I'm NOT an expert on DU*.
So do not send me e-mails about DU.
And I also do not know if before or during the "Operation Open Barn Door" on the Mukata, DU ammunition was used. And if that would have any effect on the livers of the occupants.
Sorry, I am not a physician.
I guess it is too late to remove my email address from my profile?
The training I had on that matter, was as station manager in the 70ties, and also the IATA traning "Dangerous Goods". Also the Sabena Disaster Manual mentioned some interesting points on the matter. (Every Sabena Rep, was supposed to study this brochure. I did, but how many Reps didn't?)
MK Airlines 747 crashes Halifax , Canada
Moderator: Latest news team
Not a lot of news since the last post or on how the investigation is proceeding, but all of a sudden this article shows up. As far as I know the only one. Does anyone else received more info yet?
Robair64
Crashed cargo jet not overloaded
Michael Tutton
Canadian Press
November 14, 2004
HALIFAX -- Investigators in the fatal crash of a massive cargo jet near Halifax have virtually ruled out overloading as the cause and are instead probing the mystery of why the engines were underpowered at takeoff.
Bill Fowler, lead investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, told The Canadian Press the flight data recorder shows the MK Airlines 747 jet's weight at takeoff was "fairly close to" 352,400 kilograms.
That was the maximum the plane was allowed to weigh for the runway at Halifax International Airport on Oct. 14.
"Bottom line, we do not see at this time that the aircraft was significantly over or under or off the planned weight, based on the math," said Fowler.
The flight data recorder, which was discovered in the wreckage of the crash, indicates what the plane's acceleration and speed were at the time of takeoff.
From this data, mathematical formulas allow investigators with Boeing, the safety board and the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States to determine the mass of the airplane as it lifted off.
Fowler admitted it's still theoretically possible the plane was slightly overweight, but the amount almost certainly wouldn't have prevented a takeoff.
He said the calculations show the plane "was within one per cent, that would mean within 3,500 kilograms" of a planned weight of 350,700 kilograms.
"That (margin) is not very significant in getting an aircraft this size safely off the ground."
Speculation that overloading might have been the cause heightened after the board issued a safety advisory on Oct. 20 that said their probe "raised a concern about the management of loads for cargo flights."
The investigators said they were concerned the weight of seafood on the aircraft had been estimated rather than actually weighed after it was packaged and put on pallets in Halifax.
Fowler said he remains concerned about that practice and the lack of regulatory oversight, but said the investigator's calculations have shifted the probe to the issue of the lack of power at takeoff.
"The big issues is . . . the aircraft took off with the engines set at substantially reduced power from that required to take off at that weight with this runway in those conditions," said the veteran investigator.
The lack of power might have resulted from human error, or mechanical problems with the engines and the systems that control them, he explained.
"What scenario is the most plausible? Is it mechanical? Is it human error? Is there any other system error that might have led to this?"
Deepening the puzzle, the flight data recorder shows the aircraft had a large increase of power just seconds before the plane failed to take off.
"In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum. We're confident thrust was available," said Fowler.
By then, however, it was too late.
The plane was barely off the ground when its tail struck an embankment 300 metres beyond the runway and broke off.
Fred Chesbro, a pilot and advocate for improved safety on cargo planes, said in an e-mail that investigators should have a close look at the engine settings.
"Some carriers have been known to unwisely suggest to their pilots that they set lower power settings at takeoff and climb in an effort to save wear on the engines," he wrote.
The TSB investigators have noted that two of the cargo jet's four jet engines were replaced just two weeks before the crash and have termed the replacement "unusual."
The company says the replacements were part of routine maintenance.
However, Fowler said that until further documents are obtained from British-headquartered MK Airlines, no further details are available on the reasons for the engine changes.
He's also concerned the destruction of the voice data recorder in the fiery explosion will slow down the investigation because the pilot's final comments aren't available.
© The Canadian Press 2004
Robair64
Crashed cargo jet not overloaded
Michael Tutton
Canadian Press
November 14, 2004
HALIFAX -- Investigators in the fatal crash of a massive cargo jet near Halifax have virtually ruled out overloading as the cause and are instead probing the mystery of why the engines were underpowered at takeoff.
Bill Fowler, lead investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, told The Canadian Press the flight data recorder shows the MK Airlines 747 jet's weight at takeoff was "fairly close to" 352,400 kilograms.
