smiles 0 #1 October 23, 2004 Investigators say cargo jet going too slow when it crashed-----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. HALIFAX (CP) - A Boeing 747 cargo jet that struggled to get in the air before crashing last week was travelling too slow to lift off safely. Bill Fowler of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said Friday that the MK Airlines Ltd. plane was rolling up the runway at 240 kilometres an hour -about 55 km/h slower than it should have - when it crashed Oct. 14 at Halifax International Airport. "In order to get to (296 km/h) within the runway available, they needed more thrust," Fowler said. The jumbo jet was barely airborne when it rocketed off the end of the runway and crashed into woods, killing all seven crew members on board. Fowler said a flight data recorder recovered from the wreckage last weekend has indicated the 747's four engines were functionally normally and wouldn't speculate on why the plane didn't have enough thrust. However, the TSB issued an advisory Friday on the proper weighing of cargoes. "The thrust was less than what was required or what we would have expected for the load," Fowler said in an interview. The plane was loaded with lawn tractors, computer gear and 53,000 kilograms of seafood when it tried to leave Halifax for a flight for Spain. A 747 has a payload capacity of about 60,000 kilograms. Investigators know the plane's tail hit the runway twice before hitting an earthen mound at the end of the runway and breaking off. Fowler said the total weight of the cargo had not been accurately established "but we have not said at this point that this was a factor." 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. Fowler refused to speculate, however, that the jet may have been overloaded. "We're not suggesting that. We don't have the information to let us go there," he said. Fowler, the lead investigator in the crash, said there are a number of possible explanations for the low thrust of the engines. The absence of a working cockpit voice recorder will make determining the reason more difficult, he added. The cockpit voice recorder, which monitors the conversations of the pilot and co-pilot, was also recovered but was too badly damaged to be of any use. The plane's engines became an early focus of the investigation when Fowler revealed last week that two of them were replaced recently, raising questions about their state of repair. Investigators are also examining whether the plane's cargo might have shifted on takeoff, making it impossible for the pilot to get in the air. The board is also considering the account of at least one airport worker who suggested the pilot might not have taxied to the very top of the 2,700-metre runway before turning and beginning his takeoff. The crash was the fourth in 12 years for MK Airlines, which is based in Britain and has a fleet of aircraft flying out of Ghana. Four Britons, two Zimbabweans and a German were killed in the crash. ----------------------------------------------- What are other possible explanations for the low thrust of the engines??? SMiles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #2 October 23, 2004 Quote "In order to get to (296 km/h) within the runway available, they needed more thrust," Fowler said. The board is also considering the account of at least one airport worker who suggested the pilot might not have taxied to the very top of the 2,700-metre runway before turning and beginning his takeoff. What are other possible explanations for the low thrust of the engines??? SMiles i'm not sure what kind of room a fully loaded 747 needs to get airborne, bt they never said there was a lack of thrust, there was insufficient thrust for the runway availavble. the second bit is the important bit, they turned on to the runway and attempted to take off with 2000m (6000-ish feet) instead of taxiing to the end of the runway before trying to take off, which would have given them 2700m (8000-ish feet)."Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart." MB4252 TDS699 killing threads since 2001 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #3 October 23, 2004 QuoteQuote "In order to get to (296 km/h) within the runway available, they needed more thrust," Fowler said. The board is also considering the account of at least one airport worker who suggested the pilot might not have taxied to the very top of the 2,700-metre runway before turning and beginning his takeoff. What are other possible explanations for the low thrust of the engines??? SMiles i'm not sure what kind of room a fully loaded 747 needs to get airborne, bt they never said there was a lack of thrust, there was insufficient thrust for the runway availavble. the second bit is the important bit, they turned on to the runway and attempted to take off with 2000m (6000-ish feet) instead of taxiing to the end of the runway before trying to take off, which would have given them 2700m (8000-ish feet). You guys remember Air Florida crashing into the bridge in Washington DC? They had delays between being deiced and takeoff. During takeoff, the crew was getting a higher than actual reading on the EPR guages because of ice on the compressor inlet probe (they had not used engine anti-ice). A lot of us wondered why they just didn't slam those throttles forward to stop from crashing when we remembered that during training we were taught never to exceed limitations. Nobody ever said "screw limitations; don't crash". Kinda like, "don't you dare die unless throttles are wind open and you are out of ammo."Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #4 October 24, 2004 Actually, we (at Air Wisconsin) are put into situations where we do exceed limitations to live during training. During Wind Shear training we go to full forward stop to get out of the extreme condition. They can do the teardown later.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #5 October 24, 2004 It reminds me of similar situation that happened years ago, where a plane full of coin collectors, returning home after a coin collectors meeting, just barely took off the runway. They'd estimated the total weight of the plane using the regular weight charts. They didn't calculate the weight of the coins, that the people brought with them as a carry on luggage..... Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
