PDA

View Full Version : cargo 707 down in Iran


rog747
14th Jan 2019, 06:52
Seems sadly a Boeing 707 cargo flight has crashed in Iran - reports 10 crew did not survive The plane went down near Fath airport, near Karaj in the central Iranian province of Alborz in poor wx.
Reuters
Not immediately clear who owned the plane. A spokesman for Iran’s civil aviation told state TV that the plane belonged to Kyrgyzstan. A spokeswoman for Kyrgyzstan’s Manas airport said the plane, en route from Kyrgyzstan’s Manas airport, says belonged to Iran’s Payam Air but other reports say that the plane belonged to the Iranian military's air force. 16 souls on board.

His dudeness
14th Jan 2019, 07:00
According to the Avherald, they landed at the wrong airfield and overran the rwy...

Avherald (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c2d9613&opt=0)

DaveReidUK
14th Jan 2019, 07:51
Not immediately clear who owned the plane. A spokesman for Iranís civil aviation told state TV that the plane belonged to Kyrgyzstan. A spokeswoman for Kyrgyzstanís Manas airport said the plane, en route from Kyrgyzstanís Manas airport, says belonged to Iranís Payam Air but other reports say that the plane belonged to the Iranian military's air force. 16 souls on board.

Most sources show it as being operated by the Iranian Air Force. Delivered new to them in 1976, flew for Saha during most of the Noughties before returning to the IRIAF in 2009.

rog747
14th Jan 2019, 07:54
Most sources show it as being operated by the Iranian Air Force. Delivered new to them in 1976, flew for Saha during most of the Noughties before returning to the IRIAF in 2009.

thanks for the update Dave - some airline pals of mine did enthusiasts flights some years ago on a SAHA 707

EladElap
14th Jan 2019, 08:22
Viz reported as 3000m. Given the proximity of Fath to Karaj (5nms) and that Fath sits more or less on the final approach to Karah, is this a case of during a non precision approach aiming for the first runway that they saw? The far smaller runway at Fath perhaps giving the illusion that it was farther away than it really was? Very sad, and given that something similar happened almost happened in November, surely avoidable.

Auxtank
14th Jan 2019, 08:29
Very sad, and given that something similar happened almost happened in November, surely avoidable.

Indeed, different wx though as that one was being vectored then cleared for a visual after declaring (wrong) runway in sight.

Incident: Taban MD88 at Karaj on Nov 16th 2018, went around from very low height at wrong airport (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c19bb8a&opt=0)

Raffles S.A.
14th Jan 2019, 08:34
The runway they landed on is only 1,200 m long as opposed to the runway they were supposed to land on, 3,600 m. I wonder what nav equipment they had on board?

According to my Jepp there are only VOR/DME and NDB approaches available.

A Squared
14th Jan 2019, 08:49
Does 16 strike anyone else as a rather large crew for a cargo flight?

A Squared
14th Jan 2019, 09:00
I wonder what nav equipment they had on board?

Doesn't really matter. In recent memory pilots have managed to land at the wrong airport in an A320, 737-700, C-17 and the Boeing LCF "Dreamlifter" Modern Avionics seems not to be a cure for landing in the wrong place.

JustPrivatePilot
14th Jan 2019, 09:19
Does 16 strike anyone else as a rather large crew for a cargo flight?

Not sure if the 16 applies only to souls on board or if this includes soules on the ground as well.

Either way - R.I.P. - sad story

A Squared
14th Jan 2019, 09:25
Not sure if the 16 applies only to souls on board or if this includes soules on the ground as well.

Either way - R.I.P. - sad story

The linked article says crew but it's certainly possible that is a reporting/translation error and that some were ground fatalities.

The Ancient Geek
14th Jan 2019, 10:12
Hmmmm - is this one of the last 707s in service?, there cannot be many left other than the USAF tankers etc.

krismiler
14th Jan 2019, 10:15
In recent memory pilots have managed to land at the wrong airport in an A320, 737-700, C-17 and the Boeing LCF "Dreamlifter"

Add a Saudi Arabian B747 in 2013 in India to the list, very similar circumstances.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/saudia-boeing-lands-on-iaf-runway-despite-warning-shots-197060301058_1.html

This B707 must be one of the last in the world to still have been flying and at 43 years old I doubt the avionics were up to modern day standards. Simulator training would also be considerably behind what we take for granted today, if it was available at all.

Unfortunately until Iran comes in from the cold and meets the requirements to have sanctions lifted, its aviation sectors both civil and military will continue to suffer.

EladElap
14th Jan 2019, 10:37
Also an Ethiopian 767 which landed at Arusha instead of Kili Intl mistakenly in 2013...
https://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/01/15/tanzania-aib-details-ethiopian-boeing-767-wrong-airport-landing-incident/

beamender99
14th Jan 2019, 13:54
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46861324

vctenderness
14th Jan 2019, 16:06
The linked article says crew but it's certainly possible that is a reporting/translation error and that some were ground fatalities.

