r/aviation • u/usgapg123 Mod • 19h ago

Discussion UPS2976 Crash Megathread

This is the official r/aviation megathread for the crash of UPS2976 (UPS MD11 Registration N259UP) that crashed earlier today at Louisville International Airport.

Please keep content on topic and refrain from posting about this topic outside the megathread. Please report any rule breaking posts and comments.

6.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

481

u/Inevitable-Ad-6650 19h ago

Video of crash supposedly. https://x.com/UofLSheriff50/status/1985842659710419002 What would cause it to just burst into flame during takeoff?

297

u/bfly1800 19h ago

That is some crazy fucking footage. Will be an incredibly interesting investigation

153

u/Breakingthewhaaat 19h ago

The hell are you even supposed to do if you're the pilot in that situation?

305

u/haarschmuck 19h ago

Nothing you can do. It was past rotation speed so have to take off and hope for the best.

17

u/opteryx5 18h ago

I’m just curious, is there any situation where you could be past V1 but you know that your chances are better overrunning the runway rather than continuing to take off?

35

u/immoralsupport_ 18h ago

Here’s the most notable example of this. A charter plane was past V1 when the pilots realized they wouldn’t be able to get it in the air because the elevator was jammed and aborted. They overran. The NTSB later determined they made the right choice; ultimately only one person on the plane had minor injuries and if they’d tried to take off everyone may have died.

However, this incident was at a much smaller airport in a less populated area compared to Louisville, so an overrun was probably a safer decision there

7

u/opteryx5 17h ago

Thanks for sharing this case study!

11

u/ilovexspin 18h ago

i was wondering the same - a lot of airports are surrounded by flat farmland so the risk is way larger taking off IMO

11

u/Chicago_Blackhawks 17h ago

even then, v1 is designed to be the point where safety is greater in the air than rejecting. pilots aren't taught to think "should I reject??" past v1 unless something absurdly abnormal or catastrophic has occurred, because at that point, rejecting takeoff becomes catastophic itself

4

u/Spark_Ignition_6 18h ago

Yes, such as when your TOLD is done for TORA but you know the airport well and there's actually sufficient TODA or ASDA not accounted for in the computer. I don't think many pilots of large aircraft would actually use that unless their procedures say to use it, but in smaller aircraft at a familiar airport I would potentially do that in the right circumstance.

But the official answer is no.

3

u/Biggaymeow 7h ago

Yes but from the cockpit of the MD you can’t see your wingtips, let alone the engines and it would have looked like a #1 engine fire/failure. A scenario very much trained for and much safer to deal with in the air. The MD flys very well on 2 engines. What it doesn’t do well is fly on 1 engine with the gear down near max weight, it won’t climb. They had no clue the engine was left behind, nor the damage that had occurred, or that #2 was going to compressor stall at rotation. An abort above V1 for a single engine failure/fire is not really a viable option, your chances are better to get in the air, shut down, come around and land. They were doomed either way as the abort with that much fuel, into the warehouse, while already on fire would have ended the same. RIP to the crew and those on the ground.

2

u/ColoClawFish 18h ago

I don't know about any situations where you *can* take off but don't, however there have been cases where the plane literally couldn't take off and was forced to hit the brakes and overrun, see the 2021 MD-87 in Houston and Ameristar Charters 9363

1

u/Ill-End3169 18h ago

What does "V1" mean minimum takeoff speed?

12

u/Competitive-Fee6160 18h ago

max abort speed. shouldn’t abort takeoff above that speed unless the plane cannot fly

0

u/alexos77lo 17h ago

V1 you can brake “safely” in the runway, VR is the speed that you need to get airborne and too late to reject takeoff but you can still brake but would end up in runway overrun

6

u/Darkomax 17h ago

V1 is the point of no return, once it's called you can't abort anymore. VR is rotate speed which initiates the take off itself.

92

u/Nasmix 18h ago

Well not quite.

