C5 Down near Dover AFB

[ScottM]

The AP is reporting a plane crash near Dover AFB involving a C5

C-5 cargo plane carrying 17 crashes at Dover Air Force Base


Published April 3, 2006, 7:15 AM CDT

DOVER, Del. -- A C-5 cargo plane carrying 17 people crashed near Dover Air Force base early Monday, state officials said. There was no immediate word on fatalities.

The plane, the military's largest, went down about 6:45 a.m., said Allen Metheny, assistant director in the state Department of Public Safety.

An Associated Press correspondent at the scene said the cockpit separated from the fuselage.

 

[MSmith]

CNN has a picture.

The plane is mostly intact, but the cockpit (and everything forward of the wing roots, it looks like) was separated and is sitting upright pointed 90 degrees left of the fuselage. The right wing is damaged at the tips and the empennage is missing from the picture.

 

[ScottM]

CNN has a picture.

The plane is mostly intact, but the cockpit (and everything forward of the wing roots, it looks like) was separated and is sitting upright pointed 90 degrees left of the fuselage. The right wing is damaged at the tips and the empennage is missing from the picture.

Wow!! But it looks very survivable. Any word on my they had declared an emergancy?

I am pretty sure the C5 has been flying for 30+years and I cannot remember another one that went down. I flew in one once, very smooth and spacious. The pax area is up top just behind the wing roots BTW. You can see one of the PAX door is open.

 

[MSmith]

There's an emergency chute deployed from the pax area on the left side.

 

[Dart]

Anybody notice a conspicuous lack of fire?

Do these things have self-sealing tanks or other military fire-prevention type stuf??? I mean there is hardly even spilled fuel staining visible in the excellent quality pic.

 

[ScottM]

Anybody notice a conspicuous lack of fire?

Do these things have self-sealing tanks or other military fire-prevention type stuf??? I mean there is hardly even spilled fuel staining visible in the excellent quality pic.

I know where your going with that.

There was this quote. And as usual it is early on in an aviation investigation so it could be complete and udder male cow excrement

According to initial reports, the plane had just taken off and had some indications of a problem, said Col. Ellen Haddock, spokeswoman at the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. It turned back to land and fell short of the runway, she said.

You don't think he forgot..... NAWWWwwww!!!

But it does look like there was a little fuel spill or fire on the wing in the right side of the frame of the picture. You can see what appears to be foam sprayed in that area.

 

[MSmith]

After that picture was taken, they sprayed more foam on the end of the left wing (I had a live helicopter feed on).

 

[Dart]

I know where your going with that.

There was this quote. And as usual it is early on in an aviation investigation so it could be complete and udder male cow excrement



You don't think he forgot..... NAWWWwwww!!!

But it does look like there was a little fuel spill or fire on the wing in the right side of the frame of the picture. You can see what appears to be foam sprayed in that area.

I wasn't speculating (yet), it's just that even my non-pilot wife noticed the lack of fuel or fire. I 've heard of foam filled and self sealing fuel tanks and wondered if that was in play here.

By all observations it looks like an excellent emergeny of-airport landing.

 

[AdamZ]

Here is another link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12130852/

Most importantly there does not seem to be any fatalities. At least none reported Thank G-D.
I'm curious will the NTSB investigate this and issue a report or is this a striclty military matter to be investigated by the AirForce and we will never learn the cause?

 

[gkainz]

I wasn't speculating (yet), it's just that even my non-pilot wife noticed the lack of fuel or fire. I 've heard of foam filled and self sealing fuel tanks and wondered if that was in play here.

By all observations it looks like an excellent emergeny of-airport landing.

Just got an email from a friend who used to be an avionics tech on the C-5. He noted the same thing ... "hmmm, no fire?"

 

[poadeleted3]

17 on board, 10 in the hospital, some of them walked off the ambulance. Early reports said they lost two engines on takeoff from 14, tried to turn back and land on 32, didn't quite make it, though who knows at this point what really caused them to turn back. Looks to me like the pilots did what I've always been told to do... they flew it all the way into the crash. Plane is in three pieces... tail broke off and is several hundred feet away from the rest of the plane. The plane skidded sideways, and the cockpit broke off from the main fuselage. All in all, not near as bad as I'd feared when I first heard the news this morning. I expected nothing more than a smoking hole. Looks like they darn near made the runway.

Now for some tidbits of little known aviation knowledge gained from CBS 3 newscasters this morning:

A plane as big as the C-5, as well as 747 and other very large jets, are so large that they almost create their own lift, making them very easy to deadstick to a landing. Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

Later in the broadcast, they then informed me that it was impossible to land without all four engines.

Corrosion may have played a factor in the crash, and the pilot's decision to turn back.

