C-5 accident at Dover AFB
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't add to the responses to FW's grossly uninformed comments.
Regarding the bird strike possibility, this from the USAF on Dover AFB and bird migration.
""In the DelMarVa region, the bird hazard increases each fall and remains high until birds migrate north in the spring. Blackbirds and Canadian geese are the main threat. The blackbird population peaks at 150,000 from mid-October through mid-November and resurfaces in February. Snow geese begin arriving in mid-October and peak at 150,000 in January and February. Additionally, seagulls are a year-round problem, peaking in number from March through May.""
So, it appears (from the above anyway), that it's the right time of year for higher risk of bird strikes.
Regarding the bird strike possibility, this from the USAF on Dover AFB and bird migration.
""In the DelMarVa region, the bird hazard increases each fall and remains high until birds migrate north in the spring. Blackbirds and Canadian geese are the main threat. The blackbird population peaks at 150,000 from mid-October through mid-November and resurfaces in February. Snow geese begin arriving in mid-October and peak at 150,000 in January and February. Additionally, seagulls are a year-round problem, peaking in number from March through May.""
So, it appears (from the above anyway), that it's the right time of year for higher risk of bird strikes.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if an aircraft of this configuration lands short and hard (perhaps because of the results of multiple bird ingestion after takeoff) it is hardly surpising that the tail would break off downwards. (That even happens in flight test sometimes - check your videos) Since the tail has little mass it will slow down quickly after it departs the fuse while the rest of the aircraft has more than a little mv so can be expected to proceed some way further (to put it mildly)
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even having been out of "the business" since shortly after the "Toulouse aircraft" came in, I could see that FW's post made about as much sense as a chocolate fireguard.
However, we have seen before incidences of "News Reporters" quoting from this board and including "a web bulletin board subscribed to by professional pilots"
Yes, I agree that the drivel's "fun" - as long as some fool does not grab at it as the truth (and the crew's already-distraught family get even more grief to worry about)
However, we have seen before incidences of "News Reporters" quoting from this board and including "a web bulletin board subscribed to by professional pilots"
Yes, I agree that the drivel's "fun" - as long as some fool does not grab at it as the truth (and the crew's already-distraught family get even more grief to worry about)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by filejw
They flew trough a flock of birds that reside in a sanctuary at the end of the runway.
8 yrs of flying fighters in the area. We had specific bans on low altitude flights during 'bird' season.
It's that time of year.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny posted ....
...... and in particular when crews are being 'Castigated' for a procedure/maneuver that the writer has no authority/qualification to comment on, let alone condemn the crew ......
e.g. by all means ask why a crew might do a 180 on a Taxiway, if you must, but to expand the question by asking if the crew will face disciplinary action for 'being lost!' .....
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
e.g. by all means ask why a crew might do a 180 on a Taxiway, if you must, but to expand the question by asking if the crew will face disciplinary action for 'being lost!' .....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Mis-D again!
Regarding the WET grass...my belief is based on the following: temp/dewpoint spread within 1degree C. Comments by a Lt. Col, that the:landing was almost like a water landing on the grass as the plane slid along".
Mv4-1000, you mean the motorcycle? no, not a fan, and NO, not fallen off a motorcycle.
To: RoadTrip>
As I recorded the CNN comments and reviewed them, yes the newsman indicated the number one engine, circled it and spoke of the tail, but this was more of a mis-speak as he was concerned for some time that the tail was hundreds of yards from the nose/fuselage-wings.
I have never said to speak without some concept of what is going on...what I want to make clear is that one can say something, within possibility/probability, and in a moment or two be proven wrong by subsequent reports.
I still recall that all major news organizations were reporting that Southwest airlines went off the end of 13C at Midway (KMDW) and this was reported by either an FAA or airport officer.
It was quite clear that it was runway 31 C, and as all real pilots know, this is the same piece of pavement as 13C. just in the opposite direction.
yes the cnn person circled the engine (number one on the ground) and spoke of the tail, but this was a mistake of words and not understanding of what it was.
we could get into a huge argument about public speaking...just look at Pres. Bush and how many things he says have to be explained later on by the White House staff.
Roadtrip, have YOU ever had to cover a crash on national TV? Have you ever mis-spoke?
fly safe
jon
Regarding the WET grass...my belief is based on the following: temp/dewpoint spread within 1degree C. Comments by a Lt. Col, that the:landing was almost like a water landing on the grass as the plane slid along".
Mv4-1000, you mean the motorcycle? no, not a fan, and NO, not fallen off a motorcycle.
To: RoadTrip>
As I recorded the CNN comments and reviewed them, yes the newsman indicated the number one engine, circled it and spoke of the tail, but this was more of a mis-speak as he was concerned for some time that the tail was hundreds of yards from the nose/fuselage-wings.
I have never said to speak without some concept of what is going on...what I want to make clear is that one can say something, within possibility/probability, and in a moment or two be proven wrong by subsequent reports.
I still recall that all major news organizations were reporting that Southwest airlines went off the end of 13C at Midway (KMDW) and this was reported by either an FAA or airport officer.
It was quite clear that it was runway 31 C, and as all real pilots know, this is the same piece of pavement as 13C. just in the opposite direction.
yes the cnn person circled the engine (number one on the ground) and spoke of the tail, but this was a mistake of words and not understanding of what it was.
we could get into a huge argument about public speaking...just look at Pres. Bush and how many things he says have to be explained later on by the White House staff.
