Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Aerosucre B-727 crash

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default Aerosucre B-727 crash

    5 dead, one critically injured.






    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,883

    Default

    The videos are crazy, they didn't start climbing till well past the road and fences. Runway is not very long at all for a heavy 727:

    The airport lies at an elevation of 52.6 metres (173 ft) above mean sea level. It has one runway designated 07/25 with an asphalt surface measuring 1,800 by 30 metres (5,906 ft × 98 ft).

  3. #3
    Member Arrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Old Credit Pilsner; not just for breakfast anymore
    Posts
    102

    Default


  4. #4
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Darn...I guess control cables or hydraulics were damaged? And why the over run? Hopefully not gross disregard that the runway is kind of short. Gabriel is probably going to bring up that acronym that Boeing Bobby objects to.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Darn...I guess control cables or hydraulics were damaged? And why the over run? Hopefully not gross disregard that the runway is kind of short. Gabriel is probably going to bring up that acronym that Boeing Bobby objects to.
    TOPMS. You are welcome.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. Too early to say anything, but it could have been a take-off performance different than expected, for a number of reasons. But don't worry, this is not really a big crash by definition: it was a single-aisle plane (so small plane) and a cargo so only 6 people on board. Not worth taking any action (for the ones that have not read the previous TOMPS thread, I am being ironic with someone, ok? This accident troubles and saddens me a lot, and I absolutely don't consider this a minor event).

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  6. #6
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    TOPMS. You are welcome.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. Too early to say anything, but it could have been a take-off performance different than expected, for a number of reasons. But don't worry, this is not really a big crash by definition: it was a single-aisle plane (so small plane) and a cargo so only 6 people on board. Not worth taking any action (for the ones that have not read the previous TOMPS thread, I am being ironic with someone, ok? This accident troubles and saddens me a lot, and I absolutely don't consider this a minor event).

  7. #7
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    TOPMS. You are welcome.

    That's exactly what I was thinking. Too early to say anything, but it could have been a take-off performance different than expected, for a number of reasons. But don't worry, this is not really a big crash by definition: it was a single-aisle plane (so small plane) and a cargo so only 6 people on board. Not worth taking any action (for the ones that have not read the previous TOMPS thread, I am being ironic with someone, ok? This accident troubles and saddens me a lot, and I absolutely don't consider this a minor event).
    I wonder why the immediate bank to the right. It would seem the thing you want to do here is stay level, build speed and then climb before throwing any kind of roll into it.

    They would have to be well below MTOW to get off that runway in a 722 even without a TOPMS issue. And forget about losing an engine. Let me guess... crossed ourselves for luck and pulled it off the last time so no worries amigos. And so it goes...

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    They would have to be well below MTOW to get off that runway in a 722 even without a TOPMS issue. And forget about losing an engine. Let me guess... crossed ourselves for luck and pulled it off the last time so no worries amigos. And so it goes...
    Actually, I've seen rumors in users'comments all over the internet saying that the very reason why so many people gather at the end of the runway and take pictures or capture videos is because they love the show of this plane taking off with no runway to spare and clearing the fence with no margin, as they always do, except this time they didn't. In that case, the TOPMS would not be effective: they would just ignore it.

    The slight bank right immediately after lift-off seems to be to clear some small trees that were there. A slight bank (say 15 degrees or less) will have negligible effect over climb performance.

    Regarding losing an engine, there are 2 clear bangs and fireballs, they seem to come from #2. You know, flying through 2 fences with concrete posts and some bushes are not the safest thing for the engines, or for the hydraulic systems for the sake of it.

    The fact that they crash in a bank makes me think that either they were having problems with the controls, or they were stalling.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  9. #9
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    1. Actually, I've seen rumors in users'comments all over the internet saying that the very reason why so many people gather at the end of the runway and take pictures or capture videos is because they love the show of this plane taking off with no runway to spare and clearing the fence with no margin, as they always do, except this time they didn't. 2. In that case, the TOPMS would not be effective: they would just ignore it.

    3. The slight bank right immediately after lift-off seems to be to clear some small trees that were there. A slight bank (say 15 degrees or less) will have negligible effect over climb performance.

    4. Regarding losing an engine, there are 2 clear bangs and fireballs, they seem to come from #2. You know, flying through 2 fences with concrete posts and some bushes are not the safest thing for the engines, or for the hydraulic systems for the sake of it.

    5. The fact that they crash in a bank makes me think that either they were having problems with the controls, or they were stalling.
    1. Absolutely, a 727 departing from a 6000 ft runway would have to be a great show. I keep wanting to say that they must have been badly over loaded (or had power problems) for them to use that extra 500 or 1000 feet of off-roading...but we should probably wait for the final report on that.

