C-5 accident at Dover AFB
Join Date: May 2005
Location: IN THE PIT
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen folks I am not trying to apportion blame here, but I would like to continue with a discussion on possible causes. Having looked at the pictures, my best guess would be a structual failure of the tail on the approach. If the aircraft was stalled on the approach ( little ground skid marks) then how come the tail is so far away. No matter what, thank God they are all alive and I hope they all get over this as soon as is possible. Don't shoot me, there will be an investigation with results months down the line. As a pilot I am just curious of other peoples observations. Thanks
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation at this point, is pointless. I hope no one was seriously injured. Given the mostly intact aircraft, it looks like the aircraft commander did an outstanding job of controlling the crash.
CNN said the crew was an RTB after an engine failure. Given the appalling record of CNN reporting, I wouldn't believe that until someone competent and in authority said it.
On CNN this morning, I saw the dimwit reporter pointing to the #1 engine that departed from the pylon and tell the audience that it was the "tail" of the airplane. It was embarassing to watch.
CNN said the crew was an RTB after an engine failure. Given the appalling record of CNN reporting, I wouldn't believe that until someone competent and in authority said it.
On CNN this morning, I saw the dimwit reporter pointing to the #1 engine that departed from the pylon and tell the audience that it was the "tail" of the airplane. It was embarassing to watch.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOVER -- All 17 people aboard survived the initial impact when a C-5 -- the U.S. military’s largest aircraft -- crashed at Dover Air Force Base early this morning after an undetermined in-flight emergency.
The massive plane, en route to Kuwait, was broken into three huge chunks, with the nose of the plane severed from the rest of the fuselage.
Fourteen people were taken to Kent General Hospital with minor injuries, one with a broken leg, and 11 were expected to be released shortly.
Three victims were taken by helicopter to Christiana Hospital in Stanton, some with possible spinal injuries.
No further information was immediately available on the other victims.
The pilot and co-pilot were pinned in their seats when the plane crashed just south of the base, according to an Air Force officer who had friends on the plane.
The engine failure may have been the result of birds being sucked into the engines, a known cause of engine failure, a spokeswoman a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon said.
Officials at the Dover base have warned for years of the danger posed by birds feeding at the Eastern Shore Environmental garbage transfer station on 26 acres off Postles Corner Road just east of the main runway at Dover Air Force Base. That transfer operation is in the process of being relocated to a 20-acre site south of Farmington.
“I can confirm that they [DAFB] are reporting engine failure,” the pentagon spokeswoman said. “The initial suspicion in cases like that is birds. It’s something investigators always look at. It’s a known cause of engine failure.”
An air base ambulance was first on the scene at about 6:45 a.m., a worker on the scene said.
The ambulance crew went outside after being advised a C-5 was coming in with engine trouble and saw it crash.
When they reached the scene, some aboard the jet had already slid down the emergency chutes and were out of the plane. Ambulance crews took them to a triage site set up near the scene.
The most serious injuries were near the flight deck, where the pilots and flight engineers work.
Dover firefighters used ladder trucks to reach those in the flight deck, which is more than 35 feet off the ground. It was the only way to get to them.
Firefighters foamed down the fuel spilled on the site. Debris was scattered around the site. The state Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control was cleaning up jet fuel.
A former reserve safety officer at Dover said the pilot and co-pilot of today’s C-5 crash likely prevented more serious injuries by steering the plane to the ground with the wings level.
But, said Lt. Col. Jay Lacklen, most worrisome is where the forward break in the plane occurred.
“It seems to have been through the middle of the aft crew compartment, where there were probably several crew members seated,” said Lacklen, who retired in 2004 and now teaches C-5 crews on a flight simulator in Mississippi. “You can see this because the aft crew compartment slide is deployed behind the break. That means it tore open at the aft compartment table where the non-duty crew members usually sit. The good news is someone put the aft slide out.”
Lacklen, who has 23 years and 10,000 hours in C-5s, said the plane hit hard.
“Fully loaded the maximum rate of descent is supposed to be no more than 6 feet-per-second,” he said. “They hit much harder than that.”
The strength of the impact would have injured the crew, he said.
“This is worrisome because the cockpit probably sustained pretty heavy G-forces which would suggest possible back injuries,” he said.
The most recent similar incident occurred at Dover Air Force Base in 1983, Lacklen said, when a fully loaded C-5 hit a flock of birds on take off.
“They lost one-and-a-half engines and barely made it around,” he said. “It was really dicey.”
Lacklen credits the pilots for minimizing the damage from the crash.
“The most crucial aspect of the crash is they hit wings level. Had they hit a wing tip first, they’d all be dead. That is the rule, if you are going down, at least go down wings level,” he said. “As always, though, the first reason you suspect for a crash is almost always wrong, so I won’t speculate on why it happened, I can only judge what happened when they hit.”
Jason Adkins, a former enlisted C-5 crew member, said the enlisted crew members knew they were going to hit hard Monday morning.
“They were fully aware,” Adkins said. “When you take off, everyone is situated for a crash landing. They were ready, belted in.
The massive plane, en route to Kuwait, was broken into three huge chunks, with the nose of the plane severed from the rest of the fuselage.
Fourteen people were taken to Kent General Hospital with minor injuries, one with a broken leg, and 11 were expected to be released shortly.
Three victims were taken by helicopter to Christiana Hospital in Stanton, some with possible spinal injuries.
No further information was immediately available on the other victims.
The pilot and co-pilot were pinned in their seats when the plane crashed just south of the base, according to an Air Force officer who had friends on the plane.
The engine failure may have been the result of birds being sucked into the engines, a known cause of engine failure, a spokeswoman a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon said.
Officials at the Dover base have warned for years of the danger posed by birds feeding at the Eastern Shore Environmental garbage transfer station on 26 acres off Postles Corner Road just east of the main runway at Dover Air Force Base. That transfer operation is in the process of being relocated to a 20-acre site south of Farmington.
“I can confirm that they [DAFB] are reporting engine failure,” the pentagon spokeswoman said. “The initial suspicion in cases like that is birds. It’s something investigators always look at. It’s a known cause of engine failure.”
An air base ambulance was first on the scene at about 6:45 a.m., a worker on the scene said.
The ambulance crew went outside after being advised a C-5 was coming in with engine trouble and saw it crash.
When they reached the scene, some aboard the jet had already slid down the emergency chutes and were out of the plane. Ambulance crews took them to a triage site set up near the scene.
The most serious injuries were near the flight deck, where the pilots and flight engineers work.
Dover firefighters used ladder trucks to reach those in the flight deck, which is more than 35 feet off the ground. It was the only way to get to them.
Firefighters foamed down the fuel spilled on the site. Debris was scattered around the site. The state Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Control was cleaning up jet fuel.
A former reserve safety officer at Dover said the pilot and co-pilot of today’s C-5 crash likely prevented more serious injuries by steering the plane to the ground with the wings level.
But, said Lt. Col. Jay Lacklen, most worrisome is where the forward break in the plane occurred.
“It seems to have been through the middle of the aft crew compartment, where there were probably several crew members seated,” said Lacklen, who retired in 2004 and now teaches C-5 crews on a flight simulator in Mississippi. “You can see this because the aft crew compartment slide is deployed behind the break. That means it tore open at the aft compartment table where the non-duty crew members usually sit. The good news is someone put the aft slide out.”
Lacklen, who has 23 years and 10,000 hours in C-5s, said the plane hit hard.
“Fully loaded the maximum rate of descent is supposed to be no more than 6 feet-per-second,” he said. “They hit much harder than that.”
The strength of the impact would have injured the crew, he said.
“This is worrisome because the cockpit probably sustained pretty heavy G-forces which would suggest possible back injuries,” he said.
The most recent similar incident occurred at Dover Air Force Base in 1983, Lacklen said, when a fully loaded C-5 hit a flock of birds on take off.
“They lost one-and-a-half engines and barely made it around,” he said. “It was really dicey.”
Lacklen credits the pilots for minimizing the damage from the crash.
“The most crucial aspect of the crash is they hit wings level. Had they hit a wing tip first, they’d all be dead. That is the rule, if you are going down, at least go down wings level,” he said. “As always, though, the first reason you suspect for a crash is almost always wrong, so I won’t speculate on why it happened, I can only judge what happened when they hit.”
Jason Adkins, a former enlisted C-5 crew member, said the enlisted crew members knew they were going to hit hard Monday morning.
“They were fully aware,” Adkins said. “When you take off, everyone is situated for a crash landing. They were ready, belted in.
One engine out - no big deal on this aircraft - but what about two on the same side ? - would be difficult to control right after V2 I would think on a C-5.
