Desert Rat wrote:
May I ask what is Noordrand/Borealis ?????
Noordrand is one of the many NIMBY-action groups : not in my back yard. "I need an airplane to go on holiday, and that plane needs an airport to take off and land. And yes, the plane that takes me on holiday makes some noise during take off and landing. So what? But I don't want to hear the airplanes from other tourists, going on holiday: those planes have to make a detour to avoid my back yard."
Some stories about these Nimby's are really unbelievable. Like the lady from Awaccs, Miss Peggy, who also runs an import export company near the airport. So she phones Brucargo every now and then to ask if her goods have already been cleared by customs. And five minutes later, she files a complaint about too much noise from the cargo plane that brought in her stuff.
euh, think this was off topic ...
Sorry to go off topic.
Her father is very, very pro-airport. And remember the letter Air Libre wrote to the Chinese government not to fly to Belgium because its a nazi-airport.
I understand what you say, flylover (page 2, above)
But how is it that all these objections did not apply for the Khalitta crash at BRU recently ?
There were litterally dozens of picture with the name of the company, and a lot of them were taken from inside the perimeter and some even by officials or employees of the airport. Of course, they were very interesting and I don't object, quite at the contrary, I quite enjoyed them.
But it seems that some belgian companies (Brussels Airlines, CargoB - Jetairfly much less so) enjoy a kind of protection here. One can understand it - but it's perhaps to be regretted.
For instance, on the Khalitta crash, there were here pages and pages of comments, not always very kind, to say the least, towards the company, the crew, and even speculations about the load. I have read nothing of the kind for the CargoB incident, especially nothing about what or who caused that blunder.
Informally heard last week that Boeing-engineers/Cargo B would be rather pessimistic about (economical) repair possibilities of Cargo B tail strike aircraft.(CBA)
Could it be the a/c ends its carreer as a source of spare parts at BRU...?
With regard to cause(s) of the accident:
Cargo was offloaded and all pallets re-weighted.
No problem would have been noted with regard to the "weight & balance"...
I think it's kind of hard to assess the damage by just looking at the picture. The damage you can't see could be heavier then the one you see.
I don't think this will be so easy as desert rat makes it look like.
Of course it could be repaired. BUT it woud be very expensive indeed and cargob indicated that the plan was to return this plane to the leasing company soon with the arrival of that overrated -400. So a return to service is very unlikely keeping in mind the financial troubles that cargob had (still has?). If the insurance pays problems are solved.
The real reason for this incident will be published (or not) in the official report.
What will happen to the crew if it was pilot error ? Manufactors and companies always want to blame the pilots (easy way out).
I bet cargob management is very busy to find a way out.
Btw. I received many more and better pictures by e.mail and belive that everybody knows somebody who received the same. These pictures really show the damage done to the frame. A 742 has a mechanical tailscratch indicator (explained to me by a technician) as sort of a pin which is normally painted. Nothing's left of it
PeterP wrote:Of course it could be repaired. BUT it woud be very expensive indeed and cargob indicated that the plan was to return this plane to the leasing company soon
AFAIK most leasing contracts state somewhere in the small print that the aircraft should be returned to the lessor in the same state it was received...
So a return to service is very unlikely keeping in mind the financial troubles that cargob had (still has?).
...
On 30th May 2007, Petercam Services (Brussels), Q A T II Investments (Luxembourg) and the Participatiemaatschappij Vlaanderen (Flanders) have agreed to invest 20,000,000 euro's into Cargo B Airlines. On 15th June 2007, this decision was officially registered at the Brussels trade court. On 26th June 2007, it was published in the Belgian State Gazette.
Financial troubles? With a company having these partners?
(Peter, I don't blame you, as it wasn't you who braught it up first).
The aircraft is now parked outside the LH Technik hangar. The engines are covered, doors are closed and -as far as I could see- no repair is going on at the aircraft itself.
janhuub wrote:I think it's kind of hard to assess the damage by just looking at the picture. The damage you can't see could be heavier then the one you see.
Yeahhhh of course, but here i'm seated behind my computer....and you know a forum is a place to discuss...
So for me, this is repairable and most probably will be repaired...
Now of course again i don't have my head trough the hole with a flashlight in one hand and an eddy current probe in the other checking the craks in the damaged frames...
I've seen damage less spectacular from a cosmetic point of view(nothing visible from outside) but considered as major damage(corrosion on pressure bulkhead)requiring a full team of sheetmetal worker for a month to fix it with special repair drawing provided by the manufacturer...because the extend of the damages were out of any repair manual scope.
This is of course very spectacular but, it is mainly secondary structure damages not primary....For my point of view and behind my computer ...again...
[The following posting is off-topic. If you’re not interested in my opinion on the reaction of actiegroep noordrand and how it quoted luchtzak.be, than please disregard this posting. If you are, I invite you to read.]
Actiegroep Noordrand is a typical example of people with a shear lack of common sense, consistency and integrity. Allow me to explain myself:
1. Lack of common sense:: A positive trait of people with common sense is that they look at problems from a helicopter perspective, looking at advantages and disadvantages of a scenario. The difficulty lies in the trade-off between the pro’s and the con’s. Actiegoep Noordrand (like many “belangen verdedigings organisaties”) refuse to engage in this intellectually demanding exercise by simplifying scenario’s unrealistically and extremely skewed towards their own objectives. An illustration of the lack of willingness to balance pro’s and con’s is a simple look at their website: only negative reporting about the airport and it’s operations. Not a single word about positive effects on economy, labor markets, etc. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m always very skeptical when I see such childish one sided argumentation.
