Turkish Airlines cargo 747 crashes in Kyrgyzstan
Self-loading freight is self-securing as well -- not like the MRAPs in the 747 at Bagram. (I think I've also read about other freighter losses due to inadequately secured cargo.)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much agree with cargo only issue and lithium batteries. Much has been done to improve those issues after the UPS and Asiana accidents. I mentioned cargo shift earlier as well.
I was referring more to the runway overrun comments and the title incident of this thread which, in my opinion, have and had nothing to do with the cargo vs pax ops. My previous post was aimed at the requirement for better training and regulatory changes.
UPS pilots have been fighting for years to change the FAA FTLs to match pax ops.
I was referring more to the runway overrun comments and the title incident of this thread which, in my opinion, have and had nothing to do with the cargo vs pax ops. My previous post was aimed at the requirement for better training and regulatory changes.
UPS pilots have been fighting for years to change the FAA FTLs to match pax ops.
As one of the parties two brought up the issue here of Pax vs All cargo ops I was not in the least suggesting there is a difference in competence between the crews but there do seem to be a number of factors that could influence things and statistics.
I know that in the case of the 744 there are not that many pax versions now but still a lot of freighters. But then there is the MD11 story which i suppose ifs also influenced stats wise by the lack of any remaining as Passenger aircraft.
However just reading this thread we have
Dangerous goods as cargo only
different regualtions
different FTLs
Possible greater amount of night time /backside of clock ops
It seems odd to me -not as a regular passenger but just as Joe Public that it different rules govern whats carried on, operational standards
significant flight crew issues govern what goes on in our skies.
It isnt any any comfort to those killed in this accident to know that it was not a passenger aircraft so personally and amateurishly I cannot see any reason for differences in operational regulations for the same aircraft type whether it is configured for pax or cargo use
I know that in the case of the 744 there are not that many pax versions now but still a lot of freighters. But then there is the MD11 story which i suppose ifs also influenced stats wise by the lack of any remaining as Passenger aircraft.
However just reading this thread we have
Dangerous goods as cargo only
different regualtions
different FTLs
Possible greater amount of night time /backside of clock ops
It seems odd to me -not as a regular passenger but just as Joe Public that it different rules govern whats carried on, operational standards
significant flight crew issues govern what goes on in our skies.
It isnt any any comfort to those killed in this accident to know that it was not a passenger aircraft so personally and amateurishly I cannot see any reason for differences in operational regulations for the same aircraft type whether it is configured for pax or cargo use
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
pax, I tend to agree with you. I can accept that cargo carry loads that would not be acceptable on a passenger aircraft, but I find the FTL issue a bit odd. Surely a tired crew ploughing in a big aircraft can cause a lot of collateral damage, whether it's a freighter or not. Is this purely a FAA issue, or do other authorities also have different FTLs for cargo ops?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Boeing report linked earlier indicates that "all other ops" have have a higher accident rate than scheduled commercial passenger ops (rate, not number of occurrences), but does not break down "all other ops". The report also breaks down accidents by phase of flight and cause for all ops, but not by type of operation.
I think a detailed, case by case analysis would be needed to see where the causes of accidents differ between freight ops and passenger ops. Since the differences in operational procedures are relatively small, it would be a highly valuable analysis. It could provide useful insight whether less strict FTLs are a significant safety factor, which could help improve overall safety. Other factors such as type of cargo might be specific to cargo ops.
It's likely that there is not a single significant cause, but a combination of factors which reduce safety margins. I note that this particular accident occurred over a long overnight flight, and given the crew missed some obvious red flags one wonders if alertness was an issue.
I think a detailed, case by case analysis would be needed to see where the causes of accidents differ between freight ops and passenger ops. Since the differences in operational procedures are relatively small, it would be a highly valuable analysis. It could provide useful insight whether less strict FTLs are a significant safety factor, which could help improve overall safety. Other factors such as type of cargo might be specific to cargo ops.
It's likely that there is not a single significant cause, but a combination of factors which reduce safety margins. I note that this particular accident occurred over a long overnight flight, and given the crew missed some obvious red flags one wonders if alertness was an issue.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could provide useful insight whether less strict FTLs are a significant safety factor, which could help improve overall safety.
I did not realise that there is a difference in FTL's. Are you saying that is within the same XAA region, e.g. EASA? That beggars belief, and undermines the very argument that FTL's are a flight safety critical issue. There can be only one reason freight has more relaxed rules and that is money. We've seen what power greed has had on the T's & C's in the commercial passenger world. If the owners of pax airlines get a sniff of the possibility of extending even more the FTL's' of their crews then the exodus should be tsunami like.
But how can an XAA, in the name of safety, have differing FTL's. I would really like to hear their answer to that question.
One wonders if the freight boys, who maybe have older a/c, slightly more nomadic crews from a rainbow of backgrounds, more struggling cash flow problems and very demanding investors, will spend the minimum time and cash on training and checking, and may have less stringent SOP's?
I did not realise that there is a difference in FTL's. Are you saying that is within the same XAA region, e.g. EASA? That beggars belief, and undermines the very argument that FTL's are a flight safety critical issue. There can be only one reason freight has more relaxed rules and that is money. We've seen what power greed has had on the T's & C's in the commercial passenger world. If the owners of pax airlines get a sniff of the possibility of extending even more the FTL's' of their crews then the exodus should be tsunami like.
But how can an XAA, in the name of safety, have differing FTL's. I would really like to hear their answer to that question.
One wonders if the freight boys, who maybe have older a/c, slightly more nomadic crews from a rainbow of backgrounds, more struggling cash flow problems and very demanding investors, will spend the minimum time and cash on training and checking, and may have less stringent SOP's?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FOQA
What percentage of Freight Operations are subject to FOQA/FDM programs?
