The747 mel allows take-off with a single adp inop. (May different per operator)
With a #1 or 4 inop all performance is based upon no gear and flap retraction due to losing the hydraulic system if that engine fails.

This streaming video from Caracol News shows the scene, rescue and interviews with witnesses and officials. All in Spanish -- here's the more technical tidbits I gleaned from the audio:

• #4 was the problem engine (stated by scene reporter [twice], and Director of Civil Aeronautics)

• crew reported fire and intention to return immediately after liftoff (stated by reporter and Director of Civil Aeronautics)

• about 250 tonnes at takeoff (reporter attributed this to Director of Civil Aeronautics)

• plane hit trees before house (stated by witness and reporter)

• lower empennage struck ground first (stated by reporter, not attributed)

• Many people witnessed the plane skim over Madrid and crash. Not one mentioned seeing any fire until after impact with the ground.

-=MachacA=-

Thanks for the clarity Machaca

Now if only we knew whether they had a smoke in the cabin or if the gear was down

Excellent link Machaca.

It seems to me that there has been a great job on the rescue by the Colombian Air Force, the nurse in the interview entered the cabin from a window, located the person with the most threatening injuries and began stabilizing him on site (she mentioned lot of blood loss), as the other rescuers not had not yet gained access.

PacFlyer,

The short answer is, Dude, you failed your oral.

The APU on the classic, or, well, the newest 747 is a great big heavy thing back on the tail that may allow you to power and deliver bleed air to the aircraft on the ground.

It MAY even do that in flight.

It does NOT give you 600 pounds of thrust. Maybe some believe that, but I wouldn't count on it in a crunch.

Seriously, if it's that bad, the APU ain't gonna help, you are NOT gonna zoom over that hill with the goat on top by starting the APU.

You've already been corrected on the flaps, so I ain't going there.

Back to school Kiddo.......

PB

Word now comming out - this from a friend of a friend of a crewmember - was that #4 failed first, then #1, then #2, then #3(partial), then #4 restarted. Aircraft landed with #4 at full thrust.
Only FE now remains in very critical condition + mech with broken back? Others minor or ok. No further details.

Yep, this is what I'm hearing from a well placed source who has reported reliably in the past. The crew did a helluva job.

Gee, thanks bug. ;) (But the APU thrust comment was trivia only, obviously it can't augment loss of a 50-60,000 lb thrust class engine; I should have put in a smiley in there.) Some a/c MEL's can launch with items like bleeds inop provided a running apu is there to back it up in case of another engine failing.

I guess I'm the only one that's ever encountered that....

I know, I know, :=:=:= back to the drawing board.... :(

I never heard of a "Bleeds-off" takeoff on a -200 before. With 4 independent hydraulic systems powered by engine driven pumps, the bleed air is required to operate the "Air driven pump" in case of engine failure( ADP's are both a supplemental pumps as well as for backup). However, if performance is limiting, there is an easy performance gain for turning packs 1+3 off, closing the isolation valves( now bleeds from eng 1+2 provide air to/ and only to the left wing manifold [ L.E. flaps ], and the right isolation closed and right manifold pressurized with bleed air from eng 3+4. The APU will provide bleed air to #2 pack.
Of course, some freighters have #2 pack removed ( weight loss ), and your APU would have to be operating, as would it's bleed air.

If previous post is correct, about multiple eng. failures, all this performance dialog is moot.

Purely hypothetically speaking now,

Thanks Firststep. So the APU is used sometimes in concert with pnem issolation valves to supply pack source/pressurization at 400 feet AGL to reduce total eng bleed requirement, thus, improving high altitude performance. That's what I wanted to know; (forget the four bleed off procedure everybody; that's negative transfer from another airplane.)

Earl had a post where he relayed (reliable source) buzz of multiple engine failures as well, however it is now gone for some reason.

Engine nacel fire warnings are often caused by bleed leaks at high power near the fire detection loops and sometimes troublesome bleeds are legally wired shut by mtc and defered is where I'm going with this.

It still doesn't make sense to me that the first responders, saw people wearing masks right after it happened. This bugs me. Perhaps the pack didn't get turned on, or couldn't get an air source at 400 ft in all the confusion and later the cabin altitude horn sounded? Mysterious.

At any rate, it's beginning to sound like the Columbian media is right: these guys were genuine heros in handling a nightmare scenario.

pac - out

If El # and Airbubba are correct, it certainly is a huge :ok:to the crew. Sorry to hear of the 'critical' crew members, but overall a miraculous result looking at the wreckage. I'm sure our Kalitta friends will pass on the best wishes of all here.

Here's a large overview of the area:

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/1...viewib4.th.jpg

If the total time aloft was only 30-60 seconds, then the Chucua 1 departure (130 degree left turn at 9200 feet) with multiple engine failures would have them putting down where they did.

If the flight lasted several minutes, then perhaps after engine #4's problem at liftoff they continued straight ahead to BOG VOR instead of the normal turn, swung around and headed down the 145 radial to intercept the ILS to 13R, but subsequent failure(s) saw them continue along the 145 for the forced landing.

Some possible tracks:

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2...ackskx0.th.jpg

Here's the final approach:

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4...ach1gn5.th.jpg

Gear down and locked?

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/306...ear1zb4.th.jpg

I just received an e mail that was forwarded to me from the Kalitta union. They did lose #4 engine and before they could run the checklist #1 failed. The story I read showed a lot of professionalism (take that angryblackguy), not to mention a healthy dose of good luck. Rich Dunlap is a freind and I wish him and all the others a speedy recovery, but judging from the injuries they received, for some, that may be a while. Pray for them.

are we talking about independent engine failures with at least one restartable or dependent (on something) failures?

I've never heard of such a thing at takeoff where the fans don't show massive FOD

I believe that union letter, like all other communications on the matter, was intended to be kept confidential, and accordingly, given in confidence.

So much for trust and professionalism.

So what would be the point of distributing such information to only a select few pilots?

What would be the point of a union distributing only to union members, or a company restricting the information they share with their employees to only their employees? You don't understand this?

pacplyer No classics have 67,000 lb thrust motors! Not even Air Force One. The largest engines fitted to the classics is the GE CF-80-C2B, delivering 56,600 lbs thrust. It was fitted to the early -400s. It's enough power to out-climb the classic wing.

If you can find a 747 classic Boeing manual and read it, then you'll get a grip on things. :ooh:

They didn't. You're chasing a ghost.

Validated flight safety information is typically distributed to all operators via the manufacturer. So I suppose that all we're dealing with at this time is unsubstantiated rumour with critical pieces missing regardless of the privacy of the source.