MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
1.3 instead of 1.6 EPR sounds a large error...... But a very plausible explanation. Does it have any substance or is it just a rumour?
Some years ago, a certain Big Airline was contracted to do charter flights for the military. One day one of their 747 crews entered the RW length as 12000 ft instead of 10000. The a/c only just managed to become airborne.......
Some years ago, a certain Big Airline was contracted to do charter flights for the military. One day one of their 747 crews entered the RW length as 12000 ft instead of 10000. The a/c only just managed to become airborne.......
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Queenslander, in my Company any significant difference between loadsheet and weight & balance computer read out was investigated before further flight.
Just another number
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to know if MK operste a mix of engine types. Several years ago a major airline operated a mix of P&W powered 747-100s and RR powered 747-200s. Because of the different situation of the probes, the max EPR on the -100 was 1.44 and the max EPR on the -200 was 1.63. On a max power take-off from Miami, the engineer, who had been predominently flying the -200, set 1.63 instead of 1.44. The aircraft performed very well but they didn't use the engines again. Do it the other way round and you might not use the plane again.
Airclues
Airclues
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airclues
I'd be very suprised at that 'cause although it's possible to get a 9D to do that, the give away is the little orange lights on the EGT guages that come on at 915c. ............I suppose they could have snagged it for an EGT limited shortfall
I believe the MK a/c had JT9D-7Q3, they have a (max) T.O EPR of 1.51 (standard day!) so to set it at 1.3 the t/l wouldn't be even half way up the 'gate', at that setting the 3.0 bleed would be barely closed.
I'd be very suprised at that 'cause although it's possible to get a 9D to do that, the give away is the little orange lights on the EGT guages that come on at 915c. ............I suppose they could have snagged it for an EGT limited shortfall
1.3 instead of 1.6 EPR sounds a large error......
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never been happy with all the overweight theories that have been brandied about on this thread because, I wonder, just how overweight would this aircraft have to be to still be on the ground at the berm? I would doubt that a slight overweight error would result in an accident – it would have to be massive, which is unlikely. A simulator or performance exercise would prove or disprove this. There are, or should be, pads built into the performance figures to cater for slight errors – I do not know if MK retain the pads in their performance data.
Bill Fowler of the TSBC said “they needed more thrust”. 747Focal has been told that 1.3epr was set instead of 1.6. A 1.3epr setting, at this weight, at YHZ r/w 24, will cause an accident. If the 1.3 setting proves to be correct then the next question is: Why was 1.3 set instead of 1.6 and why did all three miss the error? I can only think of one possible explanation: Fatigue, mind numbing fatigue.
Bill Fowler of the TSBC said “they needed more thrust”. 747Focal has been told that 1.3epr was set instead of 1.6. A 1.3epr setting, at this weight, at YHZ r/w 24, will cause an accident. If the 1.3 setting proves to be correct then the next question is: Why was 1.3 set instead of 1.6 and why did all three miss the error? I can only think of one possible explanation: Fatigue, mind numbing fatigue.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What could cause a high EPR gauge over-reading? (i.e. on all 4)
borescoping?
compressor wash?
p2T icing (a la Air Florida 732 - AF90 on 13 Jan 1982)
CB's tripping/left out? fuse blowing?
bleed-air selection? aircon configuration?
some pneumatic function?
Overnight parking plugs left in?
Are these EPR gauges easy to misread? The N1 gauges?
What could cause a crew to roll, become distracted and forget to get the correct power "set"?
Would sabotage show up before their t/off roll? (vaseline or ???over the Pt2 probes?)
borescoping?
compressor wash?
p2T icing (a la Air Florida 732 - AF90 on 13 Jan 1982)
CB's tripping/left out? fuse blowing?
bleed-air selection? aircon configuration?
some pneumatic function?
Overnight parking plugs left in?
Are these EPR gauges easy to misread? The N1 gauges?
What could cause a crew to roll, become distracted and forget to get the correct power "set"?
Would sabotage show up before their t/off roll? (vaseline or ???over the Pt2 probes?)
Just a numbered other
Aye!
