747 Crash At Brussels
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MAN/Wherever
Age: 62
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Broadreach, I was making a general observation regarding pallet weights and not an observation regarding this particular Kalitta flight...........and maybe I should have added a little more to the end of my sentence........I was thinking of africa as I typed
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TARIK
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
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
If you think I would be upset about someone pointing out my miss-handling of an emergency you don't know me very well at all.
One thing for sure, would wouldn't catch me trying to stop 2 seconds after V1 for an engine surge!!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wezembeek-Oppem
Age: 78
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N704CK aborted take-off
Scraping was started using demolition equipment used for cutting steel structures.
I don't know how to post pictures on this side. I took some on June 1st. If interested, drop me a pm and I will revert.
In the meantime you can have a look at my aviationet , luchtzak.be and tarmacs.net.
Regards
Willy
I don't know how to post pictures on this side. I took some on June 1st. If interested, drop me a pm and I will revert.
In the meantime you can have a look at my aviationet , luchtzak.be and tarmacs.net.
Regards
Willy
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Wezembeek-Oppem
Age: 78
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N704CK aborted take-off
As soon as the Belgian authorities were allowed to board the wreck (Friday following the incident), US military staff left the site. Upper deck was off-loaded in broad delight with lot of photographers on the spot.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Class 3 RFL
I agree with you though, I cannot imagine why there would be a L&B problem with this flight, there is nobody to profit from it so why bother.
Does anyone know if 742Fs have WOW sensors for MAC% and Weight ??
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EEEK
Class 3 RFL
Class 3 RFL
Does anyone know if 742Fs have WOW sensors for MAC% and Weight ??
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Octane's question about groundloop
Octane,
Just now saw this thread. If you're still there, Yes, we had one accidentally groundloop due to a pipe load shifting due to ground crew forgetting to raise the pallet locks on the floor as a backup to straps. FTL in the 80's. The straps snapped before rotate, the load went to the tail and the next thing the Captain knew the nose came off the ground at 100 kts and he was just along for the ride. Millions of dollars damage just on the belly strike alone. The aircraft did several 360's I understand, no one hurt: repaired later.
This caused a new procedure that I had to train on about doublechecking PALLETLOCKS as an S/O at the time.
She's a tough old bird, but there's little chance she won't break up at those huge weights off the overrun. The fuselage bends quite a bit in turns on normal taxiways so we used to make gentle ones and pull straight ahead after turning to untwist the airframe stress. If you do a 90 degree turn with differential brakes and power, the corner windscreen will likely crack. The 200's loaded a lot heavier than the 100 was (the power to weight is less on the 200F.) Nasa picked the 100 to ferry the shuttle because the empty weight is lower even thought the early JT9D engines were smaller thrust.
I don't know which model was more successful: the 737 or the 747. Anybody know? There were over 2000 flying when I was on it.
Just now saw this thread. If you're still there, Yes, we had one accidentally groundloop due to a pipe load shifting due to ground crew forgetting to raise the pallet locks on the floor as a backup to straps. FTL in the 80's. The straps snapped before rotate, the load went to the tail and the next thing the Captain knew the nose came off the ground at 100 kts and he was just along for the ride. Millions of dollars damage just on the belly strike alone. The aircraft did several 360's I understand, no one hurt: repaired later.
This caused a new procedure that I had to train on about doublechecking PALLETLOCKS as an S/O at the time.
She's a tough old bird, but there's little chance she won't break up at those huge weights off the overrun. The fuselage bends quite a bit in turns on normal taxiways so we used to make gentle ones and pull straight ahead after turning to untwist the airframe stress. If you do a 90 degree turn with differential brakes and power, the corner windscreen will likely crack. The 200's loaded a lot heavier than the 100 was (the power to weight is less on the 200F.) Nasa picked the 100 to ferry the shuttle because the empty weight is lower even thought the early JT9D engines were smaller thrust.
I don't know which model was more successful: the 737 or the 747. Anybody know? There were over 2000 flying when I was on it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you do a 90 degree turn with differential brakes and power, the corner windscreen will likely crack.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thread, and great pics,
I just now read the rest of it. Didn't know breakup was already determined to be after the machine left the overrun. The groans I used to hear on taxiout already confirmed to me at least, that this machine can't survive any off-field ops. Sorry for stating the obvious.
