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

C-5 accident at Dover AFB

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

C-5 accident at Dover AFB

Old 3rd Apr 2006, 12:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C-5 accident at Dover AFB

Just on BBC.

C5 crashed. Think it was Delaware.
Anyone with more details.
assymetric is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 12:32
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C-5 accident at Dover AFB

BBC report a C-5 has crashed at Dover AFB, pictures show it has broken in half just behind the cockpit, 17 pax
Hope all OK

G-I-B
GOLF-INDIA BRAVO is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 12:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Between land masses
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More here C5 crash
Foreign Worker is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 12:52
  #4 (permalink)  

Moon Walker
 
neil armstrong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: the Moon
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cnn link with photo

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.....ap/index.html


Neil
neil armstrong is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 12:56
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: I'm the asshole next door
Age: 60
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
flynverted is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 74
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here's a link with some pictures----

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=4048441
Oshkosh George is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:32
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 63
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The C-5 can carry 270,000 tons of cargo almost 2,500 miles on one load of fuel. The C-5's wingspan is 28 feet wider than a 747 and the military jet is 16 feet longer than the civilian airliner.
From CNN web.
What a payload!
Charles Darwin is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:37
  #8 (permalink)  

Life's too short for ironing
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those are amazing pictures. It seems to have broken very cleanly and great that there was no fire.
fernytickles is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:39
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
270,000 tonne payload. Want one.
Not this one of course. What's happened to the tail?
Epsilon minus is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:50
  #10 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 15,729
Received 767 Likes on 382 Posts
Slideshow of crash site. Tail? Over yonder....

From the shots it looks like they put it down where the tail separated and slid until the port outer was ripped off, whilst the aircraft spun and the cockpit section detached. hell of a landing at that weight and load. I have to be puzzled as to the lack of fire. Incredibly lucky if fully fuelled.
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 13:52
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
What's happened to the tail?
Tail is in the white circle.


BossEyed is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 15:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: East Lancs.
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Mr Darwin - got your payload slightly wrong.

The Galaxy has 12 internal wing tanks with a total capacity of 51,150 gallons (194,370 liters) of fuel -- enough to fill 6 1/2 regular size railroad tank cars. A full fuel load weighs 332,500 pounds (150,820 kilograms). A C-5 with a cargo load of 270,000 pounds (122,472 kilograms) can fly 2,150 nautical miles, offload, and fly to a second base 500 nautical miles away from the original destination -- all without aerial refueling. With aerial refueling, the aircraft's range is limited only by crew endurance.
AGPwallah is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 15:31
  #13 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 15,729
Received 767 Likes on 382 Posts
Pilot, co-pilot pinned during C-5 crashUpdate 10:47 am - The News Journal - Delaware Online

DOVER -- The pilot and co-pilot of a C-5 cargo plane were pinned in their seats when the plane crashed today, just south of Dover Air Force Base, according to an Air Force officer who had friends on the plane.

Seventeen people were aboard, and three were flown by helicopter to Christiana Hospital in Stanton, two with possible spinal injuries, the officer said. A Christiana Hospital spokesperson referred all questions to the Air Force. Fourteen people from the C-5 were taken to Kent General Hospital with minor injuries, one with a broken leg.

At 9:30 a.m., at least four Air Force personnel wearing patients’ smocks at Kent General could be seen in a conference room filling out forms and being questioned by Air Force officers in camouflage fatigues. The personnel in the smocks appeared to be uninjured and were sipping coffee and munching donuts. Hospital spokesperson Pam Marecki was not immediately available for comment. According to Ellen Shockley of Bayhealth, which operates Kent General, all 14 “patients are being evaluated and treated now. Many patients will soon be discharged and a few will likely be admitted to the hospital.”

CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Air Force C-5 cargo jet carrying 17 people crashed and broke into pieces Monday while trying to make an emergency landing near Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Air Force and FAA officials said. No one was killed, but several aboard were injured, Air Force Tech. Sgt. Melissa Phillips, a spokeswoman for the base, told The Associated Press.

Pentagon sources told CNN the aircraft "declared an in-flight emergency for a No. 2 engine flameout."
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 16:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,503
Received 12 Likes on 6 Posts
Hopefully all aboard survived without serious injury -- pending hospital reports. The fuselage seems to have broken in the upper deck kitchen/lav area where hopefully nobody was present. As I recall from a tour many moons ago the pax seating is around the wings.

Two of four slides seem to have been correctly deployed

I'm sure the cockpit crew was happy it remained erect as it's a long way down the ladder and made it much easier to extricate the front seat crew who were reported pinned in their seats.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 17:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 5945'36N 1027'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It allmost made the runway: http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=39.11...15.4&r=0&src=0
M609 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 18:55
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque USA
Posts: 174
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
I have to be puzzled as to the lack of fire. Incredibly lucky if fully fuelled.
The photo posted on the BBC site has an arc of foam suggesting either a small actual fire or a precautionary measure centered about the pylon from which an engine departed.


Last edited by archae86; 3rd Apr 2006 at 19:09.
archae86 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 19:10
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: I'm the asshole next door
Age: 60
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More pics, originally posted at AirDisaster dot com





flynverted is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 19:21
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Picture no. 5 above. Did the tail take some of the top of the fuselage with it as well ? It doesn't seem to have detached at the attachment lugs....?
Golf Charlie Charlie is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 19:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: PNW, USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking at the Pictures...

Couple of things look a bit strange:
1. The ground around the aircraft seems intact - would've expected recognisable skid/gouge marks, perhaps? Suggests they arrived at near zero groundspeed.
2. Foam round the port wing seems to be a pretty late arrival - or a very early one. Most of the pics that first made it on to CNN etc. show very little of it, compared with archae86's view.
Be interesting to know what the sequence of events was...
GI
GrazingIncidence is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2006, 20:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not that I'd recommend speculating from photos, but to point out the obvious:

There are recognizable skid marks -- at the end of the slide, the aircraft turned 90 degrees to the direction of travel. In the process, the nose section broke off, and the left wing (pointing in the direction of travel), dipped down, sending the #1 pod on its way and causing a small fuel leak. There was no fire, and the passengers evacuated from the slightly lower side (towards the fuel leak). When the equipment arrived, they secured the site, evacuated the aircraft, then, when the TV crews showed up around, say, 12:01 pm, they applied flame retardant onto the spilled fuel.
DingerX is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.