Seems logical that if you as PIC are the QA guy for your flight, you might be tempted to cut a corner, whereas with knowledge that someone will consistently be looking over your shoulder after the fact, you will be more conservative in your methods.
Are there any Freight only accident statistics to compare FOQA operations accident statistics with NON-FOQA operations?
Seems logical that if you as PIC are the QA guy for your flight, you might be tempted to cut a corner, whereas with knowledge that someone will consistently be looking over your shoulder after the fact, you will be more conservative in your methods.
Are there any Freight only accident statistics to compare FOQA operations accident statistics with NON-FOQA operations?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not realise that there is a difference in FTL's. Are you saying that is within the same XAA region, e.g. EASA?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pax, I tend to agree with you. I can accept that cargo carry loads that would not be acceptable on a passenger aircraft, but I find the FTL issue a bit odd. Surely a tired crew ploughing in a big aircraft can cause a lot of collateral damage, whether it's a freighter or not. Is this purely a FAA issue, or do other authorities also have different FTLs for cargo ops?
The aircraft was Turkish reg so assume their own regulations.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why would they be different, same plane?"
Cessnapete is absolutely correct - this is of course THE critical point - if they are not you are saying that the safety requirements are different for passenger and cargo aircraft. If you make cargo less onerous you are saying you are willing to accept more and worse accidents than for pax ops.
This may have been an "accepteable" view when there were a lot of accidents to both and the regulators naturally focused on large numbers of the SLF (relatively) being killed. Human nature being what it is you also will find people who will go for the lowest possible level of rules if it saves them money.
Now pax air safety is remarkable and the increased use of air freight is leading to the focus at last shifting to these ops as well - it's not a question of type - it's that we have accepted lower standards for far too long..
Cessnapete is absolutely correct - this is of course THE critical point - if they are not you are saying that the safety requirements are different for passenger and cargo aircraft. If you make cargo less onerous you are saying you are willing to accept more and worse accidents than for pax ops.
This may have been an "accepteable" view when there were a lot of accidents to both and the regulators naturally focused on large numbers of the SLF (relatively) being killed. Human nature being what it is you also will find people who will go for the lowest possible level of rules if it saves them money.
Now pax air safety is remarkable and the increased use of air freight is leading to the focus at last shifting to these ops as well - it's not a question of type - it's that we have accepted lower standards for far too long..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Turkish press reports, the captain had retired from the air force with the rank of Lt Colonel ( OF4 ) and the first officer as a one star general (OF6 ).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the investigators will trawl the FTL records of the crew....Sometimes European Pilots are a bit naive about what happens out there. Commercial pressure, am I going to get paid, differing opinions of tech faults. Maybe your quiet lucky,
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew B744F for BA Cargo ops. Under U.K. Rules, FTLs and Long Range crewing requirements were the same as passenger ops. Why would they be different, same plane?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I`d agree. Reminds me of the Atlasjet MD83, Flight 6203. If I recollect correctly that was also crewed by ex-mil pilots and the FO outranked the captain in their respective former air force careers.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What is your secret version of events?
We're all ears, please go on.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An update on the investigation from the Russian IAC:
The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) - official website
17 february 2017
The Interstate Aviation Committee informs that the investigation of the Boeing 747‑412F TC‑MCL accident is underway. The investigation team is studying documentation related to the accident, analyzing FDR and CVR data as well as radar data.
The team has analyzed the weather conditions present at Manas International Airport by the time of the accident. The actual weather at Manas Airport for runway in use (RWY 26, heading 255°) at the time of the accident was as follows: wind 60 degrees 01 mps, visibility: runway threshold 100/RVR 400 m, runway midpoint 100/RVR 350 m, runway end 100/RVR 400 m, vertical visibility 050 m, temperature minus 09°С, dewpoint minus 10°С, QNH 1023,9 hPa, RWY 26 damp, braking action 0.6, TREND NOSIG. RWY 26 is certified for ICAO CAT II operations.
In compliance with ICAO Annex 13 Preliminary Report shall be released within 30 days after the accident. However, as the Accident Investigation Board of Turkey (KAIK) representing the State of Registry and Operator has expressed a wish to review the draft Preliminary Report, it will be released after comments from the Turkish Accredited Representative have been received.
The Interstate Aviation Committee informs that the investigation of the Boeing 747‑412F TC‑MCL accident is underway. The investigation team is studying documentation related to the accident, analyzing FDR and CVR data as well as radar data.
The team has analyzed the weather conditions present at Manas International Airport by the time of the accident. The actual weather at Manas Airport for runway in use (RWY 26, heading 255°) at the time of the accident was as follows: wind 60 degrees 01 mps, visibility: runway threshold 100/RVR 400 m, runway midpoint 100/RVR 350 m, runway end 100/RVR 400 m, vertical visibility 050 m, temperature minus 09°С, dewpoint minus 10°С, QNH 1023,9 hPa, RWY 26 damp, braking action 0.6, TREND NOSIG. RWY 26 is certified for ICAO CAT II operations.
In compliance with ICAO Annex 13 Preliminary Report shall be released within 30 days after the accident. However, as the Accident Investigation Board of Turkey (KAIK) representing the State of Registry and Operator has expressed a wish to review the draft Preliminary Report, it will be released after comments from the Turkish Accredited Representative have been received.
In compliance with ICAO Annex 13 Preliminary Report shall be released within 30 days after the accident. However, as the Accident Investigation Board of Turkey (KAIK) representing the State of Registry and Operator has expressed a wish to review the draft Preliminary Report, it will be released after comments from the Turkish Accredited Representative have been received.