747 reported down near Bishkek

LAXintl · Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:51 am

ACT Airlines 747-400F registered TC-MCL disappeared from radar near Bishkek Kyrgyzstan at 0445am local

Aircraft with 4 crew members was enroute from Hong Kong.

In Turkish -
http://www.kokpit.aero/act-747-dustu

=

787 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:12 am

At least 16 dead in crash of ACT 747 cargo plane near Bishkek, according to Kyrgyzstan government.

pilotfox · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:15 am

Link to a brief news article on it.

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

http://www.eng.24.kg/incidents/183715-news24.html (Pictures from the crash site)

TK787 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:33 am

RIP to all that lost their lives. Was this the frame that was leased by TK for 6 months?

LAXintl · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:37 am

TK787 wrote:
RIP to all that lost their lives. Was this the frame that was leased by TK for 6 months?

Yes chartered by TK

TK787 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:39 am

Thanks LAXintl, looking at flightradar this flight is usually flown by a 332F, was this flight a one off, of just an equipment change?

ikolkyo · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:42 am

Images and video here

http://zanoza.kg/doc/350851_pod_bishkek ... _foto.html

LAXintl · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:07 am

TK787 wrote:
Thanks LAXintl, looking at flightradar this flight is usually flown by a 332F, was this flight a one off, of just an equipment change?

The lease with TK only began a few days ago - January 11th. This frame used to operate for Qatar Airways.

D L X · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:11 am

Damn. Crashed into houses.

ikolkyo · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:20 am

Reports say it may have hit 15-28 houses, absolutely terrible.

LH648 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:21 am

At least 28 people dead on the ground + 4 crew.

rj777 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:28 am

That looks pretty bad!

VS4ever · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:29 am

reliant on google for the translation, but this is interesting from the link posted by ikolyko above
"10.10. Muhammetkaly Abulgazi reported details. He said the plane - 350 meters in length, the width - 70 m. He was able to sit up, but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."

RIP to all those who died in this accident

LH648 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:31 am

VS4ever wrote:
but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."

What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.

beeweel15 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:56 am

Read there was one survivor from the crew. RIP to the Crew members and those on the ground.

LH648 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:20 am

More photos and updated chronicle in Russian: http://zanoza.kg/doc/350851_pod_bishkek ... _foto.html

At least 34 people reported dead at the moment

NearMiss · Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:22 am

Looks like it couldn't get off the ground. Tragic.

RIP to all crew members and victims on the ground.

kaitak · Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:27 am

Here's a report from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38633526

TC-MCL is a fourteen year old machine (almost to the day) and started its career with SIA Cargo as 9V-SFL.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... T-Airlines

b747400erf · Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:37 am

This is just a tech stop, no loading of cargo, correct? RIP to the victims.

Byron1976 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:37 am

RIP to the victims. Is it confirmed was a T/O crash/overrun?

cpthtg · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:23 am

To me, looking at the latest METAR, requiered RVR for the Ils 26 is 720 meters. Actual report : 550 meters, not to mention the temperature correction for temp -9 degrees, and the high elevation. In other words, if the aircraft was on the approach for the Ils 26 he busted the minimums. He should not have flown the appraoch at all. (approach ban)

b747400erf · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:26 am

cpthtg wrote:
To me, looking at the latest METAR, requiered RVR for the Ils 26 is 720 meters. Actual report : 550 meters, not to mention the temperature correction for temp -9 degrees, and the high elevation. In other words, if the aircraft was on the approach for the Ils 26 he busted the minimums. He should not have flown the appraoch at all. (approach ban)

Good points. small off topic, you created an account so long ago! But your first post is today?? super lurker.

F9Animal · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:36 am

beeweel15 wrote:
Read there was one survivor from the crew. RIP to the Crew members and those on the ground.

That would be a miracle if anyone on that plane survived. I am confused though. Someone stated it made a technical stop? Was it having any mechanical issues? Did they need to stop for fuel? I would think that plane had the range to make it non stop.

