Tradewinds 747 Wreck in MDE

[kevdog]

Keep digging. You'll wind-up based in China in a few more posts.

Yes, CNN International out of China probably pays even more!

 

[mvedepo]

This thread is ridiculous. Arent there any moderators out there? If this thread is going to be nothing more then a sh*t throwing contest then lock it. Nothing good is coming out of it.

And as for the guys pointing fingers at the flight crew with nothing more then assumptions. They shouldn't be allowed on FlightInfo. We are a community and for the most part should be here for eachother. Maybe someday you will be the one that everyone here is pointing fingers at.

 

[Draginass]

Posters that want to speculate on the cause of an accident, especially inferring in any way that it's the crews fault, ought to pour themselves a great big cup of STFU before going on the computer.

 

[Irishav8r]

This thread is ridiculous. Arent there any moderators out there? If this thread is going to be nothing more then a sh*t throwing contest then lock it. Nothing good is coming out of it.

And as for the guys pointing fingers at the flight crew with nothing more then assumptions. They shouldn't be allowed on FlightInfo. We are a community and for the most part should be here for eachother. Maybe someday you will be the one that everyone here is pointing fingers at.

Thankyou!
This crap is exhausting and I think its part of the pilot Dik measuring contest as to who sounds more intelligent. I certainly hate listening to it in crew-rooms and I really don't like reading it here. Bunch of Prima donnas!

 

[Superpilot92]

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1150113287/Plane_Going_To_Fast_For_The_Runwayhttp://www.dumpalink.com/media/11501...For_The_Runway

video of accident.

Mind the other stuff on the site.

 

[metrodriver]

maybe lay the blame by the FAA for allowing rediculous duty and rest times for international operations (no duty time limit for 3 man crews). 16 to 24 hr duty days are not uncommon. Time up between sleep periods routinely exceed 30 hrs. Just go to the MIA customs office when these crews come back from dodging cumulus granite in the middle of the night at crappy S. American airports and see how awake they are.
Want an example: fly all night, come back in the hotel at 0900, sleep 5 hours (your body has a hard time sleepingin the day time) and have to report at 2200 for a scheduled 13 hr duty day for a MIA-BOG-MDE-MIA turn. At 2130 scheduling call that the flight has been pushed back 2 hours.
When arriving in BOG there is no parking space, so sit on a taxiway for 2 hrs (1st delay). Now you can pull in and load the flowers. When you're ready to go MDE is fogged in, another 2 hr delay. After loading in MDE you find out us customs has problems clearing the inbound cargo. Another hour delay. This thing is turning into a 18 hr duty day (the 2 hr schedule delay is not part of this).
Finally you come to MIA and find out that the computer at customs doesn't work and you have to wait another hour outside in the 90 degree heat. Oh, don't forget your duty time ends 30 min after setting the parking brake (at 1800). So there went your first hour of the 12 hr block-to-block rest period and haven't even entered the country yet! Another hour and you finally made it to your hotel room at 2000. 28 hrs since show time. Add the other 7 hours that you were up since 1400 and you've been up 35 hrs.
Now you can go to sleep at night and according to the FAA you're good for a 0600 release of the parking brake for another day with a unlimited duty time. Subtract 1.5 hours for show time, another 1 hr for the wake-up and travel-to-airport routine and there's a maximum of 7.5 hrs sleep. This doesn't even include some wind-down time or a bite to eat.

And we wonder why people drive aircraft of the end of runways. It's just a big surprise that there are not more often incidents / accidents.
Now the FAA will do all kind of line checks and ramp checks to see how poorly the crews operate, instead of trying to get the duty / rest times adjusted to a more humane level. Yet that change will be resisted by the operators that see their crewcost increase. The same operators that threaten to fire you if you want to go to a hotel down range or refuse a trip because of fatigue (I know some guys that kept their job because of their Alpa membership, most of these crews flying to S.America don't have the luxury of a union backing them)

 

[mushroom]

Great post, Metro. And unfortunately, too true.

The FAA will only respond (and maybe not even then) if there is a high body count fatal accident that was shown by the NTSB to be caused by fatigue. Fatigue issues for cargo carriers, especially second-tier ones, don't mean a thing to the FAA. After all, if we crash, it's only a maximum of three people killed. Who cares, right? :angryfire

 

[USMCmech]

N922FT....She was a good Ship......

The sad thig is she just went through a heavy C check in SAT less than a year ago. All that work down the drain.

I personally X-rayed all the wing attach points, crawling in and out of the fuel tanks a couple of hundred times (I was bruised from head to toe for about a week).

