MovieChat Forums > Mayday (2003) Discussion > Dag Hammarskjold's Flight

Dag Hammarskjold's Flight


This Mayday episode suggests that the most recent conclusion on the part of investigators is that the flight crashed due to "controlled flight into terrain". While this is certainly a plausible conclusion (this happens with depressing frequency), there are a couple of things that bother me about this conclusion:

1. According to the Wiki article about this crash, "Expert tests have questioned this conclusion, arguing that exploding bullets could not break the surface of the skin."

2. I do not understand how they could have gotten so low on approach. The program gave a brief glimpse of the approach plate for the NDB runway 10 approach, indicating that they were flying a procedure turn for runway 10. It stated that there was a hill that is not shown on the chart. This is largely irrelevant. As long as the procedure turn is flown at the correct altitude, and there is no descent below the Minimum Descent Altitude, it doesn't matter how many hills there are, or where they are.

The Mayday program stated that their initial approach from the east was at 5,000 feet, some 833 above the airport elevation (4,167 feet), when in actual fact they were cleared to descend to 6,000 feet. They then reported to the control tower that they were "descending". A descent at this point would not be appropriate. The outbound leg, and the procedure turn, should have been flown at the procedure turn altitude. They then turned inbound, and struck trees on a hill on the approach path. That hill is at 8.07 NM from the approach end of the runway. The NDB is at 4 NM from the approach end of the runway. They should have been at or above the beacon crossing altitude (5,000 feet) that far out, which would have cleared the hill.

I have flown this approach in the simulator, (using a DC-3) at 4,500 feet, (333 feet above the airport elevation), and safely flew the approach. I flew it again at 4,400 feet, (233 feet above the airport elevation), and still managed to scrape by. It was not until I flew the approach at 4,300 feet, (133 feet above the airport elevation), that I crashed into the hill at 8.0 NM out. Once past the beacon on the 4,400 foot approach, I was able to descend to 4,300 feet, without crashing.

The actual aircraft hit the tops of trees that were at 4357 feet, 72 feet above ground elevation at the crash site.

It is inexplicable, that they should have been that low, while still west of the beacon.

Edit: a couple of other points have come to mind. If they had had their landing lights on, they may have seen how low they were in time to pull up. Also, when the lights of the airport disappear, there are only four possibilities:

1. You've gone blind.
2. Someone yanked the cord for the airport lights out of the wall, as in "Airplane!"
3. A dark cloud has suddenly passed in between your airplane and the runway.
4. Terrain. Pull up!

Nomad, former commercial pilot.

reply

there are so many possibilities, I'm a Hammarskjold researcher and the show is just a starting point. I'm in the US and waiting for it to be available here. https://www.facebook.com/justiceforhammarskjold/https://www.facebook.com/justiceforhammarskjold/

reply

nomad472002 wrote
1. You've gone blind.
2. Someone yanked the cord for the airport lights out of the wall, as in "Airplane!"
3. A dark cloud has suddenly passed in between your airplane and the runway.
4. Terrain. Pull up!


Regarding your point 4, the DC-6 had no TAS/GPWS system installed because in 1961 there were no such systems. The first TAS/GPWS system was introduced in 1974.
I would opt for point 1 "you've gone blind" or otherwise distracted and that in combination with the missing hill in the chart used by the crew is a recipe for disaster.

------------
Have you seen Robocop? Many people don't know that it's actually a documentary.

reply