Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest 413X3

N571UP down in Dubai

Recommended Posts

The 744F has a good safety record, 2 casualties. Crew reported a fire in the cockpit after T/O but didn't make it back to OMDBAmazes me that a 747-400 can crash on/near a highway in a city yet get small coverage from the media beacause it's not flying pax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar thing happened when a 747-200F went down near stansted a number of years back, don't remember that getting much media coverage. It's so sad that this has happened and how happened, it can't have been easy for the crew to control the aircraft. My thoughts are with them and their loved ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I would add that the crew reported being unable to see there instruments on the flightdeck due to the smoke and requested ALT HDG and speed info from ATC before they crashed. sounds like a nighrmare scenario :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to the emergency vision equipment which was publicised after the Swissair MD-11 crash off Nova Scotia, Canada? It was supposed to allow the flight crew to see instruments or outside view regardless of smoke in the flight deck.Dugald Walker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are refering to EVAS, I think UPS does not have it on their 747's. That's what I gathered from another forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 413X3

I know Fedex has fire suppression on their fleet, it's time for UPS to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts go to the families of the crew. 744s or in fact most modern aircraft don't just set on fire in mid air. There has to have been something faulty in the circuits or electronics in the cockpit. Could this go down to an engineer error if infact it was caused by any of the electronics. 744s are quite safe. Maybe this is a sign for all airlines to install that emergency vision thing in there planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoughts go to the families of the crew. 744s or in fact most modern aircraft don't just set on fire in mid air. There has to have been something faulty in the circuits or electronics in the cockpit. Could this go down to an engineer error if infact it was caused by any of the electronics. 744s are quite safe. Maybe this is a sign for all airlines to install that emergency vision thing in there planes.
It's a Cargo aircraft, I think the first thing the investigators will ask is exactly what Hazmet was onboard the aircraft. These companys dont just transport consumer goods, especialy out of the Middle East. Like I said before it amazes me that a holiday Jet can have a birdstrike and it's front page news, A fully loaded 747-400 potentialy loaded with hazardous military or highly flamable Cargo narrorly misses buildings and crashes in a large city yet the latest cricket scandel is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 413X3

And only a few weeks after the Lufthansa Cargo MD-11F crash, most speculate that something in the cargo hold started a fire as well... All cargo planes should have fire suppression not only detection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, British airways get lots of attention for a short takeoff in a 777, but when a 747F crashes and crew members are killed it has next to none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 400F does have fire suppression, just not on the main deck where hand extinguishers are fitted. With only 2 crew aboard it was propably not possible for the F/O to leave the cockpit during the emergency. Thus the fire might have spread from the main deck and somehow smoke reached the flight deck although the ECS is designed to prevent this. This incident is unusual. A new aircraft and an almost flawless safety record of the type. It's the second plane to go down in the region in the very recent past. Maybe outsourcing the transport of military cargo is not such a good idea after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 413X3
Maybe outsourcing the transport of military cargo is not such a good idea after all.
Agreed, but I thought military charters were done by companies like Atlas Air, Southern Air, Kalitta, etc. This seems like just everyday packages shipped from that region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I admit that is speculation on my part.But after the Lufthansa accident in Saudi Arabia, rumors were all over the internet that dangerous chemicals and even weapons might have been aboard that MD11. It's not too far fetched in my opinion, that the military is contracting normal cargo operators in times of increased capacity needs. I am not much of an expert regarding the air cargo business, but I reckon the profit margin for military charters is considered high enough to justify the risk of such operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I admit that is speculation on my part.But after the Lufthansa accident in Saudi Arabia, rumors were all over the internet that dangerous chemicals and even weapons might have been aboard that MD11. It's not too far fetched in my opinion, that the military is contracting normal cargo operators in times of increased capacity needs. I am not much of an expert regarding the air cargo business, but I reckon the profit margin for military charters is considered high enough to justify the risk of such operations.
agree with this statement. Lets say the USAF wants to transport equipment chemicals guns whatever to a country like saudi arabia or Dubai, instead of using a big plane like a globey or a Galaxy with USAF written on the side it makes a bit of sense to contract a civilian Cargo operator like UPS or Lufthansa cargo, depending on who flys to the region, to transport it for them. But there are still a huge amount of risks:1. like the UPS 747 and Lufthansa MD-11 accidents something could go wrong2. Some smart arse could figure it out or info could be given to the country and passed on to the wrong people3. The crew could not be told what exactly is on board, they could be told they are transporting weapons and chemicals but they may not be told which chemicals or equipment putting them in danger. I do think something was a bit suspicious with the MD-11 inncident, i think that there was something there shouldnt have been on that Tri-jet and i think maybe it could be the Same for that 747. when will the governments learn that if a civilian A/C if transporting dangerous and hazardous things TELL THE CREW or WHOEVER WHAT EXACTLY IT IS AND WHAT COULD GO WRONG!!!!! or just take the risk and take your own planes, i know a C-17 pilot for the RAF who flys supplies into dangerous places and he said that he feels flying the Air forces own aircraft is safer than civilian A/C because there is less to suspect. this could be true.cheersR.I.P to all crew members who died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is assumption on my part as well, but I thought that there had to be some kind of dangerous cargo registry given to the flight crew/company? I would think it would be a large mistake on the part of the company to not make its customers disclose what contents are on board. The customer is not paying for them to risk the life of their crews, or aircraft damage/hull loss. Very unfortunate though that they lost their lives in this. I would hope it is not an aircraft problem as it is one of the last 747-400F's built from what I understand. Time will tell once they finish the investigation in a year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...