Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aerosucre B-727 crash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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).

    Comment


    • #3

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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 ---

          Comment


          • #6
            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).

            Comment


            • #7
              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...

              Comment


              • #8
                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 ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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)....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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 ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X