I would say, job well done by the aircraft commander !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport diagram here
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0604/00562AD.PDF
If the accident occurred at 0630 local, that would be 1030Z
METAR KDOV 030855Z 18005KT 7SM BKN250 07/05 A2998 RMK SLP153 56017
METAR KDOV 030955Z 15005KT 7SM SCT250 07/06 A2997 RMK SLP150
METAR KDOV 031055Z 17005KT 5SM BR SCT050 SCT120 BKN250 07/06 A2996 RMK SLP147
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0604/00562AD.PDF
If the accident occurred at 0630 local, that would be 1030Z
METAR KDOV 030855Z 18005KT 7SM BKN250 07/05 A2998 RMK SLP153 56017
METAR KDOV 030955Z 15005KT 7SM SCT250 07/06 A2997 RMK SLP150
METAR KDOV 031055Z 17005KT 5SM BR SCT050 SCT120 BKN250 07/06 A2996 RMK SLP147
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roadtrip:
I watched CNN this morning too. I know about the mistakes made on TV. But let us NOT call one of the better Aviation reporters a dimwith shall we?
I watched closely and at first I thought there was little or no fuel spill...but a different angle showed me a huge wet spot on the grass and foam protecting fuel spill.
To speak off the cuff as an aviation accident is happening is tough...I've done it and I have 12k hours. You can be right or wrong, but you have to keep talking till you get more data.
hey guys, that WET grass was low in friction, probably helped avoid post crash fire...
also the C5 has a fuel inerting system which would protect the fuel tanks from explosion, though once the fuel was out on the ground, its just fuel...the inerting system puts nitrogen in the ulliage ( where air would be) in the tank....wonder if this helped.
jon
I watched CNN this morning too. I know about the mistakes made on TV. But let us NOT call one of the better Aviation reporters a dimwith shall we?
I watched closely and at first I thought there was little or no fuel spill...but a different angle showed me a huge wet spot on the grass and foam protecting fuel spill.
To speak off the cuff as an aviation accident is happening is tough...I've done it and I have 12k hours. You can be right or wrong, but you have to keep talking till you get more data.
hey guys, that WET grass was low in friction, probably helped avoid post crash fire...
also the C5 has a fuel inerting system which would protect the fuel tanks from explosion, though once the fuel was out on the ground, its just fuel...the inerting system puts nitrogen in the ulliage ( where air would be) in the tank....wonder if this helped.
jon
The sequence of photos is difficult for this armchair analyst to resist so, a suggestion to GrazingIncidence and on the back of Dinger's comments:
The skid mark is there alright, just some sixty feet wide. Port gear seems to have collapsed way back while the starboard gear would seem to have pivoted round to near 90° to follow the sideways slide.
It must have been one awful ride, aircraft presumably full of cargo and fuel. What a plus for all to get out intact and have those pics to show to the grandchildren. Thank heaven for open land beyond the threshold.
The skid mark is there alright, just some sixty feet wide. Port gear seems to have collapsed way back while the starboard gear would seem to have pivoted round to near 90° to follow the sideways slide.
It must have been one awful ride, aircraft presumably full of cargo and fuel. What a plus for all to get out intact and have those pics to show to the grandchildren. Thank heaven for open land beyond the threshold.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wet grass? Driest March in years, if not ever. If anything I'd give credit to the soil on the Delmarva Penninsula. Great for farming, lots of sand in it.
Crew did a great job? What did they do? At this point no one knows anything so even congratulating them is premature. What was the start of the incident and why didn't the a/c make it back in one piece?
Did the tail fail prior to impact? There doesn't seem to be a big impact mark visible in the picture indicating that the a/c made initial ground contact there.
And after the tail came off I'll bet money the investigation reveals that for the most part the crew was along for the ride. No rudder, no elevator/stab. They could probably keep the wings level until airspeed dropped off. Then the a/c, like gliders, would tend to tip/turn resulting in the side slip that cracked the spine. Investigators will have to figure out if the gear was down and if, or when, it failed in the sequence of events.
Leading edge slats between #1 and #2 engine are missing. When did that occur? Pre or post ground contact?
Local news said eyewitnesses saw flames coming from #2 engine. Not completely unexpected *if* severe bird damage.
Jon, any chance you're an Agusta MV4 1000 fan?
Crew did a great job? What did they do? At this point no one knows anything so even congratulating them is premature. What was the start of the incident and why didn't the a/c make it back in one piece?
Did the tail fail prior to impact? There doesn't seem to be a big impact mark visible in the picture indicating that the a/c made initial ground contact there.