That was the maximum the plane was allowed to weigh for the runway at Halifax International Airport on Oct. 14.
"Bottom line, we do not see at this time that the aircraft was significantly over or under or off the planned weight, based on the math," said Fowler.
The flight data recorder, which was discovered in the wreckage of the crash, indicates what the plane's acceleration and speed were at the time of takeoff.
From this data, mathematical formulas allow investigators with Boeing, the safety board and the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States to determine the mass of the airplane as it lifted off.
Fowler admitted it's still theoretically possible the plane was slightly overweight, but the amount almost certainly wouldn't have prevented a takeoff.
He said the calculations show the plane "was within one per cent, that would mean within 3,500 kilograms" of a planned weight of 350,700 kilograms.
"That (margin) is not very significant in getting an aircraft this size safely off the ground."
Speculation that overloading might have been the cause heightened after the board issued a safety advisory on Oct. 20 that said their probe "raised a concern about the management of loads for cargo flights."
The investigators said they were concerned the weight of seafood on the aircraft had been estimated rather than actually weighed after it was packaged and put on pallets in Halifax.
Fowler said he remains concerned about that practice and the lack of regulatory oversight, but said the investigator's calculations have shifted the probe to the issue of the lack of power at takeoff.
"The big issues is . . . the aircraft took off with the engines set at substantially reduced power from that required to take off at that weight with this runway in those conditions," said the veteran investigator.
The lack of power might have resulted from human error, or mechanical problems with the engines and the systems that control them, he explained.
"What scenario is the most plausible? Is it mechanical? Is it human error? Is there any other system error that might have led to this?"
Deepening the puzzle, the flight data recorder shows the aircraft had a large increase of power just seconds before the plane failed to take off.
"In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum. We're confident thrust was available," said Fowler.
By then, however, it was too late.
The plane was barely off the ground when its tail struck an embankment 300 metres beyond the runway and broke off.
Fred Chesbro, a pilot and advocate for improved safety on cargo planes, said in an e-mail that investigators should have a close look at the engine settings.
"Some carriers have been known to unwisely suggest to their pilots that they set lower power settings at takeoff and climb in an effort to save wear on the engines," he wrote.
The TSB investigators have noted that two of the cargo jet's four jet engines were replaced just two weeks before the crash and have termed the replacement "unusual."
The company says the replacements were part of routine maintenance.
However, Fowler said that until further documents are obtained from British-headquartered MK Airlines, no further details are available on the reasons for the engine changes.
He's also concerned the destruction of the voice data recorder in the fiery explosion will slow down the investigation because the pilot's final comments aren't available.
© The Canadian Press 2004
Crashed cargo jet not overloaded :?:
Robair64 wrote:Crashed cargo jet not overloaded
...... the flight data recorder shows the MK Airlines 747 jet's weight at takeoff was "fairly close to" 352,400 kilograms.
.....calculations show the plane "was within one per cent, that would mean within 3,500 kilograms" of a planned weight of 350,700 kilograms. safely off the ground."
That (margin) is not very significant....
The lack of power might have resulted from human error, or mechanical problems
I read that too...
As I understand this: it is UNDER 1% OVER maximum TOW.
If that were the only problem.., but as always it is a combination of 'mistakes', resulted from human error, or mechanical problems.
Crashed cargo jet not overloadedAvro wrote:Could it be that the pilots derated the engines too much ?
Some carriers have been known to unwisely suggest to their pilots that they set lower power settings at takeoff and climb in an effort to save wear on the engines.
Systemathically saving engine wear is a human factor...
Overload can be mechanical: wrong weighing devices...
But just systemathically overloading... that is a human factor...
1% OVER is not over? I suggest MK pays its staff an 1%extra over the carreer, as MK was making 1% over in revenue all that time, and we will hear if 1% OVER is over or is not very significant....
(I have seen so many donkeys suffering under their burden, then the owner just keeps kicking on the poor animal... We all disapprove of that practice, when it is a poor donkey 'operator', don't we? In some cases the donkeys dies, here it is worse, here it is people...)
Systemathically "OVER" is maybe human, but in my eyes also criminal... and some crews pay for that ... with their lves and that's 100% over the limit.
