Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash

Old 23rd Dec 2016, 19:51
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 79
As speed increased, I'm guessing the lift asymmetry became more deadly.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about that picture for me is that the aircraft is actually climbing, with a flap missing, what looks like an engine out, unknown other aerofoil damage, U/C damage, and probably losing hydraulics, all in 30 degrees ambient temperature.

And the missing flap: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Too slow and the wing will stall; too fast and the asymmetry rolls you over in the same direction. Which is it?
Iron Duck is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 20:00
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 253
Was the front gear damaged before it reached the fence? It looks that way to me. The narrator doesn't specify which tire he was talking about.

Within 0:28 on the "botó una llanta huevón" video the nose gear is there in the first frames but isn't there in the last. An optical illusion?

Last edited by thcrozier; 24th Dec 2016 at 00:08.
thcrozier is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 20:12
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico
Posts: 20
Engines 1 and 2 seem to be producing thrust based on the exhaust smoke. Can't really tell about number 3. If it wasn't, I doubt it would've been be able to achieve/maintain that climb angle with all that damage if it had significant overload.

Last edited by Mora34; 23rd Dec 2016 at 20:37.
Mora34 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2016, 21:33
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Old and Horrified View Post
Using reverse thrust to back up a 727 to the end of the runway- incredible! If that's a regular occurrence, then its quite possible the engines won't be giving the thrust they are meant to due historic FOD damage.
Backing 727s and MD-80s using the reversers was SOP at many airports back in the 1980's. I was personally on an MD-80 that used its reversers to back out of the gate at the old Stapleton airport in Denver so we're not just talking the small or poorly equipped airports. Operators like it because there was a significant labor savings in not having to do the push-back from the gate.
Eventually they figured out that the labor costs savings were cancelled out by the increase in engine maintenance and the practice fell out of favor. But it's stayed in the books as a manufacturer approved practice.
tdracer is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2016, 06:29
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: downunda
Age: 72
Posts: 113
If you slow down the video filmed from the right side of the aircraft, then something happened about 5 seconds before it hit the fence. Maybe that was the right inner flap coming off. Then there is a fluid leak all the way.
If this was the flap, then that may have been enough to prevent them clearing the fence etc... And perhaps some FOD went through No. 3 engine as a result.
flynerd is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2016, 07:41
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 253
5 seconds would be about 800 feet, no?
thcrozier is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 11:43
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 33
Posts: 630
A flap falling off on a take off run
What sort of shape was that aircraft in?!
lilflyboy262...2 is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 16:19
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 77
Posts: 199
If you slow down the video filmed from the right side of the aircraft, then something happened about 5 seconds before it hit the fence. Maybe that was the right inner flap coming off. Then there is a fluid leak all the way.
The video I'm seeing is so blurred that I'm not sure if the 'fluid leak' is real or if it's just the light-colored lower fuselage seen through the gap between the (still present) inboard and outboard flaps. If it is real it would just about have to be fuel rather than hydraulic fluid to account for the volume.

Last edited by PersonFromPorlock; 25th Dec 2016 at 16:45.
PersonFromPorlock is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 17:18
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Markdp

The flaps are operated by gear boxes and screw jacks. So the loss of the inboard flap should not cause a loss of hydraulic fluid. According to the photo on post 95, the fore flap and screw jacks are still attached. The mid and aft flap are missing.

Last edited by Markdp; 25th Dec 2016 at 18:29. Reason: just more info i noticed on the photo
Markdp is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 18:30
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 969
Sorry folks - it is painfully obvious from the video showing the right side of the plane as it crosses the road that the inboard flap is still attached.

It came off during the ground collisions during the overrun, not on the runway.

http://www.indialivetoday.com/wp-con...alivetoday.jpg

Thus is "fake news" created.....
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 22:28
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: MIA
Posts: 31
Flaps 15

As I recall, the Flaps 15 selection results in a lot of "aft" movement of the rather complex and sophistocated flap assembly, and not a lot of "down" extension. This setting of flaps adds surface area to the wing more than it changes the overall shape of the total (wing plus flap) airfoil. Whatever removed the lowermost flap panel on the starboard side probably did not drastically change the amount of surface area, right wing compared to left wing.

