A cargo plane has crashed and there are casualties.. that`s all I have heard. Does anyone have any details?

From the Gulf News:

Sharjah: An aircraft has crashed on take-off from Sharjah Airport.

Casualties cannot be confirmed at the moment, or the name of the airline although it is believed to be a cargo plane which was carrying six people.

Eyewitnesses have reported seeing the plane "flip and burst into flames."

More follows.

Six dead according to this report from a normally reliable local business magazine.
Six dead as cargo plane crashes at Sharjah Airport - Travel & Hospitality - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/571237-cargo-plane-crashes-at-sharjah-airport)

Sudanese Boeing 707 according to the report. On take off. Airline not named.

B707 was from Sudan Airways - nothing left of the aircraft

ST-AFA?
given, it was a 707, report doesn´t mention that anymore
-----------
edit: AB now saying operator was Azza Transport of Khartoum, so it´s not ST-AFA

The Arabian Business source above now saying the airline is Azza Air.

From Reuters:

SHARJAH, United Arab Emirates, Oct 21 (Reuters) - A Sudanese cargo plane crashed shortly after takeoff from Sharjah airport in the United Arab Emirates, killing all six crew members on board.
Reuters photographer Ahmed Jadallah said the aircraft was completely destroyed. "... the aircraft is shattered into pieces and is completely charred and destroyed. The rescue workers are still here and working..." he said by telephone from the scene.
The Boeing 707 was carrying a crew of six and crashed shortly after takeoff, said Azza Air Transport Co Deputy Manager Ahmed Aasim, speaking from the Sudenese capital Khartoum. He said the aircraft was leased by Sudan Airways.
A freight handler at Sharjah airport told Reuters the plane came down near the runway.
"We tried to see the plane, but there was nothing left, it was all burnt out" said an aviation company employee whose offices were near the crash site.
The cause of the crash was not clear.
Sharjah is one of sven emirates in the UAE federation the includes trade and tourism hub Dubai and oil exporter Abu Dhabi.

Wednesday, 21 October 2009 14:31

Gulf News story and photos:-

gulfnews : Plane involved in accident at Sharjah Airport (http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/plane-involved-in-accident-at-sharjah-airport-1.517425)

Flight no: SUD2241
A/c Reg: ST-AKW

Mark, do you have a source for that reg?

ACAS lists the aircraft belonging to


AZZA Transport
Sudan
707-300C
ST-AKW


it was operated by Sudan Airways on lease from Azza Air.

Sharjah AP lists the flight as:
STD 21-Oct 09:00
TO Khartoum
BY Sudan Airways
FLT NBR SUD 2241

in fact am correcting myself on the earlier:

ACAS (FlightGlobal) has two aircraft of the type with AZZA Transport

AZZA Transport
Sudan
707-300C

1)
REG ST-JCC
Engines JT3D-3B(Q)
Age in AUG 08: 43.38 yrs

2)
REG ST-AKW
Egnines JT3D-3B
Age in AUG 08: 40.60 yrs

Just for historical reference, with the 707 airplane, if pneumatic pressure is lost to the leading edge devices, they retract whilst airbourne....slowly.
IF on one side, and not the other, at lower speeds...bad news.
Above V2+30...manageable.
Not however, a known historical fault, even remotely.
707, a very old design, however...IF maintained properly, very reliable in service.

Does UAE still have a NOTAM out saying operators are not allowed to depart overweight?

the aircraft crashed at 3.29pm, from Sharjah International Airport, according to the Sharjah airport authorities.

The flight was operated by Sudan Air and the aircraft owned (by Azza Air)

six Sudanese nationals on board the plane died in the crash .

and also sharjah airport closed its runway as a result of the crash and was reopened after two hours

Does UAE still have a NOTAM out saying operators are not allowed to depart overweight?You need a notam for that? Really? :rolleyes:

ST-AKW now confirmed by the Aviation Herald.

Crash: Azza Transport B707 at Sharjah on Oct 21st 2009, lost height after takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=42190267&opt=0)

Was in SHJ this afternoon, and saw the Azza 707 taxi out while we were being driven to our aircraft. It looked pretty nice. Of course a nice paintjob doesn't say much about the technical status...

Luckily we didn't see the take off or the actual accident.
Big clouds of smoke got our attention.

The airport authorities found quite a few aircraftparts on the runway, so the sequence of events probably started during take off. Field was closed for an hour or so while they collected al the stuff.

Our fueler had also fueled the 707, and said it was leaking fuel from several places on the wing.
I'm sure a 707 can be a perfectly safe aircraft to fly, even if it is 40-some yrs old. But you have to maintain it well.

The crew were all Sudanese, cargo flight to Khartoum.

We lost some college's today folks.
Poor guys having to fly such equipment.

Very sad news, I remember this aircraft in better days with Nile Safaris.
Not sure that I agree with 411A about the leading edges. On the 320C they are hydraulic powered & mechanically lock in the fully extended position. Hydraulic pressure is required to unlock & retract them.

terrible news... thoughts are with the families of those on board

Sounds like a slightly similar incident to the Spanair crash not so long back... no ??

Black Boxes have been recovered... will be interesting to find out what they bring to light...

Gazin - I concur, not aware of any B707's with pneumatic leading edges, but always and ever ready to be corrected . . .

Not sure that I agree with 411A about the leading edges. On the 320C they are hydraulic powered & mechanically lock in the fully extended position. Hydraulic pressure is required to unlock & retract them.

Opps, Gazin is correct, I was reminded of earlier models...:O

MAS, that's too bad you wrote that.

Slandering the guys is not cool.

What Mariner said.....

RIP

One report in the local press that it was carrying 31 tons of equipment. I don't know if that is considered to be in normal limits for this aircraft - someone will be able to clarify.

Not sure any of the B707 family had pneumatic leading edge flaps . . . . did they ?

In today's Khaleej Times the Sudanese Consul General to the UAE, Issam Awad Mutwali, was quoted saying:
“The aircraft was not overloaded. Usually they take up to 40 tonnes of cargo and today it was only 31 tonnes. Everything was normal before they took off,”
Ageing cargo plane crashes in Sharjah (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle08.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2009/October/theuae_October552.xml&section=theuae)

Not sure any of the B707 family had pneumatic leading edge flaps . . . . did they ?
I believe the -100 series airplanes did, not full span, but between the engines only.

One report in the local press that it was carrying 31 tons of equipment.

Should be possible on that sector.

The plane has turbo compressors to power the airconditioning pacs.

Yes, and...engine bleed air operated those turbocompressors, and further, on some models, T/C's could be swithed OFF and engine bleed air used for pressurisation....poor cabin ventilation, however.
Then again, some older models had vapor cycle airconditioning.
PanAmerican had many of these, both old-style and new-style freon.
Many variations, due to original customer specifications.

I flew a bunch of 707's and none of them had pneumatic much of anything let alone flaps. The plane has turbo compressors to power the airconditioning pacs.

Double Thread?:

http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/393105-cargo-plane-down-near-shj.html

All 707 aircraft had hyd leading edges,non had pneumatics.
I have worked on 707`s built in 1959 to some of the last of the line.:}

Please aviation gents.....they are called flight recorders/voice recorders....
not Black boxes.
After all...we are in the "know"....and not the misinformed uneducated press/media/hollywood:ok:

LEAFITOUT - Believe you're right, I had the pleasure and the privilege of working on some ex QF -138's at Gatwick in the '70's, they certainly had full span hydraulic leading edge thingies

The DC8 had pneumatic L/E devices.

.... ex QF -138's at Gatwick in the '70's, they certainly had full span hydraulic leading edge thingies
Full span you say...odd, as I flew -138B's , and ours did not have full span leading edge devices.

Security cam movie of the crash.

YouTube - ‫????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee8xcSPsCVc)

Indeed it looks like something fell of the a/c. After take off when she is out of view somthing is falling back to the ground. Flap? Engine?

