It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Aerosucre 727 crashes on takeoff

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Breaking story out of Puerto Carreno. An Aerosucre 727-200, registered HK-4544 failed to become airborne while attempting to take off at Puerto Carreno, on a cargo flight to Bogota. The aircraft broke through a perimeter fence, and became airborne, apparently tried to dump fuel and turn, and slammed into the ground and exploded. Three of the five crew died on the scene, while a fourth died at the hospital later.





atcmemes.com...

avherald.com...
edit on 12/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Very unfortunate, I hope the last survivor recovers well. And condolences to the ones who perished.

I''m not even an armchair expert, but would it have been wiser to have cut the throttle and rode it out on the ground?, It was evident they were having issues before they actually "caught" flight. The flight seems not to have passengers, so they only had to "save" themselves...and any unfortunate souls in the path on the ground..



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jappee

They should have aborted when they were approaching V1 and were having trouble accelerating.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Reports are now that there were six on board, with five fatalities. The aircraft was airborne for three minutes, and crashed 10 miles from the airport.

www.mo4ch.com...

The airport they took off from has a 5900 foot long runway, and at the time, a quartering tailwind. It looks like they couldn't go nose up. In the stills from the video, it looks like the elevator trim tab is full nose up, but they didn't rotate.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
This was only a matter of time it seems. Video of the same plane from the same airport:




posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

That airport is an accident that was looking for a place to happen. They should have seriously weight limited anything taking off from there.



posted on Dec, 21 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It seems like they might've hit an obstruction at the end of the runway too, just to the right of the departure path. outside the fence. You can see it looks like a little mud hut or something at the 15 second mark in the video I posted. If they hit it and it took part of the wing it would explain the right turn stall-spin-game over part of the crash.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

If you watch the accident video, they tore a hole in the right wing. After they went through the chain link fence, and before they hit the poles, you can see they're already leaking fuel out of the inboard right wing.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Great. I'm supposed to catch a flight from Tampa to Louisville in 9 hours.

This is just the kind of thing I don't need to be watching before boarding a flight!



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Try watching United 232 go down 18 hours before you're getting on a DC-10 for a five hour flight. Heh.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Reports are now that there were six on board, with five fatalities. The aircraft was airborne for three minutes, and crashed 10 miles from the airport.

www.mo4ch.com...

The airport they took off from has a 5900 foot long runway, and at the time, a quartering tailwind. It looks like they couldn't go nose up. In the stills from the video, it looks like the elevator trim tab is full nose up, but they didn't rotate.


5900 is as bad as Truk or Pohnpie which I used to fly into when flying the islands of Micronesia.. Chuuk Islands, formerly Truk Islands are beautiful and are known for diving the WW2 wrecks. The 727s I flew in and out of those short runways were not 727-200 with -9 engines. All of ours were -15s or 17s which afforded much more power and a higher gross take-off weight. Most of my trips into Truk were scheduled around a 21:30 night landing.. All they had was an ADF approach and mountains on one side of the runway. I made some very good landings there because I was 100% awake and diligent. 5900 feet of runway and losing an engine on a high gross take-off at or around V1 you are pretty much along for the ride after you firewall the remaining two good engines; balanced field length looks good on paper but not so good sometimes in actuality.. I do not know what really happened however unless they had a cockpit fire once they were airborne (VFR) they should have dumped fuel and flown the aircraft...not into the ground..

The short video of the actual crash showed the aircraft banking steeply and auguring in..



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The right inboard flap was damaged when they hit the fence. A piece of the flap apparently shelled out #3 engine.




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The right inboard flap was damaged when they hit the fence. A piece of the flap apparently shelled out #3 engine.



#3 is where essential power is carried.. If the second officer did not switch essential to a good engine and down load the electrical load (one 10 KW B hydraulic pump and every other fuel boost pump 2 KW each ? ?? or a pac fan depending on altitude... to long ago and two many aircraft since to remember ) then then they were screwed... The 727 was one of the aircraft a second office could kill you if he was inept.

Not pointing fingers just possibilities.
edit on 727ndk16 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I heard they're looking at weight and balance. Operating out of that airport they're always right on the edge, but from what I understand the forward, below deck cargo hold is pretty easy to overload if you're not careful.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   


More videos, including the aftermath.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 727Sky

I heard they're looking at weight and balance. Operating out of that airport they're always right on the edge, but from what I understand the forward, below deck cargo hold is pretty easy to overload if you're not careful.


Not to mention there are times when the paperwork says one thing and in actuality there is 8000 pounds more than was supposed to be.. Actually has happened out of some stations more than once..



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Word on the street is that this airline has a penchant for carrying more cargo than is on the manifest. Time will tell though.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

Honestly, from what I've heard about how they run cargo in South America, that doesn't surprise me in the least.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jappee

They should have aborted when they were approaching V1 and were having trouble accelerating.


They probably knew they were overwight. They were probably at 190,000 pounds. And with a tailwind component and at 30 degrees C, acceleration was probably as expected. When they went through the fence and hit the hut it took off the right main gear and right inboard flap. Gear loss would have killed hydraulics, particularly when they tried to raise the gear. Doomed at that point. Without hydraulics, missing a good chunk of flap, gear not fully retracted which means gear doors out in the wind, and who knows how much FOD in the engine(s), it was uncontrollable.



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jappee

They should have aborted when they were approaching V1 and were having trouble accelerating.


They probably knew they were overwight. They were probably at 190,000 pounds. And with a tailwind component and at 30 degrees C, acceleration was probably as expected. When they went through the fence and hit the hut it took off the right main gear and right inboard flap. Gear loss would have killed hydraulics, particularly when they tried to raise the gear. Doomed at that point. Without hydraulics, missing a good chunk of flap, gear not fully retracted which means gear doors out in the wind, and who knows how much FOD in the engine(s), it was uncontrollable.


Good point I had not heard they had knocked a main gear off.. The 727 does have manual reversion (can be flown without Hydraulics via cable monkey motion) ..... Yep.... they were screwed and now dead.
edit on 727rdk16 by 727Sky because: ...




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join