MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie and GlueBall, just fyi, I'm neither a pilot nor an accident investigator, just someone with a keen interest in aviation satefy that dates back to 1997 (the year my interest became strong, though I had some interest in this subject before then).
However I'm like most who participate in these forums, I just want to get to the root cause (or causes) of an accident, and to learn something valuable from the experience. I just want to understand and learn.
However I'm like most who participate in these forums, I just want to get to the root cause (or causes) of an accident, and to learn something valuable from the experience. I just want to understand and learn.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airplane done some sectors between 2 engine change and accident. So I presume that crew would have notice the problems with engines performance (if any) before.
However reading the other tread (report on A330 glider on Azores) you never know.
However reading the other tread (report on A330 glider on Azores) you never know.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Attic
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At my previous employer (operator of 747 classics, 767s and MD11s as far as heavies go) the following seemed to be the case:
Engine change - test run
FC and/or FD check - test flight
Never actually witnessed a multiple engine change, but one would think they would just test the two new engines during a single run-up.
Engine change - test run
FC and/or FD check - test flight
Never actually witnessed a multiple engine change, but one would think they would just test the two new engines during a single run-up.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here and there but mostly lgw
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas,
yes they do cost money. But its cheaper to be registered in a random west african country if you get my drift.
conveniently exempts you from noise legislation as well.
Walks like a duck etc etc.
yes they do cost money. But its cheaper to be registered in a random west african country if you get my drift.
conveniently exempts you from noise legislation as well.
Walks like a duck etc etc.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<
MK doesn't look like a very safe airline to me.
Am I wrong?
>>
MK have about 10 aircraft which conduct - what - 15 flights a day, or let's say 20 maximum.
British Airways (I'm talking mainline) have about 235 aircraft which conduct, let's say, 600 flights a day, maybe a few more.
So, MK fly in a year what BA fly in a day, roughly. MK have had 4 hull losses and two fatal events in their 14 years of operation, say 80,000 flights (probably fewer as the company was smaller in its earlier years).
British Airways have had two fatal events (one of those a mid-air collision, the other at an IT subsidiary, not mainline, but let's be tough) and one other flight-related service full loss since 1974 (when the airline took its present form), or say 6 million flights. The last fatal event was 19 years ago.
The comparative position is obvious, and even if the figures are a bit wrong - the relationship is correct.
Now, I think it's inappropriate to pick on MK, in the wake of an accident, even though you may think I'm picking on them. They merely seem an example of some generic problem in the wider air freight/cargo sector.
My point is really this. We have here yet another accident in the freight/cargo sector. There have been far too many accidents in the sector over 20 or more years, maybe for differing reasons. But regulatory authorities in the major aviation nations have had enough time and evidence, you'd have thought, to investigate why this record is the way it is (in both "Western" countries and elsewhere). Or if they do know, to put into place some remedial programmes to bring about improvements. Yet large cargo aircraft keep on crashing - no doubt, all for differing reasons, and yet there must some common factors, eg. older aircraft, smaller operators, less financially strong or stable operators, more marginal environments, less inherited corporate tradition within operators of a high-level safety culture, weaker SOPs, poorer or weaker regulatory oversight due to lack of fare-paying passengers.....
Is it not also a fact that, perhaps with one exception, freight operations carried out by major passenger airlines, retain the general safety excellence of those airlines ?
So, is there not an issue within the small freight operator community to address here ?
MK doesn't look like a very safe airline to me.
Am I wrong?
>>
MK have about 10 aircraft which conduct - what - 15 flights a day, or let's say 20 maximum.
British Airways (I'm talking mainline) have about 235 aircraft which conduct, let's say, 600 flights a day, maybe a few more.
So, MK fly in a year what BA fly in a day, roughly. MK have had 4 hull losses and two fatal events in their 14 years of operation, say 80,000 flights (probably fewer as the company was smaller in its earlier years).
British Airways have had two fatal events (one of those a mid-air collision, the other at an IT subsidiary, not mainline, but let's be tough) and one other flight-related service full loss since 1974 (when the airline took its present form), or say 6 million flights. The last fatal event was 19 years ago.
The comparative position is obvious, and even if the figures are a bit wrong - the relationship is correct.
Now, I think it's inappropriate to pick on MK, in the wake of an accident, even though you may think I'm picking on them. They merely seem an example of some generic problem in the wider air freight/cargo sector.
My point is really this. We have here yet another accident in the freight/cargo sector. There have been far too many accidents in the sector over 20 or more years, maybe for differing reasons. But regulatory authorities in the major aviation nations have had enough time and evidence, you'd have thought, to investigate why this record is the way it is (in both "Western" countries and elsewhere). Or if they do know, to put into place some remedial programmes to bring about improvements. Yet large cargo aircraft keep on crashing - no doubt, all for differing reasons, and yet there must some common factors, eg. older aircraft, smaller operators, less financially strong or stable operators, more marginal environments, less inherited corporate tradition within operators of a high-level safety culture, weaker SOPs, poorer or weaker regulatory oversight due to lack of fare-paying passengers.....