My previous company operated 138's, 227's and 321/51's. If my memory serves, the 100's and 300's (fan powered) had full span led's while the 227's (straight jets) had partial span ones, can't confirm because my ex threw out all my manuals when I came to the UAE.

Manada,
If the notam comment was a joke it wasn't funny.

L/E devices on a DC-8???

411A - Ours did. Spent enough time with my head up the falsework, pretty hard to forget . .

L/E devices on a DC-8???

Yes, the DC8 slats were effectively panels in the upper skin that were pulled in pneumatically. They were not visible on a walkaround

Flaps settings were, 5 15, 25, 35, 50 degrees. The slats were over each engine only, not full span, about three feet wide or so.

Ahhh yes, slOts that were uncovered, not slAts that extend...

Looking at the state of most A/C on the tarmac, and surrounding arear of the KRT A/P, it's a wonder any of them get airborne. Sudan Airlines had to ground all their A/C recently after one of their A/C crashed. I beleive they eventually got one A310 to a servicable state. The airport has the appearance of an Aviation Museum for retired A/C.

Although off topic, I want to respond to the DC8 Wing Slots.
Both inb and outb Slots were operated by hydraulic actuators.
These actuators were connected to the Wing Slot Control valve situated on the RH Hydr manifold and commanded by the Flap follow up cable. No pneumatics involved. More then eight degrees flaps opened the slots. Old memories....

Thanks CATIIIBnoDH, it was along time ago. Don't know why pneumatics stuck in my mind. :O

This is very sad, however...the whole ageing cargo plane operation is what needs to be reviewed, technical issues one aspect, amazed any of these heaps get airbourne, overweight and climbing on the stick shaker is nothing new.. and no.. this is fact.. not rumour.. proper enforced regulation could help avoid these tragic events...

ee8xcSPsCVc

Looking at this video clip from the SHJ TV (I belive this is SHJ TV), and assuming this is real, at time 00:38 of the video, you'll see something falling from the sky along the 3rd pole from the left. S.F.L.Y already mentioned it in the Middle East section, but I don't think it is an engine.
Loosing an aerodynamic piece of the aircraft on or after take off will not help the case...
That brings to mind what's going on around and whether some aircraft are really airworthy... This is no stone throwing. This has to be taken serious. This involves ground/air staff, management, Civ Airs, insurance companies, etc.. This lot needs to get serious about safety.
Well, for the time being, there are 6 lives lost and it could have been many more, had the aircraft hit a populated area. RIP guys!
Regret to say that in few days, this will be history and the bad practices will continue.

The sad reality here is that this aircraft should have been used to make tins cans for ASDA , Carrefour and Tesco years ago. I think we`ve just seen proof of the need for an age limit for old freighter aircraft in vivid detail . Combine this with poor maintenance , poor flight crew procedures and training , and we`ll have many more of these accidents.

Aircraft age is not a limiter, look at the number of DC3 and C46 still flying commercially and safely, and the fact that the B52 will be around 100 years old when finally retired.

Proper maintenance and proper operating procedures are the issue. If these are not up to standard then even new aircraft will crash.

Not a comment on the crash, just a response to a suggestion that aircraft age causes accidents, not the abuse of an aircraft through neglect.

It is pretty obvious thing about 707 is that you operating it either commercially OR safely. If you doing all things properly this aircraft is not viable commercially, and this is why this aircraft is not operated anywhere in "first" world countries for long time now. Military/governmental/VIP use is a different story.

I hate to see speculation from a video that go so far as to conclude.

Surely the facts of what pieces that might have fallen off and where are already known to the investigators. We should wait for on-scene comments here before extending our own speculations.

Proper maintenance and proper operating procedures are the issue. If these are not up to standard then even new aircraft will crash.


AF A330 over the south Atlantic, perhaps?:rolleyes:
Throw stones in glass houses comes to mind.

The sad reality here is that this aircraft should have been used to make tins cans for ASDA , Carrefour and Tesco years ago. I think we`ve just seen proof of the need for an age limit for old freighter aircraft in vivid detail .


Not so

The 707 got banned from European skies, (except for a/c registered in certain third world countries), for NOISE, nothing to do with the age of the aircraft at all, some of the older ones are stronger than stuff recently produced. The VC10, for example, was known as "The Iron Duck" in some circles and subject to inspection had an indefinite hull life.


Proper maintenance and proper operating procedures are the issue. If these are not up to standard then even new aircraft will crash.


So true.

Folks,
Many early 707/720 were originally delivered with just two small slats between the engines ( BOAC 707-300, QF "138A",PanAm -321). Many were later retrofitted with full span leading edge devices, Kruger flaps inboard, slats outboard. This applied to the QF 707-138, also originally delivered with JT3 straight pipes, later modified to JT3-MC6 fans.

Not too many air motors on a 707, just hydraulic and electric.

All the ex-PanAm 707-321 I ever flew, from the original JT-4 powered, through to one of their last ever deliveries, a really beaut freighter with JT3D-7, all had air cycle machine air conditioning, T/C or bleed powered. Most 707 only had 2 T/C, some three, always 4 bleeds.

The only "707" I ever operated that had freon were ex-TWA 720. Air Nuigini started jet operations with one, leased from a mob of "interesting people" called Templewood Aviation, spent a year parked on the seawall at Mogadishu immediately before, the corrosion was something to behold. Many moons ago, Air Tanzania had a couple, range was a real problem, even DAR- Dubai was pushing it.

707s needed lots of tender loving care, and cubic $$$ for corrosion control, and that was thirty/forty years ago??

The last Sudan based 707 I saw ( a while ago in Jedda) looked pretty, until you got up close, amazing what Imron will stick to, my impression was I didn't want to walk under it, in case it fell on me. Sudan Airways very first 707 operations were wet leases by BMA, probably an ex-QF B707-338C.

Tootle pip!!

Many early 707/720 were originally delivered with just two small slats between the engines ( BOAC 707-300, QF "138A",PanAm -321).

Out of interest it was the BOAC 707-436's (RR Conway engined versions) that had the two LE devices between the engines. The 707-336's (P&W JT3D-3B engined versions) had the full span LE slats/flaps.


Regards
Exeng

exeng,
I believe you are correct, the -436 with Conways was otherwise more or less the same as the JT-4 PanAm aircraft, except for the DP Davies mods for the G-register, which has some truly amazing result.
How to complicate a relatively simple aeroplane!!
Actually, I always thought the -300s were a better handling aeroplane than the -320, including at height with the yaw dampers off, but I don't think I would be short of arguments on that one.
Tootle pip!!

On August 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_7), 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997), Fine Air flight 101, a Cargo DC-8-61F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-8) registration # N27UA, en route from Miami (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_International_Airport) to Santo Domingo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santo_Domingo), in the Dominican Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic), suffered sudden movement of cargo materials in the aft cargo hold while on take off. The aircraft's nose rose steeply due to the sudden uneven weight distribution caused by shifting boxes of denim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim) material that had not been securely fastened.
The pilots, departing out of the former Runway 27R (now 26L) attempted to recover but the aircraft stalled and crashed onto a field adjacent the Miami City Rail Yard less than a mile from the airport.

I was not a joke, UAE really had a NOTAM reminding operators not to depart overweight. It came after a some hairy departures courtesy of our East European colleagues, followed by a very slow climb to a very low two engine service ceiling (on a twin aircraft) after departure.
I'm not saying this is what our Sudanese friends did, but it was my first thought when I heard of this accident. It doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Taken in KRT earlier this year
http://newimages.fotopic.net/?iid=yzpa36&outx=800&quality=80

"interesting people" called Templewood Aviation


This is the story I was told:

When Mugabe started to get stroppy he impounded Templewoods 707s that were operating on a lease for (Air Rhodesia?) Air Zimbabwe and claimed them as fair restitution for all the "extortion and abuse" of Zimbabwe by Britain. The aircraft were repainted and re registered and continued to fly for Air Zim.

