747 Crash At Brussels

[RampTramp]

Current Limiter,

The aircraft was pretty full volume wise so very little chance of a load shift in this case.

RT

[borghha]

Fuel tanks will be (almost) empty tonight (Boeing experts claim 70K l of fuel were left in the tanks) - inspection of the airframe and investigation will start tomorrow. These are primarily the prerogative of the judiciary in Belgium, who will avail themselves of aviation experts of course. Only when they are finished with their work in situ, the aviation accident branch of the federal Ministery of Transportation will be able to start its work. That's the theory at least, in practice both authorities join efforts in order to determine the causes of the crash and possible liabilities.


The Brussels newspaper Le Soir writes that a crew member said to have heard a loud bang, immediately followed by a second one and a considerable power loss in two engines - reference was made to a possible double engine bird strike.

[Flightmech]

Avoiding the political issues around BRU and getting back to the thread, why in the event of an RTO are all the reversers stowed and all spoilers retracted (although these may have retracted with decaying hydraulic pressure).

[Junkflyer]

Reverse thrust is used symmetrically otherwise you can lose directional control. If you lose engines on one side you would not use reverse at all.

[point8six]

If the figures for take-off Rwy 20 were correct for the weight, then the calculations would assume that rejecting the take-off before V1, would enable the a/c to stop before the runway end -if the correct RTO actions were taken. Similarly, the figures for Rwy 25R would also allow stopping before the end of the runway, although the extra length would have produced a different V1 and T/O EPR required,( for the same flap setting).
Since there have been no eye-witness accounts of the a/c rotating, the problem for the investigators is:-
a) did the loss of directional control cause the RTO? -or
b) did the RTO cause the loss of directional control?
A wheel/tyre failure often damages adjacent wheels and the resultant loss of braking efficiency can severely alter rejected take-off stopping capabilities.
Airframes break up on hard contact with terrain (runways included), but I have never heard of a "heavy" breaking up during take-off.
( No criticism of the crew is implied by the above.)

[broadreach]

Forget, I think BravoMike got it in one. It would have to be a pretty robust jacking up mechanism to achieve the effect seen here. Springloaded "Jack-in-the-box" so to speak.

Wouldn't you guess that when the nosegear went over what looks more like a 5m embankment than (3-4m) the drop would - assisted by all the forward torque from the main gear brakes - hardly have been gentle. It probably wasn't going much faster than 30mph by then and I would bet a bottle of the best that the nosegear is eventually found punched up into the hold rather than folded back. Bet half another bottle that it was the extra strengthening around the cargo door that kept the forward fuselage from being more flattened.

Fuselage takes a sudden bending one way, then the other as the nose smacks down, and presto, the crack's exactly where you'd expect. Tail slams down on the embankment and, again, cracks off just where you'd expect it to.

Just hope the crews's spines held up ok.

[atlast]

About the Reverse...

At the last outfit when doing two engine sim work we always used as much reverse as we needed on the inboard of the two engines. Worked like a charm.
My current outfit however frowns upon that. Oh well.

[hart744]

I heard 2 engines ingested birds and hence the RTO.

[FlyingConsultant]

SLF question

OK, as an SLF I am a bit confused now. Said somebody earlier:

take-off calculations give the crew the lowest power setting that will achieve V1 at the point where there is just enough runway ahead to stop again.

That's what I always understood (and experienced in the two aborted take-offs in my 12 or so years of heavy SLFing, although those happened far before V1). I kind of assumed that meant using full breaks, not reverse thrust, since that might take a while to deploy(?) and/or might not be available or impractical (e.g., one engine falls of on two engine a/c). My understanding was that in the extreme, the breaks and tires might be toast but the a/c would stop before hitting the grass if anything occurred before V1.

So before V1, shouldn't it stop in time/space? After V1, I thought a 747 would take off even with two engines killed?

Not saying any of that happened here - we don't know whether this was a birdstrike or anything else. I can also imagine all kind of things that prevent standard procedure from working in special cases, or for that matter many cases. I am just trying to understand why somebody would think this could be the result of 2 engines on a 747 giving up the ghost before or after V1

Thanks

[hetfield]

So before V1, shouldn't it stop in time/space? After V1, I thought a 747 would take off even with two engines killed?

No, I'm afraid.

[desmacone]

I would like to see the size of the bird that made **** of a B747 aircraft and broke it into three pieces. What will Boeing say about this crash? The aeroplane just broke up,as Tommy Cooper used to say "Jus like that"

[Brian Abraham]

What will Boeing say about this crash?

I dare say Boeing will look to see if the safety features built into the aircraft (e.g. gear break away without rupturing fuel tanks) worked as projected, or if they need to go back to the drawing board, or indeed if there are other lessons to be learnt.

[RESA]

The moderator chose to yank my submission (and a few others) when the topic of MK and the Halifax crash appeared. I have slightly modified and re-submitted my comments.

I can only comment on what I can see from the photos available on the net. It looks like Brussels had extended (back-filled) the graded area (clear-way) beyond the runway end to accommodate the localiser array (raising it so there is no signal blockage . . . and a few more radio engineering considerations I won’t go into). I used to design these things before I retired a few years ago. By the time you finish back filling to level the ground to about 350m past the stop-end . . . you have to figure out how to re-establish grade and make the mound of dirt stable. I think I saw retaining walls and concrete steps off the nose of the aircraft?? That would be the stuff holding everything together. Looks like aircraft came to rest just right of centre-line. Localiser array and stuff just off its port tail (as it sits).

