MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can the insurance assement be issued before the Official Airworthiness Authority report ??
Are they saying they know better ??
I suspect that this is just a financial document as if there is a hold harnmless clause then they will pay out in any event.
Are they saying they know better ??
I suspect that this is just a financial document as if there is a hold harnmless clause then they will pay out in any event.
Insurance assessment
When an accident of this magniture happens representatives of the various insured interests will be amongst the first people on the spot. They will usually be independent surveyors, practical people from the industry, with accident investigation experience. They won't stick around for the final details, just long enough to get a good idea in their own minds as to what happened, why, and to what extent the underwriters they are working for are exposed. As much as anybody else, they want to know the truth and their job is to get as precise a picture as possible back to their principals, the cargo or hull underwriters, via an assessment.
The assessment isn't binding, isn't valid in a court of law, isn't necessarily a reflection of what the accident investigation team will come up with. But it's likely to be a decent professional analysis of what happened and of where liability, if any, will rest.
If someone in Spain has seen the assessment it might be reasonable to suspect it was prepared on behalf of cargo interests, since at least a large proportion if not all of the cargo was destined to Spain and could well have been covered there. If so, the surveyor(s) would have been primarily concerned with ensuring there was no evidence of under-declaring cargo weight.
This is all quite natural and expected when an accident happens and insurance has to be paid out. It would be grossly negligent for an insurer not to send someone to check out all the potential liabilities.
Having said that, if in fact the assessment is on behalf of cargo, the surveyor is more likely to have been someone very conversant with cargo, i.e. an experienced loadmaster. And his brief will be to verify that cargo was weighed, loaded, stowed etc correctly. He may have views, facts and even opinions as to the cause of the accident, formed from the inevitable contact with the accident investigation team and with surveyors representing the hull insurers, but if he's at all professional, they're not likely to be expressed in an assessment unless they are indisputable and certain to be included in the final accident report.
When an accident of this magniture happens representatives of the various insured interests will be amongst the first people on the spot. They will usually be independent surveyors, practical people from the industry, with accident investigation experience. They won't stick around for the final details, just long enough to get a good idea in their own minds as to what happened, why, and to what extent the underwriters they are working for are exposed. As much as anybody else, they want to know the truth and their job is to get as precise a picture as possible back to their principals, the cargo or hull underwriters, via an assessment.
The assessment isn't binding, isn't valid in a court of law, isn't necessarily a reflection of what the accident investigation team will come up with. But it's likely to be a decent professional analysis of what happened and of where liability, if any, will rest.
If someone in Spain has seen the assessment it might be reasonable to suspect it was prepared on behalf of cargo interests, since at least a large proportion if not all of the cargo was destined to Spain and could well have been covered there. If so, the surveyor(s) would have been primarily concerned with ensuring there was no evidence of under-declaring cargo weight.
This is all quite natural and expected when an accident happens and insurance has to be paid out. It would be grossly negligent for an insurer not to send someone to check out all the potential liabilities.
Having said that, if in fact the assessment is on behalf of cargo, the surveyor is more likely to have been someone very conversant with cargo, i.e. an experienced loadmaster. And his brief will be to verify that cargo was weighed, loaded, stowed etc correctly. He may have views, facts and even opinions as to the cause of the accident, formed from the inevitable contact with the accident investigation team and with surveyors representing the hull insurers, but if he's at all professional, they're not likely to be expressed in an assessment unless they are indisputable and certain to be included in the final accident report.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Mostly airborne", Punkalouver? I don't think so. Either you're airborne or you're not. In the case of a tailstrike on rotation, I suppose you could argue that, for an instant, you're "mostly" airborne but then you quickly become truly airborne, as the whole aircraft leaves the ground. But in this case, didn't the tail actually drag along the ground until it broke off?