I greatly enjoy the mix of armchair aviators and pros still in the saddle that pprune provides.
Everyone has different experiences in Aviation. Unlike some, I like the debate and speculation that goes on after an accident. It's a little like sports or gambling. I think it goes without saying we all realize that the real causes of the mishap can only be known by those in the cockpit and maybe, by officals if gov and business politics don't influence the outcome. It is fun to speculate and guess as to the causes, since every man who leaves the ground may have to draw on the hangar flying he picked up earlier to get his arse out of a jam (or maybe not; it's just great fun playing Monday Morning Quarterback!)
But the fact is, we've already seen disgruntled mechanics post on this site that all was not well with the supplemental mtc of said charter outfit. This is nothing new. Outfits like this are just trying to survive and fly in the ominous shadow of the big monopoly airlines. So I see both sides of this.
Engine surge and "torching" (belching fire) is a common problem with the JT9D series Big Fans at max power (Surge bleed valve issues if I recall.) (Were these -70A or -F or -Q engines by any chance?) Kind of strange, because the engines look kinda like -7A's in the pics which you normally found on -100's. We had one hybrid: a World Airways bird (749) with a -200 airframe sporting -7A engines. My outfit many times launched a "sick engine" out from the maintenance base out around the world. On T/O we would just pull back the engine that was misbehaving a little (surging or overtemping) and rotate out off the end, knowing full well if it failed on the overweight takeoffs we were screwed. We would call V1 about five to seven knots early because we knew (after CAL LAX DC10), that the gov approved abort data for stopping was all bullschidt. CAL was a mtc metal grinding mistake, but still, they cut it so close that only a perfect new airplane with a test pilot could stop it. Gov approved certification was derived from a test pilot who knew it was going to fail, and who was all jacked up to make it fit the data, no matter how many times he had to repeat it. This is the reality of Big Iron sales. This machine, the 747 was originally designed by the engineers who spec'ed the tooling to have a gross weight of only 750,000 pounds at take off. (100F conv frieghtor.) The 747-249F was commissioned and launched by my airline FTL and, after jacking and jacking and adding big engines got the weight up to 820,000 T/O. It had beefed up gear and beefed up flooring paid by the gov in exchange for a program I'm probably wise not to discuss here. An amazing machine at the time in that it could carry both 250,000 pounds of fuel and 250,000 pounds of freight if the runway was long enough. We were upset, anytime the runway was not at least 10,000 ft long (sorry, you chaps may have to convert units.)
I would be interested in knowing which model went off the end in this discussion. We had quite a mixed fleet and I believe our machines went to UPS and others like the one in question.
The bottom line is that these freighters operate on the edge of what is possible at V1. Weighing pallets is not an exact science (at least it didn't used to be when I did it.) The guys that tell you that everything is by the book are not honest. A 30 year old machine picking up pallets (mis) weighed by young kids for the gov, is , many times in my experience, bound not to perform to book standards (that used a brand new runway at Edwards without rubber deposits or commercial scheduling pressures or fatigue issues.) Two seconds response time after V1 and a "FIRE" call from the tower is about right for a jet-lagged captain to get on the brakes.
This crew did a great job imho: they walked away from it. What fool would go flying after V1 if the tower is shouting that you're on fire?
Come on!
"The Captain is the ultimate and final authority as to the operation of his aircraft." Isn't that in the U.S. FAR book any more?
I rest my feeble case.
I just now read the rest of it. Didn't know breakup was already determined to be after the machine left the overrun. The groans I used to hear on taxiout already confirmed to me at least, that this machine can't survive any off-field ops. Sorry for stating the obvious.
I greatly enjoy the mix of armchair aviators and pros still in the saddle that pprune provides.
Everyone has different experiences in Aviation. Unlike some, I like the debate and speculation that goes on after an accident. It's a little like sports or gambling. I think it goes without saying we all realize that the real causes of the mishap can only be known by those in the cockpit and maybe, by officals if gov and business politics don't influence the outcome. It is fun to speculate and guess as to the causes, since every man who leaves the ground may have to draw on the hangar flying he picked up earlier to get his arse out of a jam (or maybe not; it's just great fun playing Monday Morning Quarterback!)
