Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash [Archive]

Uplinker

21st Dec 2016, 08:49

You don't need to wait for an investigation to realise that something was obviously seriously wrong before that aircraft even started its take-off run.

Even if an engine failed, it should have been possible to continue and get safely airborne from the runway. This aircraft still had its MLG on the ground as it reached the perimeter fence.

Clearly the performance calculations were wrong: either incorrect data, or incorrect loading, or serious overloading, or not even calculated at all?

atakacs

21st Dec 2016, 08:59

It seems they somehow managed to get airborne despite being way "beyond the curve" with the takeoff run...

Isn't 6000ft a bit short for a fully loaded 727, even at sea level ?

fox niner

21st Dec 2016, 09:44

Surely the guys at AeroSucre were aware of the cowboy approach to aviaton by Lamia. The Lamia accident 3 weeks ago was the most outrageous scandal of 2016, and everyone was talking about it on the continent.
So what were they thinking the past three weeks? "The Lamia accident was caused by a total disregard of basic airmanship and reckless flying. But we don't operate like that, nope."
How many other cowboy outfits are there in South America? And how many additional accidents do we need to effectuate some change?
There are so many videos available of AeroSucre clearing the fence by 2 feet, it's rediculous. At the expense of the lives of this crew.

Iron Duck

21st Dec 2016, 10:30

Expressflight

21st Dec 2016, 10:44

You're obviously well into RTOW territory with the 722 off an 1,800m runway even at SL. At MTOW the TODR is around 3,000m.

Iron Duck

21st Dec 2016, 10:58

Looking at this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyEGj1rH1r0&app=desktop

- it looks as if the U/C is being retracted before a positive climb is established, and even after that the 727 climbs very slowly. Were these people in the habit of cleaning up pronto just to be able to climb away?

JanetFlight

21st Dec 2016, 11:03

Remember UTAGE at Cotonou...lots of similarities.
Hot, Heavy, Full loaded 722, It hapened before, still happens at Africa...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjyDvHNr5LU
BTW, at "las2Orillas" clip we can see an explosion at second 29th.

noflynomore

21st Dec 2016, 11:15

At the expense of the lives of this crew.

Perhaps worth balancing that by pointing out the crew did not have to participate in this stupidity. This was purely Darwinism in action for the second time in a month in S America.
After all, there is a difference between handling guns and actually playing Russian Roulette.
This company evidently made a habit of the latter. The spectators knew it, a small crowd was were waiting for - anticipating - spectacular video footage. These 727 take-offs were evidently a well known event that drew numbers of spectators. How long had the been doing this I wonder?
No amount of pressure on a crew can excuse taking part in something like that. Of course management must shoulder much of the blame but had the crew refused that loading there would have been no such flight and no such accident.

Council Van

21st Dec 2016, 11:18

In one of the videos of the crash scene it shows some one who appears to be a member of the crew alive, lying on the ground looking as if he does not have a scratch on him. One can only wonder how he has managed to survive such a catastrophic impact. Hopefully any surviving crew make a quick and full recovery.

Flava Saver

21st Dec 2016, 11:25

It would seem like the RH outer Slat/s & wing would of smacked that existing tree & construction possibly, deforming the outer wing. Footage depicts it in a right hand turn prior to impact too. Simply unbelievable.

What a sad loss of life, and of a beautiful airliner too. RIP.

MATELO

21st Dec 2016, 11:37

An awful lot of video footage captured from a "remote" part of the country.

....it may have been a rare occurrence seeing a jet, however, it was as though they were expecting something to happen.

2efiss

21st Dec 2016, 12:35

See fuel ouring from right wing after hitting first set of concrete fence posts

sandos

21st Dec 2016, 12:48

Actually I thought I saw something pouring even before it hit the fence, but i now think its an illusion, its the white fuselage showing between the wing and flaps. Combined with the rest of the fuselage it happens to look like something trailing the airplane?

MarkerInbound

21st Dec 2016, 13:00

Is it fully powered flight controls without any manual reversion on the 727? Could it be severed hydraulic lines that finally brought it down.

Seven Twos have manual reversion except for the rudder which has its own standby hydraulic system if system A and B fail.

MarkerInbound

21st Dec 2016, 13:46

Isn't 6000ft a bit short for a fully loaded 727, even at sea level ?

It's really hard to define "a fully loaded 727." Boeing had all sorts of engine and landing gear and weight combinations. I flew that tail in a prior life in the US. It was built for Air Jamaica with -15s, a max TO weight of 197,000 lbs and max landing weight of 164,000 lbs. Quick look at the charts, SL, flaps 15, 27c says the runway limit is about 160,000 pounds.

semperfubar

21st Dec 2016, 14:07

Well "Ese avión boto una llanta" means that " That plane dropped a wheel"...as in came off.

Looks like overload to me. And they probably did it often ...Sad and stupid.

The Ancient Geek

21st Dec 2016, 14:22

Making a steep turn at low level and low speed is never a good idea.
If they had climbed straight ahead, even at that minimal rate of climb, they might have been able to nurse it around gently and land back.

TioPablo

21st Dec 2016, 14:26

- you can also see that the 727 has knocked down the reinforced concrete fence posts on both sides of the road. That must have hurt a bit. It's perhaps surprising the aircraft stayed airborne as long as it did. As it banks to the right it's clearly trailing vapour, which appears to thicken in the final second or so.

I don't speak Spanish and don't understand what the spectators were saying but they keep repeating a particular phrase. Can anyone translate this, please? I'm amazed one of them didn't get clouted.
Hereby the requested translation:

First footage

-Dude, that plane lost a tire! That plane lost a tire!

Second footage before the actual crash

-The plane is coming back, let's get out of here.
-There it comes turning, my God.
-It is dumping fuel in case it crashes.
-It is going to crash, oh my God.
-Keep filming, keep filming.
-Those people are dead.
-This **** cannot be true.
-We're going over there...
-No brother, where?
-There, to save the people...

EstorilM

21st Dec 2016, 15:06

MarkerInbound (http://www.pprune.org/members/206121-markerinbound) Making a steep turn at low level and low speed is never a good idea.
If they had climbed straight ahead, even at that minimal rate of climb, they might have been able to nurse it around gently and land back.

I noticed this as well, but it doesn't add up at all.

Personally, I highly doubt this was an intentional control input. Considering they must have realized early on, that they were at or beyond the performance envelope for the aircraft, there's about a zero percent chance any pilot would maneuver like that. In fact, you'd want to nurse the aircraft around slowly - or put it down somewhere (anywhere) if you're unable to make the turn.

This kinda reminds me of American 191. Is it possible that some sort of damage had allowed asymmetrical slat retraction on one wing? That diving bank angle just looks like a wing stall or something damage-induced.

I'm not sure what type of hydraulic failure could allow this, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in for me.

Hotel Tango

21st Dec 2016, 17:23

Iron Duck

21st Dec 2016, 18:06

@ Hotel Tango

Yes, but do we know for sure that the turn was intended?