    2. I know some folks are going to lump me in with you as a goofball...THIS is where a person could eally use TOPMS...think about it...If you want to still stop, you have to decide somewhat earlier in the takeoff run...At a time when you may not have great clues if you are on-track or lagging behind with your acceleration...I dare say that to pull onto a shorter runway in a big plane requires a certain amount of faith that it will speed up...and perhaps it's faith in Evan's scientific engineering numbers and procedures...fine...I'm just saying a human's gonna say, wow, this is short, and if they had any shred of foffiness would question whether they'll really make it...A nice TOPMS giving you ongoing clues that your actual speed and your need-to-be speed is on track is probably more beneficial for short runways like this. (I know you were taking the angle that someone who might grossly overload a plane will also 'turn off' the TOPMS' so as to complete an 'illegal' overweight takeoff.)

    3. Concur, a slight bank after takeoff to avoid some trees (OR some sort of control system damage is just starting to manifest itself.) WAY TOO MUCH arm chair judgement on how they SHOULD have flown the plane.

    4. 727 #2 engines are known for compressor stalls due to strange interactions in the intake duct....It seems they were dragging their tail, so the intake duct was probably getting air stirred up by the fuselage...so your bangs and fireballs might be simple compressor stalls and not Fencepost-Object-Damage...(and regardless, could very well be a significant contributing factor. (Crap, I'm trying to act smart)

    5. The fact that they did not return to the airport also tells me there were some big problems.

    SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC: I was watching TV last night and they reviewed the stories of the Hanoi evacuations where a couple of planes departed grossly over loaded...I'm sure that the runways were nice and long, but I doubt the pilots could run any weight numbers to have a clue of what their weight and takeoff run would be...(and a little gunfire here and there for good measure).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #10
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    1. Absolutely, a 727 departing from a 6000 ft runway would have to be a great show...
    Not as great as Eastern 727s going in and out of EYW (4,800ft).

  11. #11
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Not as great as Eastern 727s going in and out of EYW (4,800ft).
    I can only imagine...(or try it on MSFS).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  12. #12
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    As per this picture, the aircraft has a missing flap at the right wing (see inside the red square)
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  13. #13
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    As per this picture, the aircraft has a missing flap at the right wing (see inside the red square)
    Well, this might very well explain the right bank after lift off that 3WE was asking about...

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  14. #14
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Well, this might very well explain the right bank after lift off that Evan was asking about...
    But I was also wondering why the seemingly deliberate turn to the right when the wise thing would be to first accelerate and then climb (and retract flaps if possible). Perhaps uncommanded?

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Well, this might very well explain the right bank after lift off that 3WE was asking about...
    Looking at the video, it doesn't look like the fence directly ripped off the flap, but it could have damaged it to the point that it ripped off later. It is also hard to tell from the video, but it looks like there might have been a bit of terrain (small trees) on the right side right after the fence, but I can't quite see it from the video.

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But I was also wondering why the seemingly deliberate turn to the right when the wise thing would be to first accelerate and then climb (and retract flaps if possible). Perhaps uncommanded?
    Perhaps the pilots here could chime in. I'm guessing that the at lower speed, or while turning, the plane would have been harder to control with a missing flap like that? I also imagine landing an overloaded fully fueled plane on a short runway without flaps deployed would also be a challenge?

  17. #17
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But I was also wondering why the seemingly deliberate turn to the right when the wise thing would be to first accelerate and then climb (and retract flaps if possible). Perhaps uncommanded?
    Yes, the aircraft is "spiraling" to the right. now we know why he is spiraling to the right, there is more lift on the left wing, and zero lift on the right wing. A very catastrophic situation.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  18. #18
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Yes, the aircraft is "spiraling" to the right. now we know why he is spiraling to the right, there is more lift on the left wing, and zero lift on the right wing. A very catastrophic situation.
    At the very end, yes, perhaps an accelerated stall, but following the first turn he appears to be holding altitude for about half a minute, so I don't see how that can be a wing stall. Asymmetrical lift perhaps.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But I was also wondering why the seemingly deliberate turn to the right when the wise thing would be to first accelerate and then climb (and retract flaps if possible). Perhaps uncommanded?
    That was my point. The missing flap my have banked the plane without pilot's intervention. In fact, that's what it WILL do unless we have pilot (corrective) intervention, and we don;t know who good would the roll authority be at these slow speeds/ high AoA, to counteract a huge panel of triple-slotted fowler flaps (acknowledged, with a relatively short moment arm compared with the high-speed ailerons, roll spoilers and slow-speed ailerons). Another point is that it is very likely that this damage would have also damaged a couple of hydraulic systems (those serving this flap section) and rendered the whole flaps off service, and impossible to retract (because, as minimum, flaps asymmetry).

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  20. #20
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,724

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    Looking at the video, it doesn't look like the fence directly ripped off the flap, but it could have damaged it to the point that it ripped off later. It is also hard to tell from the video, but it looks like there might have been a bit of terrain (small trees) on the right side right after the fence, but I can't quite see it from the video.
    I have heard comments that the plane my have hit a small brick construction (shed?) which reportedly can be seen in other "successful" zero-margin take-off videos of this plane at this runway, and that this might have torn the flaps as well as caused other damage.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •