What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(-5) On the above date and time emery 024 (heavy) was departing day when the main cargo door opened for unknown reasons. According to statements by the flight crew they performed all preflight checks to include proceedures for proper closing of the main cargo door. The operator caused the aircraft to be removed from day before FAA investigators were able to conduct an inspection of the main cargo door and related systems. Statements by the company and crewmembers are in conflict as to the cause of the door opening. According to all crewmembers the takeoff from day was normal until just prior to V1. At that point captain rachford stated that the aircraft did not want to rotate. This was also accompanied with a loud roaring noise which the crew initially suspected to be a malfunction of the number two engine. As the aircraft was going through 400 feet AGL the day ATCT advised the flight that the main cargo door was coming open, and cleared the aircraft for return to land on runway 6R. On the downwind leg a loud bang was heard. It is assumed that this was the main cargo door slamming back against the fuselage of the aircraft. Captain rachford states that other than difficulty with roll control the aircraft was for the most part normal. The crew stated that it was necessary to lower the main landing gear (to regain the use of the spoilers) for added roll control. Maximum bank utilized was 20 degrees. The aircraft was able to return to the airport without further incident. On touch down the main cargo door warning light illuminated. The aircraft then returned to the ramp under it's own power. The aircraft was met by ewa officials who immediately boarded the aircraft. Mr. Malson states that nothing was disturbed. The flight crew states that maintenance personnel boarding the aircraft immediately began pulling circuit breakers. These statements are in conflict.. Crewmembers are unwavering in their assertion that the main cargo door was closed in accordance with emery worldwide airline procedures. The company representative, david malson, director of airline safety, is just as unwavering in his assertion that the second officer, matthew j. comlish, did not close the main cargo door in accordance with emery worldwide airline procedures. During the course of the investigation several inconsistencies were uncovered. All crewmembers, including a jump seat rider, (see page #2 of continuation) state that the main cargo door light was extinguished during the taxi out at day. The crew, including the jump seat rider, all insist the main cargo door warning light did not come on until the aircraft touched down on runway 6R at day.
As the FAA filed it
(-5) ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME EMERY 024 (HEAVY) WAS DEPARTING DAY WHEN THE MAIN CARGO DOOR OPENED FOR UNKNOWN REASONS. ACCORDING TO STATEMENTS BY THE FLIGHT CREW THEY PERFORMED ALL PREFLIGHT CHECKS TO INCLUDE PROCEEDURES FOR PROPER CLOSING OF THE MAIN CARGO DOOR. THE OPERATOR CAUSED THE AIRCRAFT TO BE REMOVED FROM DAY BEFORE FAA INVESTIGATORS WERE ABLE TO CONDUCT AN INSPECTION OF THE MAIN CARGO DOOR AND RELATED SYSTEMS. STATEMENTS BY THE COMPANY AND CREWMEMBERS ARE IN CONFLICT AS TO THE CAUSE OF THE DOOR OPENING. ACCORDING TO ALL CREWMEMBERS THE TAKEOFF FROM DAY WAS NORMAL UNTIL JUST PRIOR TO V1. AT THAT POINT CAPTAIN RACHFORD STATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT DID NOT WANT TO ROTATE. THIS WAS ALSO ACCOMPANIED WITH A LOUD ROARING NOISE WHICH THE CREW INITIALLY SUSPECTED TO BE A MALFUNCTION OF THE NUMBER TWO ENGINE. AS THE AIRCRAFT WAS GOING THROUGH 400 FEET AGL THE DAY ATCT ADVISED THE FLIGHT THAT THE MAIN CARGO DOOR WAS COMING OPEN, AND CLEARED THE AIRCRAFT FOR RETURN TO LAND ON RUNWAY 6R. ON THE DOWNWIND LEG A LOUD BANG WAS HEARD. IT IS ASSUMED THAT THIS WAS THE MAIN CARGO DOOR SLAMMING BACK AGAINST THE FUSELAGE OF THE AIRCRAFT. CAPTAIN RACHFORD STATES THAT OTHER THAN DIFFICULTY WITH ROLL CONTROL THE AIRCRAFT WAS FOR THE MOST PART NORMAL. THE CREW STATED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO LOWER THE MAIN LANDING GEAR (TO REGAIN THE USE OF THE SPOILERS) FOR ADDED ROLL CONTROL. MAXIMUM BANK UTILIZED WAS 20 DEGREES. THE AIRCRAFT WAS ABLE TO RETURN TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. ON TOUCH DOWN THE MAIN CARGO DOOR WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE AIRCRAFT THEN RETURNED TO THE RAMP UNDER IT'S OWN POWER. THE AIRCRAFT WAS MET BY EWA OFFICIALS WHO IMMEDIATELY BOARDED THE AIRCRAFT. MR. MALSON STATES THAT NOTHING WAS DISTURBED. THE FLIGHT CREW STATES THAT MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL BOARDING THE AIRCRAFT IMMEDIATELY BEGAN PULLING CIRCUIT BREAKERS. THESE STATEMENTS ARE IN CONFLICT.. CREWMEMBERS ARE UNWAVERING IN THEIR ASSERTION THAT THE MAIN CARGO DOOR WAS CLOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINE PROCEDURES. THE COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE, DAVID MALSON, DIRECTOR OF AIRLINE SAFETY, IS JUST AS UNWAVERING IN HIS ASSERTION THAT THE SECOND OFFICER, MATTHEW J. COMLISH, DID NOT CLOSE THE MAIN CARGO DOOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINE PROCEDURES. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION SEVERAL INCONSISTENCIES WERE UNCOVERED. ALL CREWMEMBERS, INCLUDING A JUMP SEAT RIDER, (SEE PAGE #2 OF CONTINUATION) STATE THAT THE MAIN CARGO DOOR LIGHT WAS EXTINGUISHED DURING THE TAXI OUT AT DAY. THE CREW, INCLUDING THE JUMP SEAT RIDER, ALL INSIST THE MAIN CARGO DOOR WARNING LIGHT DID NOT COME ON UNTIL THE AIRCRAFT TOUCHED DOWN ON RUNWAY 6R AT DAY.
Other reports on N995CF · 2
Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.