Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jumbo Jet splits in two on take off in Belgium no fatalities.

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Was posted already, im thinking maybe it was a loadmaster problem as from where she broke its like there was alot of weight at the rear end and she snapped due to poor weight management?


  • Options
    #3
    ImDave
    Registered Users Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭ImDave


    I was thinking something along those lines also. The cargo could have shifted during T/O messing around severly with the C of G.


  • Options
    #4
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Unlikely in my opinion.

    Stresses from the aborted take off much more likely.


  • Options
    #5
    ImDave
    Registered Users Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭ImDave


    Check out the angle of the escape chute. It would be a fairly daunting jump from the top!

    alg_cargo-plane.jpg


  • Options
    #6
    *Kol*
    Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭*Kol*


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Unlikely in my opinion.

    Stresses from the aborted take off much more likely.

    It's unlikely/impossible that an aborted takeoff would make a plane break in two.

    They must have left the ground and for some reason came rapidly down again. Load shift is a possibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Thats what I mean, it must have left the ground and slammed back down.

    Thats an aborted take off:cool:


  • Options
    #8
    *Kol*
    Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭*Kol*


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Thats what I mean, it must have left the ground and slammed back down.

    Thats an aborted take off:cool:

    An aborted take off is when the aircraft stops on the runway before rotating. Anything after that is an unsucessfull landing.:cool:


  • Options
    #9
    ImDave
    Registered Users Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭ImDave


    Would it be possible that the nose wheel digging into the ground in the over run area could have caused extreme hull stress leading to failure?

    Another interesting point, it doesnt seem like that reverse thrust and spoilers were activated, going from the photos available.


  • Options
    #10
    newbusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭newbusiness


    *Kol* wrote: »
    An aborted take off is when the aircraft stops on the runway before rotating. Anything after that is an unsucessfull landing.:cool:

    It's an aluminum can hurtling along above the clouds at just below the speed of sound.

    With that in mind, any landing you walk away from is a sucessful landing!


  • Options
    #11
    *Kol*
    Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭*Kol*


    They were lucky to be hurtling just above the runway in this case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    EI-DAV wrote: »
    Check out the angle of the escape chute. It would be a fairly daunting jump from the top!

    alg_cargo-plane.jpg

    Kids would love that slide chute, look at the height of it!!:)


    They could easily make an SP out of it if they cut out the bad bit in the middle and joined it up together again.

    747sp_1.jpg


  • Options
    #13
    Steyr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,266 ✭✭✭Steyr


    Those SP's are disgusting!:mad:


  • Options
    #14
    bushy...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭bushy...


    Wasn't there was a problem a few years ago with lads causing damage while cleaning sealant out of joints , causing cracks ?


    <edit> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maintenance/AARPC/ans/B071.htm


  • Options
    #15
    *Kol*
    Registered Users Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭*Kol*


    bushy... wrote: »
    Wasn't there was a problem a few years ago with lads causing damage while cleaning sealant out of joints , causing cracks ?


    <edit> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maintenance/AARPC/ans/B071.htm

    That's a problem common to all aircraft that have been painted. Unlikely to be a contributing factor in this case as it's normally damaged caused on lap joints. It would appear that impact is the cause of the damage here.


  • Options
    #16
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    The 100 series are long in the tooth now. Should only really be used for cargo! I'd be a bit uneasy if I were boarding a flight and saw it was one of them!


  • Options
    #17
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Biro wrote: »
    The 100 series are long in the tooth now. Should only really be used for cargo! I'd be a bit uneasy if I were boarding a flight and saw it was one of them!
    Im sure there would be a market for them in the Congo :eek:. I would well believe that this country is still using DC3's & Boeing 707's for passenger use. All air carriers certified by the authorities with responsibility for regulatory oversight of the Democratic Republic of Congo are banned from flying into European Airspace.


  • Options
    #18
    Foggy43
    Registered Users Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭Foggy43


    The 747-100/200/SP are still regular visitors to LHR Terminal 3 and Royal Suite taking passengers. The one's visiting the Royal Suite in absolute immaculate condition.

    The 707 still carries passengers in the USA. A lot of aircraft we consider extinct in Europe are still flying in the USA, 707, 717, 727 and DC8 to name a few.


