Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
National Air Cargo B744 Down In Bagram Part 2  
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2646 posts, RR: 4
Posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 53742 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Greetings everyone,
The last thread was getting pretty long so Part 2 is being created. The previous thread can be found here National Air Cargo B744 Down In Bagram (by Gonzalo Apr 29 2013 in Civil Aviation) .
Regards,
Pat


You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
220 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 53881 times:

I don't know if this made it on the older thread.

Quoting zeke (Reply 273):
I see no reason why these vehicles could not have been returned back to the US via sea transport. That is how most of them arrive in country.

A surprisingly large percentage of the vehicles used in Afghanistan were flown in - though in relatively short hops from Muscat and Oman.

There are two land routes into Afghanistan - from the seaports of Pakistan on the southeast side of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this route is subject to closures - and weapons have never been allowed on this route. Those vehicles might be considered weapons.

(Munitions - bullets and bombs - are all flown into the country - usually from ports in the Gulf)

The route for many vehicles would usually include being shipped to Riga Latvia on the Baltic Sea - then a 3,212 mile train route in Russia then thru Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to Termez.

Another route is from Poti, Georgia on the Black Sea by rail to Baku, Azerbaijan - by barge across the Caspian Sea - and then by rail through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to Termez. (About 1/3 of the cargo for NATO forces in Afghanistan went this way in 2010 - the rest by the Baltic Sea routes.)

There have been difficulties in Uzbekistan so an alternate for the Baltic route was developed from Kazakhstan thru Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Once the vehicles get to Termez - they have to be loaded on trucks and driven through high mountian passes - including passing through a 1.5 mile long tunnel at 11,000 ft altitude about 30 miles north of Bagram.

-------------------------------------------------

Quoting zeke (Reply 284):
The idea solution would be to have a good runway/port in Gwadar on the coast that can be served by smaller regular transports.


Yes, but that isn't going to happen due to political issues. Pakistan is not going to allow weapons to be loaded/ offloaded at their ports/ airfields.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 285):
Another reason is air shipping probably require less prep work than sea-shipping for vehicles.


The vehicles were only being flown to a nearby accessible seaport. Sea transport is how they will get back to the US.

[Edited 2013-05-02 11:40:10]

User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 53617 times:

Someone asked in the other thread if the crash may have been caught on other cameras at the base. I have a friend that was stationed at a large base in Iraq and he mentioned there were cameras everywhere. There probably is other footage available to investigators, but as he said a lot of what is captured by those cameras is never released to the public by the military.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
(Munitions - bullets and bombs - are all flown into the country - usually from ports in the Gulf)

The route for many vehicles would usually include being shipped to Riga Latvia on the Baltic Sea - then a 3,212 mile train route in Russia then thru Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to Termez.

When the Pakistanis shut the PAKGLOC, or PAKistan Ground Lines of Communication down a couple years ago all non-lethal supplies and equipment came in either by air or through the Northern Distribution Network, or NDN. That route to my knowledge is open now. For comparison, in 2012 dollars, it cost $17,500/container to go the NDN route and $7,200/container to go the PAKGLOC route. An estimate last year was there are 120,000 containers to move. By sending some of the equipment to other seaports it may be reasonably cost effective, depending on the cargo, to get them shipped by air.

http://unnamedharald.hubpages.com/hub/NATO-The-Way-Out-of-Afghanistan#

Here's some graphics to support what you said Fields.

PAKGLOC routes into/out of Afghanistan:



NDN route through Latvia and out using the Russian rail network:




The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 53288 times:

I think is adequate to include in the beggining of this thread the public statement made ( today in the morning ) by National Air Cargo ( posted by member Blueflyer in Reply 274 of Part 1 ) :

http://evaint.com/industry-news/statement-from-national-air-cargo


"National Air Cargo will not speculate as to the cause of the accident involving National Flight NCR102. With our full cooperation, an investigation by appropriate authorities is under way, and we encourage everyone to join us in respecting that process and allowing it to take its appropriate course.

Here are some facts regarding the aircraft and its movements prior to the accident:

-- National Flight NCR102 was en route to Dubai from Camp Bastian and had stopped to refuel at Bagram Air Base.

-- The cargo contained within the aircraft was properly loaded and secured, and had passed all necessary inspections prior to departing Camp Bastian.

-- The aircraft landed safely and uneventfully in Bagram.

-- No additional cargo or personnel was added during the stop in Bagram, and the aircraft's cargo was again inspected prior to departure. "



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 53125 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
A surprisingly large percentage of the vehicles used in Afghanistan were flown in - though in relatively short hops from Muscat and Oman.

Yep, and a surprisingly large percentage of vehicles (particularly MRAPs) will not be shipped home, but rather sold off to "friendly" CENTCOM nations or piled in scrap heaps at US bases...

Quoting Zeke:
I see no reson for that, the base whist US military run, is by no means a top secret base. A lot of civil traffic and people work there.

You give Bagram very little credit. I know plenty of defense contractors (civilians) there that hold top secret clearances and partake in top secret operations. Although there are Afghan nationals on the base at all times, they are not walking willy nilly around the airfield. The sensitive locations are tightly guarded by American forces.

I'm sure any pertinent videos will be released to the NTSB and to the Afghan CAA, but they will most likely not be released to the public. It is important to maintain operational security...



Cha brro
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 53099 times:

Someone mentioned that a picture was frozen to say the gears appeared to be in the process of lowering. Is it possible that a hydraulic failure could make the gear doors drop down? Maybe a load shifted, and it could have damaged the hydraulic systems?


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinemoriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 53005 times:

In reply to jollo, Reply 268 in previous thread (part 1):

Exactly my point! I listed those crashes as example of what one might consider to come close but I think I missed to clearify that I do not think they do, pretty much due to the reasons you listed. So I totally agree. Spectacular as they might be on video, they are mostly quite unique.

However, I can add one reason this video is so horrifying: it is really, really close.

In reply to Gonzalo, Reply 251 in previous thread (part 1):
My bad! Sorry!



Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4841 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 53021 times:

If the load shifted and went through the rear pressure bulkhead it would not be out of the normal realm of thinking that they may have had a hydraulics failure during the accident sequence. There are hydraulic lines in that area.

But National said that the weight and balances were checked and everything was tied down properly. So what happened then?



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 52830 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):
But National said that the weight and balances were checked and everything was tied down properly. So what happened then?

Nothing against National, but what else would they say? If there was a load shift, it will be next to impossible to prove what caused the MRAP to move out of its intended position...



Cha brro
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 52817 times:

In reply to Bikerthai from previous thread:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 225):
The animation specifically says that a load shift may have tilted the aircraft skyward, which in turn may have caused the engines to stall.

Never heard of an engine stall. Heard of a compressor stall. Usually comes with lots of shakes, maybe smoke and flame shooting out the front and back. Are we talking about the same thing?

From the context, I do think they mean compressor stall, but then again I don't think they know what that is any more than they know the difference from an aerodynamic stall.

Heh. I see NMA News have made the video private.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 52664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):
But National said that the weight and balances were checked and everything was tied down properly. So what happened then?

Well to be clear, they said cargo was properly loaded and secured prior to departure from Camp Bastion. They were a little more careful with their wording regarding leaving Bagram, saying only that the load was inspected.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 467 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 52506 times:

Does anyone know what laws would apply here if it's discovered that a load shift was responsible? Would whoever inspected and signed off on the load before take off be facing jail time?

User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 52456 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 11):
Does anyone know what laws would apply here if it's discovered that a load shift was responsible? Would whoever inspected and signed off on the load before take off be facing jail time?

May not apply at all if the responsible person(s) were sadly aboard the ill-fated aircraft...

[Edited 2013-05-02 14:09:23]


Cha brro
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 52456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 10):
Quoting type-rated (Reply 7):
But National said that the weight and balances were checked and everything was tied down properly. So what happened then?

Well to be clear, they said cargo was properly loaded and secured prior to departure from Camp Bastion. They were a little more careful with their wording regarding leaving Bagram, saying only that the load was inspected.

I saw that too! If this were (and hopefully soon we will know) a load shift, there are a variety of reasons it could have happened. As we know chains, straps, tie-downs, and all other "mechanical" securing devices can eventually crack and brack/tear; it's a part of "wear and tear', and most all of the time things like this are noticed/caught. However, if something broke on that last take off, it would truly be an accident (as defined)...

