What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
Narrative: on November 21, 1997, at approximately 1130 local EST, a DC-9-15F, N564PC, operated by kitty hawk aircargo, inc.(GAIA199A), experienced a load shift on takeoff roll at Syracuse Hancock intl. Airport, NY. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an IFR flight plan was filed to willow run airport, MI. On takeoff roll the flight crew heard a loud noise in the main cargo compartment. The takeoff was aborted and the aircraft returned to the ramp. Upon inspection the crew discovered that empty pallets had shifted. The pallets were secured and a visual inspection by the flight crew revealed unknown damage. The aircraft was immediately flown on a repositioning flight to willow run airport, MI. Upon arrival at willow run airport the crew indicated to the company mechanics that stacked cargo pallets had shifted. After inspection of sta.786 bulkhead both vertical beams were found sheared at the floor restraints in the back seat track had broken loose, the vertical bulkhead supports were broken at the floor attachment and the engine pylon front spars were bent aft. The aircraft was substantially damaged. No injuries were incurred by the flight crew. 4) the flight crew failed to recognize the magnitude of the damage sustained by the load shift. 5) current FARS hold the certificate holder responsible for the preparation and accuracy of a load manifest form before each takeoff. Currently aircraft loaders are not held responsible for the loading of the aircraft. 6) regulations believed violated by the flight crew: 91.7A, 91.73 and 121.53F. (.4)the captain reported the airplane was empty except for the six cargo deck pallets that had been stacked at the 'b' position (toward the front end of the cargo deck) instead of being spread out and secured over the cargo deck floor. When power for takeoff was applied, the cargo pallets shifted and impacted the aft bulkhead. The takeoff was aborted. The pilots visually inspected the damage to the aft bulkhead and concluded that no damage had been done to the airplane. The cargo pallets were secured to the cargo deck. The pilots re-filed the flight plan and continued with the positioning flight. An inspection revealed substantial damage to the airplane. The company's aviation mechanic had told the cargo handlers to stack the pallets ins tead of spreading them out and securing them to the floor. The six pallets that fit on the cargo deck floor corresponded to the six pallet positions a-f. the cargo handlers strapped five of the pallets together with cargo straps and placed them on the pallet which was secured in the 'b' position. The five cargo pallets were not secured to the pallet in the b position. The pallet jack was secured on top of the five pallets by cargo straps. (-23) see narrative #CHI98LA053
As the FAA filed it
NARRATIVE: ON NOVEMBER 21, 1997, AT APPROXIMATELY 1130 LOCAL EST, A DC-9-15F, N564PC, OPERATED BY KITTY HAWK AIRCARGO, INC.(GAIA199A), EXPERIENCED A LOAD SHIFT ON TAKEOFF ROLL AT SYRACUSE HANCOCK INTL. AIRPORT, NY. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED AT THE TIME AND AN IFR FLIGHT PLAN WAS FILED TO WILLOW RUN AIRPORT, MI. ON TAKEOFF ROLL THE FLIGHT CREW HEARD A LOUD NOISE IN THE MAIN CARGO COMPARTMENT. THE TAKEOFF WAS ABORTED AND THE AIRCRAFT RETURNED TO THE RAMP. UPON INSPECTION THE CREW DISCOVERED THAT EMPTY PALLETS HAD SHIFTED. THE PALLETS WERE SECURED AND A VISUAL INSPECTION BY THE FLIGHT CREW REVEALED UNKNOWN DAMAGE. THE AIRCRAFT WAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN ON A REPOSITIONING FLIGHT TO WILLOW RUN AIRPORT, MI. UPON ARRIVAL AT WILLOW RUN AIRPORT THE CREW INDICATED TO THE COMPANY MECHANICS THAT STACKED CARGO PALLETS HAD SHIFTED. AFTER INSPECTION OF STA.786 BULKHEAD BOTH VERTICAL BEAMS WERE FOUND SHEARED AT THE FLOOR RESTRAINTS IN THE BACK SEAT TRACK HAD BROKEN LOOSE, THE VERTICAL BULKHEAD SUPPORTS WERE BROKEN AT THE FLOOR ATTACHMENT AND THE ENGINE PYLON FRONT SPARS WERE BENT AFT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED. NO INJURIES WERE INCURRED BY THE FLIGHT CREW. 4) THE FLIGHT CREW FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY THE LOAD SHIFT. 5) CURRENT FARS HOLD THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION AND ACCURACY OF A LOAD MANIFEST FORM BEFORE EACH TAKEOFF. CURRENTLY AIRCRAFT LOADERS ARE NOT HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LOADING OF THE AIRCRAFT. 6) REGULATIONS BELIEVED VIOLATED BY THE FLIGHT CREW: 91.7A, 91.73 AND 121.53F. (.4)THE CAPTAIN REPORTED THE AIRPLANE WAS EMPTY EXCEPT FOR THE SIX CARGO DECK PALLETS THAT HAD BEEN STACKED AT THE 'B' POSITION (TOWARD THE FRONT END OF THE CARGO DECK) INSTEAD OF BEING SPREAD OUT AND SECURED OVER THE CARGO DECK FLOOR. WHEN POWER FOR TAKEOFF WAS APPLIED, THE CARGO PALLETS SHIFTED AND IMPACTED THE AFT BULKHEAD. THE TAKEOFF WAS ABORTED. THE PILOTS VISUALLY INSPECTED THE DAMAGE TO THE AFT BULKHEAD AND CONCLUDED THAT NO DAMAGE HAD BEEN DONE TO THE AIRPLANE. THE CARGO PALLETS WERE SECURED TO THE CARGO DECK. THE PILOTS RE-FILED THE FLIGHT PLAN AND CONTINUED WITH THE POSITIONING FLIGHT. AN INSPECTION REVEALED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE AIRPLANE. THE COMPANY'S AVIATION MECHANIC HAD TOLD THE CARGO HANDLERS TO STACK THE PALLETS INS TEAD OF SPREADING THEM OUT AND SECURING THEM TO THE FLOOR. THE SIX PALLETS THAT FIT ON THE CARGO DECK FLOOR CORRESPONDED TO THE SIX PALLET POSITIONS A-F. THE CARGO HANDLERS STRAPPED FIVE OF THE PALLETS TOGETHER WITH CARGO STRAPS AND PLACED THEM ON THE PALLET WHICH WAS SECURED IN THE 'B' POSITION. THE FIVE CARGO PALLETS WERE NOT SECURED TO THE PALLET IN THE B POSITION. THE PALLET JACK WAS SECURED ON TOP OF THE FIVE PALLETS BY CARGO STRAPS. (-23) SEE NARRATIVE #CHI98LA053
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.
Other reports on N564PC · 1
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.