MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax

[bizflyer]

Is it possible to rig some form of built in scale/weighing mechanism to an aircraft undercarriage? Has this been done before or attempted?

[Phileas Fogg]

(Is it possible to rig some form of built in scale/weighing mechanism to an aircraft undercarriage? Has this been done before or attempted?)

Even if it were feasible it would very soon be discarded or stripped-out. Anything that is seemingly uneccessary on a cargo aircraft is stripped-out to increase payload thus increase revenue.

Mentioning no names but some cargo airlines are reputed for knowingly operating several tons overweight and on a regular basis. If such a reputation is earned then shippers and/or ground staff may exploit it.

[747FOCAL]

The 747-400F and combi come standard with a weight and balance system. It is an option on PAX 747-400. There is also a dual system that can be purchased but to my knowledge only CargoLux has ever ordered it.

I think Airbus also has a system for a few of their birds.

The downside of them is that they can/will lie to you and is why they will never replace a loadmaster. Its just a last ditch insurance policy that you hope tells you the few times your airplane is terribly over weight or loaded wrong.

[aardvark2zz]

1st - They keep quoting the payload as being 60,000 kg; isn't that for the passenger version. The cargo version has a max payload of 248,000 lb (112,490 kg) or almost twice.

2nd - I did a quick calculation and the acceleration should have been at least 51 % higher to reach that speed which is quite a lot !!

that means that the thrust EPR settings should have been 51% higher (at least) or that the weight should have been 66% of what it was (or less) or have needed 13295 ft (at least) with that acceleration (thrust and weight). Much more than the 8800 ft available

Big numbers !!! I can only guess wrong EPR settings and, then, some weight issues.

[Sawbones]

When all is said and done regarding the findings of this accident, hopefully someone will look at the Halifax International Airport itself and determine that it is woefully outdated and ill-equipped.

Not to suggest that the environment necessarily caused this disaster, but as we all are familiar with the concept of "risk management" ... well there just isn't much of a safety cushion left at an airport with 2 runways with lengths of 8,800 feet, and 7,700 feet. As most of us are aware now, as I pointed out in an earlier post, to achieve the full length of runway 24 a short backtrack and a 180 is required from the intersection of 15 otherwise, you lose 300'.

From an arrival standpoint, only 2 ILS approaches are available at this airport, well known for frequent adverse Maritime weather. Until recently, the opposite ends were served by backcourse approaches, but now runway 06 has a localizer approach (no glidepath). I have often said that this issue must have been one of the many serious problems facing the unfortunate Swissair crew as they were setting up for the backcourse approach for 06. How much simpler their predicament would have been had they been able to couple onto a full ILS.

I find the facilities at Halifax to be quite appalling, especially considering the number of Trans-Atlantics that overfly and keep the airport in mind as an emergency alternate. There have been many over the years, including Concorde, which must have made the crew really sit up and take notice.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of those "Airport Improvement" fees actually went into safety improvement, and not just to build fancy airport tie/jewelry/souvenir/craft/seafood shops.

But I think I'm dreaming in technicolour.

[Random Electron]

I don't know about the airport itself, but the boys and girls at Halifax Radio 126.7 are incredibly good. Nothing is too much trouble, weathers from Timbuctou to McMurdo Sound, no problem, and even help with Oceanic Clearances when you cannot get a word in edgewise to Gander Radio VHF.

Wish we had that sort of facility in Europe.

[broadreach]

Just a note about underdeclaring weight in international transport.

LatviaCalling's comment regarding declared vs actual weights in shipping containers hits a chord when it comes to cargo that's sold by weight. Some shippers will pack as much as possible into the space available and underdeclare to avoid tax or for a host of other reasons. It happens with bagged cargo, tiles, granite and others where the weight will max out before cube does, sometimes taking the bottom of the container with it.

Whether it's on a ship or an aircraft, when it's knowingly done, it's called fraud.

Manufactured goods are likely to be declared precisely and I think you can be sure the awb for those John Deere lawnmowers or whatever they were, was within a kilo or two of their total weight.

There's no way of telling now if the lobster cargo weighed more than was declared and even suggesting as much might be legally risky. That will probably be a very sensitive subject with MK, the shippers and their respective insurers for some time to come.

[Tan]

Sawbones

Actually according to the charts departing from the intersection of rwy 15 only costs 200 feet. Although depending upon technique a heavy backtrack would only pick up an extra 100 feet or so it is always preferable to have available runway in front then behind you. Regardless I would question why any heavy would not use the backtrack unless their were compelling reasons for not doing so as that is the norm.

I’m rather surprised that you are partially blaming the airport facility for this accident, as this is a real stretch in my opinion as is your reference to the Swissair accident.

