FedEx Express Flight 910
McDonnell Douglas MD 10-10F · Landing gear collapse and caught fire due to metal fatigue
From Frederick W. Smith International Airport (KMEM) to Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport (FLL)
Narrative check · The NTSB narrative appears to contradict this record's injuries. Values are shown as recorded, not corrected; compare with the narrative.
Event
- NTSB case
- DCA17MA022
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
- Completed
- Event fatalities
- 0 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- Occupants
- 2
- Survivors
- 2
- InjuriesFatal: death within 30 days. Serious: over 48 hours in hospital within a week, most broken bones, severe bleeding, nerve or organ damage, or serious burns. Minor: anything less. Glossary
- 1
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- Airline
- WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
- Visual Meteorological Cond
McDonnell Douglas MD 10-10F
- Flight
- FX910
- Aircraft type
- McDonnell Douglas MD-10
- Category
- Airplane
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N370FE
- Operator
- FedEx Express
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Frederick W. Smith International Airport (KMEM), Memphis, TNTo Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport (FLL), Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Aircraft age
- About 44 years (built 1972)
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 121: Air Carrier
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- Landing · landing roll
- Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Landing gear collapse
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Substantial
Cause areas
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems
Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.
From the Wikipedia article
On October 28, 2016, FedEx Express Flight 910, a McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F flying from Memphis International Airport to Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport was involved in a runway skid after a landing gear collapse, which resulted in a fire partially destroying the left engine and wing. No one was killed, however, the captain suffered minor injuries.
Accident
FedEx Flight 910 landed on Fort Lauderdale's runway 10L at 17:50 local time (21:50Z). The tower reported the left side CF6 engine appeared on fire. The aircraft came to a stop about 6,580 ft down the runway and beyond the left edge with the left main gear collapsed and the left wing on fire. The airport closed all runways while emergency services responded to put the fire out. Out of the crew members onboard, one was injured, and the aircraft received substantial damage. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) dispatched five investigators on site and opened an investigation.
On October 31, the NTSB reported that the left main gear failed after landing and during rollout. The left engine and left wing scraped the runway and the aircraft veered to the left and came to a stop partially off the runway. Both flight crew members escaped through the right cockpit window using an escape rope. One injury was reported. Cockpit voice and flight data recorders were taken to the NTSB lab in Washington for analysis. Following an examination of the runway, the NTSB returned control of the runway to the Fort Lauderdale Airport.
Investigation and cause
Investigation
On August 23, 2018, the NTSB reported that "the failure of the left main gear was the result of a metal fatigue crack that initiated within the gear," and cited FedEx's failure to overhaul the gear at the manufacturer-recommended eight-year interval as a contributor to the crash.
Text from the Wikipedia article “FedEx Express Flight 910” (revision 1366709230, retrieved 2026-09-18) by its authors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Extracted as plain text: references, tables, images and some sections are left out. Read the article
NTSB narrative
On October 28, 2016, about 1751 eastern daylight time, FedEx Express (FedEx) flight 910, a McDonnell Douglas MD-10-10F, N370FE, experienced a left main landing gear (MLG) collapse after landing on runway 10L at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport (KFLL), Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the left wing subsequently caught fire. The airplane came to rest off the left side of the runway. As the flight crew was preparing to evacuate, the nearly empty left main fuel tank exploded after the exterior surfaces were heated by burning fuel, which flowed from a broken fuel supply tube in the left engine pylon. The two flight crewmembers evacuated the airplane, and the captain sustained minor injuries during the evacuation. The first officer was not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage.
The first officer, who was the pilot flying the cargo flight, conducted an approach and landing that were stabilized and within specified limits. Although crosswind conditions were present at the time the airplane landed, the weather did not affect the landing. The application of braking by the flight crew did not initiate or contribute to the landing gear fracture. A review of the status of all applicable airworthiness directives and service bulletins for the airplane, powerplants, and appliances found no discrepancies.
Metallurgical examination of a 3-by-3-inch fragment of the left MLG cylinder (see images B and C in figure 1) and the mating fracture region on the largest piece of the fractured left MLG (see figure 2) found indications consistent with overstress fracture having emanated from the air filler valve bore. The overstress features emanated from a small thumbnail crack, located at the radius between the cylinder inner diameter surface and the air filler valve bore surface. This thumbnail crack was observed on both mating fracture surfaces of the MLG and the 3-by-3-inch fragment, and it exhibited features (such as crack arrest marks) consistent with a pre-existing crack that progressed to fracture of the MLG. The observed features in the initiation region of the thumbnail crack were found to be consistent with fatigue cracking, as exhibited by the fatigue striations observed during microscopic examination. Later propagation regions of the thumbnail crack revealed features consistent with mixed mode fatigue, overstress, and intergranular fracture. These findings confirmed that once the crack progressed to a critical length, the left MLG cylinder fractured in overstress due to the loads imposed during landing.
Figure 1. A diagram of an MD-10-10F left MLG (A), photograph of the 3-by-3-inch fragment from the lower section of the accident left MLG cylinder (B), and closer view of the region pointed out in image B (C).
Figure 2. Photographs of largest piece of fractured left MLG pointing to the crack initiation site (top) and a closer view of the crack initiation site, with a yellow dashed line highlighting the mating thumbnail crack (bottom).
