Accident at Halifax

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:46 pm

That was the perfect answer.....thanks!
What I have read 'although' ofcourse no one knows....is that he did not take the back track? that is sort of what witness are saying at this time.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:02 pm

CAL

We’ll have to wait and see what the accident investigators tell us as to the cause but don’t be surprised if it turns out to be a combination of events as that would be quite normal.

Murph · Post by **Murph** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:49 pm

Just heard today that apparently the aircraft made 3 attempts at rotation, each resulting in a tail strike, got airborn but did not climb, tail contacted some sort of tower off the end of the runway causing it to seperate from the rest of the aircraft, fuselage continued "ballisticly" until striking a man made hill, suspected that the aircraft was "overloaded with fuel and cargo"

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:47 pm

Funny Murph',

TSB investigater in charge says the plane wasn't overloaded.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:20 am

Murph'

TSB investigators never said anything like what you posted...Stop shooting from the hip when you don't have any of the facts.

BuddyJay · Post by **BuddyJay** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:27 am

Howdy folks... I've posted a pic in my gallery of an A340 on take off from Rwy 06 at Halifax. It started its roll at the button of 06 and didn't rotate until after taxiway Delta and probably lifted off just past Echo. Might give you some idea of how much runway a "heavy" can eat up at YHZ. But keep in mind there are a number of factors involved for any take off..

To clear up the hitting a tower at the end of the Rwy, there is no tower, just the Rwy end lights in a small field. It's a pretty good sized fixture... Enough to snap a tail off, IMHO, yes. But did it snap the tail off, I don't know... We'll have to wait and see.

Enjoy the pic

BJ

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:30 am

Let's see.....

What was the weight?

How was it loaded re C of G?

Was the load secure?

Were the flaps properly set?

Did the crew overrotate?

Was a crew member incapacitated?

Did an engine fail?

Did they ingest a flock of seagulls?

Was the power set correctly?

Was the wing clean?

Did the aircraft have a pre-existing structural flaw?

Did they do an intersection takeoff?

etc......

My point is that there is so much to investigate, we really have to be careful not to speculate - I'm sure the TSB will have a thorough report once all the facts have been examined. They did an excellent job on Swissair 111, and should do the same here. I doubt anyone guessed inflight entertainment system wiring was the cause in the early going.

KAG · Post by **KAG** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:06 am

I normally don't comment on tragedies such as this as I am not an investigator, nor was I there. So please don’t think I’m trying to “jump on the bandwagon”.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works handling planes (and that one) in YHZ. Although he himself wasn’t working that night many of his close friends/co-workers were and these were some of the points he mentioned to me. Take them as you will.

The plane was fully loaded with the exception of 2 small spots at the rear of the plane, unusually large load. Also a large amount of fuel was taken on as the cost of fuel was cheaper in YHZ then there destination.

On push back the tug operator made a comment that the plane was “really heavy” as the HUF was having a hard time pushing it back. It should be noted that 3 sources (pilots, loadmaster, and line crew) confirmed the load and albeit heavy, on paper was not over weight and within C of G. The newspaper was incorrect as to load, there was more fish then reported (30,000 pounds more) and there weren’t tractors on board but these little 6 wheels amphibious ATV’s, which are fairly light, among other stuff.

It was thought by the ground crew that an intersection departure was made either Echo or Delta, not 100% sure on which.

I know next to nothing about the 747, but I assume a reduced power T/O is the norm and as such the line crew are used to what noise level those engines make. Apparently some point down the T/O roll, the engines powered up to such a point that everyone had noticed and turned to look, indicating Full power. Line crews were noted as saying they’ve never heard the 747 make that much noise on takeoff.

Then as mentioned the tail struck, was dragged, the nose went higher as the end of RWY 24 came, the tail broke off, the power to the airport was cut off, all lights went out, then the fire ball.

A few of the line crew raced to the scene, in an attempt to find survivors. You all know the rest.

Again, not making any assumptions, just sharing some of what was told to me by someone who knows/works with the eyewitnesses.
But the truth of what actually happened will only be known when the investigation is complete.

Cheers.

flynfiddle · Post by **flynfiddle** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:15 am

KLM used to fly a 747 into YHZ twice a week (this is going back about 10 years), I do not recall ever seeing that aircraft not do the backtrack for every inch of 24... that's not to say it was never done.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:29 pm

King Air Guy

Hopefully the crew would have consulted their WAT charts to see if a reduced thrust T/O was an option and they had sufficent runway available for their operation. Personally if I were heavy, weather etc I would backtrack. Although in the final analysis you would only pick up an extra 100 feet or so out of a total of 200 feet available taking into account the length and the turning radius of the aircraft, it’s always better to have available runway in front of you then behind you. This is assuming taking position from G, F and runway15, which would have been a preferred taxi routing, other then doing a full backtrack from another exit. I would question why a heavy would attempt a T/O from any other exit unless they were really light, as you must take into consideration all the other what-if’s.

Your accounting of what the line crew heard and saw is interesting and informative although speculating on what could have happened is tempting, I’ll wait for the accident report.

scubasteve · Post by **scubasteve** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:45 pm

waiting for the report is the right thing to do but I think part of the reason we always postulate (good one eh?) a cause for the incident is because by the time the report comes out..by and large we've forgotten the incidence in question. Its almost been a year since that Caravan went down and we're getting some things on the weight issure from it but the whole report isnt done yet...probably another year. Its human nature to ask questions and wonder what happened and unfortunately the answers come long after the questions are asked

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:17 pm

scubasteve

"postulate" That's a good word

and one that I like. You are correct, the time between the accident and the official report is way to long and leads pilot's to postulate..