In some of our training, "accidents" are defined by percentages:
88% Human Error (no, I AM NOT claiming this for this event)
10% Truly Accidental - caused by wear and tear, breakage, etc
2% Natural Disaster/Effects

So, that's my itty-bit of input for the possibility of "wear and tear" as a "maybe" cause.

Regards,
135Mech


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 52147 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 13):
I saw that too! If this were (and hopefully soon we will know) a load shift, there are a variety of reasons it could have happened. As we know chains, straps, tie-downs, and all other "mechanical" securing devices can eventually crack and brack/tear; it's a part of "wear and tear', and most all of the time things like this are noticed/caught.

However, with the redundancies that are apparently involved with securing these loads, one strap/tie-down/etc failing would seem unlikely to this novice to cause the load to shift. However, I don't know what the interface is between the straps/tie-downs and the aircraft. Are there, say, 28 different attachment-points for 28 different straps, or would 6 straps feed into one, heavy-duty tied down? If that attachment point failed, then perhaps that would be enough to start the chain reaction?

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 52060 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 14):
However, with the redundancies that are apparently involved with securing these loads, one strap/tie-down/etc failing would seem unlikely to this novice to cause the load to shift. However, I don't know what the interface is between the straps/tie-downs and the aircraft. Are there, say, 28 different attachment-points for 28 different straps, or would 6 straps feed into one, heavy-duty tied down? If that attachment point failed, then perhaps that would be enough to start the chain reaction?

-Dave

Unfortunately we may never truly know what could have initiated a cargo shift, if that was what happened. But, one simple "link" starts the chain of events.

Once again.. R.I.P. to those involved.

135Mech

p.s. I agree with your next post also! (Reply 16).

[Edited 2013-05-02 15:33:23]

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 51902 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):
Unfortunately we may never truly know what could have initiated a cargo shift, if that was what happened. But, one simple "link" starts the chain of events.

It's hard to disagree with that assessment. However, if someone has better insight into the physical tie-down process/interface in a 744F, particularly for loads like these, that'd be interesting to understand better.

FWIW, I have in my head that it's likely a load shift, but if the aircraft was fine from Camp Bastion to Bagram, and nothing changed in Bagram, it seems like I need to perhaps open my own mind more to what other reasons there could be for what happened. Of course, I don't have a clue - not an industry guy - but something obviously went terribly wrong.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 51856 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 16):
but if the aircraft was fine from Camp Bastion to Bagram, and nothing changed in Bagram, it seems like I need to perhaps open my own mind more to what other reasons there could be for what happened.

If they came in to Bagram for fuel, perhaps they took off heavier (more fuel) than they did at Camp Bastion . . . how does that change their calculations?

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinegatorman96 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 51751 times:

PlanesNTrains, this photo gallery was posted somewhere in the previous thread:
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature..._vehicle_afghanistan/photo_32.html

It documents MRAPs being loaded into an Atlas Air 742F, the same type of MRAPs that were supposedly loaded into the National bird. This will at least give you an idea on how the vehicles are secured for transport...



Cha brro
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 51630 times:

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 18):
PlanesNTrains, this photo gallery was posted somewhere in the previous thread:

Thanks - forgot about that in the first thread. So it seems that there are multiple tie down spots, but perhaps a weak spot on one of the vehicles, perhaps brought on by damage in use, could have created an opportunity for a shifted load?

Really no clue - hopefully others with more knowledge on the workings of these loads would have more insight. Not so much on this particular incident, but rather on the concept in general.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 51427 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 16):
but if the aircraft was fine from Camp Bastion to Bagram, and nothing changed in Bagram, it seems like I need to perhaps open my own mind more to what other reasons there could be for what happened.

If they came in to Bagram for fuel, perhaps they took off heavier (more fuel) than they did at Camp Bastion . . . how does that change their calculations?

Two effects:
- Heavier aircraft, meaning higher rotation speed and lower vertical speed.
- CG shift. However apart from the stab tank all the fuel is quite close to the CG so the CG effect would not be very great.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 50666 times:

So.... Lets say a MRAP somehow went through the pressure bulkhead, and severed hydraulics. Would severed hydraulics cause the landing gear doors to drop?


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 679 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 50427 times:

It is a very interesting development that no cargo was added in Bagram.

Still, if the take-off climb at Bagram was steeper than at the previous location, a cargo shift is still a possibility.

But maybe we have to consider other possibilities as well. Unbalanced re-fueling, to the wrong tanks? Too much fuel? Simple piloting error to attempt climbing too steeply? Something else, what?


User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 50417 times:

I have seen landing gear doors down mentioned a couple times. I paused the video just before impact and almost seemed like the nose gear doors were down, but I wasn't really sure. So has it been confirmed the doors were down or something else was going on like gear in transit?

User currently offlineAlnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 50296 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 21):
So.... Lets say a MRAP somehow went through the pressure bulkhead, and severed hydraulics. Would severed hydraulics cause the landing gear doors to drop?

My guess is the gear was never raised. They were most likely way too busy trying to get the plane to push over right after rotation.


User currently offlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4968 posts, RR: 18
Reply 25, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 51687 times:

I'm thinking it's either the obvious: load shift, OR it's something less-obvious, which might well be the case here.

Who would have thunk that the AF accident would have been caused by what caused it?
Or that the Emery accident at MHR would have been anything but a load shift?

It shouldn't be long before we have a readout from the CVR and not long thereafter that we have a preliminary idea of what's on the DFDR, both of which should produce high-quality voice and high-quality data on many parameters. The ATG communications should already be available.

We've all said our RIPs and speculated based on the limited information we have. Let's give it a day or two to see what more info can guide the speculation.


User currently offlineYakflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 50355 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 23):
I have seen landing gear doors down mentioned a couple times. I paused the video just before impact and almost seemed like the nose gear doors were down

Looks to me like the gear was never raised and was down at the point of impact.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 27, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 52849 times:

Quoting TrnsWrld (Reply 23):
So has it been confirmed the doors were down or something else was going on like gear in transit?

There is a ( short ) time between the moment the aircraft begins to fall and the moment they leveled the wings, with the aircraft in a 90 degrees bank angle. Could this ( totally abnormal situation ) have any effect on the landing gear doors / actuators ?


Quoting wjcandee (Reply 25):
OR it's something less-obvious

In the first thread we have some people talking about updrafts ( almost a wind-shear going up instead the "traditional" downdraft ) like a possible causal factor of the stall.

The METAR for Bagram at the App time of take off :

KQSA 291155Z COR 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2990 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD 60000 70000 51014=
KQSA 291059Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN065 BKN090 14/05 A2993 RMK WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291058Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN080CB BKN150 14/05 A2993 RMK LTG DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291055Z 02007KT 9999 FEW040 BKN080CB BKN150 18/06 A2994 RMK PK WND 06026/1005 WSHFT 1027 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=

Looking at this METARS, and taking into account the terrain around the runway and the images of the sky in the background of the pictures / video, I have to ask : is there a real chance for the presence of updrafts ( strong enough to stall a B744 ) in this area ?

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 28, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 51953 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 27):
KQSA 291155Z COR 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2990 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD 60000 70000 51014=
KQSA 291059Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN065 BKN090 14/05 A2993 RMK WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291058Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN080CB BKN150 14/05 A2993 RMK LTG DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291055Z 02007KT 9999 FEW040 BKN080CB BKN150 18/06 A2994 RMK PK WND 06026/1005 WSHFT 1027 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=

Thunderstorms with light rain. However cumulonimbus at 5000 feet means any storms were probably rather higher off the ground than the plane got. The wind is gusty but nothing that should faze a Cessna 172.

Can't exclude a microburst but I would not say it is likely. Also updrafts would not stall the aircraft per se.

[Edited 2013-05-02 19:58:28]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 29, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 51626 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 28):
The wind is gusty but nothing that should faze a Cessna 172.

There is a note about the airport and weather reports on the Worldaerodata web site.

Quote:
Winds are est due to FMQ-13 wind sensors being accurate to within only +/- 4KT. ATC/Wx will not include/relay wind corrections into fcst/phraseology. Therefore aircrews will inc a +/- 4KT accuracy into their decision making process for flying opr.