Roadtrip, have YOU ever had to cover a crash on national TV? Have you ever mis-spoke?
fly safe
jon
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news: Media report 11 of 17 aboard have been released from the hospital.
One eyewitness remarked hearing a very unusual noise during approach, which could well be consistent with birdstrike on an enqine (or multiple engines).
One eyewitness remarked hearing a very unusual noise during approach, which could well be consistent with birdstrike on an enqine (or multiple engines).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
Roadtrip, have YOU ever had to cover a crash on national TV? Have you ever mis-spoke?
When the so called experts like you start speculating, usually about an aircraft that you're not qualified in, then you're just selling soap. Speculating about birds, weather, the fuel on-board the aircraft, and then coming up with 37 different scenarios of what might have happened is just plain exploiting the situation. The purpose is to titalate the average viewers (an imbecile when it comes to aircraft operations) imagination, and scare them. The other major problem is so many of these hired-gun "experts" with inflated titles and credits aren't experts at all, as evidenced from what I've heard come out of their mouths. The reporting with the anchors and "experts" sounds a lot more like a bunch of women sitting around gossiping than responsible journalism. My favorite scam by "experts" is when they sit around and make the 37 speculations about what probably happened, then make a quick caveat about "But, you know Bob, it's really too early to tell exactly what happened and we shouldn't speculate about the cause of the accident" 3 seconds out of a 10 minute report almost all of which was spent SPECULATING about the cause. The news media and "experts" depend upon the lack of critical thinking skills of the average viewer.
When that CNN guy pulled out the 'ol high tech, wiz-bang telewriter and started circling engines as "tails," that's when I couldn't take anymore BS, and the remote went "click" before he might try to find some casualties to circle.
I just wish all you hired-gun "experts" would report the facts, then shut-up instead of trying to embellish everything. CNN's initial reporting on the C-5 was up to it's usual low standards in aviation reporting.
Last edited by Roadtrip; 5th Apr 2006 at 04:01.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Wow, that's so imbecilic it's hard to keep from laughing. Do you work for CNN?
CanyonBlue 737:
Yep. Some nit-wit amateur is fishing for some comments to print elsewhere.
One link above said that in the hospital were the "pilot, the copilot, and the aviator" (??).
Roadtrip: Yep, and some "experts" teach at aviation schools such as Embry Riddle and have little actual aviation background in a high-performance cockp1t-but they know the academics very well. Their impressive titles fool the public and their hours of reading about the ' known' facts, before preparing to supply smooth sound-bytes to the media take nothing into account regarding the many procedures being put together on a very short flight by real crewmembers. One classic abnormal procedure was probably practiced as a fairly simple engine-failure, six months ago in a simulator. Our armchair experts, fawned over by the media who assume that they have lots of real experience, might spill hot coffee on their shirts, simulating turbulence, or even fall out of their chair-that is their aviation proficiency. Or fly their computer, as I just did, against Bf-110s and Migs (...Forgotten Battles...").
One of the best aviation consultants in the US is Mr. John Nance. He has spent a career flying various jet transport aircraft and is an aviation attorney, but he is often avoided, or unknown by certain media groups.
The planes whuch many of us fly can take off at weights over 100,000 pounds when we deicide which runway/wind /flap settings (15* or 5*?) are suitable and safe, yet there are so many systems and procedural differences between these and the large widebodies with much more complexity. Most of us who fly airplanes for a living realize that there could have been some additional compound problems, i.e. an engine failure could lead to a partial electrical failure which could cause reduced hydraulic power, pneumatic and fuel glitches etc. Or just pop various circuit breakers, thereby creating indictations which are NOT described in abnormal/emergency procedure manuals. Or a weird combination. For example, "Eh...Captain/Major", we also have a battery charger caution light, fuel low pressure on number 2, and at least 1 hydraulic/flight control problem, but I'll get to those after I read you guys the (2-3 pages of) 'engine failure procedures' i.e...ok, ignition? identify the failed engine..check throttle to idle..verify fuel control xxx, maintain 2-engine Vmc plus at least 20 knots...".
"Hey-what was that last bang sound!"
A B-747 suffered a near-disaster years ago departing SFO. One problem which many people were unaware of, was that the engine surge created enough vibration to make some of their instruments almost unreadable. The requirement to only complete six simulated takeoffs and landings each 6 months was little help to the flying pilot. A recent tv show on History International described the competition between young people to fly and crew a Lancaster. The airline pilot who flew highly-automated A-320s had some trouble at first flying the T-6 Harvard/Texan. Our aviator skills must be practiced often.
Back to the C-5. The amateurs are not only are blissly ignorant of how to fly a complex airplane with serious problems, but have no idea as to how crewmembers must communicate between all four (not to mention with the loadmasters/FAs) and perform emergency checklists while telling the Tower or Departure controller exactly what they need. Is it possible that an electrical problem affected fuel boost pumps supplying pressure to the C-5's good engine on the same side, next to the one which failed or surged? This might be just one of a huge list of possibilities. The flap/slat indications might have been erratic, not just split.
A hundred things are happening at the same time for the intensely busy crew.
Yep. Some nit-wit amateur is fishing for some comments to print elsewhere.
One link above said that in the hospital were the "pilot, the copilot, and the aviator" (??).
