Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gatt on May 09, 2003, 09:28:48 AM
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/05/09/plane.deaths/index.html
-
"At least 200 passengers are feared dead after they were sucked out of a plane at 7,000 feet when a door opened. "
This is from a UK online paper. I'm just wondering how much differential pressure there could be at 7,000 feet. Don't most pressurization systems only maintain a cabin pressure of around 8,000 feet?
Either way, nasty way to go.
-
AIR CRASH RESCUE NEWS:
May 9, 2003 - Plane Door Flings Open, More Than 129 Feared Dead
KINSHASA, Congo - More than half of the 200 passengers aboard a Russian-built cargo plane flying across Congo were feared dead after the aircraft's rear door burst open in mid-flight, airport officials said on Friday. Congo's Defence Minister Irung Awan confirmed that the accident occurred on Thursday night but said he was unaware of any deaths.
Two officials at the international airport in Congo's capital, Kinshasa, independently told reporters that 129 people were believed to have been sucked out of the plane. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity. Their accounts could not be immediately confirmed.
The plane, a privately-owned Ilyushin 76, had apparently been chartered to transport Congolese police force members and their families from the capital, Kinshasa, to the south-eastern city of Lubumbashi.
After the accident occurred some 45 minutes into the flight, the pilots managed to turn back and land the plane in Kinshasa, Mr Awan said.
-
I suspect foul play.
Great way to get rid of a bunch of people you don't like.
-
Bet the US takes the blame for this one.
:D
-
The plane, a privately-owned Ilyushin 76, had apparently been chartered to transport Congolese police force members and their families from the capital, Kinshasa, to the south-eastern city of Lubumbashi.
Originally posted by Curval
I suspect foul play.
Great way to get rid of a bunch of people you don't like.
Good point! I was thinking the same.
-
Did they forget to copy the door locks correctly?
-
not a pilot but operator or maintainence error is a good possibility. fatal accidents can occur on any ac with a ramp. a long time ago some guys getting ready for a halo insert during fmp exercise were badly injured and one was killed when ramp open before it was supposed to. they shoulda never had those people in back without having them secured.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did they forget to copy the door locks correctly?
Yes! lol :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did they forget to copy the door locks correctly?
You're just jealous 'cause they had a supersonic passengerjet (well half of it was french/GB) in use in seventies and you had it... err... well you have a 747 :)
-
And the 747 is an infinetly better airplane than any crap showpiece SST....
-
And there comes little Billy.... :D
-
Lessons to kids,
Always wear your seatbelt.
-
Originally posted by ra
"At least 200 passengers are feared dead after they were sucked out of a plane at 7,000 feet when a door opened. "
This is from a UK online paper. I'm just wondering how much differential pressure there could be at 7,000 feet. Don't most pressurization systems only maintain a cabin pressure of around 8,000 feet?
Either way, nasty way to go.
Yeah, no way you would get sucked out at 7000 feet. Something wrong there.
-
Originally posted by Staga
You're just jealous 'cause they had a supersonic passengerjet (well half of it was french/GB) in use in seventies and you had it... err... well you have a 747 :)
we could have easily had a supersonic passenger jet in the 60's.
I guess if we had wanted to operate a money-losing plane just to be hip, we could have done that.
-
I read in another source it was at 33,000 feet, 45 mins after takeoff.
-
Must be the first major airplane disaster where the plane actually lands.
-
This is about as bad as when that C5a in Vietnam lost control because the back ramp blew off and severed the hyrdraulics. It was carrying a large group of South Vietnamese orphans. Believe it crashed and burned while trying to land.
-
we could have easily had a supersonic passenger jet in the 60's.
I guess if we had wanted to operate a money-losing plane just to be hip, we could have done that.
"Could've, should've, would've."
-
IL-76 Dweeb :p
-
"Could've, should've, would've."
