PDA

View Full Version : Kalitta B747 accident (ramblings & other detrius removed from main thread)


SKyRIDE
25th May 2008, 13:51
its an american owned plane but the tail isnt snapped. Just the fuselage has torn at the top just forward of the tail.

whitevanwoman
25th May 2008, 14:03
Good to hear that everybody is OK. Who was Kalitta's customer?

helimutt
25th May 2008, 14:07
looks like the tail section has snapped to me.

forget
25th May 2008, 14:08
its an american owned plane but the tail isnt snapped.

Most definitely .....'snapped'.

SKyRIDE
25th May 2008, 14:12
Nah. BBC news had some footage from another angle and the fuselage is torn just forward of the tail. Its not a full on 2nd snap point.

SKyRIDE
25th May 2008, 14:22
Well going by the snap points, it would make sense that it was ground impact causing it.

F18Aviator
25th May 2008, 14:38
There must have been a big impact on the overun to cause the fuselage to snap that badly in two different places!!! just lucky it was Cargo and not passenger aircraft!! :}

Maeshe
25th May 2008, 14:51
BRU to BAH?

Customer: either (or both) DHL & US Mail probably....

forget
25th May 2008, 15:20
Well going by the snap points, it would make sense that it was ground impact causing it.

Uninformed speculation deleted by moderator

SkyRide - Are you on medication?

JamesA
25th May 2008, 15:30
Skyride,
Are you some kind of super expert that you can make such a judgement from Scotland, (assuming that is where you saw the accident and was able to survey the aircraft records)? Or, are you a wannabe journalist?
These remarks are not wanted here, even if it is a rumour forum. Please keep your moronic opinions to yourself in future.
I am glad to hear nobody was seriously injured.

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
25th May 2008, 15:52
<<Uninformed speculation removed by moderator. >>

Just on what grounds was that allegation made?? Kalitta fly back and forth over the UK daily on their cargo flights.. Are you suggesting that their aircraft are likely to fall apart at any time?

cavortingcheetah
25th May 2008, 16:06
:hmm:

If there really were a large amount of blood seen around one of the engines it could be the precursor to something of far greater international import and significance than the simple splitting in two of a poor old jumbo.
Just as the Polish plumbers are leaving Scotland for the home delights of Warsaw, so perhaps certain citizens of the gulf states were intent upon returning home without perhaps paying the normal fare. It would be a lamentable state of affairs indeed had these poor homeward hitch hikers thought that a free lift could be obtained by crowding, in a rather haphazard fashion, in front of the jolly old jumbo fan? Perhaps investment in two toed ungulants is a safer thing for some in which to engage?:suspect:

ukdean
25th May 2008, 16:09
like it :D

Duck Rogers
25th May 2008, 16:09
From the Brussels 747 thread. Links to other sites but that said some good pics on the first one.

Decision?

sirloadalot
25th May 2008, 16:11
CavortingCheeta

Just sort of idly wondered.....funny place Bahrain, logistically well sited. And, it has no borders


Its an island with a causeway and border with K.S.A.

cavortingcheetah
25th May 2008, 16:19
:hmm:

By an equal and similar token then, the country of England borders France on account of the fact that there is a tunnel between them? Perhaps and possibly so. With a little imagination thrown in for pudding?:)

Nemrytter
25th May 2008, 17:06
Could be this?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...317110,00.html (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1317110,00.html)

A large noise? Stupid sky, shouldn't that be "loud"? Or maybe we should start talking about loud clouds and silent flowers..

More on topic, glad the crew are okay, doesn't look like the airframe damage will buff out though. ;)

tgdxb
25th May 2008, 17:52
LeFreak,
Want to buy my house? I recommend it to you!

Buzz Control
25th May 2008, 17:53
http://planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=741870

airfoilmod
25th May 2008, 18:02
You don't like Noise? I don't like reducing power and turning right after TO to accomodate noise nazis who should have thought for a moment what Airports are for before buying a home.