Re: Crashed cargo jet not overloaded :?:
It doesn't say that the plane was overloaded by one percent. In my opinion it says their was a margin of 1%. If you would look at a passanger aircraft, where they use standard weights for passangers it could happen easely that this plane is overloaded by 1% or even slightly more. Their is always at least a 10% margin in this. This has been calculated for. So this 1%, if it was overloaded, could not in any way have resulted in a crash.SN30952 wrote:
I suggest MK pays its staff an 1%extra over the carreer, as MK was making 1% over in revenue all that time, and we will hear if 1% OVER is over or is not very significant....
(I have seen so many donkeys suffering under their burden, then the owner just keeps kicking on the poor animal... We all disapprove of that practice, when it is a poor donkey 'operator', don't we? In some cases the donkeys dies, here it is worse, here it is people...)
Systemathically "OVER" is maybe human, but in my eyes also criminal... and some crews pay for that ... with their lves and that's 100% over the limit.
But what concers me more is the fact that they don't put the engines at 100% take off thrust just to spare the engines. Especially when the airplane is fully loaded. That is where it goes wrong. The calculations are made with 100% Take off thrust.
Re: Crashed cargo jet not overloaded :?:
About the 1% thing: Keep in mind that the max weight allowed is ot the max weight that the plane could handle. There is a safety margin.....
Chris
Derated take offs aren't dangerous, the only thing is that it can't be used in each conditions (runway, weather etc..). But let's not speculate on this we aren't the expertswaldova wrote:But what concers me more is the fact that they don't put the engines at 100% take off thrust just to spare the engines. Especially when the airplane is fully loaded. That is where it goes wrong. The calculations are made with 100% Take off thrust.
Chris
Well, I'm an aerospace engineer and worked as Flight Recordor Investigator for five months for the NTSB. So i know some stuff about this matter.
You say it yourself that a deteriorated take-off us dangerous in not normal conditions. Well, i would like to know the weather conditions at the time of the accident.
You say it yourself that a deteriorated take-off us dangerous in not normal conditions. Well, i would like to know the weather conditions at the time of the accident.
Too slow
The B 747 cargo jet that struggled to lift off before crashing was traveling too slowly, Canadian investigators said Friday.
"In order to get to 184 miles an hour within the runway available, they needed more thrust," Fowler said.
The plane's engines became an early focus of the investigation when Fowler revealed that two of them were replaced recently, raising questions about their state of repair.
"The big issues is . . . the aircraft took off with the engines set at substantially reduced power from that required to take off at that weight with this runway in those conditions," said the veteran investigator.
The lack of power might have resulted from human error, or mechanical problems with the engines and the systems that control them, he explained.
"What scenario is the most plausible? Is it mechanical? Is it human error? Is there any other system error that might have led to this?"
Deepening the puzzle, the flight data recorder shows the aircraft had a large increase of power just seconds before the plane failed to take off.
"In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum. We're confident thrust was available," said Fowler.
By then, however, it was too late.
"In order to get to 184 miles an hour within the runway available, they needed more thrust," Fowler said.
The plane's engines became an early focus of the investigation when Fowler revealed that two of them were replaced recently, raising questions about their state of repair.
"The big issues is . . . the aircraft took off with the engines set at substantially reduced power from that required to take off at that weight with this runway in those conditions," said the veteran investigator.
The lack of power might have resulted from human error, or mechanical problems with the engines and the systems that control them, he explained.
"What scenario is the most plausible? Is it mechanical? Is it human error? Is there any other system error that might have led to this?"
Deepening the puzzle, the flight data recorder shows the aircraft had a large increase of power just seconds before the plane failed to take off.
"In the latter portion of the takeoff the thrust went up to maximum. We're confident thrust was available," said Fowler.
By then, however, it was too late.
The real price of sugar snap peas in November
I was really upset when I read an article in the belgian Trends.be magazine some weeks ago, about how nicely these cargoes operate out of Kenya, to bring "fresh fruit and veggies to Europe". I was really angry at that irresponsible journalist.
Because A/ I know how these cargo operators fly and B/ I know how the people in Kenya have to work and what they earn to grow the delicatessen!
I emailed him to tell my disappointment, but he never answered, as he got probably paid by the lobby of exporters for a visit to their operation and... the kenyan beaches.
Now I read an article in the TIMES, that starts as follows:
The drive to provide cheap produce for the nation’s dinner tables has resulted in an airline with one of the world’s worst safety records flying in and out of busy British airports.
Ben Webster , Transport Correspondent, and Jan Raath in Harare aren't probably not paid by the "sugar snap peas" lobby.
