Adster
Member
Registered: 8th Jul 10
Location: Leyland, Lancs
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben J
They reckon the cargo shifted on take off - all went to rear so it screwed it.
Apprently it did. Wont really know what happened till the blackbox recorder has been recovered.
Shocking to watch though!
|
Jambo
Member
Registered: 8th Sep 01
Location: Maidenhead, Drives: VXR Arctic
User status: Offline
|
The reason it burst into a fireball and disintegrated was it had a fully laden fuel tank.
Main cause of death in commercial aviation accidents is as a result of fire and or smoke inhalation.
There was a docu on Discovery a while back where they traced history of aviation safety and how to make it more safe etc. started off with a slow mo of a liner hitting the deck fully laden with fuel and bursting into a fireball consuming all. 45 mins later they basically said, yup! You crash with fuel you die.
Expected to be one of those things where they say; well that was the 60's and now we do things differently etc, nope nothing they can do about it apparently.
I know if they get enough notice pilots can dump fuel but why the tanks aren't external and jettisoned etc I don't know (aerodynamics?)
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
Thing is though aviation is already incredibly safe, especially when you consider the potential things that could go wrong.
It's just that when they do go wrong it can be very spectacular with many casualties.
|
nibnob21
Premium Member
Registered: 16th May 10
Location: South Derbyshire
User status: Offline
|
As soon as it happened Al Qaeda tried to claim it was them, which NATO instantly denied.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22347199
MX5 Project Thread
|
Wrighty
Member
Registered: 28th Feb 04
Location: Howden
User status: Offline
|
scary shit
|
Ben J
Member
Registered: 31st Jan 05
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lee_fr200
Wow! As others have said probably weight shift but wow how it comes down and just erupts into flames. Surely it's about time there was an ejection system on passenger jets
Think that through!
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
loads of old grannies and fat people breaking their necks as they get ejected
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lee_fr200
Surely it's about time there was an ejection system on passenger jets
Passenger jets, no. Cargo planes sure (B-52 has them for a crew of 6), although it's unlikely to happen on cargo variants of passenger jets (like the one in this incident) due to cost.
[Edited on 30-04-2013 by Dom]
|
Adster
Member
Registered: 8th Jul 10
Location: Leyland, Lancs
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jambo
I know if they get enough notice pilots can dump fuel but why the tanks aren't external and jettisoned etc I don't know (aerodynamics?)
Not to be the geek but im positive that only the large passenger planes can dunp fuel (747's, a330's etc)
|
Kyle T
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 04
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
Shit me, the first thing I thought was the pilot had passed out or something and pulled the plane out of the acceptable angle of attack (or whatever it's called) stalling it and dropping it. Sounds like the load-shift is correct though, pretty horrific.
Lotus Elise 111R
Impreza WRX STi
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adster
quote:
Originally posted by Jambo
I know if they get enough notice pilots can dump fuel but why the tanks aren't external and jettisoned etc I don't know (aerodynamics?)
Not to be the geek but im positive that only the large passenger planes can dunp fuel (747's, a330's etc)
It's not quite as clear cut as that, it's some sort of ratio between max take off weight and max landing weight as to whether they have to have the ability to dump or not. Not all A330's can dump.
|
ed
Member
Registered: 10th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
What use would being able to dump the fuel be in this situation? The aircraft stalled, entered a spin and hit the ground in a matter of seconds.
|
Hammer
Member
Registered: 11th Feb 04
User status: Offline
|
Every now and then we're reminded why these big fuck off chunks of metal weren't intended to be in the sky.
|
Dave
Member
Registered: 26th Feb 01
Location: Lancs
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dom
quote:
Originally posted by Lee_fr200
Surely it's about time there was an ejection system on passenger jets
Passenger jets, no. Cargo planes sure (B-52 has them for a crew of 6), although it's unlikely to happen on cargo variants of passenger jets (like the one in this incident) due to cost.
[Edited on 30-04-2013 by Dom]
A B-52 isn't a cargo plane though is it? It has ejectors because it's a large slow bomber that is likely to be shot at. Large military freighters like the C-17, C-5 etc don't have ejector seats.
|
LukesCorsaSXi
Member
Registered: 2nd Jan 11
Location: Sheffield
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by BluKoo
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
hawful
|
whitter45
Member
Registered: 15th Nov 02
Location: Norton
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Adster
quote:
Originally posted by Jambo
I know if they get enough notice pilots can dump fuel but why the tanks aren't external and jettisoned etc I don't know (aerodynamics?)
Not to be the geek but im positive that only the large passenger planes can dunp fuel (747's, a330's etc)
most modern passenger planes used by commercial airlines cannot the most popular short haul 737's cant dump fuel as cant a 757
I know it was a customer option when ordering planes
It also depends on landing weights on design of aircraft - example being a 757 can land at almost maximum take off weight hence it doesn't have the function to dump fuel
Most others have a maximum landing weight which is much less than the maximum take off weight
[Edited on 01-05-2013 by whitter45]
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
Fuck
|
A2H GO
Member
Registered: 14th Sep 04
Location: Stoke
User status: Offline
|
Did a good job correcting it before impact, if it carried on at the rate it was going it looks like it would have flipped over.
If a passenger jet stalled at that height/stage of take off, would it end just as badly or was this purely caused by the load?
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
I thought this comment explained it well..
quote:
He was undoubtedly flying the plane until one inch before impact, and the last words he spoke were probably a relatively quiet curse. He missed it. He didn't find the solution to the problem at hand, and he ran out of altitude. His continuing attempt to do so are evident in the wings coming level at impact. He was fighting with the controls, getting the wings level, praying he could pull it out.
With an aft CG (center of gravity), though, it was almost certainly impossible. The controls of any aircraft have a certain amount of control authority, which is sufficient to direct the plane as long as it's within the envelope in which it's been designed to fly. Exceed those limitations, and you're in the unknown.
Even if he had had enough altitude to pull out, it would have oscillated back to an excessively nose-high position. Perhaps if he cut power, he might have been able to keep the nose reasonably down....
Also, a similar scenario that ended badly. Only 1 of the 4 crew members bodies were recovered, although apparantly all dead from the loose cargo moving back and forth before it even hit the water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlDmMwI9cik
[Edited on 01-05-2013 by Brett]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
how come the pilots dont reduce the angle of attack as soon as they see the airspeed dropping?
|
SVM 286
Member
Registered: 13th Feb 05
Location: pain
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nibnob21
Despite the fact there would have been a few moments when the crew knew they were buggered, at least it would have been an instant death.
Probably not nearly instant enough.
Plus the knowing about it would have felt like an eternity.
Poor bastards.  Horribly killed, just doing one's job... shitting hell, ultimate suckfest.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
how come the pilots dont reduce the angle of attack as soon as they see the airspeed dropping?
Because the CG is to cock, its not coming back with a little push on the stick.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
probably not, but they dont even attempt to drop the nose, i thought that was standard procedure in a stall?
|
Brett
Premium Member
Registered: 16th Dec 02
Location: Manchester
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Commercial pilot/instructor here. When the aircraft's CG is within its allowable range the control surfaces have sufficient authority. In the case of a load shift, the CG moved beyond the rearmost allowable position, and the resulting pitch-up resulted in a stall. That rearward CG meant the pitch authority was lost, and even if the plane hadn't just taken off (too close to the ground to recover) the loss of pitch control would have made it unflyable.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
ah so basically it wasnt possible to?
|
