Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eagl on April 03, 2006, 08:00:28 AM
-
A C-5 crashed this morning near Dover. The initial report was that 17 were on board and some were taken to a hospital. As of now, no reports of fatalities. The plane broke into a few pieces but from the pics it doesn't look like it burned and is mostly intact.
One news show said that the pilot had declared an emergency and was trying to land, but CNN.com doesn't have that kind of detail as of right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/03/c5.crash/index.html
edit: moose beat me to it...
-
i dont know the interior of a galaxy too well, but i would assume that if they declared an emergency then the crew would have strapped themselves in for a crash landing. eagl is where the nose broke off aft of the crew cabin on the upper deck?
edit; oh, the cabin runs almost all the way to the tail.. saw the exit door with a slide in another news photo
-
It's hard to see in the pics exactly where it broke off, but I did see a fire ladder leading up to the rear of the cockpit section so it's probable that there were survivors up there. I also noticed that all 4 of the upper deck doors were open with escape chutes deployed, so there may have been people up in the aft upper deck as well. The rear cargo doors are open but again, no conclusion can be drawn from that either.
2 of the upper deck doors are barely aft of where the nose section broke off so the front crew compartment may have broken open and been split by the break, but again I don't know enough about the C-5 to really tell and the pics I've seen don't have enough detail to tell.
The upper deck isn't entirely contiguous. The wing center box is not commonly accessed if I recall correctly, and the front top crew area is not easily reachable from the top aft passenger section. The last time I flew in a C-5, I had to go downstairs through the main cargo deck to get from the aft upper passenger deck to the front upper crew deck.
I didn't see anything that looked like seats hanging from the split, so maybe we got lucky. As for the location of the crew, the entire crew was probably in or near a seat and not all in one location. Without knowing what the emergency was, it's not even possible to speculate if anyone was unstrapped trying to troubleshoot the problem.
-
This is exactly why I think UAVs are going to be limited use assets... Had this been a UAV without someone inside the plane, who knows where it would have crashed. Yea pilot error causes many crashes but when there is hardware failure, often only the talent and ability of the pilot on board to operate under ususual conditions can possibly save the plane.
-
Eagl...With all due respect you are dead wrong...Please check out the FAA's website with crash statistics...Or if your interested in a book check out "The Killing Zone: how and why pilots die" The overwhelming majority of aviation accidents/fatalaties is due to pilot error...
And dont be so hard on AI intelligence in the cockpit...I for one would never step foot on a commercial airplane with a pilot flying, but think about what it his done for military aerospace? Flybywire for starters...The f-16, and the space shuttle among others would be unflyable aircraft to a human without these systems.... How about spin and compression recovery systems? Specifically designed to save the human after he intentionally or unintentially gets him aircraft into a scenario that is near impossible to humanly recover...
I am all for men in the cockpit...Thats how it should be...But with increasing technology its really going to be a big debate for our flying soldiers in the near future
-
Ouch, hope they are ok.
The C-5 can carry 270,000 tons of cargo almost 2,500 miles on one load of fuel. The C-5's wingspan is 28 feet wider than a 747 and the military jet is 16 feet longer than the civilian airliner.
From that article.... :huh
-
Fox and CNN reported the accident happened during take off.....?
-
Cav,
As a professional pilot who has gone through the USAF mishap investigation course and served as a flying safety officer for a few years, I will respectfully disagree and state with no reservation whatsoever that you are the one who is badly mistaken.
Taking pilots out of the cockpit will not remove the instances of human error not only because humans are just as involved in the manufacture, maintenance, and operation of UAVs, but also because for every one mishap caused by pilot error, there are COUNTLESS mishaps that are directly prevented by the pilot's actions. You say look at the percentage of mishaps that are caused by the pilot, and I say you need to also look at the percentage of inflight emergencies that were saved by direct human intervention in the cockpit.
The thing is, those stats aren't as easily found. But in my personal experience as a safety officer, I have either investigated or read the safety reports of hundreds of incidents that, had they occurred to unmanned vehicles, would most likely have resulted in total loss of the aircraft.