The Times has learnt that the crew were on a punishing 24-hour schedule in which they were due to criss-cross the Atlantic, visiting the United States, then Canada, then Spain before returning to Luxembourg.The schedule would be illegal in Britain because of the risk of exhausted pilots making fatal errors. But it is permitted by the authorities in Ghana, who are MK’s safety regulator and approve its operating certificate.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) has uncovered safety rule breaches, including possible overloading of the aircraft because MK’s handling agent failed to weigh a cargo of lobsters. The scales appear to have been broken, but staff did not want to delay the flight.
Mike Kruger, 47, who founded MK in 1990, told The Times that MK had revised its rules since the crash on October 14 and no longer operated 24-hour schedules. He admitted that the aircraft could have been overloaded, but said that responsibility for that lay with MK’s handling agent. We are not proud of what’s happened. There’s been an element of bad luck, but we want to learn from this.
Because A/ I know how these cargo operators fly and B/ I know how the people in Kenya have to work and what they earn to grow the delicatessen!
I emailed him to tell my disappointment, but he never answered, as he got probably paid by the lobby of exporters for a visit to their operation and... the kenyan beaches.
Now I read an article in the TIMES, that starts as follows:
The drive to provide cheap produce for the nation’s dinner tables has resulted in an airline with one of the world’s worst safety records flying in and out of busy British airports.
Ben Webster , Transport Correspondent, and Jan Raath in Harare aren't probably not paid by the "sugar snap peas" lobby.
The Times has learnt that the crew were on a punishing 24-hour schedule in which they were due to criss-cross the Atlantic, visiting the United States, then Canada, then Spain before returning to Luxembourg.The schedule would be illegal in Britain because of the risk of exhausted pilots making fatal errors. But it is permitted by the authorities in Ghana, who are MK’s safety regulator and approve its operating certificate.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) has uncovered safety rule breaches, including possible overloading of the aircraft because MK’s handling agent failed to weigh a cargo of lobsters. The scales appear to have been broken, but staff did not want to delay the flight.
Mike Kruger, 47, who founded MK in 1990, told The Times that MK had revised its rules since the crash on October 14 and no longer operated 24-hour schedules. He admitted that the aircraft could have been overloaded, but said that responsibility for that lay with MK’s handling agent. We are not proud of what’s happened. There’s been an element of bad luck, but we want to learn from this.
SN30952
I fully agree with you. Trends doesn’t care about human lives, neither does Mike Kruger.
Read what is written in ‘www.pprune.org/forums’:
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=18
Disconnected posted 20th October 2004 19:40
Does the [MK Airlines] company have a safety culture? Any discussion with the crews will show this to be a joke. They fly long and hard and the company only does what is needed to cosmetically satisfy whoever. You get paid for what you fly. No fly – no pay. Complain too much and someone else gets the trips. This can be very persuading when living as a white in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and trying to keep up a family, education etc. when clearly the state takes pleasure in persecuting you. MK took advantage of all this. Cheap crews with a noose around their necks.
Does the company have a safety department? Sure they called in a few boys from Cathay to fix up the procedures. Procedures count for nothing if the safety culture is not there. It has to start from the top. It has to be sincere. The accident rate shows just how successful this half hearted attempt has been. A large part of the greatly proceduralised fleet is now a charred wreck. However the same hasn’t happened to Cathay. I wonder why. MK just didn’t get it. The only true belief was in the bottom line.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=19
Fuel100 posted 21st October 2004 08:56
I know quite a few of the MK personnel and from my discussions with them I can only second all that ‘disconnected’ has said. The problem comes from the top. Any airline can bring in an amount of experts to solve a problem (Ex CX crews in this case), but unless the airline is prepared to change its culture, and take on board those recommendations, the exercise becomes a waste of the CX crew’s time and effort.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=29
Fuel100 posted 6th November 2004 04:12
The bottom line is that this [company = MK Airlines] is a tin pot airline with an appalling safety record that should be shut down for the sake of the remaining crew and the people who live in the vicinity of the airports that they operate to.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... ost1608871
Phileas Fogg posted 15th November 2004 21:19
I hear what you're saying but having myself worked in cargo for 5+ years not only have I witnessed the cutting of corners but I mixed & drank with MK crews in the Ter Streep bar, Ostend.
I would say that MK has been like an accident waiting to happen but in their case would need to omit the waiting part.
Any airline may be only as good or bad as it's regulating authority permit it to be.