76er · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:44 am

For freighters a fuel stop is quite common on Asia to Europe routes.

helmat · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:45 am

cpthtg wrote:
To me, looking at the latest METAR, requiered RVR for the Ils 26 is 720 meters. Actual report : 550 meters, not to mention the temperature correction for temp -9 degrees, and the high elevation. In other words, if the aircraft was on the approach for the Ils 26 he busted the minimums. He should not have flown the appraoch at all. (approach ban)

You are mixing up meteological visibility and RVR - runway visual range. The RVR can be quite a bit more than the visibility reported in the METAR.
With the lights turned up you can easily get 720m RVR with 500m reported visibility.

Edit: I've just found the reports for the time of the crash.
UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG
I this case I take everything back. RVR reported was 550m with only 150m visibility.

KTPAFlyer · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:50 am

LH648 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."

What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.

I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.

mafaky · Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:54 am

kaitak wrote:
Here's a report from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38633526

TC-MCL is a fourteen year old machine (almost to the day) and started its career with SIA Cargo as 9V-SFL.

https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... T-Airlines

Well, I don't want to be the devil's advocate, but this frame's history looks a bit strange / unusual to me:

1) It started flying for SQ Cargo, as a factory-fresh frame (original cargo plane, not converted!...): late Feb 2003 till Jan 2009; for 6 years.
2) Then, apparently it as returned to the (unknown) lessor. But, especially for a factory-fresh cargo plane, isn't this utilisation of only 6 years (and for an airline like SQ) too short?
3) Later, as far as I can see, this plane never flew for any commercial flights for a period of 6+ more years... Isn't that also unusual for a young cargo frame? Nobody wanted to lease it?
4) Finally it was leased by ACT/Turkey in late 2015, flew for QR Cargo during 2016 or almost a year (but definitely not for 12 months) until it was freed from QR Cargo services. It as wet-leased to TK starting 11th Jan. 2017; just a couple of days ago. (BTW: TK is wet leasing another ACT 747F frame,: the TC-ACJ which is a much older frame around 25.5yo, since 27.10.2016...)

:?:

BestWestern · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:00 am

2009 = World financial crisis. Lots of capacity taken out of the market.

richcam427 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:29 am

Well, that sucks. Interested to know what in the hell happened though.

b747400erf · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:36 am

F9Animal wrote:
beeweel15 wrote:
Read there was one survivor from the crew. RIP to the Crew members and those on the ground.

That would be a miracle if anyone on that plane survived. I am confused though. Someone stated it made a technical stop? Was it having any mechanical issues? Did they need to stop for fuel? I would think that plane had the range to make it non stop.

Going out heavy from Asia most freighters take a tech stop flying into the jet streams. Almaty, Krasnodar are the most popular.

76er · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:38 am

helmat wrote:
UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG

Well, if Wikipedia is correct UCFM approach capability is only CAT2, which is cutting it pretty close. Putting it mildly..

Edit: I've looked it up, CAT2 approach minimums are 100ft RA and 350m RVR at Bishkek.

BiggerJetsPlz · Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:59 am

mafaky wrote:
Well, I don't want to be the devil's advocate, but this frame's history looks a bit strange / unusual to me:

1) It started flying for SQ Cargo, as a factory-fresh frame (original cargo plane, not converted!...): late Feb 2003 till Jan 2009; for 6 years.
2) Then, apparently it as returned to the (unknown) lessor. But, especially for a factory-fresh cargo plane, isn't this utilisation of only 6 years (and for an airline like SQ) too short?
3) Later, as far as I can see, this plane never flew for any commercial flights for a period of 6+ more years... Isn't that also unusual for a young cargo frame? Nobody wanted to lease it?
4) Finally it was leased by ACT/Turkey in late 2015, flew for QR Cargo during 2016 or almost a year (but definitely not for 12 months) until it was freed from QR Cargo services. It as wet-leased to TK starting 11th Jan. 2017; just a couple of days ago. (BTW: TK is wet leasing another ACT 747F frame,: the TC-ACJ which is a much older frame around 25.5yo, since 27.10.2016...)

