Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3702 posts, RR: 34 Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4057 times:
From 01 Oct 67 Canadian Pacific Airlines (CPA) wet-leased 707-138B N791SA from Standard Airways...until 07 Feb 68 when it was written-off after it was involved in a crash at YVR. As CPA was a DC-8 operator, the 707 would be the only one of its type to appear in CPA colors.
Why did CPA need the additional aircraft?
What route(s) did the 707 typically operate while in service with CPA?
How long was the lease to have lasted had the accident not occurred?
Thank you for any information that can be provided with regard to these questions!
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6231 posts, RR: 8 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3830 times:
In the 1/68 OAG a 707 leaves YVR at 1600 WeFrSu; the We trip goes MEX-LIM-EZE-LIM-MEX-YYC-YVR, the Fr goes MEX-LIM-SCL-EZE and back, the Su goes MEX-LIM-SCL and back.
If memory correct, it was to replace the lease of a DC-8-50 (coincidentally the very first DC-8 built) which ended in October 1967 when the DC-8's owner, Trans International Airlines sold it to DL. The wet-leased 707-138B arrived the same month. I believe the lease was due to last about one year, until some time in 1968 when the first 4 DC-8-63s were delivered. The 707 was flown by Standard Airways pilots but cabin crews were CP.
Quoting Tango-Bravo (Thread starter): What route(s) did the 707 typically operate while in service with CPA?
It was frequently used on YVR-HNL-YVR and was arriving from HNL the morning it was written off, fortunately with only two fatalities, a flight attendant and one person on the ground. It was very lucky as it came within a few feet of hitting a couple of overnighting AC DC-9s as it crossed the ramp before hitting a building that housed a radio repair company.
I lived in YVR then and drove out to the airport as soon as I heard the news about the crash on the radio and was able to get quite close to the aircraft where it came to rest. It was only 100 ft. or so from the the roadway passing the front of the old YVR terminal building (on the opposite side of the airport from the current terminal). The person killed on the ground was a security guard in a small guardhouse near the upper left hand corner of the ramp area.
I believe pilot fatigue was factor in that accident as the Standard Airways pilots had deadheaded from SEA to YVR, then flown as passengers on the outbound YVR-HNL flight, and then operated the return overnight HNL-YVR flight. The accident happened around 6 AM, in darkness and fog.
In the aerial photo below from a Vancouver newspaper item that day, showing it's route across the old YVR ramp, you can see how lucky it was not to have hit those AC DC-9s.
TymnBalewne From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 798 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3520 times:
Can someone give me a sequence of events here? i.e.
1. 707 landed (as expected) ?
2. Taxied off runway (as expected) ?
3. Pilot lost control of 707. ?
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what happened here.
Thanks!
Was it not the case at that time as well that CP were scrambling for capacity after the Haneda crash in 1966 ? Which I guess led to the TIA lease.
Yes, I think that was the primary reason for the DC-8 lease.
As a sidenote, following is the only photo I've been able to find of that historic first DC-8 built while it was with CP. It's unfortunate it couldn't have been saved for a museum after its last operator, Aeromexico, retired it in 1982. It spent over 2 decades in the desert before finally being scrapped around 2004.
In many ways it was almost as historic as the Boeing Dash-80, being the first of over 3,600 Douglas and McDonnell-Douglas commercial jets to fly on May 30, 1958 when it was a DC-8-10. It was later converted to a -50 with JT3D turbofans and used to certify that model, after which Douglas refurbished and sold it.
While with CP it was named "Empress of Santiago". It retained a few non-standard features from it's "prototype" days, including the flat-bottomed engine pylons from the JT3C turbojets which were needed for the different thrust reversers on those engines (also on the JT4A on the -20/-30 and R-R Conway on the -40). Production DC-8-50s (and -61s) had pylons that slanted up in a straight line from the rear of the engine to the wing since the JT3D with vane-type reversers that exited from the side of the engine nacelles lacked the sliding reverser housing of the -10 through -40.
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3140 posts, RR: 12 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3276 times:
I note that the 707 model in question was a -138B, which IIRC means it was one of the odd-ball LR versions built specifically for Qantas ("V-Jet"). Shortened body similar to a 720, I don't know if it had the wing glove near the fuselage
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18460 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3209 times:
Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 4): Can someone give me a sequence of events here? i.e.
1. 707 landed (as expected) ?
2. Taxied off runway (as expected) ?
3. Pilot lost control of 707. ?
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what happened here.
It veered off the runway out of control after a bad landing in almost zero visibility, careened across unpaved grassy areas and a taxiway, then across the main ramp, before burying its nose in a building. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19680207-0
Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 6): I note that the 707 model in question was a -138B, which IIRC means it was one of the odd-ball LR versions built specifically for Qantas ("V-Jet"). Shortened body similar to a 720, I don't know if it had the wing glove near the fuselage
It would have had the "wing glove" modification when it was converted by Boeing from the original turbojet -138 to a -138B with JT3D turbofans in 1961. Like other very early production 707s it was also built with the original short vertical tail which was extended by 3 feet (and a small ventral fin added below the fuselage) to correct certain stability problems (Dutch roll). That change was made as part of the conversion to a -138B.
It was the 3rd 707-138 built for QF but the 2nd delivered on July 9, 1959. It operated QF's first scheduled jet flight SYD-NAN-HNL-SFO on July 29, 1959. At that time QF was the only non-U.S. 707 operator (all other foreign customers waited for the -320 series). QF retired it in January 1967 and it was delivered to Standard Airways in April. Those 13 short-fuselage 707-138s didn't have a long career with QF. None lasted longer than 9 years and the last 2 delivered in 1964 were sold after less than 5 years. The first 7 were delivered as -138s and converted to -138B standards and the last 6 were built as -138Bs. They were sold as the more capable 707-338Cs were delivered.
Photos of the one involved in the CP accident below while with QF (registered VH-EBC). First photo as a -138 with original short tail and JT3C turbojets, taken at SYD July 29, 1959 just prior to departure of their inaugural 707 flight to SFO (note tail of one of their L1049G Super Connies at far left).
And at BNE as a -138B with the tail extension and ventral fin after an overhaul around 1962.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, RR: 76 Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3005 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
surely the photo with the two DC-9s is two images laid over one another?
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9321 posts, RR: 76 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Look closely at the photo, the nose gear skids through the nose of the far-left DC-9. So the picture was either taken after the ramp was back in service, or it is two photos laid over each other.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18460 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2830 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 10): Look closely at the photo, the nose gear skids through the nose of the far-left DC-9. So the picture was either taken after the ramp was back in service, or it is two photos laid over each other.
Probably the former. The DC-9 nearest the bottom of photo probably arrived after the accident. Not sure how long it took to remove the damaged aircraft.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2901 posts, RR: 16 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2711 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 10): Look closely at the photo, the nose gear skids through the nose of the far-left DC-9.
I don't think that's right. I see four separate tracks there, two of which are obviously the main landing gear. Then I see the track you're talking about, but in between those two sets of tracks I see another, which if anything is more pronounced and seems to connect better with where the front gear ended up than the track you're seeing by the DC-9. (For the track you're seeing to connect, the plane would have had to be traveling almost sideways, in which case the mlg tracks would be closer together.)
I think the track that intersects the nose of the DC-9 is either an old track on the pavement, or it's some artifact in the photo itself. I don't think that's the 707's nose gear track.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6231 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Agreed. Does Boeing's website show the gear-placement dimensions for the -138B? I'm guessing if you get them and draw a triangle on the pavement for the three gears it won't be possible to fit the vertices onto the two main-gear tracks and that mystery line.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3702 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 18460 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3140 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
