747 Crash At Brussels
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can guarantee you this: there were three men in that cockpit, and all three would have been bending those reverser levers back to the trash bag, watching the end of the runway come up like that.
And they would have yanked the spoilers out.
Obviously there were some system issues. Maybe the air/ground logic was faulty.
And they would have yanked the spoilers out.
Obviously there were some system issues. Maybe the air/ground logic was faulty.
Certainly not implying anything in this accident (along with most of us I do not know what happened in BRU), just mentioning this issue as I think it is significant.
I remember the Qantas 744 in Bangkok with the disastrous second guessing by the Captain of the F/O'S sound go around decision, taking over and landing then overunning in IDLE reverse.
I think Idle reverse is negative training, setting up bad habit patterns.
I remember the Qantas 744 in Bangkok with the disastrous second guessing by the Captain of the F/O'S sound go around decision, taking over and landing then overunning in IDLE reverse.
I think Idle reverse is negative training, setting up bad habit patterns.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Despite Training Manuals, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) and Basic Operation Manuals (BOM) etc. etc. Human Factors is (still) aviation worst nightmare."
Some of the posters on this thread are obsessed with the idea of justifying an abort at or beyond V1 speed. It's stupefying and dangerous.
Top Dog
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Close to FACT
Age: 55
Posts: 2,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from the Freight Dogs thread
From Flight International magazine's web-site.
Overrun Kalitta 747 suffered power loss but no engine damage
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Investigators in Brussels have found no evidence of engine damage on the Kalitta Air Boeing 747-200 freighter destroyed in a take-off overrun on 25 May, but confirm that one engine suffered a loss of power at a critical speed threshold.
The Belgian inquiry has also determined that the correct aircraft parameters, runway selection and weather data were uploaded to the 747’s computer before departure, and that use of runway 20 would not have posed any problems.
Two pilots, two engineers and a passenger accompanying diplomatic cargo escaped after the jet broke into three sections during the overrun. There was no prior structural failure; the break-up was caused by impact forces as the jet went over a 4m (13ft) drop.
“At this stage there is no reason to make urgent recommendations,” says the Service Public Federal Mobilite et Transports, which is heading the probe.
Analysis of the flight recorders, it says, shows the initial part of the take-off roll was normal, with constant acceleration until one of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines suffered a “momentary” loss of power.
This power loss, which was accompanied by a “detonation”, occurred as the aircraft reached the V1 speed – the threshold beyond which a crew normally must commit to becoming airborne, because the aircraft cannot be stopped safely on the runway.
The crew heard the noise and air traffic controllers witnessed flames from the right side of the aircraft.
Two seconds later the engine thrust was reduced to idle and the aircraft decelerated, but failed to stop before the runway end. Thrust reversers were not deployed, although a rejected take-off calculation does not take reverser use into account.
All four engines were operating as the 747 overran and, upon inspection, showed no sign of catastrophic failure. The engine cowlings were not punctured.
Following the indications of a possible problem with one of the right-hand engines, these were subjected to an initial endoscopic inspection of the high-pressure turbine and compressor.
“This inspection, although incomplete, failed to reveal any internal damage,” say the investigators. The fan-blades and low-pressure turbine remained in place and were similarly undamaged.
Specialists are to carry out a more thorough teardown and examination of the engine components.
None of the cargo pallets had shifted significantly during the accident, but the investigators are to check the loading distribution as part of the inquiry. The jet had stopped over in Brussels as part of a service between New York JFK and Bahrain.
################################################## #
Preliminary report of the Air Accidents Investigation Unit of the Belgian Federal Ministery of Transport at:
in Dutch
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604an.pdf
in French:
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604af.pdf
- no apparent problem as regards the use of RW 20/02 for this flight - all flight data correctly entered in flight computer
- brief loss of power on one engine at about (sic) V1 associated with loud bang and flames, as confirmed by crew cq witnesses/controller.
