Crash at Sharjah airport

[DozyWannabe]

I seem to recall the DC-8 would pretty much allow the pilot to deploy any device at almost any time, which led to a nasty crash in Toronto when the spoilers deployed too early - in the flare. This led to the FAA mandating a placard above the spoiler lever saying "Do not deploy in flight". Then as now, some pilots responded sarcastically, saying that it might as well say "It is forbidden to crash this airplane".

I have no idea whether the age of the aircraft has anything to do with this incident, but those designs require a lot of respect and careful handling by today's standards.

[DC-ATE]

DozyWannabe -

I seem to recall the DC-8 would pretty much allow the pilot to deploy any device at almost any time, which led to a nasty crash in Toronto when the spoilers deployed too early - in the flare. This led to the FAA mandating a placard above the spoiler lever saying "Do not deploy in flight". Then as now, some pilots responded sarcastically, saying that it might as well say "It is forbidden to crash this airplane".
I have no idea whether the age of the aircraft has anything to do with this incident, but those designs require a lot of respect and careful handling by today's standards.

Well, I suppose you can do just about anything you want with any airplane if you try hard enough. The point is knowing what will happen if you do. While it was possible to extend the spoilers in flight, it was strickly a no, no [on the DC-8s]. Age of the aircraft had nothing to do with it.
ALL aircraft desreve respect!

[recceguy]

Old 707 virtually not flying anywhere else.
Crew from a poor, distant and unfriendly country, all dead....
No casualty or any damage on the ground (right in a square of sand)

Do you think anybody is going to waste a lot of time on the crash recorders ?

[DozyWannabe]

Not to sound too unfriendly myself, but what does that have anything to do with it? The crew were pilots, trying to make a living - same as many on this board. The country of their birth should have nothing to do with it.

It may turn out to be an old aircraft coming apart and just rotten luck - but the powers that be should make an effort to find out, if only for the sake of improving knowledge of how things can go pear-shaped - to say nothing of the crew's families.

[PJ2]

Dozywannabe;

Not unfriendly at all and nothing to apologize for or "clarify". Thank you for saying it.

Just as are portrayed in the media and in politics, there are "worthy victims" and "unworthy victims".

How in good conscience the separation can be made and then acted upon is anything but clear or straightforward.

[timraper]

"Old 707 virtually not flying anywhere else"

What about the 500 odd derivatives flying with the USAF, most of which are older than this one.

[oligoe]

Just concerning the inflight deployment of reverser in flight on the 707. Some guys used to fly Vref+10 during the approach and open the reverser during flare. In the mean time it retracts the LE flaps and prevent the plane from floating. So it is possible...

[GarageYears]

Not strictly a 707 derivative

I don't really want to split hairs but the USAF RC-135 is NOT a 707 derivative.

More accurately the U.S. Air Force's C-135 Stratolifter is not a 707 variant, but was developed in parallel to the 707 from the original Boeing 367-80. As such there are a lot a similarities, and lots of differences. Specifically it has a narrower fuselage and was fitted with different engines from the get go (J57s originally, with virtually all now running CFM-56s).

More importantly perhaps is the fact they have the loving maintenance care of the Air Force, which tends to get rather upset if any of their planes break or fall apart. (Not that it doesn't happen, but all sorts of questions tend to get asked when they do...).

- GY

[timraper]

You don't want to split hairs, but then you go and do.

[JEM60]

Without looking in the relevant books, I think the KC.135 was originally designated the B.717???? [Not to be confused, of course, with the 'modern'717]

[Flightmech]

Last time I looked the RC-135 (Rivet Joint?) had a 707 airframe?

[Bluestar51]

More accurately the U.S. Air Force's C-135 Stratolifter is not a 707 variant

It has the same FAA type rating as the B707, i.e. B-707/B-720.

[GarageYears]

No it doesn't!!!

Last time I looked the RC-135 (Rivet Joint?) had a 707 airframe?

Er, no it doesn't. It's more like a second cousin. Same roots (Boeing 367-80), but different from there out.