 

[kevdog]

maybe lay the blame by the FAA for allowing rediculous duty and rest times for international operations (no duty time limit for 3 man crews). 16 to 24 hr duty days are not uncommon. Time up between sleep periods routinely exceed 30 hrs. Just go to the MIA customs office when these crews come back from dodging cumulus granite in the middle of the night at crappy S. American airports and see how awake they are.
Want an example: fly all night, come back in the hotel at 0900, sleep 5 hours (your body has a hard time sleepingin the day time) and have to report at 2200 for a scheduled 13 hr duty day for a MIA-BOG-MDE-MIA turn. At 2130 scheduling call that the flight has been pushed back 2 hours.
When arriving in BOG there is no parking space, so sit on a taxiway for 2 hrs (1st delay). Now you can pull in and load the flowers. When you're ready to go MDE is fogged in, another 2 hr delay. After loading in MDE you find out us customs has problems clearing the inbound cargo. Another hour delay. This thing is turning into a 18 hr duty day (the 2 hr schedule delay is not part of this).
Finally you come to MIA and find out that the computer at customs doesn't work and you have to wait another hour outside in the 90 degree heat. Oh, don't forget your duty time ends 30 min after setting the parking brake (at 1800). So there went your first hour of the 12 hr block-to-block rest period and haven't even entered the country yet! Another hour and you finally made it to your hotel room at 2000. 28 hrs since show time. Add the other 7 hours that you were up since 1400 and you've been up 35 hrs.
Now you can go to sleep at night and according to the FAA you're good for a 0600 release of the parking brake for another day with a unlimited duty time. Subtract 1.5 hours for show time, another 1 hr for the wake-up and travel-to-airport routine and there's a maximum of 7.5 hrs sleep. This doesn't even include some wind-down time or a bite to eat.

And we wonder why people drive aircraft of the end of runways. It's just a big surprise that there are not more often incidents / accidents.
Now the FAA will do all kind of line checks and ramp checks to see how poorly the crews operate, instead of trying to get the duty / rest times adjusted to a more humane level. Yet that change will be resisted by the operators that see their crewcost increase. The same operators that threaten to fire you if you want to go to a hotel down range or refuse a trip because of fatigue (I know some guys that kept their job because of their Alpa membership, most of these crews flying to S.America don't have the luxury of a union backing them)

Great post! The sad reality though is the crew is still held responsible if they erred due to fatigue.

Over 50% of my trips somewhat mirror your above statement. Bring up fatigue issues to your company and they try to hang you out to dry or threaten recurrent training, a PC, or a linecheck on you. You are obviously just complaining. Yes, I have personal experience with this one...sad but true.

 

[Snakum]

And as for the guys pointing fingers at the flight crew with nothing more then assumptions. They shouldn't be allowed on FlightInfo. We are a community and for the most part should be here for eachother.

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[McNugget]

They are talking about this on the Majors board, why don't you guys go cuss them out on there for making speculations?

 

[Kruger Stellman]

maybe lay the blame by the FAA for allowing rediculous duty and rest times for international operations (no duty time limit for 3 man crews). 16 to 24 hr duty days are not uncommon. Time up between sleep periods routinely exceed 30 hrs. Just go to the MIA customs office when these crews come back from dodging cumulus granite in the middle of the night at crappy S. American airports and see how awake they are.
Want an example: fly all night, come back in the hotel at 0900, sleep 5 hours (your body has a hard time sleepingin the day time) and have to report at 2200 for a scheduled 13 hr duty day for a MIA-BOG-MDE-MIA turn. At 2130 scheduling call that the flight has been pushed back 2 hours.
When arriving in BOG there is no parking space, so sit on a taxiway for 2 hrs (1st delay). Now you can pull in and load the flowers. When you're ready to go MDE is fogged in, another 2 hr delay. After loading in MDE you find out us customs has problems clearing the inbound cargo. Another hour delay. This thing is turning into a 18 hr duty day (the 2 hr schedule delay is not part of this).
Finally you come to MIA and find out that the computer at customs doesn't work and you have to wait another hour outside in the 90 degree heat. Oh, don't forget your duty time ends 30 min after setting the parking brake (at 1800). So there went your first hour of the 12 hr block-to-block rest period and haven't even entered the country yet! Another hour and you finally made it to your hotel room at 2000. 28 hrs since show time. Add the other 7 hours that you were up since 1400 and you've been up 35 hrs.
Now you can go to sleep at night and according to the FAA you're good for a 0600 release of the parking brake for another day with a unlimited duty time. Subtract 1.5 hours for show time, another 1 hr for the wake-up and travel-to-airport routine and there's a maximum of 7.5 hrs sleep. This doesn't even include some wind-down time or a bite to eat.