Others here have speculated, and I agree, that the 3# engine does not seem to be producing as much thrust as the other two, based on the "fly off into the sunset" photo previously posted. So, the combination of less drag from the missing starboard flap panel was likely offset by the (presumably) reduced thrust coming from #3, while not resulting in a large reduction of lift from the right wing. Had the amount of lift produced by the right wing been significantly reduced, they would have never gotten airborbe. They were probably very close to Vmc as they became airborne. Maybe this is why they were able to remain airborn long enough to bring her around for an approach.
mach2.6 is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2016, 23:24
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 570
Powerback

Think the powerback has nothing to do with takeoff performance, it looks like he just can't make the 180 turn at the end. The runway itself is only 20m (major airports usually have 45m), don't know the width of the turning pad, nor the turn radius of a B727 (guess it will be more then a B737; main gear being more aft due to tail mounted engines)..
Besides: how far do you dare to back without somebody on the interphone?
golfyankeesierra is online now  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 21:19
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 66
Posts: 186
Viewing a screenshot before hitting the fence, flap setting appeared to be flaps 25 and the RH inner flap seems to be intact. In a few other screenshots there was a fire at the moment the aircraft hit the small structure. Maybe the engine #3 ingesting debris?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
GCS5002.jpg (160.2 KB, 487 views)
File Type: jpg
GCS5006.jpg (123.5 KB, 313 views)
File Type: jpg
GCS5007.jpg (121.4 KB, 304 views)
File Type: jpg
GCS5010.jpg (125.5 KB, 299 views)
File Type: jpg
GCS5011.jpg (127.8 KB, 487 views)
Green-dot is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2016, 23:59
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 458
In a few other screenshots there was a fire at the moment the aircraft hit the small structure. Maybe the engine #3 ingesting debris?
Almost certainly correct; the traditional final reaction of a jet engine when asked to ingest broken bricks. They tend to assume the role of a heavy and draggy passenger after that.
noflynomore is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 03:46
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 40
It looks to me more like an abandoned truck cabin and not a part of any wall. Any brick wall would have taken the whole wing off. At any rate, the right inner trail edge flap was gone after taking off which induced a right turn due to the asymmetry of lift forces. The B722 was still an old steamer and I can bet nobody in the cockpit put together the lost of the flap (especially in a cargo plane with no windows) but they did the come back to the airport and try for an emergency landing fast. The trap was set. If they have known they would have used the rudder to compensate for the flap lost, gain more altitude and try for a belly landing without resetting the flaps. All in hindsight off course with a big maybe.

Cheers
VGCM66 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 08:14
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
You can see the hut and its construction here at around 0:15 on the video
(its also visible on google earth)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syl3...ature=youtu.be
dsc810 is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 13:37
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 458
I think the whole point is they couldn't maintain altitude on the remaining 2 engines, let alone gain any. Loss of a flap would probably trigger a flap freeze if they tried to raise them so they were likely very draggy too, and whether the u/c (some or all of it) responded to an up selection after all that abuse being dragged through a building or a tree we don't know.

I disagree that "any brick wall would have taken the whole wing off". The strike was a glancing blow on the underside of the wing at almost its thickest and thus strongest point. This thing was Boeing Built remember, I very much doubt a hut of that size would take the wing right off. I'm also beginning to wonder if it wasn't made of timber and not brick. The construction doesn't look right for brick in the video above.
noflynomore is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 15:00
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Uk
Posts: 56
if it's not made of brick I would suggest rubble or other stone. looks like a Cornish stone wall

click to see the full size frame grab

building.png

--edit-- note this image was from a previous flight, not the accident one

Last edited by Snyggapa; 28th Dec 2016 at 15:40.
Snyggapa is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 15:52
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,425
Certainly enough to cause some significant damage if struck I would say, not to mention the concrete fence posts along the road.
Hotel Tango is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2016, 16:40
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Colombia
Posts: 4
Looks like a military trench....Very common in this side of the world...
ungoliat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.