Could've, but not should've or would've. Same goes with the new generation of ultra-mega-jumbo jet Airbus is developing. Just a real cool way to waste lots of money.
ra
-
Well, just a theory, but.. If a hatch opens in the back of a fast moving aircraft, the air is travelling over it, and re-converging at the back of the aircraft could create a suction on the inside of the the plane, sucking any cargo or unbuckled passengers out. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
"Could've, should've, would've."
The decision to cancel the US SST was based on economics, (proved correct) and environmental damage to the ozone.
Wow, the US was worried about the ozone layer 30 years before Kyoto...
-
Ukrainean sources say that no one died...
http://www.gazeta.ru/2003/05/09/last85352.shtml
-
But on same site it saying that AC was carring 350 people. About 100 learned how to fly....hard way.
-
The decision to cancel the US SST was based on economics, (proved correct) and environmental damage to the ozone.
Wow, the US was worried about the ozone layer 30 years before Kyoto...
That's right, the US invented atmospheric science.
"The Boeing 2707-300 was chosen over the Lockheed L2000 as the USA's new supersonic airliner design. It was never built though due to a change in environmental factors (the fuel crisis caused kerosene to become expensive and the protests over the pending Concorde flights into New York and Washington). Also Boeing were still fighting with increasing problems over the complex and over-ambitious design. In 1971 the American SST project was cancelled."
That's right, it was just about economic and environmental concerns. Nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't actually working.
And besides, the moon shot "wasn't economical". Since when has economics mattered in terms of international prestige? The fact that Britain and France chose to heavily subsidise Concorde tells you something about that. They did it for the prestige, not because of economics.
-
Dowding which airplane is more succesful and important in the world, the 747 or the Concorde? Moreover mind telling us which of the two is getting canned later this year?
:p
-
Two different planes operating in two different worlds. No fair comparison.
A better comparison would be the US SST and Concorde. One of which flew for 30 years without accident and the other... well... it looked good on the drawing board didn't it?
lol :p
-
Nope. It was a contest between Concorde and 747 as concepts, one big the other fast - guess who won? :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nope. It was a contest between Concorde and 747 as concepts, one big the other fast - guess who won? :D
The one making less noise than the anti-noise law and sucking less fuel per pax.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That's right, the US invented atmospheric science.
And besides, the moon shot "wasn't economical". Since when has economics mattered in terms of international prestige? The fact that Britain and France chose to heavily subsidise Concorde tells you something about that. They did it for the prestige, not because of economics.
The Apollo program was obviously never meant to make a profit, and if you argue that the Concorde was never meant to make a profit, I can concede your point on the reasons the Ameraican SST was cancelled.
However, Boeing's design was considerably larger that the Concorde to carry more passengers and possibly allow for some economics in scale. If problems could have been solved, problems such as fuel consuption, noise, and environmental, the American SST would have flown.
The problems were not solved in any of the three SST projects, and all ultimately failed when using an economic eye. As they said in The Right Stuff, "What makes these fly is funding"
I personally thought that the stratosphere environmental issue was overblown, and took a flight on Concorde during one of its visits to Oshkosh. One of the more expensive joy rides I took, but the experience was worth every penny. It is quite an aircraft, and I hope Virgin Atlantic gets BA's planes and can give it a go.
Perhaps good management can make it an economic success.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Never fly African unless it's a DC-3. ;)
You got that straight GScholz.
I spent a lot of time in West/Central African nations in the late '80s.
One fond memory was getting head lice from the headrests.
Maintenance is completely porked, and most of the planes are Russian. They often wittingly or unwittingly use counterfeit parts for repairs.
Goon is about the only thing you can trust.
On that particular plane, there were no seats. They were moving soldiers and their families from Kinshasa to the interior. Imagine every sort of household item, goats, cookware, furniture, etc.-- unsecured in the cargo bay. People were probably sitting on their home sofas.
Blam! Catastrophic depressurization at 30K. It would be like a tornado, except there's no chance to hide. One hell of a debris trail.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Two different planes operating in two different worlds. No fair comparison.
A better comparison would be the US SST and Concorde. One of which flew for 30 years without accident and the other... well... it looked good on the drawing board didn't it?
lol :p
It was economics then and economics now Dowding. If it isn't economics, then why is the Concorde being dropped? Hmmmm? Why not just build more?
