• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Final Report on N704CK over-run

Colonel Savage

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
Not good, taking off from an intersection when your take off data is predicated on full length.
 

Fox-Tree

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Posts
307
Total Time
6000
Bet the 59 y/o Captain is wishing he retired a bit early.
Wonder what 3 T/Rs in full reverse would have done? Bummer.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
Any word on the cause of the multiple engine failures on the Kalitta Bogota crash? How's the crew doing. Have they recovered well?
 

OrionFE

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Posts
263
Total Time
1K
Any word on the cause of the multiple engine failures on the Kalitta Bogota crash? How's the crew doing. Have they recovered well?

Some are back to work. Capt., FE, Mech. still recovering and healing. Investigation still ongoing.
 

Amish RakeFight

Registered Loser
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Posts
8,006
Total Time
.
Not good, taking off from an intersection when your take off data is predicated on full length.

Either is rejecting after V1. Sounds like the bird ingestion was minimal/intermittent and the engine parameters indicate it was still healthy enough for lift.
 

FBN0223

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Posts
563
Total Time
14k
Amazing!!! A scenario that is played out over and over in the simulator, an engine failure after V1 yet prior to VR. Very difficult to understand, when you consider the Captain would have had to take his right hand off of the yoke, re-grab a fist full of throttles and execute the RTO.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
Some are back to work. Capt., FE, Mech. still recovering and healing. Investigation still ongoing.

I'm still awl-struck at how those pilots were able to get that airplane on the ground without the loss of even more life than there was.
 

OrionFE

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Posts
263
Total Time
1K
Amazing!!! A scenario that is played out over and over in the simulator, an engine failure after V1 yet prior to VR. Very difficult to understand, when you consider the Captain would have had to take his right hand off of the yoke, re-grab a fist full of throttles and execute the RTO.

Yeah, maybe it is not exactly like the one you get everytime in the SIM. Imagine what is going through your mind in a nano second when you here a loud explosion right at V1, you are used to the normal; boom, boom, boom, but this one is different. There is Hazmat down stairs, vehicle, who knows what else! We all are the first to eat our own sitting back and reading the Hazard Report. Statistics are still high for RTO at or above V1. Human nature.......
 

b707guy

Analog Kid
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Posts
520
Total Time
9k-ish
It's always interesting to read these kind of detailed reports.

One thing that came to mind was the OPS takeoff data with only 897 feet of stopping margin. Would that sort of margin, particularly on a wet runway (even though the crew stated that it appeared that the runway was dry), ordinarily prompt you to go with a max power setting as opposed to reduced? I've only used tabulated runway analysis for the past 12 years, which doesn't supply margin info (at least not directly, anyway) and rely on more gut feel on what takeoff power to use, except of course in cases where max is required by the COM.

The only other thing was that the report didn't discuss why the captain didn't use reverse thrust. Uncertainty as to which engine was the problem is about the only thing I can think of, but it's still odd especially given that Kalitta's procedures dictate it's use, and despite that fact that use of reverse isn't considered in reject performance. All four engines at reverse idle, even with one shelled, could have changed the dynamics quite a bit as to how fast they might have been going upon leaving the runway.
 

avbug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
7,602
Total Time
n/a
One thing that came to mind was the OPS takeoff data with only 897 feet of stopping margin. Would that sort of margin, particularly on a wet runway (even though the crew stated that it appeared that the runway was dry), ordinarily prompt you to go with a max power setting as opposed to reduced?

No.

The default calculation for that performance program is a wet runway: it always calculates stopping and the margin based on a wet runway. The runway was not wet. Therefore the stop margin for the runway conditions was greater than calculated. It's a conservative calculation.

You'll always see the red lights on takeoff in that aircraft, save for when empty.
 

belchfire

unpredictable member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Posts
27,460
Total Time
9:00am
No.

The default calculation for that performance program is a wet runway: it always calculates stopping and the margin based on a wet runway. The runway was not wet. Therefore the stop margin for the runway conditions was greater than calculated. It's a conservative calculation.

You'll always see the red lights on takeoff in that aircraft, save for when empty.

Boeing did as well as they could with their slide rules and the engines of the day but the fact remains that many, many runways were extended during the '70's in order to accommodate the 747. Land around established airports being at a premium and the cost of a linear foot of runway being what they are the runways were extended only enough to meet the book values of the aircraft with no margin for human error.
 

hkgorbust

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
76
Total Time
12,000
No.

The default calculation for that performance program is a wet runway: it always calculates stopping and the margin based on a wet runway. The runway was not wet. Therefore the stop margin for the runway conditions was greater than calculated. It's a conservative calculation.
That's not entirely correct. The default for KA's version of the OPS program for "Dispatch Landing" is WET, which may be overridden under specific circumstances. The default for "Takeoff" and "Operational Landing" is DRY. DRY is always used unless, of course, the actual runway condition is reported or observed to be WET.

Also, the effect of reversers is not factored in performance calculations for the Classic airplanes. Speedbrakes, however, are absolutely essential. You have to get the weight on the wheels to get full brake effectiveness
 
Last edited:

embpic1

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2005
Posts
474
Total Time
>10000
That's not entirely correct. The default for KA's version of the OPS program for "Dispatch Landing" is WET, which may be overridden under specific circumstances. The default for "Takeoff" and "Operational Landing" is DRY. DRY is always used unless, of course, the actual runway condition is reported or observed to be WET.

Also, the effect of reversers is not factored in performance calculations for the Classic airplanes. Speedbrakes, however, are absolutely essential. You have to get the weight on the wheels to get full brake effectiveness

Correct.

This accident is a good lesson to us all. Do not abort above V1 unless you can no longer keep it on the runway (loss of directional control). When those hands come off the throttles at V1 I always say to myself 'We are going flying'
 

Colonel Savage

Southern style...
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Posts
1,271
Total Time
NoTime
So if all this is true, why would someone make an intersection T/O in a Whale when T/O data was for full length? I was always told that was a no-no, as in FAA violation if found out about. Did I miss the part in the accident report where it says the F/E recaculated for a B1 departure?
 

b707guy

Analog Kid
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Posts
520
Total Time
9k-ish
I got the impression that the crew wasn't aware that they weren't using full length. The line drawing overlaid on the runway diagram doesn't indicate much runway that they left behind, and it appears that most of what was behind them was overrun/underrun. As it is, the difference between how far they went off the end and what was behind them at start of roll is pretty small, based on the pictures, anyway. I know - we could "what if" this all day, just like any accident/incident. All I know is that in years past in a previous life, I took off from what I thought was the end of the runway only to find the next day that there was about 500+ feet more available that none of us could see in the dark and on our first departure from that airport. I imagine that this crew has been to this airport at least a few times with their history with the company, so that's probably a lame excuse, but it happens...

The analysis seemed to conclude that the crew did use speedbrakes/spoilers, and I'll guess retracted them after stopping (which is part of our reject procedure, anyway, don't know about Kalitta). Still at a bit of a loss as to why they didn't use reverse.

Thanks for the clarification on the takeoff data, HK.
 
Last edited:
Top