User currently offlinearmitageshanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3552 posts, RR: 15
Reply 30, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 51418 times:

How would a stall protected fly by wire aircraft responded to this? I know it would have crashed anyway but would it have reacted any differently to the pilot inputs, etc?

User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 51122 times:

Quoting Yakflyer (Reply 26):
Looks to me like the gear was never raised and was down at the point of impact.

I know, I didn't say anything about the gear ever being up. I would agree that it was probably never retracted in the first place. What I was saying is that a few guys posted something about gear doors being down and I also noticed that the split second before the crash it appears the nose gear doors are down. Again, it's hard to see but it seems like something is hanging down there and someone else questioned if damage hydraulics in the back of the plane would cause gear doors to hang down.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 32, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 49058 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
A surprisingly large percentage of the vehicles used in Afghanistan were flown in - though in relatively short hops from Muscat and Oman.

I am aware of that, I go through that part of the world enough to see/hear them. I have never heard of them going over Iran, always east along the Gulf of Oman, then taking up a Northly track once over Pakistan.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
Yes, but that isn't going to happen due to political issues. Pakistan is not going to allow weapons to be loaded/ offloaded at their ports/ airfields.

They do, the US continue to use Shahbaz (armed drones), Chaklala, Quetta, Tarbela (helicopters), and Peshawar. They even have had troops based at some of those bases when they were doing the relief work. Please remember this was a civil cargo flight, the vehicles would be disarmed.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 2):
lot of what is captured by those cameras is never released to the public by the military

Agreed, and the investigators may not need additional footage.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 3):
No additional cargo or personnel was added during the stop in Bagram, and the aircraft's cargo was again inspected prior to departure.

That does not rule out offloading cargo.

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 4):
You give Bagram very little credit. I know plenty of defense contractors (civilians) there that hold top secret clearances and partake in top secret operations. Although there are Afghan nationals on the base at all times, they are not walking willy nilly around the airfield. The sensitive locations are tightly guarded by American forces.

Not at all. Even large bases in the US are made open to the public for airshows etc, those same bases also have more sensitive areas within in them. There are even nondescript office buildings that have areas which hold classified material. Just because part of a base may or may not have these sort of activities, it does not make the whole base top secret.

Quoting gatorman96 (Reply 4):
I'm sure any pertinent videos will be released to the NTSB and to the Afghan CAA, but they will most likely not be released to the public. It is important to maintain operational security...

I agree

Quoting F9animal (Reply 5):
Is it possible that a hydraulic failure could make the gear doors drop down?

I do not think so, the uplocks should hold even with hydraulic loss. There is also indications the rudder was deflected prior to impact, which also requires hydraulic power.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 11):

Does anyone know what laws would apply here if it's discovered that a load shift was responsible? Would whoever inspected and signed off on the load before take off be facing jail time?

The PIC is the person responsible, other people can be contributing factors.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 17):
If they came in to Bagram for fuel, perhaps they took off heavier (more fuel) than they did at Camp Bastion . . . how does that change their calculations?

It does not make sense to me to fly 300 nm NE to Bagram, and then I assume have fuel still to get back to Bastion as an alternate plus reserves when they could go into Pakistan, Oman, UAE etc. They only came in from DXB, they should have had heaps of room to tanker fuel for the return sector. With those vehicles onboard, the aircraft would be only around 50-60% of its maximum payload capability.

Reading the statement again, what they have not said is if they offloaded cargo at Bagram. Not suggesting they did or did not, just an observation they could offload underfloor or main deck pallets while still having the 5 vehicles on the main deck and they have not specifically denied this possibility.

I think there is a possibility they offloaded cargo at Bastion, loaded the vehicles, then went to Bagram and then possibly also offloaded more cargo. That would make more sense to me than going there just for fuel.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 33, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 48636 times:

Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 30):
How would a stall protected fly by wire aircraft responded to this? I know it would have crashed anyway but would it have reacted any differently to the pilot inputs, etc?

Interesting question. If we assume that it was indeed a dramatic load shift towards the rear, the aircraft would have pitched up in the same way. Even with pitch trim trying to compensate the stabilizer to a full nose down position, the CG is too far aft for it to be effective (same as happened in this case if we assume load shift).

Let's also assume it is an Airbus. With the aircraft in an abnormal attitude, the control system would go into Abnormal Alternate Law. You'd be left with only load factor protection, thus the aircraft would no longer have stall protection. Pitch law would still be load factor demand but without the protections. Roll law would be direct. Yaw law would be alternate, which I think means just yaw damping.

I'd say it would have behaved in the same way. No control system in the world can change physics, and if the CG is way too far aft there are not many straws left to clutch at.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 34, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 48554 times:

Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 30):

How would a stall protected fly by wire aircraft responded to this? I know it would have crashed anyway but would it have reacted any differently to the pilot inputs, etc?

FBW in itself does nothing, it just replaces cables, pulleys, bell cranks, rods etc from the control column to the control surface.

It is the electronic flight control system (EFCS) that gets the pilots inputs, and generates surface movements. It has a feedback loop which will change the surface movements based upon the feedback on the aircraft performance. That feedback loop may have helped, it may not have. We do not know the cause yet.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinefdxgirl From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 74 posts, RR: 5
Reply 35, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 48026 times:

So I'm just curious then, if the load was inspected and secured at the originating place.....How often are the actual individual straps and whatnot actually inspected for airworthyness? And for that matter, how often are connection points in the track system on the plane tested for g-force load bearing stress fractures? i'm not trying to stir the pot as in the last thread. Im just curious.

User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1359 posts, RR: 22
Reply 36, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 47497 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 14):
However, with the redundancies that are apparently involved with securing these loads, one strap/tie-down/etc failing would seem unlikely to this novice to cause the load to shift. However, I don't know what the interface is between the straps/tie-downs and the aircraft. Are there, say, 28 different attachment-points for 28 different straps, or would 6 straps feed into one, heavy-duty tied down? If that attachment point failed, then perhaps that would be enough to start the chain reaction?
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 16):
It's hard to disagree with that assessment. However, if someone has better insight into the physical tie-down process/interface in a 744F, particularly for loads like these, that'd be interesting to understand better.

26 straps are used to tie down the MRAPs to the floor of the 747. The vehicle itself is on two pallets which are center loaded on the aircraft. The vehicle has its tires deflated to a certain point to allow it to fit through the door of the aircraft, it is also chained with heavy duty chains to the pallet itself. The straps are put through tie down rings built onto the trucks (very very heavy duty rings) and are strapped to the floor. Its been several years since I've done one of the flights, but if my memory is correct we had straps from the front left to the floor (multiple straps), straps from the front right to the floor and the same for the back left and right. There were also straps going vertical from the truck to the floor.
You are protecting for movement in all directions, forward, backward, laterally and vertically.
26 straps is excessive, but we were restraining for max G load in all directions.
Once the loading process was understood, loading could be completed in about 30-45 minutes, then it would take 8-10 people around 1.5-2 hours to strap all the MRAPs down.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 47434 times:

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 25):
Who would have thunk that the AF accident would have been caused by what caused it?

A lot of people... The iced pitot and crew induced stall was probably the number 1 theory, even before the CVR and FDR were found.

Quoting armitageshanks (Reply 30):

How would a stall protected fly by wire aircraft responded to this? I know it would have crashed anyway but would it have reacted any differently to the pilot inputs, etc?


Seeing as it looks as if the aircraft didn't have enough pitch authority to overcome whatever was pushing the nose up, it probably wouldn't have helped but we don't know for certain yet (and may never do).



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinemoriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 44299 times:

Part from the video I've seen very few pics (a couple though) from the site. Anyone?


Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 39, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 43481 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 32):
Not at all. Even large bases in the US

But Bagram is in an active combat zone. It has experienced several attacks by people who cleared normal security procedures.

Air shows and open houses always include security plans and roadblocks to keep visitors away from certain parts of the base.

Bagram It is now more secure, and more compartmented, than almost any base in the US. Once a person gains access to the base, they do not have free access to the entire base. I've talked to several US military folks who returned from Afghanistan who complain about having to show ID and prove a need to access different parts of the base.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 42519 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
But maybe we have to consider other possibilities as well. Unbalanced re-fueling, to the wrong tanks? Too much fuel? Simple piloting error to attempt climbing too steeply? Something else, what?

