MD11 UPS crashed near Louisville Airport (Thread Generico)

[airplane]

.
MD11 UPS CRASHED
NEAR LOUISVILLE AIRPORT

[spozzizzops]

Un simile evento si ebbe con un DC10 a causa cattiva manutenzione
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... Flight_191

[airplane]

.

[...] The "One in Twenty" guidance is mentioned in Appendix 1 to AC 20-128A, published in 1997.
It's not mentioned in the original AC 20-128, published in 1988.[...]
The MD-11 was certified in 1990.
-----
[...] so ...confirmed it wouldn't have been part of the MD-11 Cert. -
it would have been done to the more general 'minimize the risk' guidance [...]
-----

>[...] I don't know that sort of detail. As I mentioned, ROTORBURST was not
my area, - what I know is more of just what I absorbed due to my proximity to the issue

(For example, on the B747-8, we had to Re-Route some of the
"Thrust Lever Resolver wiring" due to ROTORBURST Concerns).

---------------------------------------------


Ps.
:
...Non si finesce Mai ?!

.

[airplane]

.
>Lampo,
La parte finale di questo scritto, ha riportato alla mia memoria un dubbio che,
in passato, Tu avevi messo in evidenza, su un post di un altro aereo-crash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]It would be interesting to know if there was specific information to cause the grounding,
such as the engines being of similar age and used solely on MD-11.

The CF6-80C2 engine on the MD-11 is not meaningfully different than the ones used on the B767 and B747-400.
if I remember correctly, the only real difference was the ratings used - I don't know what the max rating was for the MD-11, but it was ~62.000 lbs. or thrust for the B767.

We used to track the MD-11 CF6 shutdowns along with those from the B767 and B747-400 fleet.
As a result, I'm a bit puzzled by the grounding - if the initiating factor was in fact a burst turbine disc, there
are still a significant number passenger B767s still operating with that engine (and even a few B747-400s).
If it was a concern regarding age/cycles of the engines, I'd expect the AD to specify that and ground any other
aircraft with engines with similar hours/cycles.

As DR notes, the AD doesn't call out the inspections necessary to lift the grounding, but allows an 'out' with
the Alternate Means of Compliance (AMOC) note - basically allowing an operator to come in and say - '
we inspected this and this and this, and didn't find any anomalies - we want to lift the grounding'.[...]

>To add:
[…] I was at a CF6 operators conference perhaps 15 years ago - where GE expressed concern about the use
of turbine blades PMA – (Parts Manufacturing Authority - basically aftermarket parts).
They put up side by side pictures of a GE blade and a PMA blade - they were the same shape, but the cooling hole configuration and blade coating was completely different - as was the blade weight.
GE explained that their turbine disc life analysis (and the associated ADs related to the turbine disc burst risk)
was based on the OEM blades - and they had no idea what the use of the PMA blades would do to that life analysis.

I can't help but wonder if this might trace back to the use of PMA parts
The associated can of worms…[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ps.

>Lampo, ricordo bene quel fatto, però riguardava gli AoA (angle of Attack),
qui pare che non c'entrano nulla i cosiddetti materiali “PMA"
(Parts Manufacturing Authority)

(detto ciò, ovviamente per questo,
non metto la mano sul fuoco).
.