Globe Cargo

A Kalitta 747-200 crashed in Bogota after takeoff today. It was carrying flowers to Miami. Another Kalitta 747-200 crashed in Brussels on takeoff last month. Also, Scott Kalitta died in an NHRA funny car accident on June 22. He won two Top Fuel championships. Very bad year.

http://www.jetphotos.net/news/index.php ... &tb=1&pb=1

Coincidentally, the sister ship of the one that went down in BRU.

It has not been a good month in Ypsilanti.

3 planes based there crash, totaling 4 fatalities plus Scott Kalitta dies.

Wow.

What is interesting is that in two crashes no deaths to crew. While two crashes in one year is very unusual having all crew survive is quite a stroke of good fortune.

I believe most of the Kalitta fleet is 20 to 30 years old

Peter
1848 - Globe Cargo

Imagine being in your ranch house in rural Bogota and have a JT9D come crashing down on you....YIKES!

hawkeyeted wrote:Imagine being in your ranch house in rural Bogota and have a JT9D come crashing down on you....YIKES!

Yeah I can imagine how the people felt when they heard the loud noise and when they looked out the window a 742 was heading right for them .
Maybe the FAA should step in to find out whats wrong with the 742's and get this problem fixed before another one goes down. Im suprised that planes that are that old with that many hours on them are still allowed to fly. Most of us dont drive cars that old .

Well, in reality it's hard to say that the aircraft is that old. Aircraft as you know go through strict checks and rechecks. Parts and components are replaced according to their hours of service, etc etc. Just look at the B-52, its a prime example of an old workhorse that is extremely effective and airworthy. Again, checks, rechecks, and replacement of components have extended its life and will continue to.

The airforce had recently spoke of retiring the Buff, but then decided against it due to its effectiveness and dependability.

Not saying at all that something may very well be wrong with the 200's or perhaps a few of them. It would be interesting to know what caused the crash for sure. The Brussels crash was simply an overun due to aborted take-off when the crew heard what they described as an explosion, so in a way, nothing really "brought down" that aircraft.

With that said, what are you thinking what caused the crashes? Im thinking that because they were both from the same company and both after or during takeoff, maybe its the way the freight is being loaded?

Gosh Kevin, I'd be foolish to speculate. I do know that they are reporting that another aircraft (DC-9) that is based in the same place as the Kalitta aircraft crashed on Sunday in Mexico killing the pilot.

In the Bogata crash, reports say that the aircrew radioed an engine fire and then contact was lost with the aircraft. Its real hard to say. I don't suspect a weight and balance issue just based upon what they are reporting but who knows. I do think that alot of people suspect that when a multi engine aircraft loses an engine, that its simply "break out the checklist" and return for landing. But in reality, its a big deal especially when there is fire involved.

My cousin was flying a DC-10 some years ago out of London Heathrow, they lost the #2 engine past V2, the FO who was actually flying the aircraft initially began to retard the throttles for an aborted take off My cousin firewalled the two good engines and took over the aircraft, when they returned for landing, they had tree branches stuck in the belly skin. He described that experience as one he never wants to undergo again. He told me he even told his mother goodby out loud so the flight recorder would pick it up. Sounds like a lot of drama I know, but he's now one of their leading trainers at Continental and has always said that an engine out is an entirely new emergency everytime.

The one in Bogota is rumored to be an engine fire after T/O.

A 747 is capable of completing a take off with one engine inop. The problem at Bogota is that the airport elevation is 8800 ft MSL. I would have to believe that the climb performance on three engines of a loaded 747-200 at that altitude are marginal at best. There is a big difference between scheduled performance and actual performance.

Kevin Hester wrote:Im suprised that planes that are that old with that many hours on them are still allowed to fly. Most of us dont drive cars that old .

Our cars don't normally get "C" checks, either. Last night, I saw " A Week In The Life of American Airlines" on MSNBC or CNBC (one of those NBCs). They were showing how it was done. They literally tear the plane apart and strip it bare and inspect everything. I never realized they were that thorough. Happens every 4 years. After seeing that, I'll feel alot better next time I have to get on an old workhorse. I'm sure Allan could enlighten us on it.

That was an interesting show, if you get a chance to see it.

Ya, its good. I have seen it a couple of times. Its always interesting to watch. I know that one guy that explains the MX stuff. His name is Danny Airee, his father used to work with mine here in Tulsa.

eek wrote:

Kevin Hester wrote:Im suprised that planes that are that old with that many hours on them are still allowed to fly. Most of us dont drive cars that old .

Our cars don't normally get "C" checks, either. Last night, I saw " A Week In The Life of American Airlines" on MSNBC or CNBC (one of those NBCs). They were showing how it was done. They literally tear the plane apart and strip it bare and inspect everything. I never realized they were that thorough. Happens every 4 years. After seeing that, I'll feel alot better next time I have to get on an old workhorse. I'm sure Allan could enlighten us on it.

That was an interesting show, if you get a chance to see it.

C-checks are done at 5000 hours or 15 months, whichever comes first. D-checks are the heaviest, and dome at 25000 hours or 5 years. The problem with C-checks is that not every airline does them in house, like AA. AA in fact only does a few aircraft in house, several fleet types are done overseas in China or Mexico or the Philippines. Im not knocking the people from those countries, but have worked for carriers that utilize those companies, and the work is atrocious. Its all about $$$$$$. Anyhow, the thing with this and the previous Kalitta crash has to do with the 3 guys upstairs. I hate to say it or seem like a speculator, but unless that engine burned off that wing, theres no reason to reject a takeoff for an engine fire past V1. The 747 is capable of a 3 engine ferry, as Bryan mentioned. It can still climb on 2 engines and maintain altitude below 25000 feet on one. The FAA imposed a program not too long after the UA232 crash of a DC-10 in Sioux City called Crew Resourse Managament. It is a required program instilled at every airline that gives flight crews standardized ways of managing and streamlining their time and resources in the cockpit. I can assure you that there were many "lined up holes in the swiss cheese" here, and a peek at the CVR will likely show several mistakes being made.

eek wrote: They literally tear the plane apart and strip it bare and inspect everything. I never realized they were that thorough. Happens every 4 years. After seeing that, I'll feel alot better next time I have to get on an old workhorse.

I've been in the aircraft maintenance business for 20 years. The problem with tearing a plane down for heavy maintenance is that it opens the door for human error in the reassembly process (tools left behind, improper assembly, etc.). That is why there are many "Quality Checks" in place to ensure that doesn't happen.

In the Navy, we have 36 programs to ensure "quality" remains high. We have special training programs for fuel surveillance, oil consuption, tool control, FOD (Foreign Object Dammage), Logs & records to name a few. Each program focuses on a specific function in the maintenance process to ensure that the "human factor" get minimized.

In the Navy, we're incredibly hard on our airframes and our inspection intervals are a lot closer than commercial aircraft. Commercial aircraft can keep engines on a wing for about 4 years while in my specific instance - the E-2C, keep engines on the wing for only about 2000 hours (not to mention other life-limited items like flap load limiters, hydraulic actuators, etc.), so we're doing more maintenance more often.

While flying a 172, I encountered problems that I was trained to handle....the truth is that in any emergency, unlike training for it, it always startles you and the situation is always unique. Departing an airport at 8000ft at 3am with the last thought on your mind being an engine fire, a number of things could have happened in the cockpit leading to this incident. Even in the simulator some airline pilots come out of training with their nerves rattled. Flying is fun but its serious business when emergencies come up, they can leave you for a second or two with a blank mind wondering what is going on.......