DC-4 crash Alaska
DC-4 crash Alaska
The Independent
”An aeroplane has crashed into a river near Fairbanks, Alaska, according to state troopers.
The plane, a Douglas DC-4, was carrying an unknown number of passengers when it crashed into the Tanana River on Tuesday morning, officials said. Rescue crews are responding to the scene.”
”An aeroplane has crashed into a river near Fairbanks, Alaska, according to state troopers.
The plane, a Douglas DC-4, was carrying an unknown number of passengers when it crashed into the Tanana River on Tuesday morning, officials said. Rescue crews are responding to the scene.”
Reddit has some eye witness info and FR24 of N3054V.
possible engine issue after departure and request to return.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar..._in_fairbanks/
possible engine issue after departure and request to return.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightradar..._in_fairbanks/
I'm pretty sure this was the last DC-4 in commercial operation in the USA. The only other one flying there is the Berlin Airlift Historic Flight aircraft. N3054V was, early in its life, one of ten C-54s to serve with the RAF, in the final months of WW2.
Sister-ship N96358 was damaged beyond repair in a runway overrun in October 2020.
Sister-ship N96358 was damaged beyond repair in a runway overrun in October 2020.
Just the 2 crew on board according to what I have just read. Unfortunately, no signs of survivors.
Some harrowing CCTV of the accident has been posted online:
https://x.com/JacdecNew/status/1783013036359323842
Absolutely nothing the crew could have done there, they became passengers. may they rest easy, what a horrible accident. Thoughts with their families
https://x.com/JacdecNew/status/1783013036359323842
Absolutely nothing the crew could have done there, they became passengers. may they rest easy, what a horrible accident. Thoughts with their families
How do you know that? Uncontrolled roll over following loss of an engine has killed in the past. That does not necessarily mean that uncontrolled roll over is inevitable after loss of an engine.
NOT a pilot but with all due respect, it wasn't just the loss of an engine but quite a significant explosion which may have compromised control surfaces. It was sudden and rapid that's for sure.
Some fairly decent surveillance camera footage of the event. Does look like whatever caused the explosion didn't allow much chance of recovery, the roll commenced and continued after the #1 (?) engine had that explosive failure at the 2:16 mark - it doesn't look like a 'typical' Vmca accident.
Looks just like this accident, only on the ground
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/grou...er-ganes-creek
https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/grou...er-ganes-creek
Any chance it was a mis-fuel? Certainly would be ironic, but it did happen a number of years ago near me. Ramp worker saw the huge fuel opening and decided that the large nozzle was the one to use on a DC-3. They put enough jet fuel in that it failed to develop power and crashed shortly after takeoff, 3rd low-power attempt. If a smaller amount was used to top off these tanks it may have lasted longer. before getting to the jet fuel.
The rapid roll without the loss of wing structure may be that they were trying to stretch the return and the detonation of the engine dropped thrust just enough to put them into a snap roll from stalling. Certainly longish enough before the explosion they sounded on the radio as if they were already into the competent but terrified part of the flight, realizing the situation was dire. They seemed to know what to do but did not anticipate that explosion.
Had they lost a jug off the engine I think they would have reported an engine failure and at full power the remaining three should have been enough, but if it was misfueled then all the engines would have varying degrees of unexplained power loss. Maybe it was the asymmetric thrust so close to stall that pushed it over the edge.
The rapid roll without the loss of wing structure may be that they were trying to stretch the return and the detonation of the engine dropped thrust just enough to put them into a snap roll from stalling. Certainly longish enough before the explosion they sounded on the radio as if they were already into the competent but terrified part of the flight, realizing the situation was dire. They seemed to know what to do but did not anticipate that explosion.
Had they lost a jug off the engine I think they would have reported an engine failure and at full power the remaining three should have been enough, but if it was misfueled then all the engines would have varying degrees of unexplained power loss. Maybe it was the asymmetric thrust so close to stall that pushed it over the edge.
Look at the previous post accident report. Identical aircraft and operator, fuel tank explosion that blew the wing clean off, they were just lucky it happened on the ground.
This accident crew had no chance.
This accident crew had no chance.