Roadtrip: Yep, and some "experts" teach at aviation schools such as Embry Riddle and have little actual aviation background in a high-performance cockp1t-but they know the academics very well. Their impressive titles fool the public and their hours of reading about the ' known' facts, before preparing to supply smooth sound-bytes to the media take nothing into account regarding the many procedures being put together on a very short flight by real crewmembers. One classic abnormal procedure was probably practiced as a fairly simple engine-failure, six months ago in a simulator. Our armchair experts, fawned over by the media who assume that they have lots of real experience, might spill hot coffee on their shirts, simulating turbulence, or even fall out of their chair-that is their aviation proficiency. Or fly their computer, as I just did, against Bf-110s and Migs (...Forgotten Battles...").
One of the best aviation consultants in the US is Mr. John Nance. He has spent a career flying various jet transport aircraft and is an aviation attorney, but he is often avoided, or unknown by certain media groups.
The planes whuch many of us fly can take off at weights over 100,000 pounds when we deicide which runway/wind /flap settings (15* or 5*?) are suitable and safe, yet there are so many systems and procedural differences between these and the large widebodies with much more complexity. Most of us who fly airplanes for a living realize that there could have been some additional compound problems, i.e. an engine failure could lead to a partial electrical failure which could cause reduced hydraulic power, pneumatic and fuel glitches etc. Or just pop various circuit breakers, thereby creating indictations which are NOT described in abnormal/emergency procedure manuals. Or a weird combination. For example, "Eh...Captain/Major", we also have a battery charger caution light, fuel low pressure on number 2, and at least 1 hydraulic/flight control problem, but I'll get to those after I read you guys the (2-3 pages of) 'engine failure procedures' i.e...ok, ignition? identify the failed engine..check throttle to idle..verify fuel control xxx, maintain 2-engine Vmc plus at least 20 knots...".
"Hey-what was that last bang sound!"A B-747 suffered a near-disaster years ago departing SFO. One problem which many people were unaware of, was that the engine surge created enough vibration to make some of their instruments almost unreadable. The requirement to only complete six simulated takeoffs and landings each 6 months was little help to the flying pilot. A recent tv show on History International described the competition between young people to fly and crew a Lancaster. The airline pilot who flew highly-automated A-320s had some trouble at first flying the T-6 Harvard/Texan. Our aviator skills must be practiced often.
Back to the C-5. The amateurs are not only are blissly ignorant of how to fly a complex airplane with serious problems, but have no idea as to how crewmembers must communicate between all four (not to mention with the loadmasters/FAs) and perform emergency checklists while telling the Tower or Departure controller exactly what they need. Is it possible that an electrical problem affected fuel boost pumps supplying pressure to the C-5's good engine on the same side, next to the one which failed or surged? This might be just one of a huge list of possibilities. The flap/slat indications might have been erratic, not just split.
A hundred things are happening at the same time for the intensely busy crew.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 5th Apr 2006 at 06:24.
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John J Nance
One of the best aviation consultants in the US is Mr. John Nance. He has spent a career flying various jet transport aircraft and is an aviation attorney
Yes! A quick search indicates this is the same guy - I did think that the author of the book was pretty knowledgable on the 737 (last "sim" that I worked on, so I still rememebr quite a bit!)
(Maybe CNN can't afford him
)
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link, Orac.
It's not too clear from the fisherman's report if the tail came off "in mid-air", or if it hit the ground while still on the aircraft, separated, and bounced.
His description sounds like it separated first, but the likelihood of this, on a flight that was already in trouble with an engine out seems low (can't think of any possible connection unless maybe the engine problem put on some sort of horrible rudder config?)
Whichever, the crew sure did a good job of keeping the thing somewhat under control - level
Anyone explain why?
It's not too clear from the fisherman's report if the tail came off "in mid-air", or if it hit the ground while still on the aircraft, separated, and bounced.
His description sounds like it separated first, but the likelihood of this, on a flight that was already in trouble with an engine out seems low (can't think of any possible connection unless maybe the engine problem put on some sort of horrible rudder config?)
Whichever, the crew sure did a good job of keeping the thing somewhat under control - level
(from the link) "designed to break apart like this on impact"
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoadTrip and others on the topic of aviation reporting on LIVE tv:
I have heard many people like yourself who won't speculate. If you are going to go on tv and just say, "a plane crashed at 5:30 pm near Miami, Florida...the NTSB says it will be a YEAR before the investigation is complete"...would you stay tuned?
Informed speculation is just that. From the right person, it might spark a debate about safety that will actually wake some people up on subject (including pilots).
By the way, John Nance doesn't do CNN often because he is on ABC. An aviation editor there I think. (as an aside, I don't care for John Nance's reporting style or his books)
I've been on CNN a number of times. Most recently on the southwest crash/incident/over-run at Midway, and the seaplane crash (amphibian if you want to get technical) near Miami.
Regarding the Miami deal, a former NTSB official was on. He wouldn't even confirm (while tape showing the same was rolling) that the WING had come off .
IS THIS what you want roadtrip?
I did say, based on one eyewitness report, that I suspected structural failure.
After the tape showing the wing coming off, I was pretty darn sure. But even Wolf Blitzer was good about explaining that this was Speculation.
On the Southwest deal, I came up with numbers like 5216 feet required...I didn't mention that as we didn't have the exact loading of the aircraft...but within days the NTSB said it was about 5300 feet.
