MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle:
Why would they use Delta anyway? On a 24 departure, assuming 103T loaded and not tankering, would they have planned to roll directly from Echo without backtracking?
Other than that... wait for the tower tapes... IF this is the area where there was a problem, at least a partial answer should be forthcoming fairly quickly...
R1
If the a/c really did enter the RW at Taxiway Delta, why did the tower not query it? The Delta entrance is almost directly outside the tower window.
Other than that... wait for the tower tapes... IF this is the area where there was a problem, at least a partial answer should be forthcoming fairly quickly...
R1
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Morton-in-Marsh
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be an interesting and useful thread if we could manage to eliminate all the "condolences for the crew" type postings which have no other constructive or useful information in them. Most of these posters (not all) deserve little respect, as they are probably just using the accident to increase their number of postings. If not, they should restrain themselves, as their comments are neither rumours or news.
Every time there is an accident PPrune is a useful site to get an idea of what really happened, but all these banal condolence postings really are banal. OF COURSE we all feel dreadfully sorry for the families of the crew - that should go without saying.
Every time there is an accident PPrune is a useful site to get an idea of what really happened, but all these banal condolence postings really are banal. OF COURSE we all feel dreadfully sorry for the families of the crew - that should go without saying.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Great White North
Age: 51
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a DC-9 crashing on take off from Detroit many years back. I believe that was blamed on incorrect flap settings, but the A/C took off and stalled in a nose high attitude resulting in an initial impact with a power pole and then full impact with a bridge. If slat position were to blame, would the 747 have been a greater distance away? And, as with the 747 crash, if it did not have ample runway to use, would it not have ended up in the field just off the end of the runway where the tail parts were found?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riverboat
The Pprune site is an excellent site to get useful background information but it doesn’t really tell us what happened that is the job of the accident investigators. Spreading needless speculation without the full knowledge of the facts is very unproductive. Speculation on this side of the pond is running rampant as some of the friends of the line crew involved are relating what the line crew heard, saw and experienced. The rumors may very well turn out to be factual but no-one knows for sure. Like every other accident I’m sure that this accident will turn out to be an accumulation of events, remember it’s rare that one event will kill you but a chain of events will…
hobie
Fuel is cheap in CYHZ making the "tankering" or transporting of it to a high fuel cost destination desirable for use on the next leg.
The Pprune site is an excellent site to get useful background information but it doesn’t really tell us what happened that is the job of the accident investigators. Spreading needless speculation without the full knowledge of the facts is very unproductive. Speculation on this side of the pond is running rampant as some of the friends of the line crew involved are relating what the line crew heard, saw and experienced. The rumors may very well turn out to be factual but no-one knows for sure. Like every other accident I’m sure that this accident will turn out to be an accumulation of events, remember it’s rare that one event will kill you but a chain of events will…
hobie
Fuel is cheap in CYHZ making the "tankering" or transporting of it to a high fuel cost destination desirable for use on the next leg.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperate measures
A-FLOOR The configuration anomaly at NBO (D-ABYB) was further compounded upon leaving ground effect due to higher density altitude/high elevation airport. (5300+ feet).
If Vr appears to be long in coming and if the end is near, an unwritten technique of last resort would be to immediately "firewall" the throttles and extend flaps another notch...just to get off the pavement intact. But if leading edge flaps had stayed retracted at YHZ, as you had theorized in one scenario, then this desperate last minute survival measure would have made no difference either.
If Vr appears to be long in coming and if the end is near, an unwritten technique of last resort would be to immediately "firewall" the throttles and extend flaps another notch...just to get off the pavement intact. But if leading edge flaps had stayed retracted at YHZ, as you had theorized in one scenario, then this desperate last minute survival measure would have made no difference either.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel would have to be a hell of a lot cheaper to tanker it for something like 6 hours to spain, something like 20+% cheaper.
But, does one want to put excessive weight into an already heavy freighter on what isn't the longest of runways?
But, does one want to put excessive weight into an already heavy freighter on what isn't the longest of runways?