A runaway stab trim could have resulted in the same outcome. It has happened.


User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 42362 times:

The 744 has an automatic cut out system that shuts off hydrolic power to the stabilizer whenever unscheduled trim occurs. The same thing happens when contol column input is given in the opposite direction of uncommanded stabilizer movement.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 42, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 42239 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 39):

Yep, I believe all that, however we are talking about the perimeter, runways, and flight line here, those cameras would be relatively open access areas. There are a number of civilian aircraft sharing that area, all you need to do is have a look at youtube and you can see videos of the area.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineNavigator From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 1144 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 41780 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
But maybe we have to consider other possibilities as well. Unbalanced re-fueling, to the wrong tanks? Too much fuel? Simple piloting error to attempt climbing too steeply? Something else, what?

Check this out for other possibilities:

"TIA was involved in a single fatal accident, involving a Douglas DC-8 N8963T ferry flight, with eight flight attendants and three cockpit crewmembers on board, en route from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City to Washington Dulles International Airport. On September 8, 1970 a foreign object became wedged between the right elevator and horizontal stabilizer, blown there by backwash from the aircraft preceding it on the taxiway. The problem was not detected, and the aircraft crashed upon takeoff with the loss of all 11 on board."



747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2252 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 40581 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 16):
FWIW, I have in my head that it's likely a load shift, but if the aircraft was fine from Camp Bastion to Bagram, and nothing changed in Bagram, it seems like I need to perhaps open my own mind more to what other reasons there could be for what happened

Most accidents caused by wear& tear / mechanical failure can be described similarly -- aircraft flew fine, completed its previous fight fine, until it crashed.

Think JAL 123, the CI 744 rear bulkhead failure, the Alaska MD80 elevator screw failure, the AA A300 rudder failure at JFK, and other similar crashes attributed to sudden unanticipated mechanical failures. All fine until something goes snap.

So I would not at this stage, until the investigation is complete, assume "something else" might have been behind this.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 45, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 40372 times:

Anyone have any updates on if N8 is still operating?


One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 46, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 40293 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 45):

Anyone have any updates on if N8 is still operating?

Why wouldn't it be?

http://www.nationalairlines.aero/



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 529 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 39621 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 32):
The PIC is the person responsible, other people can be contributing factors.

Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong but in instances like this, yes the PIC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the A/C. This would mean he/she is responsible to ensure proper weight/balance and that all cargo is loaded in the right place but with having a certified loadmaster on the flight, he/she is the primary responsible party for ensuring the security of the cargo. Expecting the pilots to not only be certified to fly the plane but also to be certified loadmasters is not common practice even in cargo operations.

I know we have a couple 747 loadmasters here and if you can chime in that would be great.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 48, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 39622 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 46):
Why wouldn't it be?

Well they only had 3 744fs......Losing one could be a gigantic drawback



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 38930 times:

Quoting F9animal (Reply 21):
So.... Lets say a MRAP somehow went through the pressure bulkhead, and severed hydraulics. Would severed hydraulics cause the landing gear doors to drop?

No

Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 24):
My guess is the gear was never raised. They were most likely way too busy trying to get the plane to push over right after rotation.

That is what it looks like.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 50, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 38660 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 32):
It does not make sense to me to fly 300 nm NE to Bagram, and then I assume have fuel still to get back to Bastion as an alternate plus reserves when they could go into Pakistan, Oman, UAE etc. They only came in from DXB, they should have had heaps of room to tanker fuel for the return sector. With those vehicles onboard, the aircraft would be only around 50-60% of its maximum payload capability.

Length of runway and field altitude at Camp Bastion could be the reason for limiting the takeoff weight of the Aircraft.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 27):
There is a ( short ) time between the moment the aircraft begins to fall and the moment they leveled the wings, with the aircraft in a 90 degrees bank angle. Could this ( totally abnormal situation ) have any effect on the landing gear doors / actuators ?

No it would not. But the gear appears to have never been raised. It appears to be fully down at impact.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6676 posts, RR: 46
Reply 51, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 38640 times:

Seeing as how the plane successfully flew a leg with the same cargo, I think the most likely cause of this crash was that something broke; probably something securing one of the vehicles. Perhaps they were making a much steeper climb than they had before, which is why it happened this time and not previously. Assuming the pilots were competent (and I believe they were-nothing has suggested they weren't) I have trouble finding any explanation other than load shift to explain what happened. But I could well be wrong; some new gremlin may have reared its ugly head.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2793 posts, RR: 27
Reply 52, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 37979 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 50):
Length of runway and field altitude at Camp Bastion could be the reason for limiting the takeoff weight of the Aircraft.

Length 11,500ft. Elevation 2,800ft. Roughly the same length as DEN at half the elevation.



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 53, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 37781 times:

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 36):
26 straps are used to tie down the MRAPs to the floor of the 747. The vehicle itself is on two pallets which are center loaded on the aircraft. The vehicle has its tires deflated to a certain point to allow it to fit through the door of the aircraft, it is also chained with heavy duty chains to the pallet itself. The straps are put through tie down rings built onto the trucks (very very heavy duty rings) and are strapped to the floor. Its been several years since I've done one of the flights, but if my memory is correct we had straps from the front left to the floor (multiple straps), straps from the front right to the floor and the same for the back left and right. There were also straps going vertical from the truck to the floor.
You are protecting for movement in all directions, forward, backward, laterally and vertically.
26 straps is excessive, but we were restraining for max G load in all directions.
Once the loading process was understood, loading could be completed in about 30-45 minutes, then it would take 8-10 people around 1.5-2 hours to strap all the MRAPs down.

Great explanation and description - thank you!

Quoting sankaps (Reply 44):
Most accidents caused by wear& tear / mechanical failure can be described similarly -- aircraft flew fine, completed its previous fight fine, until it crashed.

Sure, which is why I asked for the above description. I was wondering if any one failure point would be enough to allow such a load to shift? If there are 26 different tie-downs, 26 different tie-down spots, etc., it would seem to require something more critical to fail, but if many of the tie-downs used a common connect-point - like the tie-down rings on the trucks - and one of those failed, then certainly that'd be a different case.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 44):

So I would not at this stage, until the investigation is complete, assume "something else" might have been behind this.

If I use the word "assume", it's in a casual, personal sense. I don't for a moment think I know what happened aboard this aircraft, and I don't look at myself as junior investigator. I just want to understand what "might" have happened, and how, so that I can draw some very basic conclusions for myself.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 635 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 36684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Navigator (Reply 43):
On September 8, 1970 a foreign object became wedged between the right elevator and horizontal stabilizer, blown there by backwash from the aircraft preceding it on the taxiway




This accident and causes behind it have been brought up a couple of times. Remember that the DC-8 does not have powered elevators, it is operated only by aerodynamic forces via a control/gear tab. Believe it or not an improper safety on the control tab torque tube mount bolts could prevent proper operation.

My point being, jamming or stopping a modern flight control from moving is much tougher on hydraulic actuated components. I have seen flaps lowered onto very sturdy objects and they just keep on coming down, of course mangling the flap but they did not stop,same with slats and elevators.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34584 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 32):
It does not make sense to me to fly 300 nm NE to Bagram, and then I assume have fuel still to get back to Bastion as an alternate plus reserves when they could go into Pakistan, Oman, UAE etc. They only came in from DXB, they should have had heaps of room to tanker fuel for the return sector. With those vehicles onboard, the aircraft would be only around 50-60% of its maximum payload capability.

The normal route for this flight is Bastion Bagram and then back to Dubai, It does not really matter where the cargo is mostly to or from one or both of those places because the contract is for this roundtrip.

They normally avoid to tanker anything or take as little fuel as possible in those places because the price is more that double the normal price, and on top of that it can take hours for a civilian flight to get fuel there.

I am not sure that civilian aircraft can file military airports as an alternate when going in to those places, and other good alternates around in not so friendly states they could not use, because some of the cargo they have on board! so possibly they are carrying fuel for DXB as an alternate.


User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1359 posts, RR: 22
Reply 56, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34621 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
Someone will surely correct me if I am wrong but in instances like this, yes the PIC is ultimately responsible for the operation of the A/C. This would mean he/she is responsible to ensure proper weight/balance and that all cargo is loaded in the right place but with having a certified loadmaster on the flight, he/she is the primary responsible party for ensuring the security of the cargo. Expecting the pilots to not only be certified to fly the plane but also to be certified loadmasters is not common practice even in cargo operations.