Rockhound
Rockhound
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very well describing this as a great achievement, Got the T shirt -and I don't doubt that Mr Kruger must be a very hard nosed and capable businessman to achieve what he has -but that should not , indeed MUST not stop us looking hard atwhy so many aircraft with his initials on the tail have crashed.
Does anyone know what the planned flight duty period was for the unfortunate crew at YHZ? It was certainly very long -reported in the Times as being 24hrs! Perhaps legal in Ghana but not in some other places. Pilots DO make mistakes when forced into duties like that -especially if they have positioned on an intercontinental flight before the duty even starts.
Does anyone know what the planned flight duty period was for the unfortunate crew at YHZ? It was certainly very long -reported in the Times as being 24hrs! Perhaps legal in Ghana but not in some other places. Pilots DO make mistakes when forced into duties like that -especially if they have positioned on an intercontinental flight before the duty even starts.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
punkalouver,
I don't believe flying in ground effect is considered airborne. FAR 25 considers an aircraft out of ground effect when the aircraft has achieved an altitude greater than the length of it's wingspan.
I don't believe flying in ground effect is considered airborne. FAR 25 considers an aircraft out of ground effect when the aircraft has achieved an altitude greater than the length of it's wingspan.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately ShotOne, long duty periods are allowed by many regulatory authorties.
One company where I worked, used 14CFR121 as their regulations, and I can recall 747 augmented crews (2 Capts, one First Officer, one Flight Engineer) having a duty limit of...24 hours.
Certainly not unheard of.
One company where I worked, used 14CFR121 as their regulations, and I can recall 747 augmented crews (2 Capts, one First Officer, one Flight Engineer) having a duty limit of...24 hours.
Certainly not unheard of.
Hobie, don't mention it. What I wrote was sheer speculative deduction anyway.
I very much liked, and agree entirely with, Captain Airclues's comment:
"Many lessons can be learned even from incorrect speculation and many accidents have been prevented by information gleaned during these discussions."
I think you can bet that the accident investigators and all the surveyors representing the various interests - hull, cargo, individual cargo owners, consignees etc - will have met up occasionally during the first few days after the accident and gradually exchanged views, debated what could have happened and, also gradually, honed their own opinions. Halifax is not exactly large and if you're a surveyor you'll definitely want to be in the same hotel as the rest of the people involved in the investigation. A week, ten days after the accident there will probably be some sort of privately held consensus as to what really might have happened.
You won't see any of those published until after the official accident report is produced. But the industry is not that large and within a month or so, way before it's published, the real reasons or as close as the collective minds are able to reach them, will be known throughout the industry. And the lessons added to SOPs in many cargo airlines. Including MK's.
I very much liked, and agree entirely with, Captain Airclues's comment:
"Many lessons can be learned even from incorrect speculation and many accidents have been prevented by information gleaned during these discussions."
I think you can bet that the accident investigators and all the surveyors representing the various interests - hull, cargo, individual cargo owners, consignees etc - will have met up occasionally during the first few days after the accident and gradually exchanged views, debated what could have happened and, also gradually, honed their own opinions. Halifax is not exactly large and if you're a surveyor you'll definitely want to be in the same hotel as the rest of the people involved in the investigation. A week, ten days after the accident there will probably be some sort of privately held consensus as to what really might have happened.
You won't see any of those published until after the official accident report is produced. But the industry is not that large and within a month or so, way before it's published, the real reasons or as close as the collective minds are able to reach them, will be known throughout the industry. And the lessons added to SOPs in many cargo airlines. Including MK's.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
>In the case of a tailstrike on rotation, I suppose you could >argue that, for an instant, you're "mostly" airborne but then >you quickly become truly airborne, as the whole aircraft leaves >the ground.
Or in this case, they became completely airborne when the tail broke off after hitting the berm.
>I don't believe flying in ground effect is considered airborne. FAR >25 considers an aircraft out of ground effect when the aircraft >has achieved an altitude greater than the length of it's >wingspan.