Saw some pictures on line and it hit some houses so I would think it includes those residents as well.

widgeon
14th Jan 2019, 16:15
Hmmmm - is this one of the last 707s in service?, there cannot be many left other than the USAF tankers etc.

Etc. Includes E3 Awacs , how many on civil registers

None according to Wikipedia , I had thought there were a lot more built.

Faa register lists 18740,18835,18839,20177,18586,21368,20804 and 21049

jmelson
14th Jan 2019, 16:42
Etc. Includes E3 Awacs , how many on civil registers


The E3 is supposed to be built on a 717 frame, but to the untrained eye, I could not spot the difference.

Jon

DaveReidUK
14th Jan 2019, 17:38
The E3 is supposed to be built on a 717 frame, but to the untrained eye, I could not spot the difference.

If it had been built on the 717 frame, you would certainly be able to tell the difference.

The (original) Boeing 717 was the model designation for initial variants of the C-135/KC-135 Stratolifter/Stratotanker. The E-3 is based on the 707.

DaveReidUK
14th Jan 2019, 17:40
Saw some pictures on line and it hit some houses so I would think it includes those residents as well.

The houses were reportedly empty, at least at the time of the accident, so there were no ground fatalities.

Old Boeing Driver
14th Jan 2019, 18:15
That same line number, 21128/917 was shown to be in another accident in 2009 as EP-SHK
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090803-0
The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents said it was damaged beyond repair.
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/mishap-boeing-707-ahwaz

tdracer
14th Jan 2019, 18:23
If it had been built on the 717 frame, you would certainly be able to tell the difference.

The (original) Boeing 717 was the model designation for initial variants of the C-135/KC-135 Stratolifter/Stratotanker. The E-3 is based on the 707.

Correct. The Boeing KC-135 civilian designation was 717 (something that was apparently lost on the idiots that were running Boeing after the Boeing/MacDac merger when they renamed the MD-95 but I digress). Several significant differences between the KC-135/717 and the 707 - the most significant being the fuselage (707 is somewhat larger in diameter).
All subsequent military variants where based on the 707 including the E-3 and E-8.

Chronus
14th Jan 2019, 18:29
There is some video footage on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WdKgFNGE8E

Old Boeing Driver
14th Jan 2019, 18:38
Does 16 strike anyone else as a rather large crew for a cargo flight?

Not only that, but meat from Bishkek?
There is a picture of a rescuer/helper coming out of one of the 990 doors and there doesn't appear to be anything in the interior.

megan
14th Jan 2019, 23:54
Several significant differences between the KC-135/717 and the 707 - the most significant being the fuselage (707 is somewhat larger in diameter) tdracer, (https://www.pprune.org/members/414340-tdracer)perhaps you are in a position to confirm that the only similarity between the two aircraft is that they look similar. Have seen it written that structure is even built of a different grade metal, reflecting the difference between commercial and military requirements.

matkat
15th Jan 2019, 09:50
Correct. The Boeing KC-135 civilian designation was 717 (something that was apparently lost on the idiots that were running Boeing after the Boeing/MacDac merger when they renamed the MD-95 but I digress). Several significant differences between the KC-135/717 and the 707 - the most significant being the fuselage (707 is somewhat larger in diameter).
All subsequent military variants where based on the 707 including the E-3 and E-8.
I saw that happening did not know what was going on until it returned and saw the damage, like you I thought it was written off.

DaveReidUK
15th Jan 2019, 11:19
I saw that happening did not know what was going on until it returned and saw the damage, like you I thought it was written off.

Presumably that's a reference to post #21, and not to the one that you quoted ?

aterpster
15th Jan 2019, 13:29
The E3 is supposed to be built on a 717 frame, but to the untrained eye, I could not spot the difference.

Jon
The 717 is a variant of the MD80-90 series.

DaveReidUK
15th Jan 2019, 14:12
The 717 is a variant of the MD80-90 series.

The "717-200" is the renamed MD-95, which has no relevance to this thread.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the original Boeing Model 717 (aka C-135/KC-135, see above), which is what the above few posts are discussing.