In the instance of an African registration, an airline pays a poorer nation to be registered there and that country does not want to deter such business thus they do not enforce regulations nor inspect the airline to ensure regulations are being adhered to.
Does it not concern you that such unregulated airlines and aircraft have European & N. American traffic rights and it could be your house they're flying over at some time in the future?
Regulated airlines spend a bucket load of money ensuring regulations are adhered to and often cannot compete with non-regulated airlines who may put profit before safety.
If African countries want to allow potentially dangerous aircraft into the air then perhaps those aircraft should be restricted to flying over Africa!
I fully agree with you. Trends doesn’t care about human lives, neither does Mike Kruger.
Read what is written in ‘www.pprune.org/forums’:
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=18
Disconnected posted 20th October 2004 19:40
Does the [MK Airlines] company have a safety culture? Any discussion with the crews will show this to be a joke. They fly long and hard and the company only does what is needed to cosmetically satisfy whoever. You get paid for what you fly. No fly – no pay. Complain too much and someone else gets the trips. This can be very persuading when living as a white in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe and trying to keep up a family, education etc. when clearly the state takes pleasure in persecuting you. MK took advantage of all this. Cheap crews with a noose around their necks.
Does the company have a safety department? Sure they called in a few boys from Cathay to fix up the procedures. Procedures count for nothing if the safety culture is not there. It has to start from the top. It has to be sincere. The accident rate shows just how successful this half hearted attempt has been. A large part of the greatly proceduralised fleet is now a charred wreck. However the same hasn’t happened to Cathay. I wonder why. MK just didn’t get it. The only true belief was in the bottom line.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=19
Fuel100 posted 21st October 2004 08:56
I know quite a few of the MK personnel and from my discussions with them I can only second all that ‘disconnected’ has said. The problem comes from the top. Any airline can bring in an amount of experts to solve a problem (Ex CX crews in this case), but unless the airline is prepared to change its culture, and take on board those recommendations, the exercise becomes a waste of the CX crew’s time and effort.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... enumber=29
Fuel100 posted 6th November 2004 04:12
The bottom line is that this [company = MK Airlines] is a tin pot airline with an appalling safety record that should be shut down for the sake of the remaining crew and the people who live in the vicinity of the airports that they operate to.
Source: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... ost1608871
Phileas Fogg posted 15th November 2004 21:19
I hear what you're saying but having myself worked in cargo for 5+ years not only have I witnessed the cutting of corners but I mixed & drank with MK crews in the Ter Streep bar, Ostend.
I would say that MK has been like an accident waiting to happen but in their case would need to omit the waiting part.
Any airline may be only as good or bad as it's regulating authority permit it to be.
In the instance of an African registration, an airline pays a poorer nation to be registered there and that country does not want to deter such business thus they do not enforce regulations nor inspect the airline to ensure regulations are being adhered to.
Does it not concern you that such unregulated airlines and aircraft have European & N. American traffic rights and it could be your house they're flying over at some time in the future?
Regulated airlines spend a bucket load of money ensuring regulations are adhered to and often cannot compete with non-regulated airlines who may put profit before safety.
If African countries want to allow potentially dangerous aircraft into the air then perhaps those aircraft should be restricted to flying over Africa!
This is really interesting what you just wrote Falcon X. I think it is really dangerous to have exhausted pilots in the cockpit. They make all these regulations for bus drivers, to make sure that they don't drive to much. Well, i think it would be better, for the safety of the people but also for the pilots to have a worldwide regulation and if the airlines do not agree with these regulations they can't come into your airspace.
But I understand the pilots of MK airlines. If it is true that they get only paid for there flying hours and that if they don't accept a flight somebody else goes away with the money they could earn, well, then it is normal that they accept anything.
But I understand the pilots of MK airlines. If it is true that they get only paid for there flying hours and that if they don't accept a flight somebody else goes away with the money they could earn, well, then it is normal that they accept anything.
WX during deteriorated take-off....
waldova I gave that information:;waldova wrote: Well, i would like to know the weather conditions at the time of the accident.
Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:37 pm
The weather at the time of the crash was good with a partly cloudy sky and light winds.
