View Full Version : C-5 GALAXY CRASH DOVER
SALAD DODGER
3rd Apr 2006, 12:27
Just seen the pictures on the news. No news on fatalities, I hope there are none. Thoughts with the families and friends of the 17 on board, I pray for good news.
The plane, the military's largest, went down about 6:45 a.m., said Allen Metheny, assistant director in the state Department of Public Safety.
He said some people were taken to hospitals with injuries, but he did not have numbers or details of the extent of the injuries. BayHealth in Dover said the hospital received about 10 people from the crash site, including some who appeared able to walk, spokeswoman Pam Marecki said.
The plane broke into three pieces, with the cockpit separated from the fuselage and a wing shattered. According to initial reports, it had just taken off and had some indications of a problem, said Col. Kate Haddock, spokeswoman at the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. It turned back to land and fell short of the runway, she said.
Maj. Ange Keskey of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois confirmed 17 people were aboard and said the crash is being investigated.
Gainesy
3rd Apr 2006, 12:30
DOVER, Delaware (AP) -- A C-5 cargo plane carrying 17 people crashed near Dover Air Force Base early Monday, state officials said. There was no immediate word on fatalities.
The plane, the military's largest, went down about 6:45 a.m., said Allen Metheny, assistant director in the state Department of Public Safety.
An Associated Press correspondent at the scene said the cockpit separated from the fuselage.
Local news radio[?]:
WBOC has learned that a C-5 airplane crashed this morning in a field off of Route 9, about one mile south of the Dover Air Force Base. According to an assistant fire chief with the Dover Fire Department, the plane lost its second engine and the plane crashed. The plane was broken into three pieces: the nose, fuselage and tail. It is not known yet if there were any injuries or fatalities. According to WBOC's Laura Mazzeo, two military helicopters landed shortly after 7:30 a.m. to assist in the crash recovery efforts. More details forthcoming.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash.ap.ap/index.html
SALAD DODGER
3rd Apr 2006, 15:23
Pentagon reports NO fatalities, thank goodness. Lucky to walk away from it by the looks of things.
Tired Old Man
3rd Apr 2006, 16:28
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4872720.stm
Stu_Pidazzo
3rd Apr 2006, 18:32
when they say lost its second engine, did they mean it failed or did the thing fall off? I hope they find it.
Judging by the picture on the BBC website, engine failure seems to be the answer.
Hoop Stress
4th Apr 2006, 06:57
CR2, I'm not doubting your analysis of engine failure, but how did you deduce this from the BBC web site picture?
South Bound
4th Apr 2006, 07:17
Either engine failure or the fact the nose and tail fell off!
Sorry, couldn't resist, glad everyone was OK.
I knew that was coming :) I was answering Stu_P above "did they mean it failed or did the thing fall off? I hope they find it"
Given 3 engines are attached to the wings & the 4th one lying on the gound next to the fuselage...
I should have written my previous a little clearer.
Northern Circuit
4th Apr 2006, 14:19
an update
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RPU2WIA1QOYZDQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/04/wcrash04.xml
buoy15
4th Apr 2006, 14:59
Looks like it lost No1 as it's lying in front of the ac
Even if they did lose No2 at AUW, they should have had sufficient power to recover normally - something more serious perhaps?
Certainly lucky to walk away given the impact damage and the amount of fuel on board
Pass-A-Frozo
4th Apr 2006, 15:22
Given 3 engines are attached to the wings & the 4th one lying on the gound next to the fuselage...
I should have written my previous a little clearer.
Yes, I think you should of. Everyone knows that when an engine departs an airframe in flight, it lands right next to the fuselage. Hang on, gotta go - my pig just flew off.:rolleyes:
Aussies best inspect their C-17s carefully...........could be buying a cut 'n' shunt...........
MEON VALLEY FLYER
4th Apr 2006, 16:06
as above link say's. suffered engine fire after t/o, crashed returning to field.
So the engine fuse pins must have partly gone with the fire and finally gave up during the landing, hence thrown forward and lying as seen in photo.