If the right wing clouted that black structure, whatever it is, the damage to slats, flaps or aileron might well have rendered the turn uncontrollable. Looking at the video it appears the initial turn to the right is relatively gentle but steepens as the aircraft turns through 180 degrees, at which point it appears to me the aircraft stalls and drops its right wing further. Perhaps trading speed for height stalled the damaged wing at a higher airspeed than expected, rather like the Chicago DC-10.

Or, the engine that burped finally failed, and at that speed and weight, and with flap damage, etc., the 727 could no longer be kept flying.

Not that there would seem to be a lot to learn from this event, mind. Yes, it does appear that Aerosucre takeoffs were a spectator sport, and given the proliferation of 'exciting' Aerosucre takeoff videos on YouTube and elsewhere, operating right on the edge of the envelope with no margin for error or unexpected performance loss appears to be normal for these chaps - the normalisation of deviation, indeed. Well, if you're going to push your luck like that, eventually something like this will happen.

Thanks for the translations, BTW.

flight_mode

21st Dec 2016, 18:35

Did it hit a building?

On this video (https://youtu.be/Syl3tCqKbSs) of a previous takeoff there's an old stone building to the right of the centreline at 15 seconds.

On the accident flight from this angle (https://youtu.be/wOyPsZUCr0s) as the aircraft passes over both fences while just kicking up dust and then a whole of thick black dust is thrown out from 30 seconds.

At 34 seconds on this video (https://youtu.be/2DxOZI-oFCg) with your volume up you can hear an impact and see the debris.

Edit to say IronDuck beat me to it.

Hotel Tango

21st Dec 2016, 19:17

@ Iron Duck

Exactly! That was my point to The Ancient Geek . It may well not have been a "controlled" turn.

Gauges and Dials

21st Dec 2016, 19:45

Lamia went out of business because their sole aircraft was destroyed and a number of their crew, including the owner, were killed

rogerlondon

21st Dec 2016, 19:52

Several have commented about the small building, lastly Flight Mode:

There appears to be human movement within that small building in the short 31sec clip. Perhaps watching the take-offs? Someone moves across the window line at 22sec.

Was anyone in there during the accident?

The Ancient Geek

21st Dec 2016, 20:11

I agree that there should be doubts about whether the turn was intentional, certainly it was very unwise if intended. Only a readout of the FDR will reveal the truth.
The primary cause, of course, appears to be a serious case of overloading but has the true weight of each item been declared, there have been several cases in the past of shennanegins in freight handling.

ATC Watcher

21st Dec 2016, 20:24

Lamia went out of business because their sole aircraft was destroyed
Well according Airlinefleets, Aerosucre only had 2 aircraft left in flying order . One is now gone, not sure they can survive with a single aircraft .
Sad because Aerosucre is one of the oldest pure cargo company still operating in South America. Used to operate 10 Caravelles until very late.

22/04

21st Dec 2016, 20:27

The one thing that comes home to me both for this and the 146 accident is that in both cases it looks like "they had done it before and got away with it".

If (private pilot but flying glider tugs) I have ever done anything once and got away with it then I would try to avoid ever going there again.

So what is it in this Colombian context- Greed, the shear economic need to do so to stay alive (personal economics or for the airline) or some strong machismo belief that "I will continue to get away with it". Any comments in a local context please?

Lancelot de boyles

21st Dec 2016, 20:41

22/04
I wouldn't put this down to being a Colombian/South American thing; there's also plenty of outfits in the supposedly more 'enlightened' areas of the world who are or were happy to push things too far, and gamble with lives at the same time. Sadly, I seem to have worked for two such outfits. One of which neatly fits in with the point that the Ancient Greek alludes to- is the mass loaded the same as that recorded?

One enterprising colleague even went so far as to tell me two important (in his view) points- 1). So long as the paperwork is right... 2). It's their aircraft, they can do as they like.

tdracer

21st Dec 2016, 20:51

It's a dirty little secret of the industry that some cargo operations routinely takeoff well above MTOW. This is especially in areas/countries where regulatory oversight is lax (or non-existent) but it also happens in so-called 'first world' countries as well. There is enough margin built in the system that they can get away with it, so long as nothing goes wrong :rolleyes:
There was a story floating around Boeing about 30 years ago that Boeing was discussing potential growth options for the 747 freighter, with one possibility being a million pound MTOW. One particular Asian operator (which no longer exists) allegedly responded to the effect of 'so what, we're already doing that' :eek: :eek:

evansb

21st Dec 2016, 20:53

Actual runway length at Puerto Carreno is less than 6,000 ft. Declared length is 5,906 ft. The aircraft took-off with an eight (8) knot tailwind, with an OAT of 30 degrees Celsius.

A town of 10,000, Puerto Carreno is known for fishing, agriculture and some mining. I wonder what the cargo was...

Fuel load on the aircraft shouldn't have been a large factor. It is only an hour's jet-flight from Puerto Carreno to Bogata, but a 19 hour drive by automobile.

Sister ship of HK-4544:
http://i1047.photobucket.com/albums/b477/gumpjr_bucket/aerosucre%20727.jpg

mickjoebill

21st Dec 2016, 21:23

m to be a lot to learn from this event, mind. Yes, it does appear that Aerosucre takeoffs were a spectator sport, and given the proliferation of 'exciting' Aerosucre takeoff videos on YouTube and elsewhere, operating right on the edge of the envelope with no margin for error or unexpected performance loss appears to be normal for these chaps - the normalisation of deviation, indeed. Well, if you're going to push your luck like that, eventually something like this will happen.

I would not rule out the influence of YouTube stardom.
Numerous accidents have been caused by pilots' common sense being overcome by Luvvie fever.

It's not incredible to consider they were keeping the takeoff as low as possible for the cameras.

Iron Duck

21st Dec 2016, 21:35

I would not rule out the influence of each their takeoffs being filmed.
Numerous accidents have been caused by pilots common sense being overcome by Luvvie fever.
It's not incredible to consider they were keeping the takeoff as low as possible for the cameras.

I think you have a point there. In this video of Aerosucre's final 727-100F flight before preservation, the low passes are very low indeed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWqZepVLI_8&app=desktop

That's showing off, all right.

That said, on the accident flight the aircraft is barely rotated; it's still rotating as it crosses the road. Even if showing off, if one could, surely one would get the nose up before crossing the end of the tarmac?

The AvgasDinosaur

21st Dec 2016, 22:38

Aerosucre past history is non too imprssive,
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Operator index > Colombia > Aerosucre Colombia (http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6774)
Hope it helps

mach2.6

21st Dec 2016, 22:47

1. Iron Duck, I'm glad you alluded to it; I have been scratching my head all day trying to figure out if the pitch angle was wrong, as in insufficient rotation. I let it pass, because none of the videos give a "great" view of the amount of nose up.
2. Back in the 1960's (I was a mere lad then, of course), Piedmont Airlines in the USA bought some shiny, new 727's, the original, un-stretched version. Not the -200, as in this thread. They routinely operated into relatively short fields, one of which was KLYH, at 5850 feet, field evevation 942 feet. Of course, I was unaware of the finer points of load, density altitude, wind, etc that influenced aircraft performance (a mere lad, remember), but summertime in that town could get well above 30C. A lot. On many occasions, a crowd of the townsfolk gathered to see the new bird arrive and depart. 100 people or more was not unusual. In the USA.
3. Aviation is full of stories (threads on this site as well) of third world operators loading lots of dirrerent kinds of a/c to the gills. People standing in the aisles because all the seats were full. Baggage compartments filled to the brim, the only limit being cubic feet, forget about the weight. Most of the time, they got away with it. Sometimes, not.

aterpster

21st Dec 2016, 22:48

MarkerInbound:

It's really hard to define "a fully loaded 727." Boeing had all sorts of engine and landing gear and weight combinations. I flew that tail in a prior life in the US. It was built for Air Jamaica with -15s, a max TO weight of 197,000 lbs and max landing weight of 164,000 lbs. Quick look at the charts, SL, flaps 15, 27c says the runway limit is about 160,000 pounds.