I know we have a couple 747 loadmasters here and if you can chime in that would be great.

Final authority of the loading of the aircraft comes down to the loadmaster. Most of the PICs I've worked with wouldn't know the first thing about cargo restraint, or loading methods. The loadmaster signs the loading documentation that is provided to the crew, their signature is the final authority that the aircraft is loaded as prescribed on the papers, and that they have verified that all cargo is secure and everything is fit for flight.
The last question most of the other loadmasters I've worked with is "Would I put my family on this flight?" if you can't answer that with a yes, with no hesitation, its time to take another look at the load.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34436 times:

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 56):
Final authority of the loading of the aircraft comes down to the loadmaster. Most of the PICs I've worked with wouldn't know the first thing about cargo restraint, or loading methods. The loadmaster signs the loading documentation that is provided to the crew, their signature is the final authority that the aircraft is loaded as prescribed on the papers, and that they have verified that all cargo is secure and everything is fit for flight.

While it's obviously true that, in practice loadmasters carry this authority, the point others are making is that legally it IS the PIC's responsibility, as everything on the aircraft is. However, the PIC's authority is delegated to others for certain items, especially where the PIC may not have the required expertise, or the required ability to see (e.g loadmasters, cabin crew etc).



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34349 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
But maybe we have to consider other possibilities as well. Unbalanced re-fueling, to the wrong tanks? Too much fuel? Simple piloting error to attempt climbing too steeply? Something else, what?

Perhaps all of these plus the original CG on departure from Camp Bastion maybe being WNL but marginal? Plus (as others have pointed out) some cargo maybe being unloaded at Bagram? As has been pointed out innumerable times on Anet forums, accidents usually are caused by a confluence of events.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 59, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34575 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 57):
Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 56):
Final authority of the loading of the aircraft comes down to the loadmaster. Most of the PICs I've worked with wouldn't know the first thing about cargo restraint, or loading methods. The loadmaster signs the loading documentation that is provided to the crew, their signature is the final authority that the aircraft is loaded as prescribed on the papers, and that they have verified that all cargo is secure and everything is fit for flight.

While it's obviously true that, in practice loadmasters carry this authority, the point others are making is that legally it IS the PIC's responsibility, as everything on the aircraft is. However, the PIC's authority is delegated to others for certain items, especially where the PIC may not have the required expertise, or the required ability to see (e.g loadmasters, cabin crew etc).

My uncle works for FedEx at SEA and he always told me that as a loadmaster, if a plane goes down and the cause is related to the load and loading procedures, its your ass.

Same goes for us in the passenger business. Whoever signs the luggage/cargo loading schedule is accepting legal liability should something bad happen involving any discrepancy.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1359 posts, RR: 22
Reply 60, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34248 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 57):
While it's obviously true that, in practice loadmasters carry this authority, the point others are making is that legally it IS the PIC's responsibility, as everything on the aircraft is. However, the PIC's authority is delegated to others for certain items, especially where the PIC may not have the required expertise, or the required ability to see (e.g loadmasters, cabin crew etc).

The weight and balance paperwork simply has the cargo weight in each individual position. The flight crew would have no way of knowing if the weight in a certain position is in fact the correct cargo that was planned there. The loadmaster does, and by signing the paperwork accepts the legal responsibility that all is correct. The PIC has the final authority to the flight, but would not be able to handle the first part of cargo loading, or weight and balance paperwork.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 34170 times:

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 60):
The weight and balance paperwork simply has the cargo weight in each individual position. The flight crew would have no way of knowing if the weight in a certain position is in fact the correct cargo that was planned there. The loadmaster does, and by signing the paperwork accepts the legal responsibility that all is correct. The PIC has the final authority to the flight, but would not be able to handle the first part of cargo loading, or weight and balance paperwork.

That's exactly what I said.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 62, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34032 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Please" remove : double post

[Edited 2013-05-03 12:25:58]


Contrail designer
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 63, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

These are still early days andwe don't have much in terms of facts.
What we can see from the video is that the pilot fought very hard to maintain control of the aircraft : in a pre-stall situation, with a reduced roll authority, he used the yawing motion of the rudder to accelerate the left wing and return to a wing level situation. The rudder action is very visible, and its effect too.
We have here one sharp pilot.

The reason for the stall is unknown :
- a CG shift could be one, but I'd think that they would have crashed in a tail-low configuration
- a flight control problem could be considered, too, although the crew abnormal procedures cover that sort of event quite nicely, be they jammed stab, runaway trim... etc...

The landing gear down could be seen from two aspects :
1/ - They never retracted it, pointing toward a problem immediately after rotation
2/ - They lowered it in order to get a better pitch authority... but in this case, reducing thrust would have been part of the actions they undertook... but we have very few clues in this respect.

I tried to get a better picture of the stabilizer position, but failed to get a better picture.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15444 posts, RR: 26
Reply 64, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34004 times:

From an investigative standpoint, what sort of smoking gun would there be for a load shift? Obviously all of the cargo is going to have come loose and been destroyed on impact, so barring a mistake that someone could testify to having seen or being reflected in paperwork, how could investigators show that cargo shifted? Or would they just have to assume it to be the probable cause if they rule out other reasons for a drastic pitch up?


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 65, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 34011 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
Or would they just have to assume it

There is a lot they can tell from the FDR data and the CVR data.

Even after such a fire, the NTSB can likely find impact points within the aircraft if something came loose, shifted back and struck part of the aircraft structure (I discount anything that large could have ruptured the rear pressure bulkhead).

If the NTSB is unable to find firm evidence to back up things like a cargo shift - but suspects that is the cause - the report will clearly state that it is a best guess presumption based on the available evidence.

In some cases every year, the NTSB cannot find firm evidence to say X caused the crash. But they will describe exactly what circumstantial evidence led them to the cause of the accident.

This was certainly a very destructive crash, and major fire, but unless you have been to crash sites - it is hard to imagine the level of destruction and yet the level of what is not destroyed.

As I said, I've seen aircraft crash, seen them burn, been to crash sites. It is amazing what can be accurately determined from examination of the wreckage.

The NTSB report on the ValueJet crash is a very interesting example of what can be proven from a relatively limited debris field.


User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 33786 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 64):
These are still early days andwe don't have much in terms of facts.
What we can see from the video is that the pilot fought very hard to maintain control of the aircraft : in a pre-stall situation, with a reduced roll authority, he used the yawing motion of the rudder to accelerate the left wing and return to a wing level situation. The rudder action is very visible, and its effect too.
We have here one sharp pilot.

You are indeed correct. I can now quite clearly see (full) left rudder deflection. On first views of the video I was intrigued as to how quickly the aircraft was rolled back from around 90° right bank to wings level. Even for a fully controllable 747, this is a pretty fast roll rate. We can see a deflected rudder, however the airflow over the rudder and any of the other control surfaces is minimal here, I'm still therefore somewhat puzzled how there was enough airflow to achieve this roll rate.

On watching the video again, as someone speculated in the part 1, the pitch angle is not nearly so high as I/others had first thought. The low angle of the camera looking towards an oncoming climbing aircraft makes the pitch angle look more dramatic than it really is.


User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1292 posts, RR: 52
Reply 67, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 33718 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

From Thread 1 -

Quoting Argonaut, reply=211:
Back on the main topic: I think it's probably not as easy as some of us think to deduce exactly what the aircraft's initial movements were, especially the climb angle. The camera perspective could be misleading us in some way (foreshortening?), as I'm sure we've all experienced. I'll keep any more speculative thoughts to myself. Having this film available will surely help the investigation.

I also observed this. Watching the video - the part where the a/c appears to be at a very high AOA is from nearly directly below and ahead. While I have no argument that it appears to be a stall related accident, I'm not convinced the AOA was as high as some are saying. (I saw statements like 80 degrees).

Do we have any independent information from another source that provides better perspective of the a/c AOA at the time it appears to have stalled?



rcair1
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 33624 times:

I have no experience here, but reading Pihero's post and watching the vid again, it almost seems to me like they actually recovered from what happened initially, but did not have enough altitude to complete the recovery.