And after the tail came off I'll bet money the investigation reveals that for the most part the crew was along for the ride. No rudder, no elevator/stab. They could probably keep the wings level until airspeed dropped off. Then the a/c, like gliders, would tend to tip/turn resulting in the side slip that cracked the spine. Investigators will have to figure out if the gear was down and if, or when, it failed in the sequence of events.
Leading edge slats between #1 and #2 engine are missing. When did that occur? Pre or post ground contact?
Local news said eyewitnesses saw flames coming from #2 engine. Not completely unexpected *if* severe bird damage.
Jon, any chance you're an Agusta MV4 1000 fan?
AGPWallah, please understand that I am not trying to be a smart alec:
"With aerial refueling, the aircraft's range is limited only by crew endurance."
I'm presuming that they either have an ability to top up engine oil or have a pretty big capacity. I bring it up only because the A-340-300 has oil quantity minimums dictated by the planned length of the flight.
"With aerial refueling, the aircraft's range is limited only by crew endurance."
I'm presuming that they either have an ability to top up engine oil or have a pretty big capacity. I bring it up only because the A-340-300 has oil quantity minimums dictated by the planned length of the flight.
One of our pilots flew the C-5 years ago on active duty and is now a part-time instructor on the C-5.
Will ask him very soon if he has any actual facts on the accident, but some could remain classified until the investigation is complete.
As most in PpruneLand realize, it is a quite complex aircraft and requires two Flight Engineers. The C-5s were upgraded, so to speak, years ago and equipped with FMCs, LNAV and VNAV.
Will ask him very soon if he has any actual facts on the accident, but some could remain classified until the investigation is complete.
As most in PpruneLand realize, it is a quite complex aircraft and requires two Flight Engineers. The C-5s were upgraded, so to speak, years ago and equipped with FMCs, LNAV and VNAV.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Between land masses
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An experienced professional trolling the naive and the lazy.
The more embarrassing follow ups to this post should have been deleted but hey, let's enjoy them in a new light.
Rob
The more embarrassing follow ups to this post should have been deleted but hey, let's enjoy them in a new light.
Rob
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Middle East / UK
Age: 45
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting incident indeed. Glad everyone alive and looks like a good job by the crew! Correct me if I'm wrong though, but are the USAF saying that a single engine failure caused this crash? I find that a little hard to believe, even if it lost two engines it was still flying ok, as they had time to transmit a distress call, almost return to base, and for a helicopter to be scrambled before the crash. Performance calculations should allow for an EFATO. The reason for the engine failure(s) isn't really the issue here, but the reason for the crash is.
Did the tail seperate for some reason?
Was the aircraft overweight? (Hence lack of single engine performance, if this was the cause.)
Was the situation mishandled?
Did another factor contribute to the cause?
I am not seeking to blame with the above, far from it, having been in aviation for a while now I know that things are never that cut and dried! It just all seems a bit strange to me.
Also, is it wise for a Pentagon official to say “The initial suspicion in cases like that is birds. It’s something investigators always look at. It’s a known cause of engine failure." Seems a bit quick to come out with something like that does it not? I mean do they ACTUALLY know what happened? I would suggest that as he used the word "seems" then the answer is no they don't. So why bother giving a possible cause? Strange.
Did the tail seperate for some reason?
Was the aircraft overweight? (Hence lack of single engine performance, if this was the cause.)
Was the situation mishandled?
Did another factor contribute to the cause?
I am not seeking to blame with the above, far from it, having been in aviation for a while now I know that things are never that cut and dried! It just all seems a bit strange to me.
Also, is it wise for a Pentagon official to say “The initial suspicion in cases like that is birds. It’s something investigators always look at. It’s a known cause of engine failure." Seems a bit quick to come out with something like that does it not? I mean do they ACTUALLY know what happened? I would suggest that as he used the word "seems" then the answer is no they don't. So why bother giving a possible cause? Strange.
Originally Posted by Foreign Worker
First reports indicated that the crew reported a problem shortly after take-off.
Unless the aircraft was refuelled with the incorrect grade of kero, how does one explain the exceptionally heavy, gear-up landing that caused the aircraft to break up into 3 pieces.
Why has No1 engine separated from the wing?
The early photo in this article indicates a trail of extinguishant (presumably the aircraft's own supply, fired by the crew) prior to being doused by the fire trucks that attended.
Why?
Crew error -either not checking that the correct fuel was used - or using the incorrect procedure(s) and hurrying back - is still a STRONG possibility in this one, imo.
