Gut-Wrenching: UPS MD-11 Loses Engine On Takeoff, Catches Fire, Crashes

It's been a rough year for aviation. From what I've gathered, the aircraft was being repaired 2 hours before departure.

And this is just another example of takeoffs and landings being the most critical phase of flight.

Incredibly tragic and horrifying. I feel for the families of the crew and the victims. Hope the investigation results in lessons-learned so that we can avoid such accidents in the future.

And, Ben, thank goodness it was not a passenger aircraft, like AA191, and that their path was not over populated areas. Still, that footage with the trucks in the foreground is almost too vivid. I'd imagine these brave pilots fought it to the bitter end, even though, not much they could really do.

Love all these articles that insist we're not going to speculate, and then speculate. It's ok. Just go for it if you want to. No need to apologize. It's your site.

"The idea is that once a plane reaches that speed, you continue with your takeoff, no matter what." - Aren't fire and/or engine failure one of those few reasons to abort even after V1?

A few years ago, a chartered MD-83 at KYIP aborted after V1; no fatalities. The pilot later said something to the effect of, I know you're never supposed to abort after V1 but something just didn't feel right. The investigation confirmed it was unflyable. But otoh KYIP has plenty of runway for a lightly-loaded MD-83.

Which is to say, one thing that's incredible to me is the sheer number of things a pilot has to be aware of - not just on the gauges and dials, but every quirk of a massive and complex aircraft, what's at the end of the runway, the weather halfway around the world, ad infinitum.

AA191 in 1979 lost the left engine and the left wing slats retracted causing the stall.

Terrible tragedy. That is long route for this aging aircraft would be my initial thought.

I always see one MD-11 FEDEX (not UPS) cargo plane parked at IAH. I even saw 4 a couple weeks ago ! I was under the strong assumption that these are short haul flights with constant maintenance like IAH-DFW or IAH-MEM or IAH-OKC.

3 people died and 11 injured on the ground. This impacts the lives of many. Why is everyone mentioning aa191? Because of the similar trajectory ?

No. You'll abort for ANYTHING up to 80kts. After that, you'll only abort for engine fire, failure, windshear, or it's obvious the airplane won't fly. After V1, you're going flying, period. The reason is that after V1, you mathematically don't have enough runway ahead to stop the airplane. (that's the definition of V1).

In this case, loss (physical) of the engine might only show up as a normal engine loss via instrumentation and the physics might just feel like a normal engine loss.

Ben initially mentioned AA191. It was respectful and appropriate. 271 died then. So far, 9 have been reported dead from this UPS incident. If you were attempting to virtue signal by asking anyone here to self-censor, kindly, please stop that noise.

And that incident (AA191) cost far more lives, 271 died. Awful.

There were three major lessons learned, then:
1. Stricter protocols and banned the shortcut (using a forklift to remove the engine/pylon as a single unit) that caused the initial structural damage. Required rigorous post-maintenance inspection and formal risk analysis for procedures.

2. Mandated redundancy for critical systems (especially the stall warning/stick shaker) and required mechanical locks on wing slats to prevent retraction after a hydraulic failure.

3. Revised emergency procedures to require pilots to maintain a higher airspeed after engine loss, to avoid inadvertently flying below the stall speed of a damaged wing.

Not sure any of those will apply to UPS, but, the point remains that thorough investigations after these events are important, so that we can learn, improve, and prevent more horrors, ideally.

Aircraft age, alone, is NOT the critical factor. Look no further than our USAF Boeing B-52 Stratofortress built around 1960. Despite their age, the B-52H model is expected to remain in service for decades to come due to ongoing upgrades and maintenance.

For this tragedy with UPS, catastrophic failures tend to happen right after human error; so, investigators will probably look to whether that engine had just come out of maintenance...

Life is speculation. It is indeed Ben's site, and I love that he does whatever he wants to with it. No one should self-censor. Say what you wanna say; if folks take issue with it, then they'll say what they wanna say. Ignore or engage.

Exactly. Catastrophic failures tend to happen right after human error. If there were any errors during that alleged maintenance, it is likely the source. Investigators should be able to identify.

Speculation, it was a sign of how power Mamdani can be. Defy Mamdani by not riding the free bus and he will crush you.

Yeah its going to be interesting why that engine detached from the wing if it was because of fatigued, lack off or improper maintenance.

Will see

These videos are terrifying. Perhaps add a warning.

Not at all. Since you brought it up how about not gaslighting?

Yup classic millenial move, rules for thee and not for me! But exactly Lucky can say whatever he wants its his site and we love it, keep up the good work Ben!

derek, you doin' alright? This post was about the UPS tragedy. (You do you, but that was a bit unhinged, dawg.)

Glad that's not the case.

During takeoff decision have to be made in seconds or less, V1 provides the go/no-go for the takeoff before starting the takeoff to allow that quick decision to be made. V1 is not a static value and is calculated for each takeoff. The only reason a takeoff should be rejected after V1 is if the plane is not capable of flying (ie you attempt to takeoff but it will not fly) leaving the pilot the only options of running off the runway crashing fast or slower.

The AF4590 flight investigated looked at if a rejected takeoff would have made a difference. It was determined that the high speed runway excursion would have lead to gear collapse and the existing fire would have resulted in the plane bursting into flames. Investigations like this continually support the fact that once you reach V1 you takeoff unless the plane cannot.

In this case, the plane was able to takeoff so the pilots made the right call even though this resulted in an almost immediate crash. Sometimes you can make all the right decisions but the outcome will still be a tragedy.

Human error.

And yet humans still keep making errors by still allowing humans to make errors.

Ben is not speculating here; he’s actually just reporting the facts that are known to the aviation community via AH.
Let me note the difference :
- Speculation - maybe one of the engines fell off???
- Fact - we know an engine fell off because we have a photo of it in a field far away from the accident site, and video of the plane flying without the damn engine on.
You may view what Ben’s says as speculation, but I promise you in this case that means you don’t know as much about the situation as the experienced aviation community does based on the clearer videos and pictures.

Not exactly correct. The engine was mounted improperly on the wing and separated at takeoff. It was discovered that several DC-10 operators including Continental Airlines were not mounting the engines per Mc Donnell Doulgas specs after engine overhauls.

Nate, do you need a warning to breath?
Ridiculous …. what is this woke world coming out of the U.S. all about?

“Aircraft age, alone, is NOT the critical factor“ …. Absolutely, my AOP.6 is testament to that.

Absolutely Esk, your mother and father (assuming that you are indeed human?) obviously made an “Error” when they made you …. so sorry bro, I couldn’t resist the temptation …. boom, boom! 🙂

It is similar to Ai171 AMD/LHR June 12 2025 which flew an altitude of 600 feet

The ups flight is having engine
Problem requiring thorough maintenance it was not done
Completely

Age should not be ruled out as a factor during the investigation. The L1011 and B52 safety track records would put the MD11 to shame.

There is no need to fuel up this aging plane with several thousand lbs for a long haul route.

In the final years of the mad dog American put it on short haul routes ie ORD-DFW , DFW-ELP , and DFW IAH into retirement . They weren’t pushing the limits flying cross country from the Midwest to the west coast on 4+ hr flights.

Another disaster for the DC (death cruiser) / MD (mega death) trijets. How many people has this failed design killed over the decades ? Unreal. The trijet is a a total disgrace for McDonnell Douglas.

Exactly. You don’t pump 220,000 lbs of gas into that old hunk of junk well beyond its years ! After all the yellow tape and bureaucracy they will blame it on human error.