  • Options
    #19
    pclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭pclancy


    She was a -200 series leased by the US government on her way to the gulf after a tech stop in Brussels. Cargo was mainly mail US forces, diplomatic mail and a diplomatic car. I reckon she never made it off the ground, tyre marks on the grass leading up to where it had stopped and gear folded over. Probably had a serious structural failure (pilot heard two bangs and began RTO) and then cracked into the seperate pieces on heading down the grass bank.


  • Options
    #20
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Foggy43 wrote: »
    The 747-100/200/SP are still regular visitors to LHR Terminal 3 and Royal Suite taking passengers. The one's visiting the Royal Suite in absolute immaculate condition.

    The 707 still carries passengers in the USA. A lot of aircraft we consider extinct in Europe are still flying in the USA, 707, 717, 727 and DC8 to name a few.
    There are 63 Boeing 707 aircrafts currently registered for commercial use in the States and nearly all of these are with air cargo operators. Any 707 operators in the states would have them for private charter and not internal domestic passenger use. Just as many of the retired trijets are finding their way into charter companies like Omni, ATA and World Airlines and used for transporting military personnel. Of course you also get 707's falling into the hands of rich kids like John Travolta.


  • Options
    #21
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Looks like a 100 series in the pictures, the 100 series mostly had the Pratt & Whitney engines, like those in that picture, and also the three windows in the hump, well spaced out. The 200 series seemed to be bought more with the rolls royce engines, different shape to those, more conventional. Also the 200 had about 15 or 20 windows in the hump.
    The 300 series had an extended upper deck, meaning a larger hump, with probably 30-ish windows seperated by a door in the middle. The 400 series was fly-by-wire, slightly larger again than the 300, similar layout upstairs with plenty of windows seperated by a door, and the winglets are the biggest give-away.

    Because the pictures of this one aren't great, and that it's a cargo, which means that most windows are blanked out it could be a 200, but looks like a 100 to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    pclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭pclancy


    747-209F Reg: N704CK

    http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N704CK&distinct_entry=true

    Short video view of the crashed aircraft here too... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3f_1211722669

    Does look like a -100 with the upper deck the way it is but I presume it was built as a freighter, not a conversion therefore not having many windows on the upper deck.


  • Options
    #23
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Pity there wasn't a plane spotter with a camcorder watching this thing try to take off. It would have been quite spectacular scoop and may have given some indication on what caused it to break up.


  • Options
    #24
    pclancy
    Registered Users Posts: 3,941 ✭✭✭pclancy


    I wonder why don't all airports have cameras at either end of the runways for help with investigating t/o and landing accidents? Wouldnt exactly be expensive considering the whole world is practically full of CCTV these days :)


  • Options
    #25
    dogmatix
    Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭dogmatix


    Foggy43 wrote: »
    The 747-100/200/SP are still regular visitors to LHR Terminal 3 and Royal Suite taking passengers. The one's visiting the Royal Suite in absolute immaculate condition.

    The 707 still carries passengers in the USA. A lot of aircraft we consider extinct in Europe are still flying in the USA, 707, 717, 727 and DC8 to name a few.

    The 717 is still a new aircraft (essentially a rebadged MD 95) - they only stopped building them a few years ago. I suppose Boeing thought it was pointless having the 717 and the 737 competing against each other.


  • Options
    #26
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    pclancy wrote: »
    I wonder why don't all airports have cameras at either end of the runways for help with investigating t/o and landing accidents? Wouldnt exactly be expensive considering the whole world is practically full of CCTV these days :)
    Im surprised they don't have footage of that crash from sat cameras :eek:


  • Options
    #27
    Foggy43
    Registered Users Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭Foggy43


    A certain B777 final moments a few months ago was caught on 3 different cameras. The video will never be shown to the public. The AAIB and BA senior management were allowed to view the video's.

    We are not to know where all these camera's are! They are considered a major security issue! You cannot drive around LHR without passing an airport camera every 100 meters.


  • Options
    #28
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Foggy43 wrote: »
    You cannot drive around LHR without passing an airport camera every 100 meters.
    JUst like Dublin, it used to be the case that you were no more than 10 feet from a rat in the city, now the same can be said for CCTV. Welcome big brother.


Advertisement