Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Agree- I did not much care for his comment- about the Germans belly-crawling over broken glass to get a cheaper fare.
Last edited:
Aircraft Disasters
- Thread starter davparlr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
I hope he does go "Belly-up"!! What a putz!!
You're right, it's all about examples and definitions. That the pilots were negligent is obvious, but does it rise to the level of "gross"? They had probably been told in ground school that the 400 series 737 had different bleed air/cabin pressurization ducting than the 300s, along with probably a thousand other details. But did they recall that apparently insignificant detail under pressure? No. So they misidentified the source of the smoke in the cockpit and cabin. This made them predisposed to identify the right engine as the culprit. They were experiencing high vibration along with the smoke, but did they consult those tiny little vibration monitor displays in the engine instrument cluster? No. They probably couldn't read them in the smoke and vibration, and anyway they had been changed to a digital format that was not very intuitive. Besides, the FDR readouts reported later that the difference in recorded vibration between engines was not terribly great, the whole airframe was shaking so much. Did the crew execute their emergency checklists flawlessly? No, they were interrupted repeatedly by ATC and missed several items. And here's the kicker. When they reduced power on the right (good) engine the smoke stopped and the vibration abated! They didn't catch the fact that power on the left (bad) engine had reduced as well (by the autothrotle) taking it out of the extreme vibration range. They thought they had their culprit, and shut down the right engine. At the reduced power setting for descent to land the left engine ran relatively smoothly, but still produced enough high frequency vibrations to loosen fuel and hydraulic fittings in the cowling, causing leaks. When they brought the power up, to dirty for landing, the vibration came back, the leaking fluids ignited, and after a few seconds the engine began to lose power, gravity set in, and the rest is history.
Was this GROSS negligence or understandable confusion? What do you think?
I've made a mistake or two over the years that could be construed as negligence and could have had disastrous consequences, but each time Lady Luck (how I love that woman!) was on my side and I lived to file a NASA ASRS report. These guys weren't so fortunate.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
It is what the courts think. Not I. One thing you cannot simulate is certain death so the pilots were put on the spot and chose wrong. Part of criminal action is that the pilots knowingly made bad choices which would be difficult to prove in this case.
The crash was headline news and the early call was the 737 had 2 bad engines. I remember someone at the crash site was interviewed when it was news that the wrong engine was turned off as his reply was 'ask the pilots'. I think he was part of the investigation team.
The crash was headline news and the early call was the 737 had 2 bad engines. I remember someone at the crash site was interviewed when it was news that the wrong engine was turned off as his reply was 'ask the pilots'. I think he was part of the investigation team.
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
"Hey, we've all "tankered" fuel from time to time..."
He, he, that brings to mind a story. A local pilot acquired a DC-3 and planned to use it for, shall we say, the "import business." He had the airplane modified with extra fuel tanks, using the area just behind the cockpit that originally was for the radio operator. He first flew it to an airport different from the one where he based the airplane, wanting to buy fuel at two different airports in order to not arouse interest at how much he was putting in the airplane.
He decided to fill up the added tanks behind the cockpit first. And there was little fuel in the regular tanks. And he forgot about CG considerations. Guess what happened?
So there he was at an airport with an airplane he did not want people to notice. And he stands it on its nose.
He, he, that brings to mind a story. A local pilot acquired a DC-3 and planned to use it for, shall we say, the "import business." He had the airplane modified with extra fuel tanks, using the area just behind the cockpit that originally was for the radio operator. He first flew it to an airport different from the one where he based the airplane, wanting to buy fuel at two different airports in order to not arouse interest at how much he was putting in the airplane.
He decided to fill up the added tanks behind the cockpit first. And there was little fuel in the regular tanks. And he forgot about CG considerations. Guess what happened?
So there he was at an airport with an airplane he did not want people to notice. And he stands it on its nose.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #128
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Interrupted procedure steps needs to be watched. It is easy to jump the end of the procedure. Three examples that happened to me.
1. On my initial Line Check to upgrade to Aircraft Commander, a required annual check required for Aircraft Commanders to verify mission operational knowledge, we were flying out of Tinker AFB, Ok., for Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. An Aircraft Commander on his annual check was in command this leg so I was in the right seat. We got a call from tower that ops wanted to talk to us. We called them and then began takeoff roll. As I was setting Takeoff Rated Thrust (TRT). The flight examiner in the jump seat called "Abort takeoff!". Not a good thing. We had forgotten to complete the Before Takeoff Checklist. We both did pass the check ride, however!