This is a reasonable attempt (compromise) by the airport (or local aviation authority) to accommodate reliable guidance signals while offering minimal danger to overrunning aircraft (and anyone living off the end of the runway). It’s not the ideal solution . . . but everybody has financial constraints? I think the outcome is a testament that a lot of the time this will work. Either it gets airborne, off of the diving board . . . or it belly flops!

This aircraft looks like it took the “Big Hop” off of the retaining wall . . . and drove its belly trucks up fracturing the spar and everything around it !? Vehicle likely stopped very quickly when its belly flopped? Lots of belt/harness, back, and face injuries on board?

Halifax was (and still is) an accident waiting to happen . . . 12-ft+ (concrete capped) earthen-berm on both ends of the runway. The array is elevated to compensate for terrain drop-off (signal blockage) beyond the runway end. The Halifax scenario resulted in the concrete capped berm ripping the entire tail section from the aircraft . . . airborne and no tail . . . now what do you do !?

Pay very close attention if you have to carry through CYHZ . . . make sure your numbers are right!

I hope this is not another case of “lessons not learned”.
MK staff made a mistake and paid the ultimate price for it.

Their mistakes and maybe the shortcomings in the accommodation/training their company should have given them (or they should have sought out themselves) are documented.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...4/a04h0004.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...0004_index.asp

RESA

[Blacksheep]

You are correct RESA, that the aircraft ran on its wheels right along the extended overrun area until it reached the localiser antenna, at which point its undercarriage was whipped out from under (as per design intent, without rupturing the fuel tanks) causing it to belly flop, dig in and break up. Your description of building up the ground to install the localiser helps explains how this might happen due to softer ground. As to loss of directional control, the aircraft left the runway veering slightly to the right, but it wasn't that far off. That suggests the loss of engine power (if any) would have been to the numbers 3 & 4. The tyre tracks up to the aircraft going onto the grass suggest the tyres were all intact up to that point and the 'dotted' skid marks are typical of anti-skid system operation. It certainly appears from the wheel tracks that the wheels were all intact and working up to the time the gears collapsed.

[Intruder]

Reverse thrust is used symmetrically otherwise you can lose directional control. If you lose engines on one side you would not use reverse at all.

Nope. On the 747, idle reverse is selected for all operating engines, and full reverse on symmetric engines.

[TopSwiss 737]

From Dutch news website nu.nl (sorry, it's in Dutch only...):

"BRUSSEL - Een controleur zag zondag een vlam in de rechtermotor van het later gecrashte toestel van Kalitta Air. De brandweer werd meteen ingelicht en de piloot besloot het opstijgen te onderbreken, ook al lukte dat niet meer voor het einde van de startbaan.

Dat meldde de directeur van Belgocontrol, de luchtverkeersleiding op Brussel Airport, woensdag.

De luchthavenautoriteiten hebben woensdag de gebeurtenissen van afgelopen zondag uiteengezet in het Belgisch parlement. Alle procedures voor vertrek van het vliegtuig zouden op normale wijze zijn verlopen.

Momenteel loopt er zowel een technisch als een gerechtelijk onderzoek naar de oorzaak van de crash."



Translation:
"A controller saw a flame in the right engine of the Kalitta Air aircraft that later crashed on Sunday. The fire service was notified immediately and the pilot decided to abort the take off, even if this was no longer possible within the runway length remaining.

This is what the director of Belgocontrol, the air traffic control service at Brussels Airport, declared on Wednesday.

The airport authorities explained all the events that happened on Sunday to the Belgian parliament this Wednesday. All procedures prior the departure of the aircraft were said to have proceeded normally.

At this moment both a technical as judicial investigation is being conducted as to the cause of the crash"

TS737

[VAFFPAX]

RESA, bear in mind that the runoff is bounded by a railway trench. That's the steps and retaining walls you see.

Google Map (Simon from AVHerald used them too) shows the one end of the trench (for an airport rail link from Leuven to BRU) under construction. This is apparently the trench that the 742 would've gone into if it hadn't come to a stop. The trench was designed to ensure safe operation of the express services between Bruxelles and Leuven, and Bruxelles/Leuven and BRU without being affected by trailing vortices.

The rail link between Leuven and BRU is still inactive because of the kerosene that's still being pumped out of the tanks. Once that is complete, the rail link will be reinstituted.

In some of the media provided by Belgian newspapers, the trench is not even visible, because it is fairly deep (to protect the catenaries from wind/vortices) and narrow.

S.

[Duck Rogers]

Originally Posted by RESA

The moderator chose to yank my submission

Errrr, no they didn't. All deleted posts remain visible to those of us wearing mod goggles and there are none under your name. It would seem that for some reason your post never actually made it onto the thread.

No 'on-topic' posts were harmed in the making of this thread (though a fair few NIMBY one bit the dust)

Duck

[PlasticPilot]

Could NTSB be that wrong ?

In the first information published by NTSB, the Bureau states:

"On May 25, 2008, at 11:43 AM local time, a Kalitta Air Boeing 747-200, registration N704CK, overran runway 25 left after a rejected takeoff at Brussels National/Zaventem Airport, Brussels, Belgium. There were 4 crew members and 1 passenger on board and no injuries have been reported."

25L ??? Any idea ?

Link to the official NTSB notification.

[tgdxb]

PlasticPilot,
Must be a mistake - IT was rwy 20.