On live TV we decided that pieces of the wing (737) sticking up were NOT the spoilers, but wing damage.
Aviation reporting, if left to some ideas, would be just as you said: a plane crashed here at this time. And now a commercial message.
If that is what you want, all YOU have to do is turn off the TV after the first few seconds.
Yes, to the person speaking about the multiple failures that an engine problem might bring on and how this complicates the real reason for a crash. I had an engine problem that started with high EGT, followed up by a CSD running hot (JT8d-15) all caused by a crack in the engine casing.
I will say this right now, SPECULATION, as long as it is marked as such, is OK on live tv. Roadtrip, if you don't like the SPECULATION, turn the TV off.
I think LIVE coverage also brings to the forefront important safety improvements. How many of you had heard of the special over-runs (emas) to stop airplanes prior to Southwest/Midway. I have spoken to Congressmen (tom lantos of san mateo,ca for one) about the EMAS system in the early 90's! This helps to set the SAFETY agenda AND MAY ACTUALLY DO SOME GOOD.
Aviation reporting is still in its infancy, the finest example was probably, the "oh the humanity" report on the Hindenburg as it happened live.
I do thank people like Roadtrip for speaking up...but don't stop others from speaking out...especially on live TV as it is happening.
jon regas
[email protected]
PS:
anyone who ever has good info on an aviation incident/accident etc feel free to write to me EVEN AS IT IS being covered LIVE!
my experience is CFIIMEIATPMEL... last job as a 737 captain for a major airline....dc9/bae146 among many,many other lighter planes flown. about 12k hours. now medically grounded due to injury (pinched nerve sort of thing)
no one pilot can know all the systems of every plane out there, but someone like me OR MANY OF YOU on the forum can certainly speak with some good authority on what is going on.
I have heard many people like yourself who won't speculate. If you are going to go on tv and just say, "a plane crashed at 5:30 pm near Miami, Florida...the NTSB says it will be a YEAR before the investigation is complete"...would you stay tuned?
Informed speculation is just that. From the right person, it might spark a debate about safety that will actually wake some people up on subject (including pilots).
By the way, John Nance doesn't do CNN often because he is on ABC. An aviation editor there I think. (as an aside, I don't care for John Nance's reporting style or his books)
I've been on CNN a number of times. Most recently on the southwest crash/incident/over-run at Midway, and the seaplane crash (amphibian if you want to get technical) near Miami.
Regarding the Miami deal, a former NTSB official was on. He wouldn't even confirm (while tape showing the same was rolling) that the WING had come off .
IS THIS what you want roadtrip?
I did say, based on one eyewitness report, that I suspected structural failure.
After the tape showing the wing coming off, I was pretty darn sure. But even Wolf Blitzer was good about explaining that this was Speculation.
On the Southwest deal, I came up with numbers like 5216 feet required...I didn't mention that as we didn't have the exact loading of the aircraft...but within days the NTSB said it was about 5300 feet.
On live TV we decided that pieces of the wing (737) sticking up were NOT the spoilers, but wing damage.
Aviation reporting, if left to some ideas, would be just as you said: a plane crashed here at this time. And now a commercial message.
If that is what you want, all YOU have to do is turn off the TV after the first few seconds.
Yes, to the person speaking about the multiple failures that an engine problem might bring on and how this complicates the real reason for a crash. I had an engine problem that started with high EGT, followed up by a CSD running hot (JT8d-15) all caused by a crack in the engine casing.
I will say this right now, SPECULATION, as long as it is marked as such, is OK on live tv. Roadtrip, if you don't like the SPECULATION, turn the TV off.
I think LIVE coverage also brings to the forefront important safety improvements. How many of you had heard of the special over-runs (emas) to stop airplanes prior to Southwest/Midway. I have spoken to Congressmen (tom lantos of san mateo,ca for one) about the EMAS system in the early 90's! This helps to set the SAFETY agenda AND MAY ACTUALLY DO SOME GOOD.
Aviation reporting is still in its infancy, the finest example was probably, the "oh the humanity" report on the Hindenburg as it happened live.
I do thank people like Roadtrip for speaking up...but don't stop others from speaking out...especially on live TV as it is happening.
jon regas
[email protected]
PS:
anyone who ever has good info on an aviation incident/accident etc feel free to write to me EVEN AS IT IS being covered LIVE!
my experience is CFIIMEIATPMEL... last job as a 737 captain for a major airline....dc9/bae146 among many,many other lighter planes flown. about 12k hours. now medically grounded due to injury (pinched nerve sort of thing)
no one pilot can know all the systems of every plane out there, but someone like me OR MANY OF YOU on the forum can certainly speak with some good authority on what is going on.
I can pretty much guarantee the tail did NOT come off while airborne--it would not have been controllable for long sans tail. Nose first, big, BIG splat.
Several times over the years C-5s have nearly come to grief after severe birdstrikes--once at Dover and once at Westover, both times more than 10 years ago. Dover has extensive restrictions on ops during migratory seasons and a HUGE bird problem. The two events resulted in very heavy weight returns on less than three engines, one of the remaining engines vibrating so hard it was difficult to concentrate on flying.
Speculation on ANY cause is way, way premature. The C-5 has very complex and redundant systems, but compound emergencies after an engine failure surely are a possibility. In any case, the guys did a spectacular job bringing it around the bay and to a survivable crash landing.
