Lufthansa crash marks fifth hull loss for MD-11F since 1997

I am glad that the pilots are safe and well.

The good news is that the pilots survived this incident.

@Anonymous: I estimate the average MD-11 age to be around 20 years, which is not old for an aircraft!

I am well aware that eye witnesses are usually the least reliable but this sentence bothers me

An airport official told the Associated Press that the aircraft "caught fire" on approach and then "split in two halves" when it hit the runway around

"Caught fire on approach"! That line has a lot of possibilities if true and most are ominous.

Praised GOD both pilots are alive. Truly GOD Almighty is in control of everything.

MD11 repeated accidents.
It is very obvious that some design problems are associated with those repeated accidents.I urge the NTSB to deeply study such a factor , and come out with recommendations which shall enhance the safe operation of the MD11.
For the pilots,i am sending them my sincere regards and congratulations for the safe escape from that deadly approach.

Anonymous, 28 Jul 03:04:
"Praised GOD both pilots are alive. Truly GOD Almighty is in control of everything."

You are a few cards off a full deck right?

Old days? The DC-10 had quite a reputation too, with its particular problems!

Yes, she works in mysterious ways. She could have killed the pilots had she wanted to.

"that made the aircraft squirrelly and a bit of a challenge sometimes." , I see that a former MD 11 captain has mentioned this, what does it mean. tx

I too am happy that the pilots are unharmed.

However, the persistent comments about the "doubts" of the DC-10 and MD-11 design are unfounded, and obviously the comments of the uninformed! The DC-10 has been flying since 1971, the MD-11 since 1990...these aircraft have undergone the most stringent flight testing you can imagine...and found be be safe to fly. ANY aircraft, whether it be a DC-10, MD-11, 747 or A380 MUST be flown within strict flight parameters, or accidents will occur. Parts do break, weather conditions can be a factor...any number of things can occur to facilitate an accident. If these aircraft were new models and multiple accidents occurred, I could see doubting the aircraft design...but these are both PROVEN AND SAFE aircraft that have flown countless numbers of passengers and tons of freight. Give me a DC-10 or MD-11 anytime!!

Age has nothing to do with MD-11 accidents. This airplane is a real handful to land...high landing speed and very touchy if there is a crosswind.

Thank God those pliots are safe. M1F is not a bad freighter although there's no auto-loader on the maindeck. The PAX version are nice as I flew it on DL ATl-NRT before. Time for LH to speed up to replace all M1F with new 77F!!

For an MD-11 to break up during landing, it would have had to fall and not fly for the last at least thirty feet above the surface OR perhaps have sustained structural damage from exploding HAZMAT (hazardous material) in the cargo. I flew the MD-11 successfully in both cargo and passenger configuration as captain for eight years world wide under sometimes challenging conditions and the DC-10 for several years, both as co-pilot and captain, and thoroughly enjoyed both types.

If god is in charge of everything, why did he make the plane crash?

AA retired the MD-11 early because it simply did not live up to seat-mile fuel efficiency expectations. The 777 is the better choice. That, and the relative cost of tooling, maintaining, training and crewing for a relatively small fleet of aircraft increased the averaged cost of operation to be unprofitable. AA retired a number of aircraft types around the same time frame for operational efficiency, even with some of them not being all that old. Most, if not all of the MD-11s went to FedEx.

The design of the DC10/MD11 is not in question. Millions of flying hours and rotations prove that.

Why would you want the NTSB to 'deeply study ' an accident where the cause is undetermined.
Should we not wait for the results of the examination of the FDR's.

Sounds like the same bad judgement that followed the DC10 incidents in the late 70's

I too congratulate the pilots on their incredible skill in saving not only their own lives but also those of many on the ground.
I wish them a speedy recovery and good health

"The problem with both the DC-10 and the MD-11 is the landing gear is not tolerant of any side loads and is easy to fold up in a cross wind."??? You gotta be kidding me!!! Check the flight test requirements for both the DC-10 and MD-11 needed for certification...both went through extensive cross-wind and high-g landings!! Their gear is as solid as anything else flying out there!

ATW has introduced a wonderful new forum with this "blog" feature, allowing thoughtful, useful exchange of perspectives from any of our readers. Your ATW "comment vetting process" perhaps needs to be more assertive. Please include a statement that any self indulgent , religious, political, or anything that may violate true freedom of expression will also be excluded.

Forget certification and look at the record.

If you make a bad dicision to land you can't fly out of it in an MD 11, a 747 or even a DC10 can recover where the MD11 can't, the stab on The MD 11 is too small. the LSAS system tries but fails to correct stability problems on landing. The plane should be grounded.

Well known as an airplane that didn't like a crosswind.

Quote Peter Ansdell:
"ATW has introduced a wonderful new forum with this "blog" feature, allowing thoughtful, useful exchange of perspectives from any of our readers. Your ATW "comment vetting process" perhaps needs to be more assertive. Please include a statement that any self indulgent , religious, political, or anything that may violate true freedom of expression will also be excluded."

Pete,
with all due respect I must underline that freedom of speech does include the freedom to propagate your religion.
I would say the poster praising god has been sufficiently, but politely rebuffed which is okay, but although being a non-believer myself I will still stand up for anyone's right to say whatever he/she pleases, as long as such statement doesn't include hate propaganda or defamation.
Do I think "Praise the Lord" was appropriate here? No.
Did it hurt or offend someone ? No.
The poster did not indicate that he interpretes this accident to be god's will or a penalty for whatever action or misdeed, so he's within his rights. Freedom of speech is something genuine American, something Europeans will NEVER get right - appreciate it ,-)

We believe there is a public safety need to mitigate fire hazards associated with advanced Li-ion batteries, particularly when carried onboard aircraft in passengers' luggage, or when large numbers of such batteries are shipped in densely packed arrays placed inside various types of containers stored in aircraft cargo holds during flight.

Interestingly, our company has applied specialized theoretical knowledge on a practical level to try to understand the underlying causes of certain anomalous fires and explosions that occasionally occur in smaller lithium-ion batteries as well as in large multi-battery packs. In doing so, we have uncovered what may be a new class of potentially serious, previously unrecognized safety risks arising from Lithium metal dendrite structures that can ‘grow’ over time inside Li-ion batteries. A new paper by academic researchers published in May 2010 supports our deep concerns about the involvement of dendrites in catastrophic Li-ion battery failures (please see R. Bhattacharyya et al., "In situ NMR observation of the formation of metallic Lithium microstructures in Lithium batteries," Nature Materials 9 pp. 504 - 510). Details of our thoughts on this new source of concern have been publicly released in a 68-slide technical presentation on SlideShare.net titled, "Low Energy Neutron Reactions (LENRs) in Advanced Batteries and Other Condensed Matter Environments --- Could LENRs be involved in some Li-ion battery fires?" See URL=
http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cfakepathlattice-energy-llc-len-r...

More efficient than a 747-400, I respectfully disagree, More efficient than the 747-200, yes. An MD 11 flying from ORD to FRA carrying 80 Tons of cargo will typically need a fuel load of 80 Tons as well. Whereas it is not uncommon for a 747-400 flying the same route carrying 112 Tons of cargo, will only require about 90 Tons of fuel. And this is running a fourth engine and also flying a bit faster than the MD.