I am very in favor of cockpit automation and computer assistance to pilots, but those pilots MUST remain in the cockpit because the computer simply can't deal with unusual situations. It is somewhat rare for an inflight emergency to involve a simple failure of one component, and quite often the first warning sign of a failure that an onboard system detects is really just a side effect of a much worse problem.
As an example, there was a recent mishap where a tiny leak in a hydraulic line sprayed hydraulic fluid onto a generator. The fluid caught fire, but the only indication at first was a flickering generator light. Before the crew landed, they had multiple systems failures and a fairly hot fire going in the fuselage, and only the presence of a pilot onboard allowed the plane to make a fast, direct visual approach to an emergency landing. Had there been no pilot on board, even if every decision had been correctly made by a computer or human controller on the ground, the plane would have had to comply with strict instrument approach procedures which would have taken much longer, and the fire would probably have caused a total hydraulic failure or progressed to a fuel or structural fire by then.
So... you're wrong dude, sorry.
-
Originally posted by eagl
As a professional pilot who has gone through the USAF mishap investigation course and served as a flying safety officer for a few years, I will respectfully disagree and state with no reservation whatsoever that you are the one who is badly mistaken.
i would say that cav has been comprehensively owned.
:lol
-
They're reporting that the crew reported #2 inboard engine failure after takeoff. A fully loaded C-5 losing an engine on takeoff is in a world of hurt... Not an easy thing to manage. I'm amazed that the plane didn't suffer worse damage or explode after what appears to be a hard off-runway crash landing.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Fox and CNN reported the accident happened during take off.....?
CNN.com is reporting that the crash happened during an emergency landing.
Pentagon sources told CNN the aircraft "declared an in-flight emergency for a No. 2 engine flameout."
-
Hehe Furb...
I didn't even whip out my "didja hear about the global hawk that biffed into a mountain because the digital terrain database was inaccurate?" That little booboo cost the USAF about 80 million bucks and a pilot may have saved it by just looking out the window.
I've got about 40 yrs worth of mishap reports to draw lessons from...
-
lol eagl.
you may have comprehensively owned him, be an expert on the USAF, air crashes and be a fighter pilot....
but how do you explain the gay avatar?
-
You don't like spidey?
Spidey was my response to a bunch of forum tardness from people who got into a pissing contest over their avatards. They were taking it waaay too seriously, getting all mad and posessive, so I found spidey and hung him up there for everyone to see.
If it really bothers you, just pretend he's doing dance aerobics. I haven't done it, but I suppose you could even follow along with him and get some exercise. God knows most of us could stand to lose a few pounds, so get off your fat butt and dance with spidey.
Sheesh, hijacking my own thread... wotta moron, me.
-
hehe...eagl I chuckle every time I see your avatar.
As for the UAV issue.
My 26+ years of aviation tells me that without a doubt we need to keep the pilots IN the cockpit.
eagl covered that quite nicely.
Hope it's true that everyone got out.
cheers,
RTR
-
They were lucky noone on the ground was hurt. IIRC, Dover AFB is in a densely populated area.
-
More like I was TREATED! haha...
but....I was just talking about accidents in IMC conditions...I uhhh forgot to specify that...so...now you have been treated =)
haha
eagl
-
Geez eagl, you report a plane crash that could've been terrible, then use it to thump against UAVs.
You may be a helluva pilot, investigator and all that but clearly no one taught you "tact"
-
rpm wrote:
They were lucky noone on the ground was hurt. IIRC, Dover AFB is in a densely populated area.
Looks like it went down on or very near the base. Those fire trucks are from the base FD, not any of the locals. The "hazmat" suits are SOP, Mylar/Nomex fire suits.
I live about a mile from the northwest end of the main runway. Rarely do they take off this way. Mostly they take off SE and land from the NW. There's not much to the SE (pan around this link).
http://www.google.com/lochp?hl=en&q=&ll=39.126332,-75.484056&spn=0.051403,0.072784&t=k
My house is in the top left corner. Most of the city of Dover is north of here. If they run into trouble while landing, things could get messy.
-
Local coverage:
http://www.newszap.com/articles/2006/04/03/dm/central_delaware/01crash.txt
The engine failure may have been the result of birds being sucked into the engines, a known cause of engine failure, a spokeswoman a spokesperson for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon said.