GF
Several times over the years C-5s have nearly come to grief after severe birdstrikes--once at Dover and once at Westover, both times more than 10 years ago. Dover has extensive restrictions on ops during migratory seasons and a HUGE bird problem. The two events resulted in very heavy weight returns on less than three engines, one of the remaining engines vibrating so hard it was difficult to concentrate on flying.
Speculation on ANY cause is way, way premature. The C-5 has very complex and redundant systems, but compound emergencies after an engine failure surely are a possibility. In any case, the guys did a spectacular job bringing it around the bay and to a survivable crash landing.
GF
I agree with JonDc9 handling of the critical retorts about speculative reporting in the media.
The final report with its considered recommendations for preventive measures may take years to sooth the publics confidence. Leaving the public in any kind of vacuum even for minutes, experience has shown, will only serve to fill their minds with their latest nightmare dream as reality.
It is the job of the professionals in this business to at the minimum place some bounds on the necessary speculation that must occur in order to focus an investigation on the right issues.
I'm am a professional investigator of major accidents and I come here to this forum because the first letter in Pprune suggests that I may get an informed hint from some of you as to what issues might be the most critical to look into.
So please don't cut off your noses to spite your face and do continue to provide point and counterpoint, even with a degree of speculation or what if's. Some of us, even some in the media, do have the ability to separate imaginative from experienced comments.
The final report with its considered recommendations for preventive measures may take years to sooth the publics confidence. Leaving the public in any kind of vacuum even for minutes, experience has shown, will only serve to fill their minds with their latest nightmare dream as reality.
It is the job of the professionals in this business to at the minimum place some bounds on the necessary speculation that must occur in order to focus an investigation on the right issues.
I'm am a professional investigator of major accidents and I come here to this forum because the first letter in Pprune suggests that I may get an informed hint from some of you as to what issues might be the most critical to look into.
So please don't cut off your noses to spite your face and do continue to provide point and counterpoint, even with a degree of speculation or what if's. Some of us, even some in the media, do have the ability to separate imaginative from experienced comments.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost hate to do this, but, the article in the "Air Force Times" report has a serious error in the story.
Back in the mid 1970s, sorry I can't remember the exact year, a C-5 crashed after attempting an emergency landing at Clinton,Oklahoma (KCLK). I know this for a fact because I was there the next day.
The C-5 was making practice approaches at a near by Air Force Base, Clinton Sherman AFB (KCSM). On downwind after an touch and go the C-5 suffered a massive hydraulic failure that resulted in a fire in the left wing. A trailing KC-135 observed the fire on the C-5 and notified the crew. The fire spread so rapidly that the Aircraft Commander decided that they could not make it back to Clinton Sherman and attempted to land at the civilian airport.
The aircraft touched down about 200 past the end of the runway (he flat nailed the landing) on the center line, the runway back then was less than 5,000ft and 50ft wide. However, with no hydraulics the aircraft was unable to be stopped and it ran off the end of the runway, through a fence, over a road and then hit a ditch before coming to rest in a open field.
If memory severs me correctly the wreckage was in four major pieces, tail section, aft fusulage, wing section and then the cockpit section. The wing center section burned up, however, the rest of the airframe was not fire damaged.
Oh yes the crew. When the first emergency vehicles arrived the enitre crew was standing on a road about a quarter mile from the crash site smoking cigarettes, pointing at the wreckage saying "Wow, look at that!"
No injuries at all.
It was the first crash on U.S. soil of the American military’s largest plane
The C-5 was making practice approaches at a near by Air Force Base, Clinton Sherman AFB (KCSM). On downwind after an touch and go the C-5 suffered a massive hydraulic failure that resulted in a fire in the left wing. A trailing KC-135 observed the fire on the C-5 and notified the crew. The fire spread so rapidly that the Aircraft Commander decided that they could not make it back to Clinton Sherman and attempted to land at the civilian airport.
The aircraft touched down about 200 past the end of the runway (he flat nailed the landing) on the center line, the runway back then was less than 5,000ft and 50ft wide. However, with no hydraulics the aircraft was unable to be stopped and it ran off the end of the runway, through a fence, over a road and then hit a ditch before coming to rest in a open field.
If memory severs me correctly the wreckage was in four major pieces, tail section, aft fusulage, wing section and then the cockpit section. The wing center section burned up, however, the rest of the airframe was not fire damaged.
Oh yes the crew. When the first emergency vehicles arrived the enitre crew was standing on a road about a quarter mile from the crash site smoking cigarettes, pointing at the wreckage saying "Wow, look at that!"
No injuries at all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Ppruners:
What follows is probably the best information about the C5 crash to date. Including eyewitness accounts indicating pitch attitude of up to 50 degrees on short final. While some may say it is too early to speculate, I think a possible (repeat POSSIBLE) aerodynamic stall may be part of the equation.
While there may be many things leading up to a stall, please read this article!
jon regas
[email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C-5 crew recovering as investigation starts
Cause likely more than engine failure, veteran pilots say
The News Journal/GARY EMEIGH
Investigators examine debris Tuesday in the area where a U.S. Air Force Reserve C-5B Galaxy airplane crashed Monday near Dover.
> Special report
C-5 crashes near Dover
The News Journal/GARY EMEIGH
Lt. Col. Darren James is safety officer of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base.
