Author Topic: C5 crash near Dover (Read 1509 times)

Hornet33 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 03, 2006, 09:34:35 PM »

My dad is a C-5 flight engineer instructor at Altus AFB OK. He has been on the phone to Dover all day and when I talked to him he said the plane experianced and engine failure right after takeoff. The pilot tried to turn around and come back to the field but couldn't make it. He tried to set it down in the field and lost control once on the ground. The plane was fully loaded heading for Spain, fuel and cargo.

Also he said in the event of an emergancy the crew will go to the aft troop bay and strap in there as that is the safest place to be in a crash. Only pilot, co-pilot, and flight engineer would stay in the cockpit. He told me more than likely the escape slide aft of the break in the fuselage deployed automaticaly, since the door probably got popped off when the plane broke apart right there.

Considering that plane has been in service since 1970 and has only had 3 crashes, thats pretty good. 7 total have been lost now. 4 ground fires and the 3 crashes. 1972 Vietnam one went down, early 80's I belive one went down in Germany, and this one.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #31 on:** April 03, 2006, 10:04:23 PM »

Quote

You know the dude hadda get a lame "ditch" outta that!

I wonder how many kills he had?

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** April 03, 2006, 10:28:46 PM »

Unless there's more to it than just single engine failure, it kinda looks like the guy flunked the practical part of the "Engine Failure, Takeoff Continued" square on the "no notice" checkride.

RAIDER14 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 03, 2006, 10:58:24 PM »

1 engine failure couldn't take down a plane with 4 engines

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** April 03, 2006, 11:40:39 PM »

If you're at the performance limits of the aircraft, you have to do it all correctly to continue the takeoff and fly safely on three. Losing one in an empty C-5 is one thing. Losing that same one at max gross weight is a bit different.

There's a reason they call it an emergency.

But, you being a jumpseat rider and all, know that very well, right?

moose · « **Reply #35 on:** April 03, 2006, 11:47:21 PM »

um raider, any fully loaded bird (fuel+cargo) losing an engine on takeoff has little chance of going around. you're low, slow, and heavy and those C-5s aren't exactly cessnas. i've seen them takeoff light and they look incredibly vulnerable.

edit : toad beat me to it. hah.

even without knowing what altitude he lost the engine at, im impressed that he almost made it back to the runway in that situation. in such a congested area im sure trying to find a suitable crash landing place wasn't an option.

nirvana · « **Reply #36 on:** April 03, 2006, 11:47:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
1 engine failure couldn't take down a plane with 4 engines

So young and so naive. Toad hit it right on, if you are at capacity or close to it, all the thrust makes the difference. 41,000lbs of thrust per engine, losing that much thrust is a major defect, yeah?

Russian · « **Reply #37 on:** April 04, 2006, 01:22:53 AM »

IIRC they can go to 110-115 on the remaining engines for a short time to gain enough altitude…

skernsk · « **Reply #38 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:12:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
1 engine failure couldn't take down a plane with 4 engines

Another thing to consider is if that engine caused damage to any control surfaces when it failed. I'm no expert but the three engines that are still on the plane don't look too bad ... where is the fourth engine?

eagl · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2006, 06:35:18 AM »

The 4th engine broke free at the end and rolled about 200 ft forward of the left wing. In the pics I saw it was sitting behind a fire truck.

LePaul,

I guess I have too much experience in the safety world. Tact doesn't go anywhere when the bottom line has to get broadcast around the force to help prevent future mishaps. When a crash like this happens at the same time CNN is running a front page feature on airline automation and how the future of airlines is towards a pilot-less aircraft, the safety point of view probably ought to be brought up while it's a current issue.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2006, 07:37:39 AM »

Notice the engine right by the yellow fire truck on the left.

Damn, he almost made it.

Dinger · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2006, 08:04:12 AM »

Lockheed made the C5, and I've always held they made the best jet airliners. The jury is still out on what exactly happened. It may have been a clean single-engine failure and a screwup in the ensuing emergency. The way they hit -- wings level, hard, short, and lined up -- doesn't give any obvious help either way. They could have lost another engine, or had their LEDs and flaps all fowl-ed up; Or they could have screwed up the approach configuration, or miscalculated the numbers for an overweight 3-engine landing, and gotten into an unrecoverable position (AoA too high and speed to slow). We'll probably find out. Don't go blaming the crew right before at least some facts are in.

One thing we can say for certain, the crew could have done worse.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2006, 08:44:22 AM »

Toad · « **Reply #43 on:** April 04, 2006, 10:40:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Unless there's more to it than just single engine failure, it kinda looks like the guy flunked the practical part of the "Engine Failure, Takeoff Continued" square on the "no notice" checkride.

You will notice the "Unless there's more to it than just single engine failure" part, I'm sure.

The investigation has a long way to go yet and "blame" will eventually be duly apportioned.

z0rch · « **Reply #44 on:** April 04, 2006, 11:16:47 AM »

Scuttlebutt is that they clipped a power pole.

May take a drive by there later and see what's up.