But the fact is, we've already seen disgruntled mechanics post on this site that all was not well with the supplemental mtc of said charter outfit. This is nothing new. Outfits like this are just trying to survive and fly in the ominous shadow of the big monopoly airlines. So I see both sides of this.
Engine surge and "torching" (belching fire) is a common problem with the JT9D series Big Fans at max power (Surge bleed valve issues if I recall.) (Were these -70A or -F or -Q engines by any chance?) Kind of strange, because the engines look kinda like -7A's in the pics which you normally found on -100's. We had one hybrid: a World Airways bird (749) with a -200 airframe sporting -7A engines. My outfit many times launched a "sick engine" out from the maintenance base out around the world. On T/O we would just pull back the engine that was misbehaving a little (surging or overtemping) and rotate out off the end, knowing full well if it failed on the overweight takeoffs we were screwed. We would call V1 about five to seven knots early because we knew (after CAL LAX DC10), that the gov approved abort data for stopping was all bullschidt. CAL was a mtc metal grinding mistake, but still, they cut it so close that only a perfect new airplane with a test pilot could stop it. Gov approved certification was derived from a test pilot who knew it was going to fail, and who was all jacked up to make it fit the data, no matter how many times he had to repeat it. This is the reality of Big Iron sales. This machine, the 747 was originally designed by the engineers who spec'ed the tooling to have a gross weight of only 750,000 pounds at take off. (100F conv frieghtor.) The 747-249F was commissioned and launched by my airline FTL and, after jacking and jacking and adding big engines got the weight up to 820,000 T/O. It had beefed up gear and beefed up flooring paid by the gov in exchange for a program I'm probably wise not to discuss here. An amazing machine at the time in that it could carry both 250,000 pounds of fuel and 250,000 pounds of freight if the runway was long enough. We were upset, anytime the runway was not at least 10,000 ft long (sorry, you chaps may have to convert units.)
I would be interested in knowing which model went off the end in this discussion. We had quite a mixed fleet and I believe our machines went to UPS and others like the one in question.
The bottom line is that these freighters operate on the edge of what is possible at V1. Weighing pallets is not an exact science (at least it didn't used to be when I did it.) The guys that tell you that everything is by the book are not honest. A 30 year old machine picking up pallets (mis) weighed by young kids for the gov, is , many times in my experience, bound not to perform to book standards (that used a brand new runway at Edwards without rubber deposits or commercial scheduling pressures or fatigue issues.) Two seconds response time after V1 and a "FIRE" call from the tower is about right for a jet-lagged captain to get on the brakes.
This crew did a great job imho: they walked away from it. What fool would go flying after V1 if the tower is shouting that you're on fire?
Come on!
"The Captain is the ultimate and final authority as to the operation of his aircraft." Isn't that in the U.S. FAR book any more?
I rest my feeble case.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested in knowing which model went off the end in this discussion. We had quite a mixed fleet and I believe our machines went to UPS and others like the one in question.
Boeing 747-209F/SCD N704CK
(cn 22299/462)
previously China Airlines Cargo B-1894
(Re-registered in 1999 to B-18755)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It had beefed up gear and beefed up flooring paid by the gov in exchange for a program I'm probably wise not to discuss here.
Civil Reserve Air Fleet, here http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1997...lity/app_b.htm
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What fool would go flying after V1 if the tower is shouting that you're on fire?
What happened here isn't yet known, and may be left on it's own merits. Suffice it to say,however, that you can bet I'm going flying after V1 if I'm told I'm on fire. I don't know how many engine failures or fires you've experienced, if you're talking based on experience or not, but I am, and I have. And I didn't stop or panic. I believe most crews would act the same. I make that statement without regard to what happened in Brussels, because we have no idea what happened there, yet. I make no judgement regarding that crew as I know nothing of their circumstances.
Windows cracking because the aircraft turns 90 degrees on the ground? You're assuming a loss of body gear and nose gear steering, then? You've seen this happen? You were taxiing without body gear and nose gear steering? fact is that with body gear steering, the airplane turns 180 degrees in 153', and without it the turn radiusis increased by only 20'. No extra drama involved. Cracking windows from turn? Not likely, even at 833,000 lbs.