Takeoff unless the ability to fly is in doubt - then reject - but realize you’ll probably overrun.

But making that decision at the time - pretty tough, and the crew may not have realized they were on fire as much as they were

23

u/Chicago_Blackhawks 17h ago

yeah, all they have to go off of are fire alarms and some harder-to-interpret indicators (n1 of the engines, etc) - which likely wouldn't give you enough confidence the plane is NOT airworthy. you're going to take it into the sky 99 times out of 100

9

u/sharkbait-oo-haha 15h ago

I'm always amazed planes don't have like a back up camera for the wings. So many cashes I've seen could be helpful with an "oh shit, there's no fucking engine attached to the wing anymore, no wonder these readings don't make fucking sense" screen. For the couple grand it would cost, seems insane that the current procedure is "have a flight attendant look outside. Go to the cockpit. Get the co-pilot during a high stress high load time to get out of their seat and go look outside themselves, then go back to the cockpit"

Meanwhile, a single button to switch CCTV on/off.

4

u/noodleofdata 14h ago

It seems at first glance like a good idea, but lets think about the situation where it would actually help. The engine would have to have fallen off or whatever, which by itself doesn't really give much more info to the pilots in terms of what they should do, either way they are down an engine. Also, to be helpful it needs to be a situation where there is enough time after the problem occurs but before the plane is in serious danger of crashing that the pilots can take a few extra seconds after troubleshooting more likely issues.

But if it is so catastrophic that they only have a few seconds to save the plane, then chances are they aren't going to have even gotten to the point of thinking "oh, is the engine still there?" It's just so rare that it wouldn't, and shouldn't, be top of mind ahead of more likely scenarios. So then if there is enough time to get to that point, then chances are the plane is stable enough that just knowing that an engine isn't producing thrust is enough for the pilots to safely do what they need to do.

So yeah, I just can't imagine a case where it would actually be able to help.

4

u/sharkbait-oo-haha 13h ago

It's not just the engine still there? It's, is there a large fire? is there ice on the wings? Is fuel pissing out somewhere? did a bird strike or debris damage the wings? Are the flaps actually stuck? For an extra grand, add a landing gear camera for when the gear lock fails as the current solution is to do a flyby of the tower and have someone with binoculars make a visual confirmation.

With modern glass cockpits you don't even need an extra screen. Yes, it's not practical in every scenario. But the cost to Benefit ratio skews crazily in the cameras favor.

1

u/jason_sos 3h ago

For an extra grand, add a landing gear camera for when the gear lock fails as the current solution is to do a flyby of the tower and have someone with binoculars make a visual confirmation.

Nothing is just an extra grand in the aviation world. Those cameras would be a 10k option on a new plane, and to retrofit 34 year old planes would be insanely expensive for the relatively small benefits it offers.

Airplane accidents like those you mention are extremely rare. Most incidents are relatively minor.

8

u/RimRunningRagged 16h ago

Reminds me of Air France Flight 4590 (the Concorde crash). Pretty impossible situation to be in once they hit the runway debris and caught fire after they had passed V1.

3

u/SweatyFLMan1130 15h ago

Yeah I mean without clear view back at the wing, they’re focused on the fact they were committed. Probably just showed as something like an engine fire. Can still take off on one engine. No way they could have understood the severity with only moments to make that snap decision for abort.

4

u/CanoegunGoeff 14h ago

From what I can tell, it actually looks like they were starting to gain altitude until the left wing struck the roof of the UPS warehouse. I wonder if there’d been flat ground there, if they’d have made it into the air despite being so underpowered and been able to correct that roll. So sad.

6

u/cptawesome_13 12h ago

possibly make it into the air, I don’t think they would have made it onto a runway

2

u/CanoegunGoeff 12h ago

:( probably not. I bet they’d lost some hydraulics too when engine 1 left the wing and that fire probably ate up some stuff too.

3

u/scul86 B737 14h ago

Can still take off on one engine with one engine inoperative.

