Puerto Carreno cargo 722 crash

[thcrozier]

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?

[Mora34]

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.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Old and Horrified

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.

[flynerd]

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.

[thcrozier]

5 seconds would be about 800 feet, no?

[lilflyboy262...2]

A flap falling off on a take off run
What sort of shape was that aircraft in?!

[PersonFromPorlock]

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.

[Markdp]

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.

[pattern_is_full]

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.....

[mach2.6]

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.

[golfyankeesierra]

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?

[Green-dot]

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?

[noflynomore]

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.

[VGCM66]

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

[dsc810]

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

[noflynomore]

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.

[Snyggapa]

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

[Hotel Tango]

Certainly enough to cause some significant damage if struck I would say, not to mention the concrete fence posts along the road.

[ungoliat]

Looks like a military trench....Very common in this side of the world...

[skadi]

For me it looks like a military construction with sandbags...