Bottom Line, At times Airports and subdivisions are arguably in conflict. It is more difficult to move an aerodrome than a family.

Happy as Hell to see all survived the Incident/Accident. Regardless of the Pedant factor, I won't call it a crash. A/C dissipate energy so Humans aren't required to.

kwachon
25th May 2008, 18:07
Airport officials said the plane was carrying cargo weighing 76 tons, over half of which was diplomatic mail. Other cargo included a car and batteries.

Those diplomats write a lot of letters......:E

borghha
25th May 2008, 18:17
tgdxb wrote

Our point has always been, why use a shorter--claimed to be completely safe--runway when you have 2 longer ones? BTW people were expropriated in the 70s to extend 25L. 25R was extended, as well.

Our point? who is we here, not a pluralis majestatis I hope. No, of course not, you are pleading for and probably member of one of the many NIMBY action groups who each want take offs to be done over somebody else's garden. You write that you are sistematically overflown every sunday... i.e. not the rest of the week. In earlier days, TO were always done - weather permitting -from the same runway, overflying the same communities all the time, no wonder they complained. ATC have created the problem partly themselves, by sticking years and years to the same flight paths. easy for them perhaps, but very short sighted. nobody told people living to the NW either the air traffic would increase as it did. The present spread is certainly not ideal, but has improved living conditions quite considerably for everyone living close to the airport.

So please wait for the result of the investigation and do not misuse this incident for political reasons. It is very easy to scare the general public the way you jump to conclusions.

Reel Marine
25th May 2008, 18:18
I'm not familiar with that engine, but I don't see any reverser's deployed or are there internal blocking doors inside of the nacelle?

tgdxb
25th May 2008, 18:19
airfoilmod,
suggest you use 25R... much longer & safer for you to use + you won't have to reduce power and/or to turn right just after TO.
I fully respect your point of view, but you are obviously unaware of the real issues on the ground.

CEJM
25th May 2008, 18:21
TGDXB,

Please enlighten us over the real issues on the ground! But please do it in a different thread.

Good to hear that the Kalitta crew got away with only minor injuries.

Interflug
25th May 2008, 18:48
Those diplomats write a lot of letters......:ESeriously, what are 40 t or more of "diplomatic mail"? Isn't that an euphemism for "secret" cargo that can't be checked by customs?

ron83
25th May 2008, 19:14
yeah good to hear that everyone ok,especially looking at that deployed slide,pretty sharp downslope:ooh:

G-STAW
25th May 2008, 19:41
thats one of the worst breaks ive sen in years, glad everyone was ok!

G-STAW

point8six
25th May 2008, 19:45
N704CK is a B747-100F, first registered to JAL and then to Kitty Hawk, (now part of Kalitta). First flight was in May 1972.

PPRuNe Towers
25th May 2008, 20:00
No problems with them at all Paul

Rob

Perf Init
25th May 2008, 20:03
Wonder if that crew has "ever" omce practiced a reject-continue for the imple one of sixteen flat/blow-out tyre ! Now how about all you others out there?

tgdxb
25th May 2008, 20:14
I am sorry I dared to express my opinion; who am I to do this?

StainesFS
25th May 2008, 20:27
Point of detail. Contrary to point8six's post, N704CK is (was?) a B747-209F.

SFS

oceancrosser
25th May 2008, 20:59
point8six wrote:
N704CK is a B747-100F, first registered to JAL and then to Kitty Hawk, (now part of Kalitta). First flight was in May 1972.

I´ve sort of had the feeling that Kalitta and a couple of others were flying around old hulks a bit past their sell by date...

BOAC
25th May 2008, 21:28
Glad all survived and hope the injuries soon heal.

Interesting confusion on the hull - 2 references in 'airfleets' to the same US Reg

1st (http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b747-20528.htm) First flew 1972 JAL

2nd (http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b747-22299.htm) First flew 1980 CAA

You can see why some get mixed up!

oceancrosser
25th May 2008, 21:30
Kalium Chloride, since you knew better than point8six you could have provided some info...