Dogfish
4th Apr 2006, 18:17
Glad to hear they are all ok, any landing you walk away from is a good one. Bet the pilot will find it hard to get insurance now he's blown his no claims bonus.:)
ehwatezedoing
4th Apr 2006, 18:45
I can see the Canadian govt bidding this airframe to put it in their inventory :{
SkyHawk-N
5th Apr 2006, 05:56
I hope they don't regret sending 13 of them here...
http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARCArticleC5Galaxy.asp
Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1664881.php) report. Which is pretty comprehensive and includes a crew name/condition list at the end.
H Peacock
5th Apr 2006, 09:01
Guys.
It appears that a few of you believe that the detachment of one of the C5's engines may be indicative of it failing in flight. Is it not far more likely that, as a result of the forced landing (controlled crash!), that the engine probably broke away as the ac slid to a halt? I suspect this to be more likely when you look at the damage suffered by the rest of the airframe. Surely the 'fuse pins' (weak link in the engine mount/pylon) could not be expected to stay intact following a violent arrival. They would not need to be pre-weakened by heat.
buoy15
5th Apr 2006, 13:33
Bird strike theory sounds good
Throes of the the Nimrod crash - lost 2 engines due to ingesting 120 flying rats, (Seagulls or similar) at 800ft - no height to manoeuvre - crashed in the forest
This C5 crew (at AUW whilst dumping), were lucky to have had time to turn back towards the field, but unfortunately hit the undershoot
10/10 for the pilots with a difficult decision, which resulted in no loss of life!
dionysius
6th Apr 2006, 16:25
I see from the posted pics that the rear cargo door and ramp are open, would this be as a result of the impact ?
And who said the C-5 has poor short field performance? They got it into that field no probs! Mind you, they should have remembered the old adage - "look well ahead, keep straight with rudder"! :}
SkyHawk-N
6th Apr 2006, 20:22
More crash pictures here...
http://www.csharpprogrammer.com/images/c5crash.html
But be quick they'll only be there for 2 hours!! Sorry...:ugh:
Please download them and pass on. If they aren't there when you look please PM me and I'll send them to you. If anyone has web space available that can host the pictures please let me know.
:ok:
Trumpet_trousers
6th Apr 2006, 21:05
I see from the posted pics that the rear cargo door and ramp are open, would this be as a result of the impact ?
Possibly, although there is an SOP to jettison cargo in an emergency too - obviously depending on the circumstances. Not saying that this was the case here (considering populated area etc.) but it may have been a player.
West Coast
7th Apr 2006, 06:32
"Possibly, although there is an SOP to jettison cargo in an emergency too"
Really? Source please, particular to the C5.
And an immediate change in CG at a time when you least want it.
WebPilot
12th Apr 2006, 10:19
From a modelling site, oddly enough (Hyperscale)
"This is the current skinny on the crash, -- none of it official -- until the board says so.
It was not a bird ingestion but a "reverser unlock" on the #2 engine that started this. They lost a C-5 with all aboard a few years back in Germany for the same cause. This crew however shut down the engine before an actual unstow took place. The airplane was well over 700K gross weight with FOB of over 300K. The airplane had the newest version of the C-5 flight deck with big panel glass. Unfortunately, only one of the three pilots was really comfortable with the new equipment and FMS.
The crew decided because of their weight to fly their approach to the longest runway, which unfortunately was only being served that day by a Tacan approach. They also decided to fly a full flap approach to keep the approach speed down. This is not prohibited--just highly discouraged. The recommended flap setting for a three engine approach is Flaps 40.
During the approach the crew became worried about not having enough power to fly a full flap approach and selected flaps 40--which they were now too slow for.
Here's the point all you glass cockpit guys should sit up and take notice about.The one guy who was familiar with the new glass and FMS was also the one flying the aircraft. He became distracted inputting the new approach speed in the FMS.
There was also some confusion about just who was flying the A/C while he had his head down updating the speed. Long story short--they got way slow and into the shaker, and actually stuck the tail into the trees and it departed the aircraft first. The nose pitched down hard and the nose and left wing impacted next snapping off the nose.
Several cockpit occupants suffered spinal compression injuries. The guys sitting at the crew table behind the cockpit actually came to a stop with their legs dangling out over the ground.
The miracle of this was the left outboard fuel tank was broken open and none of that fuel managed to find something hot enough to ignite it and the other 300k. Again, a bunch of very lucky people . . or unlucky ! "