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas Fogg
Fuel tankerage of 6 hours is no big deal, as it has become quite a cost effective science. The final decision to carry tankerage fuel rests with the Captain or at least it does at my company..
Fuel tankerage of 6 hours is no big deal, as it has become quite a cost effective science. The final decision to carry tankerage fuel rests with the Captain or at least it does at my company..
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tan,
I am fully aware of the viabilities ot tankering fuel, companies normally issue guidelines to Capt's regarding when & where it may be viable to tanker fuel, if they didn't then the Capt. may not be aware of contract fuel prices!
I don't know what science you're referring to but as a rule of thumb, it costs 3+% fuel burn per hour to carry that additional fuel thus it needs to be something like 20% cheaper in YHZ to make it viable on the sector concerned.
I am fully aware of the viabilities ot tankering fuel, companies normally issue guidelines to Capt's regarding when & where it may be viable to tanker fuel, if they didn't then the Capt. may not be aware of contract fuel prices!
I don't know what science you're referring to but as a rule of thumb, it costs 3+% fuel burn per hour to carry that additional fuel thus it needs to be something like 20% cheaper in YHZ to make it viable on the sector concerned.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your 5 cents worth Riverboat.
I think the Condolence messages are really nice for people who knew the crew. I am sure some of the friends and relatives of the crews who read these messages know the faces behind the names on this forum and I am sure they really appreciate the messages of support.
I think the Condolence messages are really nice for people who knew the crew. I am sure some of the friends and relatives of the crews who read these messages know the faces behind the names on this forum and I am sure they really appreciate the messages of support.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas Fogg
Perhaps my airline’s policy differs from the scenario that you have put forth. Flight dispatch normally through a computer program has determined where when, and if it’s cheaper to do tankerage as there is more then the actual cost of the fuel to consider such as hook-up fee’s additional aircraft maintenance costs, operating costs etc. That is why I referred to the carriage of tankerage fuel as a science as the software program is designed to take into account all the various factors. If I recall correctly the rule of thumb that we use is 4% per 10,000# of tankerage fuel carried per hour whatever, as the flight plan tells us exactly how much it fuel it costs to carry the tankerage.
I would dump tankerage fuel in a heartbeat, as would any other Captain if I thought it was going to affect the safety of my operation.
Cheers..
Perhaps my airline’s policy differs from the scenario that you have put forth. Flight dispatch normally through a computer program has determined where when, and if it’s cheaper to do tankerage as there is more then the actual cost of the fuel to consider such as hook-up fee’s additional aircraft maintenance costs, operating costs etc. That is why I referred to the carriage of tankerage fuel as a science as the software program is designed to take into account all the various factors. If I recall correctly the rule of thumb that we use is 4% per 10,000# of tankerage fuel carried per hour whatever, as the flight plan tells us exactly how much it fuel it costs to carry the tankerage.
I would dump tankerage fuel in a heartbeat, as would any other Captain if I thought it was going to affect the safety of my operation.
Cheers..
Last edited by Tan; 16th Oct 2004 at 21:32.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: YVR
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell (from the International press at this stage) if the 747 ever got airborne so far? Apparently it did not.
I believe the investigators said it got airborne with something like 150 meters of runnway left. Evidently not enough to clear the berm. After the tail came off the rest of the plane continued through the air into trees where the wings came off and the fuse hit the ground - breaking up.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tan,
This post should not be diversifying from the subject in hand however I can only presume you work for a healthy passenger airline. Here, we are talking about the rough and tough cargo world.
Sure, I've produced many 'max fuel' computerised flight plans in my career but the systems I worked with only took into consideration aircraft performance and not airfield performance.
It's all very well for an Ops guy to produce such a flight plan but I doubt airfield conditions were taken into consideration, not just the modest runway length but was it contaminated, what was the surface wind, what flap settings were the crew to use etc.