The 747-249F was commissioned and launched by my airline FTL and, after jacking and jacking and adding big engines got the weight up to 820,000 T/O. It had beefed up gear and beefed up flooring paid by the gov in exchange for a program I'm probably wise not to discuss here. An amazing machine at the time in that it could carry both 250,000 pounds of fuel and 250,000 pounds of freight if the runway was long enough. We were upset, anytime the runway was not at least 10,000 ft long (sorry, you chaps may have to convert units.)
The airplane in question (Brussels) was a factory-built freighter, a nose-loader, and had Q motors installed. It did not have a secret floor built by the government, and there's nothing about this airplane that couldn't be discussed were it not the subject of an investigation (where things are really best left alone until the appropriate authority is done investigating). No top secret cargo. No secet agents. No special government program. The airplane was certified for an 820,000 lb takeoff. We have no idea what it's actual takeoff weight was.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man, Tough Crowd... Tough crowd tonight....
Well Guppy, so you guys didn't like my super secret mission drama queen characterization huh?
Fair enough. Just because a guy has to clear a TS and fly into a hot zone to pick up hazzard pay, you're not going to cut him any slack. I supposed you wouldn't be impressed with my dessert shield and storm medal either.
I didn't think so. It doesn't much impress me either. But the women in my thirties were convinced I was either a secret spy or a decorated veteran.... Who was I to destroy their need for mystery and intrigue?
Do they still even hand those out anymore?
If I had to guess guppy, I'd say you're a former management pilot. If you still did it, you wouldn't have time to hang out on a rumour board here and police people's war stories (no offense.) This board is just entertainment anyway. In light of the exact tower quote, I will concede the V1 analysis to you; aborting past V1 for (presumably) compressor stalls (if that's what happened) is bad news from a book standpoint only; not a PIC standpoint; the PIC is the only one who only can assess and make that decision. The Air France Concorde in Paris comes to mind. Statements using "always" and "never" are wrong about 90% of the time. So I retract my happy-hour "only a fool keeps flying" comment.
Do you have much experience in the third world on runways where you must not use the taxiways because they aren't stressed for the weight? Doing 180's on less than 150 foot wide runways in the dark can be done if you use the differential technique. The 747 with body gear steering activated, differential brakes and differential power used will turn a lot tighter than your "Book" figure of 154 feet. It will turn in about 125-135 feet if you're light as I recall. It's damn hard on the airframe. I didn't crack a window, but our check captain did during acceptance tests. Of course this also wrecks a set of tires too, but during a war or a profitable charter who cares. The dollar margin mitigated it.
I think you're also right about the body gear inop or off risking a cracked windscreen, it's been eighteen years since I flew 74's. I just know that when we pushed two up on one side and jammed the opposite brakes with full tiller the thing would turn in way less a radius than your book number and we were concerned about cracking the window and scrubbing the mission. Every operator is different however, perhaps they don't allow the captain any real command authority were you work. Or perhaps your airframes were too decrepit to do this. Or perhaps you just weren't aware it could be done.
Only had one slam into reverse climbing out of 180 on the 74. The reverser sleeve and the fan blocker doors and part of the cowling rained down over Brooklyn one night (metal fatique.) Other than that I'll have to defer to your greater number of runway failures. You sure seem to have a lot them!
We had lots of compressor stalls that weren't worth aborting for as I said, (they sound a lot different than the toilet seat falling down or the S/O's metal logbook hitting the floor; kind of a muffled mortar firing noise.) If you're heavy and you're taking off on a runway with less than 10,000 feet and negligible stop margin your pallet weighing must never make mistakes like our did.
Fly safe!
pac - out
Well Guppy, so you guys didn't like my super secret mission drama queen characterization huh?
Fair enough. Just because a guy has to clear a TS and fly into a hot zone to pick up hazzard pay, you're not going to cut him any slack. I supposed you wouldn't be impressed with my dessert shield and storm medal either.
I didn't think so. It doesn't much impress me either. But the women in my thirties were convinced I was either a secret spy or a decorated veteran.... Who was I to destroy their need for mystery and intrigue?