And what is in your view a:deteriorated take-off us dangerous in not normal conditions. see your post
I have been following your discussions on this accident from the day I found out about it, as one of my dear friends was a Victim of this disaster. He was a aviator of the highest integrity and always judged a fellow pilot by measuring them against his own families safety. They were only good enough if he could allow his own family to fly with them. Money makes people do weird things, specially if it is an incentive to people struggling against the system, In this case it could almost be blamed on Mugabe as the ultimate cause:? I am not going to be stupid enough to go down that road.
As I was reading the last few days' posts in this topic, it apparently seems more than ever to be a classical result of bad safety management, unfortunately dictated by the laws of the company's wallet......
The aviation sector is not immune to the laws of economics.
The cargo sector is of course more easily touched by those troubles, because you can fly 24hrs a day. After all cargo does not sleep at night, so the demand for flights is more or less constant all the day around. For passenger transport or companies like DHL/ FedEx /UPS, you have determined times in the day where you will be able to fill your plane, and you'll be forced to let most of your planes on the ground for a part of the night/day because you'll never fill them there.
TriStar
The aviation sector is not immune to the laws of economics.
The cargo sector is of course more easily touched by those troubles, because you can fly 24hrs a day. After all cargo does not sleep at night, so the demand for flights is more or less constant all the day around. For passenger transport or companies like DHL/ FedEx /UPS, you have determined times in the day where you will be able to fill your plane, and you'll be forced to let most of your planes on the ground for a part of the night/day because you'll never fill them there.
TriStar
A small update from TSBC
From FlightInternational.com
Sorry unable get link to work.
Weight assessment methods, runway information at Halifax and crew fatigue all concern Canadian safety board
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) has written two safety advisory letters to the country's transport department following the 14 October crash of an MK Airlines Boeing 747-200F at Halifax, Nova Scotia. One concerns the data available on the runway slope at Halifax, the other draws attention to assessment methods used to determine the weight of freight pallets loaded with packages at airports where there is no ability to weigh the full pallet.
In addition, the elapsed time from take-off at Luxembourg to the attempted take-off in Canada has been confirmed by the TSBC as 12h 6min. The destination of Zaragoza, Spain would have meant a further 8h crew duty. The same augmented crew, consisting of two captains, a first officer, two flight engineers, a loadmaster and a ground engineer were rostered to perform the entire trip from Luxembourg via Bradley, Connecticut, on to Halifax; and finally to Zaragoza. All seven died in the accident.
Asked whether this was an excessive duty period even for an augmented crew, Ghana-registered MK says that it has since changed its rostering to bring it in line with European practices, but claims this was the result of a study begun early this year, not as a reaction to the accident.
The TSBC says its safety advisory letters do not imply a cause for the accident, but it says that concerns about the quality of data from which take-off performance calculations were made have arisen as a result of investigations into the MK incident.
The TSBC confirms, for example, that pallets of seafood loaded on to the 747 at Halifax could not be weighed when filled, so their weight was calculated as a multiple of the assessed average weight of the packages stacked on it. The aircraft attempted a take-off, but did not get airborne despite two tailscrapes near the runway end, after which its tail hit an earth and concrete bank 200m (650ft) beyond the runway and detached.
And the following is the most important, check your facts its easy to draw the wrong conclusions.
The TSBC will not comment on whether crew fatigue might have been a factor in the accident. The board also says that it is not allowed by law to reveal flight data recorder (FDR) information in advance of the accident report, so local press claims that FDR data shows the aircraft began its take-off at a low power setting and only increased it to the planned setting close to rotation have not come from official sources.
DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON
Sorry unable get link to work.
Weight assessment methods, runway information at Halifax and crew fatigue all concern Canadian safety board
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) has written two safety advisory letters to the country's transport department following the 14 October crash of an MK Airlines Boeing 747-200F at Halifax, Nova Scotia. One concerns the data available on the runway slope at Halifax, the other draws attention to assessment methods used to determine the weight of freight pallets loaded with packages at airports where there is no ability to weigh the full pallet.
In addition, the elapsed time from take-off at Luxembourg to the attempted take-off in Canada has been confirmed by the TSBC as 12h 6min. The destination of Zaragoza, Spain would have meant a further 8h crew duty. The same augmented crew, consisting of two captains, a first officer, two flight engineers, a loadmaster and a ground engineer were rostered to perform the entire trip from Luxembourg via Bradley, Connecticut, on to Halifax; and finally to Zaragoza. All seven died in the accident.
Asked whether this was an excessive duty period even for an augmented crew, Ghana-registered MK says that it has since changed its rostering to bring it in line with European practices, but claims this was the result of a study begun early this year, not as a reaction to the accident.
