Airbubba,

I have not heard that call, but this might be part of the RAAS system, which is optional ( some of our aircraft are equipped, some not (yet) )
RAAS is also customizable to include additional callouts.
I do not know if ACT has this system onboard their fleet.

The aircraft in happier times departing HKG.

There are aspects of pure cargo operations that can make it potentially more hazardous than hauling SLF. For example, as someone else noted, the three most recent 747F crashes (prior to this) were due to cargo fires or shifting cargo - both of which are a significantly greater danger during pure cargo operations. Freighters tend to operate much closer to MTOW/MLW and with more cycles (trading cargo for range with planned refueling stops).
All that being said, the 747F hull loss rate is still pretty respectable. Also, it's no longer the case that passenger 747s are more numerous - the majority of 747s currently in operation are either pure freighters or freighter conversions.

@romasik... Might be helpful if you make your question more specific. For example ... Do you mean in any phase of flight or just on final approach and landing... ?

( Note that the definition that I use myself is to view accidents as being 'a basically complex chain of events'. In that context there are no single cause accidents, which is also true for 'pilot mistake'. )

https://aviation-safety.net/database...ing-747/losses

It's definitely true that there have been more cargo hull losses recently with 747s, but also true that few have been caused purely by pilot error. They're just old planes that are increasingly moving from passenger operations to cargo.

With respect, the only "old" and "converted" cargo plane to crash in the last 7 years was the National Air Cargo crash in Bagram. The UPS & Asiana crashes were purpose-built freighters with an age of only 2 & 5 years respectively.

Although still awaiting the final report, the Emirates B777 accident may show that unfortunately this is not the case.

https://www.austrianwings.info/2017/...rieren-lassen/

"Anders lässt sich nicht erklären, dass der von Turkish Airlines beauftragte in Wien ansässige Rechtsanwalt Mehmet Saim Akagündüz uns namens seiner Mandanschaft auffordert, den Bericht über den Absturz der 747 in Bishkek (man lasse sich die Formulierung auf der Zunge zergehen) so "zu korrigieren", dass "keine Assoziationen mehr zu Turkish Airlines hergestellt werden können"."

This report in German from the Austrian aviation publication, Austrian Wings, states that Turkish Airlines has threatened them with legal action unless they remove any association whatsoever between this aircraft and Turkish Airlines from their article. The aircraft was a wet leased MyCargo aircraft, flying under a Turkish Airlines flight number.

In the article the editor says he wants the world to know the methods by which Turkish Airlines attempts to censor the truth and prevent any worsening of its already poor safety statistics. He seems jolly irate.

Anyway, now the world knows.

On final approach and landing. Everything is going on smoothly and then all of a sudden during a very short time interval from passing DA to somewhere on initial GA aircrft falls from the sky.
My point is that the probabilty of a critical pilot mistake during these maneuvers in bad weather coinciding with critical aircraft system failure is kind of minuscule.

I think this is indeed a very interesting point. There are a lot of aircraft types which are operate in large numbers as freighters and pax aircraft (MD-11, A300-600, 767, 757, 727...), but for none of them the difference in accident statistics is as striking as for the 747-400, which has an outstanding statistics as pax aircraft (especially compared to the -100 to -300 model) but a lower than average one as a cargo aircraft (basically no difference to the -100 to -300 models). This should tell us something. Are the typical freighter issues (fire, load shift) increasing with size? Are the 747-400 freighters that crashed especially old / high cycle machines? Are these aircraft especially cheap on the market, so that a lot of them are operated by "less quality" operators? Are these aircraft maintained using the huge amount of used parts from the high number of retired pax aircraft? Is it a special type of pilot flying these planes? (on the other hand, many crashes are not pilot error...) Are they operated closer to the limits (e.g. landing weight)? For sure there is something to learn from the numbers.

Cargo ops in general has about 2x to 5x the accident rate vs. passenger ops.

There are many reasons, including differing regulations, loading / w&b issues, hazardous materials, less stringent flight time limits (fatigue), more night ops, maintenance issue with older aircraft, etc.

i'm thinking it can be a cargo shift or some malfunction, i cant understand why they didn't climbed after RW finishes.

Guys, the main cargo deck was probably full with pallets ( 86'tons).
Load shift is not very probable, the pallets themselves are not that heavy normally flying out of HK, and one pallet getting loose will do nothing in reality on B744.
Please do not compare with the National crash in Bagram. That was an extremely heavy non-standard Military load ( trucks) that had never been transported in such quantity on a National flight, and was secured incorrectly.

Regarding the claim that regulations for cargo flights are different: that is NOT correct. Same duty limitations, same training and licence requirements.
Most cargo operators give training to their crews that is on par or better than passenger carrying airlines. Think Cargolux, TNT, EAT,... No pay-to-fly... of course, there are always some companies that do anything to " get the job done" and to outprice competitors.
I will not give my opinion in public regarding maintenance and operating standards of ACT however.

The company I fly for ( with excellent training standards and maintenance by the way) operates both the Passenger-and Cargo version of the B744. We fly mixed fleet, traning is the same ( actually, more things to take into account on a cargo flight, like smoke avoidance procedures due hot and humid ops).

If they went around from the DA ( 100'), then one would excpect them to be at least at around 2000' over the crash-site.
The debris do not look to result from a high-impact crash like the Flydubai go-around crash ( very high fragmentation), same goes for the National Bagram accident. ( high fragmentation).

Looks more like the EK 777 crash if it had happened over/into a village?

From the press release.

What about the one in the locked cupboard back at base? :suspect:

It wouldn't be the first time.

Mag plug

I'm with you. I have over 15k hours on the 74 in all it's forms. This is obviously a missed approach and GA that has gone terribly wrong for whatever reason. Low hours on type and ****e wx obviously a major factor plus circadian issues but reliance on auto throttle and TOGA is probably where it all went wrong.

2016Parks

Welcome aboard the PPRuNe rollercoaster...

You sayI don't think so. Google Earth shows elevation of the 08 threshold as ⋍638m (agrees with World Aero Data), and the edge of the village as 639m - so more or less flat.

It also shows that the distance of the 08 threshold from the edge of the village is 855m (⋍half a mile). Avherald says the impact was 1100m from the runway, so maybe 245m into the village from the boundary.

airsound

Don't forget your roots, all you xx-thousand hour gods...you too were 'low time on type' at some point...and somehow it all worked out, right?
I just don't buy this argument-besides, 800+ on type is more than enough to know one's way around.

But none of that really matters until some competent authority hints at what went wrong here.



Holy crap, I haven't been on here in forever!! Do I not have a life anymore??

@act700
Don't forget your roots, all you xx-thousand hour gods...you too were 'low time on type' at some point...and somehow it all worked out, right?
I just don't buy this argument-besides, 800+ on type is more than enough to know one's way around.

:ok:

That's NOT correct around the world. E.g., in the US, new FAR Part 117 rest & duty limits passed after the Colgan crash specifically exempts all-cargo ops.