Wasn't that the -200 that had some of those options and the -200A that had all the options?

Old Boeing Driver

21st Dec 2016, 22:50

Does anyone know the BOW for this, or similar Cargo 727's? It's been a long time since my 727 days.

One poster mentioned they had 19,000Kgs of fish on board.

With a 1 hour flight, maybe 9,000Kgs of fuel at TO.

EDIT: I don't see the post that mentioned the fish.

Uplinker

21st Dec 2016, 23:01

Following this, and several other recent stupid and unnecessary accidents, I am beginning to realise that there must be some "pilots" with forged licences and forged log books out there, who are somehow getting jobs.

EstorilM

21st Dec 2016, 23:23

ATCWatcher: Well according Airlinefleets, Aerosucre only had 2 aircraft left in flying order . One is now gone, not sure they can survive with a single aircraft .
Sad because Aerosucre is one of the oldest pure cargo company still operating in South America. Used to operate 10 Caravelles until very late. The other two aircraft are impounded at the (I believe) Brazilian Air Force's maintenance facility, pending payment on major work on all three aircraft. From what I know, they were able to get the ONE single aircraft out of there a while ago. This makes more sense than some of the rumors that they were just leased out or floating around with other people.

IronDuck: That said, on the accident flight the aircraft is barely rotated; it's still rotating as it crosses the road. Even if showing off, if one could, surely one would get the nose up before crossing the end of the tarmac? It appears that it's essentially a minimum unstick / Vmu takeoff - they got close enough to the end and rotated regardless of V1, etc.

No idea what would cause that.. failed airspeed crosscheck, improper config, power setting/derate, or an engine failure/loss of performance on T/O roll, etc.

FYI there are frames extracted from the videos which do indeed show flames, ie. some type of surge or debris ingestion into the engines - it's very difficult to tell which ones, but clearly there was engine damage as a result of the excursion and fence / building impact. :(

PuraVidaTransport

21st Dec 2016, 23:36

I wouldn't read too much into people being there and filming the takeoff. Having lived in Central America for close to ten years now, in my experience it is very common to see people watching/filming at the end of the runways. In San Jose (C.R.) there are always a few people (and on Sundays many) at the end of the runway watching/filming operations. I have seen the exact same at airports large and small. It seems to be a spectator event even including a bar on the side of the runway at SJO. In Costa Rica: An Airport Restaurant...On the Runway! - Foodie International (http://www.foodieinternational.com/in-costa-rica-an-airport-bar-on-the-sjo-runway/)

An Iberia A340 passed low overhead on landing at SJO causing a stir in the media with all the videos that came out later. I post this video more as an example to show how many cars are stopped at the end of the runway with people watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5a6rWl6HEs

EstorilM

21st Dec 2016, 23:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWg7Fcw2oeA

Full series of videos including the post-crash scene, and the (apparent) survivor, however I just can't comprehend how anyone could possibly survive an impact and fire like that, unless he was perfectly tossed out? There appears to be a significant vertical speed, like clearly lethal? I don't see how someone COULD be "tossed" forward.

Then again, the spread of the wreckage would tend to prove me wrong I suppose? I surely wouldn't have suspected that based on the video of the crash.

Warning - the footage is rather intense towards the end. :(

EDIT: It appears that the #1 / port side engine suffered the damage and surge / flames, as I see no frame indicating flames when viewed from starboard side (at all).

Old Boeing Driver

22nd Dec 2016, 01:29

I originally thought the flames were from a compressor stall on the #2, which are common, especially if you are jamming the power at the last second. (Assuming that's what they did)

However, I think the flames are from the #3 (starboard) engine.

My viewer is not good enough to get a great look.

They appear to occur right where that stone hut was located.

Maybe he hit that?

Anilv

22nd Dec 2016, 02:09

To those who think the pilot is to blame for accepting the working conditions..well the reality is that there are probably a lot more pilots than there are jobs. If you don't accept the conditions then no job. If you bitch about it, word gets around that you're a trouble maker and doors will be closed to you when you go job hunting.

Refuse to take an airplane due to some faults and you won't have a job for long. Ditto if you ground the aircraft away from base unless one of the engines actually fell off the wing.

In this case we'll probably see overloading as a major cause. Fish and meats are very dense cargo. I use to handle meat pallets from Australia.. they were only 60% full but already at the lower-deck weight limit for a pallet (about 5000kgs). Frozen-tuna weighs a lot as well.

Also someone mentioned mining is done in this part of the world? They use some really heavy stuff and I don't think the roads are very good.

Looks like they tried to rotate, airplane was too heavy, wng hit some aerodrome fixtures which affected the flight controls on one side and **** went bad very fast.

Just be grateful for where you are born..that could have been any one of us here but for the grace of god.

Homebrew1

22nd Dec 2016, 03:28

Any Spanish speakers here who can tell us what the surviver was saying in his hospital bed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m4_QZcZ2hw

PuraVidaTransport

22nd Dec 2016, 03:39

The survivor in the video was basically thanking the soldiers of the Colombian Army and God for saving his life. He said nothing at all about events...

Just watched the video where he was found on the ground. He ask if there were more (survivors) then told them to look in the cockpit, that that is where they were.

Homebrew1

22nd Dec 2016, 05:00

Thanks for that PuraVidaTransport.

Looking frame by frame, it looks like the elevator was hard up as it crossed the road. I dear say that 727 needed another +20kts before it was ready to fly and had a very forward C of G. I also wonder if the spray of liquid squirting from the area between the right slat and wing was fuel or hydraulic fluid.

A sad end to what appears to be regular non-compliant operations out of that airfield based on previous videos. You would of thought the flight engineer or F/O would have spoken up during signing of the load sheet?

Iron Duck

22nd Dec 2016, 07:27

Knowing they had a heavy load and that the weights on paper may be a work of fiction, I can't fault the pilot for using every last inch of the available runway to get as much speed as possible before pulling back on the stick..

- Especially with an 8-knot tailwind, as was posted earlier. Why didn't they backtrack? Wouldn't you, if you were full to the gunnels, suspected the load sheet may be 'optimistic', and knew you'd require every foot of tarmac available to you?

fox niner

22nd Dec 2016, 07:44

- Especially with an 8-knot tailwind, as was posted earlier. Why didn't they backtrack? Wouldn't you, if you were full to the gunnels, suspected the load sheet may be 'optimistic', and knew you'd require every foot of tarmac available to you?

