Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

747 Splits in Two on T/O

  • Thread starter Thread starter AKAAB
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 47

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Sorry, but so is continued harping on the subject.

No one is "harping" on the subject. It was brought up in a post, to which I replied. The subject post was an intelligent one, well written, and deserved a response (which it received). Further, as several posters have come forth to state that speculation is not only warranted but apropriate, there is nothing unwarranted about replying to the same.

Try to keep up.
 
One could argue it was a successful RTO as nobody was killed. The rest is just bent or broken metal - replaceable.

Agreed. They rejected for a reason deemed appropriate at the time, and nobody was killed. I'll go ahead and speculate that maybe the airplane would not have flown if they continued, and the damage to life and property below could have been awful.
 
Further, what may be estimable after the fact by those considering the decision and the evidences upon which it was based, is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and to the popularly received concept of speculation and guesswork. Certainly more so to rational, mature, professional discussion of any productive nature, or of any positive worth.

Are you a fracking lawyer?
 
Honest question here, what is the difference between a rejected takeoff and a aborted takeoff?
Aborted - you simply pull out, rejected - you don't even go there... Oh wait, sorry I thought this was "who's-your-daddy" message board... :D
 
Preliminary report of the Air Accidents Investigation Unit of the Belgian Federal Ministery of Transport at:

in Dutch
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604an.pdf

in French:
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/pbs/p080604af.pdf



- no apparent problem as regards the use of RW 20/02 for this flight - all flight data correctly entered in flight computer
- brief loss of power on one engine at about (sic) V1 associated with loud bang and flames, as confirmed by crew cq witnesses/controller.
- 2 sec after the bang, thrust was reduced to idle - no reverse thrust commanded - vigourous braking started and maintained until final stop
- preliminary on site endoscopic inspection of engines 3 and 4 - although very incomplete - didn t show any damange in the HP or LP compressor, HP turbine nor of the fan blades
- cargo found correctly stowed after impact - actual cargo on board being compared with load sheet data
- no catastrophic structural damage before final impact (4m drop)
- L1 door blocked due to structural damage on impact, 'service' door used to evacuate

FDR and CVR will now be analysed further , and engines will be recovered from the wreckage and further investigated upon.
 
- 2 sec after the bang, thrust was reduced to idle - no reverse thrust commanded - vigourous braking started and maintained until final stop
No TR....we all make mistakes...hope this isn't true....
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom