Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Report - Kalitta Crash In BRU Due To Bird, Crew?  
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3918 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A Belgian newspaper says the interim report on the May 25 crash of a Kalitta 747-200 at BRU pinpoints both the ingestion of a bird in engine #3 and the pilot's decision to abort take-off after V1 had been reached as the causes of the crash.

The Belgian investigation agency that produced the report says the CVR recorded a loud noise about 4 seconds after V1 was reached, and procedures to abort take-off were engaged two seconds after the loud noise. From DNA analysis of organic materials found inside engine #3, bird experts have concluded that the engine ingested a kestrel.

Also mentioned in the report is that the crew of the 747-200 was well experienced, with the pilot having 15,000 flight hours, with 3,000 on type and that the crew had indeed requested the use of the full length of the runway but began their take-off roll 300 meters off.

What the report does not say, but what I ask (rhetorical question, if you will) is, since take-off was aborted after V1, is it fair to characterize the accident as pilot error subsequent to bird ingestion ?


I've got $h*t to do
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6342 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Thread starter):
What the report does not say, but what I ask (rhetorical question, if you will) is, since take-off was aborted after V1, is it fair to characterize the accident as pilot error subsequent to bird ingestion ?

It depends.
If, for some reason, he judged that there was a catastrophic concern with becoming airborne (engine on fire, high vibes, who knows what), then he may have made the decision that it was a less risky idea to abort than to commit.
Having read this, it was clearly a very tricky situation. Have the crew interviews been released? I believe they all survived, right?


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3918 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6277 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
It depends.

Excellent point, had completely forgotten that, it's better to crash on the ground than to crash after being airborne just because V1 has been reached.

And yes, all 4 crews and one pax survived.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6243 times:

V1 normally means that the aircraft can no longer stop on the remaining runway; it also is the speed at which takeoff can be safely accomplished after failure of the most critical engine. Unless the engine is on fire and cannot be extinguished, or there is structural damage, I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be preferable to abort a takeoff after passing V1. I would tend to do that, and do a quick return even if I was over max landing weight (which would do less damage to the airplane than running into a ravine. That is not to say that there are no such circumstances, but if so I am ignorant of them. If the engine was on fire I do not believe that they could have determined that they couldn't extinguish it in the time it took to decide to abort. But I was not on the flight deck, so I am just speculating. It is fortunate that all survived, and that is the most important thing.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6230 times:

how often do pilots deal with bird strikes, outside of the sim? Is it something that you can go a whole career without dealing with, or is it one of those every few years things?

User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7552 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6002 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Thread starter):
, since take-off was aborted after V1, is it fair to characterize the accident as pilot error subsequent to bird ingestion ?

A crucial piece of information missing from the report was the level of bird activity / bird flocks on the airport / runway at the time of the accident.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
, I cannot conceive of a situation where it would be preferable to abort a takeoff after passing V1.

Right after this accident occured, one of our Gulfstream pilots who flew many other aircraft in his career including cargo DC-10s told me that he wondered if the aircraft suffered a bird strike and the pilot thought more impacts in other engines were highly probable if he tried to takeoff.

This Gulfstream pilot told me then that the main reason he would ride an aircraft off the runway with a post V-1 abort was in the event of bird strikes with more expected, especially if taking off in a heavily populated area like Brussels.


User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1064 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Remember, the pilot is the one that is flying the aircraft. He or She has only seconds to make a decision and hopefully it is the right one.  old 

User currently offlineWingnutMN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 637 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5975 times:

V1 doesn't always mean you no longer have adaquate runway remaining to stop. At max V1, you no longer have runway to abort. We often take off on runways that are 9, 10, 11 or more thousand feet long, and are nowhere near max v1 for rotation/takeoff aborting. That is why we are alloud to flex takeoff. Meaning we can takeoff without using max power. Our goal is to takeoff at around 85% N1, with max power at around 98% N1.

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5695 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
This Gulfstream pilot told me then that the main reason he would ride an aircraft off the runway with a post V-1 abort was in the event of bird strikes with more expected, especially if taking off in a heavily populated area like Brussels.

Excellent point; I hadn't thought of that.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4912 posts, RR: 43
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 5499 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
A crucial piece of information missing from the report was the level of bird activity / bird flocks on the airport / runway at the time of the accident.

This is the main point.

If you have a face full of birds, and red lights in the cockpit with the Engineer announcing one (at least) power loss, it would be a tough decision to continue regardless of the speed.

V1 is more of a capability speed. Below it, you know the aircraft can stop within the confines of the runway, above it, you know the aircraft can fly. It does not mean the decision is cast in stone because of the speed.

If the Captain decides in the millisecond that he has, that the aircraft could not fly, then it is his/her decision to abort the take off. It is very easy however, six months later, when looking at the data, and running probability models to make the decision that the aircraft could have flown!



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 5457 times:



Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 4):
how often do pilots deal with bird strikes, outside of the sim? Is it something that you can go a whole career without dealing with, or is it one of those every few years things?

Minor issues... nearly every year... Serious like this, you hope never....

In the spring and fall I see bird strikes all the time on the Maint. side.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 5406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting BlueFlyer (Thread starter):
bird experts have concluded that the engine ingested a kestrel.

One single kestrel can scupper a Boeing 747? That's insane.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 5379 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):
One single kestrel can scupper a Boeing 747? That's insane.

Well, one apparently can kill a 747 engine. If the pilot thought it likely that they would encounter more, then his decision to abort makes sense.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3918 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5351 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here is the actual report of events (facts).
http://www.mobilit.fgov.be/data/aero/AA-2008-13.pdf

Apparently, not everything announced in the press release made it into the report (don't know why). Here's the article (in French) about the report and the press release, but the only major difference is that the report speaks of a loud bang occurring after V1 without explaining what that bang is, which the press release does.
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/belgi...e-le-crash-2008-12-22-676222.shtml



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
Well, one apparently can kill a 747 engine.