Since the pilot was landing with a tailwind, the plane may have been unstable.

This is merely a small part of what I learned about flying from the local reporters this morning. Lovely, isn't it?

 

[alaskaflyer]

Hmmm....they almost make their own lift? Well, that explains the crash then

 

[Anthony]

Now for some tidbits of little known aviation knowledge gained from CBS 3 newscasters this morning:

A plane as big as the C-5, as well as 747 and other very large jets, are so large that they almost create their own lift, making them very easy to deadstick to a landing. Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

Later in the broadcast, they then informed me that it was impossible to land without all four engines.

Corrosion may have played a factor in the crash, and the pilot's decision to turn back.

Since the pilot was landing with a tailwind, the plane may have been unstable.

This is merely a small part of what I learned about flying from the local reporters this morning. Lovely, isn't it?

Unbelieveable. This is not misinformation, its DISINFORMATION. What a crock.

Imagine, what other disinformation being reported about things we are not familar with. The environment, nuke power, illegal immigration, etc.

 

[ScottM]

Now for some tidbits of little known aviation knowledge gained from CBS 3 newscasters this morning:

A plane as big as the C-5, as well as 747 and other very large jets, are so large that they almost create their own lift, making them very easy to deadstick to a landing. Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

Later in the broadcast, they then informed me that it was impossible to land without all four engines.

Corrosion may have played a factor in the crash, and the pilot's decision to turn back.

Since the pilot was landing with a tailwind, the plane may have been unstable.

This is merely a small part of what I learned about flying from the local reporters this morning. Lovely, isn't it?

I feel so much more edumacated. Thank goodness network news is there to teach me. Will this be included on the FAA exams when revised??

What a buch of useless talking heads and waste of skin that I pay $100/mo to watch, mumble, mubles, gruff, grmf.......

 

[Ghery]

Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

If they are without the engine, as in it fell off, this is probably true. But no engine, as in it quit operating? Talking heads spouting misinformation as usual. Anything to avoid dead air. Even if it means displaying a dead head.

 

[Dart]

...
Now for some tidbits of little known aviation knowledge gained from CBS 3 newscasters this morning:

A plane as big as the C-5, as well as 747 and other very large jets, are so large that they almost create their own lift, making them very easy to deadstick to a landing. Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

Later in the broadcast, they then informed me that it was impossible to land without all four engines.

Corrosion may have played a factor in the crash, and the pilot's decision to turn back.

Since the pilot was landing with a tailwind, the plane may have been unstable.
quote]


Well "Duh!. Now it's perfectly clear what happened:

On take-off the corrosion warning light and alarm went off.

The pilot turned back to land but the tail wind blew air INTO the jet motors causing two of them to "flame out".

Without four motors the two remaining engines were not powerful enough to fight the lift the big jet was creating. Without an FAA approved flight plan to keep it up,the jet was doomed.

 

[gkainz]

from my friend the ex-tech

"Interesting re: 17 on board. Just behind the cockpit is 20 some feet of bunk area (rt side; avionics is on lt side) then a 30 ft crew area, chairs and tables, etc. That crack looks like right in middle of that crew break area, that is where additional crew members would have been. Then again, the additional folks COULD have been in the back (behind wing) where that slide was hanging .. there is not a way to go between the front area and back area without going down in cargo area then back up again"

 

[ScottM]

Oh so close to making it

 

[ScottM]

Hooray, no deaths!

No one was killed, but several aboard were injured, Air Force Tech. Sgt. Melissa Phillips, a spokeswoman for the base, told The Associated Press

A speeding recovery to the injured

 

[wbarnhill]

Number 2 engine flameout, not two engines out!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Air Force C-5 cargo jet carrying 17 people crashed and broke into pieces Monday while trying to make an emergency landing near Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, Air Force and FAA officials said.
No one was killed, but several aboard were injured, Air Force Tech. Sgt. Melissa Phillips, a spokeswoman for the base, told The Associated Press.
Fourteen of the crew were taken to Bayhealth Medical Center-Kent General Hospital, according to hospital communications director Pam Marecki, all with non-life threatening injuries. Most will be released soon, she said, but some will be admitted.
Pentagon sources told CNN the aircraft "declared an in-flight emergency for a No. 2 engine flameout."
The C-5 jet, assigned to the 436th Air Wing at Dover AFB, was being operated by an Air National Guard unit, officials told CNN. (Watch how the plane cracked into three pieces -- 1:10)
The C-5 Galaxy, the largest aircraft in the U.S. military inventory, came down short of the runway at Dover about 6:30 a.m., the officials said.
The Federal Aviation Administration said the plane had taken off from Dover and crashed while attempting to return.
Television images showed the plane had broken into at least three pieces, with the cockpit separated at a right angle from the rest of the fuselage. The broken-off tail assembly was several hundred yards away, AP reported.
The military has 126 C-5s in its active and reserve inventory, according the Air Force's official Web site.
According to the Web site, globalsecurity.org, the crash was the fourth in the history of the C-5, which entered service in 1970. Three of the planes have been destroyed in ground fires.
The most famous of the C-5 crashes occurred in April 1975, when one of the giant jets carrying orphans out of Vietnam went down while trying to make an emergency landing in Saigon after a door lock failed in flight. The crash killed 138 of the 314 aboard, including 127 children, according to globalsecurity.org.
The C-5 can carry 270,000 pounds of cargo almost 2,500 miles on one load of fuel. The C-5's wingspan is 28 feet wider than a 747 and the military jet is 16 feet longer than the civilian airliner.