Unless the aircraft was refuelled with the incorrect grade of kero, how does one explain the exceptionally heavy, gear-up landing that caused the aircraft to break up into 3 pieces.
Why has No1 engine separated from the wing?
The early photo in this article indicates a trail of extinguishant (presumably the aircraft's own supply, fired by the crew) prior to being doused by the fire trucks that attended.
Why?
Crew error -either not checking that the correct fuel was used - or using the incorrect procedure(s) and hurrying back - is still a STRONG possibility in this one, imo.
That has got to be one of the most uninformed postulations that I have seen in a long time on this forum.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: 'An Airfield Somewhere in England'
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foreign Worker - you are simply not in any position to make the assertions you do. You have no knowlege of the aircraft involved and as far as I can see no specific knowledge of this particular event. You are, like the rest of us, completely unqualified to make the assumption of crew error. The difference is everyone else knows they are not qualified - you alas have some doubt.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: East Lancs.
Age: 76
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Innuendo - no offence taken!! My post was taken from an NBC article, the assumption was theirs. I was just trying to point out that the payload was 260,000 pounds, NOT tons as posted by Charles Darwin.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh
I think I really am going to have to figure out a way to make sure that only people who have at least some basic knowledge of flying heavy metal are allowed to postulate on here. I reserve the right from now on to remove any post that is obviously from someone with no real knowledge of what is involved. It's fairly obvious that anonimity gives some posters imaginary knowledge that is so out of tune with reality that I must make more of an effort to keep their witterings off these forums.
I think I really am going to have to figure out a way to make sure that only people who have at least some basic knowledge of flying heavy metal are allowed to postulate on here. I reserve the right from now on to remove any post that is obviously from someone with no real knowledge of what is involved. It's fairly obvious that anonimity gives some posters imaginary knowledge that is so out of tune with reality that I must make more of an effort to keep their witterings off these forums.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
roadtrip:
I watched CNN this morning too. I know about the mistakes made on TV. But let us NOT call one of the better Aviation reporters a dimwith shall we?
I watched closely and at first I thought there was little or no fuel spill...but a different angle showed me a huge wet spot on the grass and foam protecting fuel spill.
To speak off the cuff as an aviation accident is happening is tough...I've done it and I have 12k hours. You can be right or wrong, but you have to keep talking till you get more data.
I watched CNN this morning too. I know about the mistakes made on TV. But let us NOT call one of the better Aviation reporters a dimwith shall we?
I watched closely and at first I thought there was little or no fuel spill...but a different angle showed me a huge wet spot on the grass and foam protecting fuel spill.
To speak off the cuff as an aviation accident is happening is tough...I've done it and I have 12k hours. You can be right or wrong, but you have to keep talking till you get more data.
If that's one of the "better" aviation reporters they've got (one that mis-identifies an engine as a tail), then I rest my case.
As far as basic ethical journalism goes, the emphasis should be on "correct" before "first." In the US press that has been completely turned around to where "firstest, with the most blood" is way ahead of "correct."
Maybe as an aviation accident is happening, you SHOULDN'T speak "off-the-cuff." The wives and families of the airman on that aircraft might have been watching and time-filler BS spewed out by so-called "experts" can be gravely hurtful and probably WRONG.
It's astonishing and appalling that you think it's ok to "keep talking" regardless of the accuracy or veracity of what you're reporting.
Originally Posted by Foreign Worker
First reports indicated that the crew reported a problem shortly after take-off.
Unless the aircraft was refuelled with the incorrect grade of kero, how does one explain the exceptionally heavy, gear-up landing that caused the aircraft to break up into 3 pieces.
Why has No1 engine separated from the wing?
The early photo in this article indicates a trail of extinguishant (presumably the aircraft's own supply, fired by the crew) prior to being doused by the fire trucks that attended.
Why?
Crew error -either not checking that the correct fuel was used - or using the incorrect procedure(s) and hurrying back - is still a STRONG possibility in this one, imo.
Unless the aircraft was refuelled with the incorrect grade of kero, how does one explain the exceptionally heavy, gear-up landing that caused the aircraft to break up into 3 pieces.
Why has No1 engine separated from the wing?
The early photo in this article indicates a trail of extinguishant (presumably the aircraft's own supply, fired by the crew) prior to being doused by the fire trucks that attended.
Why?
Crew error -either not checking that the correct fuel was used - or using the incorrect procedure(s) and hurrying back - is still a STRONG possibility in this one, imo.