Sounds a bit 'tall' but was a Templewood man that told me!

Meanwhile, back on thread.....

Any rumours as to what the falling debris may have been?

Am particularly interested as I operated many hours on that aircraft in Nile Safaris days. A sad end to the life of what was originally a fine bird.

Ex LH, and was in fine condition when I was there. Took her on some fascinating trips and she looked after us well.

:{

Yes. Surely, if something fell from the aircraft, it must have been located by now. From the video clip it must have been something heavy to drop like that. A flap, an aileron or an elevator would have 'fluttered' wouldn't it?

I think it was an engine, as it seemed to me to have come down at a great rate of knots. Anything aerodynamic e.g. a piece of control surface, primary or secondary, would have been much slower.

If it was an engine, it should not have caused loss of control.

A caution about the video clip.

The display rate is far different from the capture rate. Thus all moving objects appear to move at very high speed (lots of frames missing).

since a heavy object would reach the ground about the same time the plane did (only slightly later)the timing in the picture does not match.

again, any objects big enough to be seen in the video have no doubt already been recovered and identified so ask somebody on-scene.

since a heavy object would reach the ground about the same time the plane did

I don't think so. The energy of the plane is much greater.

According to the local papers today, the object was an engine cowling. (quote from director of the GCAA).

At 38 seconds into the film does not appear to be a falling object, if you freeze it and advance, it appears to be the aircraft out of control, descending.

Guy, can you post a link which confirms that please?

I seem to remember a website which allows one to trace an aicraft's ownership history.

I was interested on the history of this 'old' plane.

Can anyone remind me of the link .... thanks

looks just like the file photos taken of the AA DC-10,...not wishing to speculate but it would be nice to know what fell off and if they lost rudder boost or hydraulics

PA

Hydraulics for the rudder boost is provided by electric pumps, which operate full time...aux system, which also supplies some spoilers, as I recall.
The utility system (engine driven pumps) supplies the rest, gear, brakes, nose steering, flaps, some spoilers etc...with a system interconnect, that can only be used on the ground...except for ex-PanAmerican aircraft, of course.
PanAm had a reason for using the system interconnect in the air...very slow retraction of the landing gear, in the event one or more MLG trucks were not level.
Had to use this one time only with an ex-PanAmerican aircraft...worked like a charm.

Returning to rudder boost, there was one accident wherein the boost worked fine, however the rudder did not respond as it should...a Western Airlines 720B on crew training at KONT, years ago.
The rudder horn fractured during an engine-out go-around...the airplane rolled over smartly, right now.
All died.:sad:

411A could they have also lost the rudder boost via another failure? to cause the roll what would an engine separation takeoff probably do to the bird---I have 707 manuals but not here

PA

If the engine seperated or just the cowl came off perhaps a piece struck the horizontal stab and in turn caused a catastrophic control loss.

One lost an oil fill access door on a B757 with an unbeliveable amount of damge to the horizontal stab although not enough to render the aircraft uncontrollable. One could only imagine what something larger might do.

Disclaimer; Not suggesting that anything like this is/was the cause of this accident. Also, my recollection is that with the loss of rudder boost in the 720B at least, VMCA is somewhere around 180+ knots.

I was interested on the history of this 'old' plane.

Can anyone remind me of the link .... thanks Find here a photographic histiry:
http://www.airlineindustryreview.com/st-akw-a-photographic-farewell/ (http://www.airlineindustryreview.com/st-akw-a-photographic-farewell/)

And some facts here, note the history in lower left corner:
http://www.jacdec.de/info/2009-10-21_ST-AKW.pdf

Continuing the speculation: If it was an engine cowel that came off then possibly that was the result of an uncontained engine failure that did a whole lot more damage, we shall just have to wait and see.

Falling object was "a piece of engine cover", says the local CAA director:

Arabian Supply Chain Online Middle East | ArabianSupplyChain.com (http://www.arabiansupplychain.com/article-3176-engine-problems-may-have-caused-sharjah-crash/)

The history of the aircraft involved is covered in the Wikipedia article on the crash.

Azza Transport Flight 2241 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azza_Transport_Flight_2241)

Visually, strikingly similar to American 191.

American Airlines Flight 191 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191)

Factually, the similarities so far are limited to a) an engine(part) separation at takeoff followed by b) an extreme unusual attitude in roll.

Chilling video.

If the found engine cowling. For my that's engine explosion witch can effect control surfaces

If the found engine cowling. For my that's engine explosion witch can effect control surfaces

Quite a premature speculation with too many missing links of factual evidence. It would be far more productive to search for the missing factual links then to speculate that all the links in the causal chain must have lined up ... leading to your conclusion

Super VC-10

Sorry, wasn't on yesterday, here you go.

Crash inquiry focuses on old engines - The National Newspaper (http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091024/NATIONAL/710239770/1010)


Can't confirm anything, just a news paper quote....take it with as much salt as you think necessary!!

Guy

edited...link fixed

Thanks Guy, I've used the National article to expand the Wikipedia article on the crash. :)

7IQ8YQYlSVc

I enhanced the video of the crash.

You will see that there is more falling after the "cowling", it looks like fuel falling 0:24 > 0:34.

CC the YouTube button requires you to take off the http://www.youtube.com/ piece

Thanks Rather.

It looks to me as if the tail has been damaged.

Engine cowling.- frame 00:16
Dark Cloud of falling Material- frame 00:29
Tail damage - frame 00:34 & 00:36
Crash. 0:39

I have checked the aircraft in a dozen different frames, and in each one the tail is not symmetrical, it's not angle as I have the wings as a reference.

I would stick my neck out and say the cowling at 16:00 is not a cowling or engine, it's too big, the aircraft is moving away from the camera, looking at the size of the AC in the shot then the size of the debris, the debris is too large to be an engine.

Anyone know how many seconds after take off on this runway before the ac will have cleared the runway ? AC is wheels up at 00:03 in this video, how many more seconds until it would be clear on runway ? Maybe the cowling hit the tail, so if they found the cowling on the runway, maybe that fell off before it came into camera.

quote:

"... Pilots operating out of Sharjah and elsewhere in the UAE have been discussing the crash on an online forum... "

Meet the press here
(http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/general/pilots-debate-cause-of-sharjah-plane-crash-1.518171)

As a video and stills shooter, I'd advise caution in trying to "see" too much detail in that video - high image compression can lead to artifacts that distort things. I.E. I can't see much wrong with the tail outlines at the gross level of detail available.

The "falling mist" after the solid object falls is about 50/50 IMHO - could be an artifact, could be something real. Needs to be taken in context with other evidence.

There does appear to be a contrail of fuel/smoke/something from the area of the outboard left wing/#1 engine in frames/seconds :03-:05. That looks more like a real event. Tracks the aircraft movement, and is darker than and thicker than a similar faint exhaust trail off the right wing.

I'd advise caution in trying to "see" too much detail in that video - high image compression can lead to artifacts that distort things. I.E. I can't see much wrong with the tail outlines at the gross level of detail available.

Yes, I myself enhanced the video(25 years in computer graphics), I didn't just zoom in, If you zoom in yourself with the original, you will see you get left with large blocks of pixels. I sampled a number of frames and worked out what produced the best results, then applied to the whole video. I could have done a lot better but each frame would have taken a few minutes, which would have been over 24 hours for the entire video. I understand how artefacts can be produced when working with compressed images, and in this case there are none that are misleading. I know because I did the math to enhance the image in the first place. I came to the conclusion the tail of the aircraft is damaged after checking a number of frames with the aircraft at different angles, in each case the stabiliser is missing or damaged.

If I get the time later, I will post the frames and the exact area.

Still keen to here from anyone who can tell me how many seconds after wheels up before the AC would be clear of the end of the runway.