If you look at the airport layout, you'll see that they needed to backtrack anyway, even if they took off in the opposite direction. (i.e. With a headwind) So in principle, you have a valid point.
BUT.....
Taking off towards the northeast means that you will overfly the city, instead of flat rural terrain. And that would not be possible, as they would not have enough height to clear all the roofs.
They would have ploughed through Mainstreet.
From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.
Despite the tailwind, they departed toward the southwest. They needed the clear flyout space without obstacles, so that the ground effect would help them. They did this before several times and knew what was needed to get away with it.

Iron Duck

22nd Dec 2016, 08:07

Despite the tailwind, they departed toward the southwest. They needed the clear flyout space without obstacles, so that the ground effect would help them. They did this before several times and knew what was needed to get away with it.

I hadn't looked at the layout. I take your point. A pity the fence, building and tree were there, eh? Without them they'd have had a clear mile of flat for the ground effect to do its work.

So the modus operandi seemed to be all takeoffs to the south west, rotate at Vmu, hop over the fence and obstacle whilst whipping the gear up pronto, and then accelerate in ground effect before climbing away.

Yeah, that'll work.

Iron Duck

22nd Dec 2016, 08:16

Taking off towards the northeast means that you will overfly the city, instead of flat rural terrain. And that would not be possible, as they would not have enough height to clear all the roofs.
They would have ploughed through Mainstreet.
From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.

And, it occurs to me, so might have ATC. Was the downwind takeoff queried? Was the reciprocal runway offered and declined? If so, what reason was given? Has anyone found an ATC recording?

Homebrew1

22nd Dec 2016, 08:25

Must be an unattended airfield as any responsible ATC controller would have created paperwork the first time this 727 nearly took out their fence.

RAT 5

22nd Dec 2016, 09:23

From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.

Not pre-judging, but if true the trend is scary. There is the RJ85 crash by Lamia in Columbia. The crew seems to have taken a life threatening risk deliberately. Here too the same speculation. What has happened to our self-preservation? Where are these suicidal pressures coming from? How many others are there out there who are unheard of because they 'just got away with it?'

22/04

22nd Dec 2016, 09:37

Agree RAT 5 (see my post#43). I don't get it

noflynomore

22nd Dec 2016, 09:58

From the widely expressed amazement, disbelief, indignation and wild excuses posted here I get the impression that aviation in the western world, where most of out posters come from, has so long been so regulated and constrained that large numbers of those "associated" with it have lost sight of the fact that elsewhere, aviation may be largely unregulated to any meaningful degree and operates on a similar ethos to a local trucking company. In addition these regions are nowhere near so anal and fanatical about safety to the n'th degree, or of unquestioning adherence to rules to the n'th degree as we are.

S America is the focus for this at present but Africa is right up there too, as are parts of SE Asia - Indonesia for example where accident rates are so horrific that whole nations are banned from ops into Europe and N America.

These places often take detail like MAUW or min fuel as just that, a detail, a number in a manual. They know they can take 20, 30% more cargo or 10% less fuel and still fly so they do, secure in the knowledge that no Flt Ops Inspector is going to scrutinise every single loadsheet and fuel plan, or if one tried he could be induced not to.

This latest accident appears, from youtube postings , to have been part of a habitual behaviour by the operator and we know the previous accident at Medellin was too. Habitual gross abuse of limitations is rife in many parts of the world and is not entirely unknown in the West, it's just much rarer there.

Cries of "but surely no professional pilot would..." or that "ATC would have ..." are indicative of a narrow and on occasion surprisingly naiive perspective on a global industry and do not reflect the reality of aviation, particularly cargo aviation across much of the world.

22/04

22nd Dec 2016, 10:07

IcePack

22nd Dec 2016, 11:07

Interesting take on operations in said part of the world & understanding. A while ago my company undertook a wet lease. On inspection of the airfield it was apparent that some rather tall trees at the end of the runway had to be loped to enable operations. So you say, well the company who wet leased us in also operated the same type wrote to Boeing and complained/questioned why we were taking obticals into our performance calculations.

Enos

22nd Dec 2016, 11:55

Completely agree with flynomore.

The guys flying the aircraft would have been greatful for the job, probably as posted above if it was there only one aircraft flying, there was more pressure as there would have other pilots wanting to work.

Try getting another job as 727 captain or flight engineer, virtual impossible! the FO may have just been hour building and grown up in this dangerous culture thinking this kind of departure was sort of ok.

I'm not in anyway trying to excuse the crews actions but I hope the owner of this company sees Christmas from the inside of a jail cell.

Aviation like the sea is incredibly unforgiving, take note and never disrespect it!!

noflynomore

22nd Dec 2016, 12:23

Try getting another job as 727 captain or flight engineer, virtually impossible! The FO may have just been hour building and grown up in this dangerous culture thinking this kind of departure was sort of ok.
Not having a dig at you at all Enos, but this line is a perfect example that illustrates the Western take on all this.
The line suggests that the crew were only doing this sort of thing unwillingly in order to hold down a precious job or pay back a loan, and that they realised they were doing serious wrong.

My take is that in these places they don't consider what they are doing as worthy of comment, this is just the way it has always been done and they may even revel in the idea of being somewhat contrary to the manuals written by those American pussies. 5% reserve fuel indeed! What a crazy waste of payload! Look at the posing and smug self-satisfaction on the steps by the Aerosucre Capt who had just done that extraordinary gear-down flyby on an earlier youtube link. The message seemed to be "Hey! Look at me! Good pilot eh? Well, I know I am!". Too much military and esp. fighter pilot style bravado altogether for my taste.
Many if not more of these guys operate this way because / it is the way it's done / they enjoy it / it's exciting / who says it's dangerous, it's worked for years / the boss likes me if I do / it shown I'm a Man etc. It's a cultural thing. The Western obsession for the sanctity of life is just that, a Western obsession and life is treated much differently in other places. As to duty of care, that is a comparatively modern and largely politically (in)correct construct and likely to be all but absent in less constrained parts of the world - ie simply not present for consideration. (See ATC objecting - leaving a stone hut in the overrun etc)

Assuming they do it unwillingly through coercion may sometimes be true but I suspect the above is more the norm. They'd probably be laughing uproariously if they could read this thread. Just like the US pilot I once had the misfortune to work with who publicly poured scorn on me for weighing cargo - "If you can shut the door it'll fly! If the tail scrapes take a bit off!" But then he regularly flew 30 -40% more payload than I did and that made me a real waste of space in his eyes. His attitude was,"They're just numbers in a book, are you a pussy or a pilot?". I told him which, and also what I thought he was but he wouldn't see he was doing anything "wrong", let alone to be called that!

That's what we're dealing with here, imho.

AerocatS2A

22nd Dec 2016, 12:30

Trucking companies are quite regulated here too- tachographs duty hours, being pulled over for weighbridge checks!!

But it is the risk of loss of life and lack of a sense of duty of care that shocks me. Maybe human nature is less considerate and kind than I thought.
Normalization of deviance perhaps, with a dose of risk desensitisation.

