greuzi

What happened mate?

Choke on your lunch? Bit of Grissel? Then spit it out if you got something to say!:=

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-take-off.html

that seems very plausable - aircraft at V1 or just afer has a fire alert and rejects the take - off, leaving little breathing room for slowing down at near rotation speed for a heavy loaded freighter.

will be a brown trousers moment for any freight dog to suddenly lose an engine at a critical time.

All OK
 

Hey Guy's the main thing is all are OK to fly another day....

Greetings from the past,
BKK, Richard

Great to hear!!!

With the fuel load they had the center tank was empty.
structural failure or just and engine puking? Only time will tell

Interesting theory.
 

So, you're suggesting it was either a bomb or it was shot down?

:p

;)

No. I am just wonder what happened; did it break apart on takeoff or after rejecting for an engine failure? I am sure the investigations will reveal what actually happened.

No. I am just wonder what happened; did it break apart on takeoff or after rejecting for an engine failure? I am sure the investigations will reveal what actually happened.

Don't think the aircraft took off mate, thought it aborted around V1.

One would sincerely hope that the accident investigation DOES reveal what happened.

Oh, I am sure they will. They have all the parts, the Belgians, FAA, and NTSB are all on the case. It may take a while. Thank God they didn't burst into flames.

"So, you're suggesting it was either a bomb or it was shot down?"

Yeah - 704 suffered a direct hit, shot down by a midget while laying on his back on the runway centerline. .(just after the nose wheel squished him).

No . . . . . Post #45 should read - common fail point when stressed . . . that's all, nothing more.

Evanelpus
 

Sorry for my ignorance , but i thought V1 was point of no return

No matter What !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is, but there are rare instances where you don't have a choice-dual engine failure on a 74 etc.

Heard the FO was the one that aborted!! Did they lose two engines on the runway?

That operator does not abort takeoffs; it rejects them, and the First Officer does not have the option of rejecting the takeoff. Only the captain does that.

ex dog
 

PNR or Point of No return ( as you put it) has nothing to do with V speeds. If a very old and Big aircraft such as a 747 classic suffers a major malfunction such as two engines failing during the TO roll or it breaks in half after V1 it may just warrant rejecting the Take Off. :ugh: The experts should find the cause so we don't have to.

Fesmokie
 

Yes ,you are correct , i don't no the answer , just happy the crew got out
The pictures i have seen look pretty horrendous

If 1 eng out ,Get it 50foot in the air ,gear up and start dumping at the fence. Keep going ?
If 2 out do as they did ?

Glad all ok.

Why the hurry to start fuel jettison? The a/c would only be 300-310 tonnes, with a max. landing weight of 285 tonnes. Stick to company SOPs regarding flight following an engine failure. With 2 engines losing power - that's a different story!
So far there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the RTO was started after V1, nor that 2 engines lost power.

If you loose 2 engines after V1, it's just not your lucky day...

V1 is a calculated figure which is giving the relation between ASDA and TORA.
At this specific point (speed vs rwy lenght) the decision Has to be made to either stop or go. Make the decision a few knots before V1, 'cause with the acceleration your initiation may well be later than V1...:ouch:
Anything later than that and you're committed to go. That's what you briefed in the first place.
Only with a relatively light aircraft and a very long rwy (not limiting)
there's room for improvisation if it's gonna save your asses.
Try EdwardsAFB...;)

The difficult one is when the problem occures just before V1 but remains unnoticed or the action is delayed until you've already passed the magic number...-> It's now a GO because as per your calculations you Will go off the runway if you try to stop the beast at this point... :eek::=

It's all in the Boeing FCTM if you have one.

Sorry for being a bit academic, but this stop/go discussion was leading us nowhere...:}

Guys take care outthere and I suggest you request Rwy 25 for a while when in Bru.

Chrz,

BUT.....
at least there is one less bag of crap flying around, comming to an airport near you !
glad the crew were safe.

Now there's a wonderfully stupid and ignorant comment to make, isn't it? (it is).

What would you know about that airplane?

From Flight International magazine's web-site.