And we wonder why people drive aircraft of the end of runways. It's just a big surprise that there are not more often incidents / accidents.
Now the FAA will do all kind of line checks and ramp checks to see how poorly the crews operate, instead of trying to get the duty / rest times adjusted to a more humane level. Yet that change will be resisted by the operators that see their crewcost increase. The same operators that threaten to fire you if you want to go to a hotel down range or refuse a trip because of fatigue (I know some guys that kept their job because of their Alpa membership, most of these crews flying to S.America don't have the luxury of a union backing them)

Better go read the regs again Metrodriver. Part 121 3 man 16 hours duty, 5 man 20 hours duty, Don't spout off S*** if you don't know your S***

 

[McNugget]

Before you cuss out metrodriver, he is referring to Part 121 Supplemental operations for international flying. Many of the MIA based cargo carriers operate under these rules.

Try 121.523(c) for 3 man crews....

 

[metrodriver]

[URL="http://www.airweb.faa.gov/icons/collapse.gif"]http://www.airweb.faa.gov/icons/collapse.gifSec. 121.521[/URL]

Part 121 OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS​

Subpart S--Flight Time Limitations: Supplemental Operations

Sec. 121.521

Flight time limitations: Crew of two pilots and one additional airman as required.

(a) No certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may schedule an airman to be aloft as a member of the flight crew in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember for more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.
(b) If an airman has been aloft as a member of a flight crew for 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the certificate holder. In any case, he must be relieved of all duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any seven consecutive days.
(c) No airman may be aloft as a flight crewmember more than--
(1) 120 hours during any 30 consecutive days; or
(2) 300 hours during any 90 consecutive days.

Amdt. 121-253, Eff. 2/26/96


As you see, no mentioning about duty day limits. There are limits for DOMESTIC operations, not international. It also says ALOFT, meaning block to block flight time, nothing about time sitting on the ground

 

[McNugget]

Better go read the regs again Metrodriver. Part 121 3 man 16 hours duty, 5 man 20 hours duty, Don't spout off S*** if you don't know your S***

Yeah, that too, metrodriver. I thought this comment about your post was unwarranted.

 

[metrodriver]

I guess he doesn't know what he is talking about either, although if you see his "credentials" he should know better. And supplemental and flag ops have the same limitations, so there can't be much confusion.
Funny thing is that the BOG- MDE trip from MIA is only 8 hrs of flying

 

[C601]

I guess he doesn't know what he is talking about either, although if you see his "credentials" he should know better. And supplemental and flag ops have the same limitations, so there can't be much confusion.
Funny thing is that the BOG- MDE trip from MIA is only 8 hrs of flying

:beer:

Don't mind the idiots like 20000hr wonder boy...

 

[kevdog]

I have been hearing this plane had a dual engine failure before the abort and one of the engines was illegal. Can anyone verify this?

 

[metrodriver]

You mean they were trying to bring an illegal into the US? I didn't know Bush's plans for borderprotection went this far

If this is true, then that would be a typical case of an operator trying to make a quick buck over over the backs (and licenses) of the crews. an illegal part doesn't necessarely have to be bad, however the feds insist on a papertrail for a reason as the statistics have shown

 

[McNugget]

Minus two thrust reversers would be a major factor in going off the end in an 800,000 lb. airplane.....I would be happy to see this be blamed on mechanical issues and not the crew.

Haven't seen CSY Mon on here in a while, hope he wasn't involved.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

Minus two thrust reversers would be a major factor in going off the end in an 800,000 lb. airplane.....I would be happy to see this be blamed on mechanical issues and not the crew.

Haven't seen CSY Mon on here in a while, hope he wasn't involved.

CSY Mon? Where are you?

 

[ackattacker]

Forgive the ignorant question, but on the turboprop I fly reverse is not allowed to be considered in the takeoff calculations, the theory being that if you abort due to engine failure any reverse would be asymmetrical and hence unusable. Is it different on a 747?

 

[metrodriver]

same for most jets, not sure for the 747, but I assume so

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Forgive the ignorant question, but on the turboprop I fly reverse is not allowed to be considered in the takeoff calculations, the theory being that if you abort due to engine failure any reverse would be asymmetrical and hence unusable. Is it different on a 747?