You do something with an increased risk associated with it and it works, nothing bad happens. So you do it again. And again it works and nothing bad happens. Over time the non-normal becomes normal and you lose sight of the increased risk. Eventually you get bitten.

Hotel Tango

22nd Dec 2016, 12:48

noflynomore is correct. It is a way of life in many of these countries. These companies and their staff survive on scraps and taking risks is part and parcel of the job.

RAT 5

22nd Dec 2016, 13:15

But then he regularly flew 30 -40% more payload than I did and that made me a real waste of space in his eyes. His attitude was,"They're just numbers in a book, are you a pussy or a pilot?"

I can see how this, in an unregulated environment, might be not uncommon. I suspect there are many companies whose CP is also a share holder. In EU we make takeoff calc's often based on an engine failure in a twin = 50% of energy gone. In some parts, the RTOW concept, based on many parameters, may not be the norm. I suspect, especially in the freight business, the loading is done with a finger in the wind and a look at the oleos; a sniff at the wind direction and a sniff at the pressure. Let's not even think about D.Alt. Then it's full blast. The thinking being when was the last time there was a 50% loss of thrust. Therefore the risk is minute and 'it'll be OK on the day.' The cost of leaving x000's kgs on the beach might be win or lose to some guys.
I guess it gets a bit like here in EU with LoCo's & nationals. Everyone now charges for baggage & credit cards. Why? because someone started it and to be competitive they all have to do it. That and all the other turd stuff that has crept into our world.

Cornish Jack

22nd Dec 2016, 13:53

Interesting how many are considering this to be a 3rd/ undeveloped world problem. Noflynomore is much closer to the mark - think Col. Bud Holland/ B52 and the " we've done it before and it was OK" attitude ... in the REGULATED environment of a 1st world MILITARY organisation, Cowboys exist everywhere in aviation. They shouldn't, but they surely do!!:ugh:

Old Boeing Driver

22nd Dec 2016, 14:02

It is not known yet what the cargo or fuel loads really were.

There was an earlier post, which has disappeared, which said they had 19,000 kgs of fish onboard.

It was also mentioned that flight plan time was for about an hour.

A SWAG for fuel would be 9,000 kgs (or less) for a 1 hour flight with reserves.

Therefore, if the plane still weighed 94,237 lbs, and there was 62,000 lbs of freight and fuel, their TO weight might have been 156,237. (probably optimistic)

Does anyone now have runway requirements based on these weights and the known temps and winds?

ATC Watcher

22nd Dec 2016, 14:39

What flynomore has explained is basically what I witnessed some years ago when I was jumseating around with similar cargo outfits. I do not expect the situation to have changed much , possibly even deteriorated due economic situation in some places , looking at Venezuela today.

Somethinge esle : aterpster : thanks for the map. I did not realize that the border with Venezuela was co close to the airport. That could ( emphases " could") perhaps explain why runway 24 was used even with tailwind, to avoid overflying Venezuela, (flight plan , possibly route charges, etc..) It was a domestic flight . I've seen this done in other places.

Kulverstukas

22nd Dec 2016, 15:01

It seems because of the state border there was no option for using another course for takeoff.

22/04

22nd Dec 2016, 15:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7SlMqH6MYc

Not sure this video has been posted before but it appears to show a "normal take off" in conditions similar to yesterday on runway 24.

Note the tailwind but also that there appears to be a downslope for much of the runway; a 07 take off would have been uphill towards rising ground - not a good option.

Note also the powerback as it lines up; is this because of insufficient room to line up or an attempt to use every inch of available runway.

aterpster

22nd Dec 2016, 15:44

Kulverstukas:

It seems because of the state border there was no option for using another course for takeoff.

The Jepp charts have takeoff minimums for both Runway 07 and 24. I suspect Runway 07 requires Bogota ATC to coordinate with Maioquetia ATC, which probably results in some delay.

oicur12.again

22nd Dec 2016, 17:55

I agree with mostly with what nomoreflying is talking about. Having spent a lot of time in cockpits in and around the third world my observation is that some of these guys just dont see the threats, they dont know the pitfalls and have no deep understanding of the accidents that have occured throughout history. Many crews i have flown with would view my attention to detail as simply nerdy paranoia.

"It's a cultural thing. The Western obsession for the sanctity of life is just that, a Western obsession"

I disagree. Everyone values life, make no mistake there will be much wailing and nashing of teeth by the families of these dead 727 pilots. A fatalistic culture combined with normalization of deviance maybe

aterpster

22nd Dec 2016, 22:29

Interesting IFP tidbit about this airport. Take-off minimums are authorized only for Categories A and B. Same for the VOR Rwy 7 IAP. But, the new RNAV IAP (which I posted earlier) is A/B/C.

TowerDog

22nd Dec 2016, 22:58

. From this set of circumstances I would conclude that this "operator" knew what they were doing, and that they were cutting corners in a big way.

Don't think they knew what they were doing, at least if one judges by the results.:sad:

noflynomore

22nd Dec 2016, 23:21

Don't think they knew what they were doing, at least if one judges by the results

False logic, hombre!

Everyone who operates a jet aeroplane thinks they know what they are doing according to their level of understanding of the manuals. The acid test is whether the aeroplane agrees.

The difference is found between wishful expectation and dumb mechanical inevitability.

In this case dumb mechanical inevitability won.

aterpster

23rd Dec 2016, 00:59

The new RNAV SID states "A/B/C." I guess the Colombian aviation authority needs to do some reconciling for this airport.

I suspect this airport is suddenly high on their list.

PuraVidaTransport

23rd Dec 2016, 01:24

Just a question out of curiosity and none of my research has given me an answer. What would have happened to the plane/pilots in this case, if they hit an EMAS (Engineered Materials Arrestor System) at those kinds of speeds? Would the EMAS simply destroy the gear? I assume if it didn't destroy the gear, it would have absorbed enough energy that the plane would never get airborne. Any speculation?

noflynomore

23rd Dec 2016, 02:12

Just a question out of curiosity and none of my research has given me an answer.

Sorry PVT, I take that back.

One would imagine no effect as the aircraft was all but airborne and there was next to no weight on the wheels. The EMAS might get some shallow tyre tracks across it but that's about it. If the wheels don't dig right into the stuff there is little retardation, and they only do that when much of the aeroplanes weight is on them.
EMAS doesn't destroy the gear under any circumstances, or it isn't supposed to.

PuraVidaTransport

23rd Dec 2016, 02:27

Nice reply noflynomore....keeping it classy. Unlike you, I don't know how much weight was on the wheels at the time it passed the end of the runway. I also don't know the weight it takes to crush the material in an EMAS instillation. I also don't know the height difference between the bottom of the EMAS materials and the height of the ground at the end of the EMAS. This is why I asked the question and solicited speculation. But since you seem to have all the data, fill me in...

H Peacock

23rd Dec 2016, 07:10

PVT

I liked your last response! Your early post was a perfectly reasonable question about EMAS - I'm sure nfnm was having a bad day and is not usually so aggressive/rude.