Exactly, which surprises me greatly. They are not big birds.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5268 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
Exactly, which surprises me greatly. They are not big birds.

I was not sure about how big a kestrel is, so I looked it up. You're right; I'm surprised that one can kill a 747 engine. But the real question remains; was there a large flock in the area, and thus the fear of ingesting more valid? Of course, the flight crew had only a split second to make the decision, so any second guessing must bear that into account.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 15):
was there a large flock in the area, and thus the fear of ingesting more valid?

I would doubt it - I believe kestrels do not flock and tend to be fairly solitary.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5063 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 16):

I would doubt it - I believe kestrels do not flock and tend to be fairly solitary.

That's true; I don't think any raptors flock. But of course it's doubtful that the pilot was able to identify what kind of bird his plane just swallowed.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7688 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5033 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 17):
That's true; I don't think any raptors flock. But of course it's doubtful that the pilot was able to identify what kind of bird his plane just swallowed.

 rotfl 

He clearly wasn't paying enough attention then! He should have had the other pilot whip out the binoculars, scan the airfield for more birds and then identify them in the bird book always kept in the flight deck. Then, having identified the bird, and held a discussion about whether raptors flock, and then decided whether to reject the takeoff. Whoops, he's already crashed.....!



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineFlying Belgian From Belgium, joined Jun 2001, 2390 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Reports talk of an aborted take-off, SIX seconds after V1 was called...


FB.



Life is great at 41.000 feet...
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3078 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

I did an engine change on a B737-200 years ago...It suffered a bird strike on take off that caused 1 engine to shut down.....The aircraft came back and on inspection we figure that 2 more birds( found 2 heads on the CSD oil cooler) went through the other engine as well....

Birds like to hang out in FLOCKS.....that is why they can be so dangerous and how "one" strike can lead to loss of an aircraft....

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineLHRspotter From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4682 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 8):
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 5):
This Gulfstream pilot told me then that the main reason he would ride an aircraft off the runway with a post V-1 abort was in the event of bird strikes with more expected, especially if taking off in a heavily populated area like Brussels.

Excellent point; I hadn't thought of that.

Sometimes it does look like there is a very thin line between poor airmanship and great airmanship...


User currently offlineSWISSER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3805 times:



Quoting Nwarooster (Reply 6):
Remember, the pilot is the one that is flying the aircraft. He or She has only seconds to make a decision and hopefully it is the right one.

Not good enough, they got payed serious money NOT to make the wrong decision, and should be properly qualified and trained to get this situation right.

Power loss during a T/O is a recurring event in the sim, at least 6 months ago they must have practiced another one.

Also Boeing 747 manuals suggest that you should really consider an RTO as a final resort in the most serious conditions, even before V1.
Now we know why Boeing says that for years I guess.

100% fault of the crew!
The Belgian press is funny, it's all the fault of the Kestrel it seems!


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1610 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3762 times:

When I was learning to fly at the airline in Switzerland we were always told that a rejected T/O after V1 should only be accomplished under the most extreme and unusual of circumstances and were shown pictures of airplanes where it had been attempted. A loss of power in one engine of a four engine aircraft is not extreme or unusual. It is something that is practiced all the time in training.

Not having been part of the crew, nor having read the report, I can't pass judgement on what happened. But rejecting a T/O a full 6 seconds after V1 is not appropriate under most circumstances.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6821 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3687 times:



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 23):
Not having been part of the crew, nor having read the report, I can't pass judgement on what happened. But rejecting a T/O a full 6 seconds after V1 is not appropriate under most circumstances.

My feelings are the same; however the point made by RFields5421 about it being a heavily populated area is quite valid. If you think you might crash, better do it on the airport where collateral damage will be minimal rather than wipe out a bunch of houses. But still, with one engine out and no large flock of birds around my inclination would be to get airborne and return for an emergency landing. We don't even know that the flight crew knew it was a bird that caused the problem in the first place; all they knew is that something went wrong with one engine. They did have four of the things.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 Saab2000 : And that's the whole point of having more than one engine. Rejecting a T/O after V1 because of a failure of one engine on a four engine aircraft is a
26 IFlyATA : 6 seconds after V1, I would imagine was nearly at Vr (if not starting to rotate at the moment it occurred?)...and probably a few seconds after would h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Crew No Longer Stays In Toronto Due To Sars posted Fri Apr 25 2003 03:37:24 by FLYYUL
SQ1 SFO-HKG Refuelling In TPE Due To Head Winds posted Thu Dec 28 2006 10:44:00 by Jlk
Big Changes In Aviation Due To Aircraft Accidents? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:55:08 by JAM747
Air Crashes Due To Poor Crew Communication (HELP) posted Mon Nov 27 2006 15:24:34 by NZ747
Rnwys 31L/R In Use Due To High Winds At DFW posted Wed Nov 15 2006 23:21:47 by N659AA
Asiana To Reduce Some Flights In Aug Due To Strike posted Sat Jul 30 2005 03:25:02 by HeeseokKoo
Adjustments In Loads Due To Extreme Heat posted Wed Jul 20 2005 13:47:00 by LTBEWR
Runway 9 Closed In BOS Due To Birdstrike posted Thu Oct 21 2004 20:53:30 by Iowaman
Ground Stop In MSP Due To "vip Movement" posted Fri Jul 16 2004 22:53:41 by Ezycrew
NWA55: Diversion Due To Flight Crew Discretion posted Sun Dec 14 2003 04:46:55 by Pilottim747