A firefighter walks past a large section of a Boeing 747-200 cargo plane owned by British-based MK Airlines at the Halifax International Airport. (CP/Andrew Vaughan)
Posted on 10/14/2004 7:50:25 AM PDT by NorthOf45
No survivors in Halifax plane crash
Seven crew confirmed dead
Mike Tutton
Canadian Press
October 14, 2004
A firefighter walks past a large section of a Boeing 747-200 cargo plane owned by British-based MK Airlines at the Halifax International Airport. (CP/Andrew Vaughan)
CREDIT: MK Airlines The MK Airlines plane that crashed during takeoff was a Boeing 747, similar to the one shown here.
HALIFAX -- A loaded cargo jet bound for Spain with seven crew members aboard crashed into woods at the end of a runway at Halifax International Airport early Thursday after its tail snapped off during takeoff.
Police are confirming there are no survivors of the crash. Some human remains have been recovered from the crash site at the end of the runway.
Earlier, the fate of the crew wasn't known, but a spokesman for MK Airlines of Britain said the situation looked grim given the fact the crash created a huge fireball in the pre-dawn sky.
"I understand from our people on the ground in Halifax that there may be no survivors,'' Steve Anderson said in an interview from Sussex, England.
"The aircraft basically didn't take off. She continued her rotation and ran off the runway and ran into woods.''
There didn't appear to be any casualities on the ground as there are no homes in the area.
The tail of the jet lay in a field at the end of the runway and inside the fence surrounding the large airport property.
The rest of the plane cut a wide, V-shaped swath through woods and brush and came to rest in pieces about a kilometre away.
The tops of several trees and power poles were sheered off. The jet's severed wings lay in the brush, which was still burning in places several hours later.
A mangled engine and a charred portion of fuselage lay nearby.
"It's very devastating,'' firefighter Mike Larue said as he stood about 300 metres from the smouldering fuselage.
"It's surreal, is what it is. It's reality, but it's surreal for sure.''
Police also said it was unlikely anyone on the aircraft could have survived.
"Right now we can confirm that there are believed to be no survivors as a result of the downed airplane,'' said RCMP Const. Joe Taplin.
The Boeing 747-200 crashed shortly before 4 a.m. local time near an industrial park and quarry about 30 kilometres north of Halifax.
Pictures from the scene showed an orange glow in the sky. It took about 60 firefighters and 20 trucks about three hours to control a fire caused by burning jet fuel on the ground.
Meanwhile, the crash forced the airport to close for several hours. Power was temporarily knocked out, but flights resumed on one runway later in the morning.
The plane's crew are either from the United Kingdom, South Africa or Zimbabwe, Anderson said.
Aside from the usual three-person crew in the cockpit, the plane was also carrying a loadmaster and a spare crew.
The weather at the time of the crash was good with a partly cloudy sky and light winds.
The huge aircraft, which stopped in Halifax to refuel, was loaded with lawn tractors and 53,000 kilograms of lobster and fish bound for Zaragosa, Spain.
Witness Peter Lewis was dropping off his wife at the airport and saw two explosions.
"As we were approaching we saw what I thought was heat lightning,'' he told radio station CJCH. "That was only a quick one followed by a second one that was bigger. And then we saw a very bright orange light - and I mean bright. It took up the whole sky.''
The MK Airlines spokesman said the company had never had problems with this particular aircraft.
"She's been an absolute gem,'' Anderson said, noting the aircraft had been in service for about six years. He also said the company has been flying out of Halifax for the past 18 months.
The crash was the fourth for the cargo company in 12 years and the second involving fatalities. All three previous crashes were in Nigeria.
In 2001, one crew member was killed when a 747 went down about 700 metres short of the runway.
In 1996, a McDonnell Douglas DC-8F-55 struck trees during approach. There were no fatalities.
In 1992, a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 crashed and caught fire, also during final approach.
The information on the previous crashes is listed on a website for the Aviation Safety Network, an independent aviation safety watchdog.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada has assembled a team of investigators in Ottawa. The board is an independent agency that investigates transportation accidents and prepares incident reports.
