Aviation Tim

I've done a little write up of this loss as part of an "on this day" thing I send around to our aviation related clients. For all its tragedy, it's amazing the changes that were subsequently made to improve the safety of commercial airline flight that arose directly from it.

What I was wondering in writing it up was whether it was the biggest loss of life on board an aircraft that never got off the ground? With 55 lives lost I'm sure it must be one of them, though I was by no means certain enough to state that it was actually the biggest.

So, being curious, I have joined here to pose the question. Hope this is the appropriate place to raise it and apologies in advance if this is not the case.

wiggy

In the UK? Not sure..

If you are thinking worldwide, no, probably not even close, for example the Tenerife accident (specifically Pan AM 1736).

Aviation Tim

I take your point.

Maybe I was thinking of single aircraft events, though in the case of Tenerife, the passengers had already been in the air since I believe the two aircraft both landed there on unscheduled stops as part of the flights they had embarked upon and the accident came as they were waiting to complete them.

.

DaveReidUK

No problem.

Let us know when you've finished moving the goalposts.

rog747

In the UK for sure it must be the largest loss of life whilst still 'on the ground'
A Russian TU-154 caught fire on the ground on start-up IIRC, and there was a large loss of life.

Lots of lessons to have been learned the hard way on KT28M, but not sure even today that all have been applied.

Non-Driver

You could argue the Spanair MD-82 wasn't really airborne too.

Self loading bear

As the goal post s are wide apart:

Saudi’s 163,
Fire originated in flight but
Fully landed , everybody overcome by smoke.

India Four Two

I'm sure there are many like me, who did not recognize the flight number:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...urs_Flight_28M

A lot of similarities with the PWA accident at Calgary the previous year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifi...nes_Flight_501

flash8

In the UK, yes, almost certain.
Worldwide as many others have said, no.

Can't seem to find that although it may well be the case - such is that usually would stick in my mind, nearest is a runway overrun due to RTO (Cubana 389) which technically satisfies "never got off the ground" (I think in this case).

DaveReidUK

That description doesn't match any Tu-154 accident that I can recall.

Self loading bear

Tu-204 on fire during push back but that was a freighter.
Or (pun intended) the Tu-22 Backfire?

rog747

TU-154 ground fire was a more recent fatal incident - My mistake - there was not a large loss of life but still a nasty incident.

On 1 January 2011, Kolavia Flight 348, on a domestic scheduled passenger flight with 124 passengers from Surgut to Moscow, caught fire, exploded and burned down while taxiing out for take-off.
Passengers were evacuated, but three were killed and 43 injured.
As the aircraft was being pushed back and was starting its engines, a fire developed in the centre section of the fuselage, quickly spreading inside the passenger cabin.
The engines and the APU were immediately shut down and the emergency slides were deployed for an emergency evacuation.
Within four minutes, fire engines reached the Tupolev and started dousing the flames with foam, but were hampered by the presence of many survivors near the aircraft. By 10:20, the aircraft was completely ablaze, with aviation fuel leaking and spreading the flames across the apron.
A massive explosion occurred moments after the passengers had left the aircraft.
The fire was brought under control at around 10:40; by then, only the tail section and the outer portion of the wings had survived the blaze.
Three passengers were killed and 43 were injured, four critically.
A subsequent investigation concluded that the fire had started due to an electrical short circuit in an electric panel, confirming that the probable cause of the fire was an arc occurring in that electric panel on the right side of the central fuselage.
Shortly after engine start, the crew connected the generators to the electrical network as usual, but badly worn out contactors failed to operate properly, resulting in an abnormal circuit configuration that produced currents 10 to 20 times higher than their nominal values, giving rise to an electrical arc.
No maintenance schedule existed for the electric board in question.
Russia would ground all Tu-154Bs after the fatal fire pending the RAK investigation.

WHBM

One thing that struck me about the incident was, passing through Manchester two weeks later, the substantially burned grass had been completely reinstated, without even a sign of having been patched. If there were any marks on the taxyway those had been removed as well.

I always wondered, with the CAA subsequently requiring removal of one seat by the overwing exits in a 130-seat 737-200, how they could ever honestly have certified it as such in the first place ...

hec7or

A lady in my village was onboard and to this day she has not had any counselling or even talked about it, she still has no idea why it took the crew so long to start the evacuation as it plain to all in the cabin that the aircraft was on fire.
A while ago years ago, I had a long chat with her a couple of days after I'd read that the Captain had passed away and we talked about the difficult situation the flight crew found themselves in with no indication of a fire and no smoke visible at the front end, she still suffers from survivors guilt having helped with CPR out on the grass, her husband was a doctor. She told me she'd never really spoken to anyone about it in all the years that had passed.

Fonsini

A friend of mine was on that flight with his then girlfriend, his Tv interview is still on YouTube. The story he told me about what they saw in the rear cabin in spite of all the smoke was horrific.

BA were amazing with them after that - I’m sure he told me they both received free first class flights for life. They are married to this day.