View Full Version : KAL Cargo Plane Topples Back At Sydney Airport

9th Jan 2002, 11:13
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/09/national/national105.html" target="_blank">Click Here</a>

David Hurst
9th Jan 2002, 11:21

ATC Watcher
9th Jan 2002, 11:26
Someone bonus going down the drain in KAL.....
Jokes can start again :) :)

9th Jan 2002, 11:27
They are not the first.

9th Jan 2002, 12:33
A couple of pictures already uploaded on Airliners dot Net. Search using registration HL7372

It happens eh... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Kalium Chloride
9th Jan 2002, 12:40
It's just begging for a caption. :)

9th Jan 2002, 12:49
How about "ROTATE!"

Cee of Gee
9th Jan 2002, 13:54
Ouch, looks rather expensive.
Good to hear nobody was hurt. The car must have been too close to call for a few of the ground-handlers. I wonder if it was a general error, or as is sometimes the case more than meets the eye! Fatigue, duff info!! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I've spoken to Loadies who say the MD-11 can be a bit slippery during loading. Obviously.

Anti Skid On
9th Jan 2002, 14:40
Apt name above (C of G) - what sort of weight would it take to do that??

hot 'n' heavy
9th Jan 2002, 14:51
more pics on Dunnunda & Godzone

9th Jan 2002, 15:34
We had it happen with just a couple of medium pallets going back on a MD-11. You have to have the nosegear strapped down or keep a loaded pallet in the front. Luckily the towbar was hooked on and kept the tail from contacting the ground.

The f/o onboard was trying to sleep, and suddenly got vertigo. He opened his eyes, and all he saw out of the windshield was stars!

Taxiing or flying the Mighty Dog empty requires 50,000# of ballast fuel. Any less and you're asking for trouble....

9th Jan 2002, 16:49
Is this why the MD-11 is a rather unstable aircraft to fly? Is it because of the center of gravity? As a passenger sitting in the back of the MD-11 the control inputs from the pilot were greatly exaggerated as we approached for landing. It was rather unsettling.

9th Jan 2002, 16:51
Caption for the Photo:


Greg Baddeley
9th Jan 2002, 17:14
It happens - but why's it always happening to KAL?!?!

9th Jan 2002, 17:38
It doesn't just happen to the MD-11. It has happened to DC8s, B747Fs and will hapen again if they don't bother using a sling on the nose LG strut or a tail stand. For once, it doesn't seem to be KAL's fault.

skymarshal 1
9th Jan 2002, 17:44
This can happen quite easily on any cgo/combi aircraft especially if tailjack is not used or nose is not tied down and heavy pallets are being positioned on m/deck.

Not sure about MD11 but I think B747f have some safety device built in the inner hold system when aircraft senses tilt.

Some aircraft such as B747 combi are normally tail heavy due to the 7x M/deck pos at rear, not sure about MD11.

9th Jan 2002, 17:49
Check out Airliners.net, scroll to the accident section to see a lot more unfortunates <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

9th Jan 2002, 18:07
Well if the flight crew had been big fat Europeans and not 90 lbs Koreans this probably wouldn't have happened. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> :)

[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: 747FOCAL ]</p>

9th Jan 2002, 18:15
"Look, if you try really hard, you can get the nose higher than that 747".

Cee of Gee
9th Jan 2002, 18:52
As a lot of operators, our A300 and other freighters don't use tail-stands. All C of G movements during loading are calculated by the Loadmaster. (must keep an eye on it still!)
A good feature of our types is that when empty, they sit at the foward edge of trim. I imagine that due to the tail mounted engine, the MD-11 doesn't! How far in the envelope are they guys?
I was told that when they are positioned by tug, a ballast pallet in the foward position is required. Is the MD-11 certified for a weight bearing tail-stand?
Some aircraft have them, but only to be used as a visual reference. Result= BIG HOLE!

9th Jan 2002, 22:26
We don't have provisions for tail stands. What works best is a heavy pallet in the 1R position. Or load the lower forward compartment first.

To Allianceair- the MD-11 has a much smaller tail than the DC-10. It compensates by a fulltime LSAS. Pitch is actually much more stable than the -10. A rough ride on your flight probably indicates just a ham-handed pilot. It is my observation that piloting skill is de-emphasized on full-FMS aircraft.

I had an instructor tell me last summer that it's best just to autoland every leg. When I had recovered sufficiently, I asked him what to do when crosswind exceeds autoland limit (15 knots) but is less than aircraft demonstrated limit (35 knots). Is that really the time to be learning how to hand-fly the airplane?

I can come up with no reason not to maintain and improve your hand-flying abilities, save laziness....

freightdoggy dog
9th Jan 2002, 22:35
I always use the Captains wallet as a counter balance :)

9th Jan 2002, 22:47
Really lucky no one was hurt.

10th Jan 2002, 02:45
bet its got a sore ass..................

nice to see good old ba in the bacground

Buster Hyman
10th Jan 2002, 13:00
I always thought those Landrovers were just heavy on the juice... <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

10th Jan 2002, 19:30
freightdoggydog, you beat me to it! Seem to remember a similar photo of a Fedex DC10 in the same attitude on the ramp at LAX. Rumour has it that the piccy circulated with the caption 'Captain drops wallet out of cockpit window'. Alternatively you could use the old Uncle Roger stalwart of 'A bit late on the roundout Hoskins'

No applications accepted from ex KAL Loadmasters!