Overrun Kalitta 747 suffered power loss but no engine damage
By David Kaminski-Morrow

Investigators in Brussels have found no evidence of engine damage on the Kalitta Air Boeing 747-200 freighter destroyed in a take-off overrun on 25 May, but confirm that one engine suffered a loss of power at a critical speed threshold.
The Belgian inquiry has also determined that the correct aircraft parameters, runway selection and weather data were uploaded to the 747’s computer before departure, and that use of runway 20 would not have posed any problems.
Two pilots, two engineers and a passenger accompanying diplomatic cargo escaped after the jet broke into three sections during the overrun. There was no prior structural failure; the break-up was caused by impact forces as the jet went over a 4m (13ft) drop.
“At this stage there is no reason to make urgent recommendations,” says the Service Public Federal Mobilite et Transports, which is heading the probe.
Analysis of the flight recorders, it says, shows the initial part of the take-off roll was normal, with constant acceleration until one of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines suffered a “momentary” loss of power.
This power loss, which was accompanied by a “detonation”, occurred as the aircraft reached the V1 speed – the threshold beyond which a crew normally must commit to becoming airborne, because the aircraft cannot be stopped safely on the runway.
The crew heard the noise and air traffic controllers witnessed flames from the right side of the aircraft.
Two seconds later the engine thrust was reduced to idle and the aircraft decelerated, but failed to stop before the runway end. Thrust reversers were not deployed, although a rejected take-off calculation does not take reverser use into account.
All four engines were operating as the 747 overran and, upon inspection, showed no sign of catastrophic failure. The engine cowlings were not punctured.
Following the indications of a possible problem with one of the right-hand engines, these were subjected to an initial endoscopic inspection of the high-pressure turbine and compressor.
“This inspection, although incomplete, failed to reveal any internal damage,” say the investigators. The fan-blades and low-pressure turbine remained in place and were similarly undamaged.
Specialists are to carry out a more thorough teardown and examination of the engine components.
None of the cargo pallets had shifted significantly during the accident, but the investigators are to check the loading distribution as part of the inquiry. The jet had stopped over in Brussels as part of a service between New York JFK and Bahrain.

###################################################

Preliminary report of the Air Accidents Investigation Unit of the Belgian Federal Ministery of Transport at:

in Dutch
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604an.pdf

in French:
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604af.pdf



- no apparent problem as regards the use of RW 20/02 for this flight - all flight data correctly entered in flight computer
- brief loss of power on one engine at about (sic) V1 associated with loud bang and flames, as confirmed by crew cq witnesses/controller.
- 2 sec after the bang, thrust was reduced to idle - no reverse thrust commanded - vigourous braking started and maintained until final stop
- preliminary on site endoscopic inspection of engines 3 and 4 - although very incomplete - didn t show any damange in the HP or LP compressor, HP turbine nor of the fan blades
- cargo found correctly stowed after impact - actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
- no catastrophic structural damage before final impact (4m drop)
- L1 door blocked due to structural damage on impact, 'service' door used to evacuate

FDR and CVR will now be analysed further , and engines will be recovered from the wreckage and further investigated upon.

The second part of the previous post is a post I made on the other thread just after the publication of the preliminary report. I don't mind people quoting, but please mention your source if you do so Dutch74.

I tried to just direct link it to your sources but one of the links was bad and in the end I got lazy. So I apologize for not naming you as the source....:ooh:

Plugged in the following for a GE CF6-50E2 (51,800lbs rated thrust) 747

BRU RWY 20 +20C QNH1000 5 Tail and 306,000kg

Came out with Max thrust 112.7 %N1

Flap 20

V1 133
VR 144
V2 158

Also allowed for an addition 30,000kg to be carried.

OK, now plug the data in for a PW-JT9D powered 747.

Why would no reverse thrust be selected? Would that not be SOP for a rejected takeoff?

Again, that would really depend on the circumstances. We have no useful information about those circumstances to explain what occured. Presently one should wait for the facts.

Using reverse thrust would be SOP, but reverse thrust is not factored into the runway analysis. So not using reverse thrust would not be a contributing factor to the aircraft going off the end of the runway. So if the crew did everything correctly except not using reverse thrust, the aircraft should have stopped within the confines of the runway.

Not if the spoilers did not deploy...