Lufthansa cargo plane crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
You will have to extend the disbelief to the Saudi investigators, as they are being quoted in the news:
AFP: Bad landing caused Lufthansa plane crash: Saudi
"When landing at King Khaled International Airport, the aircraft struck the runway which destroyed the undercarriage and caused it to slide off the track," the head of Saudi Arabia's civil aviation security said in a statement.
"The impact caused a fire in the aircraft," Abel Rahman Bukhari said based on the preliminary results of the investigation into Tuesday's accident involving the German carrier.
"The impact caused a fire in the aircraft," Abel Rahman Bukhari said based on the preliminary results of the investigation into Tuesday's accident involving the German carrier.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: EDDF
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa plane's 'hard landing caused fire'
Looks like the widow maker strikes again.
At least the crew didn't get a "Wing Off" warning light........
http://http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article93566.ece
Lufthansa plane's 'hard landing caused fire'
By GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN | ARAB NEWS Published: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 Updated: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 RIYADH: Preliminary investigations into Tuesday's crash of a Lufthansa cargo plane have contradicted earlier reports that linked the accident to a "midair fire" on board the aircraft. The statement released by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) on Saturday said that a "heavy hit on the surface of the runway caused the crash that led to a fire and billowing smoke all around" immediately after landing. The plane's black box recorder has been recovered and is being analyzed, according to GACA spokesman Khaled Al-Khaibari. The report said the plane's hard landing occurred at 11:38 a.m. at Riyadh's King Khaled International Airport as it arrived from Frankfurt on the first stop of a run that would have continued to Sharjah and Hong Kong. According to airline sources, there were no hints of a malfunction, or even of on-board fire prior to landing. The results of GACA's investigation also contradict earlier reports attributed to Saudi air traffic control officials who said that the crew had declared an emergency just before touchdown. In fact, an alert was declared and all necessary support mobilized only after the plane struck the runway and caught fire, according to the initial investigations. "The international investigating officers in cooperation with Saudi officials are still gathering information from the crash site," said the GACA statement. Investigators have learned that the plane's landing gear remained intact after the crash, but the front gear was destroyed, causing the plane's nose to impact the ground. Damage to the rear fuselage and the type of injuries sustained by the pilots are seen as indicators of a violent impact. "Metal scratching along the runway could be identified as an ignition source (to the ensuing fire)," said an airline official on the condition of anonymity. The fire destroyed much of the upper-half of the plane and the estimated 80 tons of cargo, the official added. The official said investigators are still trying to figure out if the hard landing was the result of some kind of emergency that caused the pilots to attempt to land as quickly as possible or whether the accident occurred during a normal landing procedure gone awry. The pilots' account of what transpired before the accident have yet to be revealed publicly.
At least the crew didn't get a "Wing Off" warning light........
http://http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article93566.ece
Lufthansa plane's 'hard landing caused fire'
By GHAZANFAR ALI KHAN | ARAB NEWS Published: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 Updated: Aug 1, 2010 00:04 RIYADH: Preliminary investigations into Tuesday's crash of a Lufthansa cargo plane have contradicted earlier reports that linked the accident to a "midair fire" on board the aircraft. The statement released by the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) on Saturday said that a "heavy hit on the surface of the runway caused the crash that led to a fire and billowing smoke all around" immediately after landing. The plane's black box recorder has been recovered and is being analyzed, according to GACA spokesman Khaled Al-Khaibari. The report said the plane's hard landing occurred at 11:38 a.m. at Riyadh's King Khaled International Airport as it arrived from Frankfurt on the first stop of a run that would have continued to Sharjah and Hong Kong. According to airline sources, there were no hints of a malfunction, or even of on-board fire prior to landing. The results of GACA's investigation also contradict earlier reports attributed to Saudi air traffic control officials who said that the crew had declared an emergency just before touchdown. In fact, an alert was declared and all necessary support mobilized only after the plane struck the runway and caught fire, according to the initial investigations. "The international investigating officers in cooperation with Saudi officials are still gathering information from the crash site," said the GACA statement. Investigators have learned that the plane's landing gear remained intact after the crash, but the front gear was destroyed, causing the plane's nose to impact the ground. Damage to the rear fuselage and the type of injuries sustained by the pilots are seen as indicators of a violent impact. "Metal scratching along the runway could be identified as an ignition source (to the ensuing fire)," said an airline official on the condition of anonymity. The fire destroyed much of the upper-half of the plane and the estimated 80 tons of cargo, the official added. The official said investigators are still trying to figure out if the hard landing was the result of some kind of emergency that caused the pilots to attempt to land as quickly as possible or whether the accident occurred during a normal landing procedure gone awry. The pilots' account of what transpired before the accident have yet to be revealed publicly.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not one who believes in conspiracies, except those supported by a substantial and confirmed set of facts. However this disagreement about whether an in-flight fire occurred prior to landing is rather puzzling. This link from AVHerald regarding this accident, contains a list of quotes with dates from the various authorities involved in the investigation.