Cee of Gee
10th Jan 2002, 20:53
cloud skimmer,
i reckon the poor Loadie's got a case of sore ass?....... <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

11th Jan 2002, 02:38
As it Austrailia I think
might be in order

11th Jan 2002, 07:19
Cargo handled by Quanta Airlines.

Now these days, Korean Airline cannot even
rely on Western Air Carrier to handle the Cargo..

Load master of Quanta forgot to use tail stand..

Sorry to disappoint all the guys who were blaming on Korean Airline...

11th Jan 2002, 12:18

QANTAS were handling the loading/unloading under direction from the KAL Loadmaster. MD11 do not use a tail stand, they utilise weights on the nose gear or tether the nose gear to the earth. It is my understanding that KAL standard operating procedure is to not utilise these weights and elect to orchestrate the loading and unloading whilst keeping the COG forward thus preventing the rather large erection that resulted in our fair city. Check the ASTB site in 12 months for who was to blame.

11th Jan 2002, 12:25
"Load master of Quanta forgot to use tail stand.."

Do MD11's use tail stands at all? I was told that KAL doesn't even use weights on the nose like some of the other MD11 airlines which come to Sydney. They rely on loading/unloading the front and back of the aircraft in a certain sequence. Before you start pointing fingers at "Quanta" (whoever they may be) and believing everything you read in the newspapers, let's find out who was supervising the unloading... KAL or the local groundstaff....shall we?).

Newpapers reported that the angle of the aircraft was 30 degrees (I'd say more like 10). Perhaps the pilots here can provide a more accurate value?


11th Jan 2002, 12:28
Just a comment from a 74F L/M;
We generally don't use tail-stands either. We've had a couple of incidents over the years where they've slipped off the attachment point, puncturing the APU area. Not only that, but unless a tailstand is constantly monitored/adjusted, you can put too much stress on the aft body area. And last, but not least, any Loadmaster worth his salt shouldn't require one (ok so there are special situations, but in general...)
My tuppence worth.

11th Jan 2002, 12:58
Here's a few more pics....

<a href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0162.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0162.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0167.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0167.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0168.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0168.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0171.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.ozemail.com.au/~iriddell/KAL/Dscf0171.jpg</a>

The aircraft nose was initially pulled down with tugs and cables.... However, due to cable angles, it wasn't possible to pull it down all the way. The nose only touched down after about 10 people boarded the aircraft at the front right hand door (via a scissor stand).... and slowly moved towards the cockpit.

By the way, the aircraft didn't "crash" onto its tail as reported. The aircraft settled on its bum quite softly.... Perhaps because of the cushioning effect of the downward vectored APU exhaust? :)


[ 11 January 2002: Message edited by: QAVION ]</p>

freightdoggy dog
11th Jan 2002, 22:46
Have to agree with Cargorat2......" a loadmaster worth his salt doesn't need a tail strut ". Saw one go thro a Convair in Coventry many years ago.
All the Fedx MD11s in Stansted use weights over the nose leg.This is then attached to shackles concreted into the ramp.So who was in charge of the loading team?

11th Jan 2002, 23:10
Ouch, now that has to be expensive!

Im glad Im not paying the repair bill!


12th Jan 2002, 01:24
Methinks this is a new (secret) way to load/off load the aft belly.....jokingly, glad noone was injured.


12th Jan 2002, 02:39
I guess that is what you call a Bim Bam Bip or is that a Bam Bam Dip :) <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Fris B. Fairing
12th Jan 2002, 12:40
Check out the downwards angle of the top platform on the rear JCPL. What's it done to the rear cargo door and/or its frame?

I suspect that handling contracts are now being held up to the light.

12th Jan 2002, 15:31
Firstly, the aircraft was being unloaded by Qantas cargo staff under the direction of the local KAL loadmaster.
Secondly, the tail did not crash to the ground, but quite gently settled in that unfortunate position.
Lastly, damage to the aircraft is not anywhere near as bad as one might think. There is one 4inch dia hole in the fuse just aft of the aft cargo door, some minor damage to the aft cargo door cutout, and some dents fwd of the bulk cargo door.
The main damage appears to be to the pride of KAL. I hear that 3 of their local cargo staff have been stood down. The QF cargo guys were taken away for some counselling.
Oh yeh! The Hyundai 4wd that fell out of the main deck door is going cheap!!!!

Buster Hyman
13th Jan 2002, 11:03
Sorry...looked like a Landrover...DOH! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

13th Jan 2002, 13:06
Sources in SYD say that no nose gear strap was requested, further invest is going on with all pallets being weighed and checked..seems some loading anomalies apparent.

13th Jan 2002, 14:36
yes qantas were handling the aircraft,but i think you will find that the KAL rep was at the controls when the incident happened....a few of the loaders were in the back of the plane and were trapped there for a while..