Could be true. But that would mean that the Spruce Goose never got airborne. I'll have to let them know.
Or in this case, they became completely airborne when the tail broke off after hitting the berm.
>I don't believe flying in ground effect is considered airborne. FAR >25 considers an aircraft out of ground effect when the aircraft >has achieved an altitude greater than the length of it's >wingspan.
Could be true. But that would mean that the Spruce Goose never got airborne. I'll have to let them know.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting that, according to 747FOCAL, the authorities consider that an aircraft is not truly airborne until its height above the ground at least equals its wingspan. This would mean that a 747 would need to be nearly 200 feet off the ground before it could be considered airborne. This doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I question the reality of ground effect in the case of an ascending aircraft. But who am I to argue with the authorities?
The tail section of the MK aircraft struck the runway twice during its takeoff roll but apparently the aircaft did lift off the end of the runway, i.e. become airborne in the non-FAR 25 sense - but only just because the next instant the sagging tail section struck the berm.
I still don't understand why no one on this thread has addressed the question of why a crewmember advanced the throttles by a significant amount late (around V1) in the takeoff roll, instead of calling an abort. Much has been made of the fact that the crew may have been very tired. At least one of them, though, was not so tired that he didn't notice that the thrust setting was too low. He knew it takes time for an engine to spool up. He knew there was enough runway left in which to come to a stop. Why did he think they could make it?
Rockhound
The tail section of the MK aircraft struck the runway twice during its takeoff roll but apparently the aircaft did lift off the end of the runway, i.e. become airborne in the non-FAR 25 sense - but only just because the next instant the sagging tail section struck the berm.
I still don't understand why no one on this thread has addressed the question of why a crewmember advanced the throttles by a significant amount late (around V1) in the takeoff roll, instead of calling an abort. Much has been made of the fact that the crew may have been very tired. At least one of them, though, was not so tired that he didn't notice that the thrust setting was too low. He knew it takes time for an engine to spool up. He knew there was enough runway left in which to come to a stop. Why did he think they could make it?
Rockhound
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I agree, 411 some authorities do allow long fdp's. I don't know what the Ghana regulations allow, but it does make Mr Krugers claim that their regulations are the "exact same as EU" seem a bit weak.
It is a fact that even the best pilots DO make more mistakes when given such duties...especially if they immediately follow an intercontinental positioning flight.
It is a fact that even the best pilots DO make more mistakes when given such duties...especially if they immediately follow an intercontinental positioning flight.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
> no one on this thread has addressed the question of why a >crewmember advanced the throttles by a significant amount >late (around V1) in the takeoff roll, instead of calling an abort.
You are a thousand or 800 feet from the end of the runway in a 747 at very high speed thinking you are near your rotation speed. If you reject the plane will almost certainly be destroyed and you have a high chance of dying. If you rotate now and add power(this has happened before successfully to avoid a collision) you may very well make it with little or no damage. Your time frame to decide was equivelant to reading the first few words on this post. I think you will find that many posters here would have done the same. Maybe myself included. The aviation industry teaches us to be go -oriented at high speed.
You are a thousand or 800 feet from the end of the runway in a 747 at very high speed thinking you are near your rotation speed. If you reject the plane will almost certainly be destroyed and you have a high chance of dying. If you rotate now and add power(this has happened before successfully to avoid a collision) you may very well make it with little or no damage. Your time frame to decide was equivelant to reading the first few words on this post. I think you will find that many posters here would have done the same. Maybe myself included. The aviation industry teaches us to be go -oriented at high speed.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding punkalouver's comment that "Actually, I believe they did get mostly airborne...except the tail until it broke off."
If you read my earlier posting on this thread, you would find that aerial photos of the crash site had revealed that the 747's wheels made tracks in the grass all of the long way from the end of the runway to the berm. The wheels never lifted off the ground, irrespective of how many times the tail also touched the ground. To me, this equals "never airborne".