The flight originated near Hartford, Conn., and the flight to Halifax was uneventful, Anderson said.
A pilot familiar with large planes said the tails of jets such as the 747 occasionally strike the ground during rotation - the point in the takeoff sequence when the pilot pulls back on the control stick, lifting the nose off the ground.
Large aircraft have so-called strike bars that protect the tail section when the pilot over-rotates and tail strikes the runway.
"It doesn't happen that often,'' said a pilot who didn't want his name used. "You can encounter turbulence right at rotation.''
While tail strikes are uncommon, pilots can recover from them, he said.
In Ottawa, federal Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said "my thoughts are with the families of the people involved in this tragic accident.''
Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd?
Air-freighting lawn tractors across the Atlantic Ocean? To Spain?
In October?
Isn't it fall there too? And wouldn't a container ship get them there at about 1/5th the shipping cost?
This sounds wierd to me.
(steely)
probably a very old 74 - lack of structural care plus heavy payload is my guess
One of the most dangerous of professions is professional pilot Far ahead of fatalities for police work or farm work, but not as high as commercial fisherman.
MK Airlines is Ghanian based. Don't know why this article refers to them as a UK airline.
Being a professional pilot I think you're mistaken as commercial aviation is extremely safe. I'll have to call your bluff on this one. Documentation please.
Was that a reply ... or an ad?
My comment on top with a snip from the company website of the airline involved in the crash.
Huh? Commercial aviation is incredibly safe. Please provide proof that being a commercial pilot is more dangerous than commercial fishing.
It was a Boeing 747-244B, built in 1980, c/n 22170/486.
Delivered to South African Airways 11/6/80 registered as ZS-SAR "Waterberg".
Delivered to GIA (Garuda Indonesia?) 11/11/92 registered as 3B-NAS.
Back to South African Airways 12/3/94 as ZS-SAR and converted to a freighter.
Delivered to MK Airlines 3/20/00 registered as 9G-MKJ.
So it was a 24-year-old airplane, but that's well within the life of a 747. Now, as to how well it was maintained for the four years it was with MK Airlines, we don't know.
Picture of the plane in the late 1980s flying for SAA: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/124428/L
Picture with SAA Cargo in 1998 at JFK: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/059506/L
Picture taken at Ostend, Belgium 28 February 2004: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/608711/L/
}:-)4 }:-)4
Delivered to MK Airlines 3/20/00 registered as 9G-MKJ.
Sounds like record keeping is not a strong point of this airline.
10-4
I'm gussing his stat includes crop dusters.
Looks like they overran the runway for some reason. Just about every crash like this turns out to be crew error.
There was also a report that the tail may have touched the runway sending off sparks.
I originally considered not responding because of the obnoxious tone of your post, but what the heck. I won't tell you that you're full of $hit and to go blow it our your A$$ and go look on google yourself, but I'll give you a reference instead. here at post number 17 Read it and see that you're wrong
Yeah, crago shift is another good possibility. Several crashes have been caused by cargo shifting on takeoff.
…
As military aviation transitions to and gains experience with UAV operations, it is also increasingly plausible that unpiloted flight will move into the commercial air transport arena. Routine transport flights are no more challenging than combat missions in terms of decision making and autonomy, so that it is reasonable to extrapolate that in the not too distant future, routine commercial flights could be automated.
But what about nonroutine events and emergencies? It is true that pilots with extraordinary skills have saved severely damaged aircraft. But less skilled pilots are responsible for the majority of aviation accidents.
In the history of commercial jet aviation, about 70 percent of accidents have involved crew error. As aircraft have become more mechanically reliable, one category of error, controlled flight into terrain (the pilot literally flying an airworthy airplane into the ground because of a lack of situational awareness) has become the leading single cause of fatal accidents.
Crew error implies that appropriate, established procedures were not followed. Thus, automation may not have to be as flexible as the very best pilots in all possible situations to maintain current standards of air safety, or even to improve upon them. Automated controls that do nothing more (or less) than reliably "follow the book" may result in a safer air fleet on average than we have now.
…
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/tribute_musings.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.