Accident at Halifax

ptc · Post by **ptc** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:51 am

Cargo plane crashes at Halifax airport
Last Updated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:40:50 EDT
HALIFAX - A Boeing 747 cargo plane with seven crew members has crashed off the end of a runway at Halifax Airport, RCMP said on Thursday.

The MK Airlines jet, which had been loaded with tractors and seafood, crashed as it was taking off, ending up in a rock quarry.

The airport is closed as fire departments and emergency crews rush to the scene.

There is no word on casualties.

Taxi drivers taking passengers to the airport had reported being turned back, saying all they had been told was that there was some sort of incident.

The airport is about 35 kilometres from the city's downtown.

No other details are available.

Written by CBC News Online staff

Flying Timer · Post by **Flying Timer** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:24 am

http://novascotia.cbc.ca/regional/servl ... sh20041014

bb lint · Post by **bb lint** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:50 am

Just heard confirmation that there were no survivors, very sad. Condolences to family, friends, colleagues.

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:22 am

That stuff isnt supposed to happen in Halifax......

Awful scene, heard some eyewitness accounts.

very sad

Murph · Post by **Murph** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:53 am

Any idea to the cause? i heard on the news they fueled and took on quite a bit more cargo in halifax

Guido · Post by **Guido** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:22 am

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, Oct. 14 (UPI) -- A Boeing 747 cargo
plane crashed on takeoff at Halifax airport early Thursday, killing
the seven crew aboard, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., reported.
The 20-year-old MK Airlines aircraft ended up in a rock
quarry with debris extending into a wooded are past the end of
runway 6 around 3:50 a.m. Atlantic time.
The unidentified crew were from Zimbabwe, South Africa and
Britain.
The flight was carrying tractors and general cargo, and had
stopped in Halifax from Bradley, N.Y., to pick up a load of seafood
before heading to Zaragosa, Spain.
The plane also refueled, and was carrying some 50,000
gallons of fuel for the trans-Atlantic flight. Because of that, it
took firefighters some three hours to bring the fire under control.
There were unconfirmed reports the plane's tail struck the
runway while it was lifting off, and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police said it's not known for sure if the plane ever managed to get
off the ground.
The airport, about 20 miles outside Halifax, was shut down
and the electricity turned off for three hours. Full operations
resumed five hours after the crash.

My condolences to the families of the crew, and may the crew always have blue skies wherever they are now. RIP

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:31 am

CBC is now reporting some sort of catastrophic failure of the tail section....the article on the cbc website said the tail seemed to have snapped off?

'The tail of the MK Airlines jet appears to have snapped off as the plane, loaded with lawn tractors, lobster, fish and 200,000 litres of fuel, tried to lift off at around 3:50 a.m. local time.' from cbc

East Coaster · Post by **East Coaster** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:53 pm

Could this happen with severe over-rotation?

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm

http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/st ... 8037ae0554

Condolences to the families and godspeed the crewmembers.

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:23 pm

Cambo wrote:Could this happen with severe over-rotation?

that's what i was wondering.

it's all conjecture 'til someone who knows what they're talking about investigates, however...

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:47 pm

We were in there today and word was that they had a tail strike in the vicinity of the departure end threshold lighting. Not much to see...just a media circus. Very eerie. Very sad.
Ramp manager there told me that a fueller was busy fuelling a CargoJet 727 and saw the plane pass by on the take-off roll. Obviously thought nothing of it, until they "...heard the boom and saw the glow".

scubasteve · Post by **scubasteve** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:47 pm

CBC news tonight mentioned that someone saw it take off from partway down the runway and not from the numbers...Dont know the length of Halifax's runway, my out of date CFS says 8800' which is plenty long but probably not for a fully loaded 747. Too many questions and not enogh answers yet.

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:39 pm

Just adding my 2 cent worth here but I'm happy to see the restraint from folks on this forum. Nobody has made the typically bold move of solving the cause of the accident before the investigators.

Just keep in mind that the media is very good at propogating false facts and rumours. It wasn't until this evening that they finally got the part of the story straight about where the 747 came from before arriving in YHZ. The flight originated from KBDL which is Bradley Field in Hartford, Connecticut. So far I have heard/read the press state such stupid things as the plane came from New York and even Bradley, New York...which doesn't even exist!

Don't believe everything you read until it comes from a reliable (read: non sensationalist) source. The CASB will eventually find out what went wrong.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:01 pm

Apparently the RCMP is saying there is the possibly of a criminal investigation. No details.

boeingboy · Post by **boeingboy** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:29 pm

That's normal for any aircraft accident.

While I'm in no way trying to "solve" this - it is unusual that the tail section was left far from the rest of the aircraft.

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:14 am

As far as the over rotation question, I know Boing intentionally over rotated the 747 many times in development.

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:38 am

My cousin lives in Zimbabwae and was friends with 6 of the 7 that were killed.

Contact · Post by **Contact** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:54 am

Read an article from a British newpaper this morning that said it appeared that the 747 departed from Delta Intersection on Rwy 24, That will only leave them approx 6000 ft...But again its from a media source.

This aircraft has been using YHZ as a cargo and Fuel Hub for the last 18 months, I was always trying to get a look at her, but the arrival was always to late for me to catch.

Condolences to the families and friends of the crew.

East Coaster · Post by **East Coaster** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:46 am

There should have been someone in the tower. They would've had the best view. Why havn't we heard from them, or a person that would have given take-off clearance?

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:03 am

CAMBO, the TSB investigators most certainly talked to the tower people and would pull the tower tapes, useally the individual wouldnt come out to make a statement untill deamed neccasery and then it would come through a spokesperson at NavCanada. But I doubt we will ever hear from a controller untill the TSB report comes out

snapped · Post by **snapped** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:03 am

My guess they have been told to keep there mouth shut until more facts have come to light.

golden hawk · Post by **golden hawk** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:13 am

Linecrew - I agree. Good Post. Let's let the investigation occur - could me any number of factors.

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:42 pm

Question:

Can you back track any further than the intersection of 15/33 and 06/24 at YHZ when using 24?

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:00 pm

snapped wrote:My guess they have been told to keep there mouth shut until more facts have come to light.

EVERYTHING we say, see, and hear at work is considered confidential. Information may only be released by NC employees to specific people and is vetted through upper management. I doubt you'll ever hear anything directly from the controller(s) involved, other than what comes out in the TSB report. Their union representative may make a statement to the press, but I would assume it would be of the "our member acted in a professional manner and followed their Manual of Operations to the letter" type of statement. At least I would hope so.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:09 pm

CAL

The normal taxi would have been G-F-Rwy15 holding short of Rwy 24. Depending upon your weight most heavy departures would request a backtrack to the button of 24. At that time of morning it is quite possible that they would be allowed to backtrack down the full length of the active if so requested. The width of the runway would not pose a problem unless it was ice covered which it wasn't. Since I wasn't there I have no idea what happened although I'm sure the investigators have a pretty good idea if it was a taxi error by now as they already possess the tower tapes.