Whether it be via a flight crew notice or a computerised flight plan, the operator would need to notify the Capt. of fuel prices for him to accertain if it was financially beneficial to tanker or not, of course the Capt. would need to take into consideration the RTOW which Ops, at best, would have been only able to second guess at when producing the flight plan.
All your most recent of post does is talk about the flight planning equipment available, I said 3+%, you say 4% so we don't disagree there however I don't believe any Captain should believe a flight plan will tell him EXACTLY how much fuel will be burnt, it'll only do that if it has the winds, payload etc. spot on and those winds may have been forecast some 12 hours previously.
I've never known a Capt. who believes that the flight plan has the fuel burn EXACT! All I said in my original post was that the fuel in YHZ would have to be significantly cheaper to make tankering fuel viable, on your figure of 4% and let's call it a 6 hour leg then it would need to be 25% cheaper to make it viable, I stand by my original post and your writings have not said a single word in dispute of this.
This post should not be diversifying from the subject in hand however I can only presume you work for a healthy passenger airline. Here, we are talking about the rough and tough cargo world.
Sure, I've produced many 'max fuel' computerised flight plans in my career but the systems I worked with only took into consideration aircraft performance and not airfield performance.
It's all very well for an Ops guy to produce such a flight plan but I doubt airfield conditions were taken into consideration, not just the modest runway length but was it contaminated, what was the surface wind, what flap settings were the crew to use etc.
Whether it be via a flight crew notice or a computerised flight plan, the operator would need to notify the Capt. of fuel prices for him to accertain if it was financially beneficial to tanker or not, of course the Capt. would need to take into consideration the RTOW which Ops, at best, would have been only able to second guess at when producing the flight plan.
All your most recent of post does is talk about the flight planning equipment available, I said 3+%, you say 4% so we don't disagree there however I don't believe any Captain should believe a flight plan will tell him EXACTLY how much fuel will be burnt, it'll only do that if it has the winds, payload etc. spot on and those winds may have been forecast some 12 hours previously.
I've never known a Capt. who believes that the flight plan has the fuel burn EXACT! All I said in my original post was that the fuel in YHZ would have to be significantly cheaper to make tankering fuel viable, on your figure of 4% and let's call it a 6 hour leg then it would need to be 25% cheaper to make it viable, I stand by my original post and your writings have not said a single word in dispute of this.
Phileas,
The system I worked with had an option "economical fuelling" which would give the PIC the information on
what the fuel prices were at which port of call,
how much fuel it was economical to carry,
how much the gain would be at intermediate figures
e.t.c.
Any ops guy worth his money and in a company with SOP's worth considering would definitly look into that even before starting calculations. What we would do first would be to go into the IRT's and find out the RTOW we would have to calculate with in the first place bases on TAF and actual conditions. We would then use that as a base for the above calculations. Naturally, the precalculated values were conservative in our company, but the crew would have a good idea on what to plan with.
Being based at an airport which has notorious political problems with tailwind take offs being the rule rather the exeption, we definitly were checking and rechecking these values over and over again until doors closed. Of course we'd do the same for the outstations.
I've been out of profession for 3 years now, but I had a look at some 747-200 IRT's yesterday and a 2700m runway at SL and with 0 wind in the calculation (yes, I know there was some headwind) looks rather short for an intercontinental flight in the best of conditions. Of course the accident plane might have been totally different from the one I looked at, but if I calculate a ZFW of around 260 tons on a 6-7 hour trip, I think with minimum fuel it would push 350 tons. That is a lot of weight to carry out of a 2700 m runway, at least for the -200 series I looked at.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Sure, I've produced many 'max fuel' computerised flight plans in my career but the systems I worked with only took into consideration aircraft performance and not airfield performance.
what the fuel prices were at which port of call,
how much fuel it was economical to carry,
how much the gain would be at intermediate figures
e.t.c.
It's all very well for an Ops guy to produce such a flight plan but I doubt airfield conditions were taken into consideration, not just the modest runway length but was it contaminated, what was the surface wind, what flap settings were the crew to use etc.