Do they still even hand those out anymore?
If I had to guess guppy, I'd say you're a former management pilot. If you still did it, you wouldn't have time to hang out on a rumour board here and police people's war stories (no offense.) This board is just entertainment anyway. In light of the exact tower quote, I will concede the V1 analysis to you; aborting past V1 for (presumably) compressor stalls (if that's what happened) is bad news from a book standpoint only; not a PIC standpoint; the PIC is the only one who only can assess and make that decision. The Air France Concorde in Paris comes to mind. Statements using "always" and "never" are wrong about 90% of the time. So I retract my happy-hour "only a fool keeps flying" comment.
Do you have much experience in the third world on runways where you must not use the taxiways because they aren't stressed for the weight? Doing 180's on less than 150 foot wide runways in the dark can be done if you use the differential technique. The 747 with body gear steering activated, differential brakes and differential power used will turn a lot tighter than your "Book" figure of 154 feet. It will turn in about 125-135 feet if you're light as I recall. It's damn hard on the airframe. I didn't crack a window, but our check captain did during acceptance tests. Of course this also wrecks a set of tires too, but during a war or a profitable charter who cares. The dollar margin mitigated it.
I think you're also right about the body gear inop or off risking a cracked windscreen, it's been eighteen years since I flew 74's. I just know that when we pushed two up on one side and jammed the opposite brakes with full tiller the thing would turn in way less a radius than your book number and we were concerned about cracking the window and scrubbing the mission. Every operator is different however, perhaps they don't allow the captain any real command authority were you work. Or perhaps your airframes were too decrepit to do this. Or perhaps you just weren't aware it could be done.
Only had one slam into reverse climbing out of 180 on the 74. The reverser sleeve and the fan blocker doors and part of the cowling rained down over Brooklyn one night (metal fatique.) Other than that I'll have to defer to your greater number of runway failures. You sure seem to have a lot them!
We had lots of compressor stalls that weren't worth aborting for as I said, (they sound a lot different than the toilet seat falling down or the S/O's metal logbook hitting the floor; kind of a muffled mortar firing noise.) If you're heavy and you're taking off on a runway with less than 10,000 feet and negligible stop margin your pallet weighing must never make mistakes like our did.Fly safe!
pac - out
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they did the right thing, maybe they didn't. But the crew did walk away under their own power, and had they continued the takeoff, they might have made it and they might not have.
Just as I think V1 calculations, not accounting for acceleration rate, are based on pristine aircraft and engines, flown by test pilots, I also think advertised engine out climb performance is less than we expect. I once lost an engine on a heavyweight 707 at near to, but less than, max takeoff gross weight at 600 feet after takeoff. I could not hold V2 in level flight, and the aircraft didn't hold altitude until 10,000 pounds had gone out the chute. Since then I've been suspicious of the charts. Maybe this captain, who I presume has flown some time to attain the left seat of a 747, had similar thoughts.
We do need to have a decision speed, but we need to temper all the factors in. If I was the captain, now standing at the end of the long mahogany table in his full uniform, with no ashtrays, explaining himself, I would be smug in the knowledge that I'm here today to tell you the story and what I was thinking. He may be fired, or he may get a medal, but he is alive, and all this will pass.
Hats off to him!
Just as I think V1 calculations, not accounting for acceleration rate, are based on pristine aircraft and engines, flown by test pilots, I also think advertised engine out climb performance is less than we expect. I once lost an engine on a heavyweight 707 at near to, but less than, max takeoff gross weight at 600 feet after takeoff. I could not hold V2 in level flight, and the aircraft didn't hold altitude until 10,000 pounds had gone out the chute. Since then I've been suspicious of the charts. Maybe this captain, who I presume has flown some time to attain the left seat of a 747, had similar thoughts.
We do need to have a decision speed, but we need to temper all the factors in. If I was the captain, now standing at the end of the long mahogany table in his full uniform, with no ashtrays, explaining himself, I would be smug in the knowledge that I'm here today to tell you the story and what I was thinking. He may be fired, or he may get a medal, but he is alive, and all this will pass.
Hats off to him!