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 69, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 33373 times:

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 68):
(I saw statements like 80 degrees).

I saw that statement too, but the one I saw was part of the AvHerald initial report, and now was edited to this :

"Several observers on the ground reported the National Air Cargo Boeing 747-400 had just lifted off and was climbing through approximately 1200 feet when it's nose sharply rose, the aircraft appeared to have stalled and came down erupting in a blaze".

So the witness talking about "80 degrees nose up" changed his initial statement, or was just not credible, and the report was edited.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 69):
I have no experience here, but reading Pihero's post and watching the vid again, it almost seems to me like they actually recovered from what happened initially, but did not have enough altitude to complete the recovery.

I'm convinced that, *IF this crash was caused by a load shift* going rearwards, they didn´t had a real chance no matter the altitude. They could probably avoid the impact in the first "cycle" of stall/bank/fall from the sky, and would be "flying normally" for a few seconds, but unless the load returns to the correct position and "miraculously" remain in that place, the cycle would repeat until they finally crash anyway. OF course, if this happens in the final phase of climb at, let's say, 26.000 ft., the chances of figuring out what is happening (and the time to search for some sort of solution ) increases, but I found the chances of a successful recovery are very limited.


Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 394 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 33380 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
The PIC is the person responsible, other people can be contributing factors.

And He is DEAD! Along with the loadmaster, so what's the point of everyone on here continuing to point this out?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 48):
Well they only had 3 744fs

Where did you see this information, source? I was under the impression (and so was our local news as they reported) that this type was a one off for them (N8).

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 59):
if a plane goes down and the cause is related to the load and loading procedures, its your ass.

Again, all the asses that would be on a flag pole are DEAD so what's the point?

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 69):
it almost seems to me like they actually recovered from what happened initially, but did not have enough altitude to complete the recovery.

You're right, they did practically/nearly perfectly level off...there's no question there. As the other qualified, certa-bonafide, type-rated gurus on this site have pointed out...they ran out of air! If the plane was a little higher, we probably could start another thread with other maybe, possibly, could be speculative theories.



Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 71, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 33112 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting United727 (Reply 71):
Again, all the asses that would be on a flag pole are DEAD so what's the point?

Did you miss the part earlier in the thread where someone asked how this kind of thing is generally handled?!

So point is, someone asked a question and a few of us tried to answer the question.

[Edited 2013-05-03 15:32:42]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinemy235 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 33152 times:

Why hasn't the fact that according to an unconfirmed claim, a crew member was heard on VHF air-band radio reporting that some of the load of five heavy military vehicles in the cargo hold had shifted, made more news??

User currently offlinecjg225 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 611 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 33062 times:

Quoting my235 (Reply 73):
Why hasn't the fact that according to an unconfirmed claim, a crew member was heard on VHF air-band radio reporting that some of the load of five heavy military vehicles in the cargo hold had shifted, made more news??

Wouldn't that make it not a "fact" then?  



Restoring Penn State's transportation heritage...
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 74, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 32775 times:

Quoting sankaps (Reply 44):
Think JAL 123, the CI 744 rear bulkhead failure, the Alaska MD80 elevator screw failure, the AA A300 rudder failure at JFK, and other similar crashes attributed to sudden unanticipated mechanical failures. All fine until something goes snap.

You can't lump AA587 in there. That plane had no underlying issues like the other three. The rudder snapped due to improper handling in wake turbulence.

Quoting United727 (Reply 71):
Quoting ATCtower (Reply 47):
The PIC is the person responsible, other people can be contributing factors.

And He is DEAD! Along with the loadmaster, so what's the point of everyone on here continuing to point this out?

Yes, they are both dead. I don't think anyone here is assigning blame, but is more interested in who is responsible for what and how.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 75, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 32512 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 55):
The normal route for this flight is Bastion Bagram and then back to Dubai, It does not really matter where the cargo is mostly to or from one or both of those places because the contract is for this roundtrip.

Which makes me still think cargo was offloaded there, those sort of milk run contracts are used to get normal supplies to places like food. If they had the forward lower hold full of food and perishables for the base, it could easily be 10-20t of cargo.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 55):
They normally avoid to tanker anything or take as little fuel as possible in those places because the price is more that double the normal price, and on top of that it can take hours for a civilian flight to get fuel there

Tanker means to carry in your own tanks, it is what we do when fuel is a lot more expensive or not available.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 56):
Final authority of the loading of the aircraft comes down to the loadmaster. Most of the PICs I've worked with wouldn't know the first thing about cargo restraint, or loading methods. The loadmaster signs the loading documentation that is provided to the crew, their signature is the final authority that the aircraft is loaded as prescribed on the papers, and that they have verified that all cargo is secure and everything is fit for flight.

The PIC always is the final authority, regardless of what paperwork is thrown at us. I have flown more than one occasion only to get an ACARS in flight to say you have an extra container or pallet. Which them means the PIC needs to file more paperwork.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 57):
While it's obviously true that, in practice loadmasters carry this authority, the point others are making is that legally it IS the PIC's responsibility, as everything on the aircraft is. However, the PIC's authority is delegated to others for certain items, especially where the PIC may not have the required expertise, or the required ability to see (e.g loadmasters, cabin crew etc).

Load control normally prepares the loadsheet (however the crew can also do this manually). I do not need a load controller to do a load sheet, I can do it myself if needed. We carry manual loadsheet for that, I have not used one in anger for years. The computer generated ones are faster and more accurate.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 59):
Same goes for us in the passenger business. Whoever signs the luggage/cargo loading schedule is accepting legal liability should something bad happen involving any discrepancy.

No, it is the PIC that always has the final responsibility, to be able to prepare the load sheet, most regulators require people to have specific training and their company assigns them an authority to do the loadsheets. They are how not responsible for the aircraft's loading (passengers and cargo), it is the pilots. The pilots are also responsible for the fuel that loaded, both the quantity and type, you never see them out with a hose and filling her up, doing a chemical analysis of the fuel type, and measuring the SG or counting the number of passengers onboard.

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 60):
The weight and balance paperwork simply has the cargo weight in each individual position. The flight crew would have no way of knowing if the weight in a certain position is in fact the correct cargo that was planned there. The loadmaster does, and by signing the paperwork accepts the legal responsibility that all is correct. The PIC has the final authority to the flight, but would not be able to handle the first part of cargo loading, or weight and balance paperwork.

Depends on what is being carried, in this case as they were vehicles. They should have a NOTOC (which is not a notice to the loadmaster) the position each vehicle is loaded. And please the comments like "but would not be able to handle the first part of cargo loading, or weight and balance paperwork" are not true. Crews are supposed to be able to do the W&B as part f the type rating, we are not as fast, but it is not rocket science either. Likewise with the load, if there is something the crew does not like, they will not go until it is been looked at.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 65):
how could investigators show that cargo shifted? Or would they just have to assume it to be the probable cause if they rule out other reasons for a drastic pitch up?

Sounds maybe recorded, and accelerations cause by the change in moments will also be recorded. Vehicle are typically loaded on pallets, and these are locked into position. These locks are integrated into the floor would in my view survive an impact and fire. How the vehicle is restrained onto the pallet would in my view be harder to determine, they may use nylon straps for that, the may have to look for deformation on the vehicles for the deceleration loads where they were attached , the straps would not survive a post crash fire.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 64):
a CG shift could be one, but I'd think that they would have crashed in a tail-low configuration

Prob due the change in CP. If the load was unrestrained, it might have also been able to move forward as well.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 76, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 32490 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
No, it is the PIC that always has the final responsibility, to be able to prepare the load sheet, most regulators require people to have specific training and their company assigns them an authority to do the loadsheets. They are how not responsible for the aircraft's loading (passengers and cargo), it is the pilots. The pilots are also responsible for the fuel that loaded, both the quantity and type, you never see them out with a hose and filling her up, doing a chemical analysis of the fuel type, and measuring the SG or counting the number of passengers onboard.

Again, if a plane goes down, the lead loading agent who signed the paperwork will be held liable if there was a discrepancy or failure in their job duty that ultimately caused or contributed to an accident. Multiple parties are involved in releasing a flight. For us it's the Dispatcher, Captain, Operations Agent and lead Ramp Agent who share responsibility and liability. If you're signature is on the paperwork, you're responsible for the job represented by your signature.

