C-5 Galaxy Crash

[Bort]

Boy, what a huge mess...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/americas_enl_1144085581/img/1.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872720.stm
Thankfully no deaths. Looks from the way it came apart like structural failure.

[Kapitan]

Another one ?

[STEED]

Heck :o

[JetSnake]

* Bort]Boy, what a huge mess...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/americas_enl_1144085581/img/1.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4872720.stm
Thankfully no deaths. Looks from the way it came apart like structural failure.

The structures tend to fail when they make hard landings or crash. It didn't fail during flight my friend. Now maybe an engine or two did (fail))and they weren't able to keep it airborne.

[Bort]

Where'd the tail go? Thats my hypothesis on structural failure.

[Kapitan]

One engine yes but its still able to keep in the air.

And yes aircraft structures do fail in air plenty of examples 747 from honalulu to sydney part of the plane failed a boeing 737 top front area ripped right off.

Watch air crash investigation its real life and it is a good programme too.

[JetSnake]

I understand structures fail in the air and the airplane can fly, but tails falling off and the airplane still flying are unpossible, well flying under any control that is. And obviously this aircraft was in a controlled landing by the looks of it, it just broke apart at different places during its roll out. You can see where the airplane appears to have swung it nose to the right approximately 90 degrees from its landing path. Look at the upper left you can see debris.

[Kapitan]

How far from the airport was it and also when it failed it had to have been airborne.

90 degrees from the airport it would have been on the base leg ie about 3,000 feet 12 miles from the airport so when it failed again airborne.

Unless your telling me it ran off the runway?

[Oberon]

Does look a lot like a problem with the tail.
The nose and cockpit angle was definately created on impact.

Bit of a mess though, thank goodness no-one was hurt. :up:

[XabbaRus]

OK happened on take-off.
Helps if you read the read the article guys...
:up:

[Bort]

This Navy Times article has more info: http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1661761.php

[bradclark1]

I think it says a lot for the plane to come out of it like it did.

[Bort]

This report has more details about the plane involved, a recently upgraded C-5B.http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/NEWS/60403017
Also, three Lockheed employees were on board. :hmm:

[MadMike]

I was at Ramstein during Flugtag '88 and the C-5 crash two years later.
Cause of the Ramstein C-5 crash was thrust reversal activation (or so that's what was printed in Stars and Stripes (European edition of Pravda). Heard engine run up for takeoff followed by a very loud boom and the subsequent crash around 1:30 a.m (sounded like a few dozen garbage bins being thrown down the street). Don't even want to go into details about Flugtag :(
Otherwise the C-5 has a pretty good safety record.

Yours, Mike

[Kapitan]

What was the plane that was involved in that baby lift was it the C5?

It crashed not long after take off and killed most / all on board.

[Oberon]

Just read up on Flugtag...yes...I can see why you don't want to go into that, and I don't blame you at all :down: :cry:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

yep, the op baby lift crash back in Vietnam was a C-5... only casualties were the people on the cargo deck... same thing here pretty much... the aircrew in the cockpit deck (above the cargo deck) survived...

both were controlled flight into the ground, off the runway, incidents... the baby lift crash probably the result of enemy action (sabotage or surface to air hit)...

this one probably the result of pilots inability to maintain control and flight due to some sorta malfunction... judging from preliminary reports... but it's too early to say for sure...

from what i heard, the aircrew encountered problems and attempted a return to the field... airframe was not a factor, the broken bird is the result of the landing...

high wings and soft (relatively) landing area prevented fuel ignition, thank goodness...

--Mike