PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
View Single Post
Old 14th Jul 2006, 06:53
  #652 (permalink)  
Bartholomew
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eish & Izent
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With all due respest...

Rockhound..."The berm is a total red herring wrt this accident"

411A..."fatigue is often used as a convenient excuse for crews that fail to apply common sense, and actually watch what the hell they are doing"

And to all the other statements along these lines....

Fatigue was definitely a factor in this accident (imho). Anyone who disagrees should do the proverbial "sit in a dark closet with the vacuum-cleaner on" test for 19 hours and see how they fair with an average SAT test (or something similiar!)

Inadequate training on the performance computer definitely played a large part in this accident.

The berm definitely had something to do with the terrible demise of the crew and the aircraft.

How many other airfields are there in the world which have a large solid berm at the beginning/end of the runway? Not having been to too many myself, but I would hazard a guess that most pilots in the world would like to know this little pertinent piece of information (on the Jepp plate for instance) should there be one at the airfield at which they are operating into/ out of?

I'm not trying to suggest that the other factors should be ignored, but considering a quote from one of the links posted previously...

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw233476.htm

"...On Wednesday 12 March 2003, at 1547, flight SQ286, a Boeing 747-412 registered 9V-SMT, started its take off at Auckland International Airport for a direct 9 hour flight to Singapore. On board were 369 passengers, 17 cabin crew and 3 pilots.

When the captain rotated the aeroplane for lift off the tail struck the runway and scraped for some 490 metres until the aeroplane became airborne. The tail strike occurred because the rotation speed was 33 knots less than the 163 knots required for the aeroplane weight.

The rotation speed had been mistakenly calculated for an aeroplane weighing 100 tonnes less than the actual weight of 9V SMT. The 389 persons on board had a very lucky escape. This aircraft did not crash mainly because there was no berm at the end of the runway..."

Unless I'm mistaken, there have been numerous similiar incidents at other airfields scattered around the globe, including two at Jnb? (An SAA 747-400 and an Emirates Airbus??? Please correct me if I'm wrong).(I do realise that incorrect (lower) thrust equates to incorrect (higher) weight... in these circumstances).

I just hope that we can all learn from what happened to those poor 7 souls in Halifax, and maybe be less critical and more constructive towards creating a safer environment for us all to work and play in.

With respect, in their memory....

"Captain Mike Thornycroft

Captain David Lamb

First Officer Gary Keogh

Flight Engineer Pete Launder

Flight Engineer Steve Hooper

Loadmaster Chris Strydom

Ground Engineer Mario Zahn

R.I.P."

css
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Grass Isn't Always Greener Over There...
Bartholomew is offline