The TSBC says its safety advisory letters do not imply a cause for the accident, but it says that concerns about the quality of data from which take-off performance calculations were made have arisen as a result of investigations into the MK incident.
The TSBC confirms, for example, that pallets of seafood loaded on to the 747 at Halifax could not be weighed when filled, so their weight was calculated as a multiple of the assessed average weight of the packages stacked on it. The aircraft attempted a take-off, but did not get airborne despite two tailscrapes near the runway end, after which its tail hit an earth and concrete bank 200m (650ft) beyond the runway and detached.
And the following is the most important, check your facts its easy to draw the wrong conclusions.
The TSBC will not comment on whether crew fatigue might have been a factor in the accident. The board also says that it is not allowed by law to reveal flight data recorder (FDR) information in advance of the accident report, so local press claims that FDR data shows the aircraft began its take-off at a low power setting and only increased it to the planned setting close to rotation have not come from official sources.
DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON
jobless, but alive...
waldova wrote:.... I think it is really dangerous to have exhausted pilots in the cockpit. They make all these regulations for bus drivers, to make sure that they don't drive to much.
SN30952 wrote:Six glasses of wine and one beer.... the previous day.... What a pitty...Comet wrote:The Finnair pilot who was found drunk in charge of an aircraft shortly before its 07:20 take off from Manchester was jailed for six months and lost his job with Finnair.
Britain has very lax alcohol and driving laws, whilst Finland has some of the best ones. Thankfully for the passengers their national airline knows how to deal with drunken pilots as well.
It is like it always is, you get caught, you pay.
But the other hundreds of pilots who take medicine (drugs, AM), walk free. It is not honest. Because these ones do not get checked.
I've seen pilots shaking in their boots, half an hour before take off, then they took some pill, and off they went. I wonder if that is more safe, than 6 glasses of wine and 1 beer.... the previous day....
The investigation will not be able to check the pilots in this case.Advisor wrote:You cannot drive a car after you drink, let alone fly a plane. I think Finnair has done the right thing rather than having a diaster waiting to happen. Better safe to be sorry guys!
But the unlucky Finn he is jobless, but alive.
The return of the pilot's ring
The return of the pilot's ring - retrieved from the charred wreckage of a 747 cargo jet that crashed in Halifax on Oct. 14 - has done little to ease Mrs Joanne Buckley-Lamb, the widow's grief.
The ring, a band of white gold, was made in Zimbabwe shortly before the couple were married at a resort on the outskirts of Harare - just a month before the crash.
On Wednesday, the ring was handed to Buckley-Lamb by an RCMP officer who worked to find the band and identify it.
Buckley-Lamb said that when she put the ring on her finger, she finally felt the reality of her husband's death.
The others killed in the crash were Capt. Michael Thornycroft, a resident of South Africa; as well as flight engineers Pete Launder and Steve Hooper, all residents of Zimbabwe.
Also killed were ground engineer Mario Zahn, a German who lived in South Africa, and loadmaster Chris Strydom and first officer Gary Keough, both of Zimbabwe.
About 32 family members, along with representatives from MK Airlines, were expected to attend the memorial service. Some were also expected to visit the crash site.
The ring, a band of white gold, was made in Zimbabwe shortly before the couple were married at a resort on the outskirts of Harare - just a month before the crash.
On Wednesday, the ring was handed to Buckley-Lamb by an RCMP officer who worked to find the band and identify it.
Buckley-Lamb said that when she put the ring on her finger, she finally felt the reality of her husband's death.
The others killed in the crash were Capt. Michael Thornycroft, a resident of South Africa; as well as flight engineers Pete Launder and Steve Hooper, all residents of Zimbabwe.
Also killed were ground engineer Mario Zahn, a German who lived in South Africa, and loadmaster Chris Strydom and first officer Gary Keough, both of Zimbabwe.
About 32 family members, along with representatives from MK Airlines, were expected to attend the memorial service. Some were also expected to visit the crash site.
Last edited by SN30952 on 16 Dec 2004, 12:05, edited 1 time in total.
Up to now
Since then, investigators have been in Europe, interviewing British-based MK Airlines about the crews' rest periods and schedules.
They have also checked the condition of two replacement engines that were installed shortly before the flight.
They have also checked the condition of two replacement engines that were installed shortly before the flight.