I suspect the crew may well have realised all was not well during the take-off, but continued as by then it was probably their only option; too late now if they made an error in their perf calcs.

Had a suitable EMAS been fitted it may have given them another option, but I suspect it would still have been a messy outcome. If they had lowered the nose, almost the full weight would be transferred back to the gear and hence EMAS. However at that speed even the stumpy gear on a 72 would probably depart the fix, but it may have given them a chance to walk away from it.

Old and Horrified

23rd Dec 2016, 07:20

ungoliat

23rd Dec 2016, 12:41

A new photo...
https://s5.postimg.org/ftb98865j/avion_sucre.jpg

Iron Duck

23rd Dec 2016, 13:19

I watched Ozark DC-9's backing themselves out of gates like that in the mid-80's - I think at St. Louis.

ATC Watcher

23rd Dec 2016, 13:54

Old and Horrified : Using reverse thrust to back up a 727-incredible!
As Iron Duck ( got it right this time :) said, quite normal on some types . First Air ( from Canada ) did this regularly on their 72s. as the airfields they went in the Arctic did not have push backs tugs. Nothing wrong with it.

pattern_is_full

23rd Dec 2016, 15:10

Aviation Herald now has a picture after take-off showing they lost right inboard flap during the overrun.

While that is probably damage severe enough to cause LOC all by itself, I wonder if it could also lead to a hydraulics loss?

Crash: Aerosucre B722 at Puerto Carreno on Dec 20th 2016, overran runway on takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a25fb25&opt=0)

noflynomore

23rd Dec 2016, 15:53

So much for "Wouldn't have happened if there had been a flight engineer..."

The underside of stbd wing struck the stone hut a massive blow which must have removed the inner flap and possibly the gear too - no sign of it in the in-flight photo but that could just be the angle. A big dust and debris cloud appears above the wing right after the impact. I also see an exhaust smudge from No.s 1 and 2 but nothing from 3. Again, might be the light/angle but with the amount of stone that engine must have ingested I'd be surprised if it was playing any useful part by then. Certainly there were considerable exhaust flashes during the impact sequence apparently from 2 and/or 3 - can't tell which - indicating severe mechanical strife.

Mora34

23rd Dec 2016, 16:32

I think the right wing hit in the middle of the top part of the hut. Certainly there was damage to the slat, and by looking at the picture perhaps to the aileron as well. Unfortunately they had enough lift to get airborne.

EstorilM

23rd Dec 2016, 17:41

Oh man, that picture is some scary stuff.

I can't really fault them for not attempting to retract the flaps - considering they barely got into the air in their current config.

If the mechanisms were in the correct location, but the physical flaps were gone - there would have been zero indication anyways - so they wouldn't have known.

As speed increased, I'm guessing the lift asymmetry became more deadly.

That is seriously scary to look at. :(

PuraVidaTransport

23rd Dec 2016, 18:03

In one of the first videos that shows the Captain's side of the airplane during the takeoff run, one of the spectators repeatedly shouted "Ese avion boto una llanta" or "that airplane lost a tire". Guess his observation was right on after seeing this new photo.

Iron Duck

23rd Dec 2016, 18:51

As speed increased, I'm guessing the lift asymmetry became more deadly.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about that picture for me is that the aircraft is actually climbing, with a flap missing, what looks like an engine out, unknown other aerofoil damage, U/C damage, and probably losing hydraulics, all in 30 degrees ambient temperature.

And the missing flap: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Too slow and the wing will stall; too fast and the asymmetry rolls you over in the same direction. Which is it?

thcrozier

23rd Dec 2016, 19:00

Was the front gear damaged before it reached the fence? It looks that way to me. The narrator doesn't specify which tire he was talking about.

Within 0:28 on the "botó una llanta huevón" video the nose gear is there in the first frames but isn't there in the last. An optical illusion?

Mora34

23rd Dec 2016, 19:12

Engines 1 and 2 seem to be producing thrust based on the exhaust smoke. Can't really tell about number 3. If it wasn't, I doubt it would've been be able to achieve/maintain that climb angle with all that damage if it had significant overload.

tdracer

23rd Dec 2016, 20:33

Using reverse thrust to back up a 727 to the end of the runway- incredible! If that's a regular occurrence, then its quite possible the engines won't be giving the thrust they are meant to due historic FOD damage.
Backing 727s and MD-80s using the reversers was SOP at many airports back in the 1980's. I was personally on an MD-80 that used its reversers to back out of the gate at the old Stapleton airport in Denver so we're not just talking the small or poorly equipped airports. Operators like it because there was a significant labor savings in not having to do the push-back from the gate.
Eventually they figured out that the labor costs savings were cancelled out by the increase in engine maintenance and the practice fell out of favor. But it's stayed in the books as a manufacturer approved practice.

flynerd

24th Dec 2016, 05:29

If you slow down the video filmed from the right side of the aircraft, then something happened about 5 seconds before it hit the fence. Maybe that was the right inner flap coming off. Then there is a fluid leak all the way.
If this was the flap, then that may have been enough to prevent them clearing the fence etc... And perhaps some FOD went through No. 3 engine as a result.

thcrozier

24th Dec 2016, 06:41

5 seconds would be about 800 feet, no?

lilflyboy262...2

25th Dec 2016, 10:43

A flap falling off on a take off run :eek:
What sort of shape was that aircraft in?!

PersonFromPorlock

25th Dec 2016, 15:19

If you slow down the video filmed from the right side of the aircraft, then something happened about 5 seconds before it hit the fence. Maybe that was the right inner flap coming off. Then there is a fluid leak all the way. The video I'm seeing is so blurred that I'm not sure if the 'fluid leak' is real or if it's just the light-colored lower fuselage seen through the gap between the (still present) inboard and outboard flaps. If it is real it would just about have to be fuel rather than hydraulic fluid to account for the volume.

Markdp

25th Dec 2016, 16:18

The flaps are operated by gear boxes and screw jacks. So the loss of the inboard flap should not cause a loss of hydraulic fluid. According to the photo on post 95, the fore flap and screw jacks are still attached. The mid and aft flap are missing.

pattern_is_full

25th Dec 2016, 17:30

Sorry folks - it is painfully obvious from the video showing the right side of the plane as it crosses the road that the inboard flap is still attached.

It came off during the ground collisions during the overrun, not on the runway.

http://www.indialivetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/AeroSucre-cargo-plane-crashes-at-takeoff-in-Colombia-indialivetoday.jpg

Thus is "fake news" created.....

mach2.6

25th Dec 2016, 21:28

As I recall, the Flaps 15 selection results in a lot of "aft" movement of the rather complex and sophistocated flap assembly, and not a lot of "down" extension. This setting of flaps adds surface area to the wing more than it changes the overall shape of the total (wing plus flap) airfoil. Whatever removed the lowermost flap panel on the starboard side probably did not drastically change the amount of surface area, right wing compared to left wing.