- 2 sec after the bang, thrust was reduced to idle - no reverse thrust commanded - vigourous braking started and maintained until final stop
- preliminary on site endoscopic inspection of engines 3 and 4 - although very incomplete - didn t show any damange in the HP or LP compressor, HP turbine nor of the fan blades
- cargo found correctly stowed after impact - actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
- no catastrophic structural damage before final impact (4m drop)
- L1 door blocked due to structural damage on impact, 'service' door used to evacuate
FDR and CVR will now be analysed further , and engines will be recovered from the wreckage and further investigated upon.
Overrun Kalitta 747 suffered power loss but no engine damage
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Investigators in Brussels have found no evidence of engine damage on the Kalitta Air Boeing 747-200 freighter destroyed in a take-off overrun on 25 May, but confirm that one engine suffered a loss of power at a critical speed threshold.
The Belgian inquiry has also determined that the correct aircraft parameters, runway selection and weather data were uploaded to the 747’s computer before departure, and that use of runway 20 would not have posed any problems.
Two pilots, two engineers and a passenger accompanying diplomatic cargo escaped after the jet broke into three sections during the overrun. There was no prior structural failure; the break-up was caused by impact forces as the jet went over a 4m (13ft) drop.
“At this stage there is no reason to make urgent recommendations,” says the Service Public Federal Mobilite et Transports, which is heading the probe.
Analysis of the flight recorders, it says, shows the initial part of the take-off roll was normal, with constant acceleration until one of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines suffered a “momentary” loss of power.
This power loss, which was accompanied by a “detonation”, occurred as the aircraft reached the V1 speed – the threshold beyond which a crew normally must commit to becoming airborne, because the aircraft cannot be stopped safely on the runway.
The crew heard the noise and air traffic controllers witnessed flames from the right side of the aircraft.
Two seconds later the engine thrust was reduced to idle and the aircraft decelerated, but failed to stop before the runway end. Thrust reversers were not deployed, although a rejected take-off calculation does not take reverser use into account.
All four engines were operating as the 747 overran and, upon inspection, showed no sign of catastrophic failure. The engine cowlings were not punctured.
Following the indications of a possible problem with one of the right-hand engines, these were subjected to an initial endoscopic inspection of the high-pressure turbine and compressor.
“This inspection, although incomplete, failed to reveal any internal damage,” say the investigators. The fan-blades and low-pressure turbine remained in place and were similarly undamaged.
Specialists are to carry out a more thorough teardown and examination of the engine components.
None of the cargo pallets had shifted significantly during the accident, but the investigators are to check the loading distribution as part of the inquiry. The jet had stopped over in Brussels as part of a service between New York JFK and Bahrain.
################################################## #
Preliminary report of the Air Accidents Investigation Unit of the Belgian Federal Ministery of Transport at:
in Dutch
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604an.pdf
in French:
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604af.pdf
- no apparent problem as regards the use of RW 20/02 for this flight - all flight data correctly entered in flight computer
- brief loss of power on one engine at about (sic) V1 associated with loud bang and flames, as confirmed by crew cq witnesses/controller.
- 2 sec after the bang, thrust was reduced to idle - no reverse thrust commanded - vigourous braking started and maintained until final stop
- preliminary on site endoscopic inspection of engines 3 and 4 - although very incomplete - didn t show any damange in the HP or LP compressor, HP turbine nor of the fan blades
- cargo found correctly stowed after impact - actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
- no catastrophic structural damage before final impact (4m drop)
- L1 door blocked due to structural damage on impact, 'service' door used to evacuate
FDR and CVR will now be analysed further , and engines will be recovered from the wreckage and further investigated upon.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BRU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mod,
you are free to quote (part of) one of my posts, but since it was my own translation and summary, published well before the FI article, I would appreciate if you would mention your source.
Yours
you are free to quote (part of) one of my posts, but since it was my own translation and summary, published well before the FI article, I would appreciate if you would mention your source.
Yours
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is not fair to rush in to conclusions as we do not have
all the facts yet.
It is very easy to sit behind a desk and exactly know the right action
that should have been performed.
Just one thing we should all remember that the operating crew had
seconds to make a decision that is irrevocable.
all the facts yet.
It is very easy to sit behind a desk and exactly know the right action
that should have been performed.