N704CK msn 22299/ ln 462 ff 11.7.80 B747-209F. First operated by China Airlines as B-1894. Still pretty old...

Bus Junkie
25th May 2008, 21:33
N704CK is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 22299 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date 09/10/2003
Model 747-209F Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine Turbo-Fan
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 52261646
MFR Year 1980 Fractional Owner NO



Registered Owner

Name KALITTA AIR LLC
Street 818 WILLOW RUN AIRPORT
City YPSILANTI State MICHIGAN Zip Code 48198-0899
County WASHTENAW
Country UNITED STATES

BOAC
25th May 2008, 21:46
So - was it a re-issued reg or a Boeing factory conversion from 100 to 209F?

Hotel Tango
25th May 2008, 22:23
BOAC,

The first N704CK was a 100 series (c/n 20528 - ex JAL JA8112) registered to Kitty Hawk International circa 1993. This airframe became N40489 in August 2003 and was scrapped circa 2004.

The second N704CK was the ex China Airlines 200 series (c/n 22299) which was registered in September 2003.

BOAC
25th May 2008, 22:44
Thanks for sorting that out, H T! See what happens when a reg gets re-issued!

sevenstrokeroll
25th May 2008, 22:57
I recall a Pan Am 747 in the late 60's taking off from KSFO...wrong flap setting for the runway and they dragged through the approach lights staggered into the air and came back...pilot was fired.

so, many things can happen, do happen and nothing is too nutty to be dismissed just yet...ok, you can rule out aliens with particle beam weapons.

blown tires, wrong flap setting, mis-set power, many things...

sidman
25th May 2008, 23:07
The first N704CK was American International (Kalitta) then went on to Kitty Hawk. That was a -100 Pax bird used for Haj flying. This N704CK is a -200F and it came from China. New airline new N704CK..It was a nice plane inside.
The other N704CK had alot of seats in it 491 I think.

Also Boeing never made a -100F there are -100SF..

Hotel Tango
25th May 2008, 23:17
Sidman, I refer to my post #80

archae86
25th May 2008, 23:33
I recall a Pan Am 747 in the late 60's taking off from KSFO...wrong flap setting for the runway and they dragged through the approach lights staggered into the air and came back...pilot was fired.Pan Am flight 845, July 30, 1971.
The NTSB thought they changed the flap setting to an appropriate one for the (changed, shorter) runway, but failed to adjust the reference speeds.
pdf of NTSB AAR72-17 (http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR72-17.pdf)

flighty742
26th May 2008, 00:11
BOAC Wrote:
So - was it a re-issued reg or a Boeing factory conversion from 100 to 209F?Oh wow! Does this mean we can convert a 200 to a 400!?!?

PanzerJohn
26th May 2008, 00:50
A point of interest, Kalitta Air was founded and I think still owned by former former Top Fuel Drag racer Connie Kalitta, his nic and cars names were The Bounty Hunter. For those who know a little about the sport his duels, both on and off the track with drag race legends Don Garlits and Shirley Muldowney were, um, legendary.

glhcarl
26th May 2008, 01:33
A point of interest, Kalitta Air was founded and I think still owned by former former Top Fuel Drag racer Connie Kalitta, his nic and cars names were The Bounty Hunter. For those who know a little about the sport his duels, both on and off the track with drag race legends Don Garlits and Shirley Muldowney were, um, legendary.

Connie once said, "I made enough money at my job 'drag racing' I could afford a hobby 'owing an airline'".

MarkerInbound
26th May 2008, 03:35
Reference post 65 - Connie wadded up a DC-8 in Gitmo years ago after the crew had been up a day or two.

Yes, he still owns the company. Surely the largest privately held airline in the US.

Huck
26th May 2008, 03:53
A friend of mine flew for a corrosion-corner Electra operator back in the day.