Accident: Lufthansa MD11 at Riyadh on Jul 27th 2010, cargo fire, broke up on landing
I know it always takes time to sort out the facts related to an accident, it's just that this one looks a little odd, given the sources of some of the statements. In particular, I think the Riyadh airport authorities would know if an in-flight fire and emergency was declared, and if they dispatched fire crews before the aircraft landed. They also reported the aircraft trailing smoke as it can in for a landing. They also persisted with this set of facts thru Jul 29th, but no further comment from them (at least as reported on AVHerald) since then. Very interesting. The pilots are also quoted as saying they reported an in-flight fire.
Accident: Lufthansa MD11 at Riyadh on Jul 27th 2010, cargo fire, broke up on landing
I know it always takes time to sort out the facts related to an accident, it's just that this one looks a little odd, given the sources of some of the statements. In particular, I think the Riyadh airport authorities would know if an in-flight fire and emergency was declared, and if they dispatched fire crews before the aircraft landed. They also reported the aircraft trailing smoke as it can in for a landing. They also persisted with this set of facts thru Jul 29th, but no further comment from them (at least as reported on AVHerald) since then. Very interesting. The pilots are also quoted as saying they reported an in-flight fire.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For the record
In the new "Der Spiegel" magazine (31/2010, p. 119), Lufthansa Cargo spokesman Nils Haupt is quoted (translation by me):
German:
"The pilot says, there were no irregularities before the landing"
"Der Pilot sagt, es habe keinerlei Unregelmäßigkeiten vor der Landung gegeben."
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Emergency before landing
An Lufthansa engineer at RUH confirmed that there was no fire on board, nor any emergency before landing.
This also means that there was not any emergency called from the crew to ATC before landing.
This also means that there was not any emergency called from the crew to ATC before landing.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let me see if I understand.
For reasons unknown (in fairly benign weather) the aircraft experienced a hard landing resulting in intact main gear but nose gear collapse. This results in front metal fuselage scraping the runway igniting a fire, but of what we don't know yet. This is followed immediately by dispatch of fire rescue who respond in 35 seconds to start work on the fire. However the top of the fuselage is burned out and 80 tons of cargo is destroyed, before the fire brigade can get the fire put out. Fortunately the pilots have time to get out.
Questions: Was the fire internal or external to the aircraft? Pictures of the aircraft suggest the fire was internal, as there appears to be no visible evidence that a fire occured on the outside of the airframe. That said, was there a fuel spill that ignited by the scraping metal nose, resulting in an external fuel fire? Did fuel also spill intermally and catch fire, resulting in an internal fire and loss of the cargo and top of the fuselage? How fast can fire rescue extinguish an external fuel fire, compared to an internal fuel/cargo fire?
Somewhere along the way as more facts become known this will all make sense, but based on what's known so far this doesn't make sense.
For reasons unknown (in fairly benign weather) the aircraft experienced a hard landing resulting in intact main gear but nose gear collapse. This results in front metal fuselage scraping the runway igniting a fire, but of what we don't know yet. This is followed immediately by dispatch of fire rescue who respond in 35 seconds to start work on the fire. However the top of the fuselage is burned out and 80 tons of cargo is destroyed, before the fire brigade can get the fire put out. Fortunately the pilots have time to get out.
