Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: Cargo airplane collapsed in Kyrgyzstan

  1. #1
    Member ErezS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Ra'anana, Israel
    Posts
    340

    Default ''MyCargo" 747-400F airplane TC-MCL crashed in Kyrgyzstan

    Bishkek, Jan. 16 / Kabar /. Cargo airplane collapsed in Kyrgyzstan due to poor visibility because of thick mist, the sources of Manas airport told Kabar Agency.
    The airplane Boeing 747, the flight # 6491 heading to Bishkek from Hong Kong collapsed outskirts of the capital city of Kyrgyzstan on Monday early morning. the plane was to be landed at 7.20 am at Manas airport, the source said.


    http://kabar.kg/eng/society/full/18035

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/TK6491?src=hash

    Very sad news.


    More updates about the crash with photos:

    This was the flight: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/f...k6491/#c2d9d64

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	276472.jpg 
Views:	87 
Size:	83.0 KB 
ID:	7086

    This was the airplane:
    TC-MCL: http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos....-MCL&view=true

    Turkish cargo plane crashes nearby Manas airport

    16/01/17 05:39, Bishkek – 24.kg news agency,

    Turkish cargo plane crashed when approaching to landing today at about 7.10 a.m. close to Manas airport.

    According to preliminary information, the cargo aircraft did not reach the runway.

    http://www.eng.24.kg/incidents/183715-news24.html
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TH6491.jpg 
Views:	103 
Size:	43.8 KB 
ID:	7084   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	TH6491_B.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	196.4 KB 
ID:	7085  
    Last edited by ErezS; 01-16-2017 at 05:42 AM. Reason: More info.

  2. #2
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ErezS View Post
    ...According to preliminary information, the cargo aircraft did not reach the runway...
    According to AvHerald, the plane crashed BEYOND the runway after failing to climb in a go-around attempt.

    IF true, my unsubstantiated parlour speculation would want to know about potential icing, or a significant systems problem.

    ...or it could just be an old fashioned botched approach/go-around in hard IMC.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,165

    Default

    First Question: Did the aircraft actually touch down on the runway?
    Second Question: Did the crew attempt an automatic go-around after touching down without manually advancing the thrust and adding pitch?
    Third Question: Was this autoland? Did the crew attempt to abandon an autoland approach after ROLLOUT capture without manual pitch input?
    Fourth Question: Was the aircraft ever below 5' RA long enough to inhibit the GA switches?

    The last-moment go-around pitfalls of the 747-400 are in many ways similar to those of the 777. Emirates Flight 521 comes to mind...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,165

    Default

    From a statement from ACT Airlines:

    Captain has a total of 10,821 flight hours of which 833 hours are on B744. Our First Officer has a total of 5910 flight hours of which 1771 hours are on B744.
    And how many go-arounds on the B747? That's not much on-type experience, and it leads me to speculate...

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    11

    Default

    approximately 37 died including 20 natives. In this crash, the plane deviated from the runway due to heavy fog and resulted in colliding with the village houses near airport.

  6. #6
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...Did the crew attempt an automatic go-around after touching down without manually advancing the thrust and adding pitch...
    Oh, the ironing.

    ...and you wonder why I worry that fundamental knowledge might sometimes times suffer at the expense of multiple, situationally-specific, insidious, cryptic procedures (when not all pilots are International Super Geniuses)...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  7. #7
    Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Bishkek can be challenging when the weather is good! Not the best controllers in the world, BIG ass mountains close to the airport and then there is the QFE QNH thing.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    Bishkek can be challenging when the weather is good! Not the best controllers in the world, BIG ass mountains close to the airport and then there is the QFE QNH thing.
    Apparently they managed to climb during the go-around but then they lost speed.
    Speculation around the web ranges from load shift during GA to forgetting to set GA thrust to icing.

    --- 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 Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    First Question: Did the aircraft actually touch down on the runway?
    Apparently not.

    Fourth Question: Was the aircraft ever below 5' RA long enough to inhibit the GA switches?
    Apparently not.

    --- 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 ---

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Oh, the ironing.

    ...and you wonder why I worry that fundamental knowledge might sometimes times suffer at the expense of multiple, situationally-specific, insidious, cryptic procedures (when not all pilots are International Super Geniuses)...
    What? What's wrong with the automatic manual go around? Next thing you'll tell me that you never heard of the automatic manual gearbox.

    --- 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 ---

  11. #11
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hugh View Post
    In this crash, the plane deviated from the runway due to heavy fog and resulted in colliding with the village houses near airport.
    1- What does it mean the plane deviated due to the heavy fog? Was the heavy fog pushing hard or what? Makes no sense.
    2- In any event, it doesn't seem to be what happened. The plane crashed AFTER the runway (not before it) after starting a go-around.