Still keen to here from anyone who can tell me how many seconds after wheels up before the AC would be clear of the end of the runway.
Presuming this was an advanced cowl aircraft (quite likely, but you never know), PanAmerican had data which, when used correctly, could supply this information, and I have a copy.
However, I would need the following info...
Aircraft weight at brakes release
Ambient temperature
EPR used for takeoff
Runway length
Airfield elevation
Flap selection (presumed 14, however some aircraft were 17 degrees)

I agree that the falling object is too big for an engine cowl. The change in size of the object as it falls indicates a large panel such as a cargo door or section of wing. The shading behind the a/c as it takes off could easily be just another 'smokey' 707.

I too have enhanced the frames but I can see nothing conclusive in the tail area, I can however see in subsequent frames what appears to be a large missing area of the starboard forward mainplane. As the a/c passes through 90deg AOB the assymetry of the wings is quite marked.

...through 90deg AOB the assymetry of the wings is quite marked.
Yup, appears to be as described.

On the above video, I can see only the inboard right wing flap as the aircraft starts initial climb.

The door to No1 hold would seem a likely culprit... improperly secured and detaching in the breeze taking out a portion of the starboard mainplane, although one might expect the damage to be confined to the inner wing forward edge.

The combi-cargo door is also a remote possibility as it is hinged almost at the apex of the airframe.... but to cross to the other side of the aircraft....unlikely. Or perhaps a monumental uncontained No1 engine failure?
Or perhaps good - old fashioned - structural failure of a poorly maintained airframe.

The key to the puzzle is identifying the fallen panel and matching the impact damage to an undamaged 707 leading edge mainplane/tail. If fact the authorities probable have the answer already.

Unfortunately the best settings for each frame aren't the same, I am rendering a new video its at 12%, I have since noted that a large amount of debris seems to be falling after the large piece falls, If you expand the pixel range of the sky, you can pick out other objects continuing to fall which could support a missing cargo door.

kOLN9MPDWjs

Large falling object at 00:14 - in this video you can see it twist as it falls.

Check symmetry of AC at 00:32 > 00:35

My friend was playing golf that day and saw the aircraft heading towards him and his friend on the fairway, as well as the club house behind them. He is absolutely certain that the pilot manouvered the plane out of this path deliberately saving him and other civilians in the building behind him.

More importantly, did your friend notice anything missing from the aircraft - vertical stab, portion of a wing, engine, unusual sounds, parts coming off...? Likely not as it happened too fast but asking anyway.

These aircraft take an enormous amount of sky to manoeuvre and there is only about 23 seconds between the last view of the a/c and the next view of it coming down - no time to do anything. I know your friend would like to think that the pilot manoeuvered the aircraft as described but frankly by the time he noticed the aircraft the crew were along for the ride.

Notwithstanding that, I wonder though, about the body angle when the a/c initially comes into view - it is pointed slightly "up", (pointed "left" actually), and the nose then drops. It makes me consider that the vertical stab and rudder were attached and working (crew giving max left rudder), but ultimately ineffective against the bank angle. Just pondering...

CaptainChaos;
First of all, very nice work on the video - much clearer.
Check symmetry of AC at 00:32 > 00:35
I think that is some kind of video interference or object in between the a/c and the camera - the wing appears "whole" just before impact. Can't tell if # 3 or 4 are still on the wing - to blurry even given the sharpening. I think one can just make out the vertical stab though.

My friend was playing golf that day and saw the aircraft heading towards him and his friend on the fairway, as well as the club house behind them. He is absolutely certain that the pilot manouvered the plane out of this path deliberately saving him and other civilians in the building behind him.
heroic, but does not makes too much sense to me.
If you have control of the aircraft, you would not drill it into sanddunes.
Eyewittness accounts do not have a clue what really was going on at the flightdeck and were later mostly proven inaccurate.
From the slide show it looks to me the crew have lost all options controlling their plane.
r

By my rough calculations, whatever dettached from the plane did so around the 10th second from this last video starting point, probably 15 to 18 seconds or so after TO. Too low and slow to recover?

Detached part suspected to have been "located around the engine" (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/26/333949/sharjah-707-crash-inquiry-confirms-part-fell-from-jet.html)

Capt. C.
Very nice work on the re-edit. But, and I say this with all humility,,, the interesting part is NOT the smoke from engines 1 and 2,, it is,,to me,, the LACK of smoke from engines 3 and 4.
That "something fell off",, I have no doubt. But, friends, believe me when I say that I have knowledge of this aircraft (B-707) and see spooky similar, if reversed, similarities in this video.

YUKLA 27

My friends Skip,Bart,Mark,Chuck,B.K.,Steve, and 18 other warriors went down after the 707-320B (E-3B AWACS) they were flying lost #2 just prior to v1, and #1 between v1 and vR,, two engines out between v1 and v2,,, the left wing went down and NOTHING was going to bring it back up.

I got really tired of going to my friends funerals.

Looking at this video,, something bad happened to this bird, but it happened on the right,, the aircraft fell off to the right. The right motors not smoking (a JT-3 not smoking at take-off power ????). The (sorry) very best trained 707 crews in the world could not keep a 707 from falling off to the left when #1 and #2 failed,,, and a crew with suspect training could keep one airborne after either #3 or #4 failed?? I've sat thru uncountable simulator sesions where well qualified co-pilots crashed after any ONE engine failed.
There is no good answer here, you feel bad for those lost, but the loss is for not if you can't learn from it..
There is NO,, repeat NO substitute for professionalism,, be it aircrew, maint, loading, ops, atc, etc, etc.
And, yes, I feel qualified to comment.
Cheers
-- Heracles

Just wondering if it may have been a bird strike that took out #3 or #4, or both.

Are birds prevalent at Sharjah?

Birds are not generally a problem in this neck of the woods. I have seen about 5 in my 3 years here......:} (although I am in dxb, I imagine the same in sharjah)

Thanks Heracles & PJ2.

Yes I noticed the lack of smoke from the other engines, but I know nothing about operating this aircraft, flew around the world as a child in them, but it seems your explanation is the more plausible.

I noted when making the video that the speed I panned the shot to the left, decreased significantly as if the AC is losing speed and it doesn't reappear in the shot where you would expect it to be, given the speed it left the runway.

They probably would have gone further with 4 working engines and no tail. I was in a small twin when we lost control after buzzing the boat club, the control cables didn't have enough tension, well not enough for the stunt, I had this feeling as the AC fishtailed upwards that we were going to crash into the sun not the earth. We had a 3m stinger attached to the tail, and at first we thought we'd lost it, impaled the bartender with the damn thing...

I guess if you have enough forward speed a lot has to fall off before you start heading downwards. My vote is for it may have been falling apart but the lack of engine power is the reason it crashed.

Very well said, Heracles. Loss of two on one side is a very serious emergency requiring swift and accurate handling and control of the bank angle if one is to survive. (for others who may not be familiar with why...): "Control of the bank angle" means sufficient speed for the rudder to be effective to control yaw which in a jet transport will cause instant roll. A powered rudder and adequate training is assumed, of course.

CaptainChaotic;
I guess if you have enough forward speed a lot has to fall off before you start heading downwards. My vote is for it may have been falling apart but the lack of engine power is the reason it crashed.
One possibility then, is a catastrophic failure of #3, (including removal of the engine cowling), with debris being ingested by #4. It has happened at least a few times on the B747. That said, these are much smaller engines and even a catastrophic failure may not "broadcast" debris widely enough for #4 to ingest bits and pieces. Just a thought; it's a bit frustrating to not have accurate information about the parts that fell of the aircraft, but it/they were big parts.

As far as we can see in the video, the airplane was climbing wings leveled at least until we lost it from the camera view. Any power loss on #1 and/or #2 while in sight should have been apparent. According to the previous Flightglobal article link, the debris felt "onto" the rwy, consistent with a straight out departure, and afterwards the plane was "found to be on a right turn" at around 20 seconds into the flight, which is consistent with the time that still unidentified part separated from the plane.