Questions: Was the fire internal or external to the aircraft? Pictures of the aircraft suggest the fire was internal, as there appears to be no visible evidence that a fire occured on the outside of the airframe. That said, was there a fuel spill that ignited by the scraping metal nose, resulting in an external fuel fire? Did fuel also spill intermally and catch fire, resulting in an internal fire and loss of the cargo and top of the fuselage? How fast can fire rescue extinguish an external fuel fire, compared to an internal fuel/cargo fire?
Somewhere along the way as more facts become known this will all make sense, but based on what's known so far this doesn't make sense.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EU
Age: 82
Posts: 5,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we sure that there WAS no fire on board, and there WERE no irregularities before landing, or have the statements so far said that the pilots had no indication of fire or other problems before landing) Has the reported smoke trail been demerited?
Are we sure that there WAS no fire on board?
They say so: Crashed MD-11F caught fire after impact: Saudi inquiry.
So now we are back to my post #96 on Page 5 of this saga where I asked:
1. Which one of you knows for a fact that they had a problem before landiing?
2. Which one of you knows for a fact that DGR was involved?
I did point out that not one of you was on the flightdeck at the time and were therefore not really competent to comment.
We are now on Page 7 and not one of you windbags out there who gave us great updates on how your own companies dealt with DGR (as if LH Cargo had never had the benefit of your vast experience) and that the crew actually had a problem before reuniting 'CQ with Mother Earth) reinforces my opinion that pprune should return to being a professional pilots forum and nothing else.
P.S. As a matter of pprune history; I introduced pprune to the word "sciolist" which you will find at the bottom of most pages.
One of the alternative descriptions of the definition of a sciolist (and it is the one that I prefer):
"One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer".
What a bunch of plonkers some of you are.
1. Which one of you knows for a fact that they had a problem before landiing?
2. Which one of you knows for a fact that DGR was involved?
I did point out that not one of you was on the flightdeck at the time and were therefore not really competent to comment.
We are now on Page 7 and not one of you windbags out there who gave us great updates on how your own companies dealt with DGR (as if LH Cargo had never had the benefit of your vast experience) and that the crew actually had a problem before reuniting 'CQ with Mother Earth) reinforces my opinion that pprune should return to being a professional pilots forum and nothing else.
P.S. As a matter of pprune history; I introduced pprune to the word "sciolist" which you will find at the bottom of most pages.
One of the alternative descriptions of the definition of a sciolist (and it is the one that I prefer):
"One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer".
What a bunch of plonkers some of you are.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 45
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shouldn't be too hard to work out what started the fire, I'm sure they have looked at the manifest and loadsheet to correspond it to where the fire happened. If there is no RFG/RFL/ROX there then you can pretty much rule out an internally started fire, unless there were undeclared DG, which I very much doubt, but some agents do use the phrase "Consolidation" very liberally 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.
I am not the slighest bit important and never have been (unlike you).
I have already retired.
I have had a long and successful career operating aeroplanes.
I only gave up teaching and examining less than two years ago.
If you wish to continue with the talking bullsh*t and speculation merchants then please feel free to continue but it really is incredibly tiresome.
However, I have an open mind and I look forward to the learned inputs that you will undoubtedly make to pprune in the future.
Best Regards,
JW
PS. Just do me one little favour, please don't start reinventing the wheel.
I have already retired.
I have had a long and successful career operating aeroplanes.
I only gave up teaching and examining less than two years ago.
If you wish to continue with the talking bullsh*t and speculation merchants then please feel free to continue but it really is incredibly tiresome.
However, I have an open mind and I look forward to the learned inputs that you will undoubtedly make to pprune in the future.
Best Regards,
JW
PS. Just do me one little favour, please don't start reinventing the wheel.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: hong kong
Age: 49
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
JW. I am sure I have much fewer years safely operating aircraft than you. This forum is not completely populated by newshounds however. Judging by you profile, you have forgotten more than I know and I respect that. We are not ALL 
however and I only made my comments based on you slightly "off" statement.
Anyway, hopefully back to the thread and no malice intended.