2. This was a little more serious. We had taken off out of Torrejon, Madrid, on an European shuttle where had made several landings. After a long day and running out of crew duty time we made a low altitude penetration (VOR I think) into Pizza, Italy. Having made no contact at Pizza, I was unhappy and, according to normal radio out procedures, (since we had two VHFs and two UHFs, I knew it wasn't us), I proceeded with the approach. We completed our Before Landing checklist and finally got clearance from Pizza. I called for "flaps landing", which actually provides more drag than lift, and began our landing. The plane just didn't want to land. It floated and floated, and with runway running out I knew I had to get the mains on the runway, if I could do that, I knew those massive anti-lock brakes, with spoilers killing lift, would haul us to a stop. I lowered the nose a tad, so as not to land on the nose gear, and the landing gear got on the runway and we stopped with not a lot to spare. On completing the After Landing checklist we realized that the copilot had failed to go to flaps landing and I had failed to check, a personal crime. I did chew out the navigator and engineer for not verifying landing configuration. While not their job, it was their life. That worked out ok, but I kept wondering, and still do, that if that had been an 8k runway instead of a 10k runway, what would have happened.
3. This occurred on my annual local check, which is required of all pilots verifying flying and emergency proficiency. I was flying a rather complex non-precision approach where we flew a heading out of a holding pattern intercepting an inbound course about 80 degrees off our heading, descending a thousand feet at the same time, and configuring the aircraft for landing. In addition the course was not aligned with the runway. Now our procedures for landing consisted of the following, "Flaps approach, (wait until complete due to hydraulic fluid usage), then, Gear down-Before
Landing checklist! So, here I go. On the outbound heading, I started configuring the aircraft," Flaps landing" and a wait, all of a sudden the inbound course broke on my Horizontal Situation Indicator and I had to turn 80 degrees and descend a thousand feet, kinda like patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time. Anyway I got on course and on altitude and was flying along fat, dumb and happy. "Flaps landing" I called out indicating landing is assured. I thought, what was that horn going off for, isn't it supposed to be quiet at this point? I glanced over and saw that the light on the gear handle was on. The gear was up! Now remember, there is a flight examiner in the right seat watching all of this. I pointed to the gear handle and said gear down, Before Landing checklist. He threw the gear handle down, whipped through the checklist and said checklist complete just as I flared to touchdown. Afterwards, he asked me what I would have done if he had not completed the checklist. I said I would have gone around. He said, right answer. I passed the check ride.
In addition to the two annual check rides above, we also had an annual simulator check rides which really tested ones emergency procedures.
I got "busted" for a stunt like that "nefarious" DC-3 in a 1900 that "sat on its tail", launching an FAA inspector who was standing on the airstair door to an ignominious landing on his posterior in a puddle on the tarmac. He took immediate possession of the Captain's and my certificates, declared the trip sequence terminated and filed a weight and balance violation against me. (FO writes W&B, Capt signs) Lady Luck (love that woman) was with us: turns out Boston station had given us erroneous weight information, omitting 400 lbs of COMAT loaded in the aftmost compartment, and including a fully inflated Fokker 28 mainwheel and tire assembly. (An FAR violation!)
Technically, we were negligent, and technically, I had committed an FAR violation, under the "known or should have known" principle of regulation, and the young ambitious "full of piss 'n vinegar" inspector wanted to collect our scalps for his trophy pole. His boss, on the other hand, a wise old coot in the ways of enforcement, put a stop to it, not wanting yet another embarrassment on appeal.
Our calculated CG was about an inch inside the aft limit, but the actual reconstructed CG was 4+ inches out of limits aft, and the old girl waddled most ungracefully while taxiing and in the air.
"There but for the grace of....."
Cheers,
Wes
Technically, we were negligent, and technically, I had committed an FAR violation, under the "known or should have known" principle of regulation, and the young ambitious "full of piss 'n vinegar" inspector wanted to collect our scalps for his trophy pole. His boss, on the other hand, a wise old coot in the ways of enforcement, put a stop to it, not wanting yet another embarrassment on appeal.
