This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 28

NTSB: Corrosion, fatigue cracking behind 2016 FedEx landing accident

Submitted
 
Corrosion that led to fatigue cracking caused the landing gear collapse on a FedEx MD-10-10F freighter at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Oct. 28, 2016, according to the NTSB final accident report released Aug. 23. (www.atwonline.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 2
Why would FedEx get a 9 year/30,000hr inspection interval with no cycle limit? I thought the 7500 cycle would be the most limiting factor, at least according to the article!
bentwing60
bentwing60 5
Because they own their PMI and the Swamp is deeper than you think. And there goes another airframe to "We know what we are doin". Thankfully the crew survived and it will soon or has already Not been announced that they will adhere to the original MX. schedule.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 7
I think you hit it right on.
666adt
Andrew Turnbull 1
What is PMI? (I'm gonna try to guess - M = maintenance? I = inspectors? No idea on the P.)
bentwing60
bentwing60 3
Yes, Yes, and principal.
666adt
Andrew Turnbull 1
Thank you! (I was gonna go with "Private," and I would've lost points if it had been the SATs.)
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
From being close to them, in Memphis, they get what they want without question!
bobby1kboy
robert klima 1
I remember a similar problem at United Airlines with the DC-3 way -way back in 1947.We never had a collapse as we either stop drilled the crack or added a support plate to the area.
Mwrisney
Mike Risney 1
Sounds like me, better go in to see the doc...
GaAubie
Ken Hardy 1
There is no excuse for not inspecting a MD-10-10F that is as old and has as many cycles on it as this airframe probably has, out of sight , out of mind, the management responsible for inspection was asleep at the wheel. As an old friend of mine from MacDac days told me many years ago, " We do the best possible job we can on aircraft inspection because the crew can't pull it over to the curb "
bentwing60
bentwing60 1
The bottom line is some pencil neck with a tie pushed the PMI to extend the O.H. period requirement to tell his boss that he saved them a million "this year". The book value of the airframe was inconsequential, the real value was the delivery of millions of boxes on time. That is gone, and I hope he is too!
CAH747
CLARENCE HELLER 1
Lets hope that all and every management understands that the loss of an airframe is much more expensive that any maintenance insp or test.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!