FedEx Plane Crash Landings: A Deep Dive into Aviation Incidents

The skies are often seen as a realm of precision and control, where advanced technology and skilled pilots work in harmony to deliver goods and people safely across vast distances. Yet, even in this highly regulated domain, accidents happen. For FedEx, a global leader in cargo transportation, the stakes are uniquely high. With a fleet of aircraft crisscrossing the globe daily, the company has faced its share of dramatic incidents, including crash landings that have tested its operational resilience and shaped aviation safety protocols. This article explores some of the most significant FedEx plane crash landings, delving into their causes, outcomes, and the lessons learned, all while offering an original perspective on these high-stakes events.

FedEx Express Flight 80: The Narita Tragedy

One of the most infamous FedEx crash landings occurred on March 23, 2009, at Narita International Airport in Japan. FedEx Express Flight 80, a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F cargo plane, was completing a routine flight from Guangzhou, China, when disaster struck during its landing attempt on Runway 34L. The weather that morning was clear but turbulent, with gusty winds reported by preceding aircraft. As the plane flared—raising its nose to slow descent just before touchdown—it destabilized. What followed was a series of bounces that escalated into catastrophe.

The first officer, who was flying the plane, executed a late flare with excessive nose-up input, causing the aircraft to bounce upon initial contact with the runway. In response, large nose-down inputs were applied, leading to a harsh touchdown on the nose gear. This deviated from standard MD-11 procedures, which recommend maintaining a steady pitch angle and using thrust to manage descent after a bounce. The second bounce pitched the plane upward again, and a subsequent hard landing—at a sink rate of approximately 1,200 feet per minute—overwhelmed the left main landing gear. The gear’s force transferred into the left wing, snapping it and rupturing fuel tanks. The aircraft rolled, flipped inverted, and skidded off the runway, engulfed in flames.

Tragically, both crew members—Captain Kevin Mosley and First Officer Anthony Pino—perished. The investigation by Japan’s Transport Safety Board (JTSB) pinpointed the high sink rate and aggressive control inputs as primary causes, compounded by the MD-11’s unforgiving design. The aircraft’s small horizontal stabilizer, intended to boost fuel efficiency, reduced pitch stability, making it prone to dramatic oscillations if mishandled during landing. This incident marked FedEx’s first fatal crash at Narita and its second involving a jet aircraft, prompting renewed scrutiny of the MD-11’s handling characteristics and pilot training.

FedEx Express Flight 14: A Miraculous Escape in Newark

A strikingly similar incident occurred over a decade earlier, on July 31, 1997, when FedEx Express Flight 14 crash-landed at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey. This MD-11F, flying from Anchorage, Alaska, after stops in Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan, carried a crew of two and three passengers. Unlike Flight 80, however, all five occupants survived—a testament to luck, quick thinking, and structural quirks that allowed escape.

The plane approached Runway 22R just before midnight, with the captain intent on touching down early to maximize stopping distance. One thrust reverser was inoperative, and the crew was aware of past auto-brake issues, heightening their focus on a smooth landing. Yet, as the flare began, the captain over-corrected: lowering the nose too early, then raising it with thrust, and finally pushing it down again. The aircraft touched down hard, bounced, and rolled right. On the second touchdown, the right main landing gear collapsed, and the No. 3 engine scraped the runway. The right wing spars fractured, and the plane flipped倒ded, coming to rest off the runway in flames.

Despite the wreckage, all five occupants escaped through a cockpit window, sustaining only minor injuries. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) attributed the crash to the captain’s over-control and failure to initiate a go-around after the destabilized flare. The parallels to Flight 80 are eerie—both involved MD-11s, bounced landings, gear collapses, and fires—yet the survival of Flight 14’s crew highlighted how small variables, like crash dynamics and fire spread, can determine life or death.

FedEx Express Flight 647: A Hard Landing in Memphis

Not all FedEx crash landings have involved the MD-11. On December 18, 2003, FedEx Express Flight 647, a Boeing MD-10-10F, crashed during landing at Memphis International Airport, Tennessee—the company’s primary hub. The flight originated in Oakland, California, carrying two crew members and five nonrevenue FedEx pilots as passengers. Unlike the previous incidents, all seven aboard survived, though the aircraft was destroyed.

