Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax

Old 13th Dec 2004, 19:51
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: north of the harbour
Posts: 25
Bill Fowler said investigators' calculations have shifted the probe to the lack of power at takeoff....

The flight data recorder shows the aircraft had a large increase of power just seconds before it attempted to lift off, said Fowler.

"In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum," he said.

Not up to exactly 1.6?
csomesense is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2004, 23:29
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
ShotOne,

OK, don't want to argue about this so perhaps we can agree to disagree on discussion of fatigue as a contributing factor. In my own simple mind, though, what I see is:

a) the aircraft crashed
b) it crashed because it hit the berm
c) it hit the berm because it wasn't going fast enough to take off
d) it wasn't going fast enough because thrust was insufficient
e) thrust was insufficient because....

and there, for the time being, it rests. Waiting for facts.

Cheers,
broadreach
broadreach is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2004, 16:54
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,923
that's nonsense broadreach. If this take off had been attempted at, say, East Midlands (EGNX) it wouldhave hit a motorway embankment. At other MK destinations it would have been buildings. To descibe by your logic the embankment/building/berm as the cause of the accident is not logical or truthful and will not help us pinpoint the cause of this tragic crash.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2004, 23:54
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
ShotOne, pls see PM
rgds,
broadreach
broadreach is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2004, 20:29
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: north of the harbour
Posts: 25
SNAM,

the reason for my post was that previously on this thread it has been stated by a person that:

"1.3EPR was set instead of 1.6" (p27)
"at no time was the throttle firewalled" (p31)
"I have access to what the average aviation person would not" (p31)
"actual data recordings" (p32)
"exactly what the data recorder says. At no time during the takeoff run were the throttles firewalled..." (p35)

My point was that if the chief investigator, Mr Bill Fowler (who we hope has access to the same FDR as the author of the above statements) comes forward with "In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum," how much substance can be put in the comments of the author of the statements quoted above?
csomesense is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2004, 17:03
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
Friday, December 17, 2004 Back The Halifax Herald Limited
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot error blamed for jet crash
Cargo plane's throttle set too low during takeoff, TSB says

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004.../f127.raw.html
Kensiko is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2004, 19:42
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
That would appear to confirm that I knew what I was talking about.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2004, 19:53
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
747focal, you did know.

My guess is that fatigue will be a major factor, and it's interesting that MK has now changed from 24 hour schedules. It seems hard at this point, to see how this will be ruled as anything but pilot error. I do hope this creates a major wake up call for the types of schedules that some operators are using.
Flight Safety is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2004, 20:00
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Flight safety is absolutely paramount to us," Mr. Kruger said. "We've never cut corners with flight safety."

Geepers Eprs is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2004, 07:39
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The British part of the EU
Posts: 50
Grrr

So isn't it time for a CAA audit of this lot? I know they are registered in Ghana, but they operate out of UK. A review of previous PPRuNe threads shows what could be alleged to be a cavalier interpretation of the rules.
Hangin' on is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2004, 02:56
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Great White North
Posts: 27
MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax

. . . first post . . please bear with me . . . sure hope this thing has a spell-checker!!

I have followed this thread with great interest.

I have observed (over the years) that probably 99% of most aircraft accidents have been attributed to human-error (pilot, design, procedures, legislation, maintenance, and operations). In Fact, all accidents probably involve some human-failure factor (that’s why they are called accidents . . . as opposed to an act of terrorism or war).

I do suspect that an error was made that night (early morning) on the flight deck. Why/What . . . I don’t know . . .

I do question why it was necessary to have a 20’ high, 130’ wide earth, rock, and concrete capped mound, supporting a 10’ tall navigation antenna, on the extended centre line of the runway, 1000’ off the end of the runway? This structure has been there for a little more than a year. The prior structure (supporting the previous navigation antenna) was a somewhat frangible structure (gantry . . .collapses when struck).

We all make mistakes . . . surely we can afford ($$$$) to make airport environments where we don’t have to pay for mistake with our lives??? Does privatisation and commercialisation of Air Navigation Systems in the world mean that we must financially compete with 3rd or 4th world nations for the “price-tag” of service delivery?

. . . . I think I’ll star taking the train and boats. . . . .
RESA is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2004, 03:22
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
I did say something, but in respect to the dead I am editting.
747FOCAL is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2004, 07:47
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 44
The point is that the berm was 1000ft off the end off the runway and not directly at the end. Had it not hit the berm it would have very likely hit the trees just beyond.

In terms of safety it is logical to remove all obsticles around the end of a runway, but in reality in many locations houses & roads are built at an equivalent distance from the runway.
Cejkovice is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2004, 19:03
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3
I understand that according to ‘Cejkovice’, houses built “1000ft off the end of the runway” is within acceptable terms of safety. I doubt this to be a reasonable thought. Since MK moved mid-August from Manston to Belgium’s Ostend (to the satisfaction of the Ramsgate neighbourhood), the new host airport has four to five MK-movements a day.
The day before the Halifax crash, MK’s Boeing took off in Ostend bound for Luxemburg, from where it started its unfortunate trip using a “heavy crewing” system. I try to imagine what an improper throttle setting would have caused in Ostend after an extra long schedule flight. At either end of the runway houses and shopping centres are built there at the so-called safety distance of 1000ft (even less). An identical crash would have occurred within an urban area.
I learned from local people that Belgian authorities intend to built more houses in the direct vicinity of the runway. It seems that authorities are not impressed at all by the possible consequences of a similar crash. Put this insanity together with MK’s questionable safety improvements to figure out in which catastrophe such a combination might result. A 1000ft safety distance is far from being reasonable.
Tawny Eagle is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2004, 23:30
  #595 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
Tawny Eagle,

Semantics, perhaps, and pardon me for jumping on your post if my interpretation is mistaken. Cejkovice's comment was, I think, just stating fact, i.e. that a lot of airports have built-up areas within 1,000ft of the threshold. Not that it was safely acceptable.