If you read my earlier posting on this thread, you would find that aerial photos of the crash site had revealed that the 747's wheels made tracks in the grass all of the long way from the end of the runway to the berm. The wheels never lifted off the ground, irrespective of how many times the tail also touched the ground. To me, this equals "never airborne".
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of a comment is that, 747FOCAL?
If you are replying to McGinty, his observations are valid. I'm a pilot and have operated in & out of Halifax hundreds of times. Whatever point you were trying to make got missed on me. Whatever credability you still had just got blown away here.
I've been following this thread from the beginning with great interest. Lots of good stuff to think about and reflect on has come up from lots of sourses. I once knew M.T. and was greatly saddened by his loss.
Cut the arrogance and stick to the topic.
If you are replying to McGinty, his observations are valid. I'm a pilot and have operated in & out of Halifax hundreds of times. Whatever point you were trying to make got missed on me. Whatever credability you still had just got blown away here.
I've been following this thread from the beginning with great interest. Lots of good stuff to think about and reflect on has come up from lots of sourses. I once knew M.T. and was greatly saddened by his loss.
Cut the arrogance and stick to the topic.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lastcall- I don't know where the post went about firewalling the engines and a bunch of other movie crap went but no I was not refering to either of the posts right before your last. Your a bit quick out of the gate aren't you?
Rockhound - Read the FARs, specifically FAR 25. It plainly says right there that a plane is not out of ground effect according to the FAA until it has reached an altitude equal to it's wingspan.
I never said everybody thought that about ground effect. I said I thought that was my understanding.
Rockhound - Read the FARs, specifically FAR 25. It plainly says right there that a plane is not out of ground effect according to the FAA until it has reached an altitude equal to it's wingspan.
I never said everybody thought that about ground effect. I said I thought that was my understanding.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McGintry is right, the aircraft never really got off the ground, the tire track evidence off the end of the runway and on the berm makes that clear.
Punkalouver, you said:
That is exactly why these pilots died in this particular accident, because they were go-oriented at V1, at the end of a chain of events. I personally think that this is one of the most interesting discussion points about this accident.
Regarding "insurance assessments", I don't know why ANYONE would rely of this as contributing ANYTHING factual to this accident investigation. Depending on the integrity of the insurance company, the "assessment" is nothing more than the conclusion reached by the insurers, as to whether they will be liable for a claim or not. In this case, if an "assessment" was made this early in the investigation, then the insurance agent (or company) MAY only be stacking out it's position in a potential claim dispute. This company may not be doing this, but in any case, an "insurance assessment" should ALWAYS be looked upon as a document that's potentially biased, due to the obvious conflict of interest for the insurance company. In any event, the description of the cause (or causes) of the accident will merely reflect the decision made by the insurance company, as to whether they are liable for the claim or not. It shouldn't have any direct bearing on the actual causes, which are best determined by the government's accident investigating agency.
Punkalouver, you said:
The aviation industry teaches us to be go -oriented at high speed.
Regarding "insurance assessments", I don't know why ANYONE would rely of this as contributing ANYTHING factual to this accident investigation. Depending on the integrity of the insurance company, the "assessment" is nothing more than the conclusion reached by the insurers, as to whether they will be liable for a claim or not. In this case, if an "assessment" was made this early in the investigation, then the insurance agent (or company) MAY only be stacking out it's position in a potential claim dispute. This company may not be doing this, but in any case, an "insurance assessment" should ALWAYS be looked upon as a document that's potentially biased, due to the obvious conflict of interest for the insurance company. In any event, the description of the cause (or causes) of the accident will merely reflect the decision made by the insurance company, as to whether they are liable for the claim or not. It shouldn't have any direct bearing on the actual causes, which are best determined by the government's accident investigating agency.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FS ... I agree .... I was hoping the guy who raised the subject of "Insurance Assessment" might tell us all why he considered it to be so important at this time ..... he did tease us all by saying he had seen the assessment 