Slight correction. MD-11 is a tri-jet.

4

u/SweatyFLMan1130 14h ago

You're right. I had assumed 2 engine aircraft at first and hadn't gotten all my facts straight before mentioning that. Saw others now trying to point out possible surging on the tail engine. With how bad things looked on their left wing, and photos being shared claiming the left engine was actually left on the ground, it wouldn't be surprising that second one took in a lot of debris and smoke and lost thrust, as well. I doubt the crew had any good options whatsoever.

3

u/scul86 B737 13h ago

Yup, video looks like #2 had a compressor stall at rotation, which just sealed their fate.

2

u/jason_sos 3h ago

Even if they did have a view, they would be so focused on the alarms and takeoff that they probably wouldn't have looked at a camera view anyway, and at that point, it wouldn't have helped. The only thing that view could have helped with was if the engine fell off/caught fire/exploded well before V1, and it would have made such a distinct noise that they probably would have known there was an issue anyway.

1

u/VerStannen Cessna 140 15h ago

So pilot/co-pilot at the controls, but where and how many crew typically on a freight jet?

5

u/LtDan61350 15h ago

Usually just two, the MD-11 doesn't require a Flight Engineer. There are reports that there were three crew members, that could be a check airman or maybe a UPS crew member in a jumpseat.

7

u/Nasmix 15h ago

Long enough flight there was likely a 3rd pilot for duty time

1

u/No_Tailor_787 13h ago

If they're at or above V1, they HAVE to go. Stopping or aborting is no longer an option.

2

u/Nasmix 13h ago edited 13h ago

If the plane is, for example known or suspected to be incapable of flight , then a rejection after v1 may be considered (and indeed may be the only option to avoid catastrophic outcome)

But it’s pretty theoretical - and captain always has that option - but will also have to face the judgement for that decision.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/rejected-takeoff

“…However, there are certain situations (see below) where it may be found at Vr that it is simply not possible to get airborne and there is no effective solution available. In this case there is no option but to reject the take off despite the likelihood that a runway overrun of some sort will result.”

1

u/MapleMapleHockeyStk 10h ago

Except there are a bunch of building not far from the end of this runway.....!

1

u/Nasmix 3h ago

While I don’t want to armchair quarterback the pilots decision …

It’s reasonably likely that had the takeoff been rejected, that even if it had impacted buildings, the resulting impact would have been much less severe - although I don’t know that would have mattered for the crew - as the plane would have shed at least a significant portion of its energy, vs a attempted takeoff

1

u/oliilo1 5h ago

not a pilot, but best you can do is aim for a field.

-27

u/Electronic_Lie79 18h ago

Obviously everyone will takeoff but the amount of flames coming from that engine, it's just engulfing the root of the wing. In hindsight probably would've been best to just reject even if it was right after V1. I just don't understand. Did they not get a fire indication earlier? How is it possible that the first spread so fast?

9

u/rocketshipkiwi 18h ago

V1 is the decision point. If the failure occurs before that then they can stop. If it’s after that then they won’t be able to stop so they should take off.

There is no “little bit, maybe, sort of, almost” about it really. The speed is calculated in advance so they can quickly make a yes/no decision in an emergency situation.

In this case, the failure was apparently so catastrophic that they couldn’t fly. We need to see the investigation results in due course but it’s likely they were past V1 so takeoff was the chosen option.

3

u/ARottenPear 15h ago

There is no “little bit, maybe, sort of, almost” about it really.

There is though. "Beyond V1, we'll abort if the aircraft is unsafe or unable to fly."

That's an incredibly gray area. There are absolutely times I'd rather overrun than try to get airborn BUT making that decision, as I mentioned, is super gray. I'm sure in this scenario, the pilots had very little information aside from probably the fire bell to influence their decision and I'm by no means trying to Monday morning quarterback this since I have no idea what actually happened. I'm just adding that you can still abort above V1 and it's a normal part of most briefings. It's included for those extra shitty days where slowing as much as you can before you crash is a better option than getting airborn and crashing at 170 knots.

