747 Crash At Brussels
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
From: fort sheridan, il
Engine Fire Warning
A published report today says the crew noted an engine fire warning in the cockpit during takeoff roll.
I would post the report, but past attempts have had the whole post removed due to copyright questions.
I would post the report, but past attempts have had the whole post removed due to copyright questions.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere on a RWY
I fully agree with Jewitts... it is amazing that the wing and engine past over the fence...
I am under the impression that aircraft almost "fell out of the sky" ... Let me try to explain myself. In the picture of the tail (pic 4) below the tail you see a "dent" in the form of the tail in the mud. If the aircraft went nose down the ramp" the tail would never have struck the ground at that position. It would just break/reform on the ridge.
The wing passes the fence / The engines also (almost if the nose was 0° or even a few degrees up) . I can't imagine if any forward force (down/negative pitch due to braking) was happening, that he wouldn't hit the fence with its engines.
Nosewheel went (probably) vertically into the fuselage) and the main gear hitting the fence (which is a "frangible" object) but the main gear (following my humble opinion) hit the ground "almost" vertically causing the major structural damage...
I am just thinking - how on earth is this all posible? (Aerodynamics-wise)
I know, I know we all will have to wait for the FINAL report. But it's always interesting to see what others think/know.
Here's the link to our CAA... have fun !
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/
Greetz
B
I am under the impression that aircraft almost "fell out of the sky" ... Let me try to explain myself. In the picture of the tail (pic 4) below the tail you see a "dent" in the form of the tail in the mud. If the aircraft went nose down the ramp" the tail would never have struck the ground at that position. It would just break/reform on the ridge.
The wing passes the fence / The engines also (almost if the nose was 0° or even a few degrees up) . I can't imagine if any forward force (down/negative pitch due to braking) was happening, that he wouldn't hit the fence with its engines.
Nosewheel went (probably) vertically into the fuselage) and the main gear hitting the fence (which is a "frangible" object) but the main gear (following my humble opinion) hit the ground "almost" vertically causing the major structural damage...
I am just thinking - how on earth is this all posible? (Aerodynamics-wise)
I know, I know we all will have to wait for the FINAL report. But it's always interesting to see what others think/know.
Here's the link to our CAA... have fun !
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/
Greetz
B
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: Chandler, Arizona
I was on Leuven to Airport train this afternoon. Went right past the nose. Nose hanging over embankment - A few extra feet and it would have fallen down the embankment onto train line - then I think there would have been an explosion.
Very lucky indeed.
Very lucky indeed.
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
From: Standby...call you back..
Here's the link to our CAA... have fun !
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/
Greetz
B
To BM, nothing in relation with the subject...so what ???
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/
Greetz
B
To BM, nothing in relation with the subject...so what ???
Assertive co-pilot with no belief in SOPs.The Reverend
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
From: Sydney,NSW,Australia
How do you know the F/O was against continuing the T/O? The QF Capt. in BKK decided to override the F/O who was PF and commenced the go around when stopped by the Capt. aborting. They finished in the dirt as well.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
Willit Run "YO, Gluball, How do you know so much about what did, or did not happen? Another pilot very full of themselves. When the scenario finally plays out and you get the chance to practice it in the Sim, I hope you are humbled just a little."
Sorry, where I work we don't practice aborts in the sim after V1
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
From: Among camels and dunes
GlueBall,
You don't practice aborts after V1: So what happens when you pass 1 engine speed, V1, say 129 kts (A340) and have a second failure on the same side and find you're 28 kts below (A340)VMCL-2 (157kts)? You're going sideways and definitely not up. Same would apply to the Boeing! No climb from rotation on two engines from 380 tons in 340-600, config-3. You will visit the end and the fence, as in this case.
No ways can you continue!
You don't practice aborts after V1: So what happens when you pass 1 engine speed, V1, say 129 kts (A340) and have a second failure on the same side and find you're 28 kts below (A340)VMCL-2 (157kts)? You're going sideways and definitely not up. Same would apply to the Boeing! No climb from rotation on two engines from 380 tons in 340-600, config-3. You will visit the end and the fence, as in this case.
No ways can you continue!
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: Derby UK
looking at the photo's do they show that reverse thrust was not used ?
and would it be SOP to engage reverse thrust?
Also just wondering how effective the ABS would be on Grass as there comes a point when it's better to lock up and dig in rather than roll ?
GB
and would it be SOP to engage reverse thrust?
Also just wondering how effective the ABS would be on Grass as there comes a point when it's better to lock up and dig in rather than roll ?
GB
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: France
Great photos
Re the starboard engines / fence, it appears from the photos that the port wing has totally detached from the airframe / body of the a/c. If this happened prior to the final resting place, would it not have meant that the starboard wing would be much higher than the port wing? If that were the case, it could explain why it cleared the fence before coming to rest vertically just in front of it.
Whether this is the case or not, it is an incredible amount of damage for a relatively low-speed incident, is it not?
Re the starboard engines / fence, it appears from the photos that the port wing has totally detached from the airframe / body of the a/c. If this happened prior to the final resting place, would it not have meant that the starboard wing would be much higher than the port wing? If that were the case, it could explain why it cleared the fence before coming to rest vertically just in front of it.