 

[woodstock]

I feel so much more edumacated. Thank goodness network news is there to teach me. Will this be included on the FAA exams when revised??

What a buch of useless talking heads and waste of skin that I pay $100/mo to watch, mumble, mubles, gruff, grmf.......

exactly! or 100 bucks a month to DON'T watch...

 

[fgcason]

A plane as big as the C-5, as well as 747 and other very large jets, are so large that they almost create their own lift, making them very easy to deadstick to a landing. Smaller single engine planes are almost impossible to land without an engine.

OH sheesh! I've read better propaganda than that. This is a classic example of why those little airplanes are so dangerous. Stupid idget aviation expert reporters.

I'll take a single dead stick over an airliner dead stick anyday in any conditions. 35mph vs 120+mph do the math. Little planes may go down more often but 35-40mph is survivable. When an giant metal pressurized tube goes down, they're notorious at splattering little peasants all over the place.

Hmmm... Since the invention of the pressurized metal tube death traps, how many full down engines inop forced landings in those things have resulted in zero injuries and minimal to no aircraft damage? One? Two? It couldn't be more than a handful.

 

[Ghery]

Hmmm... Since the invention of the pressurized metal tube death traps, how many full down engines inop forced landings in those things have resulted in zero injuries and minimal to no aircraft damage? One? Two? It couldn't be more than a handful.

At least two that I know of. Both Canadian. Both due to fuel mismanagement. The Gimli Glider and one that landed on an island in the Atlantic. It can be done.

 

[poadeleted3]

At least two that I know of. Both Canadian. Both due to fuel mismanagement. The Gimli Glider and one that landed on an island in the Atlantic. It can be done.

Didn't somebody manage to glide a 727 to landing on a dike in Louisianna a long time ago? I vaguely remember seeing something along those lines on Wings or the History Channel a while back.

 

[Frank Browne]

Didn't somebody manage to glide a 727 to landing on a dike in Louisianna a long time ago? I vaguely remember seeing something along those lines on Wings or the History Channel a while back.

I remember that. Except that I remember the pilot being foriegn. Wasn't it in Peru or Brazil or someplace like that?

 

[ScottM]

Didn't somebody manage to glide a 727 to landing on a dike in Louisianna a long time ago? I vaguely remember seeing something along those lines on Wings or the History Channel a while back.

It was a 737. It was a TACA Airlines plane. It is supposedly the only dead stick off airport landing that was successful for an airline ever.

Capt. Carlos A. Dardano and First Officer Dionisio Lopez Beltran, TACA International Airline pilots, for superb airmanship in bringing their Boeing 737-300 to a safe, dead-stick landing on a grass strip along a levee near New Orleans, La. Forty-five passengers and crew were on board when both engines failed and would not restart during approach to New Orleans International Airport through heavy rain and hail.

 

[Frank Browne]

It was a 737. It was a TACA Airlines plane. It is supposedly the only dead stick off airport landing that was successful for an airline ever.

Thanks Scott, that's the one I was trying to remember.

 

[SCCutler]

It was a 737. It was a TACA Airlines plane. It is supposedly the only dead stick off airport landing that was successful for an airline ever.

What's even cooler: it was flown out from the levee, too! IIRC, Boeing test pilots did the honors. I remember seeing the picture of the plane climbing out in AW&ST.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It was a 737. It was a TACA Airlines plane. It is supposedly the only dead stick off airport landing that was successful for an airline ever.

Well, they're "supposedly" wrong then... They must have forgotten the Gimli Glider. No injuries except for during evac. That's pretty successful in my book.

Maybe the only one in the US?

 

[ScottM]

Well, they're "supposedly" wrong then... They must have forgotten the Gimli Glider. No injuries except for during evac. That's pretty successful in my book.

Maybe the only one in the US?

Nope I am pretty sur ethey got it right. The Gimli Glider landed at an airport. This TACA flight landed in a field hence the disclaimers of the only dead stick off airport landing that was successful for an airline ever.