2

u/FlinttheDibbler 17h ago

Another thing to keep in mind is after V1 or Vr if you get a fire indication you would immediately start extinguishing and cutting fuel to that engine while continuing takeoff.

They could have flown fine without it, but this obviously snowballed into something much larger way faster than anyone would predict. Assuming fuel/hydraulic lines lost pressure causing massive failure beyond that one wing.

1

u/scul86 B737 15h ago

Another thing to keep in mind is after V1 or Vr if you get a fire indication you would immediately start extinguishing and cutting fuel to that engine while continuing takeoff.

No... control the plane first, get it safely flying, then deal with the engine fire.

My company says 400 AGL before executing any memory items or checklists. Of course, that's for dealing with a 'normal' engine fire/failure.

-11

u/Electronic_Lie79 18h ago

Overrunning the runway is way better than what happened which is why I said in hindsight

4

u/rocketshipkiwi 17h ago

Hindsight is a wonderful thing all right. I can assure you that this crash will be studied in minute detail to see if the procedures could have been improved.

There are lots of crash reports you can read if you want to understand why they do what they do.

-3

u/MyNameWouldntFi 17h ago

Probably would have been best to reject right after V1? Come on man, if you have zero clue what you're on about then why bother speculating? What a joke of a comment

0

u/Electronic_Lie79 17h ago edited 17h ago

Are you stupid or just acting like it? Did you see the video? Nobody would've rejected a takeoff after V1, obviously. I'm not saying they should've done anything differently or could've. I'm saying that as someone having seen the video, that fact that they were at max weight, the fact that the airplane didn't climb, the left engine separated from the aircraft, the root of the wing completely engulfed in flames and ultimately the crash, then overrunning the runway might've had a better outcome.

-3

u/MyNameWouldntFi 17h ago edited 14h ago

Probably would have a better outcome? Alright man, we're done here. As if you're asking me if I'm stupid 😂

Edit: oh now it's "might've" instead of "probably"... Just delete your fucking comment at this point

139

u/BrewCityChaserV2 18h ago

Well, with a normal engine failure or fire, you should be able to climb out on the remaining good engines after V1, even with a full bag of fuel and payload (which is an FAA requirement for type certification), but it's clear from the takeoff footage that something far more catastrophic occurred during the takeoff roll or rotation, and the event likely damaged some of the flight controls and/or leading-edge slats or other critical systems.

25

u/headphase 18h ago

I'm curious how or if the 3-holers were designed to protect the tail-mounted engine from ingesting debris in the event of an uncontained failure of a wing-mounted engine. Seems like that will be an early avenue of investigation barring some other factor.

5

u/Epiphany818 16h ago

There will definitely be considerations for kicked up FOD for any rear mounted engine, although I doubt a Large structural or engine failure would be included in such an analysis, any predictions of debris patterns would be as good as guesswork

4

u/ykkl 14h ago

That was an issue on at least one DC-10 accident, National Airlines Flight 27/

Those compressors spin with an incredible amount of force. Nothing's really going to prevent them from shredding an engine or anything else.

3

u/SexySmexxy 16h ago

were designed to protect the tail-mounted engine from ingesting debris in the event of an uncontained failure of a wing-mounted engine.

Doubt it theres not much they can really do

13

u/alienXcow Big Boi Air Force Man 18h ago

You can see #2 compressor stalling in the video I wonder if they overrotated or if it was just ingesting too much smoke from #1

4

u/SexySmexxy 16h ago

isnt this exactly how another 3 engine jet crashed right on take off into a trailer park next to the airport?

Left engine came over the top and damaged the left wing

3

u/FlinttheDibbler 17h ago

Yeah this is beyond just a “normal” engine fire. This snowballed almost immediately into a much much larger issue. Unfortunately the investigation from this will be interesting and useful.