They had a regular run for Connie, going up to Michigan. His company had one ground support person there, a mechanic with long hair who wore biker clothes and rode a Harley. One day the biker was marshalling the Electra in to the ramp when a guy in a white shirt & carrying a clipboard came running up and yelled at the biker, shoving a finger in his chest. The biker responded with a punch to the nose, and soon both men were wallowing around the ramp, swinging at each other, with the Electra taxiing towards them a la Indiana Jones.

The captain came to a stop and burst out laughing. My friend said, "Who is that guy?" The captain said, "Connie Kalitta!"

But... that's not the punch line. The punch line is this - a few years later, Connie hired the biker guy.....

globeboy
26th May 2008, 06:36
Was reading On Kalitta Web Page.

The aircraft was carrying over 77 tons of cargo, over half of which was diplomatic mail. Other cargo included a car and batteries. The aircraft was scheduled to fly to Bahrain.

Super VC-10
26th May 2008, 08:19
#84

...ok, you can rule out aliens with particle beam weapons.

Are you sure about that? :confused:

point8six
26th May 2008, 09:13
HOTEL TANGO - thanks for clearing up the registration confusion.
WILLIT RUN - you could have done that, couldn't you???

portquartercv67
26th May 2008, 10:02
Right now the only thing more frightening than this accident is the thought of having to fly with some of the "expert know-it-alls" that post on this forum after every incident/accident.

S.T.F.U. and wait for the accident report!

PQ

oceancrosser
26th May 2008, 10:08
Nothing on the Kalitta website about the accident. But hey, when you´re a privately owned company doing lots of government business you don´t really have to go through big PR exercises do you?

SNS3Guppy
26th May 2008, 10:48
Kalitta is hardly surviving on government business.

bereboot
26th May 2008, 10:51
Must be a coincidence , but this exact airframe had an engine separation in 2004 , I believe in the US ( Michigan ? )

Golf Charlie Charlie
26th May 2008, 11:04
No, the engine separation was N709CK / c/n 20247.

Right Way Up
26th May 2008, 11:15
http://www.deredactie.be/polopoly_fs/1.311704%21image/487399522.jpg_gen/derivatives/large/487399522.jpg

No wonder this happened, the poor aircraft has a split personality.

Sorry I'll get my own coat. :O

oceancrosser
26th May 2008, 11:41
Now this is probably totally irrelevant to the accident. But Kalitta´s website lists 16 747s, the NEWEST ones built in 1981, the oldest in 1970. So the average age of aircraft in the fleet is close to 33 years!
That has to be a record of keeping old Boeings going, surpassed only by the USAF! Most of them are broken up well before reaching that age :ugh:

manstonman
26th May 2008, 12:09
Some excellent close-up photo's here:
http://www.ebos-spotting.be/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1666&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
The Americans appear to be guarding the aircraft!?

jewitts
26th May 2008, 12:24
"The Americans appear to be guarding the aircraft!?"

I think you'll find The Americans are Belgian Police.

manstonman
26th May 2008, 13:54
In the photo's yes, in reality . . .

jewitts
26th May 2008, 14:08
My apologies Manstonman. I have just read a report in a Flemish newspaper confirming +/-
What was the airplane carrying?
American security officers guarded the wreckage the entire night. Airport officials said the plane was carrying cargo weighing 76 tons. Half of the cargo was diplomatic mail. Other cargo included at least one car and batteries.

The plane was on assignment from the US government to fly to Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf. Bahrain is the headquarters of the US marine in the region.

According to Belgian officials, the Americans have confirmed that there was no ammunition on board the plane.

Frangible
26th May 2008, 14:21
It was a good three years ago so these rumours could be out of date. The information I had then, which was reliable, was that Bahrain was the hub for DHL mail operations on their contract with the US military to carry all Iraq mail. (EAT, which flies as DHL, has its HQ at Zaventem). The A300 hit by a missile in 03 was shuttling the US mil mail from Baghdad to Bahrain. I was also told at the time that Kalitta were on a DHL sub-contract. It was equally clear that the cargo was ordinary mail, e.g. letters home -- no ordnance.

duveldrinker
26th May 2008, 14:31
"The Americans appear to be guarding the aircraft!?"