    --- 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 ---

  12. #12
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    ...What's wrong with the automatic manual go around?...
    On this very forum (Aviation safety), I seem to recall one ATL-Crew and Boeing Bobby both stating that they sort of liked to "just manually go around", as 1) the fundamentals vs. procedures were pretty straight forward and 2) that it gave you one serious-ass dose of situational awareness...(not their exact words, but my interpretation of what they said).

    You need to monitor the instruments & general situation in both cases, but the word "need" is maybe a couple of magnitudes different in it's importance?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    On this very forum (Aviation safety), I seem to recall one ATL-Crew and Boeing Bobby both stating that they sort of liked to "just manually go around", as 1) the fundamentals vs. procedures were pretty straight forward and 2) that it gave you one serious-ass dose of situational awareness...(not their exact words, but my interpretation of what they said).

    You need to monitor the instruments & general situation in both cases, but the word "need" is maybe a couple of magnitudes different in it's importance?
    ....and yet, history has shown us that the too forceful application of thrust and/or the too aggressive application of pitch tends to bring about the same tragic results.

    At the risk of stating what has been stated a million times already, under autoflight, the automation is there to fly the plane and the pilot is there to make sure it does that correctly, monitoring the situation and jumping in when needed. You don't hit the GA switches and flip open a comic book. The crew of Emirates Flight 521 should have seen (as required by procedure) that there was no thrust response and advanced it manually. That's basic airmanship in the modern world.

    What we do know is that this crew probably had little or no real-world experience with go-around from low altitude in the B747. Maybe it was load shift or ice-related but that factor is weighing my speculation toward pilot error.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    93

    Default

    [Apparently this was either the 2nd or 3rd landing attempt.

    Attached isa photo of the a/c about a week ago (CREDIT: Kelvin Jahae - https://www.flickr.com/photos/100099...7/32113413202/)Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ACT_Airlines_Boeing_747-412F_(TC-MCL)_11_January_2017.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	107.2 KB 
ID:	7087

  15. #15
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by obmot View Post
    [Apparently this was either the 2nd or 3rd landing attempt.
    Source?

  16. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Source?
    You want a source? Uh sure no problemo. In short...

    The original source of my comment yesterday was . . .
    http://avherald.com/h?article=4a38d07d&opt=0

    …which has since been updated removing that remark regarding second landing attempt. Now, because I think I hear people already madly typing a flame out at me...this is the background and why it was likely an errant report.

    Apparently, a ground witness to the crash said to a Russian reporter "The pilot tried to make a second landing attempt but failed to climb."

    SOURCE: para4 @
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/car...ead-2017-01-16

    That witness comment/quote was interpreted (rightfully so) to mean the pilot was making a second landing attempt – based on his words “the pilot tried to make a second landing attempt.” This witness quote was picked up by various outlets such as Av. Herald, NTV, and others and was disseminated accordingly on the 15th/16th See, e.g.:

    SOURCE: way down towards end of article...
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/262317...pital-crash-37

    SOURCE: para5
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/2017011...o-plane-crash/

    SOURCE:: para4
    http://nypost.com/2017/01/16/dozens-...zstan-airport/

    [NB: the date (17th)shown on the SUN article reflects the last updated date, not first publication date].

    These reportings even made it to the Wiki on Flight 6491 as pilots crashed on 2nd landing attempt – in the Jan 16th version.

    SOURCE: Flight 6491 WikiL earlier version
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=760484565

    You’ll note that Wiki sources a comment from Deputy Prime Minister Muhammetkaly Abulgaziyev, who said the plane had tried to land twice.

    ADDITIONAL SOURCE re: Dep. Prime Minister comments…
    http://www.ibtimes.com/kyrgyzstan-ca...ishkek-2475853

    That’s about when I popped into the picture with my OP, though hesitated by saying ‘apparently’ . . . which was fully reasonable given the eyewitness comment which was seemingly backed up by a gov’t spokesperson.

    Now, I hear typing again – “plane crash witnesses are like the worst ever, you shouldn’t have remarked based on that!”

    Indeed, we all know witnesses of any type (plane crash or otherwise) are generally pretty lousy. However his comment wasn’t the sort of witness statement we are used to hearing, you all know the type:

    “omg the wings fell off then I saw a huge massive explosion when it was up high which I heard before it happened yet after it hit the ground with the wings afire but very clearly attached – it was wobbling and the engine was making an odd sound, I’ve never seen anything like this before!”