Being based at an airport which has notorious political problems with tailwind take offs being the rule rather the exeption, we definitly were checking and rechecking these values over and over again until doors closed. Of course we'd do the same for the outstations.
I've been out of profession for 3 years now, but I had a look at some 747-200 IRT's yesterday and a 2700m runway at SL and with 0 wind in the calculation (yes, I know there was some headwind) looks rather short for an intercontinental flight in the best of conditions. Of course the accident plane might have been totally different from the one I looked at, but if I calculate a ZFW of around 260 tons on a 6-7 hour trip, I think with minimum fuel it would push 350 tons. That is a lot of weight to carry out of a 2700 m runway, at least for the -200 series I looked at.
Best regards
AN2 Driver
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Over The Harbour
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dickyd737
If you have nothing better to say then keep off this forum.
Facts are what we want not incorrect figures that spark more rumours. Think before you write
onehotflyer
Well put I think riverboat is one heartless person.
Show some compassion !!!!
If you have nothing better to say then keep off this forum.
Facts are what we want not incorrect figures that spark more rumours. Think before you write
onehotflyer
Well put I think riverboat is one heartless person.
Show some compassion !!!!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigators confirm that tail of cargo jet hit runway before crash
Steve Macleod
Canadian Press
October 16, 2004
HALIFAX -- A Boeing 747 was barely airborne when it rocketed off the end of a runway, broke its back on an earthen mound, then careened out of control into thick woods and brush.
Investigators working in scorched wreckage and driving rain began Friday to reconstruct the final, harrowing seconds of the doomed flight of the MK Airlines Ltd. cargo plane. What they've already learned is that the tail of the wide-body jet struck the runway twice during takeoff early Thursday, then broke off after hitting a mound, or berm, topped by an antenna.
All seven crewmen were killed in the crash at Halifax International Airport.
"The indication is there was prolonged contact of the aft fuselage on and off the runway," said Bill Fowler, a spokesman for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
"The aircraft was barely airborne. The scrape trail disappears just before the berm."
The preliminary finding supports an eyewitness account of the crash - the fourth by the Britain-and Ghana-based airline in 12 years.
An airport worker recounted seeing a rooster-tail of sparks trailing the wide-body plane as the pilot tried desperately to lift off.
Fowler said the tail struck the runway for the first time about 250 metres from the end of the 2,700-metre runway, then again with about 170 metres to go.
About 300 metres beyond the end of the strip, the tail struck the berm and sheered off, sealing the fate of everyone on board.
"That is what caused the tail to break away from the rest of the airplane," said Fowler, one of 25 TSB investigators on the scene.
The rest of the plane hurtled into the brush, carving a wide V-shaped swath before coming to rest in pieces about a kilometre from the tail.
"The main part of the fuselage continued . . . ballistically until the final impact point," he said.
Investigators are also examining whether or not the plane took off from the wrong spot.
An airport maintenance worker said the plane taxied on to the runway about 700 metres from its top and suggested it didn't have enough room to take off safely.
Fowler said it's too early to determine if "there was an early takeoff point - that is, substantially early."
Four British nationals, two Zimbabweans and a German died in the crash.
The dead Britons were Capt. Michael Thornycroft, a resident of South Africa; as well as Capt. David Lamb and flight engineers Peter Launder and Steve Hooper, all residents of Zimbabwe.
Also killed were ground engineer Mario Zahn, a German who lived in South Africa; and loadmaster Chris Strydom and First Officer Gary Keogh, both of Zimbabwe.
"I knew all of them personally," said a sombre John Power, operations manager for MK Airlines.
The Boeing 747-200, which was loaded with fuel for a flight to Spain, crashed shortly before 4 a.m. local time near an industrial park and quarry about 30 kilometres north of Halifax.
Copyright © 2004 CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
Copyright & Permission Rules
Steve Macleod
Canadian Press
October 16, 2004
HALIFAX -- A Boeing 747 was barely airborne when it rocketed off the end of a runway, broke its back on an earthen mound, then careened out of control into thick woods and brush.