Looks like it flew 2003-2009, then went back into service 2010-2013, and then to ACT end of 2015. About 10 1/2 years of service. Still pretty young.

frigatebird · Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:28 am

KTPAFlyer wrote:
LH648 wrote:
VS4ever wrote:
but he flew the runway, took down the fence and fell onto the garden."

What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.

I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.

I know it's way too early, but still to speculate:
Landing half way the runway and running out of tarmac, like the AF358 A340 crash at YYZ?
Or perhaps more like EK521 773 crash at DXB, a botched go-around?

Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.

fraspotter · Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:01 am

frigatebird wrote:
KTPAFlyer wrote:
LH648 wrote:
What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.

I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.

I know it's way too early, but still to speculate:
Landing half way the runway and running out of tarmac, like the AF358 A340 crash at YYZ?
Or perhaps more like EK521 773 crash at DXB, a botched go-around?

Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.

I saw the same flight path route on FR24 and I think that it is a default path of sorts that is simply pointing to the blue bubble icon that signifies Manas Intl Airport not that it is actually the path flown by the aircraft. If the plane did indeed crash into houses then it was clearly off airport property and not in the middle of the runway like FR24 shows. FR24 has weird defaults in cases like this since crashes are far from normal occurances. Clearly the flight wasn't "cancelled" like the arrivals board on FR24 would like you to believe.

andrej · Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:10 am

Horrible news. RIP.

76er wrote:
helmat wrote:
UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG

Well, if Wikipedia is correct UCFM approach capability is only CAT2, which is cutting it pretty close. Putting it mildly..

Edit: I've looked it up, CAT2 approach minimums are 100ft RA and 350m RVR at Bishkek.

Question for those in the know...does this mean that at 0100Z pilot could land on RWY26 utilizing ILS CAT2 and at 0130Z it would not be legal to land? Assuming that at or before 100' RA pilot would make a 'visual contact' with RWY?

Thanks!
Andrej

theaviator380 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:13 am

Very tragic, RIP all who died the crash. Some pictures on daily mail are heart breaking. Especially the one showing kid's little play scooter in the shattered home. One of the kid had gone to school got back to see his house and possibly parents have been killed...what a trauma

richcam427 · Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:22 am

frigatebird wrote:
KTPAFlyer wrote:
LH648 wrote:
What correlates with FR24 data: last recorded point is in the middle of the runway.

I'm a bit confused, how can it be an overrun if the last point was the middle of the runway? Please excuse my naïveness, I might be missing something obvious here.

I know it's way too early, but still to speculate:
Landing half way the runway and running out of tarmac, like the AF358 A340 crash at YYZ?
Or perhaps more like EK521 773 crash at DXB, a botched go-around?

Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.

Many places have little to no regard for safety when it comes to buildings within the proximity of an airport. Also, in many cases a village predates a nearby airport by many years, and you can't exactly just bulldoze an entire village.

helmat · Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:01 am

andrej wrote:
Horrible news. RIP.

76er wrote:
helmat wrote:
UCFM 160100Z VRB01MPS 0050 R26/300N FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1023 R26/19//60 NOSIG
UCFM 160130Z VRB01MPS 0150 R26/550 FZFG VV001 M09/M10 Q1024 R26/19//60 NOSIG

Well, if Wikipedia is correct UCFM approach capability is only CAT2, which is cutting it pretty close. Putting it mildly..

Edit: I've looked it up, CAT2 approach minimums are 100ft RA and 350m RVR at Bishkek.

Question for those in the know...does this mean that at 0100Z pilot could land on RWY26 utilizing ILS CAT2 and at 0130Z it would not be legal to land? Assuming that at or before 100' RA pilot would make a 'visual contact' with RWY?

Thanks!
Andrej

That depends on the RVR reported at time the aircraft was cleared for the approach. The RVR measurements often change quite frequently, the reported values are 30min apart so it's possible that the values were better (or worse) in between.
The value has to be the minimum required RVR when you are cleared for the approach and as long as you are outside of the outer marker. So if you have, in this case, 350m minimum RVR and tower calls you outside of the marker that RVR now is 250m you would have to go around and discontinue the approach. As soon you are inside the outer marker you can continue whatever values are being reported to you.