Best,
SSS
however and I only made my comments based on you slightly "off" statement.Anyway, hopefully back to the thread and no malice intended.
Best,
SSS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh goody, now that we're all friends again, all can...carry on regardless.
Maybe, it was a co-pilot landing and he stuffed it up, however...it would appear from the photographs (always can be deceptive, of course) that the fire did not originate as claimed by either LH or the GACA.
An agenda on someones behalf...I wonder?
Maybe, it was a co-pilot landing and he stuffed it up
, however...it would appear from the photographs (always can be deceptive, of course) that the fire did not originate as claimed by either LH or the GACA.An agenda on someones behalf...I wonder?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, as a local "sciolist" here at Pprune, please allow me to offer an observation.
I'm fairly convinced (subject to change by virtue of better facts) that the fire was internal, based purely on photographic evidence. I notice however that the forward fuselage top does not appear to be damaged. One might speculate (as any good "sciolist" would) that if the sparking metal fuselage was scraping the runway surface where the nose landing gear collapsed, then cargo in the forward fuselage areas could be ignited by said sparking. Given the rapid response of fire rescue and the possible spread of the fire from the forward section to most of the cabin, suggests a very hot and fast spreading fire, sufficient to overwhelm the local fire brigade before they could contain it. However the apparent undamaged forward fuselage top would seem to suggest that such a hot and fast spreading fire could not have originated in the forward fuselage area.
Question, where then did the fire originate?
BTW JW411, you're definition of a "sciolist", "One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer", fits the contributions of many experts here at PPrune, during the early stages of an accident investigation.
I'm fairly convinced (subject to change by virtue of better facts) that the fire was internal, based purely on photographic evidence. I notice however that the forward fuselage top does not appear to be damaged. One might speculate (as any good "sciolist" would) that if the sparking metal fuselage was scraping the runway surface where the nose landing gear collapsed, then cargo in the forward fuselage areas could be ignited by said sparking. Given the rapid response of fire rescue and the possible spread of the fire from the forward section to most of the cabin, suggests a very hot and fast spreading fire, sufficient to overwhelm the local fire brigade before they could contain it. However the apparent undamaged forward fuselage top would seem to suggest that such a hot and fast spreading fire could not have originated in the forward fuselage area.
Question, where then did the fire originate?
BTW JW411, you're definition of a "sciolist", "One who speaks with fancied wisdom but little knowledge; a smatterer", fits the contributions of many experts here at PPrune, during the early stages of an accident investigation.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: jordan
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to disappoint the conspiracy artists among yourselves but the Facual NTSB Report states :
The NTSB has no interest in this other than to establish cause. It will then usually make some safety recommendation or another.
If it were really so that the Saudi's had something to hide, my guess is that this thread wouldn't be here....
On July 27, 2010, at 1139 local time, a Boeing MD-11 equipped with General Electric CF6-80C2
engines, German registration D-ALCQ, operated by Lufthansa Air Cargo as flight 8460, reportedly
caught fire after a hard landing at the King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The flight was a scheduled cargo flight from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. The two pilots were transported to the hospital with injuries, and the airplane was
substantially damaged.engines, German registration D-ALCQ, operated by Lufthansa Air Cargo as flight 8460, reportedly
caught fire after a hard landing at the King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The flight was a scheduled cargo flight from Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. The two pilots were transported to the hospital with injuries, and the airplane was
The NTSB has no interest in this other than to establish cause. It will then usually make some safety recommendation or another.
If it were really so that the Saudi's had something to hide, my guess is that this thread wouldn't be here....
"Reportedly" means the NTSB is just telling you what others told them before until they release their own findings.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally saw a photo of the left side of the fuselage, showing external fire damage in the area just behind the LMG, damaging the wing and the fuselage in that area. Lools like maybe a not too large fuel fire in this area from a leak as a result of the hard landing. I guess this spread to the cabin and cargo, or maybe an internal fuel leak occurred as well.
So with more photos to look at, this looks like a hard landing after all, just as the investigators have been saying.
So what caused the hard landing?
So with more photos to look at, this looks like a hard landing after all, just as the investigators have been saying.
So what caused the hard landing?