I noted when making the video that the speed I panned the shot to the left, decreased significantly as if the AC is losing speed and it doesn't reappear in the shot where you would expect it to be, given the speed it left the runway.


That could be because, as well as passing right-to-left, the aircraft is moving away, so its angular velocity would tend to decrease, probably quite rapidly.

That could be because, as well as passing right-to-left, the aircraft is moving away, so its angular velocity would tend to decrease, probably quite rapidly.

True but if the distance from subject was at a point where you could no longer visually judge angular velocity, then you probably wouldn't see it increase so dramatically, and in the opposite direction, after the wing dropped.

I hate to dwell on the mis-fortunes of others,, but this one "set the hook" on me, for my own reasons as stated earlier.
Plus any accident discussions are by thier very nature good, if they consist of mostly facts and observations and not wild speculation. When I was actively flying,, I always found that I learned at least as much from 3 hours in the bar,"hanger flying" than I did in that day's 8 hour annual refresher class.
The exchange of experiences was invaluable.
To that end,, I offer one more observation after lengthy review of the video,,, and a damning theory. (sorry)

I find it very odd that no-one has commented on the angle of climb on the initial runway heading.
That 707 had at least 3 operating engines.

-So,
- A flight to Sudan from SHJ,, not a heavy fuel load.
-A payload well below max.
-A good initial climb angle.
- Below 190-ish? kias, the rudder is still at full power ( 3000 psi)
The crew, evidently from the video, had altitude to trade for airspeed if needed, there are very few obstacles around SHJ.

My theory,, one engine out on the right side and they probably executed a procedure turn (published departure?), or accepted a vector to the right. Totally disregarding the "raise the dead" rule of engine of 707 ops.
" Step on the good engines, and raise the dead .. Trade altitude for airspeed,, fly the airplane ". " a zero rate of climb with increasing airspeed is the goal,, airspeed is options,, airspeed is life ". Poor airspeed managment and any right turn while slow,, the right wing WILL fall off and nothing will make it come back.

Either that,, or I'm wrong
Perhaps we will get harder evidence at some future date.
-- Heracles

Concerning the aircraft weight on take off, anyone know the price of Jet fuel in Sharja to Kharthom, perhaps they were tankering, unless someone knows how much fuel was declared on the flightplan.

Tankering is pretty common here in Africa, sometimes without regard to performance degredation as accountants sometimes only see, fuel as being cheaper from here to there rather than the cost of carrying the extra weight and increased burn and reduced performance because of it.

Heracles -
.....I've sat thru uncountable simulator sesions where well qualified co-pilots crashed after any ONE engine failed.....And, yes, I feel qualified to comment.

You might be qualified to comment, but I've sat through hundreds of engine-outs in the sim and NEVER saw anyone crash. I don't know who was flying the sims you were in, but they sure couldn't have been airline pilots. That's all airline pilots do in the sim is fly around with one or more engines out! Hardly ever get to fly a 'normal' airplane.

My theory,, one engine out on the right side and they probably executed a procedure turn (published departure?), or accepted a vector to the right. Totally disregarding the "raise the dead" rule of engine of 707 ops.

You surely have enough material with a 8 frames video to conclude about the crew disregarding some rules.:yuk:

Since you're the specialist over there could you please elaborate on why this can't be an in-flight thrust reversion?

but I've sat through hundreds of engine-outs in the sim and NEVER saw anyone crash

707's ?

I'm sorry Heracles' theory sounds more plausible, your story reminds of the Irish railway engineer who condemned a hundred carriages before he realised his hammer was cracked.

My Theory:


Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculation)
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/), or an art <music theory>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conjecture) c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis)

Sorry,, I ment to indict no-one,, just offer a theory.

As for watching brand new 2nd LTs lose it the first time they experienced a V1 cut in a wide aircraft with no reversers and a partially blocked rudder,,, great fun. The only thing scarier was watching potential Capt. upgrades try to mid-air refuel for the first time.. We used to call it a tail number check. "Same tail number on both sides of the tanker??"
The tankering fuel idea holds some merit too, interesting; but the climb angle just screams at me.
As for an inflight reverse,,,I cannot comment intelligently,, I never had them on the E-3, would have loved them though.
Cheers
--Heracles

As for an inflight reverse,,,I cannot comment intelligently,, I never had them on the E-3, would have loved them though.


No you wouldn't...not good, at all.:sad:

Birds are not generally a problem in this neck of the woods. I have seen about 5 in my 3 years here......http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif (although I am in dxb, I imagine the same in sharjah)


Sorry mate but apart of the numerous turkeys going out at night UAE can be a quiet busy place in regards to birds. Some time ago a "birdtam" was on the Dubai airport website. Here is a sample of what can be found through google:


The United Arab Emirates is situated on one of the main migratory routes with birds stopping here from all over Asia, Africa and Europe. The massive greening of the country has made it an attractive stopover for a huge number of birds with many rare species. Exotic birds from Asia and Africa including European birds such as robins, song thrushes and starlings are found here. Over 360 birds of various classifications like, resident breeding birds, passage birds, birds from Europe as well as summer breeding visitors have been spotted here in the lush green parks of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.


@<hidden> Heracles, there's most probably something related to an engine trouble since the falling part has been reported to be located very nearby an engine. Now to comment on whether the crew didn't apply a rule or had something else (inflight reverse for example) I think there are too little pieces of evidence to post "theories" which could rapidly end in the high quality newspapers we have in the region. Heroes or zeros, at that time the crew and their relatives deserves some respect.

Wasn't there chart a while back in the Jeps showing the bird migration pattern.

My guess is rev deploy in flt, cause a pitch up as well as separation followed by yaw and a stall.... just a guess

My guess is rev deploy in flt, cause a pitch up as well as separation followed by yaw and a stall

Why pitch up?

I think there are too little pieces of evidence to post "theories" which could rapidly end in the high quality newspapers we have in the region. Heroes or zeros, at that time the crew and their relatives deserves some respect.

How many investigations would end up as a whitewash if people couldn't speak freely about them ?

The investigations I worked on, involved speaking with as many people as possible and begging them to speculate as to the cause, If people had been unwilling to offer theories and speculate then the hard evidence alone would never be enough to come to any meaningful conclusion.

Speculation makes you examine the evidence again. Political correctness has no place in a science.

fatbus;

Reverser deployment is not, in and of itself, a reason to lose control of the aircraft.

411a and others can correct this but the B707 JT3/4 installation has cascade-type reversers as did the 50-series DC8 JT3D installation. The DC8 reversers for all series except the later 70-series, could be deployed in flight and were used in the emergency descent drill. Thus, while the 707 reversers were not deployable in-flight, that they can be as a matter of routine indicates that reverse deployment does not cause loss of control.

Now a high-thrust situation with reverse deployment which remains at high thrust in a relatively low-speed regime which remains unaddressed by the crew can theoretically, (ie, not specific to the B707), cause loss of control, especially if an outboard engine but in-flight reverse deployment is extremely rare due to robust system design, (mech. interlocks & non-pressurization of pneumatic or hydraulic reverser systems). The 707's reversers would never deploy under just air loads as they are not in the slipstream. The DC8-40 series "ejectors" might but that would be a non-event. (For those wishing to cite the Lauda Air B767 FADEC failure, I am well aware of this failure, but it goes to the "extremely rare" category).

As to speculation, what's to speculate upon? Very few questions are answered by the video. We have no information other than a piece of airplane which still has yet to be identified here.

PJ2 -

The DC8 reversers for all series except the later 70-series, could be deployed in flight and were used in the emergency descent drill.

Uh.....don't know about the rest of the -70 Series [I only flew the -71, but I assume they were allowed also], but the -71 was permitted to use reverse [on the inboards only] in flight. You were supposed to make a cabin announcement though as there was a little jolt when they were deployed.