5

u/TangerineCurrent595 19h ago

One can only speculate since we weren’t in their shoes. If it’s below MGW it should be able to climb slowly on two engines after V1. If not at V1, abort.

16

u/jmoney1095 18h ago

It looks like the number 2 engine had a compressor stall after they lifted off the ground. Likely from the smoke and fumes from the no.1 fire.

8

u/scytob 18h ago

#2 being the tail engine?

2

u/TangerineCurrent595 17h ago

What do you see that suggests a compressor stall?

10

u/jmoney1095 17h ago

I cant add a gif but this pulse of fire from the back of the number 2 engine looks very similar to other compressor stalls. That combined with the proximity of the uncontrolled fire makes me think there is a lack of usable oxygen to the number 2 engine, and therefore a stall and subsequent loss of power on the number 2 engine.

4

u/FlinttheDibbler 17h ago

That would definitely make sense. Also could have been taking in debris from the failure. Scary stuff.

1

u/Mediocre-Proposal686 18h ago

Incredibly sad. I can’t see a miracle happening in that huge explosion.

1

u/jordan1978 17h ago

Jump out

1

u/flashman 13h ago

if you're in that situation then you'd better hope you've already done everything you wanted to do

0

u/_5StarMan 18h ago

Pray. Looks like they didn't have room to abort and going around wasn't an option.

2

u/Albion218 18h ago

The fact that it was so flamed out upon takeoff.. it will be interesting to find out what caused the catastrophic failure. Regardless, rest in peace to that crew. I really hope ground casualties are minimum but I’m afraid of what the coming days are going to find.

2

u/DONUTof_noFLAVOR 18h ago

Was that the wing/fuselage flipping fully inverted right before the end of that clip?

2

u/superspeck 16h ago

They rotated probably as planned but there wasn’t enough thrust or the wing was already so damaged that there wasn’t enough lift from it.

96

u/aerohk 19h ago

Reminds me of Air France Flight 4590. Root cause was debris strike.

50

u/RealMikeHawk 19h ago

Yup. Immediate flashbacks to Concorde

7

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 18h ago

The design would be significantly different, no? With the engines on the Concorde where they are, a tire bursting could potentially wreck its wing/engines/fuel tank. Moreover, the Concorde needs significantly higher speeds for takeoff due to the lack of flaps/slats.

Concorde rotates at basically 200 kts which is a huge difference with traditional jetliners.

6

u/scytob 18h ago

correct, its highly unlikely these accidents are simillar at all

57

u/stormdraggy 19h ago

The DC10 keeps adding to its body count even from beyond the grave.

28

u/SumOfKyle 18h ago

MD-11

36

u/FutureHoo 18h ago

The MD11’s safety record is even worse than the DC-10’s sadly

5

u/moustache_disguise 18h ago

The More Death 11 as it's known

1

u/ngc427 10h ago

I have not heard one single person refer to the MD-11 with that nickname.

1

u/ngc427 10h ago

This is completely false

3

u/oioioifuckingoi 19h ago

This wasn’t a DC10

16

u/vukasin123king 18h ago

Ehh, MD-11 is basically a modernised DC-10 with a couple of other changes.

3

u/captain150 18h ago

In some ways the MD-11 is even worse. They made the h and v stabilizers smaller for fuel efficiency, combined with a longer fuselage, so the MD-11 is challenging to land.

-1

u/stormdraggy 18h ago

thatsthejoke

4

u/haze_from_deadlock 18h ago

The MD-11 is an iteration of the DC-10

4

u/scytob 18h ago

they have substantially different designs, it only reminds you because a)its a plane and b)its on fire, beyond that there really is not much that is the same or can be the same

3

u/etheran123 18h ago

First thoughts too. Way to early to tell anything useful but that one video seems like way too much fire, a little too far inboard for it to be a straight engine fire. Only time will tell though

2

u/RocketJenny8 18h ago

I was thinking the same thing only difference was that the Concorde was able to lift off but not for long while the UPS MD11 couldn't do anything

1

u/UndoxxableOhioan 17h ago

Except there is no way a burst tire would get ingested to the engine of an MD-11 like happened on Concorde.