The 17 PEOPLE ABOARD MONDAY'S C-5 FLIGHT:
(Name, unit, condition, hospital)
Lt. Col. Robert Moorman, 326th Airlift Squadron, Fair, Christiana
According to his squadron’s Web site, Moorman, of Dover, is the commander of the 326th Airlift Squadron, has more than 5,000 hours in C-5s and is a captain with a commercial airline.
Lt. Col. Harland Nelson, 326th AS, Fair, Kent General
Nelson, of Milford, is a pilot and member of the command staff of the 326th Airlift Squadron.
Capt. Brian Lafreda, 326th AS, Fair, Christiana
Lafreda, a pilot, has commanded several combat missions into Iraq and has flown relief supplies into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and into Pakistan for earthquake relief.
Master Sgt. Timothy Feiring, 709th Airlift Squadron, Released
Master Sgt. Michael Benford, 709th AS, Released
Tech. Sgt. Vincent Dvorak, 709th AS, Fair, Christiana
Master Sgt. Brenda Kremer, 709th AS, Released
Chief Master Sgt. David Burke, 326th AS, Released
Burke, 53, of Dover is “doing fine,” according to a woman who answered the phone at his home. “Unfortunately, he’s not going to be able to make a comment at any time.” She wouldn’t give her name.
Chief Master Sgt. George Mosley, 709th AS, Released
Mosley, 43, lives in the Camden-Wyoming area.
Tech. Sgt. Henry Fortney, 326th AS, Released
Fortney is 29 and lives in Dover.
Senior Airman Scott Schaffner, 89th Airlift Squadron, Released
Tammy Lucas, Lockheed Martin employee, Fair, Kent General
Lucas is a Lockheed Martin avionics engineer who has worked for the company for approximately 12 years. Based at the company’s headquarters in Marietta, Ga., she was on board the C-5 as an observer.
Staff Sgt. David Abrams, 436th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Released
Senior Airman Nicholas Vather, 436th AMXS, Fair, Kent General
Chief Petty Officer (USN, retired) Paul Kath, Released
Hannelore Kath, Released
Tech. Sgt. (USAF, retired) Raul Salamanca, Released
Related news from the Web
By JEFF MONTGOMERY
The News Journal
04/05/2006
Pilots likely were fighting far more than a choked engine just before they skidded a C-5 cargo jet across farmland just short of a Dover Air Force Base runway Monday morning, according to two veteran pilots and military standards for the workhorse aircraft.
Aircrews regularly practice for engine-failure emergencies by flying and landing C-5s with only three engines at full power and one all but shut down. Loads are calculated so that even at maximum weight, the big planes can climb and return to base if one engine conks out shortly after takeoff, according to a C-5 training manual.
All 17 people aboard Monday's flight survived the crash and breakup of the fuel-laden cargo jet. Most have returned home, but the Air Force said four people were recuperating in stable condition at Christiana and Kent General hospitals, including Lt. Col. Harland Nelson and Lt. Col. Robert Moorman.
Advertisement
Pest Control & Termite Tech - Willing to train
Pest Control & Termite Tech - Willin...
Restaurant - Looking for exp'd
Restaurant - Looking for exp'd P/T Serv...
Click to learn more...
"I'm OK," Nelson said from his hospital bed at Kent General.
Ann Moorman said her son, who was hospitalized at Christiana, was recovering, with his wife at his bedside. "He's doing very well," she said in a brief telephone interview from her home in Lake Forest, Ill. "I really don't know anything other than he is coming along fine."
Chief Master Sgt. George Mosley, 43, who was treated at Kent General and released, said he was under orders not to talk to news media pending completion of an investigation.
"Until they know more about it we're not allowed to say anything about it, and I've put my family under the same gag order," he said after answering the door at his home in Camden.
The C-5, which was put in service 21 years ago, crashed in a field just short of Dover's longest runway after reporting an engine problem about 10 minutes into a flight to Kuwait by way of Rota, Spain.
"It doesn't seem likely it was just because of one engine," said retired Maj. Ramona Hechtl of Davis, Calif., a veteran C-5 pilot who flew missions during the first Gulf war. Hechtl said she was a pilot on a C-5 flight that safely returned to base after an engine failed over the Pacific Ocean halfway between Hawaii and California.
Other factors, including problems with other systems or a miscalculated approach, might have compounded the emergency and put the heavily laden craft into a stall or a too-rapid descent.
"They could have gotten into a sink [descent] rate and couldn't pull out of it, I don't know," Hechtl said. "C-5 engines are not the greatest; it's pretty underpowered."
Base officials have yet to release details about the engine problem that forced the plane back to base, or the plane's altitude or location at the time the emergency began. But they praised both the crew and rescue teams for averting a potential tragedy.
The C-5 that crashed is a C-5B Galaxy and recently had its onboard flight controls and electronic systems modernized by Lockheed Martin under a program that will be used to determine whether to spend $10 billion to overhaul all the Air Force's 112 C-5s. A Lockheed Martin avionics engineer, Tammy Lucas of Marietta, Ga., was aboard the plane when it crashed. She is in fair condition at Kent General.
On Monday, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said a military briefer told him that until the cause of the accident has been determined, the modernized C-5s are being grounded. But a day later, Capt. Jeff Bishop, a spokesman for the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said none of the nation's C-5 fleet are grounded nor were they grounded at any point after the accident in Dover.