Others here have speculated, and I agree, that the 3# engine does not seem to be producing as much thrust as the other two, based on the "fly off into the sunset" photo previously posted. So, the combination of less drag from the missing starboard flap panel was likely offset by the (presumably) reduced thrust coming from #3, while not resulting in a large reduction of lift from the right wing. Had the amount of lift produced by the right wing been significantly reduced, they would have never gotten airborbe. They were probably very close to Vmc as they became airborne. Maybe this is why they were able to remain airborn long enough to bring her around for an approach.

golfyankeesierra

25th Dec 2016, 22:24

Think the powerback has nothing to do with takeoff performance, it looks like he just can't make the 180 turn at the end. The runway itself is only 20m (major airports usually have 45m), don't know the width of the turning pad, nor the turn radius of a B727 (guess it will be more then a B737; main gear being more aft due to tail mounted engines)..
Besides: how far do you dare to back without somebody on the interphone?

Green-dot

27th Dec 2016, 20:19

Viewing a screenshot before hitting the fence, flap setting appeared to be flaps 25 and the RH inner flap seems to be intact. In a few other screenshots there was a fire at the moment the aircraft hit the small structure. Maybe the engine #3 ingesting debris?

noflynomore

27th Dec 2016, 22:59

In a few other screenshots there was a fire at the moment the aircraft hit the small structure. Maybe the engine #3 ingesting debris?

Almost certainly correct; the traditional final reaction of a jet engine when asked to ingest broken bricks. They tend to assume the role of a heavy and draggy passenger after that.

VGCM66

28th Dec 2016, 02:46

It looks to me more like an abandoned truck cabin and not a part of any wall. Any brick wall would have taken the whole wing off. At any rate, the right inner trail edge flap was gone after taking off which induced a right turn due to the asymmetry of lift forces. The B722 was still an old steamer and I can bet nobody in the cockpit put together the lost of the flap (especially in a cargo plane with no windows) but they did the come back to the airport and try for an emergency landing fast. The trap was set. If they have known they would have used the rudder to compensate for the flap lost, gain more altitude and try for a belly landing without resetting the flaps. All in hindsight off course with a big maybe. :ugh:

Cheers

dsc810

28th Dec 2016, 07:14

You can see the hut and its construction here at around 0:15 on the video
(its also visible on google earth)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syl3tCqKbSs&feature=youtu.be

noflynomore

28th Dec 2016, 12:37

I think the whole point is they couldn't maintain altitude on the remaining 2 engines, let alone gain any. Loss of a flap would probably trigger a flap freeze if they tried to raise them so they were likely very draggy too, and whether the u/c (some or all of it) responded to an up selection after all that abuse being dragged through a building or a tree we don't know.

I disagree that "any brick wall would have taken the whole wing off". The strike was a glancing blow on the underside of the wing at almost its thickest and thus strongest point. This thing was Boeing Built remember, I very much doubt a hut of that size would take the wing right off. I'm also beginning to wonder if it wasn't made of timber and not brick. The construction doesn't look right for brick in the video above.

Snyggapa

28th Dec 2016, 14:00

if it's not made of brick I would suggest rubble or other stone. looks like a Cornish stone wall

click to see the full size frame grab

1471

--edit-- note this image was from a previous flight, not the accident one

Hotel Tango

28th Dec 2016, 14:52

Certainly enough to cause some significant damage if struck I would say, not to mention the concrete fence posts along the road.

ungoliat

28th Dec 2016, 15:40

Looks like a military trench....Very common in this side of the world...

skadi

28th Dec 2016, 17:29

For me it looks like a military construction with sandbags...

uffington sb

29th Dec 2016, 13:39

skadi.
Agreed. It definitely looks like the type of gun post (Sanger), we use to make in my military days.
The walls were normally three bags thick, so not easy to knock down.

Green-dot

29th Dec 2016, 22:22

Sadly this structure, and two others of similar size a few 100 feet apart as seen on Google Earth, was placed along the extended runway 24 center-line very close to the runway threshold. Potentially damaging to any aircraft overrun (apart from the small tree near the discussed structure). Placing such a structure farther left or right of the runway would likely have made a difference in the outcome of this accident or any aircraft overrun.

Markdp

30th Dec 2016, 18:47

Anybody have news on the survivor?

Hunter58

3rd Jan 2017, 13:00

I seems to me that not a single one of the commenters ever had to do with AeroCivil. otherwise the rather fruitless discussion over fictious procedures of cargo operators would not have occurred.

And, just because the published Jeppesen Chart does limit its validity dors not mean that there is no operater specific, approved procedure. The same way that OEI-SID exist but are not published except for the operating carrier.

Non-Driver

21st Feb 2017, 06:16

Hardly a surprise unfortunately:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aerosucre-727-crash-probe-missing-aircraft-weight-da-434357/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/crashed-aerosucre-727-attempted-take-off-in-tailwind-434354/

ATC Watcher

23rd Feb 2017, 08:50

No indeed . I find this hard to believe :
The inquiry says the evidence suggests the crew was not aware of the wind situation
They have surely wind socks in addition to the anemometer read out . But I have read somewhere in the thread that Jets on domestic flights had to use Runway 25 to avoid intruding into Maiquieta FIR.( and in addition probably pay for it)

CaptainStardust

5th Mar 2017, 19:35

Haven't flown the 727, but on the 747-100 & 200, in the simulator quite often the wrong checklist was called for in regard to flaps; asymmetric flaps vs split flaps. Could this have been a contributory factor?

aterpster

5th Mar 2017, 23:10

Stardust:

Unless they were really out to lunch the flaps were set correctly for takeoff, with trailing edge flap needles in agreement and leading edge devices indicating green.

They could have selected the wrong setting for the runway (15 degrees trailing edge vs. 25 degree, or 25 vs. 15) but the leading edge indicating green and trailing edge needles in agreement.

andrasz

6th Mar 2017, 09:19

aterpster, I think Stardust is referring to crew actions after the sandbags liberated the right inboard flaps

gearlever

6th Mar 2017, 10:04

Haven't flown the 727, but on the 747-100 & 200, in the simulator quite often the wrong checklist was called for in regard to flaps; asymmetric flaps vs split flaps.

Maybe. Have seen it in the 727 sim as well.

aterpster

6th Mar 2017, 12:55

andrasz,

aterpster, I think Stardust is referring to crew actions after the sandbags liberated the right inboard flaps

Based on the video, it didn't seem like they had sufficient time to do much of anything other than try to get it back on the ground. Having said that, I see your point.

I wonder whether the old FDR on a 727 recorded flap position? I would suspect not.

MarkerInbound

7th Mar 2017, 03:46

Mid 90's FAA requirement was for FDRs to record 22 parameters. Leading edge device position OR selection and trailing edge flaps position OR selection are two of the 22.

Hard to know what the crew knew without the CVR. An asymmetry should lock that set of flaps (inboard or outboard) when the needles are two or three needles widths apart. But was the right inboard sensor damaged and stuck at the takeoff setting? That would lock the left inboards as they started to retract. Or did it generate non-existent flap positions that matched the selected flap setting? That would allow the left inboards to retract.

The best split/asymmetric flap checklist I've seen had pictures - if you see this (inboard and outboard gauges split), do this. If you see this (left and right needles diverging), do this.

