|Jan 12, 2010, 03:54 PM|
Air France 747 aborts take off and has wheels catch fire at Lagos Nigeria
Air France 747 aborts take off and has wheels catch fire at Lagos Nigeria
Just had my friend who was on the plane skype me to say he wasnt amused about the whole thing
Now he is stuck in five star hotel free for the night as they fix the plane
best I can tell from him as he s a frequent flyer but not a real plane buff is that the nose of the 747 with 350 passengers en route to Paris from lagos nigeria was in the air and then they went into full abort tak off mode
The wheels and brakes caught fire and they all evacuated the plane he didnt mention any injuries but i got the impression that the passengers were mostly mad as hell with the pilot
His lap top didnt have any more power and cut off so I cant get to contact him before he leaves Lagos Nigeria tonight either on another plane or when the plane is fixxed
Any ideas what could cause a abort mode so late into take off.
No explanation was offered to passengers
|Jan 12, 2010, 04:15 PM|
|Jan 12, 2010, 04:26 PM|
If they had rotated (V1 speed) they would have continued the take-off, come around and landed - or -they'll be meeting with their Chief Pilot, followed up by some retraining.
|Jan 12, 2010, 04:32 PM|
My friends words they pancaked the plane onto the ground which suggests the nose wheel when the reverse engine or brakes or both went on made the nose hit the ground mega hard .
He said it took half an hour to put the fire out on the wheels
I hope this isnt one of those computer glitchs where when the pilot flips a switch like engage auto pilot the computer throws a wobbly and shuts down the planes engines or similar
|Jan 12, 2010, 04:45 PM|
Not to be conspiratorial, but I wonder if Air France has missle detection systems?
|Jan 12, 2010, 05:01 PM|
not sure what good anti missile detection could do or how it would work
I looked on the net to see if there was anything
saw nothing about this on the net
however saw this
Its about a Air India plane with a training checker in the rear jump seat for some whaco test reason pulls the plugs on the copits landing systems to see how the pilot would cope with a copit of failing equipment 4000 feet up in hilly terrain while in landing mode with a plane full of passengers
The pilot takes over and manualy land s the plane but not before setting off all sorts of alarms for exceeding several paramiters over hilly terrain while in landing mode .
Man sometimes you have to wonder what these guys are smoking
|Jan 12, 2010, 05:22 PM|
My friends beeen in Nigeria for weeks to get away from the cold of europe
So he wasnt on that plane as that plane was coming to Nigeria
Or it could be this Air France plane is a mess and and is the faulty towers of the avaition world and makes a mess of everything it does like the take off from lagos
Or maybe all Air France planes this week are smoking something
I have sent my friend a email and telling him I think they are doing a airline cover up of some sort and the 5 star hotel is the sweetner to keep them from figuring out something
I told him change to another airline and sue them for the inconvience and anything else that might be wrong
Best I can see they should all have been sent to hosptial to see if there was any injuries a high speed stopping can inflict injuries that take days or weeks to show up
here (www.irlgov.ie/tec/ aaui) is a example of airline crash report where the victims were not infrormed the planes nose gear was subjected to maybe as much as 2,5g of force and the plane was so damaged it was replaced the next day with another plane and passengers were never given medical advise
the lenths airliners go to cover up
Here is a typical case encountered where a plane made a severly hard landing and failed to inform the autoritys and even removed data
They bent the nose and bulkheads and damaged the wind sensors and only by chance was the case discovered
This represents out of some good few I have located to date the typical disregard airlines show for passengers
below text only copy condensed to highlights
for full report go to www.irlgov.ie/tec/ aaui
sorce of information
Dept of public entiprise
Air Acident Investigation Unit
AAIU Report No. 2001-005
AAIU File No. 19990080
Name of Operator: Royal Jordanian Airlines
Place of Accident: Shannon Airport, Ireland
Year of Manufacturer: 1991
Date/Time : 16.09 hrs UTC; 27 December 1999
While landing in Shannon, the aircraft bounced and landed heavily on the nose wheel, causing extensive damage to the forward fuselage frames in the nose wheel area.
The Jordanian CAA appointed an Accredited Representative, Mr Shukri Absi, who assisted the AAIU in this investigation.