Our calculated CG was about an inch inside the aft limit, but the actual reconstructed CG was 4+ inches out of limits aft, and the old girl waddled most ungracefully while taxiing and in the air.
"There but for the grace of....."
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
There was a C-47 during the Berlin Airlft that had a bit of a W&B problem. It was loaded with Perforated Aluminum Planking (PAP), stuff they used for airplane parking spaces. They waddled out for takeoff, barely made it off the ground and found it would not climb higher than about 500ft. On landing in Berlin they blew the two main tires.
Turned out the PAP was in reality mislabled Perforated Steel Planking, and the airplane was about 10,000 lb over max gross.
Turned out the PAP was in reality mislabled Perforated Steel Planking, and the airplane was about 10,000 lb over max gross.
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
They must have loaded the cargo bay to the max, to get a 10,000 load factor over max gross-- didn't any of the loading crew remark on how bright and clean the PAP planking was- as opposed to the way heavier steel planking-assuming in this case the PAP was "factory new"-- Maybe a pocket horseshoe magnet and an inquisitive mind could have changed this potentially dangerous loading scenario-just "Monday morning quarterbacking""-- Also, I wonder why the crew didn't abort after the realized they could not obtain more than a "Half-Angel' ceiling--?? Glad they set down in TempleHof OK-- Lady Luck or some other good Karma.. Hansie
That's the trouble with separation of duties: one loads, another writes, another calculates, and yet another signs for it. UPS feeder ops have a better idea: PILOT loads, PILOT writes, PILOT calculates, and PILOT signs. That way there's only one way to point fingers.
All UPS does is drive up, start the stopwatch, and hand the packages out the door. 10 minutes max from set truck brakes to "Positive rate, gear UP" with 2500-3000 lbs, 600-900 packages aboard.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
During the Berlin Airlift they were hauling anything. Coal, for example. I doubt they spent a lot of time on W&B calcs. And no doubt they had a lot of non-aviation people doing most of the grunt work. The PSP would have taken up no more space than the same number of sheets of PAP, but weighed a lot more. They did notice that the airplane did not have what you would call sparkling performance, but put it off to it being "tired."
Normal max cargo load for a C-47 was about 5000 lb.
Normal max cargo load for a C-47 was about 5000 lb.
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Thanks- especially for the data on the Max cargo load fr the C-47 at that time- most likely the same data for its long time usage- cargo-paratroop drops ,transporting personnel, etc.
This answer you kindly submitted also tells me that a sheet of PSP and a sheet of PAP had identical dimensions. Wonder what the flight hour log for routine maintenance was, and how well it was followed back then.
"Tired"- interesting comment by the flight crew- My guess, and it is strictly a guess, is that the C-47 was such a "workhorse" aircraft, some of the crews may have felt that, like the Timex watch- "It would take a licking, and keep on ticking"!! Just a guess.
Same reason we didn't abort our waddling, bobbling, 1900: so used to flying loaded heavy and loaded aft that it didn't seem THAT abnormal to us/them.
Cheers,
Wes
Well crawling over glass is OTT but I worked for a long time near Hanover Airport but I never met anyone who went on holiday from it, they made all sorts of complex arrangements to fly from Dusseldorf or even Frankfurt because it was cheaper. To me just part of life in Germany, the strangest experience I had there was in a gym I used, every Wednesday night three middle aged ladies would come in, pay their fee and just go into the sauna to discuss grocery prices completely naked.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
That may also have been a problem with hierarchy: the boss says X, and even if it's demonstably wrong, like having a magnet stick to the [no, it's not] aluminum planking, an insecure or incompetent boss will just have the underling punished for disobedience.
What kind of imports? The white powdery kind?
Honestly I'm amazed at least one drug trafficker never even tried aerial refueling: Some are now using drones last I checked.
COMAT?
MiTasol
1st Lieutenant
I am not familiar with this one - can you please provide a link or summary?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Azores glider is a story where the pilots are the heros and bad guys
They didn't manage the fuel properly but saved the day. But then again it was an engine fault that shouldn't have happened.
They didn't manage the fuel properly but saved the day. But then again it was an engine fault that shouldn't have happened.