Chu Chu
15th Jan 2019, 16:28
I found the following paragraph in a National Materials Advisory Board report:

To minimize structural weight and thus maximize payload capability, the Air Force elected to use 7178-T6 aluminum in the lower wing skins as well as in other locations in the aircraft along with 7075-T6 aluminum. The commercial 707 used 2024-T3 aluminum in the lower wing skins at about two-thirds the stress level.

https://www.nap.edu/read/5917/chapter/6#87

Airbubba
15th Jan 2019, 22:46
Report and tweet from Babak Taghvaee that the accident 707 circled before making its fatal final approach:

Babak Taghvaee‏ @BabakTaghvaee (https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee) 14h14 hours ago (https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1085105619353382912)MoreBefore its landing in Fat'h heliport of #IRGC (https://twitter.com/hashtag/IRGC?src=hash) instead of #Payam (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Payam?src=hash) Intl Airport, the #IranAirForce (https://twitter.com/hashtag/IranAirForce?src=hash)'s Boeing 707-3J9C with EP-CPP register circled over #Karaj (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Karaj?src=hash) several times & then had a sharp descend which wondered everyone. This is the video of the EP-CPP before its accident.

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1085105619353382912

tdracer
16th Jan 2019, 00:36
tdracer, (https://www.pprune.org/members/414340-tdracer)perhaps you are in a position to confirm that the only similarity between the two aircraft is that they look similar. Have seen it written that structure is even built of a different grade metal, reflecting the difference between commercial and military requirements.

My memory is a bit fuzzy on the subject, but I'll try :E.
I do know it's a popular myth that the 707 is just a civilian version of the KC-135 and that gave Boeing a big commercial advantage in that the USAF paid for the 707 development - the reality is far more complex. The KC-135 derived directly from the "Dash 80" prototype - which Boeing developed on their own, paid for out of Boeing's pocket. The cost of the Dash 80 development was more than the net worth of Boeing at the time - hence the line "they bet the company" on the Dash 80 was literally true - but it worked and the USAF launched the KC-135 program.
At about the same time Boeing launched the 707, Douglas launched the DC-8 - which had a wide enough fuselage for six across seating - something the Dash 80/KC-135 didn't allow. So Boeing completely changed to fuselage to also allow six abreast seating. The flight deck layout was different on the 707 - the wing layout and structure was pretty much the same, and the original engines were pretty much the same. But that was only for very first 707s. Things were evolving quickly, and by the time they got to the turbofan powered 707-320 (the most common version), there were very few parts common with the KC-135 - even the wing shape was different.

megan
16th Jan 2019, 01:03
To both Chu Chu and tdracer, thanks for the input. I found on the Boeing site they had this to say, The Dash 80 prototype led to the commercial 707 and the military KC-135 tanker. Both planes shared the basic design of the Dash 80 but were very different airplanes, neither one being a derivative of the other.Elsewhere I found that the only thing they shared was the basic wing box.

https://www.nationalcoldwarexhibition.org/research/collections/boeing-kc-135-stratotanker/

CONSO
16th Jan 2019, 02:01
I found the following paragraph in a National Materials Advisory Board report:

To minimize structural weight and thus maximize payload capability, the Air Force elected to use 7178-T6 aluminum in the lower wing skins as well as in other locations in the aircraft along with 7075-T6 aluminum. The commercial 707 used 2024-T3 aluminum in the lower wing skins at about two-thirds the stress level.

https://www.nap.edu/read/5917/chapter/6#87

And a bit more - some of the KC fuselage skins were spot welded- but later replace due to fatigue issues early on, and at one time a ' laminate" of aluminum and ' cold BONDING of aluminum was used- later found to cause problems due to entrapment of moisture- it was the late 60's before the COLDWORK process was developed (which involved prestressing the fastener holes via a disposable sleeve and an expansion mandrel pulled thru ) the inventor was Lou Champoux ( sat next to me in the 60's ) working with a local vendor later to become Fatigue technology . There is often confusion between the cold BONDING process, and the coldWORKING process.

And a lot of the tooling for the KC135 was also used for 707- and vice versa via a complicated lease arrangement...

DaveReidUK
16th Jan 2019, 06:27
So Boeing completely changed to fuselage to also allow six abreast seating.

Which directly led to the most obvious external difference between the two aircraft: the 707 has what became the classic Boeing double-bubble; the C-135/KC-135 has what appears to be a circular fuselage cross-section (it isn't, in fact, but there's no visible demarcation between the upper and lower lobe).

aterpster
16th Jan 2019, 14:19
The "717-200" is the renamed MD-95, which has no relevance to this thread.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the original Boeing Model 717 (aka C-135/KC-135, see above), which is what the above few posts are discussing.

Glad you clarified that.

NWA SLF
16th Jan 2019, 16:06
Dash 80 132 inch fuselage, KC-135 144 inch, 707 148 inch. Is the reason such different planes can't be put into production in such short time today due to tooling cost, regulations, or something else? My family has an engineering history. I asked a cousin of my father's why he guided his son on a business career instead of engineering. He said no loyalty in the engineering business. Started with Boeing after graduating in the late 40's, worked on those jets and more until '71 and the end of the 2707, then axed. Retired as a contract engineer for Northrup working on the B-2 and returned to the Puget Sound area but remained bitter about Boeing.

flash8
16th Jan 2019, 16:29
Who does their heavy checks?