The wing appears to have remained attached in this accident. Any falling debris is too small to show up on the surveillance camera.
A C54 / C54A manual which includes a description of the fuel system can be found here - https://digitalcollections.museumoff...ems/show/50154
Scroll the top window to "Part II, Section I, Page J FUEL SYSTEM "
It is my understanding that the wing aux tanks were introduced in the B model and they are not shown in the referenced manual. Other references suggest these Aux tanks were added between the main wing tanks. This seems to indicate they would have been aft of the front spar. That is supported by the ground fire report that says "Within the wing, from outboard to inboard, the fuel tank system consists of the number 1 fuel tank, the left wing auxiliary fuel tank, and the number 2 fuel tank. Each wet-wing type fuel tank contains a submerged electrical boost pump, sump drain valves and fuel quantity transmitters."
The ground fire is assumed to have started in the left wing aft of engine 1 firewall and aft of the aux tank. "Following the startup of the engines, an explosion occurred in the left wing area aft of the number 1 engine firewall and number 1 auxiliary fuel tank." and "An FAA inspector examined portions of the airplane that the operator supplied. The inspector examined a portion of the upper wing surface that had been blown away from the airplane during the initial explosion. He noted that the inside of the upper wing surface, normally positioned over the auxiliary tank, was not charred or sooted. "
In this ground fire event the wing spars failed but at least some of the control cables remained intact.
In the recent accident the wing did not fail but but video seems to show engine 1 had separated before impact.
I see insufficient similarity between these fire events for me to believe the recent crash was the result of an explosion similar to the ground explosion event. All I have seen so far seems to suggest the fire was forward of engine 1 firewall. Given the intensity of this accident fire, I wonder if there will be anything left to determine how this fire spread and what was destroyed before impact.
Scroll the top window to "Part II, Section I, Page J FUEL SYSTEM "
It is my understanding that the wing aux tanks were introduced in the B model and they are not shown in the referenced manual. Other references suggest these Aux tanks were added between the main wing tanks. This seems to indicate they would have been aft of the front spar. That is supported by the ground fire report that says "Within the wing, from outboard to inboard, the fuel tank system consists of the number 1 fuel tank, the left wing auxiliary fuel tank, and the number 2 fuel tank. Each wet-wing type fuel tank contains a submerged electrical boost pump, sump drain valves and fuel quantity transmitters."
The ground fire is assumed to have started in the left wing aft of engine 1 firewall and aft of the aux tank. "Following the startup of the engines, an explosion occurred in the left wing area aft of the number 1 engine firewall and number 1 auxiliary fuel tank." and "An FAA inspector examined portions of the airplane that the operator supplied. The inspector examined a portion of the upper wing surface that had been blown away from the airplane during the initial explosion. He noted that the inside of the upper wing surface, normally positioned over the auxiliary tank, was not charred or sooted. "
In this ground fire event the wing spars failed but at least some of the control cables remained intact.
In the recent accident the wing did not fail but but video seems to show engine 1 had separated before impact.
I see insufficient similarity between these fire events for me to believe the recent crash was the result of an explosion similar to the ground explosion event. All I have seen so far seems to suggest the fire was forward of engine 1 firewall. Given the intensity of this accident fire, I wonder if there will be anything left to determine how this fire spread and what was destroyed before impact.
Last edited by wrench1; 26th Apr 2024 at 17:35.
All I could make out on multiple replays from ATC Live was "ire," so perhaps that was it.
Given that Fairbanks airport is 500 ft ASL,they were only 900-1000agl and in a right turn to track outbound,it may have been `better` to have continued that turn back to the airport,rather than attempt a 270* to the left.As the No1 engine blew,it `may` well have lost all oil and they may not have been able to feather No1,which would probably run to `fine pitch` and create a really large drag factor as well.The only possible help in that situation is to reduce power on No4 engine,but would reduce the yaw and help the bank angle,and enable a bit of time to crank on full right rudder trim. This is all `speculation`,and `what if` and takes longer to write than for the accident to happen,but based on 4k hrs on 4-engined t/props where the effects would be the same,but fortunately it only happened to me `in the Sim-box`...RIP guys...