Fuel100, I'm with you there. Recently been working flat out and making errors, not this big, but then, the holes didn't all line up. For these poor beggars; they (possibly) did
Fuel100, I'm with you there. Recently been working flat out and making errors, not this big, but then, the holes didn't all line up. For these poor beggars; they (possibly) did
Fuel 100
Agree. And I'd suspect the investigators and insurers would soon abandon the likelihood of overweight lobsters as a cause.
Unless, and please take this as pure hypothesizing to support a hypothetical overweight cargo scenario.
What percentage of the aircraft's cubic capacity would fifty tons of lobster in styrofoam boxes (an earlier poster has explained how they're packed, pre-cooled into deep sleep, no water, etc) consume? Guess: 2/3rds? The previously loaded cargo, lawn mowers/tractors, would have been pretty dense.
Next, are 50t parcels the norm? If 5t parcels are more the custom, day after day, then it might be that packing them in a little more densely might develop into one of those accepted habits that put the gross weight out by an acceptable ton or so.
Then, once underdeclaring on small parcels is accepted practice, along comes a much larger booking. Nobody's batted an eyelid over it for yonks so accepting underdeclared weights has become industry policy. Etc.
All the above is stretched hypothesis; when you sit back and think of all the possible circumstances, gross underdeclaring of weight just doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Factor into it that Canadians selling lobsters to Europe are likely to be reasonably acquainted with operational restrictions pertaining to lobsterboats and able to extrapolate onto aircraft what exceeding those restrictions might incur.
So, it just doesn't fit, with me at least.
Agree. And I'd suspect the investigators and insurers would soon abandon the likelihood of overweight lobsters as a cause.
Unless, and please take this as pure hypothesizing to support a hypothetical overweight cargo scenario.
What percentage of the aircraft's cubic capacity would fifty tons of lobster in styrofoam boxes (an earlier poster has explained how they're packed, pre-cooled into deep sleep, no water, etc) consume? Guess: 2/3rds? The previously loaded cargo, lawn mowers/tractors, would have been pretty dense.
Next, are 50t parcels the norm? If 5t parcels are more the custom, day after day, then it might be that packing them in a little more densely might develop into one of those accepted habits that put the gross weight out by an acceptable ton or so.
Then, once underdeclaring on small parcels is accepted practice, along comes a much larger booking. Nobody's batted an eyelid over it for yonks so accepting underdeclared weights has become industry policy. Etc.
All the above is stretched hypothesis; when you sit back and think of all the possible circumstances, gross underdeclaring of weight just doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Factor into it that Canadians selling lobsters to Europe are likely to be reasonably acquainted with operational restrictions pertaining to lobsterboats and able to extrapolate onto aircraft what exceeding those restrictions might incur.
So, it just doesn't fit, with me at least.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye!
I must admit that I feel the same as 747Focal. There are eight good men dead, eight families grieving but where is the accountability?
It seems that the rumours are over and we are left with the reality. The aircraft took off with the wrong thrust setting. (TSBC from the flight recorder, 747Focal from an MK source). Why was 1.3EPR set instead of 1.6EPR? I would suggest that basic procedures were not adhered to because that is the basic culture of the airline, as alluded to by ‘dicconnected’. This would have been compounded by the fact that the crew would have been fatigued. As ‘Zim Crew’ pointed out this was a ‘heavy crew’, I understand that they originated in Europe flew to Bradley Int. then to Halifax were to continue to Zaragoza and terminate in Luxemburg – with possible delays along the way. How was a flight like this ever rostered? I know of no rostering practice that would allow multi sector, multi time zone change like this. The final check would have been the seat of the pants experience that tells you that things do not feel right with the acceleration rate – a feeling that would have been suppressed by profound fatigue.
Where to from here? The head of this airline and its Operations Manager are responsible for its safe operation. They have failed miserably. They need to be bought to account.
The bottom line is that this is a tin pot airline with an appalling safety record that should be shut down for the sake of the remaining crew and the people who live in the vicinity of the airports that they operate to.
I must admit that I feel the same as 747Focal. There are eight good men dead, eight families grieving but where is the accountability?