I think you'll find The Americans are Belgian Police.

Judging by the "beer-belly" (one guy pointing out something in front of the ambulance) they must be belgian police .:rolleyes:

charter man
26th May 2008, 14:34
There was a U.S. diplomatic courier on board, which means that some of the cargo was classified, either documents or cargo. They must be an unlucky lot (or maybe lucky thinking about it) as there was also one on board the DAS DC10 that finished up in Lake Victoria, he managed to swim back to shore...

Huck
26th May 2008, 15:18
there was also one on board the DAS DC10 that finished up in Lake Victoria, he managed to swim back to shore...


...And the water made him really sick.

So I heard.

stickyb
26th May 2008, 15:20
Some excellent close-up photo's here:
http://www.ebos-spotting.be/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1666&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10


Looking at the 3rd large picture on this link, anyone any ideas what the brown "tubes" are visible in the hold?

jimworcs
26th May 2008, 15:42
The slide is at such an angle, it looks like you would break your neck just sliding down it. There is a door on the other side which did not have a slide deployed but is slightly open. Is there a rope or anything to hang onto when going down the slide to slow down the rate of descent? If not, I am amazed they didn't have more serious injuries in evacuating

sinkrate 47
26th May 2008, 15:45
Sorry friend..nothing nefarious on this plane....a state dept courier was on board...routine stuff...nothing other than supplies for various embassies in the region...ex bru occasional 20ft pallets with heavy cargo for transload to dxb or shj...in bah....

Spanner Turner
26th May 2008, 15:46
Looking at the 3rd large picture on this link, anyone any ideas what the brown "tubes" are visible in the hold?

The brown 'tubes' are the airconditioning distribution ducts. 747 airconditioning 'packs' are on the lower fuselage under the centre wing box beam. The air has to get up into the cabin ceiling from where it's distributed to the different cabin zones. You can also see in the picture the 'riser' ducts. These are the square section silver items you can see. They are square in profile and run up the sidewall section to deliver the air into the ceiling. Their square section profile allows them to fit between the frames and between the fuse skin and the sidewall panel. Frame spacing on a jumbo is 20 inches. The profile then returns to a round section in the ceiling where space is more plentiful.

:ok:

charter man
26th May 2008, 16:32
Not quite sure how you can say that sinkrate 47, as all diplomatic mail is, by it's very nature, exempted from all regulations concerning declaration of contents (except hazmat) and therefore no-one (except the men in grey suits) knows what was on board. I would suggest the biggest area of conflict would be if the accident investigators wanted to know more about the cargo...

Dairyground
26th May 2008, 18:16
The fourth picture in the first set from #37 seems to show all the wheels (just) clear of the ground, so the abort decision must have been rather late. Can anyone tell from, e.g. the light in the background, how far along the runway it was at this point?

After this, will they build a bridge over the railway?

Sir Richard
26th May 2008, 19:00
Dairyground

Regarding photo 4 from post #37, I guess it is just a random photo of a Kalitta B747 and nothing to do with the accident sequence.

LGS6753
26th May 2008, 19:06
stickyb asked:

Looking at the 3rd large picture on this link, anyone any ideas what the brown "tubes" are visible in the hold?

They are bagpipe components.
The inquiry will find that the crash was caused by them going off suddenly and bursting through the fuselage:E

G-CPTN
26th May 2008, 20:49
"it seems that the cargo included some hush-hush material for a certain trans-Atlantic security agency, for whom it was consequently a major issue which required their heavy involvement."

400drvr
26th May 2008, 21:57
N704CK is a B747-100F, first registered to JAL and then to Kitty Hawk, (now part of Kalitta). First flight was in May 1972.

Actually the after the aircraft left JAL it went to Connie Kallita, then Connie was sold to Kitty Hawk and Kitty Hawk called the Connie side of the house Kitty Hawk International. When Kitty hawk was having financial trouble Connie bought the certificate back and started back with most of his old 747 fleet.