1. FACTUAL INFORMATION
1.1 History of the Flight
The aircraft, operating as flight number Royal Jordanian RJ 263 was on a regular scheduled public transport flight from Amman-Jordan, to Shannon-Ireland, thereafter routing onwards to Chicago. The F/O was the designated handling pilot (PF) for the Amman-Shannon sector. The aircraft conducted a right hand approach to Runway 06 at Shannon. During the descent to 3,000 ft, ATC gave the aircraft a right turn onto 030°, to intercept the localiser for Runway 06. This instruction was accepted by the Pilot-In-Command (PIC). At 3000 ft., the leading edge slats were set to 15° and flaps were at 0°. Engine power setting was 62% N1. ATC then informed the aircraft that they were 10 miles from touch-down. The F/O pointed out “very red WX radar Active CB activity to the left” (of their flight path). The PIC then informed ATC that he wanted to go on a right heading of 040°. ATC informed the aircraft “I won’t be able to intercept you from that heading. Let me know when you can take a vector for the approach”. PIC answered “No problem we just take a break to the left and intercept, just give me thirty seconds ”. ATC replied “OK”. At this point the PIC took the controls and manually flew the aircraft to intercept the ILS.
Engine power was then reduced to approx 30% and a right turn was made onto a heading of 055°, and the ILS was captured. At 2,600 ft., the leading edge slats and flaps were extended to 20°. During the descent from 3,000 ft to 2,100 ft the vertical load factor fluctuated between 0.8 and 1.15 g, and lateral loads fluctuated between 0.035 and 0.02 g. These fluctuations were consistent with air turbulence. The glide slope was not correctly maintained during this period.
At 2,300 ft the undercarriage was lowered, power increased briefly to 47% and pitch attitude was increased. The power was then reduced to 30%.
At 1,900 ft, the slats were extended to 25° and flaps to 40°. Fluctuations of vertical G increased from 0.75G to 1.25G while lateral loads were 0.055G to 0.085G. There were significant aileron and rudder inputs. At about 300 ft power was increased to 64%, and was then varied between 72% and 56% for the remainder of the approach. The speed increased, reaching 156 kts (Vref +20 kts) when the aircraft was at 60 ft. Between 350 ft and 60 ft, the rate of descent was approximately 965 ft/minute. The vertical accelerations reduced slightly during this phase to a range of 0.75G to 1.1G and the lateral accelerations ranged from -0.05G to 0.05G. The aircraft pitch oscillated between 0.5° and 4°, finally stabilising between 2° and 2.5°. The heading of 055° was maintained, and the aircraft systems recorded a wind of 320° at 10 kts.
In the later stages of the approach, at a radio altimeter indication just above 300 ft, approximately 30 seconds before the initial touch-on, the auto call alert called “Glide Slope” three times.
Between 60 ft and the ground the rate of descent was approximately 500 ft/minute. Engine power was increased from 56 % to 62% N1. The flare was initiated at an altitude of about 18 ft. as indicated by a change in elevator deflection. During the flare the pitch increased from 2.5° to 5.5°. Just before touch down, the aircraft rolled 5° left. This was countered by a right aileron input, which resulted in a 3° right wing down attitude. 4° of left rudder were also applied at about the point of touchdown. The aircraft touched on at 4.5° pitch, at 146 kts (Vref +10) initially on the right main leg with 3° right roll and 58% N1. A vertical load factor of 1.9 G and lateral load factor of 0.32 (sideslip to the right) was recorded during the touch down.
The aircraft then bounced on both main wheels. The ground spoilers, which had opened on the initial touchdown, retracted. While airborne during this bounce the throttles were briefly advanced and an elevator input of 9° nose down was made. The aircraft pitch angle decreased from 5.5° at a rate of 6°/sec. The aircraft then landed on the nose wheel, with a nose pitch-down rate still of 6°/sec., and an aircraft pitch angle of 3° to 4° nose-down. A vertical load of 1.65 G and lateral load of 0.195 G was recorded at this point. The main gear then came into ground contact and a vertical acceleration of 1.36 G was recorded.
At this point the ground spoilers deployed, the pitch attitude increased to 2.5°, an elevator nose down input of 11° was made and the aircraft bounced again. During in this second bounce, it is probable that the main undercarriage reached full extension of the shock absorbers and that the aircraft did not become airborne again. However due to the pitch attitude of 2.5°, the nose wheel was airborne. The aircraft then “landed” again and a vertical load of 1.5 G was recorded. An elevator nose down input of 14° was made during this bounce and the nose wheel made ground contact again, recording 1.2G.