Whether this is the case or not, it is an incredible amount of damage for a relatively low-speed incident, is it not?
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
from kzinti
Just finished an AAIB approved course. It's great listening to you guys/gals lashing your gums about this incident. and from experience we gain a load of intel here. Hell, we are mud sloggers and turf turners, not flyers so the more we can gain, the better we can make it for the blue sky brigade and the herd behind
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: BRU
amateur footage of the crew leaving the a/c. Glad they all survived.
Somebody was wondering about the steep downslope earlier on on this thread, well, the video is enlightening I think.
Click the clip entitled "Piloten ontsnappen uit cockpit. (amateurbeelden)"
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redac...theek/1.312151
Somebody was wondering about the steep downslope earlier on on this thread, well, the video is enlightening I think.
Click the clip entitled "Piloten ontsnappen uit cockpit. (amateurbeelden)"
http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redac...theek/1.312151
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
From: Amsterdam
Some pics to be found here: http://s279.photobucket.com/albums/k...h00/?start=all
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 1
From: wherever
jetjock and squareleg,
Whilst there is no harm in discussing the implications of multiple engine failures above V1, the authorities see no need to prescribe regulations for this circumstance as it is considered so remote that to do so would unfairly restrict operations.
In such a case "you are on your own".
As it's so unlikely to happen it's no big deal, and when speculating about what to do in that circumstance the definition of control as prescribed by VMC is irrelevant. The only question should be "will it fly?" straight or not is irrelevant. If you stop you are off the end. If you go you may or may not have enough control to go where you want to go.
We should not let multiple failures cloud our discussion making process for the more common single engine failure case.
Right now we don't know whether this was a multiple engine failure or structural failure or anything else.
If it was a single engine failure and the stop was commenced after V1 then it's a bad call.
Whilst there is no harm in discussing the implications of multiple engine failures above V1, the authorities see no need to prescribe regulations for this circumstance as it is considered so remote that to do so would unfairly restrict operations.
In such a case "you are on your own".
As it's so unlikely to happen it's no big deal, and when speculating about what to do in that circumstance the definition of control as prescribed by VMC is irrelevant. The only question should be "will it fly?" straight or not is irrelevant. If you stop you are off the end. If you go you may or may not have enough control to go where you want to go.
We should not let multiple failures cloud our discussion making process for the more common single engine failure case.
Right now we don't know whether this was a multiple engine failure or structural failure or anything else.
If it was a single engine failure and the stop was commenced after V1 then it's a bad call.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
rwy 02/20 irrelevant for today's a/c
In a TV program today, a pilot instructor explained that such rwys were required 20-30 y ago for a/c were not able to sustain heavy crosswinds. Today's a/c are much more performant in this regard, which makes 02/20 rather irrelevant, suggesting that a LHR-like system si quite appropriate (LHR did remove their cross-rwy from operations).
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
From: Among camels and dunes
FE Hoppy,
Somewhat agreed. After the first failure V1 and above, we continue, and if we remember, we can select TOGA. However, should a second failure on the same side happen, as a result of one engine affecting the other (ingestion of spare parts, flame out, bird strikes etc..) you're on your own (below the VMCL-2), but the out come will be better to take the punch on the nose and stop, the aircraft will not fly on two engines from rotation at a heavy weight, never never never! The aircraft will not accelerate anymore, only yaw and lifting the nose would make things worse and everyone knows what happens when below VMCA and lifting a nose! The manufaturers don't count on a dual engine failures on a quad and there are no graphs, nor performance.
So in this case, maybe they elected to stop and not try to continue on two engines in this case, and the outcome was that they walked away. Man, this was better than being a mile further in a very different position.
This is just my two cents worth from 4 engine experience!
Remember that old saying about a good (lucky) pilot has equal landings compared to the amount of take-offs. Keeping that score equal is what allows us to fly the next day and walk home. Had a flight got airborne with two engines out on the same side in a quad, the balance of take-offs would never equal the amount of landings in their careers.
These gentlemen were fortunate indeed, and did well.
Somewhat agreed. After the first failure V1 and above, we continue, and if we remember, we can select TOGA. However, should a second failure on the same side happen, as a result of one engine affecting the other (ingestion of spare parts, flame out, bird strikes etc..) you're on your own (below the VMCL-2), but the out come will be better to take the punch on the nose and stop, the aircraft will not fly on two engines from rotation at a heavy weight, never never never! The aircraft will not accelerate anymore, only yaw and lifting the nose would make things worse and everyone knows what happens when below VMCA and lifting a nose! The manufaturers don't count on a dual engine failures on a quad and there are no graphs, nor performance.
So in this case, maybe they elected to stop and not try to continue on two engines in this case, and the outcome was that they walked away. Man, this was better than being a mile further in a very different position.
This is just my two cents worth from 4 engine experience!
Remember that old saying about a good (lucky) pilot has equal landings compared to the amount of take-offs. Keeping that score equal is what allows us to fly the next day and walk home. Had a flight got airborne with two engines out on the same side in a quad, the balance of take-offs would never equal the amount of landings in their careers.
These gentlemen were fortunate indeed, and did well.
Last edited by Jetjock330; 1st June 2008 at 18:42.