Mcdonnell Douglas MD-11F accident near Subic Bay, Rp, June 2, 2002
On June 2, 2002 at about 4:00 pm local time, a Mcdonnell Douglas MD-11F, registered N601FE, was substantially damaged in an accident near Subic Bay (Subic Bay International airport). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The failure of the lower outboard nut and bolt assembly of the left inboard flap's outboard hinge that resulted from stress corrosion cracking and fatigue. Factors contributing to the accident were the inadequate materials specification of the bolt, and inadequate inspection requirements for the assembly.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 2, 2002 · about 4:00 pm local time
- Place
- Subic Bay, RP · Subic Bay International
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Mcdonnell Douglas MD-11F · all MD-11Fs on the register
- Registration
- N601FE · registry record · serial 48401
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
As the MD-11F airplane was on final approach to landing, the flight crew selected flaps 50 (full extension) and continued to approach the runway. About one minute later, the flight crew heard a loud bang and felt the airplane shudder. The airplane then began to roll to the left, and nearly full right control wheel input was required to counter the left roll. The flight crew performed a missed approach, declared an emergency, and diverted to another airport. During the landing, the airplane experienced a tailstrike. The flight control malfunction was initiated by the failure of the bolt assemblies securing the left inboard flap outboard hinge to the wing trailing edge. The lower outboard nut failed first due to stress corrosion cracking. The lower inboard bolt failure was initiated by fatigue and was completed by overload following the failure of the nut on the lower outboard bolt. The two upper bolts failed by overload following the failure of both lower bolt assemblies. The failure of all four bolt assemblies allowed the flap hinge to pull free from the wing trailing edge, drop and jam the left, inboard flap at the fully extended position. The separating flap hinge pulled the components of the left hand spoiler system from their original position resulting in the deployment of spoilers L1, L4, and L5. The deployment of three of the five left-hand spoilers caused the uncommanded left roll of the aircraft. Hydraulic system no. 3 was also damaged when the flap hinge separated allowing the hydraulic fluid to drain out of the system. Once the hydraulic quantity is depleted, the number three spoilers on each wing will not operate. According to Boeing engineers, the loss of the R3 spoiler would affect the ability of the right wing flight controls to counter the left roll of the aircraft. The airplane was originally used as a manufacturer flight test airplane. The impact of the flight-testing of the airplane to the overall fatigue life of the flap hinge bolts could not be determined. Prior to the accident, there were no requirements for the inspection of the flap hinge bolt assemblies on MD-11 aircraft. The manufacturer issued a service bulletin after the accident recommending inspection and/or replacement of the flap hinge, lower bolt assemblies. The bulletin recommends changing from alloy steel bolts and nuts to Inconel. Inconel is a nickel-based alloy that is highly resistant to general corrosion and stress corrosion cracking, which can occur in low alloy, high strength steel. The FAA issued an Airworthiness Directive mandating the Service Bulletin.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 8,311 hours in all; 5,531 in this make and model
- Last flight review: January 17, 2002
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (valid medical--no waivers/lim.)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
Co-pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 2,898 hours in all; 1,516 in this make and model
- Last flight review: January 17, 2002
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (valid medical--no waivers/lim.)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 37,443 hours
- Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, June 10, 2002; 88 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 632,000 lb
- Seats: 5
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: General Electric CF6 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: General Electric CF6 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 3: General Electric CF6 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: Federal Express CORP
The flight
- Departed from: BKK Bangkok at 7:30 pm
- Destination: SFS Subic Bay
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: night
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 2 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Other NTSB records under N601FE the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.