Investigators working in scorched wreckage and driving rain began Friday to reconstruct the final, harrowing seconds of the doomed flight of the MK Airlines Ltd. cargo plane. What they've already learned is that the tail of the wide-body jet struck the runway twice during takeoff early Thursday, then broke off after hitting a mound, or berm, topped by an antenna.
All seven crewmen were killed in the crash at Halifax International Airport.
"The indication is there was prolonged contact of the aft fuselage on and off the runway," said Bill Fowler, a spokesman for the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
"The aircraft was barely airborne. The scrape trail disappears just before the berm."
The preliminary finding supports an eyewitness account of the crash - the fourth by the Britain-and Ghana-based airline in 12 years.
An airport worker recounted seeing a rooster-tail of sparks trailing the wide-body plane as the pilot tried desperately to lift off.
Fowler said the tail struck the runway for the first time about 250 metres from the end of the 2,700-metre runway, then again with about 170 metres to go.
About 300 metres beyond the end of the strip, the tail struck the berm and sheered off, sealing the fate of everyone on board.
"That is what caused the tail to break away from the rest of the airplane," said Fowler, one of 25 TSB investigators on the scene.
The rest of the plane hurtled into the brush, carving a wide V-shaped swath before coming to rest in pieces about a kilometre from the tail.
"The main part of the fuselage continued . . . ballistically until the final impact point," he said.
Investigators are also examining whether or not the plane took off from the wrong spot.
An airport maintenance worker said the plane taxied on to the runway about 700 metres from its top and suggested it didn't have enough room to take off safely.
Fowler said it's too early to determine if "there was an early takeoff point - that is, substantially early."
Four British nationals, two Zimbabweans and a German died in the crash.
The dead Britons were Capt. Michael Thornycroft, a resident of South Africa; as well as Capt. David Lamb and flight engineers Peter Launder and Steve Hooper, all residents of Zimbabwe.
Also killed were ground engineer Mario Zahn, a German who lived in South Africa; and loadmaster Chris Strydom and First Officer Gary Keogh, both of Zimbabwe.
"I knew all of them personally," said a sombre John Power, operations manager for MK Airlines.
The Boeing 747-200, which was loaded with fuel for a flight to Spain, crashed shortly before 4 a.m. local time near an industrial park and quarry about 30 kilometres north of Halifax.
Copyright © 2004 CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
Copyright & Permission Rules
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: YVR
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAM Sort of.......
There were actually 2 sets of tail scrapes.
I don't think you could say that it ever got a chance to stall. About 150 meters from the end of the runway it lifted off - (probably hit it's minimum unstick speed and hung out in ground effect) - but going .....oh, i don't know, at least 150 knts (probably more), it wouldn't take long to eat up 150 meters i would think. The plane was barely able to lift off so once it got to the end of the runway it had no room left and the tail hit the berm at the end of the runway - tearing the tail off.
Momentum combined with thrust (asuuming max) from the engines carried it a few hundred meters (the exact distance is not mentioned yet) into the woods where the wings came off and everything came to an end.
From TC investigator:
There were actually 2 sets of tail scrapes.
I don't think you could say that it ever got a chance to stall. About 150 meters from the end of the runway it lifted off - (probably hit it's minimum unstick speed and hung out in ground effect) - but going .....oh, i don't know, at least 150 knts (probably more), it wouldn't take long to eat up 150 meters i would think. The plane was barely able to lift off so once it got to the end of the runway it had no room left and the tail hit the berm at the end of the runway - tearing the tail off.
Momentum combined with thrust (asuuming max) from the engines carried it a few hundred meters (the exact distance is not mentioned yet) into the woods where the wings came off and everything came to an end.
From TC investigator:
Fowler said the tail struck the runway for the first time about 250 metres from the end of the 2,700-metre runway, then again with about 170 metres to go. About 300 metres beyond the end of the strip, the tail struck the berm and sheered off, sealing the fate of everyone on board. "The main part of the fuselage continued . . . ballistically until the final impact point," he said.