What would make this 747 crash???

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6247477/

This is the link. I guess a 747 cargo plane crashed today in Canada? Whats up with that?

Vester

Well... Don't know, nor does anyone right now until they finish their investigation.

But the first thing that stands out to me is...

Ghana-registered

and the second is

Cargo

Here is a brief profile on MK Airlines which I found in my Business Directory...

MK Airlines Ltd. Company Profile

MK Airlines flies cargo mainly in support of other cargo carriers. The company provides both scheduled and non-scheduled services, especially to points in Africa. It operates a fleet of Boeing 747 DC-8 freighter aircraft.

Not the same type of flying or airlines that we do.

First reports say the tail section broke off and it was lying within the fence boundary of the airport, while the rest of the wreckage is much further away from the airport.

Could be a failed abort, after being initially airborne, or it could be a tail strike during rotation that was very severe, combined with improper loading of the aircraft. Carrying lawn tractors and fish..............

Too soon to know; we can only speculate at this point. But, as Mark has pointed out, it was an African cargo airline and both maintenance and training in that area of the world ranks among the very worst.

So, if any of you have reservations on an African cargo airliner, we advise you to cancel................ :jawdrop

Well to show you of what you are dealing with here... did a little research. This is not the first Problem MK Airlines has had...

February 15, 1992 - Kano Nigeria
A DC-8 operated by MK Airlines crashed while landing, and caught on fire. No fatalities.

December 17, 1996 - Port Harcourt Nigeria
A DC-8 operated by MK Airlines struck trees with the wing while attempting to land. The plane landed on the runway, skidded off and caught on fire. No fatalities.

November 27, 2001 - Port Harcourt Nigeria
A 747 operated by MK Airlines crashed 700m short of the runway while attempting to land. One crewmember was killed.

As I said, not anywhere near the type of flying we do!

Beginning to look like a case of pilot error. The runway was 2,700 metres long, but the plane entered the runway from a taxiway at the 2,000 metre point. That means the takeoff was attempted with only about 6,000 ft. of runway available.

Two tail strikes occurred, one at 800 ft. from the end of the runway, and the other at 500 ft.

The landing gear never left the ground.

That justifies a speculation at this point, that the pilot saw he was running out of runway and he attempted to rotate at too low of an airspeed, and it would not fly. That would explain the tail strikes.

The plane was about 34 years old and was a former passenger jet (-200 model) and was converted to carry cargo only.

For a close-up look at one of MK Airline's aircraft, go to:

www.planepictures.net/net...ount=false

Fine looking bird.... :blech

I was actually thinking the same thing... but let me ask you something... since you used to fly them... Who in their right mind would try to take a loaded 74 off with 6000 feet of runway? Can that even be done? If so, what would the flap setting need to be? I bet you could never do it with a flaps 5 or anything like that.... I imagine you would HAVE to set up for a short field departure to even have a shot at it, let alone with a load of fuel and cargo?

Scott

A 747 could take off in far less than 6,000 ft., PROVIDED it is very light weight. That is true of just about any airliner.

My last flight on the 777, was a ferry flight from SFO to DEN. We were so light that we reduced the power on takeoff to the minimum allowed in the book. I told my First Officer to not worry about deck angle (too much nose up pitch can scare the hell out of passengers), and let her go.

We took off to the East, flying over the Oakland Airport. That requires you be above 3,000 ft. when you pass over OAK, and on a real heavy flight, it is sometimes hard to make that restriction, even when using MAX takeoff power. But, that day, my First Officer was able to exceed 10,000 ft. by the time she reached OAK. Even got a comment from the tower that "now that is some kind of takeoff!"

Felt like having a Mack Truck engine in your riding lawmower........

:shocked

No one in their right mind, would attempt to take off a heavily loaded 747 in 6,000 ft.

Obviously, assuming the pilots were not under the influence of something, they must have had the wrong idea about how much runway was available to them.

Flaps 20 degrees is usually used on the very heavy takeoffs, since that produces the shortest possible ground roll before liftoff speed is reached.

Pan Am pilots made that kind of mistake on July 30, 1971, at SFO. They hit the approach lights stanchions for the reciprocal runway when they lifted off, driving steel beams up thru the body. Fortunately, the plane was able to fly, even though the damage knocked out 3 of their 4 hydraulic systems. They circled until they could get it below landing weight and made a successful landing at SFO. No one killed, but some severe injuries in coach, where the steel beams came up thru the seats.