|
UPS Flight 2976 ‘flew perfect’ on morning of crash, pilots expressed no safety concerns
The morning of the crash, the doomed UPS plane had already made two trips. The pilots aboard spoke to NTSB, detailing flights without any cause for concern.
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WAVE) - UPS Flight 2976 closed its doors and pushed out and down the runway on November 4 at 5:02 p.m. Just 12 minutes later, it would experience a catastrophic failure of a pylon bearing, sending the left engine flying.
The pilots could not get control of it and crashed off the runway and into a busy industrial corridor. Fifteen people died in the crash, including the three pilots on board.
The pylon bearing that attaches the engine to the plane had fractured under stress, along with the lugs, deemed as a primary structural element of the plane’s design, leading to a complete failure. The damage is not obvious outside of a major, detailed inspection, and it would likely not have been something a pilot on a walk-around, pre-flight inspection or a line mechanic at UPS Worldport would have been able to see.
That was the case the day of the crash.
“Everything just worked” on trips aboard doomed plane morning of crash
NTSB conducted several interviews after the crash of supervisors, pilots and mechanics, who all noted there was nothing of concern on UPS Flight 2976.
The morning of the crash, UPS Flight 2976, referred to here as N259UP, had already made two trips, one to Baltimore and one to Ontario. Three pilots spoke to NTSB investigators in the days after the crash, detailing their experiences.
The pilot on the Baltimore flight, who had flown for UPS for 25 years, said, “The airplane trimmed out. There was no unusual trim settings or anything. It flew perfect.”
When asked if it had noticed any abnormalities, he said, “No. It was one of those, you know, this could be the best job and the easiest job in the world, and it could be the worst, hardest job. This was one of those pleasant days that everything just worked, and it was a good day.”
A pilot who had flown to Ontario noted that they had had a bit too much fuel on the plane, but that it ran normal on takeoff and initial climb and had no unusual thrusting or vibrations that would have been cause for concern.
“I really love that airplane in many ways. I don’t know what to say. Yeah, it’s a nice airplane to fly,” he said. “I mean, you have to respect the airplane, of course, in some ways, you know? If you don’t treat it well, it’s going to backlash to you.”
A pilot who had flown on N259UP a few weeks told investigators the two trips he had were “vanilla,” and had “probably two of the smoothest landings” he had ever had on an MD-11.
History of fractures to the MD-11’s pylon bearing
All the pilots noted they, nor other pilots they had spoken with, had ever had a concern about the safety of the plane or the maintenance for it.
However, investigators have since learned there were 10 reported instances of bearing fractures over the last two decades on the MD-11, only four of which were ever reported to the FAA. Boeing had deemed the fractures to not be a flight safety risk.
The FAA testified to the NTSB that it was unaware the lugs were also fracturing during the migration of the pylon bearing on the aircraft. If they had known that was the case, as far back as 2002, they said they may have had a different take on whether it was a cause for flight safety concern.
The lugs are supposed to function as a failsafe against something catastrophic. Why the failsafe failed was a question asked of the FAA Wednesday.
“Failsafe means one of those lugs — it failed. The other lug can take limit load. What the accident proved is that the design failed, not that it wasn’t designed as failsafe,” the FAA’s Todd Martin said, emphasizing this was design failure, not necessarily a maintenance failure.
The last major maintenance inspection on the plane had been done in 2021. It was not due for another until 2027.
Engine failure warning
It was not just the failure of the bearings the pilots would have been unaware of.
Investigators also asked Boeing and the FAA representatives what alerts the pilots may have received after the loss of the left engine and subsequent fire.
A Boeing engineer said the engine tearing off would have damaged wiring, prompting a fire alarm to trigger. However, the engineer explained that at this stage of flight, takeoff, audio warnings in the flight deck would have been suppressed. Visual warnings would have still illuminated.
The engineer explained the auditory warning is suppressed during the first 25 seconds of flight and when the plane is below 400 feet.
“The fire handles blink as well as the fire shut-off valve. Unless we’re in the take-off phase,” said Boeing engineer Steven Chrisholm. “So if if the airplane is below 400 feet or in the first 25 seconds of flight, the oral warning and the display are inhibited by intent because at that point, the pilot is to be focused on to be up and away and not distracted by a non-normal, uh, the fire handle and the fuel switch would still be illuminated, but there would be no aural.”
1979 crash versus 2025 crash
NTSB board members brought up prior DC-10 crashes in 1979 and 1989.
While the FAA rejected some safety recommendations in the past, Boeing said McDonnell Douglas had made changes.
Specifically following the American Airlines Flight 191 crash at Chicago’s O’Hare airport in 1979, hydraulic systems were changed to prevent mechanical systems from also failing. In that crash, the NTSB found once the DC-10’s left engine fell off after takeoff, the damaged hydraulic system caused the leading edge slats to retract, contributing to the crash.
Boeing said those slats remained extended in November, even after the plane’s left engine had ripped itself from the wing.
Testimony between UPS and Boeing strained
Unlike the first day of testimony, day two included UPS asking very pointed questions of Boeing.
The questions prompted the board chair to remind participants this hearing was meant for fact-finding, not assigning blame.
UPS asked Boeing to confirm why the MD-11’s were prohibited from being ferried to different airports following their grounding. A Boeing engineer explained it would not have been possible to verify any potential damage to the lugs if the bearings in the aft pylons had been damaged.
UPS said they could have inspected the bearings every day and not been able to detect bearing failures.
The board chair shut down the question, declaring it speculative.
UPS Flight 2976 was not supposed to be the plane making the trip to Hawaii the day of the crash. However, a fuel leak on the original plane forced a change of plans.
Following the crash, UPS inspected its fleet of 26 MD-11 aircrafts, finding three with a migration of the pylon bearing.
What happens next?
The end of the two-day hearing does not mean there will be a quick end to this process.
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy explained they will consider the answers and documents as the NTSB analyzes the crash.
A final report could take months or years to complete.
There will be another public hearing once the NTSB is ready to publish its findings, complete with new safety recommendations.
https://www.wave3.com/2026/05/21/ups-flight-2976-flew-perfect-morning-crash-pilots-expressed-no-safety-concerns/
| 