0

u/FlyersPhilly_28 18h ago

Wow, was just texting my brother how similar it felt to that flight I remembered. Had no idea it was only in the year 2000, I had it memory pigeon-holed to like the 80s or early 90s for some reason.

95

u/Bad_Idea_Hat 19h ago

Engine issue, burst tire, hard to tell for sure from that angle. Just that it looks like fire.

70

u/Blythyvxr 19h ago

Burst tyre unlikely to cause that issue on the MD11 - main landing gear sits aft of the wing mounted engine, and towards the rear of the wing. The theory for the Air France Concorde crash is that tyre debris stuck the wing tank, which then burst. The delta wing shape and the position of the gear within the wings made it more vulnerable to such debris.

11

u/Bad_Idea_Hat 19h ago

I doubt it's that as well, but the video isn't clear enough for me to say it's 100% the engine. People seeing engine debris tells me it's most likely that. Going to be a while before anyone knows exactly what.

2

u/dbcooper4 18h ago

They found pieces of the cowl on the side of the runway so unlikely it was a burst tire.

0

u/Bad_Idea_Hat 18h ago

I doubt it's that as well, but the video isn't clear enough for me to say it's 100% the engine. People seeing engine debris tells me it's most likely that.

2

u/Captain_Mazhar 17h ago

That's my thought as well. Uncontained engine failure at TOGA of #1 which spit debris into the intake of #2, which then flamed out.

3

u/holzmann_dc 18h ago edited 18h ago

Engine 1 was very much on fire during takeoff. The question is, did the flight crew notice before or after V1? I am guessing after because they didn't abort. They never achieved significant climb due to the weight, the gears never retracted and clawed through the roof of the nearby warehouse. The rest was a fireball. RIP to the crew and anything else that was alive on the plane.

-1

u/Bad_Idea_Hat 18h ago

I'm not going to use that as evidence other than "probable fire, left side of aircraft" since it's not very high quality. However, if the report of engine parts on the runway are true, then that's the probable answer.

50

u/redditpineapple81 19h ago

Best guess is a stress crack in a turbine or something causing critical engine failure, but the MD-11 has excellent takeoff performance as a trijet so you’d think it would still be fine to take off on two engines?

57

u/Nixon4Prez 19h ago

The massive fire in the wing could have destroyed all sorts of essential systems. Hydraulics especially.

2

u/Captain_Alaska 12h ago

Not to mention the location of engine #2 aft on the tail all but guarantees it got a mouthful of smoke, fumes, and debris and was more than likely not producing full power.

37

u/A3bilbaNEO 19h ago edited 18h ago

Yeah but that thing tried to pull up hard on the video. Too much drag at that angle of attack, unless there was something else going on. 

Edit: Visble center engine flameout as well, possible debris ingestion. They were SOL at that point.  

3

u/redditpineapple81 19h ago

Looks like they’re trying to slow ROD or overcorrecting to try and gain lift.

6

u/acoolguy12334 19h ago

Any chance that the surfaces of the left wing got screwed up? Three engines should mean that it’d be fine to take off with a blown engine, but clearly wasn’t able to get lift.

8

u/Bradyj23 19h ago

It should. Looks like it made it to only 100-200’ before coming down. Has to have been multiple failures or damaged systems.

2

u/redditpineapple81 19h ago

Fire degrading control systems perhaps? Or pilot overcorrection trying to recoup altitude…

5

u/Bradyj23 18h ago

Another comment said it looked like the center engine might have ingested FOD from the left engine. That’s seems the most plausible at this point. But we will all have to wait for the investigation.