2. Lack of consistency:: Actiegroup Noordrand claims to favor equal spread of the disadvantages of the airport and here operations. They strive for maximizing the spread honestly over all neighboring communes. Although I don’t agree with this goal as being the relevant one – I think a more appropriate goal would be minimizing the following parameter: excessive decibels x impacted civilians – the point I want to make is that it is not consistent with other criticism on their website. I explain myself: When arguing the Cargo B tailstrike, they indicate how bad this accident could have turned out should it have happened with a tailwind of 7kts. Yet, they are one of the main reasons why airplanes land with tailwinds in the first place. I’m very convinced that anyone involved in aviation will have only 1 priority in determining runway configuration: guaranteeing overall safety. With their demands for equal spreading, they reduce the weight of safety concerns in the final decisions. Therefore, arguments like “imagine what would have happened with a 7kts tailwind” are cheap assaults that totally negate their own responsibility in this matter. Another simple illustration of their inconsistency is their baseline on the website compared with the first bullet in the Daedalus goals: the baseline mentions “eerlijke spreiding”, while the first bullet of the goals mentions “immediate runway configuration change in case of unfavorable wind conditions”. Point taken?
3. Lack of integrity: The use of quotes on the website is an illustration of the abuse they make of certain information sources. Upon quoting a source, I expect the author to have checked the relevance, experience and overall quality of the source. Although in the article about the Cargo B tailstrike, they quote luchtzak.be, I feel they did it in a skewed and sensored way, abusing the name of our community to prove their statement of which I’m sure this community does not agree with.
Next to that, I also find quotes like “aviation is the fastest growing contributor to climate changing”. I have not enough info to counter this statement (proof of my integrity), but allow me to at least challenge this statement intellectually:
- is aviation really the fastest growing sector? My appreciation of my chances to find a job as an F/O in the near future rather indicates the countrary
-Should the answer on the above question be yes. In which unit is the growth expressed? Is it really expressed in emissions (the only relevant parameter)? Or is it expressed in passenger number, amount of operators, passenger miles, amount of take-offs and landings, etc.
Off course they will not challenge a statement which fits their overall objective. I don’t expect them to. But it does make me question their integrity
My conclusion: I’m a quite easy-going guy. In discussions I’m always open to sound rationale and different points of view. Yet, if I discover that I’m talking to someone without common sense (lacking the ability to build a sound rationale), that is inconsistent (different statements or goals contradict each other repeatedly) and moreover lacks integrity (respect for self, others and methodology in favor of an attitude “the goal justifies the means”)…well, let’s say I’m not really inclined to even consider their point of view.
Nobody is allowed to take any pictures onto the tarmac with exeption of special authorised persons by BIAC . if you want to take a picture of an airplane from the tarmac you need permission of the airline . In case of the tail strike of the cargo B , the authors of the pictures does need an authorisation of Cargo B .
Its so simple .
And about the chickens of the noord rand : this are partly ex Sabena who purchased cheap land due to the noise from the past and does think onto the noisy time when they hear silent airplanes from today .
carlcat wrote:About pictures on the tarmac lets be clear :
Nobody is allowed to take any pictures onto the tarmac with exeption of special authorised persons by BIAC . if you want to take a picture of an airplane from the tarmac you need permission of the airline . In case of the tail strike of the cargo B , the authors of the pictures does need an authorisation of Cargo B .
I was there when the a/c taxied in, and I can confirm that at least 15-20 people were there and taking pictures (either with camera or mobile phone) and nobody (BIAC, Maintenance, CBB) did anything to avoid it.
744rules wrote:I was there when the a/c taxied in, and I can confirm that at least 15-20 people were there and taking pictures (either with camera or mobile phone) and nobody (BIAC, Maintenance, CBB) did anything to avoid it.
But it's still illegal to take them anyway. So they are quite stupid to spread them on the internet and make them even more liable for lawsuites. Go "high profile" is not a smart idea in such cases.
20m is somewhat only pocket money in the airline industry. They had this amount 1.5 years ago and with only one plane instead of three I don't think they where able to make that much money. Investors are only (re)investing if they see a chance for good returns. New partners from Asia will also be carefully evaluate the situation.
carlcat wrote:About pictures on the tarmac lets be clear :
Nobody is allowed to take any pictures onto the tarmac with exeption of special authorised persons by BIAC . if you want to take a picture of an airplane from the tarmac you need permission of the airline . In case of the tail strike of the cargo B , the authors of the pictures does need an authorisation of Cargo B .
Its so simple .
Let me say, quite an hypocrite argument, but after all ?
I've often noticed it's much easier for airline PR people to intimidate sites like Luchtzak, much easier than airliners.net, jetphotos.net, FlightGlobal, ... normal these don't even answer to their request to remove the pictures or comments !! And we don't lack of examples the last few years.
You all know this: there are some airline and tour-operator PR who spend their time "monitoring" this webiste. Poor of them, if they find some fun doing this !
Censuring that picture is childish and not good PR.
In some companies, PR are considered as very important and managed by a good expert in that field.
In some companies, they don't care about PR and they put there a guy not very bright and unfit to work at any another post ...