It's the same for all transport-category aircraft...the use of reverse thrust is not calculated into the stopping distance, which of course is a factor in determining V1 speed.

However, while take-off perfromance data assumes normal (I.E., "all engines operating") acceleration to V1, many carriers advocate strongly against initiating an abort past 100Kts at heavy weights unless there are definite indications that the aircraft is not capable of flight. In some situations, that creates a "no-mans-land" between 100Kts and V1 in which the "correct" course of action can be nebulous at best.

The bottom line is that if it ends with all the wheels on the concrete, you probably did the right thing. If not, you might have some 'splainin' to do...

Obviously, these guys didn't get it stopped, which leads me to believe that there was either a failure in the braking system, or that for some reason, the abort was called after V1. The failure of a second engine would be one possible reason for calling the late abort.

I still suspect that the seeds for this accident were planted long before the crew showed up for the van.

 

[Draginass]

WD - Speculating, especially publically on a BB, on what the crew did or did not do is counter-productive and not professional at this point. Further, you are not completely correct about reverse thrust not being considering in the takeoff data. On wet runways, the FARs do indeed allow reverse thrust in certification as long as it "is such that exceptional skill is not required to control the airplane" along with some other stipulations. See FAR part 25.109. However, the FAA approved airplane flight manual will contain the specific conditions. What are they on the DC-8? I would assume it's the use of 2 reversers on a wet runway, in addition to some of the other stuff mentioned below. Let us know for sure.

What is productive and enlightening is a discussion of wet runway refusals in general, without comment on what may or may not have specifically happened in Medallin.

Minus two thrust reversers would be a major factor in going off the end in an 800,000 lb. airplane.....I would be happy to see this be blamed on mechanical issues and not the crew.

Haven't seen CSY Mon on here in a while, hope he wasn't involved.

Given the altitude of Medallin and based on Jepps Runway Analysis from Bogota, I would guess (only) that the GW was less than 700k, but could have easily been max gross for the runway limit. Also, civil takeoff data on a wet runway allows a decrease of screen height from 35' to 15' and also allows the use of reverse thrust (if it doesn't require exceptional skill on the part of the pilot). In the case of the 747, wet data allows the decreased screen height (15') and the use of 2 symetrical reversers (presumably since using 3 would require exceptional skill). If the refused takeoff is due to something other than loss of thrust, then 4 reversers can be used as a bonus. The Boeing standard for a "wet" runway (vs. a "cluttered" runway with standing water) is to reduce dry runway V1 by 10 knots.

Why a decrease in screen height and the use of reverse thrust in wet runway certification? . . . . well, as in most things in civil aviation, safety does not reign supreme, money does. If not allowing reverse thrust and keeping the screen height at 35', a huge weight penalty would have to be borne . . . and weight = $$$.

On the DC-10, on how many engines at reverse thrust is the wet runway data based upon? I would assume 1, since the most critical failure would be of a wing engine. However, having never flown the -10, I don't know how much of a control problem is induced with an assymetric wing engine at reverse thrust. I would assume it would be significant, thus disallowing assymetric reverse thrust.

See FAR part 25.109 for general certification requirements for stopping distance.

 

[ackattacker]

Thanks for that, it was enlightening. I suspected something similar, because I have trouble conceiving how a 747 could safely abort using brakes only from V1 on a wet, high altitude runway. I'm not going to add to the speculation, only say that I do hope that the crew is cleared in this one. In my mind the fact that they walked away from it means they did something right, it certainly could have gone much worse.

 

[Junkflyer]

We dialed in some numbers using our companies OPS program for a q-powered 200 in MDE. It gave a max of 753,000 lbs ,but you only get a 256 foot stop margin. Most times your stop margin is 3,000' or better. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had unknown weight on board coming out of SA. In the old days, they would ask you how much you could carry and that's what their weight and balance would say. The funny thing is all the cargo was already on pallets and nothing was ever added or subtracted.

 

[Draginass]

We dialed in some numbers using our companies OPS program for a q-powered 200 in MDE. It gave a max of 753,000 lbs ,but you only get a 256 foot stop margin. Most times your stop margin is 3,000' or better. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had unknown weight on board coming out of SA. In the old days, they would ask you how much you could carry and that's what their weight and balance would say. The funny thing is all the cargo was already on pallets and nothing was ever added or subtracted.

Does that data take into account a wet runway, or does it just give you dry runway data and assume the Boeing standard 10 subtraction to V1?

 

[Draginass]

Posted in error.

 

[heilhaavir]

Does anybody know if there was an engine intermix on that airplane?