Is it not also a fact that, perhaps with one exception, freight operations carried out by major passenger airlines, retain the general safety excellence of those airlines ?
So, is there not an issue within the small freight operator community to address here ?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my previous post I suggested that the nature of the cargo did not suggest a high probability of cargo shifting.
CargoOne has also said that "considering that "a load of tractors" has turned into few ATVs [cargo shifting] in fact... is unlikely if you ask me."
But as I have been turning this horrible event over in my mind there is one other bizarre possibility regarding the plane's cargo and its center of gravity that keeps cropping up in my mind.
I have written extensively about accidents in roll-on-roll-off car ferries, where the fact that the vehicle decks of such vessels have no interior bulkheads means that if water ever gets in to the vehicle deck then the vessel becomes unstable very quickly. The analogy that I have always used is to compare the stability of the ship to a tray that has some water in it that you might try to carry with your hand held high. The second that the water begins to slosh in any particular direction, the tray begins to tip over on its side. It is utterly unstable. The lack of interior bulkheads in roll-on-roll-off ferries would produce the same effect for any ship that has water sloshing about on the car deck.
In the case of the MK 747 crash at Halifax, one of the cargo items was lobster. Is there anyone who can tell me if these lobsters were being flown alive and fresh, or if they were dead?
If they were alive and fresh, then they must have been in containers of seawater so as to keep them alive.
Have there been any previous incidences of the shipping containers that these lobsters are packed in splitting open during transit and leaking all their seawater?? Could there have possibly been a load of seawater rushing toward the back of this plane as it tried to take off? If so, then the plane’s center of gravity may have been as unstable as the car ferries that have sunk after getting water into their vehicle holds. (The two most notorious such ferry disasters in Europe were the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge in 1989, and the Estonia in the Baltic Sea just 10 years ago.)
I fully realise that my imagination may be going full blast here, and that many might want to criticise me for raising such an extremely remote and bizarre explanation for this crash. I do not know if it is even feasible to consider that a ton or so of free-flowing water within a 747 could be a destabilising force with regard to pushing the c of g beyond its limits when it rushed back toward the tail at take-off. I do not know if free-flowing water in the hold of a 747 would actually stay there, or if it would immediately flow through to the belly of the plane. Nor do I know if free-flowing water within a 747’s hold would short out all electrical circuits so as to instantly render all the plane's systems inoperative.
But the weirdest thing about the possibility of a ton or so of water leaking from a lobster container would be the fact that, as with those murder mysteries where the victim is killed with an icicle, there would be no direct evidence from a post-crash fire that there was ever any water sloshing around within the hull of the plane prior to it crashing.
Is there anyone out there who can comment about the lobster cargo? Were they live lobsters? Were they in containers of seawater? If so, what is the safety record of these types of lobster containers?
I admit this is a strange line of reasoning. Please don't waste your time telling me I am stupid for thinking these thoughts. Let us hear from someone who can talk authoritatively about the shipping of lobsters by air, and let him or her tell me if I am an idiot for suggesting this as a remotely possible cause of this crash.
CargoOne has also said that "considering that "a load of tractors" has turned into few ATVs [cargo shifting] in fact... is unlikely if you ask me."
But as I have been turning this horrible event over in my mind there is one other bizarre possibility regarding the plane's cargo and its center of gravity that keeps cropping up in my mind.
I have written extensively about accidents in roll-on-roll-off car ferries, where the fact that the vehicle decks of such vessels have no interior bulkheads means that if water ever gets in to the vehicle deck then the vessel becomes unstable very quickly. The analogy that I have always used is to compare the stability of the ship to a tray that has some water in it that you might try to carry with your hand held high. The second that the water begins to slosh in any particular direction, the tray begins to tip over on its side. It is utterly unstable. The lack of interior bulkheads in roll-on-roll-off ferries would produce the same effect for any ship that has water sloshing about on the car deck.
In the case of the MK 747 crash at Halifax, one of the cargo items was lobster. Is there anyone who can tell me if these lobsters were being flown alive and fresh, or if they were dead?
If they were alive and fresh, then they must have been in containers of seawater so as to keep them alive.
Have there been any previous incidences of the shipping containers that these lobsters are packed in splitting open during transit and leaking all their seawater?? Could there have possibly been a load of seawater rushing toward the back of this plane as it tried to take off? If so, then the plane’s center of gravity may have been as unstable as the car ferries that have sunk after getting water into their vehicle holds. (The two most notorious such ferry disasters in Europe were the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge in 1989, and the Estonia in the Baltic Sea just 10 years ago.)
I fully realise that my imagination may be going full blast here, and that many might want to criticise me for raising such an extremely remote and bizarre explanation for this crash. I do not know if it is even feasible to consider that a ton or so of free-flowing water within a 747 could be a destabilising force with regard to pushing the c of g beyond its limits when it rushed back toward the tail at take-off. I do not know if free-flowing water in the hold of a 747 would actually stay there, or if it would immediately flow through to the belly of the plane. Nor do I know if free-flowing water within a 747’s hold would short out all electrical circuits so as to instantly render all the plane's systems inoperative.