Anyhow just a minor point.

Cheers

alexmcfire
26th May 2008, 22:30
So anyone got the cycles and hours of this bird?

sevenstrokeroll
26th May 2008, 23:07
First , thanks to the guy who corrected me regarding the KSFO/Pan Am 747 incident. I knew the captain, he had given me a tour of the 747 when it first came to Pan Am. His first name was Bud.

I'll let that lay.

There have been a number of planes that on takeoff or landing split into parts. Do we recall the Halifax, NS 747 freighter, the C5 at Dover, DE? Even to a bit, the TWA 843 L1011 in which they took off and rejected just after liftoff? ( suppose not really a reject, but very unusual and more than meets the eye...all lived, so I guess the captain had earned his pay that day)

does anyone have the quote about the pilots hearing two loud bangs and losing power? an article?

SNS3Guppy
27th May 2008, 00:16
Perhaps wild speculation isn't appropriate, and the guesswork might best be set aside until proper facts are in evidence.

There was nothing secret about the flight, or it's contents. All kinds of wild ideas are being thrown about with absolutely NO substantiation or rationale. No couriers, no special agents, no top secret cargo, nothing. What there is in evidence is a damaged airplane and no facts.

Wait for the facts.

As for some of the other ideas being tossed around regarding aircraft mishaps, many of those are wrong, too. Check your facts.

barit1
27th May 2008, 01:11
Per this site (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N704CK.html) the engines are JT9D.

Idle speculation: Since the nose section appears intact, could that visor nose door with attendant structure & systems be refitted to another 747? Remember that Boeing spliced a new nose on a bomb-damaged 707 in the 70s.

RESA
27th May 2008, 01:57
sevenstrokeroll

I was wondering when Halifax would get mentioned . . . and the seven MKJ staff who lost their lives. Very sad, and totally avoidable!

Halifax was (and still is) an accident waiting to happen . . . 12-ft+ (concrete capped) earthen-berms on both ends of the runway. The ILS localsier antennae array sits on-top the berm . . . the localiser antennae are fortunately entirely frangible. The array is elevated to compensate for terrain drop-off (signal blockage) beyond the runway end.

I can only comment on what I can see from the photos available on the net. It looks like Brussels had extended (back-filled) the graded area (clear-way) beyond the runway end to accommodate the localiser array (raising it so there is no signal blockage . . . and a few more radio engineering considerations I won’t go into). By the time you finish back filling to level the ground to about 350m past the stop-end . . . you have to figure out how to re-establish grade and make the mound of dirt stable. I think I saw retaining walls and concrete steps off the nose of the aircraft?? That would be the stuff holding everything together. Looks like aircraft came to rest just right of centre-line. Localiser array and stuff just off its port tail (as it sits).

This is a reasonable attempt (compromise) by the airport (or local aviation authority) to accommodate reliable guidance signals while offering minimal danger to overrunning aircraft (and anyone living off the end of the runway). It’s not the ideal solution . . . but everybody has financial constraints? I think the outcome is a testament that a lot of the time this will work. Either it gets airborne, off of the diving board . . . or it belly flops!

This aircraft looks like it took the “Big Hop” off of the retaining wall . . . and drove its belly trucks up fracturing the spar and everything around it !? Vehicle likely stopped very quickly when its belly flopped? Lots of belt/harness and face injuries on board?

Unlike the Halifax scenario . . . where the concrete capped berm ripped the entire tail section from the aircraft . . . airborne and no tail . . . now what do you do !?

I hope this is not another case of “lessons not learned”. MKJ staff made a mistake and paid the ultimate price for it.

Their mistakes and maybe the shortcomings in the accommodation/training their company should have given them (or they should have sought out themselves) are documented.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2004/a04h0004/a04h0004.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2004/a04h0004/a04h0004_index.asp

RESA

Arjaysee
27th May 2008, 08:43
Alexmcfire

For info, the hours/cycles as of March 2008 were 94325 / 17703 respectively.