DC-ATE;

Thanks....You've said that to me before in related discussions on in-flight reverser use and I forgot. I flew the 73, (1980) but can't recall if the same applied.

While they were designed primarily for emergency descent, some used them as "poor planning" devices like the spoilers on the Boeings.:bored:

I seem to recall the DC-8 would pretty much allow the pilot to deploy any device at almost any time, which led to a nasty crash in Toronto when the spoilers deployed too early - in the flare. This led to the FAA mandating a placard above the spoiler lever saying "Do not deploy in flight". Then as now, some pilots responded sarcastically, saying that it might as well say "It is forbidden to crash this airplane".

I have no idea whether the age of the aircraft has anything to do with this incident, but those designs require a lot of respect and careful handling by today's standards.

DozyWannabe -
I seem to recall the DC-8 would pretty much allow the pilot to deploy any device at almost any time, which led to a nasty crash in Toronto when the spoilers deployed too early - in the flare. This led to the FAA mandating a placard above the spoiler lever saying "Do not deploy in flight". Then as now, some pilots responded sarcastically, saying that it might as well say "It is forbidden to crash this airplane".
I have no idea whether the age of the aircraft has anything to do with this incident, but those designs require a lot of respect and careful handling by today's standards.

Well, I suppose you can do just about anything you want with any airplane if you try hard enough. The point is knowing what will happen if you do. While it was possible to extend the spoilers in flight, it was strickly a no, no [on the DC-8s]. Age of the aircraft had nothing to do with it.
ALL aircraft desreve respect!:ok:

Old 707 virtually not flying anywhere else.
Crew from a poor, distant and unfriendly country, all dead....
No casualty or any damage on the ground (right in a square of sand)

Do you think anybody is going to waste a lot of time on the crash recorders ?

Not to sound too unfriendly myself, but what does that have anything to do with it? The crew were pilots, trying to make a living - same as many on this board. The country of their birth should have nothing to do with it.

It may turn out to be an old aircraft coming apart and just rotten luck - but the powers that be should make an effort to find out, if only for the sake of improving knowledge of how things can go pear-shaped - to say nothing of the crew's families.

Dozywannabe;

Not unfriendly at all and nothing to apologize for or "clarify". Thank you for saying it.

Just as are portrayed in the media and in politics, there are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims".

How in good conscience the separation can be made and then acted upon is anything but clear or straightforward.

"Old 707 virtually not flying anywhere else"

What about the 500 odd derivatives flying with the USAF, most of which are older than this one.

Just concerning the inflight deployment of reverser in flight on the 707. Some guys used to fly Vref+10 during the approach and open the reverser during flare. In the mean time it retracts the LE flaps and prevent the plane from floating. So it is possible...

I don't really want to split hairs but the USAF RC-135 is NOT a 707 derivative.

More accurately the U.S. Air Force's C-135 Stratolifter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-135_Stratolifter) is not a 707 variant, but was developed in parallel to the 707 from the original Boeing 367-80. As such there are a lot a similarities, and lots of differences. Specifically it has a narrower fuselage and was fitted with different engines from the get go (J57s originally, with virtually all now running CFM-56s).

More importantly perhaps is the fact they have the loving maintenance care of the Air Force, which tends to get rather upset if any of their planes break or fall apart. (Not that it doesn't happen, but all sorts of questions tend to get asked when they do...).

- GY :8

You don't want to split hairs, but then you go and do.

Without looking in the relevant books, I think the KC.135 was originally designated the B.717???? [Not to be confused, of course, with the 'modern'717]

Last time I looked the RC-135 (Rivet Joint?) had a 707 airframe?

More accurately the U.S. Air Force's C-135 Stratolifter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-135_Stratolifter) is not a 707 variant

It has the same FAA type rating as the B707, i.e. B-707/B-720.

Last time I looked the RC-135 (Rivet Joint?) had a 707 airframe? Er, no it doesn't. It's more like a second cousin. Same roots (Boeing 367-80), but different from there out.

C-135 Stratolifter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-135_Stratolifter)
Boeing RC-135 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_RC-135)

The KC-135 Stratotanker and C-135 Stratolifter were the first Boeing aircraft produced based on the Dash 80. The first flight of the KC-135A was in August 1956. The production line closed in February 1965 after 808 aircraft had been produced for the USAF and an additional 12 had been built for France. Boeing’s in-house designation for the KC-135 family was the 717.
Boeing allocated the 717 designation to the KC-135 to indicate some substantial differences from the Dash 80. The fuselage was slightly wider to accommodate six abreast seating in anticipation for the 707 airliner. In the end, the 707 was widened even more in response to airline requests. The 707 and KC-135 aircraft could not use common fuselage assembly jigs. There are also major structural differences between the C-135 and 707. The C-135 was built to a “safe life” philosophy to meet the USAF requirements. The 707 was built to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that dictated a “fail safe” structure. Both models were manufactured from different aluminum alloys.
The bottom line is that even though the Dash 80, KC-135 and 707 all look similar, they are three distinct aircraft types. From an engineering point of view the only thing in common between the 707 and KC-135 is the wing box. Don’t let anyone tell you that a 707 is a KC-135 with an interior, or a KC-135 is a stripped out 707 with a refueling boom.

- GY :ooh:

Everything GarageYears said is exactly correct. I wrenched the KC-135 A,E, and R for a long, long time before I flew the E-3/707.
The military versions of the 707 are several and can be confusing, but anything with -135 in the name is not a 707.
The -137, E-3, E-6, E-8 etc are.
As a note of trivia, the same fuselage cross section was used in the 707, 727 and early 737's,, "just add sections to length".
Please,,thread drift over,, back to the subject. I'd love to hear any facts or ramp rumours anyone in the DXB region has heard.
-- Heracles

I understand that the falling object may have been an Engine Cowling? There have been numurous incidents caused by aircraft taking off with the engine cowlings unlatched after maintenance. More recently this has been a problem with the A320 (V2500) where the unlatched catches are difficult to see as the engines are so low down. I do not know the cowling arrangements on a B707 and whether an unlatched cowl is easily spotted. But the results can be dramatic - severe pylon damage; tailplane damage, fusalage damage (I recall a passenger window being broken on an A320); the engine itself severly damaged e.g. fuel pipe rupture, engine controls jammed etc; and flap damage.

How easy is it to leave the cowlings unlatched and undetected on a B707 - I suspect someone out there will know! But I am not aware of such an incident causing an aircraft to crash.

Just a thought.

bizdev

as I recall the cowl latches were on the very bottom centerline of the cowl. Not real visable but none the less something the FE would certainly look for on a walkaround.

Just curious. (maybe it's already been asked)

How does the loss of an engine cowling (or other similar sized appendage) on a 4-engine aeroplane (regardless of its age) cause such a dramatic (watched the video) Loss of Control?

I'm guessing it doesn't.

It would depend on whether or not the cowl struck something like the horizontal stab as it departed the aircraft. I know that cowls have come off the 707/720 before, but not with this type of catastrophic result so maybe this was not the case in this accident.

I am aware of an incident in which a DC10 cowl came apart in cruise flight and the debri struck the horizontal stab causing significant damage. It did not result in control problems but if you were relatively slow, as in initial climb, coupled with the loss of one or more engines, then I can easily imagine a scenario that could result in loss of control.
WW

Regarding the horizontal tailplane on 707 aircraft, PanAmerican lost a freighter approaching Lusaka many years ago...upon selecting flaps 50 for landing one of the horizontal stabs detatched (due to severe corrosion to the attach fittings), and the airplane impacted vertically.
An Airworthiness Directive was issued in short order, to inspect these tailplanes, and many were found with corrosion and attach fittings fractures.
So, if an engine cowl detatched, struck the horizontal stab, which had not been inspected properly...well, this would clearly not be good.:sad:
Just a thought.