However you are perfectly correct in stating that all the airport improvement taxes that our passengers pay should be used for infrastructure improvement. But we both know this is never going to happen as the authorities view aviation as a cash cow.

Cheers

[Sawbones]

Tan

Simply stated: a better equipped airport with longer runways, and precision approaches at all ends has got to be more forgiving of whatever errors/miscalculations/mishandlings that may occur.

I do agree with you that operational people don't look on airports in the same way as do those trying to extract $$$ from the travelling public. Sad.

[bzh]

that is the probem there is no travelling public on board....

cargo is geat, ask the guys.....

pressure are constant..... sometime i w'd say no for pax because of the stupid light that jus came up, on cargo it's fine, if it is that one engine that is acting up, but it's probably a gage issue anyways...

sade but the daily life of pilot is that way....."yea i know this plane has been doing that once in a wile, it's ok just a computer issue" the number a good ....thust me...

DG

[Flywell]

I have to agree and disagree with some of the previous postings.
I feel MK is a success(to a large extent). As one posting put it, they go where most fear to tread and maybe the swiss cheese affect isn't always their fault. These guys fly to some way out places with little or no experience as to what to expect. They learn some harsh lessons as they go but at the end of the day they get the job done.
Now you have to ask why do they get the job done???
First of all they are mostly Zimbos who have lived their whole lives having to make a plan. Second they are hard working and have a pride in doing a good job. This maybe comes from a lot of the crew being ex military with a good discipline. The third reason is they have no choice but to do the job or else they don't get paid.
Lets face it MK exploit and have done for a long time the good will and hard work of the crew. I'm sure if we took at look at where all the top management of MK live and what they earn compared to average Joe the pilot we'd be horribly shocked but not surprised. I bet they don't get paid by the hour!!!
I feel it's time for the crew to stand up to MK now. I know this is easier said than done but surely they'd be better off in the long run.
How does the owner of MK sleep at night??? How does he manage to look his staff in the face knowing that by pushing them the way he has he's created a very sad state of affairs.
Maybe top management should face up to facts and stop living a dream. This might help really get things on track and put MK where it deserves to be after all the hard work put in by exploited memebers of staff (not just crew)
I really hope that one day all who have put so much into the airline reap at least a small reward.... They truely deserve it!!!

[fatmantoo]

I tend to agree with what flywell says, not only are they trying to
become succesfull in a cut throat industry, but are trying to keep
freight flying costs down to maintain customers.
I mean there are not to many other operators keen to fly to the
likes of Port harcourt, malabo, kinshasa, kano etc.
Maybe the management are exploiting the crew and ground staff
but they are still with mk and always have the choice to go elsewhere

[aardvark2zz]

The CBC corrected their news web page after I told them that they made an error !

They originally wrote that the 747 could carry 60,000 kg of payload -- which is true for a passenger plane but not for a cargo plane which is 112,490 kg (varies a bit).

Note: CTV and others also made that same error.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...fax041022.html

Last Updated Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:20:07 EDT (CBC)

Keep the blue side up; wherever up is
.

[ocnus]

MK Overloaded

From today's Sunday Times

Overloading blamed for plane crash that killed four Britons
Dipesh Gadher, Times 24/10/04

A GIANT cargo plane owned by a British-based airline with one of the world’s worst accident records may have been carrying an excessive load before it crashed on take-off in Canada, killing all seven crew.

The accident in Halifax, Nova Scotia, involving a Boeing 747-200, was the fourth time in 12 years that an aircraft owned by MK Airlines has gone down. The victims, who died 10 days ago, included four Britons with dual Zimbabwean nationality.

Although the company’s fleet is registered in Ghana, west Africa, its administrative offices are in Hartfield, East Sussex, and it files its annual accounts to Companies House in Britain.

Founded by Mike Kruger, 47, a former Zimbabwean pilot who resides in Britain for part of the year, MK Airlines transports fresh produce for UK supermarkets. It has also worked for the Ministry of Defence, carrying supplies to troops in Cyprus and the Gulf.

The company’s three previous crashes — including one fatal accident — happened in Nigeria in 1992, 1996 and 2001 and all involved planes approaching landing.

Kruger said there were “extenuating circumstances” found in each case that have led the airline to fit its fleet with enhanced ground-proximity warning systems.

Nevertheless, the Department for Transport (DfT) last week ordered the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to carry out a safety inspection of one of MK Airline’s planes in Britain.

Although the aircraft was later cleared for take-off, it is the third time this year that checks on the airline have been ordered by the DfT.

Last August CAA officials were unable to complete an inspection because MK Airlines moved its operations from Manston airport in Kent to Ostend, Belgium.

The DfT had sought to act on that occasion amid concerns that aviation authorities in Ghana might be failing to ensure aircraft safety. In June the department banned two Ghana Airways passenger jets from landing in Britain.