So when a ramp lead signs the paperwork, it means that they loaded the aircraft properly, that all numbers and weights marked on the cargo loading schedule are 100% accurate, that all bin webbing, doors and access panels are secured properly, and that they have completed a visual walk-around inspection prior to departure. If something bad happens and the investigation points to any of the above being inaccurate, incomplete, ignored or that proper procedures were not followed, the lead agent will be held liable.

[Edited 2013-05-03 18:46:33]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15444 posts, RR: 26
Reply 77, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 32085 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
Sounds maybe recorded,

That's possible. I forgot about that.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
and accelerations cause by the change in moments will also be recorded.

That's what I was thinking as far as there possibly being no smoking gun but only a circumstantial case. If all the moments change quickly and drastically with no other explanation, like weather or a control problem, it would lead to the probable conclusion that the load shifted.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
These locks are integrated into the floor would in my view survive an impact and fire.

Would they? I don't claim to be an expert, but surely the impact would break the locks and dislodge all of the other pallets so would there be a way of knowing which locks failed during the crash and which failed and led to the crash? If investigators found some locks that were disengaged when they should have been engaged, that would be pretty conclusive, but since they didn't load or offload any cargo at Bagram, I suspect that is unlikely.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 78, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 31978 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
These locks are integrated into the floor would in my view survive an impact and fire.

Would they? I don't claim to be an expert, but surely the impact would break the locks and dislodge all of the other pallets so would there be a way of knowing which locks failed during the crash and which failed and led to the crash? If investigators found some locks that were disengaged when they should have been engaged, that would be pretty conclusive, but since they didn't load or offload any cargo at Bagram, I suspect that is unlikely.

There are ways to tell how a component failed even after a crash. For example if it sheared consistent with being pulled by the strap/chain, if it was intact but mangled in the crash or fire, etc. Those materials guys are clever.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8638 posts, RR: 75
Reply 79, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 31904 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 77):
Again, if a plane goes down, the lead loading agent who signed the paperwork will be held liable if there was a discrepancy or failure in their job duty that ultimately caused or contributed to an accident. Multiple parties are involved in releasing a flight. For us it's the Dispatcher, Captain, Operations Agent and lead Ramp Agent who share responsibility and liability. If you're signature is on the paperwork, you're responsible for the job represented by your signature.

Have a look at FAR 91.3 and 121.537. Please not this was a cargo only supplemental operation, not a domestic or flag (and not even supplemental passenger). From what I understand, a dispatcher is not legally required for such operations.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
Would they? I don't claim to be an expert, but surely the impact would break the locks and dislodge all of the other pallets so would there be a way of knowing which locks failed during the crash and which failed and led to the crash?

The locks I am talking about ate part of the floor structure, this is an example of what I mean ( http://www.airborne-sys.com/files/brochures/pallet_locks_1.08.pdf ) . Even if the tongue that holds the pallet in place shears off, the mechanism that is in the floor should still be there and show its position at time of the deceleration.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 529 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 31817 times:

Quoting Flyer732 (Reply 56):
Final authority of the loading of the aircraft comes down to the loadmaster. Most of the PICs I've worked with wouldn't know the first thing about cargo restraint, or loading methods. The loadmaster signs the loading documentation that is provided to the crew, their signature is the final authority that the aircraft is loaded as prescribed on the papers, and that they have verified that all cargo is secure and everything is fit for flight.
The last question most of the other loadmasters I've worked with is "Would I put my family on this flight?" if you can't answer that with a yes, with no hesitation, its time to take another look at the load.

Thank you for confirming this. Around here, posting something you are only 99% sure of is sure to get you flamed  
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 62):
The loadmaster and the captain both have to sign the loadsheet, and when the captain signs he accepts the loadmasters work and takes responsibility.
Quoting United727 (Reply 71):
And He is DEAD! Along with the loadmaster, so what's the point of everyone on here continuing to point this out?

There is a BIG difference between speculating that this could have maybe, possibly been a load shift and blaming anyone.

There is also a BIG difference between blame and responsibility. Post EVERY crash, there is an investigation done as to the responsible factors (people and machine) and that is all anyone here is eluding to. IF this was a load shift, who would be at fault.

On that note, put a spin on this and say that one of the floor locks was installed by an incompetent member of MX during overhaul and that broke loose and caused this. The pilot can inspect all he/she wants but they are not an aviation mechanic nor are they expected to be, and could not possibly be expected to know torque levels of every screw on the plane, that is the mechanics job. Yes, undoubtedly the PIC is the final responsibility for the safety of his/her flight, but that comes on the shoulders of people specialized in ensuring it is so. If it was indeed an issue with a cargo shift or movement, directly related to a mechanic or loadmaster's are of expertise, they are almost exclusively 'responsible' from a legal/investigative standpoint and that is all my comment was referring to.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 81, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 31705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 80):
Have a look at FAR 91.3 and 121.537. Please not this was a cargo only supplemental operation, not a domestic or flag (and not even supplemental passenger). From what I understand, a dispatcher is not legally required for such operations.

You shot down a comment I made regarding input from a passenger flight perspective as it pertained to the original question asked about who would be responsible. I therefore responded in greater detail. Is it relevant to this specific event? Not really, but again I was sharing input to a general question asked based on personal experience.

The whole point of my post was that someone on the ground can be held accountable in these situations. Anyway, apologies for derailing the discussion.

[Edited 2013-05-03 21:46:06]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineliquidair From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 31236 times:

What would happen to an aircraft this heavy, if the thrust cut during such a steep climb? Would it stall like this or would you expect a different reaction?

In the video it seems like there's always thrust, so likely unrelated... Just curious.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 83, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 31127 times:

Quoting liquidair (Reply 83):
What would happen to an aircraft this heavy, if the thrust cut during such a steep climb? Would it stall like this or would you expect a different reaction?

Assuming a sudden loss of all engines and no load shift...

The important thing to remember is that due to inertia the aircraft has a lot of momentum. The fact that the aircraft is as large and heavy as a 744 does not make the mechanics much different since wings and engines are scaled up to match. If you magically cut all the engines in an instant there would be a gradual deceleration. It takes a surprising amount of time to slow down. While there is no time to dawdle, there is time to assess the situation.

Since the engines are below the centerline in a 747, the tendency would be to pitch down. The pilot flying would be holding V2+10 I believe. When the engines cut out, the aircraft would gradually lose momentum, which would necessitate a gradual lowering of the nose. After understanding the situation, Vbg (best power off glide speed) would be targeted. The technique in light aircraft with a power loss is actually to pitch up and use existing speed in excess of Vbg to gain some altitude. Once the aircraft has slowed to best glide speed you gradually lower the nose to remain at that speed. At some point you will be descending at Vbg in a "steady state" (until you hit the ground). By now you're having a brown trouser moment but the checklist says to "look for emergency landing spot".

If the pilot reacts as he should, there is no reason for a stall. You'd just go "over the hill" and start descending.

[Edited 2013-05-04 02:14:36]

[Edited 2013-05-04 02:20:24]

[Edited 2013-05-04 02:20:58]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 84, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 31140 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 55):
The normal route for this flight is Bastion Bagram and then back to Dubai, It does not really matter where the cargo is mostly to or from one or both of those places because the contract is for this roundtrip.

Which makes me still think cargo was offloaded there, those sort of milk run contracts are used to get normal supplies to places like food

I tend to afree with you here.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
If they had the forward lower hold full of food and perishables for the base, it could easily be 10-20t of cargo.

That's a very intriguing start of a bad scenario : could they have missed on the balance sheet the off-loading of that amount of cargo from the fwd hold ? That would explain the vastly more aft CG than they'd expected. And IMO, would be a lot more drastic than a CG shift caused by an unrestrained container.

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
If the load was unrestrained, it might have also been able to move forward as well.

... but only after the stall when the nose was lowered.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2035 posts, RR: 13
Reply 85, posted (11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 30997 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
so would there be a way of knowing which locks failed during the crash and which failed and led to the crash?
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 79):
There are ways to tell how a component failed even after a crash. For example if it sheared consistent with being pulled by the strap/chain, if it was intact but mangled in the crash or fire, etc. Those materials guys are clever.