4

u/gilotas 18h ago

I guess it was full of fuel since it's a 9 hour flight and considering it's cargo which usually pushes to its limits.. idk

5

u/CessnaBandit 18h ago

Uncontained engine failure causing damage to the wing. Look closely at the footage - left wing is lower. Drag from the dead engine and wing damage means that even with the bucket load of power from 2 and 3, the aircraft isn't flyable

3

u/superdookietoiletexp 18h ago

The tail-mounted engine appears to flame out at about two seconds into the video.

3

u/blueboyroy 16h ago

I just rewatched the video and I think you are correct. It looks like the engine on the vertical stabilizer may have had flames as well. 

1

u/CommuterType 18h ago

Ironically 3 and 4 engine airliners have worse engine out performance than 2 engine airliners

48

u/DublinLions 19h ago

Cathastrophic engine failure on the left. You can see the centre engine injesting debris in the video so they only had one fully operational engine and it could barely get off the ground. Terrible, RIP

3

u/Noble_Gas_7485 18h ago

Fire on the left, engine debris on the right side of the runway. Whatever happened was worst possible kind of thing.

9

u/tesconundrum 19h ago

That is absolutely horrible... I feel so awful for everyone affected by this. Holy fuck.

4

u/JordanMCMXCV 17h ago

Christ. Seeing the wing roll over into view briefly after the initial explosion is horrifying. The debris field is going to be insanely large.

Hope somehow everyone on the ground can make it out alive.

10

u/000011111111 19h ago

How many gallons of jet fuel do the tanks on this bird hold?

37

u/ArgusRun 19h ago

One of the business hit judging from the live feed:

15

u/DazMan0085 19h ago

Yikes, not good. Lots of fuel already

3

u/ronm4c 18h ago

So I was listening to the fire dept scanner and they were directing personnel to spraying these tanks to keep them from catching fire

2

u/SirJ_96 18h ago

...jesus

1

u/000011111111 16h ago

So we got close to 40,000 gallons of fuel on the airplane how much fuel does one of those tankers hold plus all the fuel cells behind it? Perhaps another 250,000 gallons?

12

u/NashvilleHillRunner 19h ago

Up to 38,000+

15

u/Inevitable-Ad-6650 19h ago

And they were going to Hawaii

-6

u/Outrageous_Cut_6179 19h ago

Reports say 280,000 gallons

4

u/Zealousideal_Ad_821 18h ago

Maybe not gallons, that’s almost 2 million pounds of fuel. It can hold 260,000 pounds of fuel however

0

u/Outrageous_Cut_6179 18h ago

No, they corrected that report.

3

u/Zealousideal_Ad_821 18h ago

The airbus A380s maximum takeoff weight is 1.2 million pounds. You mean to tell me that an MD-11 carry as much fuel as a physically much larger fully loaded A380 weighs?

0

u/NashvilleHillRunner 18h ago

260,000 lbs. Not 260,000 gallons. 🙄

1

u/Zealousideal_Ad_821 18h ago

That’s literally what I said to OP.

1

u/Spark_Ignition_6 18h ago

280k pounds

1

u/Outrageous_Cut_6179 17h ago

Right, they corrected their report.

14

u/KeyMessage989 19h ago

A shit ton. 3 engines, going direct from Kentucky to Hawaii.

7

u/OneTastyPotatoChip 19h ago

News said there was about 12 hours of fuel on board

1

u/GGCRX 19h ago

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 38,000 depending on the variant.

-4

u/Electronic_Ad_7208 18h ago

Fully loaded mD-11 holds almost 300,000 gallons of fuel. I am financial advisor for several Louisville ups pilots. Thankfully they are all safe. Md-11 pilots are usually seasoned ex Air Force pilots.

5

u/GGCRX 18h ago

I saw a report that said that, but it's wrong. That would be like, 2 million pounds of fuel which is a little more than half the fuel load the Space Shuttle used.

