Funny, they state in the article that it was unknown whether or not the A/C
was carrying any cargo. Yet, if you look at the picture you can see a full
pallet of cargo between the cockpit and fuselage.
There's supposed to be streaming video at 6abc.com. That's a
Philadelphia TV station. I have dial-up so streaming video is glacial.
No fatalities. Some passengers have been treated and released already.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Given that it was non-fatal (and therefore non-gruesome), people will
be having a field day with all the photos, trying to make an exact
diorama of the event.
the article says no fatalities and there were 17 on board.
that is one tough aircraft, too. it kept it's people alive
despite and obviously very violent crash.
"Enzo Matrix" wrote in news:L6-dnYXjGuCrq6zZRVn-
snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:
When I saw the picture this morning on a hunch I said, no fatalities. I am
very pleased to see my hunch pay off. What a ride that must have been. They
should all go buy lottery tickets tonite.
Frank
I think they've already used up more than their share of good
luck for a while to come!
I read one account that said the aircraft's nose was unusually
high on approach and that the tail hit first - another report that
there was a problem with the number two engine makes me wonder if it
lost power and stalled just before touching down. IAC I'm amazed that
with a full load of fuel it didn't explode and burn.
What I heard on CNN, after many CNN repeats of the story with much
newscaster guessing, was that they had just taken off from Dover AFB and
the crew reported an in-flight emergency due to a flame out in one of
the engines. After requesting an emergency return and landing, they
apparently fell short of the runway. It was indeed fortunate that they
were flying slow and low at the time.
Yeah, like the civilian who was driving down the road (Rt.9, IIRC) along
the edge of the field. After he peed himself he called 9-1-1.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Generally C-5 don't take off with a 'full' fuel load. They meet a
tanker and top off. This helps keep the takeoff weight down and puts
less stress on the airframe.
My many years working C-5 logistics has me wondering why it crashed.
Many a time we had C-5s land with an engine out or some other
mechanical problem that forced it to sit taking up space until a
maintenence team could come in and do the repair, or it would leave
empty and ferry flight to a larger more equiped facility. Given the
location of the tail, I believe there is more that the investigation
will reveil.
I once participated in a crash investigation to look at the cargo, and
what role it might have played. Luckily everything was packed properly
and the pallets and nets worked as designed. No unrestraind or
shifting cargo occurred during the crash. Can't say the plane did as
well.
This accident reminds me of the first Vietnam war-time C-5 crash which
killed hundred of Amerasian orphans on their way to freedom. A manned
VC's SA-7 anti-aircraft missile shot it sown right at the vicinity of
Tan-Son-Nhat airport while it was taking-off. The rear crew door at the
fuselage below the tail blew off. Ironically, I was called on duty with
my platoon at that moment to search for the source of that missile. We
found it was fired on a small sampan anchored right below Saigon
New-Port bridge which was almost 8 miles away. This one is lucky enough
to be survived on board. Happy ending anyway.
Jimmy Tai Tang
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.