Horizontal tailplanes, and their operation (especially jammed stabs...had one of those personally) on 707 aircraft...many problems over the years, without a doubt.
With a jammed stab, Boeing provided a superb alternate method of pitch control...split spoilers....known technically as, spoiler bypass.
L1011...same/same.

The B707 lost in the Lusaka crash (14 May 1977) was G-BEBP, operated on charter as a freighter, by Dan-Air. It was originally delivered to PanAm as N765PA.......is that the same accident you are referring to,411A?

...is that the same accident you are referring to,411A?
Yup, that's the one....original PanAmerican airplane.

Yes, but it had absolutely nothing to do with PanAm when it crashed.

Incidentally, I have flown with the brother of the captain who died in the accident - nice chap.

I'm having a rare "can-sort-of-see-where-411A-is-coming-from" moment, in the sense that the 707 leased by Dan-Air Cargo in that accident was built to PA's specifications, given that there was a lot of variation between airline specifications for the type at the time (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

We're getting off-topic here. I do wonder how much fatigue damage and wear and tear the shiny new paint job on this aircraft was covering though.

The AD for the stab involved removing the stab, honing the attachment lugs and rebushing if i remember rightly. Along with new attach bolts.

As for the cowling's, I am aware of one incident at STN when a set of engine cowling's departed a 707. One half was was found near the runway & the other by a man walking his dog near Ongar (probably 20 miles away). The crew were unaware & had to be persuaded to return by ATC.
The latches, especially on the lower inboard engines could be missed on a walk around & the cowling's fitted flush even when unlatched.
I would be surprised if this accident was caused by a simple cowling departure.

B707 with the Stage 2 Hush kits (TRACOR) have 2 straps holding the two cowlings together and its hard not to see them not secured during a walk around. The B707 in question was not fitted with Stage 2 hush kits.

The B707 in question was not fitted with Stage 2 hush kits.

How do you know...specifically?

The latest photo's on Jetphotos.net, taken in May this year show it without hush kits.

The latest photo's...

So, where are they...?

Try here JetPhotos.Net Aviation Photos: ST-AKW (http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=ST-AKW)

Yup, no hushkits....looks like to me, anyway.

Excellent, at last some conversation about this accident.
I can NOT believe that there is no "did you hear?"s coming out of the gulf. Back in the day if BA bent a uld dollie in DXB, the entire ground staff of EK would know "all about it" in SHJ less than 48 hrs later. G*d forbid you bend some tin or cause an actual loss.
To those of us who still frequent the area,,, "inquiring minds want to know", lol. Most rumours have a basis in fact, warped by the unfamiliar usually,, but still.

My position is that loose cowling did not cause this birds fall. I cannot come up with a scenario in which a loose cowl is un-noticed,, stays attached after rotation,, causes terminal and unrecoverable damage somewhere around 300-500 ft agl,, and floats harmlessly back to the runway,, on runway heading.. Killing a healthy aircraft(?) and skilled crew(?).
What the hell is the speck seen on the tape? Someone in the gulf is not sharing with the other kids.
If it is cowling,, more interesting would be what CAUSED it to depart the fix,, and perhaps take a few leading edge devices with it.

Either that,, or I'm wrong. It's casual,, I'm actually getting a little used to being wrong.
--Heracles

Heracles,

Just for you, the latest rumour that I have heard refers to the crew reporting an engine "lost" after takeoff. It is unclear whether this means simply a dead engine or no longer physically present.

More as it comes.......:ok:

Hi,

For those who watched the video provided some posts above .. they certainly seen a "thing" falling from the sky (the plane is no more visible at time)
Many can suppose or assume this "thing" was a part of the plane.
As the event occured not over a impenetrable jungle but instead over a sand carpet .. this "thing" is in the hand of investigators from some hours after the accident.
Wonder why the info about this "thing" not yet leaked somewhere.
Certainly they keep the info secret for make growing rumours on this forum :}

Many years back a DC8 was departing a NYC airport and crashed on take-off. Seems debris (a stone?) probably 'kicked' up got caught at the hinge point on the elevator and jammed it in the up position. Forward input on the yoke could do nothing.
I wonder?

411A, can you see the outboards from the cockpit?, (doubt if you can see the inboards)...might go the comment about physically losing the engine. Frankly, I don't think a crew would know that an engine was off the airplane even with the different handling characteristics.

PJ2

411A, can you see the outboards from the cockpit?, (doubt if you can see the inboards)...

Yes, inboards just visable....outboards, in clear view.

Does anyone have more information about the cargo load?

......Nobody appears to be exactly sure what fell off this aircraft.

Meanwhile.....

QUOTE:
As for the cowling's, I am aware of one incident at STN when a set of engine cowling's departed a 707. One half was was found near the runway & the other by a man walking his dog near Ongar (probably 20 miles away). The crew were unaware & had to be persuaded to return by ATC.
The latches, especially on the lower inboard engines could be missed on a walk around & the cowling's fitted flush even when unlatched.
I would be surprised if this accident was caused by a simple cowling departure.
-----------------------------------------

I know a little about losing outboard cowlings (only), and I can vouch for one instance involving outboard cowlings that departed without damaging the stabilizer or anything else of immediate importance. I seem to remember there are about five 'over centre to lock' type latches along the underside. In the case I refer to, both the Station Engineer and the Flight Engineer had positively checked the latches on the pre-flight walk-around. One only, was later proved unmade when visually checked and flush. I'm possibly wrong, but maybe there are inspection holes at each latch?

The aircraft was G-ATZC, a 707-365, and operating a scheduled cargo service LUN NBO on 06MAR72. An Internet search just now indicates it was originally delivered to Airlift International as N737AL.

The #4 engine cowlings separated shortly after V2. There was a manageable yaw. I was in the right hand seat, and when I glanced right the outboard engine's inboard cowling appeared to have rotated clockwise - maybe something like 45 degrees. It was around the same moment that the tower informed us that something had already fallen off. I can't remember at what point the second cowling went, but it wasn't long because later we found it in the grass on, or close to the airfield. I'm guessing it went over the top and it later turned out to have missed the stabilizer.

We didn't need to dump. The engine was shut down due fire protection compromised, and we landed back to check condition. Strange to relate, the cowlings were soon retrieved and beaten back to shape by some skilled locally based Italian engineers. Once re-fitted and permanently secured with metal straps, my logbook shows that we were on our way to Nairobi once more around six hours later.

The cargo carried was air conditioning units, car parts, computers and tools.

Azza Transport Flight 2241 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azza_Transport_Flight_2241)

A wiki page already?, wow.
Thanks to guys who still frequent the gulf for keeping an ear open.

For future reference, the cowling on the older Pratts are NOT ATTACHED to the aircraft at the top. The very old (dating myself here) J-57's, the TF-33/JT-3's, and the JT-9 series motors cowlings upper hinge is simply a curved blade that rests in a "cage" of rollers. There is no mechanical hinge per-se. Combine that with the curvature of the upper edge of the cowl,, it's VERY easy to miss-align and still close these cowls. They will latch at the bottom and be very obviously out of rig at the top. More often than not the ground engineers will simply waste alot of effort trying to get all 5-7 of them to line up,,, it's an "art".lol
Not saying that it's particularly relevent here, just adding to the knowledge base when I can.


I still think that this 707 had a really good initial climb angle,, and something BLEW that cowling off....hmm
i'd love to see the initial departure instructions for that runway. My money says they include a right turn.
--Heracles

It was a Dan-Air 707 fresh of a C check with Pan-Am

Heracles
The initial departure instructions would have been to climb straight ahead no turn for atleast 8nm on SID or 2000ft radar vectored.
10D

I remember the Lusaka accident well as I was in Nairobi at the time after operating a DC8 from Lusaka the previous day. The Danair 707 was chartered by IAS for a series of contracted Zambia Airways flights running on alternate days to the IAS DC8's. The captain was a friend of mine. GBEBP was the prototype 707 freighter used by Boeing for testing before it was delivered to Panam. The captain who operated the LHR-ATH-NAI sectors told me he had experienced stab a trim problem on the approach into Athens and Nairobi. On finals into NAI it was serious enough for him to ask for a loading check. The cargo was offloaded and weighed, confirming the load sheet was correct. Sadly, the horizontal stab detached itself on the next approach!

i'd love to see the initial departure instructions for that runway. My money says they include a right turn.Every time i've departed from SHJ R30 in the last 4 years, the instruction has always been the same "Climb straight ahead to XXXX feet, once airborne contact DXB Departures" . So i am presuming they got something similar.