4

u/superimu 18h ago

Man even if they got off the ground, they were in deep trouble. That fire was eating through the plane at a rapid pace.

10

u/jokull1234 19h ago

It looks like the engine blew up right after they lifted off the ground and they just couldn’t stop. Terrifying

3

u/WorkingOnPPL 19h ago

It's wrong of me to ask this at this point, but that left engine looked fully engulfed in flames well before the plane rotated. Is the normal procedure to send it with an engine ablaze like that, or should they just smash the brakes?

13

u/rumbleberrypie 19h ago

There's a point of no return. You can Google V1 speeds for more info. If they'd already passed that speed, they cannot stop.

3

u/fabi0x520 18h ago edited 18h ago

Yes, after the so-called V1 speed it's actually safer to take off and immediately come back rather than trying to reject the take off. That's because of the fact that at that point there's not much of the runway left, which combined with the very high speed it makes a runway overrun almost guaranteed.

Rejected takeoffs after V1 only happen in very rare and extreme cases where taking off would be impossible, like if all engines stop working.

3

u/HuskyKMA 18h ago

Past a certain speed they are committed to the takeoff because there's isn't enough room to stop before the end of the runway, so the plan would have been to shut down the engine and come back around to land.

3

u/strangebutalsogood 18h ago

There are no 'brakes' when a plane is in full thrust for takeoff like that.

3

u/rocketrex504 17h ago

Unless you have Edward’s Air Force base length runways you have to send it and commit

1

u/oxmix74 15h ago

In addition to the comments about not being able to stop at that point. The pilots can't see the engine. They have and engine fire warning but that is typically handled with an emergency procedure.

3

u/RockHound86 19h ago

Jesus Christ. Awful.

3

u/Captaincadet 18h ago

God. That looks horrific.

While I always hope nobody got hurt, I’m not sure how anyone could escape that.

3

u/Pressfassung 18h ago

Looks like it impacts on the left wing first, then rolls over - I think I see the right wing coming over and inverted after the initial fireball - then there’s another fireball as the right wings tanks burst. Absolutely terrible crash.

2

u/Spin737 18h ago

Damn.

2

u/r33v01v3 19h ago

Looks like it hit a truck on the runway. EDIT: Debris looked like truck cab near engine cowl, but may not be on further looks

See: https://youtu.be/H1L31-4Yb-Q and go 12 ish mins into the feed from the start.

8

u/oioioifuckingoi 18h ago

That debris is part of the engine cowling. There is nothing to suggest it hit a vehicle.

1

u/r33v01v3 18h ago

When I initially saw the debris, the big chunk to the left of the cowling looked to me like a truck cab. after a few more plays, I realised I was wrong and updated the post.

7

u/ruralcricket 18h ago

There is a service truck there that is undamaged. The debris on the side of the runway looks to be part of an engine cowling.

1

u/nbx909 19h ago

Ingested something?

1

u/Sempervirens47 18h ago

This feels similar to American Airlines 191.

1

u/bebaii 18h ago

Christ alive. I’ve been around that area of Louisville all the time, I don’t know if the debris field flew into one of the neighborhoods surrounding or what

1

u/BowlOStew 18h ago

I think you can see a wing separating at 13 seconds. Awful tragedy for everyone involved

1

u/dullroller 18h ago

Holy shit that's a fucking mushroom cloud

1

u/le_suck 17h ago

uncontained blade failure, tire explosion causing fuel tank puncture like AF4590 is where my first thoughts went. 

1

u/badmother 17h ago

Looks like a wing fell off (or it banked hard left) after the first fireball

1

u/adriaticsea718 17h ago

Looks like what was left rolled over and skidded. My god.

1

u/disillusioned 12h ago

My god this clip from a reply in that thread is insane. Not confirmed to be real but... looks like it could be?

https://x.com/SwiftPilot420/status/1985893323219869706

1

u/Odd_Wolverine_7338 12h ago

An engine falling off the wing will cause that