Full details of the crash in Halifax on October 14 began to emerge last week as accident investigators from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) recovered the 747’s flight data recorder.

Although the plane’s engines were operating normally, investigators found that it was travelling too slow to lift off safely. On Friday the TSB issued a safety notice on the proper weighting of cargoes, suggesting that the aircraft may have been overloaded by a separate handling company. Investigators have refused to confirm this as the cause of the crash.

Kruger denied that his airline had ever compromised safety and insisted that Ghana’s aviation authorities adhered to internationally recognised standards. “We have an extremely strong safety regime,” he said. “The authorities are welcome to inspect us and we are willing to co-operate fully.”

[BEagle]

"On Friday the TSB issued a safety notice on the proper weighting of cargoes, suggesting that the aircraft may have been overloaded by a separate handling company. Investigators have refused to confirm this as the cause of the crash."

Hardly the same thing as "Overloading blamed for plane crash that killed four Britons" as the Sunday Times' Dipesh Gadher appears to claim?

Journos - don't you just love 'em.....

[fatmantoo]

I wonder if the cargo company in Halifax ever considered what
the consequences of estimating the weight would be, or would the price of an extra few tons of freight allow them to not even
care.

[G-BUNZ Seeker]

Having worked at a cargo handling company at LHR in the past and been amazed at the lack of training that related what the job entailed to the effect on loading . As time progressed in the job seeing the difference between the old timers who understood both the commercial reality of the handling company and the practicle contibution to safety through check weighing all freight over 25kg to pallet/uld check weights, and the complete lack on understanding from new staff because this link had not been highlighted in training. Most of the new people thought check weighing on reciept was to check that the cargo agent had not under declared to pay a lower rate!!
Incidently the "old timers" refers to when the handling company was part of a large european airline and therefore training was much broader so even a wharehouse man understood his part in making sure that aircraft got airborne safely.

So if the airway bill said 53,000kgs, the check weight before loading on pallets should have identified this, so that the airline had correct weight figure and not being under paid!

[Breel]

A few comments on performance (a bit late perhaps) to answer a few earlier posts on flap selection ... despite several posts advising that there are too many variables and too many assumptions (... and to a point I agree). So, let me make one assumption: operations normal (as per a cargo airline - carry as much freight as possible because that's how we make money).

A B747-200 (used GE engines as no P&W JT9 figures)
8800ft runway, approx. 400ft amsl, +10 deg C, 5kts HW
Flaps 20 = MTOW 348.0T (... note: zero wind = MTOW 344.5T)
This is field limited max take-off weight.

I think I read earlier that Steve Anderson, MK rep, stated the cargo weighed 103T - so that's what I will use (note: I cannot find that reference now, so please correct me if need be).

Basic Weight = 158T (conservative after MK have stripped it)
Load = 103T (the big question mark!?)
ZFW = 261T (Max ZFW either 267T or 272T)
Fuel = 84T (assumes 6hr flight time plus an hour, 12T)
TOW = 345T (everything legitimate so far)

MAX thrust would be required - no derates.
Speeds: (V1: 147) Vr 161 V2 171
IF Flap 10 was selected in error, Vr 167 V2 178 would be the V speeds at a FLAP 10 setting for 348T. Note: V1 becomes irrelevant and to a point so does the field limited MTOW since the take-off has been continued - all we are concerned about now are the speeds required to get airborne. I am trying to show that, all other things ops normal, a B747 would, in this case, fly if flap 10 was selected instead of a planned flap 20. Rotating 6 knots early would NOT have resulted in this accident.

However, as is coming to light the aircraft never came close to these speeds with "all engines operating normally". Why?
Why are we hearing some reports of 53T- 60T cargo, and other reports of 103T? It points more and more to a gross error in weight of the cargo.
But, as with most accidents, I don't think there will be one isolated event but rather a chain of events that caused this.

Finally: to those who have been discussing the alleged missing wing/fuselage fairing (or not): one or both may be missing; T/O and LDG performance penalty: negligible!
B REEL

[cringe]

Why are we hearing some reports of 53T- 60T cargo, and other reports of 103T?

53 tonnes was a reference to the seafood cargo only. The Halifax Herald on Oct 20th:

The day of the crash, MK Airlines official Steve Anderson said the plane was almost half full of John Deere lawn tractors and "general freight, which is everything from computers to anything you can imagine."

After it arrived in Halifax, it was also loaded with 53,405 kilograms of silver hake and lobster destined for Spain.

Mr. Anderson has said the cargo weighed 103 tonnes and that the plane could carry 110 tonnes.

[Phileas Fogg]

SNAM,
If the shipper declares 53T then they pay for 53T.

If the shipper declares 53T but loads 63T, they still pay for 53T.

It is up to the airline or crew, if suspicious, to demand the load be weighed but commercial pressures and all that .....