Thanks pacplyer. Indeed, the color differences between the smaller and larger part of the lake in the sat picture are deceptive.

Regards,
Green-dot

There is a strange contradiction in the crash site pictures.
The length of the debris field seems what one could expect from an aircraft crashing at climb-out speed.
However the picture of two engines sitting side by side and both pointing the same direction implies low fwd speed.:confused:

The fact that all three engines seen in the pictures show little to no rotational damage has me puzzled.
Even at idle RPM I would expect to see more damage done, either by flattening of the fan case on impact, or by dirt and debris being ingested.

The cockpit interior pictures are a grim reminder of what Murphy will do given the oppertunity.

Thoughts with all affected :(

Did you note the severe fan damage to the 4th engine as well? That appears to be the cacass without a fan case visible.

So what does hitting a house do to an engine?

Huck:

KSEA-FAJS direct on a delivery flight with pre-cooled fuel IIRC.

Standardization of audio controls
 

Some guys on the line can't comment for obvious reasons.

Question to retired guys:

High altitude 747 t/o's are essentially semi-unpressurized, packs off, (which is different than some jets that allow a pack to run at t/o on apu, IIRC

I can't get to my books out here, but I seem to remember a high altitude procedure & charts where all bleeds are kept off until clean up. This ensures extra power for first, second, and final segment climb capabilities.

Operational profiles are different at different carriers but, we used to typically call for climb power at 1500ft AGL and then level off to accelerate at 3000 feet AGL. After flps 1 call, IIRC, the bleeds would be re-opened as to provide PDU function for the slats retract call typically at around 220kts according to weight.

Bogota's 8400 ft field elevation plus 3K equals 11,400 meaning a cabin altitude warning horn would go off at cabin altitude of before 10K, right? Did you don masks before t/o?

We have a second-hand report from a cab driver that the crew were wearing Oxygen Masks when found. My reason for focusing on this is that we had at least five different types of audio selector in our fleet of 747's when I flew it. It was not a simple thing in the dark to don the mask and wrestle with a dirty, poorly lit, confusing unit that was different than the simulator. Some you flipped a switch, others you flipped two switches, some you lifted and turned a knob and flipped a switch, some you depressed a button and turned two knobs .... and if you didn't get the speaker volume and selector volume up, you just wasted your time and had to start over again. I just can't see how anybody could do a good job navigating or communicating with this damn impediment in play.

Back before de-regulation, carriers had the money and the safety culture to attempt to standardize fleet cockpits. Not saying that this had anything to do with the Bogota accident. But this could have been a factor. JMHO's only.

It's clear to me at least, that deregulation of airlines, banks and oil just hasn't worked out at all!

pac

pacplyer . . .
 

One pack goes on at 400AGL, it's included in the performance criteria, including 3-eng climb. Nobody wears oxygen masks at BOG [8360], unless perhaps you're a heavy smoker and have difficulty breathing.

Pax 74s had been operating into BOG [AV- Avianca] way back in the 70s; bleeds are not kept off during the inital climb. It's an elementary certification criteria; if the airplane couldn't climb on 3-eng with pressurization capability, then it wouldn't be certified to operate at this high altitude airport.

By the way, 74s also operate into UIO - Quito, where the elevation is 9226 feet. :ooh:

74 classic bleeds are on for take off-they run the adp's to help gear retraction. As previously stated first pack on at 400 feet. Take off is always unpressurized. The Connie birds are actually very well equipped. Glass adi/hsi, dual fms, in all a/c; electronic flight bags in most soon to be all. Not typical of the "bottom feeders" as many are ignorantly trying to assert. Take off performance is computer based for each specific runway and of course always takes into account an engine loss on take off. That was a very experienced crew and I really don't see this event as being as simple as a single engine loss on departure.

No Bleeds = No Packs
 

glueball & Junkflyer (man, you gotta change that screen name!),

Isn't there a field in Lima Peru or someplace in Peru that has a Takeoff above 10,000 ft field elevation? Maybe that's where a "bleeds off" t/o is required in the performance charts in ground school. The supplemental procedure would be part of the individual airline's AOM as approved by the POI. The data it is derived from would come from Boeing performance data/charts in Seattle. I don't think its a case of a binary question of: are bleeds off required or not required by certification data. At certain high gross weights if an operator wishes to avail himself of that higher weight capability he must find a way in the already certified master 747-200 performance data at boeing to allow that heavy-high operation. The gain might be another 8,000 lbs of permited TOGW for example if all four bleeds are selected off until after cleanup.

I could have sworn there was a (packs off & three bleeds off then?) procedure and charts for this but maybe you guys don't do this anymore. If I can find it I'll have to post it up here in about three months when I get back to the states. In the meantime, I'll just have to take your word for it guys. :O

Cheers & thanks for the insight.

74s are not certificated to operate from fields above 10,000 feet.

In South America, the highest major commercial airport is at La Paz, Bolivia [LPB/SLLP] 13,313 feet; In Peru there is Cuzco [CUZ/SPZO] at 10,855'

That's it. And agreed, 10,000 ft is the absolute limit for certification t/o and landing. (But now I'm positive that there's a two bleeds off t/o performance chart, now that I think about it..... ) Right?

Just thinking about operating this high is giving me a nosebleed though! :uhoh:

747 classic bleeds are open for take off not just for air driven pumps.Leading edge flaps are also air driven. Many years ago [LH I think] did a bleeds off departure [in error] = no leading edge flaps =crash.

Manley,

Not to pick nits, but the leading edge flaps (e.g. inboard krugers) are actually hydraulically operated. They droop open on the ground until ADP's (air driven hydo pumps) are turned on or engine-driven hydro pumps start up. The fiberglass leading edge slats, however, are air-driven, activated by the PDU's (Pnematic Drive units.) But you don't need those until the "Slats retract call." It won't crash loosing air because the PDU has an internal locking mechanism. It is well known that inop bleeds can be defered and wired shut. MEL restrictions then apply.

Agreed, some bleed is needed to pressurize the air "head" on the hydro reservoirs, ADP gear service assist etc. So I guess the 4 bleeds off was the 146 or something.... my apologies.

I remember that you can t/o with the apu running (you actually get 600 lbs extra thrust out of it! But can't count that.) Refresh my memory here.... can the APU supply any elect or pnem demands during t/o (per ops procdrs)? Maybe it was just for back up....

I'm doing pretty good on this oral, huh?

Hand me a bigger shovel so I can dig deeper.... :}

One regular destination of the -400F is LTX with an elevation of 9200ft.
3 Packs-off take-off can be done, but normally not needed over there.
In NBO it's often a necessity. After thrust reduction in climb-out one by one the packs on again. Gives indeed some gain. Bleeds always remain on, though.

pacplyer,

I'm not sure which A/C you are talking about (727?) but the 747 LE krueger and variable leading edge flaps are all pneumatic with electrical back up.

Manley, & SMOC,

You are right, they are air driven, my mistake. Manley, you may also be right about the 747 crash, but I am not aware of the leading edge device accident you refer to.

Thanks guys for keeping me honest.

Cheers

Excuse the human diversion from this important analysis:rolleyes:

Does NO-ONE have news of the recovery of the injured?

BOAC,

Fruitless Analysis over. I yield the floor.

Most of the injured will be returning home shortly. Kalitta flew families there to be with the crew and to bring them home.

Link to 747 crash Nairobi:
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-130 D-ABYB Nairobi-Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (NBO)

Regards

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.