Anybody the slightest bit concerned with safety - of crews, passengers and local inhabitants - would prefer a 2000m long cone of uninhabited, preferably paved but if not, flat ploughed land, at either end of a runway.

But life isn't like that, is it. Land's expensive and, funnily enough, it's more expensive near airports that have the potential to draw cargo. And local housing/zoning councils have their own agendas, sometimes more short-term and resembling killing the goose than one would like.

Last edited by broadreach; 22nd Dec 2004 at 23:45.
broadreach is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2004, 07:58
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3
Broadreach,

I think you are right. I misunderstood. Semantics indeed!

So, Cejkovice, I apologize.
Tawny Eagle is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2004, 16:51
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,252
The standard minimum distance for a clearway or stopway is 1000'. After that, houses, berms, roads, drop-offs etc. are all permitted as long as they are below the obstruction clearance slope.

If we consider going to the considerable expense of providing arrestor beds before solid obstacles Arrester Bed Examples , we come up against the fact that arrestor beds are designed to handle a 70 kt. overrun of a decelerating a/c.

A 747 at 130kt. and full power may well exceed the capacities of an arrestor bed.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2004, 05:14
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Great White North
Posts: 27
I recognise that many airports in the world have a “skin-tight” adherence to obstacle zoning restrictions. This is too frequently due to the lack of “Officials’ ” willingness (balls$) to enforce or legislate restrictions.

I realise that it is sometimes due to a question of topography . . . where else can you put the airport given the mountains, valleys, buildings, etc.!? This was not the case in Halifax

I don’t accept that citing the failures of others is justification or a rationale for taking the cheapest or easiest way out of a design problem.

I also recognise that frangibility and zoning restrictions have had very little impact on reducing the number of recorded incidences of accidents. These restrictions have however, (when properly observed) been significant in reducing the “consequences” of accidents (sort-of the whole idea?).

In this particular incident, the previous antenna was mounted on a structure deemed frangible. The replacement (upgraded) antenna was not placed on a comparably frangible structure. Why? ($$$$$?). Better yet, why not the frangible structure that existed (with some refurbishing)?

There remains some 400 feet plus, of clearway/stopway behind the structure in question, (still on airport property) followed by a hundred feet plus of rather scraggly trees (still on airport property).

(for scale;
- the antennae/concrete slab is ~ 130-ft. wide.
- also, frame centre high, a little right of runway extended centre-line, is the entire tail section of the 747).



(Hmmm . . seems either TSB or PPRuNe don't like linking their photos?? . . . ASP's a problem? . . . you've got the link . . . take a look)

Looking closely at the 16 antennae sitting on the concrete (the little orange things sitting on the grey slab), it appears that only 9 antennae are missing. The width of the structure that impacted the antennae would appear to be something about 65-ft. or less . . . too small for the wings . . . too big for just the fuselage?

Also note that there appears to be “orange confetti” behind the antennae. The confetti is actually what is left of the antennae (post-impact). Nice that the 10-ft tall antennae were frangible . . . unfortunately, the 20-ft. high mound isn’t.

Zoom in on the centre of the antennae mound. The stuff sticking out in front of the concrete slab (just left of centre-line) is a/c fuselage from the tail impact on the concrete/mound.

If someone is installing or refurbishing an airport facility (ILS), within the airport property, with 400-500 plus feet of airport property clearway/stopway behind you, the antennae facility is fully frangible (in accordance with ICAO’s latest requirements), the existing structure is deemed frangible, all the approach lights around you are required to be frangible (ICAO), why would anyone choose to replace a frangible gantry with a 20-ft. high concrete, rock, and earth mound to elevate the antennae?$?$?$?
RESA is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2005, 01:15
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,252
It's possible the localiser antennae work better off a flat surface than somewhere up in the air. The navaid folks may be able to comment knowledgeably.

I'm not so sure that a berm is cheaper than a gantry as moving that amount of earth and making it stable ain't cheap.

If, for argument's sake, there was a frangible gantry instead of a berm, the prospects for a successful takeoff after going through a gantry would be diminished by the indigestion the engines would suffer as some of the pieces were sucked in.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2005, 07:22
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Heart of Darkness
Posts: 186
Maybe it's time the authorities re-thought the safety implications and adjusted the requirements to modern aviation....cleared area requirements date back probably to the '50s.... a 744 fully laden has iinertia way beyond anything contemplated 50 years ago....a fully loaded 380 will take us into another dimension (metaphorically speaking for any pedants out there)...one day not too far into the future cargo 380's will be operating regularly out of the same airports....Airports need to be within reasonable distance of the city's they serve...land within that same distance is always expensive as it's considered commuter friendly....ultimately and inevitably safety factors will always be compromised by the financial bottom line....it's an aviation fact of life...
poorwanderingwun is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.