KarelXWB · Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:03 am

The graphic below shows where the 747 crashed:

https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status/820895578406129664

JasonWX · Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:12 am

Another thing to note in the METAR is the FZFG, freezing fog. It could have also caused the runway to be slick for landing aircraft.

CARST · Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:32 am

frigatebird wrote:
Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.

Tell that to Chicago Midway airport... or many, many airports worldwide. About every major city in this world has airports directly in the city center or surrounded by houses, where a crash directly after takeoff or on a go-around would probably impact these.

JFK:

LGA:

MIA:

LAX (at least to/from the East):

HND:

LCY:

TXL:

The list could go on forever. And we all know that you don't need houses directly behind the runway fence for an aircraft to crash into these, just look at El-Al 1862 or Colgan Air 3407 and many other crashes. And we just can't rebuild all airports worldwide to place them in uninhabitated territory. As long as we need air travel as we know it today, we have to live with these "risks", which are really, really small, if everythig is done to regulations. I would wait for the results of this crash here, because I am quite confident something wasn't done to regulations here...

frigatebird · Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:19 am

CARST wrote:
frigatebird wrote:
Sadly in this case not ending up in a creek like the AF or on the runway like the EK bird. Why on Earth people are allowed to live in houses just beyond the runway is really incomprehensible. I know the people living there often don't have a choice, but still.

Tell that to Chicago Midway airport... or many, many airports worldwide. About every major city in this world has airports directly in the city center or surrounded by houses, where a crash directly after takeoff or on a go-around would probably impact these.

The list could go on forever. And we all know that you don't need houses directly behind the runway fence for an aircraft to crash into these, just look at El-Al 1862 or Colgan Air 3407 and many other crashes. And we just can't rebuild all airports worldwide to place them in uninhabitated territory. As long as we need air travel as we know it today, we have to live with these "risks", which are really, really small, if everythig is done to regulations. I would wait for the results of this crash here, because I am quite confident something wasn't done to regulations here...

Thank you. Your point is very clear. My response was a bit impulsive. My thought after reading the first eye witness reports was that there were houses directly after the fencing. The graphic posted by Karel shows it is not the case here, and probably aircraft will usually bank tot he left after take off.

Indeed the chances of an aircraft hitting houses is not very high, and cannot be totally avoided.

andrej · Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:41 am

helmat wrote:

That depends on the RVR reported at time the aircraft was cleared for the approach. The RVR measurements often change quite frequently, the reported values are 30min apart so it's possible that the values were better (or worse) in between.
The value has to be the minimum required RVR when you are cleared for the approach and as long as you are outside of the outer marker. So if you have, in this case, 350m minimum RVR and tower calls you outside of the marker that RVR now is 250m you would have to go around and discontinue the approach. As soon you are inside the outer marker you can continue whatever values are being reported to you.

Thanks for the clarification. I have not realized that Outer Marker plays such a crucial role in the approach.

Cheers,
Andrej

flyingturtle · Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:42 am

When I saw the picture of the damaged cockpit resting next to a house, my first thought was... huh, a movie set... for which upcoming film? Only then I came to a.nut and learned about the crash.

It's sad to lose another 747 - and all these human lives. :frown:

David

Armodeen · Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:38 pm

Very sorry to hear of this accident, my condolences to all the victims.

GianiDC · Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:30 pm

Wow. Such news can easily ruin ones day. Just terrible. Those pictures are just surreal. RIP to all the victims.

What is the procedure during a go around? All I know as a layman is that you descent till your decision altitude then if you need to go around you press TOGA wait till the thrust is set and climb out again.

BirdBrain · Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:39 pm

RIP to those lost in this tragedy. Thoughts with all those affected. Not a good start to the year but hopefully no more accidents after this.

RalXWB · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:04 pm

RIP to all those who perished :hissyfit:

peterinlisbon · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:34 pm

I looks to me like they descended below minimums and tried to land, realised they weren't going to make it and then tried to go around but hit the fence and then the houses.

Cunard · Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:42 pm

'Not a good start to the year but hopefully no more accidents after this'

It's ONLY 15 January 2017 so I wouldn't count on that.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net