JammedStab

15th May 2017, 16:47

From the article...

"Flight-data recorder information indicates that the trijet was configured with 30° take-off flaps. The inquiry associates this setting with a modification known as the ‘Quiet Wing’ which was developed for the 727 in order to reduce noise.

The ‘Quiet Wing’ system is designed to increase take-off performance through modifications including a flap and aileron droop, to increase lift and thereby cut perceived noise on the ground."

First time I have ever heard of a flaps 30 takeoff. Did plenty of flaps 25 takeoffs in a similar sort of runway and elevation. That is a lot of drag when an engine is lost along with the other damage. I wonder if quickly reducing some flap, even if speed is slow would be advantageous.

gearlever

15th May 2017, 17:55

Flaps 30 take-off?

I have some hours/years on 727.

Need someone to enlighten me.

fantom

15th May 2017, 18:24

F30 for take-off? You are kidding.

atakacs

15th May 2017, 18:52

And I find highly improbable that they would be bothered with noise abatement...

gearlever

15th May 2017, 18:56

Indeed....

VNAV PATH

15th May 2017, 19:06

Flaps 30 on take off is part of numerous modifications included in a Special Type Certificate following modifications (ST 00507 SE)

That's explained in the preliminary report.

https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/162648stc727flaps.jpg (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=162648stc727flaps.jpg)

Flaps 30 (aileron and flaps droop) is part of some modifications that are included in a Special Type Certificate, explained in the interim report.

fantom

15th May 2017, 19:44

Well, you learn every day.

gearlever

15th May 2017, 19:51

I have watched the video over and over. 30 deg of Flaps? Don't think so.
Where does (ST 00507 SE) say 30 deg?

atakacs

15th May 2017, 20:16

Certainly not familiar with that flap 30 procedure.
I understand the noise abatement aspect but what take-off performance effect does it have versus more "traditional" settings?

VNAV PATH

15th May 2017, 20:50

Read page 4 of th preliminary report:

https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/695358sucre.jpg (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=695358sucre.jpg)

gearlever

15th May 2017, 20:55

Copick Voice RecorderOops, hope the content of the report is more accurate.

Don't speak Spanish. Anyone wants to translate?

aterpster

15th May 2017, 21:43

Certainly not familiar with that flap 30 procedure.
I understand the noise abatement aspect but what take-off performance effect does it have versus more "traditional" settings?

Neither am I. Flaps 15 was normal for takeoff. Flaps 5 at high-altitude, long runway airports such as KDEN and ABQ. Flaps 25 for short runway, low-altitude airports such as KLGA.

In fact, after the KSLC crash (1965?) my company blocked out Flaps 40. So, Flaps 30 became our landing flap setting. Some carriers didn't block them, but made Flaps 30 the normal landing flap.

Valdiviano

15th May 2017, 22:44

For gearlever
Condensed translation of key points

First paragraph, according to CVR FDR during taxi T O check list done, radio call for local traffic done as airport was uncontrolled at the time
Second paragraph, aircraft backtracked for take off on Ray 25, after 180 turn aircraft was NOT aligned with runway, this was corrected during T O roll.
Third paragraph, aircraft was configured with 30 degree flaps ( as per note 7 ) with 6.5 units of elevator, crew did not consult latest METAR that was available at airport office.
Note 7 refers to the special modification for flap 30 T O
hope this helps

atakacs

16th May 2017, 05:19

In fact, after the KSLC crash (1965?) my company blocked out Flaps 40. So, Flaps 30 became our landing flap setting. Some carriers didn't block them, but made Flaps 30 the normal landing flap.

A bit of thread drift here but not sure that flap 40 was in any way relevant to that accident ?

gearlever

16th May 2017, 07:28

The supplemental type certificate (ST 00507 SE) ist still puzzling me.
Where does it say Flaps 30 deg?

DaveReidUK

16th May 2017, 07:46

It doesn't. Probably because they aren't set to 30°.

The patent associated with the Quiet Wing mod specifies that the inboard flaps are re-rigged 7° down and the outers 3.5° (so around 5° down on average) so that the effective flap angle with 25° set is approximately 30°.

But I don't think the drooped angles are placarded as such, so it will still be nominally 25°.

Valdiviano

16th May 2017, 08:12

gearlever
Post # 143, 3rd paragraph next to red arrow states : based on CVR and FDR it was found that HK 4544 was configured for take off with 30 degrees of flaps and 6.5 units of elevator then it goes to state re METAR as previously translated.
Next to 30 degrees there is the note to refer to note seven below next to second red arrow.
It clearly states "HK4544 was configured with flap 30 for the take off"

gearlever

16th May 2017, 08:29

Wouldn't the T/O warning horn sound with lever in F30 ?

I'm here more with DaveReidUK, lever in 25 detent !

mnttech

16th May 2017, 11:35

Some Q kits reset the T/O warning horn mice (i.e. the thing that makes the horn go off).

aterpster

16th May 2017, 13:38

A bit of thread drift here but not sure that flap 40 was in any way relevant to that accident ?

My recollection was that the primary cause was a steep, idle-power descent. The conclusion, as I recall it, was that a better chance of recovery would have been possible with Flaps 30. In any case, it was the accident that caused the industry to shift to Flaps 30 as the preferred landing flap setting. And, as I said previously, my airline blocked out Flaps 40 as a result of that accident.

Back on thread: I have never heard of Flaps 30 being an option for takeoff.

gearlever

16th May 2017, 14:41

Back on thread: I have never heard of Flaps 30 being an option for takeoff.

Me too. Over ten years on 727, all seats. But I must admit only until 1992.

mach2.6

16th May 2017, 15:15

Regarding an earlier post, "copick" is Spanglish. Spanish does not have a real equivalent word for "cockpit". Officially, it is "cabina" or "cabina de piloto". Here in Cuba del Norte (Northern Cuba aka Miami), I have even heard it called cancha (kinda like court, as in tennis court). So, I don't think the use of Spanglish necessarily diminishes the accuracy of the remainder of the report.

Just my 2 centavos, forgive me :)

dustindq

16th May 2017, 22:51

Read page 4 of th preliminary report:

https://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/695358sucre.jpg (https://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=695358sucre.jpg)

According to the information provided by the flight recorders Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR), It was evidenced that the aircraft Backtracked towards runway 25 Threshold And simultaneously the crew performed the respective before takeoff checklists; as well as the self-announcement calls (blind) to the aircraft on the area, having in mind that the airport at the time was Uncontrolled.
Once the backtrack was completed , it was evidenced that the aircraft performed a 180 degree turn resulting in a heading different from runway heading, which was later corrected during the takeoff run.
Based on CVR and FDR, was identified that HK-4544 was set for a takeoff configuration of 30 degrees of flaps and 6 ½ (according to modification (STC)- ST00507SE “Flap and aileron droop modification- Quiet wing Corporation) units of stabilizer trim (up), also was found that the crew was unaware of the wind direction and intensity information. The closest takeoff time METAR was: 2200Z 01008KT 9999 FEW020 SCT200 32/31 A//// (This info was available on the IDEAM (Colombia’s meteorological department) office at the airport ).