I guess you believe that American aircraft makers are incapable of producing an SST.
The Concorde began operations in 1976. How many were in service? 12 maybe? How much profit did they make? Out of 12, one crashed killing all aboard. The worst safety record of all major aircraft in operation today.
The small fleet, small average use time per aircraft and worst safety record of any aircraft ( By far B.T.W) all add up to losses.
Compair the profits/loss for the Concorde over it's service life with that of a the profit pulled in from standard Boeing aircraft.
-
"I was asleep, and then I heard people screaming. When I woke up, the pilot told everyone to get to the front of the plane, and there were about 40 of us, but people kept dying. There were only about 20 survivors."
what a way to wake up! :eek:
-
The reason I heard the American SST was cancelled was because with a swing-wing, it didnt have the RANGE to fly across the ocean. Might as well keep this discussion honest. So yeah, I guess it would be pretty uneconomical to run out of fuel every time the SST tried to cross the atlantic.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Two different planes operating in two different worlds. No fair comparison.
A better comparison would be the US SST and Concorde. One of which flew for 30 years without accident and the other... well... it looked good on the drawing board didn't it?
lol :p
Without checking I'm willing to bet that the 747 has logged at least 100 times the miles of the Concord. Any takers?
-
Had to check, they aren't even that close.
747 has logged over 35 billion miles. The only reference I could find of the Concorde was 69 million. The 747 has logged more than 500 times the miles of the Concorde.
-
And your point is? They were designed for two completely different roles. You might as well compare the milage on the lunar buggy to a family SUV.
Better to compare the US SST and Concorde, like I said in the post you quoted but evidently didn't read. Tell me, how many miles did the US SSTs do? Would have I got enough airmiles to buy a 12-piece dinner set?
-
You're right, I mistakenly thought you were comparing saftey records between the Concorde and the 747, no comparison can be made.
-
Lotta things killed the SST, high noise level was one of 'em. Folks got tired of all the sonic booms back in the '60s and weren't likely to allow passenger jets breaking their windows.
-
The biggest problem was that Concorde wasn't made in America. Thus it was OK to complain about the noise and all the rest. That killed it as much as anything. The 'not invented here syndrome'.
An American SST would never have had so much opposition.
Anyone who compares Concorde to the 747 is just stupid or ignorant of aviation. They were made for different markets, like a Ferrari and a bus.
Concorde was and is a brilliant technical advance. They are coming out of service now because they are nearly thirty years old and Sixties technology. Yes Nuke, economics. Have you checked to see how many 1970's vintage 747's are still in service? Economics again.
Questioning the safety record is just sophistry. It's a nonsense. One crashed, that's nine percent of the fleet. But it's still just one aircraft, one incident. One tragedy.
Concorde is also easily the most beautiful airliner ever built, no argument there.
-
Blue are you saying Concorde wasnt meant to be the next leap in mass air transit? If so do you think the Brits and french always intented that only 12 or so would ever be built after all the billions they invested? Are you saying that it was always intended that it would be a $10,000 a ticket toy for a few millionaires?
If you do then you are ignorant. The 747 and concorde were meant for the same market, yep the same market but with different approaches. The simple thing is people ALL AROUND the world in the test markets where concorde was trialed hated the sonic booms, not to mention that concorde turned out to be incredible expensive to operate and airlines ran way in droves. The 747 on the other hand became a great success.
Again your whole "ferrari" argument rests on the ludicrous notion that the French and Brits only made it as a plaything for the ultra rich - yep that they spend billions to make a dozen small capacity mach 2 runabouts for millionaires and only intended to use them on one basic transatlantic route. Do you belive that was what the french and brits spent billions on? Otherwise you have no case...
-
I disagree GRUN , the concorde was not build only for millionnaires (at first) the 1st oil chock (like we call it in France) killed comercially more surely the Concorde than anything.