    His statement was more of ‘this was his second attempt’ sort of thing which was matter of fact – and as a matter of fact – later echoed by the Dep. Prime Minister (as noted).

    And we also know all too well ‘the media’ sucks in lots of reporting - not just plane crashes but regular stuff like 'email' - but yes plane crashes are definitely not their forte. The thing to do seems to be pump out/regurgitate whatever can be found in order to get a clickable headline with the least possible effort or knowledge or (gasp!) research. Heck, look no further than a huge chunk of our population that - through some slick marketing and some tragically bad ‘reporting’ - has come to believe that deleting emails is some sort of crime. And it’s like totally not. But anyway…

    …the media also isn’t really to blame on this kerfuffle either. So where did it all go so very, very wrong? STELLLLLA!!

    Well the witness was in fact correct, but what he said while fully accurate was interpreted (it seems!) differently by the media (and me) because of his use of English that while accurate was ‘different’ than how it’s perceived by English speakers.

    Because he said ‘the pilot was making his second landing attempt’ meaning that the 1st attempt didn’t land so he was ‘going for try #2’ or ‘second landing attempt’ which is, after all, true. But his words as used it appears were construed as the pilot was in the act of actually commencing his 2nd landing, vs. what the witness was really saying – the pilot crashed while at the very start of his second landing attempt (i.e., the go around which failed).

    Happily, AV Herald and most media outlets today (early this AM) seem to have realized the mistake in interpreting the witness (who knows, maybe the Dep. Prime Minister misspoke based on this too?) and corrections are already rolling out.

    SOURCE: current Flight 6491 Wiki

    “At 7:31 a.m. local time on 16 January 2017, the aircraft impacted the ground, near the end of runway 26 at Manas International Airport, amid thick fog.[4] Initially, it was reported that the plane had crashed during a second landing attempt.[5] Kyrgyz authorities later stated that the plane had crashed on its first landing attempt.[6]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkis...es_Flight_6491

    The MarketWatch article in fact notes this small nuance in verbiage and interpretation – both of which were in and of themselves correct, but for folks not realizing what 2nd landing attempt meant to the witness, which was ‘pilot crashed while initiating go-around as part of his 2nd landing attempt’

    QUOTE “The pilot [didn’t succeed in landing attempt #1 and thus] tried to make a second landing attempt but failed to climb [out on the go-around from failed landing #1].”

    It was just an innocent misunderstanding – witness and media were just looking at things from different perspective. I got caught in the middle – at least according to multiple sources.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,882

    Default

    UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/0550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG
    UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/0300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG


    That's some thick soup...sad crash and horrible that so many on the ground perished

  18. #18
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    5,654

    Default

    On Feb 8th 2017 information sent out to Russian Flight Crew (see the attached graphics of the flight trajectory below) became known stating, that the aircraft was conducting a CATII ILS Approach to Bishkek's runway 26, the crew however did not monitor their altitude, the aircraft passed the final approach fix 650 feet above the glideslope, therefore no glideslope capture occurred and the aircraft continued to descend to 3400 feet at 200 KIAS and levelled off at 3400 feet (Autopilot Modes: LOC CAP and ALT HOLD), the glideslope deviation indicator showed a full scale down deflection. About 0.8nm before the runway threshold the aircraft passed through the false glideslope (9 degrees) resulting in valid glideslope deviation indications for about one second, the autopilot changed to G/S CAP (Capture) mode and the aircraft began to descend, the glideslope deviation indicator returned to a full scale down deflection. The crew did not detect that it was not possible to descend to the runway from 3400 feet (runway elevation at 2055 feet) within 0.8nm, did not cross check their approach trajectory nor did the crew notice the full scale down deflection of the glideslope deviation indicator. The aircraft thus descended parallel to and above the actual glideslope. At 100 feet radio altitude the captain called for a go-around due to lack of visual references, TOGA was activated at 52 feet radio altitude, the aircraft however touched down 900 meters past the runway end and 60 meters to the right of the extended runway center line, broke through a concrete fence, bounced and fell into the village about 1000 meters past the runway end, following the impact at the concrete wall the aircraft began to break up and spilled fuel which resulted in a fire. All crew and 37 people in the village lost their lifes, 8 villagers were seriously injured.
    http://avherald.com/h?article=4a38d07d&opt=0

    --- 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 ---

  19. #19
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Aha. The old false glideslope routine. And the old not flying the plane routine. Where do they get these guys...

  20. #20
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Aha. The old false glideslope routine. And the old not flying the plane routine. Where do they get these guys...
    Are you saying that the glideslope should always be captured from below?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

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