Touching down on Runway 36R at 12:26 p.m., the plane landed hard due to the first officer’s failure to properly align it and reduce speed. A crosswind exacerbated the situation, causing the right wing to drop six degrees—beyond the right main landing gear’s design limits. The gear snapped, and the plane veered off the runway, igniting a fire that consumed the right wing and parts of the fuselage. The first officer and one passenger sustained minor injuries during evacuation, partly due to an improperly deployed emergency slide.

The NTSB investigation criticized the first officer’s execution and the captain’s inadequate oversight. Despite the crosswind, conditions were within the aircraft’s capabilities, making human error the decisive factor. This incident underscored the importance of crew coordination and adherence to landing protocols, even on familiar turf like Memphis.

Common Threads and the MD-11’s Reputation

A recurring theme in FedEx crash landings is the McDonnell Douglas MD-11, a trijet known for its challenging handling. Designed as an evolution of the DC-10, the MD-11 traded stability for efficiency with a smaller stabilizer and higher landing speeds—around 154 knots, faster than most airliners. Its pitch sensitivity demands precise control, especially during the flare, where overcorrections can trigger porpoising (oscillatory bounces). FedEx, a major operator of the MD-11F, has borne the brunt of its quirks, with incidents like Flights 80 and 14 exposing its limitations.

Yet, not all blame lies with the aircraft. Pilot error—whether over-control, delayed reactions, or poor judgment—has been a consistent factor. Fatigue, pressure to land rather than go around, and inadequate training for edge cases have also surfaced in investigations. FedEx’s operational tempo, with frequent night flights and tight schedules, may amplify these risks, though the company maintains rigorous safety standards.

Safety Reforms and Industry Impact

Each FedEx crash landing has spurred change. After Flight 80, the NTSB recommended enhanced MD-11 pilot training, emphasizing stabilized approaches, bounce recovery, and sink rate management. Simulator programs were updated to simulate turbulent landings, preparing crews for real-world chaos. The Newark crash prompted similar calls for go-around reinforcement, while the Memphis incident highlighted crosswind training needs.

Broader industry lessons emerged too. The MD-11’s design flaws influenced Boeing’s (which acquired McDonnell Douglas) subsequent aircraft, prioritizing stability over marginal efficiency gains. FedEx, meanwhile, began phasing out MD-11s in favor of more forgiving Boeing 767s and 777s, though the transition is gradual given the MD-11’s cargo capacity.

A Recent Scare: The Chattanooga Incident

On October 4, 2023, a FedEx Boeing 757 made headlines with a dramatic emergency landing in Chattanooga, Tennessee. After departing Memphis, the crew reported a landing gear malfunction. Video footage captured sparks as the plane skidded down the runway, its left gear failing to extend fully. It veered off the pavement but stopped without flipping or catching fire. Miraculously, all three crew members emerged unharmed.

The NTSB found a hydraulic fluid leak and a wiring issue in the alternate gear system, pointing to maintenance rather than pilot error. This non-fatal incident contrasts with earlier tragedies, showcasing how improved design—like the 757’s robustness—and crew preparedness can avert disaster.

Conclusion: Resilience in the Face of Risk

FedEx’s crash landings reveal the razor-thin margin between routine and catastrophe in cargo aviation. From the fatal Narita crash to the survivable Chattanooga scare, these events blend human fallibility, mechanical limits, and unpredictable conditions. They’ve cost lives, destroyed aircraft, and challenged a company synonymous with reliability. Yet, they’ve also driven progress—refining training, technology, and operational culture.

For FedEx, the skies remain a proving ground where every landing tests the interplay of skill and system. As the company evolves its fleet and protocols, these incidents serve as stark reminders: even in a world of overnight delivery, safety demands constant vigilance. The stories of Flights 80, 14, 647, and beyond are not just tales of wreckage—they’re chapters in aviation’s ongoing quest to master the unpredictable.