-
Of course it wasnt straffo, but blue thinks it was meant as an exclusive "ferrari" of the sky, it was an attempt to serve the masses by speed in comparsion to the 747 which meant to serve the masses by capacity. Ill let history judge who won that conceptual battle...
-
As you said previously it was a competition between 2 design ... one failed (concorde) one worked (747) due to an external event not because of the conception (well in fact partially because of the conception :)).
-
But the external event was how will I say it, uhhm "reality".. The concorde was simply too inefficent and unproductive. Look at this way given an equal number of planes which of the two will move a very large number of people across the atlantic both faster and cheaper - the answer is the 747. Who cares if you are going at mach 2 when you have to make 5 trips to match the load of a single 747 in one trip. And thats why the 747 won and was succesful while concorde failed miserably. The only counter to this is to belive that france and the UK were intentionaly always making air "ferraris" for a few rich multi-millionaire to play with at $10k a pop.... Now who belives that?
-
Well, the devellopement didn't go like expected.
The 1st batch was 20 planes (the one currently flying) and the 2nd batch was supposed to be a 500 plane batch.
And 500 planes is more democratic than the aristocratic 20 ;)
-
But nobody wanted them beacuse the 747 was simply so much better. :)
The concorde is cool and beutiful for sure but it is just as much a business failiure as it is pretty.
-
hehe ;)
Do you know that in the concorde cockpit there is some part so tight (I hope to use the right word) that a sheet of paper can't pass but in supersonic flight you can pass the whole hand ?
-
Seatbelts, hehe... What seatbelts?... IL-76 can hardly be called a pasenger plane. Passengers are usually guys wearing blue berets, AKs and parachutes, they don't need any seatbelts.
If I unerstood correctly there was a Ukrainian crew? And they say there are no casualities? As usual :( Looks like they never learn :(
A friend of mine wanted to go to Kongo in mid-90s as a cargo supervisor (in fact an only man who knows French and English in a Russian-Ukrainian crew), but then the famous An-24 crashed into a marketplace...
People who worked there said the planes are always heavily overloaded, everyone who buys a ticket thinks he can bring his whole family with him, with cows pigs and sheeps. The poor An-24 simply could't take off and ran right into a marketplace... Airline "company" that owned it stated they will pay for every victim. It turned into something like: "Hey, I heard you buried your grandma last week, let's dig her out and get the money from Russians!" :(
-
This discussion about Concorde and 747 is, IMHO, flawed by an herroneus assumption.
It's herroneus to compare the two as they were a concorrential/mutually exclusive concepts, it's not the question.
The fact stay in the market, in the target.
One was intended to satisfy the "as quick as possible, almost no matter the price" customers. (Concorde)
The other was to satisfy the "as cheap as possible, almost no matter the time" customers. (747)
Apples and oranges.
Two great planes that in the respective niche have a place in history.
There's no reason to confront them, unless for a personal agenda (pissing contest/my plane is bigger than your/bash France/Bash America.... etc. etc.).
-
Boroda,
You'd think it would be the crews and airfield personels job to keep out these who thinks they can bring whole family and their farm, after all its pretty obvious for the crew and anyone who knows something about the planes, that those aren't like the busses, which can go even with people hanging from the sides, back and roof, while the inside is stuffed up.
noo sire.. planes cannot fly like that.
however still they let them do it?-)
-
Originally posted by Naso
The other was to satisfy the "as cheap as possible, almost no matter the time" customers. (747)
If that were true they'd have built busses.
or ships
And the 747 has a top speed of 604mph and 566mph cruising speed.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If that were true they'd have built busses.
or ships
And the 747 has a top speed of 604mph and 566mph cruising speed.
Yeah, sure :rolleyes:
or zeppelins
......
Iron, I dont understand this defensive position you have.
Someone touched your loved 747??
747 IS part of Aviation history, a plane that have his place "in the eternity", like the Concorde.
What's wrong in this statement?