It seems that the rumours are over and we are left with the reality. The aircraft took off with the wrong thrust setting. (TSBC from the flight recorder, 747Focal from an MK source). Why was 1.3EPR set instead of 1.6EPR? I would suggest that basic procedures were not adhered to because that is the basic culture of the airline, as alluded to by ‘dicconnected’. This would have been compounded by the fact that the crew would have been fatigued. As ‘Zim Crew’ pointed out this was a ‘heavy crew’, I understand that they originated in Europe flew to Bradley Int. then to Halifax were to continue to Zaragoza and terminate in Luxemburg – with possible delays along the way. How was a flight like this ever rostered? I know of no rostering practice that would allow multi sector, multi time zone change like this. The final check would have been the seat of the pants experience that tells you that things do not feel right with the acceleration rate – a feeling that would have been suppressed by profound fatigue.
Where to from here? The head of this airline and its Operations Manager are responsible for its safe operation. They have failed miserably. They need to be bought to account.
The bottom line is that this is a tin pot airline with an appalling safety record that should be shut down for the sake of the remaining crew and the people who live in the vicinity of the airports that they operate to.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the laptop the potential does exist for errors. Garbage in equates to garbage out. Entry of an incorrect weight, i.e. ZFW instead of TOW would have potentially disasterous results. The system that i have used does not prevent you from inputting data as above. Correct use of SOP, would however, pick it up. Rgds.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: north of the harbour
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"crying for the dead" (747Focal): "eight good men dead" (Fuel100): "the way you jump people on their backs"???? (nice English)(A-Floor).
A-Floor - from your pm to me, you have absolutely no reason to make comments like this, especially for the immense lack of flight-deck time you hold! And 747Fecal, looking for sympathy with comments like this will only get you despised more, after the way you post a picture of the afflicted aircraft and then admit that it was taken a year prior to the accident... after it had been through a thunderstorm in Europe.
I won't be reading or responding to this site again, before you ask... I have never worked for this MK airline, but I hope that when something like this happens to you, the rest of the world is better behaved than you when speculating on the reasons for their demise. Their families DO actually know how to locate sites like this on the net, and might actually read and believe your inputs.
PS to Fuel100... Tin pot airline? I should imagine if you made such comments against the airline I fly for, you would be hung, drawn and quartered(?) by many members of your own crew (should you actually be a member of one - or are u a plumber?)
But should you actually be a member of an airline somewhere in this world - I long for the day I meet you and 747Fecal in the same room... should the Gods bless me...... I long for the day.
2 Captains, 1 f/o, 2 f/e's, 1 g/e, 1 loadie = 7
???
edited for sake of clarity and the Queen's english - to foresake all the f's, b's and c's!
To those poor members of this trajedy who might read this thread,
Please remember that all airlines are not as this MK one runs! Some ae luckier than others, but then again, if we all had the ideal job, would we be working at all?
Take care, and love what you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A-Floor - from your pm to me, you have absolutely no reason to make comments like this, especially for the immense lack of flight-deck time you hold! And 747Fecal, looking for sympathy with comments like this will only get you despised more, after the way you post a picture of the afflicted aircraft and then admit that it was taken a year prior to the accident... after it had been through a thunderstorm in Europe.
I won't be reading or responding to this site again, before you ask... I have never worked for this MK airline, but I hope that when something like this happens to you, the rest of the world is better behaved than you when speculating on the reasons for their demise. Their families DO actually know how to locate sites like this on the net, and might actually read and believe your inputs.
PS to Fuel100... Tin pot airline? I should imagine if you made such comments against the airline I fly for, you would be hung, drawn and quartered(?) by many members of your own crew (should you actually be a member of one - or are u a plumber?)
But should you actually be a member of an airline somewhere in this world - I long for the day I meet you and 747Fecal in the same room... should the Gods bless me...... I long for the day.
2 Captains, 1 f/o, 2 f/e's, 1 g/e, 1 loadie = 7
???
edited for sake of clarity and the Queen's english - to foresake all the f's, b's and c's!
To those poor members of this trajedy who might read this thread,
Please remember that all airlines are not as this MK one runs! Some ae luckier than others, but then again, if we all had the ideal job, would we be working at all?
Take care, and love what you do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by csomesense; 8th Nov 2004 at 01:30.