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:53 pm

Someone mentioned an overload of 30,000lbs. I'm not sure of the source of that, but it seems a little speculative at this point. Besides, as far as I know the MGTOW of a '47 is somewhere above 600,000lbs, leaving an overload in the region of 5% - hardly enough to cause a catastrophe like this, one would think.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm

Depending on engine type and mod status the MTOW for the -200 is around 750,000 lbs (I think it's more like 780,000 - but I don't have the figures in front of me right now)

ptc · Post by **ptc** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:57 am

Here is the latest from the accident

Bodies recovered from Halifax crash site

Last Updated Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:19:43 EDT

HALIFAX - Investigators have recovered the bodies of the seven crew members killed in Thursday's cargo plane crash at Halifax International Airport and taken them to the medical examiner's office.

Bill Fowler, an investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, said the Boeing 747 had two engines replaced a few weeks ago, but the reason for the replacement was not known.

FROM OCT 15, 2004: Plane's tail struck Halifax runway twice

"There could be any number of reasons why you'd change an engine," Fowler told a news conference at the Halifax International Airport Saturday.

"We're trying to find out the circumstances around each engine and what was it that required it to be changed."

He also said the plane's last major maintenance inspection was done in Jakarta, Indonesia, in September.

Investigators are looking at whether the engines played any role in Thursday morning's crash.

Killed in the crash were four British nationals, two Zimbabweans and a German.

Investigators are still searching for the jet's data and voice recorders.

Thursday's crash is the fourth time a jet owned by MK Airlines of Britain has crashed in the past 12 years.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:09 pm

RCMP help find crashed jet's data recorder
CTV.ca News Staff

Thanks to a break in the weather, search teams have found the black box of a cargo jet that crashed at Halifax's International Airport last week.

RCMP helped with the search by taking advantage of Sunday's dry weather to move heavy equipment into the crash site.

Bill Fowler of the Transportation Safety Board is calling the discovery of the flight data recorder a break in the investigation, but said they are still looking for the cockpit voice recorder.

The recorder will be taken to TSB headquarters in Ottawa, where it will be examined.

Fowler told a news conference that the data recorder might have suffered some heat damage.

"We are not certain of the integrity of the data, but certainly this is an important milestone in our investigation," Fowler said.

The cargo jet crashed in flames off the end of a runway last week. So far investigators know that the tail of the plane hit the runway. They aren't sure why.

pimper · Post by **pimper** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:03 pm

Just to add some points, assuming what KAG's friends said were true. First off runway analysis charts for north america assume the aircraft is positioned at the very end of the runway, or intersection if included in the charts. This is impossible as it takes space to turn the aircraft.

I would find it hard to believe that a 747 would be doing a reduced thrust take off out of YHZ. In order to do a reduced thrust take off you need open weight. This means that after referring to the runway analysis charts, your aircraft weighs less then the maximum take off weight for the conditions(density altitude, runway length, slope, obstacles, etc) For example, if the maximum T/O weight is 750,000 for the conditions nd you only weigh 500,000 pounds you would have 250,000 pounds of open weight. With the runway length and apparent weight of the 747 in YHZ I don' t think there would have been much if any open weight. If I had to hazzard a guess I would say they did not use all of the runway available, recognized to late there was not enough runway remaing to reject and firewalled the power along with pulling back to early to try and get the airplane flying.

At any rate it is very sad and something no aviator would ever want to see outside of the sim.

Murph · Post by **Murph** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 8:00 pm

thats what i heard on the news that day, not from a tsb report....

SierraPoppa · Post by **SierraPoppa** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:24 pm

Plane moving too slowly before takeoff, investigators say.

A Boeing 747 cargo plane that crashed last week while taking off from Halifax International Airport was not travelling fast enough to lift off safely, investigators into the accident say.

Full story at any one of the following three URL's:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 41022.html
http://cfcnplus.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleN ... nada/story
http://www.canada.com/national/story.ht ... 4f2769d869

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:09 pm

Investigators have determined that the shipping company didn't weigh the fully loaded pallets of seafood, providing the airline instead with an estimate based on the average weight of each box of seafood. That total wouldn't have included the weight of the wooden pallets carrying the seafood or other materials used in packing.

I heard on the news tonight that TSB is recommending to TC that they make a ruling about actually weighing the cargo instead of using averages.

This is good. TC finally revised (slightly) the standard weights for passengers and their carry on, and if they follow through with this it will be a small step in the right direction.

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:56 pm

Knowing the weight to the exact pound is going to be totally irrelevant if there isn't enough runway to achieve a speed that will allow you to go flying...hello...I'll eat my words if the final cause of the YHZ crash is because they underestimated the weight of some cargo pallets!!

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:37 am

the speed that will allow you to fly is predicated by how heavy you are (primarily).

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:43 am

The media are now reporting the following quote” We are trying to establish why the takeoff was attempted at a reduced power setting” Fowler says

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:20 am

someone told me that they did, in fact, use the whole runway. anyone else heard the same?

complexintentions · Post by **complexintentions** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:51 am

gelbisch wrote:the speed that will allow you to fly is predicated by how heavy you are (primarily).

Sure, but if that speed can't be reached because (for example) you tried to take off 1000 feet down a runway that may have been too short, it really won't matter in the slightest how accurately you measured the weight of your payload...

You missed my point. No matter how accurately you calculate your takeoff numbers (V speeds, req'd runway length) or performance data (a/c weight, a million other variables), you can throw it all out the window and become a test pilot if you don't MEET those targets! You MIGHT scrape it through by sheer luck and the fact some margin is built into most performance tables...but you might not..