 300’.

It's 75' for IFR flight below 10,000', which was the case here. The airplane was operating on an IFR clearance and was below 10,000' at the time of the accident.

Thanks V-tail.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Thanks V-tail.

Needs to be tested / verified every two years. The maintenance shop at Our Little Airpot was not equipped to do this, so they made a list of everyone who needed it done and had a guy and his wife come over from the Deltona area. Their van had all the necessary testing equipment, and a bunch of the repair parts for the most likely problems. It's been a while since I sold the v-tail, but I believe the charge for the test / recertification was around $150.00 if no repairs were needed.

Wow, that had to be scary. Has anyone heard the death toll to/in the surrounding area? Looks like a bunch of businesses but I hope nobody else perished.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
Wow, that had to be scary. Has anyone heard the death toll to/in the surrounding area? Looks like a bunch of businesses but I hope nobody else perished.

They were saying 12 known dead including the 3-man flight crew, so 9 on the ground. Plus another 9 or so still unaccounted for. That was as of yesterday (Thursday). I haven't had any news on today so it might be different now.

IS it possible for an MD-11 to take off, fly and gain and maintain altitude on 2 engines with a full load? Center and a wing?

They're saying now that the center engine went into compressor stall from ingesting debris from the Port Engine.

Around 9 years ago a light twin (Beechcraft Baron) lost an engine on take off and hit the roof of a house that was 7 houses from mine, caught the roof on fire, landed in the backyard engulfed in flames, but all 3 people in the plane walked away. It made one hell of a noise. Was told they were underpowered and couldn't build altitude on 1 engine.

https://www.wptv.com/news/stat...o-beach-neighborhood

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
IS it possible for an MD-11 to take off, fly and gain and maintain altitude on 2 engines with a full load? Center and a wing?

They're saying now that the center engine went into compressor stall from ingesting debris from the Port Engine.

Around 9 years ago a light twin (Beechcraft Baron) lost an engine on take off and hit the roof of a house that was 7 houses from mine, caught the roof on fire, landed in the backyard engulfed in flames, but all 3 people in the plane walked away. It made one hell of a noise. Was told they were underpowered and couldn't build altitude on 1 engine.

https://www.wptv.com/news/stat...o-beach-neighborhood

ALL transport category aircraft(jets) are REQUIRED to fly with one engine inoperative. It's part of the certification process. That's why we have been so adamant on taking a plane with one engine flying. It's required to do so. Small piston airplanes(Baron) are not required to do so. There is a morbid joke during flight training when you transition to small twin engine aircraft, the second engine is only there to get you to the scene of the crash, you are going down, albeit slowly.

There are several speeds that jets use for takeoff, and the speeds vary for EVERY takeoff based on weight, airport, obstacles, runway and temperature. For every takeoff we calculate a weight that will allow us to takeoff and climb if you lose an engine on takeoff at the most critical time(V1). Most of the time, you cannot takeoff at maximum weight and still make your climb profile.

Normal speed calls
From 0-80kts we brief that we will abort the takeoff for any reason, there is plenty of runway and brakes to stop for any reason.

80-V1 we ONLY abort for very critical things. Engine fire, engine failure, loss of directional control, inadvertent thrust reverser deployment,takeoff configuration warning(flaps not set correctly or obvious structural damage.

Between 80-V1 you will probably go off the end of the runway, but with max braking at much slower speeds than after v1. You will damage some stuff but everyone should survive, and the aircraft MIGHT be salvageable. That is the reason we only abort for the big 6 from 80-V1 is that those major events are worth the risk of trying to stop on the ground rather than be in the air.

V1 V1 is called the takeoff decision speed. It's the one number where we have predetermined if we are stopping or going. If we reach V1, we no longer have enough runway or brakes or both to stop on the runway. It's not a matter if you are crashing, it's a matter of how horrible it's going to be if you try and stop beyond V1. If you watch any takeoff videos, V1 is where the pilot takes his hands off the throttles, signifying he is no longer going to pull power and try to stop, he is now committed to flying. V1 changes for runway length, wet runway, wind and again is calculated for each takeoff.

V1-VR is rotation speed. Once you pass V1, you can no longer stop on the runway, but until you reach VR you don't have enough speed to fly, it's kind of a no mans land. Even if you lose an engine, or something catches fire, you sit there from V1 until reaching VR which could be anywhere from 5-15 seconds, waiting until you have enough speed to rotate. And that is an eternity when the fire bell is going off. And you can do nothing until rotation speed. Once you hit rotation speed, you pull the nose up and wait for the plane to fly itself off the ground.

VR-V2 V2 is your one engine inoperative climb speed, it's the speed the manufacturer guarantees you a 2.4 percent climb at your current weight adjusted for temperature and altitude, which aint much. It guarantees you 35 ft of clearance over obstacles in the departure path. But you will climb. Again this number changes for every takeoff based on weight, obstacles(mountains) and temperature. We usually fly at V2 until we are clear of obstacles, then we accelerate to one engine inoperative climb speeds, once we pass flap retraction speed we bring the flaps up, one engine inop climb speeds are usually 30-50 kts faster than V2. We keep climbing at that speed until we reach a safe altitude and then start running checklists.

So yes, the MD-11 is designed to fly with one engine inop, up their maximum calculated takeoff weight. From the most critical time(V1) up to their safety altitude. 2, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffxjet:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
IS it possible for an MD-11 to take off, fly and gain and maintain altitude on 2 engines with a full load? Center and a wing?

They're saying now that the center engine went into compressor stall from ingesting debris from the Port Engine.

Around 9 years ago a light twin (Beechcraft Baron) lost an engine on take off and hit the roof of a house that was 7 houses from mine, caught the roof on fire, landed in the backyard engulfed in flames, but all 3 people in the plane walked away. It made one hell of a noise. Was told they were underpowered and couldn't build altitude on 1 engine.

https://www.wptv.com/news/stat...o-beach-neighborhood

ALL transport category aircraft(jets) are REQUIRED to fly with one engine inoperative. It's part of the certification process. That's why we have been so adamant on taking a plane with one engine flying. It's required to do so. Small piston airplanes(Baron) are not required to do so. There is a morbid joke during flight training when you transition to small twin engine aircraft, the second engine is only there to get you to the scene of the crash, you are going down, albeit slowly.

…

So yes, the MD-11 is designed to fly with one engine inop, up their maximum calculated takeoff weight. From the most critical time(V1) up to their safety altitude. 2, not so much.

"Flying" and "landing" are not the same thing as taking off and stabilizing flight profile.