Officials at the Dover base have warned for years of the danger posed by birds feeding at the Eastern Shore Environmental garbage transfer station on 26 acres off Postles Corner Road just east of the main runway at Dover Air Force Base. That transfer operation is in the process of being relocated to a 20-acre site south of Farmington.
http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/NEWS/60403008
Curiously, Eastern Shore Environmental was able to squash Air Force opposition to this site with the assistance and financial involvement of the Bush family.
-
Some pictures
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/sm/events/us/040306doveraircrash/p:1;_ylt=At2nxlZMqzST6ipuvy1GUNwHcggF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--
-
WOW look how close it is to the road(http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060403/capt.px10304031725.military_plane__crash_px103.jpg)
-
good thing it crashed in that field and not on the road looks like the pilots made it out ok
-
Im happy to hear everyone walked away from the crash. Thank God we didnt see a repeat of the SWA 737 Midway incident...Can you imagine what a galaxy would do
-
The galaxy would have steam rolled the cars on the highway
-
Especially, as furball points out, carrying 270,000 tons of cargo.
The 270K tons is with the most recent upgrade and was supposed to be classified. Somebody in the administration is in a bunch of trouble.
-
imagine looking out your car window and seeing a C-5, d150 and closing
-
The wingspar on that thing is tough. There is little damage to the wings considering it hit hard enough to break the tail and cockpit section. That could have been a big fireball.
Who makes the C-5? Whoever it is, WTG!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
WOW look how close it is to the road(http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060403/capt.px10304031725.military_plane__crash_px103.jpg)
Look how close to the runway!
You know the dude hadda get a lame "ditch" outta that!
Seriously, glad these guys are ok and also a superb example of airmanship!
Btw, eagl. Always enjoy your insight in relation to aircraft etc garnered from your unique poisitional perspective.
Brings alot to the board.
Does "TAC ATTACK" still issue for the military acft/maintenance community?
Was always some interesting "mishap reporting" articles in there.
Regards
Sun
-
270k tons?! i'd say 270k lbs of cargo is more likely. equivalent to 135tons
-
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.
-
You know the dude hadda get a lame "ditch" outta that!
:lol I wonder how many kills he had?
-
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.
-
1 engine failure couldn't take down a plane with 4 engines
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
1 engine failure couldn't take down a plane with 4 engines
:lol 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?
-
IIRC they can go to 110-115 on the remaining engines for a short time to gain enough altitude…
-
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?
-
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.
-
Notice the engine right by the yellow fire truck on the left.
(http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060403/capt.px10504031802.military_plane__crash_px105.jpg)
Damn, he almost made it.
(http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060403/capt.px10304031725.military_plane__crash_px103.jpg)
-
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.
-
NVM
-
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.
-
Scuttlebutt is that they clipped a power pole.
May take a drive by there later and see what's up.
-
My Judo instructor is a retired C-5 pilot. I asked him if it can take off with full payload and fuel on only 3 engines. He said that is can. His theory was that pilot made error by turning with not enough altitude.
-
Small update that change everything.
C5 had a bird-strike during take off into #2. Then he had #3 and #4 suddenly fail.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Small update that change everything.
C5 had a bird-strike during take off into #2. Then he had #3 and #4 suddenly fail.
:huh
-
Here’s the latest info. (complete opposite of before)
Somehow TR on #1 and 2 got deployed. N1’s TR ripped off. Full flaps lowered. Tail ripped off due to tree.
Final report should be available now.
-
Interesting. I heard that the thrust reverser warning light came on for an engine, so they shut it down as a precaution. Then on landing, they were using 40% flaps, but they were flying full flap approach speeds. Thusly they sank too fast and didnt make the runway.
-
270 000 tons in a single cargo plane? WOW! Technology certainly has evolved.
Considering that *snip*
Overall, the strategic airlift to the Persian Gulf was the largest since World War II. By the cease-fire, Air Force airlifters had moved 482,000 passengers and 513,000 tons of cargo. Viewed in ton miles, the airlift of Operation Desert Shield/Storm was equivalent to repeating the Berlin Airlift, a 56-week operation, every six weeks.
They could have supplied the whole Gulf1 with just two of these magnificient planes. :rolleyes:
-
:eek: what would happen if they converted one into a "death star"?