Just one thing we should all remember that the operating crew had
seconds to make a decision that is irrevocable.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Tarik, you are wrong!
The decision was made before they boarded the aircraft. Above V1 continue unless the aircraft is unable to fly.
The crew made the decision to stop above V1. They overran the runway. It should come as no surprise to any professional aviator.
The decision was made before they boarded the aircraft. Above V1 continue unless the aircraft is unable to fly.
The crew made the decision to stop above V1. They overran the runway. It should come as no surprise to any professional aviator.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FE Hoppy
Sorry Tarik, you are wrong!
The decision was made before they boarded the aircraft. Above V1 continue unless the aircraft is unable to fly.
The decision was made before they boarded the aircraft. Above V1 continue unless the aircraft is unable to fly.
Unless you know the answer to the above, using your own words, Tarik is correct.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: spain
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you know they were above V1?
How do know if the plane was able to fly?
It is easy to comment while sitting behind your desk, but you just
do not have all the facts yet.
One day you might be on the other side of the table, and you will
have people like you deciding that everything you did was wrong,
believe me you will not be very amused then.
How do know if the plane was able to fly?
It is easy to comment while sitting behind your desk, but you just
do not have all the facts yet.
One day you might be on the other side of the table, and you will
have people like you deciding that everything you did was wrong,
believe me you will not be very amused then.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- cargo found correctly stowed after impact - actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
Who provides the actual payload weights on the load sheet? Is there an independent verification of actual weight versus the claimed weight before loading? Are there different procedures for "diplomatic" cargo?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actual weights are provided by the personnel who prepare the pallets for shipping, by actual weighing. A loadmaster oversees the loading and the weight and balance, and its' verified and signed for by the crew.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How independent do you want? I just carried a load on company pallets and client pallets, tied down with company straps, arranged by company personnel, weighed by company personnel, loaded by company personnel, overseen by the same loadmaster that rode on the aircraft, and reviewed and signed for by the crew.
Over the years I've flown many passengers who did not declare their weight, and have used baggage that was both weighed (but not weighed in location on the airplane), using standard weights and procedures. I've carried cargo the same way, including liquid cargo; pump it aboard, carry what's determined by standard weights per gallon. Sometimes it may be heavy sometimes not. Our personal requirement is that we must revisit our calculations only if the weight changes by 10,000 lbs or more. This is generally the result of additional fuel being added, rather than a weight calculation error. Additionally, the checklist and flow procedures call for independent verification by both captain and first officer, and a comparison between the two, and a triple confirmation on the loading by the captain, first officer, and flight engineer, as well as by the loadmaster who usually rides with the load, calculates the weight and balance, oversees the loading and unloading, and makes determinations regarding each device or pallet loaded.
Over the years I've flown many passengers who did not declare their weight, and have used baggage that was both weighed (but not weighed in location on the airplane), using standard weights and procedures. I've carried cargo the same way, including liquid cargo; pump it aboard, carry what's determined by standard weights per gallon. Sometimes it may be heavy sometimes not. Our personal requirement is that we must revisit our calculations only if the weight changes by 10,000 lbs or more. This is generally the result of additional fuel being added, rather than a weight calculation error. Additionally, the checklist and flow procedures call for independent verification by both captain and first officer, and a comparison between the two, and a triple confirmation on the loading by the captain, first officer, and flight engineer, as well as by the loadmaster who usually rides with the load, calculates the weight and balance, oversees the loading and unloading, and makes determinations regarding each device or pallet loaded.
Superspotter,
Independent? How would you suggest this be done? That each pallet be weighed by an "independent" party after weighing by the carrier itself or its agents? SGS would love that but get real, please; any airline, cargo or passenger, starts from a premise of trust tempered by procedural cross-checks. And crews flying cargo, with their own lives on the line are, if anything, genetically interested in the particulars of what's likely to crowd them should there be a sudden stop.
And, since w+b doesn't seem to have been a factor here, why bring it up?