With all three undercarriage legs on the ground, thrust reversers were selected and the aircraft stopped normally. During the rollout the crew reported to ATC that they experienced wind shear at touchdown.
The aircraft then cleared the runway. As the aircraft approached the stand, the crew had a further discussion with ATC and stated that they experienced a variable head wind of 47 kts at touchdown.
At 19.50 hrs, the staff of the company that was responsible for handling the aircraft at Shannon reported to Shannon ATC that the aircraft would be overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel. This was the only communication concerning possible damage on heavy landing, received by ATC. Shannon ATC then informed the AAIU that the aircraft was overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel.
When ATC reported the event to the AAIU, it was initially regarded as a minor incident, as it was understood that only a nose wheel (tyre) required to be changed.
In the course of another unrelated investigation in Shannon on 5 January, the AAIU looked at the A310, and noted considerable external damage to the nose area of the aircraft. Because of the extent of the damage observed an investigation was then launched.
1.2 Injuries to Persons
There were a total of 198 crew and passengers on the flight. No injuries were reported
1.3 Damage to the aircraft
The aircraft suffered considerable distortion of the main fuselage frames immediately aft of the nose leg, in the lower half of the fuselage. These frames are numbered 17 and 18. Distortion of the frame inner flanges was of the order of a few centimetres. Bending was also noted on Frames 13 to 16A. The frame damage was between stringers 44 and 30. There was also damage to the stringers and aircraft skin in this area.
Temporary repairs, including fitting of reinforcing straps to the fuselage, were completed by Airbus specialists at Shannon over the subsequent weeks. The aircraft was then flown, gear-down, to the Airbus facility at Toulouse for extensive repairs.
|Jan 12, 2010, 07:27 PM|
V2 is rotation speed
|Jan 12, 2010, 08:17 PM|
Joined Aug 2005
|Jan 12, 2010, 09:10 PM|
Thanks you confirmed my hazy memory on the details
Then it would seem that if the 747 had it nose in the air they were at Vr speed of rotataion and would be well past the normal V1 point and should have gone for commit to fly
The decsion to abort at Vr and then skid to stop is not the norm then
I suspect speed of rotation is ~120mph to ~150mph
I take it with the reverse thrusters and the spoilers and the brakes and possibly the fact that Lagos airport has big runway and good dry surface and the luck was with them the result wasnt as bad as could have normally been
My friend used the word pancaked the plane so mabey he means that some of the landing gear is bent backwards or at the least the front of the planes nose gear had collapsed and set the nose down so maybe he means the plane is sitting on the runnway or over run the runway
Possibly the plane over ran the runway and then the burst tyres cut deep groves in the ground so it looks like the plane is sitting in the ground
I will keep to try to contact him and see whats the story.
Whats the bets thier gonna cover this up with some third world airline just happened to buy the plane 24 hours before this and it was no longer a Air France plane and then it gets stripped down and the hull is sold off for scrap metal and there was never a Air France crash
I suspect that the French intelegence had rigged with the CIA and Nigerian intelegence another 911 event with this plane so they could go and invade Nigeria or Yemen in another false flag operation as to many twigged the underwear bomber was a CIA patsy and the french pilot not wanting to be a dead pilot twigged the story and pulled the brakes so to speak on the whole thing
Better a period in retraining than be in a radio controled 747 missile you cant get control of as it goes for it s target in France
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Mini-Review Power Failure at take off problem with Lanyu Cessna 747-1||Windbird||Electric Plane Talk||0||Sep 06, 2009 02:42 PM|
|Discussion How fast HET F-18 need to go to take off on Wheels?||jascamera||Electric Ducted Fan Jet Talk||6||Jan 04, 2007 03:54 AM|
|Take off, cruise and (catch) landing - Lake Natoma, Northern, CA||CactusJackSlade||Aerial Photography||2||Sep 06, 2005 11:54 PM|
|Li-Poly, catch fire, fire guts garage!!!!||CWallace||Batteries and Chargers||42||Nov 28, 2002 05:30 PM|