Facts have emerged on
the reasons the chartered
Embraer 120 aircraft
carrying the corpse of ex-
Ondo State governor, Chief
Olusegun Agagu, crashed
on Thursday minutes after
it took off from the Murtala
Mohammed Airport in
Lagos, enroute Akure.
While officials said the ill-
fated aircraft carried only
20 people on board, a
reliable aviation source
disclosed on Friday that
the plane might have
crashed because it was
"overloaded" in some
other ways... http://obascotec..com/2013/10/exposed-why-plane-carrying-agagu-corpse.html?m=0

EXPOSED: Why The Plane Carrying Agagu's Corpse Crashed

Obasco Etubi . at 04:07 . No comments: 

Facts have emerged on
the reasons the chartered
Embraer 120 aircraft
carrying the corpse of ex-
Ondo State governor, Chief
Olusegun Agagu, crashed
on Thursday minutes after
it took off from the Murtala
Mohammed Airport in
Lagos, enroute Akure.
While officials said the ill-
fated aircraft carried only
20 people on board, a
reliable aviation source
disclosed on Friday that
the plane might have
crashed because it was
"overloaded" in some
other ways...
The plane had 20
passengers, 13 of which
died while the seven
others were left in critical
conditions.
The top source, who
pleaded not to be named
because of the sensitive
nature of the issue, told
Nation that at the time of
the crash, the plane had
5-hour endurance fuel,
which constituted burden
on the plane because it
only needed just about a
third of that quantity of
fuel for a return trip from
Lagos to Akure.
The expert said: “It is true
that the plane is designed
for 30 passengers and
there were only 20 on
board, but it was loaded
with too much fuel, and
that is professionally
wrong. The aircraft had
five-hour endurance fuel
for a return journey that
would not take more than
one hour.
“Remember that the
aircraft was also carrying
a corpse, and you know
that the weight of a corpse
is more than that of a
living person. This
combined with the weight
of the casket and the
volume of fuel in the
aircraft probably weighed
it down as it approached
the air.”
The foregoing, the source
said, was compounded by
the fact that the two
engines of the aircraft
might not have been in
perfect conditions. Hence,
when one of the engines
packed up, the weight of
the aircraft became too
much for JUST one engine
to carry .
“As it taxied for take-off,
the pilot probably realised
that the plane had lost an
engine, but he believed
that he was already at a
point that we in the
aviation sector call the
“critical point of no
return .” If he had aborted
the flight at that point, the
impact would have been
much more .
“The pilot probably had to
continue to go up or ‘pull
off ‘ in the hope that the
other engine could take
the aircraft to a level
where it could return to
land and abort the flight.
But whereas it is possible
to stabilise with one
engine when an aircraft is
in the air, it is very
dangerous to take off or
land with one engine .”
By the account of the
airliners, the ill-fated
aircraft’s last flight was in
August while it underwent
a A-check in June,
meaning that it did not fly
in the whole of September .
The expert said this was
probably so because the
aircraft, usually used for
chartered services, was
not hired during the
period, which underscores
the need for vigorous
check by ground officers
who certified it fit to be
airborne.
The aviation expert also
said communication
between the pilot and the
traffic controllers at the
airport wasn't possible
because the aircraft had
not gained altitude for it to
come under aerial radar
control
Explaining the various
stages of control before
an aircraft is airborne, the
source said: “There are
four stages of control. The
first stage is on the
ground when the
necessary checks are
made to certify the aircraft
fit. The second is the
tower stage where the
control tower declares the
captain free to take off.
“The third is the approach
stage where the control
tower monitors the aircraft
to see that it stabilises.
The fourth is the radar
stage when the plane is
airborne and
communication between
the pilot and air traffic
controllers is possible.
“The aircraft was at the
third stage which is
‘approach’ when it
crashed on Thursday .”
It would be recalled that
the propeller aircraft
crashed into the
compound of PPMC inside
the premises of the
Murtala Mohammed
International Airport
around 9.32 am on
Thursday. The plane hit
the fence and broke into
two before it went up in
flames after about 25
minutes.

chai!!!!! u settle down blow dis kain lie for all of us

anthoniosp: chai!!!!! u settle down blow dis kain lie for all of us

Why not tell us ur own version!

Why r U̶̲̥̅̊ discussing d PHYSICS of d plane crash...infact U̶̲̥̅̊ supposed calculate F= ma and even state ARCHIMEDiS principle 4 us wit Newton 3rd law of motion. All d forces acting on d plane shuld av bn shown on d x,y,z axis............abeg bone all ur LIES....park wella!

Like they were not aware of it before the take off.... Mtchewwwwww

These are assumptions not facts
the source's point on the weight of the corpse is just lame.
I agree dead bodies are heavier but they cant be 1.5 times heavier.

The fact that 20 persons were on board instead of 30 already cancels out the effect of an over-fuelled tank and a corpse on board (laughs).

In this new month, i shall not lie@op, repeat after me.

choi!!!
your story sha.
EXPOSED: Why The Plane carrying Agagu's Corpsecrashed. try another story

@OP! I don report u already!!......Expect ur Ban! No de cook lie give us, we nor wan chop! Ezeibote Rubbish!!!!!!!!!!

OP,your lie was getting interesting until you got to this point

The top source, who pleaded not to be named because of the sensitive nature of the issue, told Nation that at the time of the crash, the plane had 5-hour endurance fuel, which constituted burden on the plane because it only needed just about a third of that quantity of fuel for a return trip from Lagos to Akure[size=28pt]¹[/size].
The expert said: “It is true that the plane is designed for 30 passengers and there were only 20 on board, but it was loaded with too much fuel, and that is professionally wrong[size=28pt]²[/size]. The aircraft had five-hour endurance fuel for a return journey that would not take more than one hour.
“Remember that the aircraft was also carrying a corpse, and you know that the weight of a corpse
is more than that of a living person Jesus [size=28pt]³[/size]. This combined with the weight of the casket and the
volume of fuel in the aircraft probably weighed
it down as it approached the air.”
The foregoing, the source said, was compounded by
the fact that the two engines of the aircraft might not have been in perfect conditions. Hence,
when one of the engines packed up, the weight of
the aircraft became too much for JUST one engine
to carry .
“As it taxied for take-off, the pilot probably realised
that the plane had lost an engine, but he believed
that he was already at a point that we in the
aviation sector call the “critical point of no
return .” If he had aborted the flight at that point, the impact would have been
much more.

OP,repent oo