747 cargo splits in two during takeoff!

"F. Baum" wrote in
:

On May 25, 7:51*am, D Ramapriya wrote:
Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
alive...http:
//edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/25/belgium.aircrash.ap/in...
Ramapriya


WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past incedents
would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly inspected, or a
cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?


Well, it was one of Connie's .... Straight away you know that something
wasn't right.



Bertie

Rich Ahrens wrote in
. net:

on 5/25/2008 10:03 AM F. Baum said the following:
On May 25, 7:51 am, D Ramapriya wrote:
Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still

alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...belgium.aircra
sh.ap/in... Ramapriya


WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past
incedents would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly
inspected, or a cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?

It's Kallita Air - no need to say more... But I'm sure Bertie will add
to that.


Same thing I thought straight away.


Bertie

HARRY POTTER wrote in
:

F. Baum wrote:

On May 25, 7:51Â*am, D Ramapriya wrote:
Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still

alive...http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...elgium.aircras
h
.ap/in...
Ramapriya


WOW- glad these guys made it through. My guess based on past
incedents would be a hard landing that went unreported or poorly
inspected, or a cargo shift. Any ideas BTB ?

please don't encourage him...



Yeah, like I need encouragement.

Bertie

On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote innews
D Ramapriya writes:

Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still alive...
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...ircrash.ap/ind
ex.html

Too much cargo, perhaps.

Fjukkwit./

He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
even when they ain't....

george wrote in
:

On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
innews
D Ramapriya writes:

Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
alive...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu....aircrash.ap/i
nd
ex.html

Too much cargo, perhaps.

Fjukkwit./

He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
even when they ain't....



We won't get into the Freuian aspects of all of that.

Best guess is that they had some sort of problem near V1 and abandoned.
Abandoned takeoffs are always a bit scary and the likelyhood of an over-
run is high if they're done at a very high speed. Because of this we're
encouraged to get our heads into go mode approaching V1 and we only stop
for something absolutely drastic in the "high speed regime" which is
usually between 80 knots and V1 wheras we stop for just about anything
below 80.

Bertie

B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?

On May 25, 8:51 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
george wrote :

On May 26, 10:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
innews

D Ramapriya writes:

Mighty lucky that there wasn't a fire and all crew are still
alive...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu....aircrash.ap/i

nd
ex.html

Too much cargo, perhaps.

Fjukkwit./

He seems to have an obsession about overloaded aircraft...
even when they ain't....

We won't get into the Freuian aspects of all of that.

Best guess is that they had some sort of problem near V1 and abandoned.
Abandoned takeoffs are always a bit scary and the likelyhood of an over-
run is high if they're done at a very high speed. Because of this we're
encouraged to get our heads into go mode approaching V1 and we only stop
for something absolutely drastic in the "high speed regime" which is
usually between 80 knots and V1 wheras we stop for just about anything
below 80.

Bertie

the original OP post

"Flydive" wrote in message
...
BT wrote:
Talk about a miss representation of facts..
no one yet knows the facts..
for some reason the aircraft did not have a successful take off..
more than likely an aborted take off, which caused the over running of
the available runway
and the aircraft broke apart because of the rough terrain
I would doubt that the aircraft failed to take off because it broke in
two.. parts would be more widely scattered.

BT


And where did you read that the aircraft failed to take oof because it
broke?

Tina wrote in
:

B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?




Actually, we probably wouldn't stop for something like that if we were
close to V1. The actual recommended brief from MR Boeing these days is
"We'll stop for an engine fire, an engine failure indicated by two
parameters, or anything I reckon makes the airplane unsafe to fly" The
last bit reinforces pilot discretion and allows us to make a decision
based on our assessment in a given situation. For instance, though we're
not supposed to, i did abandon for a belly cargo door unlocked light
once. I was in the high speed regime, but still relatively slow ( about
110 knots) and we were light and the runway was quite long. No big deal
and the stop was pretty much a non event. However, there's no way I
would have stopped for that if I were close to V1 and the runway was
short. Some people are already saying he put it back down aftger blowing
a tire after airborne, whihc is almost certainly complete crap. We don't
stop for tire burts in the high speed regime. Chances are you will also
burst the adjoining tires and have very poor braking afterwards.. He
might have doen this, but he'd have to be a very special class of idiot
to have done so and it probably would have been a lot worse if he had in
any case.
But the decision speed is calculated for each runway, and should allow
you to either go or stop at V1 in theory. IOW you can't take as much
weight off a short runway as a long one, just like any other airplane.
In actual fact overruns are common from high speed stops for a variety
of reasons, not the least of which is the time it takes to assess the
situation and make the decision. Usually they;re not as bad as this one,
though.
Quite possible they abandoned at a relatively high speed for whatever
reason and just didn't get on the stoppers quickly enough, or , as
someone suggested, there was a cargo shift, but that's pretty unlikely.
Time and the report will tell, but it's quite possible that the crew
will be found to have done everything correctly and they just ran out of
runway..

Bertie

On May 25, 7:20 pm, "BT" wrote:
Talk about a miss representation of facts..

I merely typed out the CNN headline.

snip

Ramapriya

"Tina" wrote

B, I can appreciate the 'go mode' from some speed onward, but runway
lengths vary by some thousands of yards. With a typical load and
normal conditions, how long a runway would allow you to decide to not
go if something drastic happened at just below lift off speed (like a
door blowing open, or a windscreen failing, something like that)?

Google "balanced field" and see what you find out.

I'm not a heavy iron pilot, so I'm not positive that this concept flies
here, (ooooh, bad pun, and I wasn't even trying for it g

From what I understand, it is a calculation done before every takeoff, and
it has to do with how far and how fast they will be able to go down the
runway, and still abort and get stopped on the runway, safely.
--
Jim in NC