Independent? How would you suggest this be done? That each pallet be weighed by an "independent" party after weighing by the carrier itself or its agents? SGS would love that but get real, please; any airline, cargo or passenger, starts from a premise of trust tempered by procedural cross-checks. And crews flying cargo, with their own lives on the line are, if anything, genetically interested in the particulars of what's likely to crowd them should there be a sudden stop.
And, since w+b doesn't seem to have been a factor here, why bring it up?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After what we know (RTO around V1 ending in RWY overrun by 400m), overweight might very well be a factor here, not saying it is, but might be.
Regarding "diplomatic" cargo and the security around it, would that still be weighed by the company before loading?
Regarding "diplomatic" cargo and the security around it, would that still be weighed by the company before loading?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diplomatic cargo...sounds very ominous, doesn't it? Conspiracy theories abounding, secret government agents on board, crew can't know what they're carrying and all that garbage?
The majority of the "diplomatic" cargo on these flights is letters from wives, girlfriends, college campuses, and credit card companies...every day US mail enroute to government employees, troops, contractors, back and forth. Vehicles get carried...straight forward, simple vehicles. Generators. Mops. Paint. Whatever is needed gets carried, very simply put. Nothing sinister here, nor was there any top secret, can't-tell-the-crew-how-much-it-weighs cargo involved. Didn't happen.
The weight of the cargo is and was known, and it's already been verified for this flight. As it's not an issue, why do you keep bringing it up? The weight was not a factor. The performance calculations were correct. The cargo was secured. It was balanced correctly. Enough already.
The majority of the "diplomatic" cargo on these flights is letters from wives, girlfriends, college campuses, and credit card companies...every day US mail enroute to government employees, troops, contractors, back and forth. Vehicles get carried...straight forward, simple vehicles. Generators. Mops. Paint. Whatever is needed gets carried, very simply put. Nothing sinister here, nor was there any top secret, can't-tell-the-crew-how-much-it-weighs cargo involved. Didn't happen.
The weight of the cargo is and was known, and it's already been verified for this flight. As it's not an issue, why do you keep bringing it up? The weight was not a factor. The performance calculations were correct. The cargo was secured. It was balanced correctly. Enough already.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plugged in the following for a GE CF6-50E2 (51,800lbs rated thrust) 747
BRU RWY 20 +20C QNH1000 5 Tail and 306,000kg
Came out with Max thrust 112.7 %N1
Flap 20
V1 133
VR 144
V2 158
Also allowed for an addition 30,000kg to be carried.
What's the rated thrust of the Pratts fitted to the actual A/C?
BRU RWY 20 +20C QNH1000 5 Tail and 306,000kg
Came out with Max thrust 112.7 %N1
Flap 20
V1 133
VR 144
V2 158
Also allowed for an addition 30,000kg to be carried.
What's the rated thrust of the Pratts fitted to the actual A/C?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy, why so irritated? I didn't say "diplomatic" sounds ominous or a conspiracy was happening. Simply asked, if there are different procedures for handling diplomatic cargo, period.
So you know this for fact (which leaves me wondering how you could) or are you guessing?
From the preliminary report
my understanding as a native German of English grammar suggests, that the verification of cargo weight is under way but no conclusion published yet?
Nothing sinister here, nor was there any top secret, can't-tell-the-crew-how-much-it-weighs cargo involved. Didn't happen.
The weight of the cargo is and was known, and it's already been verified for this flight.
The weight of the cargo is and was known, and it's already been verified for this flight.
From the preliminary report
...actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Interflug, I also fly the same birds (for the same company)
as SNS3Guppy, his statements are accurate.
Let's wait and see what the Belgiques (sp) say when the re-weigh the load.
as SNS3Guppy, his statements are accurate.
Let's wait and see what the Belgiques (sp) say when the re-weigh the load.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: BRU
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interflug wrote
Correct. The preliminary report says just that. No update published so far.
Glad my translation from Dutch into English is construed correctly by a German native speaker. There is still hope...
my understanding as a native German of English grammar suggests, that the verification of cargo weight is under way but no conclusion published yet?
Glad my translation from Dutch into English is construed correctly by a German native speaker. There is still hope...