-
Naso, having crossed the Pacific 10 times in a 747 I assure you that I have no love for it. Your post contrasting the Concorde and the 747 was just a bit ridiculous and I was pointing out to you that 600mph isn't exactly "no matter the time".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Naso, having crossed the Pacific 10 times in a 747 I assure you that I have no love for it. Your post contrasting the Concorde and the 747 was just a bit ridiculous and I was pointing out to you that 600mph isn't exactly "no matter the time".
AKIron, I dont know if my post is particularly obscure, but I was simply stating that the 2 planes cannot be compared, so all this moaning and battling about who's better is pointless.
You wanted to read it in "reverse mode", I gentle ask you to re-read it.
BTW, I liked the 747, I would have liked to try the experience of the Concorde.
-
Comparising 747 and Concorde is just like comparing a bus and a Porsche.
One can haul boat loads of tulips from place A to place B and has plenty of room.
Another one hasn't but we all know in which one we would rather sit.
-
No staga. They were after the same market - unless it is also your belief that concorde was only ever meant to be a limited plaything for the rich from the start. Thats your "porsche: analogy right there. Do you really think the UK and Franch spent billions with the intent to just buld a dozen of them to transport rock stars and CEO's for $10,000 a pop?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No staga. They were after the same market - unless it is also your belief that concorde was only ever meant to be a limited plaything for the rich from the start. Thats your "porsche: analogy right there. Do you really think the UK and Franch spent billions with the intent to just buld a dozen of them to transport rock stars and CEO's for $10,000 a pop?
Grun, in case you mean market in the sense of "passenger air transportation", yes, they are in the same market but for two different targets (niches) in the same market.
Or can be intended as "air transportation system", with "long range market", "Regional market", "Hi speed market"... etc.
In both case what differ is the target.
Moving the analogy to the "wheel transportation market", the Porche and the WV Golf are both cars, but are not intended to be selled to the same target, one is for "status symbol, fast expensive car market (/niche)" the latter is for "commuter, city, low price market (/niche)".
To be clear on what I meant, we can use as example 747/DC10/A340, all of them "long range, high capacity, wide body" planes, perfectly comparable because intended, projected and produced for the same market/niche.
[added]
As a final note, comparing 747 with Concorde is the same of comparing a cessna 172 with the said 747.
-
AIR CRASH RESCUE NEWS:
May 14, 2003 - Cargo Plane Door 'Wasn't Fastened Properly'
CONGO - A policeman who survived an air accident in which at least 100 passengers fell to their deaths, says the plane's cargo bay door wasn't fastened properly.
Sergeant Kabmba Kashala said attempts to shut it mid-flight failed, and it finally sprung open at 33,000 feet - 45 minutes after the Russian-built Ilyushin 76 took off from Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.Sergeant Kashala said: "I was just next to the door and I had the chance to grab on to a ladder just before the door let loose."Fellow survivor, Lieutenant Ilunga Mambaza, said: "When the back door opened, I fell down and lots of boxes covered me. Lots of my colleagues were sucked out by the wind. I fainted." He estimated 350 passengers were aboard, including about 100 women and children.
Bebe Kahoma, his wife, said the shock apparently caused two pregnant women to miscarry. She added: "Us women, we had a little bit of luck because we had been placed close to the cabin, therefore far from the door, but we sustained some damages."
Congolese military helicopters are searching for bodies near the city of Mbuji-Mayi, over which the plane lost its door en-route to the southeastern city of Lubumbashi.Two officials at Kinshasa's international airport said 129 people are feared dead. A third official estimated the toll was about half that, saying the exact figure could be difficult to determine because of an incomplete flight manifest.
Government spokesman Kikaya Bin Karubi said seven people are confirmed dead, while Ukraine's defence ministry - which owns the plane and leased it for use - denied anyone had died and disputed details of the survivors' accounts.
A Ukrainian defence ministry spokesman said that about 40 seconds after takeoff, the captain noted that the cabin was depressurising, requested a landing and successfully returned the to the airport.
Saying he was citing officials of the state-owned company that operates the aircraft, Ukrainian Cargo Airlines, he added: "Neither the people, nor the cargo, nor the plane itself were hurt or damaged."