As stated earlier:
"Either that,, or I'm wrong. It's casual,, I'm actually getting a little used to being wrong."

Thanks for the info guys,, it really has been awhile since I either operated a 707 or transited SHJ. All I know for sure is with this glorious old bird,, if you turn into the dead engine,, good luck. If you turn into the dead engineS,, the wing will go down and nothing in the world will bring it back up.
I sat sideways in the 707, 727 and 747 among others for more hours than I really want to admit,, still have a soft spot in my head for the 7-oh'. Maybe because she was my first. Cheers.
--Heracles

She was my first also!
You are 100% correct with regards the dead engine.
As to the B707, she was the Queen of the sky and will be forever.

If you turn into the dead engineS,, the wing will go down and nothing in the world will bring it back up.

If this were the case, the airplane would never had been certified, even under CAR4B, as it was.
Keep up the speed, and sufficient rudder authority is there, altho a heavy foot is required, without a doubt.
And yes, I've flown the airplane extensively, in Command, long ago.

Very True. But not on take off. With a speed above 200 Knots yes. But if loose two same side at low speed never. not even with the big ass rudder the B707 has.,,, Note: This is with just over 8600 hours on the B707.

But if loose two same side at low speed never

You should know, four engine jock, that the 'two engines failed on the same side case' is NOT a certification requirement, under CAR4B nor 14CFR25, for the takeoff.

If you didn't know this, then you are poorly informed.
Also, Vmca, two engines failed (same side), rudder boost ON, is 170 KIAS, on -320B advanced aircraft.

Suggest you return to your AFM for some dedicated reading on the subject.:rolleyes:

four engine jock -

As to the B707, she was the Queen of the sky and will be forever.

Naturally, I would have to disagree with that.:}

Suggest you return to your AFM for some dedicated reading on the subject.:rolleyes: Today 09:35


I would think that applies to me too:}

I would think that applies to me too
Not necessarily.
To review, specifically concerning the 707-320B/C advanced cowl aircraft....
Vmca, rudder boost ON, outboard engine failed, 120 KIAS.
Two engines failed (same side) rudder boost ON, 170 KIAS.
One outboard engine failed, rudder boost OFF, 180 KIAS.
Two engines failed (same side) rudder boost OFF, 235 KIAS.

When I obtained my FAA type rating on the B707 in 1974, the FAA required an NDB/VOR circling approach, one outboard engine failed (idle thrust) and, during the circling maneuver, the second engine failed (idle thrust, on the same side) to all be completed within the TERPS circling criteria (600/2), to a landing.
These FAA inspectors at the time demanded accuracy and complete competancy, and I suspect it has not changed much in the meantime.
Having said this, I was trained to proficiency
by PanAmerican...the absolute finest training I have obtained in over forty years of professional flying.
I cannot say enough for PanAmerican, they trained their crews (in my particular case, contract training) very well, and the FAA inspectors gave nothing away.
IE: tough as nails.
And, IMHO, as it absolutely should be.
The B707 was not an especially easy airplane to fly, when it all went pear-shaped.
However...a very reliable airplane...IF maintained properly.

411A that's the way to do it:D:D:D

how many wrong runways have you taken off from:}

PA

how many wrong runways have you taken off from:}

:confused:...:}

411A;

The DC8 had about the same numbers - 240kts with two out on one side on the Conway, (40 series), lower speed with flaps due to greater rudder authority. The stretch had slightly lower speeds.

Re "training" and "finest of...etc", has training changed to accomodate automation today or has the bottom line driven training to new lows in the expectation that automation will "look after the store"?

The question isn't loaded - I'm seriously wondering if we are training human factors in order to train automation appropriately; I can tell you that training syllabi that I am aware of today do not include an engine-out/two-engine out NDB/non-precision approach and that handling skills on raw data with an orientation, procedure turn and approach on an NDB are at an all-time low partly because they don't have to be "without fault" but partly because that's also what the industry leaders and regulators think mainly because the autoflight systems are so damn good, providing they are operated with the same comprehension and skill levels expected during the kinds of rides you describe. My first IFR ride was a lost orientation and range approach into Nanaimo...not on single engine, thankfully, so I know both sides.

DC-8 Is 210 On 2 eng.

DC-8 Is 210 On 2 eng.
Thanks - on the 50/60 series.

Re "training" and "finest of...etc", has training changed to accomodate automation today or has the bottom line driven training to new lows in the expectation that automation will "look after the store"?

The latter category, in my opinion.

Now back to the thread.

Please.

The Dubai air show is this week, perhaps some news will escape from the GCAA.

SSA

One green and hoping wrote.....
As for the cowling's, I am aware of one incident at STN when a set of engine cowling's departed a 707.

The STN event you mention was caused by maintenance error....someone assuming someone else was securing the cowls......:ugh:

Re "training" and "finest of...etc", has training changed to accomodate automation today or has the bottom line driven training to new lows in the expectation that automation will "look after the store"?

Just read through a B787 sales presentation from Boeing, time and again it mentioned potentials for reduced training. Definitely a point aimed at the bean counters. 8 days "differential training" from the 757/767.
Seem descent knowledge and training to proficiency has been thrown out. :ugh:

CIRCUITB
"The STN event you mention was caused by maintenance error....someone assuming someone else was securing the cowls......"

This comes under the Human Factors banner nowadays. The people involved were all competent & conscientious, but old fashioned job demarcation played a part.
Anyway this is not really relevant to this thread.

CIRCUITB Yr post #183.....

Nope....wasn't me who said that, it was GAZIN, above.

The incident of cowling failure that I remarked on at the top of page 9 resulted from a manufacturing fault. I haven't read the content of my 707 ops manuals in any depth since consigning them to the far reaches of my loft in 1980. Documents from the enquiry might even co-exist, so I will enlarge on my initial sentence above by saying that to the best of my recollection the finding was that one (only) of those over-centre lever type locking devices was mis-aligned at manufacture. Assuming that the failed cowlings were the original pair as supplied new to Airlift International, the inference was metal fatigue/distress over the period of time. The fault was assessed as not observable on a standard walk round pre-flight check.

As per schedule, we returned to base on a passenger service a couple of days after the freighter to be informed that a verdict of 'Pod Scrape' had been handed down from a high placed non-aircrew source that perhaps it's tactful not to identify - even if I could remember all this time later. Now, the Captain who was a US citizen on contract, and both engineers failed to see much amusement at this pronouncement, and without hesitation borrowed/stole/impounded the cowlings for scientific examination.
The independant test findings resulted in our being personally handed letters of mild commendation, a cup of tea, and probably a biscuit.
Only a cynic would wonder if pilot handling errors attract faster insurance settlements. I remember that possibility being raised at the time, but not by anyone with specific knowledge of our company.

I never worked for Dan Air, but was closely involved with the aftermath of the Lusaka tragedy. To the best of my recollection, the aircraft had been on check in the BCal hanger at LGW not long before the incident. The criticisms did not involve anything to do with the stabilizer, but there were a couple of things that should have been fixed before Dan Air operated it.
Had the accident first happened to one of the passenger versons of similar vintage then in operation, long-term media and public reaction would have been markedly different. In the case of both the Lusaka and the recent Sharja incident, it's just so sad that the relatively low number of victims only briefly interest the media and mask the public's interest in the truly shocking causes of structural failure.