"We are not grounding or standing down the C-5 fleet ... none, including those with the avionics modernization program," Bishop said. Biden's office did not immediately return calls for clarification.
Short of the runway
One eyewitness account suggests the aircraft may have been fighting a stall just before its tail hit the ground just south of the runway. The tail broke off while the rest of the plane continued on, its forward section splitting off from the fuselage and wings.
Mike Cowan of Hartly reported that the plane's nose was pitched up about 45 or 50 degrees before its tail smacked the ground.
"The way he was coming in, he was way short," said Cowan, who spotted the plane's final seconds in the air while driving along U.S. 113. "I was saying 'You know what? If you don't bring that nose down soon, the tail is going to hit the ground.' "
The nose-high profile suggests crew members were "a little slow and trying to compensate by bringing the nose up," according to a retired colonel who recently served as an operations commander at Dover.
Retired Col. David G. Estep of Virginia said air crews must land planes with one engine idling as part of their qualification requirements.
"I've heard they were pretty heavy on gas. I'm assuming a heavy airplane, right after you take off, depending on what happens, you can be very busy very quickly," said Estep, who cautioned he had no direct information about the Dover crash.
"You can't get behind the power curve in that situation. If you start getting too slow and you're very heavy, it's difficult to accelerate and get back into a positive flight control regime."
Base officials said late Tuesday that all "black boxes" and other data recorders have been recovered from the C-5, still under heavy armed security where it came to rest on Monday.
"They've collected all that data. All we're doing is preserving it," Lt. Col. Darren V. James, safety office chief for the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, said late Tuesday.
Safety board to convene
The Air Mobility Command expects to convene an outside safety board at Dover Air Force Base within a day or two to investigate Monday's crash, local officials said late Tuesday.
Interim safety teams from Dover already are probing the accident, but only to collect and preserve evidence and interviews, James said. Actual analysis and reporting of findings will be handled by a military board from other units to assure objectivity in the probe.
News Journal reporters James Merriweather, Mike Billington, Kristin Harty and Lee Williams and the Associated Press contributed to this article.
What follows is probably the best information about the C5 crash to date. Including eyewitness accounts indicating pitch attitude of up to 50 degrees on short final. While some may say it is too early to speculate, I think a possible (repeat POSSIBLE) aerodynamic stall may be part of the equation.
While there may be many things leading up to a stall, please read this article!
jon regas
[email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C-5 crew recovering as investigation starts
Cause likely more than engine failure, veteran pilots say
The News Journal/GARY EMEIGH
Investigators examine debris Tuesday in the area where a U.S. Air Force Reserve C-5B Galaxy airplane crashed Monday near Dover.
> Special report
C-5 crashes near Dover
The News Journal/GARY EMEIGH
Lt. Col. Darren James is safety officer of the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base.
The 17 PEOPLE ABOARD MONDAY'S C-5 FLIGHT:
(Name, unit, condition, hospital)
Lt. Col. Robert Moorman, 326th Airlift Squadron, Fair, Christiana
According to his squadron’s Web site, Moorman, of Dover, is the commander of the 326th Airlift Squadron, has more than 5,000 hours in C-5s and is a captain with a commercial airline.
Lt. Col. Harland Nelson, 326th AS, Fair, Kent General
Nelson, of Milford, is a pilot and member of the command staff of the 326th Airlift Squadron.
Capt. Brian Lafreda, 326th AS, Fair, Christiana
Lafreda, a pilot, has commanded several combat missions into Iraq and has flown relief supplies into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and into Pakistan for earthquake relief.
Master Sgt. Timothy Feiring, 709th Airlift Squadron, Released
Master Sgt. Michael Benford, 709th AS, Released
Tech. Sgt. Vincent Dvorak, 709th AS, Fair, Christiana
Master Sgt. Brenda Kremer, 709th AS, Released
Chief Master Sgt. David Burke, 326th AS, Released
Burke, 53, of Dover is “doing fine,” according to a woman who answered the phone at his home. “Unfortunately, he’s not going to be able to make a comment at any time.” She wouldn’t give her name.
Chief Master Sgt. George Mosley, 709th AS, Released
Mosley, 43, lives in the Camden-Wyoming area.
Tech. Sgt. Henry Fortney, 326th AS, Released
Fortney is 29 and lives in Dover.
Senior Airman Scott Schaffner, 89th Airlift Squadron, Released
Tammy Lucas, Lockheed Martin employee, Fair, Kent General
Lucas is a Lockheed Martin avionics engineer who has worked for the company for approximately 12 years. Based at the company’s headquarters in Marietta, Ga., she was on board the C-5 as an observer.
Staff Sgt. David Abrams, 436th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, Released
Senior Airman Nicholas Vather, 436th AMXS, Fair, Kent General
Chief Petty Officer (USN, retired) Paul Kath, Released
Hannelore Kath, Released
Tech. Sgt. (USAF, retired) Raul Salamanca, Released
Related news from the Web
By JEFF MONTGOMERY
The News Journal
04/05/2006
Pilots likely were fighting far more than a choked engine just before they skidded a C-5 cargo jet across farmland just short of a Dover Air Force Base runway Monday morning, according to two veteran pilots and military standards for the workhorse aircraft.