C-135 Stratolifter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Boeing RC-135 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The KC-135 Stratotanker and C-135 Stratolifter were the first Boeing aircraft produced based on the Dash 80. The first flight of the KC-135A was in August 1956. The production line closed in February 1965 after 808 aircraft had been produced for the USAF and an additional 12 had been built for France. Boeing’s in-house designation for the KC-135 family was the 717.
Boeing allocated the 717 designation to the KC-135 to indicate some substantial differences from the Dash 80. The fuselage was slightly wider to accommodate six abreast seating in anticipation for the 707 airliner. In the end, the 707 was widened even more in response to airline requests. The 707 and KC-135 aircraft could not use common fuselage assembly jigs. There are also major structural differences between the C-135 and 707. The C-135 was built to a “safe life” philosophy to meet the USAF requirements. The 707 was built to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) that dictated a “fail safe” structure. Both models were manufactured from different aluminum alloys.
The bottom line is that even though the Dash 80, KC-135 and 707 all look similar, they are three distinct aircraft types. From an engineering point of view the only thing in common between the 707 and KC-135 is the wing box. Don’t let anyone tell you that a 707 is a KC-135 with an interior, or a KC-135 is a stripped out 707 with a refueling boom.

- GY

[Heracles]

Everything GarageYears said is exactly correct. I wrenched the KC-135 A,E, and R for a long, long time before I flew the E-3/707.
The military versions of the 707 are several and can be confusing, but anything with -135 in the name is not a 707.
The -137, E-3, E-6, E-8 etc are.
As a note of trivia, the same fuselage cross section was used in the 707, 727 and early 737's,, "just add sections to length".
Please,,thread drift over,, back to the subject. I'd love to hear any facts or ramp rumours anyone in the DXB region has heard.
-- Heracles

[bizdev]

Loss of Engine Cowling

I understand that the falling object may have been an Engine Cowling? There have been numurous incidents caused by aircraft taking off with the engine cowlings unlatched after maintenance. More recently this has been a problem with the A320 (V2500) where the unlatched catches are difficult to see as the engines are so low down. I do not know the cowling arrangements on a B707 and whether an unlatched cowl is easily spotted. But the results can be dramatic - severe pylon damage; tailplane damage, fusalage damage (I recall a passenger window being broken on an A320); the engine itself severly damaged e.g. fuel pipe rupture, engine controls jammed etc; and flap damage.

How easy is it to leave the cowlings unlatched and undetected on a B707 - I suspect someone out there will know! But I am not aware of such an incident causing an aircraft to crash.

Just a thought.

bizdev

[Spooky 2]

as I recall the cowl latches were on the very bottom centerline of the cowl. Not real visable but none the less something the FE would certainly look for on a walkaround.

[Willie Everlearn]

Just curious. (maybe it's already been asked)

How does the loss of an engine cowling (or other similar sized appendage) on a 4-engine aeroplane (regardless of its age) cause such a dramatic (watched the video) Loss of Control?

I'm guessing it doesn't.

[Spooky 2]

It would depend on whether or not the cowl struck something like the horizontal stab as it departed the aircraft. I know that cowls have come off the 707/720 before, but not with this type of catastrophic result so maybe this was not the case in this accident.

[WrldWide]

I am aware of an incident in which a DC10 cowl came apart in cruise flight and the debri struck the horizontal stab causing significant damage. It did not result in control problems but if you were relatively slow, as in initial climb, coupled with the loss of one or more engines, then I can easily imagine a scenario that could result in loss of control.
WW

[411A]

Regarding the horizontal tailplane on 707 aircraft, PanAmerican lost a freighter approaching Lusaka many years ago...upon selecting flaps 50 for landing one of the horizontal stabs detatched (due to severe corrosion to the attach fittings), and the airplane impacted vertically.
An Airworthiness Directive was issued in short order, to inspect these tailplanes, and many were found with corrosion and attach fittings fractures.
So, if an engine cowl detatched, struck the horizontal stab, which had not been inspected properly...well, this would clearly not be good.
Just a thought.

Horizontal tailplanes, and their operation (especially jammed stabs...had one of those personally) on 707 aircraft...many problems over the years, without a doubt.
With a jammed stab, Boeing provided a superb alternate method of pitch control...split spoilers....known technically as, spoiler bypass.
L1011...same/same.