The most prominent quality of the crack initiation site was a feature consistent with a corrosion pit. No indications of nickel, chrome, or cadmium plating were found at the radius or along the smooth sections of the air filler valve bore, as stipulated by maintenance instructions. The absence of a protective coating, over time, could lead to corrosion pitting. Any corrosion pitting or mechanical damage to the protective coating incurred during maintenance can lead to fatigue cracking.
Figure 3. Closer view of the primary fatigue crack region (highlighted by the dashed yellow line) and the region of mixed-mode crack propagation (highlighted by the dashed blue line).
The MLG's last overhaul was completed on February 28, 2008, during which the air filler valve bore was inspected per Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) DC10-32A259. This ASB (which was prompted by an MLG collapse on a FedEx MD-10-10F in 2006 and indicated that stray plating, if present, can enhance local corrosion under the edge of the plating in and around the bore) instructed operators to inspect the air filler valve bore for stray nickel or chrome electroplating deposits, corrosion, or cracks to prevent fatigue failure of the cylinder. Although neither stray plating nor cracks were found as part of the ASB inspection, corrosion repair was completed on the accident cylinder, and it underwent brush cadmium plating per maintenance instructions before being returned to service.
It was not possible to determine whether cadmium plating applied during the last overhaul did not properly bond to the bore surface, was removed during later maintenance, or wore off over time because there is no routine procedure to effectively inspect this area during on-wing maintenance activities conducted since the last MLG overhaul. To be effective, it is critical that a protective coating be uniform, adherent, and complete when applied in areas known to be susceptible to pitting corrosion. Finite element analysis of this MLG cylinder (conducted using the same method, tools, and format as those used in the investigation of the 2006 event) concluded that residual stress levels at the corrosion pit were sufficiently high to promote crack propagation leading to full fracture of the cylinder barrel. Since the accident, the maintenance facility that performed the last MLG cylinder overhaul has introduced a tank dip method for plating air filler valve bores, which provides improved uniformity, adherence, and coverage over the brush plating method.
The manufacturer-recommended overhaul limit for the MLG assembly is every 8 years or 7,500 flight cycles, whichever occurs first. At the time of the accident, FedEx's MLG overhaul limit was 9 years or 30,000 flight hours, whichever occurred first, and the left MLG outer cylinder on the accident airplane was 152 days away from its next required overhaul. FedEx reportedly adopted the 9-year overhaul interval used by the previous owner/operator of the first DC10s it purchased. The company produced no documentation or data analysis supporting the longer overhaul interval.
Following this accident, FedEx inspected all MLGs in its MD-10-10F fleet (27 in-service airplanes and 54 MLG). Sixteen cylinders were identified as "concerns" and were permanently removed from service. After reviewing its maintenance program, FedEx reverted to an 8-year overhaul limit for MLG cylinders, as recommended by the manufacturer. The NTSB notes that if FedEx had not adopted an overhaul limit that exceeded the manufacturer's recommendation, the fatigue crack in the accident MLG cylinder, which was last overhauled 8.5 years before the accident, likely would have been detected and addressed before it could progress to failure.
Probable cause
The failure of the left main landing gear (MLG) due to fatigue cracking that initiated at a corrosion pit. The pit formed in the absence of a required protective cadmium coating the cause of which could not be determined from available evidence. Contributing to the failure of the left MLG was the operator's overhaul limit, which exceeded that recommended by the airplane manufacturer without sufficient data and analysis to ensure crack detection before it progressed to failure.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
Wikipedia article: FedEx Express Flight 910
- Article
- FedEx Express Flight 910
- Revision
- 1366709230 · 2026-07-29 · retrieved 2026-09-18
- Wikidata
- Q27630526
- Licence
- Text CC BY-SA 4.0, by the article's authors; Wikidata CC0; town positions GeoNames (CC BY 4.0)
NTSB record DCA17MA022
- Event ID
- 20161028X93712
- Case number
- DCA17MA022
- Dataset
- full-current
- Source SHA-256
- 5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Where each value comes from
- Record
- Wikipedia article "FedEx Express Flight 910" (page 52126868, revision 1366709230); merged with NTSB case DCA17MA022 (events / aircraft)
- Date
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: NTSB API eventDate, eventTimeUtc and eventTimeUtcOffsetHours (local date)
- Place and country
- Wikipedia infobox: site; country from Wikidata (P17); country from NTSB record DCA17MA022
- Map position
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: NTSB API eventLatitude/eventLongitude
- Aircraft, operator and route
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: aircraft; gaps from Wikipedia infobox: aircraft type, registration, operator, origin and destination; route airports from the linked airport articles' Wikidata codes (OurAirports)
- Operation
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: operated under Part 121: Air Carrier
- Fatalities
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: NTSB API totalFatal
- Ground fatalities
- NTSB record DCA17MA022: events.inj_f_grnd
- Summary
- Wikipedia infobox: summary
Source notes (3)
- One occurrence in two sources, merged: the Wikipedia article "FedEx Express Flight 910" and NTSB case DCA17MA022, matched by the same aircraft registration and date. For this US event the NTSB's values are used where the two differ; each value names its source.
- Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, coordinates. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
- The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.