Aircrews regularly practice for engine-failure emergencies by flying and landing C-5s with only three engines at full power and one all but shut down. Loads are calculated so that even at maximum weight, the big planes can climb and return to base if one engine conks out shortly after takeoff, according to a C-5 training manual.
All 17 people aboard Monday's flight survived the crash and breakup of the fuel-laden cargo jet. Most have returned home, but the Air Force said four people were recuperating in stable condition at Christiana and Kent General hospitals, including Lt. Col. Harland Nelson and Lt. Col. Robert Moorman.
Advertisement
Pest Control & Termite Tech - Willing to train
Pest Control & Termite Tech - Willin...
Restaurant - Looking for exp'd
Restaurant - Looking for exp'd P/T Serv...
Click to learn more...
"I'm OK," Nelson said from his hospital bed at Kent General.
Ann Moorman said her son, who was hospitalized at Christiana, was recovering, with his wife at his bedside. "He's doing very well," she said in a brief telephone interview from her home in Lake Forest, Ill. "I really don't know anything other than he is coming along fine."
Chief Master Sgt. George Mosley, 43, who was treated at Kent General and released, said he was under orders not to talk to news media pending completion of an investigation.
"Until they know more about it we're not allowed to say anything about it, and I've put my family under the same gag order," he said after answering the door at his home in Camden.
The C-5, which was put in service 21 years ago, crashed in a field just short of Dover's longest runway after reporting an engine problem about 10 minutes into a flight to Kuwait by way of Rota, Spain.
"It doesn't seem likely it was just because of one engine," said retired Maj. Ramona Hechtl of Davis, Calif., a veteran C-5 pilot who flew missions during the first Gulf war. Hechtl said she was a pilot on a C-5 flight that safely returned to base after an engine failed over the Pacific Ocean halfway between Hawaii and California.
Other factors, including problems with other systems or a miscalculated approach, might have compounded the emergency and put the heavily laden craft into a stall or a too-rapid descent.
"They could have gotten into a sink [descent] rate and couldn't pull out of it, I don't know," Hechtl said. "C-5 engines are not the greatest; it's pretty underpowered."
Base officials have yet to release details about the engine problem that forced the plane back to base, or the plane's altitude or location at the time the emergency began. But they praised both the crew and rescue teams for averting a potential tragedy.
The C-5 that crashed is a C-5B Galaxy and recently had its onboard flight controls and electronic systems modernized by Lockheed Martin under a program that will be used to determine whether to spend $10 billion to overhaul all the Air Force's 112 C-5s. A Lockheed Martin avionics engineer, Tammy Lucas of Marietta, Ga., was aboard the plane when it crashed. She is in fair condition at Kent General.
On Monday, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said a military briefer told him that until the cause of the accident has been determined, the modernized C-5s are being grounded. But a day later, Capt. Jeff Bishop, a spokesman for the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said none of the nation's C-5 fleet are grounded nor were they grounded at any point after the accident in Dover.
"We are not grounding or standing down the C-5 fleet ... none, including those with the avionics modernization program," Bishop said. Biden's office did not immediately return calls for clarification.
Short of the runway
One eyewitness account suggests the aircraft may have been fighting a stall just before its tail hit the ground just south of the runway. The tail broke off while the rest of the plane continued on, its forward section splitting off from the fuselage and wings.
Mike Cowan of Hartly reported that the plane's nose was pitched up about 45 or 50 degrees before its tail smacked the ground.
"The way he was coming in, he was way short," said Cowan, who spotted the plane's final seconds in the air while driving along U.S. 113. "I was saying 'You know what? If you don't bring that nose down soon, the tail is going to hit the ground.' "
The nose-high profile suggests crew members were "a little slow and trying to compensate by bringing the nose up," according to a retired colonel who recently served as an operations commander at Dover.
Retired Col. David G. Estep of Virginia said air crews must land planes with one engine idling as part of their qualification requirements.
"I've heard they were pretty heavy on gas. I'm assuming a heavy airplane, right after you take off, depending on what happens, you can be very busy very quickly," said Estep, who cautioned he had no direct information about the Dover crash.
"You can't get behind the power curve in that situation. If you start getting too slow and you're very heavy, it's difficult to accelerate and get back into a positive flight control regime."
Base officials said late Tuesday that all "black boxes" and other data recorders have been recovered from the C-5, still under heavy armed security where it came to rest on Monday.
"They've collected all that data. All we're doing is preserving it," Lt. Col. Darren V. James, safety office chief for the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover, said late Tuesday.
Safety board to convene
The Air Mobility Command expects to convene an outside safety board at Dover Air Force Base within a day or two to investigate Monday's crash, local officials said late Tuesday.
Interim safety teams from Dover already are probing the accident, but only to collect and preserve evidence and interviews, James said. Actual analysis and reporting of findings will be handled by a military board from other units to assure objectivity in the probe.
News Journal reporters James Merriweather, Mike Billington, Kristin Harty and Lee Williams and the Associated Press contributed to this article.
ExSimGuy, re 'designed to break apart like this on impact.'
G and impact forces will break some aircraft into pieces at the construction breaks, ie behind the cockpit, say, and at the rear pressure bulkhead. That's one possibility here.
G and impact forces will break some aircraft into pieces at the construction breaks, ie behind the cockpit, say, and at the rear pressure bulkhead. That's one possibility here.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by critical winge
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.