But the weirdest thing about the possibility of a ton or so of water leaking from a lobster container would be the fact that, as with those murder mysteries where the victim is killed with an icicle, there would be no direct evidence from a post-crash fire that there was ever any water sloshing around within the hull of the plane prior to it crashing.
Is there anyone out there who can comment about the lobster cargo? Were they live lobsters? Were they in containers of seawater? If so, what is the safety record of these types of lobster containers?
I admit this is a strange line of reasoning. Please don't waste your time telling me I am stupid for thinking these thoughts. Let us hear from someone who can talk authoritatively about the shipping of lobsters by air, and let him or her tell me if I am an idiot for suggesting this as a remotely possible cause of this crash.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were alive and fresh, then they must have been in containers of seawater so as to keep them alive.
The usual method of packing them is to first chill the lobsters live for a few hours while still in their holding tank. This slows their metabolic rate considerably.
Once chilled they are packed in foam containers along with dry insulation. The foam containers are then packed into cargo bins. In this way I believe they can be transported live and fresh for many hours.
No water is involved at all in their packaging.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that even if a "ton of water" did slosh from forward to aft, it would make very little difference. I've got a loadsheet in front of me as I write this; perhaps 1.5% mac shift.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a bit more rational
Leaving at the 700m mark seems to be the most likely reason, not shifting tractors, lobsters in water etc.
MK starts takeoff run at 700m mark, as the plane gets past V1, the crew realise that they suddenly have less runway than expected. They try and rotate to get airborne before the end of the runway, causing the first tail-strike. They can't get airborne so they drop the nose to try and get more speed. Then as they reach the end of the runway, they see the berm 300m ahead and realise they have to get airborne regardless. So they try and rotate again in a hurry, causing the second tail-strike. They manage to take off but can't get enough lift to clear the berm in time, and the tail of the plane strikes the berm, shearing off. Unfortunately, all they can then do is try and bring the hull down and hope for the best.
It has to beg the question, why have a large berm at the end of a runway followed by an uncleared area of woodland? That's asking for trouble and not good disaster avoidance, surely? The crew deaths may have been avoided if there had been clear and level runoff ground beyond the runway for this type of emergency. Surely, lessons must be learned from this sad tragedy.
MK starts takeoff run at 700m mark, as the plane gets past V1, the crew realise that they suddenly have less runway than expected. They try and rotate to get airborne before the end of the runway, causing the first tail-strike. They can't get airborne so they drop the nose to try and get more speed. Then as they reach the end of the runway, they see the berm 300m ahead and realise they have to get airborne regardless. So they try and rotate again in a hurry, causing the second tail-strike. They manage to take off but can't get enough lift to clear the berm in time, and the tail of the plane strikes the berm, shearing off. Unfortunately, all they can then do is try and bring the hull down and hope for the best.
It has to beg the question, why have a large berm at the end of a runway followed by an uncleared area of woodland? That's asking for trouble and not good disaster avoidance, surely? The crew deaths may have been avoided if there had been clear and level runoff ground beyond the runway for this type of emergency. Surely, lessons must be learned from this sad tragedy.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theorise, the deaths of the crew were not caused by the berm, yes the jet hit the berm, but why? Surely there are other factors that contribute to this accident and everyone has their own opinion. If as you say, they pulled the nose off the ground the second time to get airborne, I strongly doubt that the jet would have made the climb and probably would have just been farther away on impact. Not too many aircraft that size do well climbing at slow speeds, you failed to mention Vr, I would assume that Vr was behind them and never to be regained, even without the berm.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you 747 pilots use a derated T/O config given the runway, met conditions and the load carried?
My question is: even from the 700m mark if they get it at full thrust, would it be possible to get airborne before the end of the runway, and cleared of obstacles?
My question is: even from the 700m mark if they get it at full thrust, would it be possible to get airborne before the end of the runway, and cleared of obstacles?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latte tester
why did it hit the berm? cos it didn't have enough runway if it left from the 700m mark.
how did the berm cause the deaths of the crew? cos it took the tail off the plane causing it to crash.
i thought my original post was clear.
why did it hit the berm? cos it didn't have enough runway if it left from the 700m mark.
how did the berm cause the deaths of the crew? cos it took the tail off the plane causing it to crash.
i thought my original post was clear.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hamburg,Germany
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can someone please give us a calculation ?
i mean it must be possible for the professional pilots posting here to calculate how much runway would be necessary for a save take off. you know the met and you know the weight of the plane.
so this would be the first point to rule out or the opposite .....
if your calculation says more then 2000 meters needed (as i understand the runway length is 2700 meters and they started from the 700 meters mark?) then something went terrible wrong.
i am no professional, but the jet was really heavy and i think 2000 meters would be too short ?
i mean it must be possible for the professional pilots posting here to calculate how much runway would be necessary for a save take off. you know the met and you know the weight of the plane.
so this would be the first point to rule out or the opposite .....
if your calculation says more then 2000 meters needed (as i understand the runway length is 2700 meters and they started from the 700 meters mark?) then something went terrible wrong.
i am no professional, but the jet was really heavy and i think 2000 meters would be too short ?