VAFFPAX,
thks for your contribution. I concur with your point, although I would insist that planes taking off from 20 are reaching densely inhabited areas within 2-3 miles from rwy threshold. Therefore heavies are still low.
Our point has always been, why use a shorter--claimed to be completely safe--runway when you have 2 longer ones? BTW people were expropriated in the 70s to extend 25L. 25R was extended, as well.

Perhaps they were overweight, remember Atlas

and right you are .. how could you ever imagine an expensive runway would be used .. nah .. the airport build that runway at the time because it had some concrete left and besides it would make the esthetics of the airport as seen by the air a lot better ..

duh!! runways are there to be used, and heavies taking of from 02/20 will have done the calculations, and will take off and do an RTO safely within legal limits if all calculations and SOPs have been done properly .. things like this could happen at any runway at any airport in the world ..

let's wait for the reports from the crew and accident investigators to see what really happened before using this as another poor excuse to complain about the airport ..

go live somewhere else if you can't stand the "noise" .

bit of footage care Liveleak


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3f_1211722669

Which Atlas would that be? I know of a couple tail strikes from bad performance calculations, but no accidents due to "overweight"...

Thats 3 rejected take offs and hull losses for the classics in the past few years.
The AAI out of Sharjah and the Tradewinds bird and now this one.
The earlier 2 where done at V1 or prior.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wj8UPEfO1Oo&feature=related
Good the crew is OK.

Anyone any thoughts on why they chose to use 20?

EBBR 251150Z VRB01KT 9999 FEW023 20/15 Q1012 NOSIG=
EBBR 251120Z 24003KT 180V310 9999 SCT020 BKN044 19/14 Q1012 NOSIG=
EBBR 251050Z 21005KT 170V230 9999 SCT019 BKN040 19/14 Q1012 NOSIG=

They may not have had a choice on which runway to use. Take off data comes from a computer and is very accurate providing the weights etc. are correct.
I think the term "diplomatic mail" is incorrect, more likely US Mail headed for the troops in the region.

Hi,

About the cargo and other details: (From latest bulletin news RTBF1 mainstream belgian TV)

Plane in official leasing by the US governement.
Brussels was just a technical stop on his way from USA to the Gulf.

Diplomatics documents aboard
A official diplomatic car aboard
A diplomatic case aboard
Other goods not described in details by authorities but explained as non dangerous for the peoples or environment (the most dangerous goods is the kerosen itself)
US diplomats delegation waiting the green light from the belgian safety authorities for have acces to the plane.

Cheers.

Jepp 10-1P says:

SUN 0600LT till 1659LT the preferred runway for TKOF is 20 :ok:

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/de.redac...zaventem_crash



translation: The pilot heard a strange noise, after which he landed the airplane again..

Surely that would mean he was already in the air??

translation: Observers say that a blown tyre might have been the cause of the crash.

So as they where ''flying'' a tyre blew, causing such a critical situation that they had to land right the aircraft right then and there on the remaining couple of hundred feet of runway?:}

Sounds quite plausible that this is the way it really happened! :E

tgdxb, I was speaking only in terms of a bad abort (debris spreading etc) when I was referring to 02/20's use. I didn't even bother factoring in noise because it's a given that residential areas around airports are nailed by a noise envelope (and I know the feeling because I used to visit friends just north of JNB - 03L/R).

Given opale's data, it makes sense (the residential areas are after all surrounding the airport from ENE all the way to SSW counter-clockwise).

maarten4, it is possible that they are rather referring to him aborting takeoff after starting rotation... If the assumption of a cargo shift (as put out there by another PPRuNe member) is correct, then it may explain the noise when the pilot was rotating and aborted in a hurry?

S.

More pictures at http://portfolio.lesoir.be/main.php?g2_itemId=192634

Take-off data from a computer is accurate only if the user enters the correct figures, as MK Airlines tragically discovered in Halifax.

Looking at the picturs shown here, am I alone in thinking that the gears appear to be retracted, and not "punched-through" as per other over runs?

Hi! I would love to, but in all honesty, there are 2 camps: pro & against. And I think it is an endless debate.
I just revert to my previous point: today's incident is just a reminder of the risks. I would assume that on 25R or 25L there would have been enough--at least more--runway to stop instead of reaching beyond the fences, closer to exposed areas (if you know BRU).
And a last point, just think about the consequences if something similar happened 2-4 miles further. You would speak about 10s if not 100s of people touched. But who cares after all?

Point8six,

You are so far off, your not even in the same hemisphere!!!

Lessons that are obvious without speculation
 

Instead of speculating as to why, dare we look at how?

This airframe did not slide down the run off area embankment- if it had the resultant effects could have been far more severe.

However of note, the structural failure above the wing seems to centre on the wingbox, gear beam area and runs very nicely up the seam of the overwing door frames, then turns thru 90 degrees to a very nice clean line at the manufactuers tear strip/section join line.

So heavy vertical loads through the gear and cross beams may, may, have set off this overwing snap.

The rear end fracture is altogther more interesting, its snapped up near the thinner area just before the pressure bulkhead and it appears the fin and rear end have continued to travel forwards -underriding the mid section.

If it did get briefly airborne (pure specualtion by others) then one is reminded of the EAA Super VC10 accident - where the commander decided not to take to the air with an unknown condition - and settled back down.If the run of area had been flat and fence less, the resultant mess would not have occurred.

What is clear is how lucky we are that the Kallita machine did not slide off the embankment- just as the Iberia A340 did not- at Quito - but AF did at Toronto.

My point?

Run off areas folks- the are still not what they should be - flat or with catcher pits and fences.

Is this the first hull loss for Kalitta?
Seems I remember hearing the owner is a little bit hard to deal with when it comes to crews.

Another pop-top. Good thing no pax in back,

Pix shows the nose stopped nicely intact, right inside at the airport fence

"Het had 76 ton goederen aan boord, vooral diplomatieke post." It had 76 tons of cargo on board, mostly diplomatic mail." (Very wordy diplomats??)