Electron microscopy of the surfaces should answer many of these questions. The crash fire weakens and softens the metal, leading to other fracture surfaces than when the metal was fractured through force alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractography has a bit about this topic.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 86, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 30575 times:

I am concerned about how much we will publicly learn about this crash investigation. While this crash involved an a/c owned and operated by a private contractor, it was working a USA Military contract, with military cargo, taking off from a USA controlled military base in a defacto war zone area and crashed within or very near the base territory. We probably would know little about this crash if it wasn't for the dash cam video, which may have been improperly and illegally put out.

I would also suspect that civil liability lawsuits by the families of the crew on the flight may be severely limited from doing so by their contracts or to obtain full discovery and in turn find out fully what happened on this flight.


User currently offlineFlyer732 From Namibia, joined Nov 1999, 1359 posts, RR: 22
Reply 87, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 30599 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 76):
And please the comments like "but would not be able to handle the first part of cargo loading, or weight and balance paperwork" are not true. Crews are supposed to be able to do the W&B as part f the type rating, we are not as fast, but it is not rocket science either. Likewise with the load, if there is something the crew does not like, they will not go until it is been looked at.

I've been a cargo loadmaster for 9 years, including many on the 747-400F. I've never had a PIC who has known how to do a load plan, on a pure freighter aircraft you're dealing with vertical limits, zone reductions, lateral load limits, strapping angles for load restraint (as applies to the MRAP and other oversized freight). Typically when the captain comes back to check on the status of loading, and I try to explain what the problem is with a specific piece of freight is, they give me a blank look and say "This is why we have you here" It might not be the case everywhere, but at most of the US cargo carriers I've worked with it is, ignoring FedEx and UPS, I'm talking carriers who fly real freight, not packages.
Don't get me wrong, I know its the PIC authority as well, I'm a commercial pilot on top of a loadmaster, however in my days, I've never met a PIC capable of planning and executing a load of cargo.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 6940 posts, RR: 18
Reply 88, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 30375 times:

Quoting United727 (Reply 71):
Where did you see this information, source? I was under the impression (and so was our local news as they reported) that this type was a one off for them (N8).

I thought this was from the AvHerald article. I'll check:

N8%29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Airlines_%28N8%29

Actually, now they only have TWO 744fs.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 89, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29956 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 78):
I don't claim to be an expert, but surely the impact would break the locks and dislodge all of the other pallets so would there be a way of knowing which locks failed during the crash and which failed and led to the crash?

I've read past BEA and NTSB reports where they were quickly able to determine which direction such locks broke. i.e. locks breaking because of pressure to move aft such as the load pulling aft. And other locks broke because of forward, downward pressure from the crash impact.

The science of how metal fractures is very interesting and very accurate.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 90, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29888 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 87):
I am concerned about how much we will publicly learn about this crash investigation.

The international regulations should be applied and the Afghan Authorities should release for public domain ( with the assistance of NTSB, Boeing and NAC ) a Final Report for this crash ( someday ). The aircraft wasn't carrying an atomic bomb or a top secret weapon, and I don't see why this crash investigation and findings should be more "classified" or restricted than others.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 29906 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 90):
The science of how metal fractures is very interesting and very accurate.

True. TWA 800 was / is surrounded by all sort of conspiracy theories, but the findings of how the fuel tank exploded and the way the metal changed its shape are more than enough to discard all the weird theories.
Despite how brutal this crash looks in the video, I would say is not more destructive than other dozens of crashes in history where a causal factor was clearly determined.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 92, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 29644 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 84):
Since the engines are below the centerline in a 747, the tendency would be to pitch down. The pilot flying would be holding V2+10 I believe. When the engines cut out, the aircraft would gradually lose momentum, which would necessitate a gradual lowering of the nose. After understanding the situation, Vbg (best power off glide speed) would be targeted. The technique in light aircraft with a power loss is actually to pitch up and use existing speed in excess of Vbg to gain some altitude.

On a normal all engine takeoff, speed will be between V2+10 and V2+25. If it's a steep climb he'll be closer to V2+10. If all engines quit the nose will pitch down but with the gear down(?) and the flaps out if the pilot tries to maintain V2+10 the speed will rapidly decay below V2 through stick shaker into a full stall. The minute all the engines quit at that altitude he's shoving the nose over to maintain flying speed and looking for a flat place to park -- he's not gradually lowering the nose or even thinking about his glide speed, he's thinking about where he's going to land and keeping his speed up so he has control of the airplane.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15444 posts, RR: 26
Reply 93, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 29334 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 80):
Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 86):
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 90):


Asked and answered then. Thanks.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 94, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28812 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 93):
The minute all the engines quit at that altitude he's shoving the nose over to maintain flying speed and looking for a flat place to park -- he's not gradually lowering the nose or even thinking about his glide speed, he's thinking about where he's going to land and keeping his speed up so he has control of the airplane.

I don't fly the big iron but I don't see how why a pilot wouldn't try to hold best glide if all engines quit. Keeping his speed up in order to control the airplane is well within the parameters of best glide.

When I meant "gradually" I meant the nose wouldn't be jerked down. I didn't mean it would be a process that goes on for two minutes.

Happy to be educated.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28786 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 95):
I don't fly the big iron but I don't see how why a pilot wouldn't try to hold best glide if all engines quit. Keeping his speed up in order to control the airplane is well within the parameters of best glide.

Seriously, put in that situation I don't think 1 out of a million 737 and up drivers would have any idea what the best glide speed is. With almost everything hanging out you're coming down awfully fast and you're just hoping you can walk away from it.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 96, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28699 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 96):
Seriously, put in that situation I don't think 1 out of a million 737 and up drivers would have any idea what the best glide speed is. With almost everything hanging out you're coming down awfully fast and you're just hoping you can walk away from it.

Put in the situation we saw in the video, you are quite right.

However I was answering a question about a hypothetical where all engines quit and no load shifted. In that case you wouldn't get the stall unless the pilot kept holding the nose up. The aircraft would not plummet like in the video since it would still have lift. "Plenty" of time to think about best glide.

Related question, is best glide displayed on the speed tape on the PFD in a large airliner? On the 744? On the G1000 172s Vbg is right on the speedtape so easy to find in an emergency.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28586 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 96):
Seriously, put in that situation I don't think 1 out of a million 737 and up drivers would have any idea what the best glide speed is.

I am pretty sure every pilot with any pilots license - especially type rated - will know what his aircrafts best glide is. Even if he doesn't know the exact Vbg, he will at least have a good idea and in a non-load shift / not-already stalled situation, he will do his best to hold that while looking for the best place to land.

A = Airspeed (best glide)
B = Best Field
C = Checklist
D = Declare and Emergency
E = Execute

It's what you learn on the first pilots lesson and I doubt that changes as you move up through type ratings.

[Edited 2013-05-04 18:44:33]


Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 98, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28584 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 97):
As SlamClick once said, "If I die in the cockpit, I expect to die very busy."

I miss SlamClick. I learned a lot from the two of you. You two make up one third of my respected user list.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offline7BOEING7 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1305 posts, RR: 8
Reply 99, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 28293 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 97):
The aircraft would not plummet like in the video since it would still have lift. "Plenty" of time to think about best glide.

Assuming he was above stall speed, in the configuration he was in, with the hypothetical all engines out, I'm guessing he had less than 30 seconds until touchdown. You're thinking about a place to land at a nice slow speed -- best glide speed is meaningless in this scenario.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 97):
Related question, is best glide displayed on the speed tape on the PFD in a large airliner? On the 744? On the G1000 172s Vbg is right on the speedtape so easy to find in an emergency.

No, not in a Boeing. Your minimum maneuver speed and stick shaker speeds are displayed so you know how slow you can go but no Vbg. In a modern airliner you're not expected to be gliding. AB airplanes have a "green dot" displayed on the speed tape which gives you the best glide speed clean. In the A320 Sullenberger flew about 30kts slower which was the minimum descent rate giving him more time in the air -- distance no longer mattered.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 98):
I am pretty sure every pilot with any pilots license - especially type rated - will know what his aircraft's best glide is. Even if he doesn't know the exact Vbg, he will at least have a good idea and in a non-load shift / not-already stalled situation, he will do his best to hold that while looking for the best place to land.

Probably a more exact number in a light airplane and a casual under standing in an A or B. In an A or B (except for the 767 and 330 incidents) the main concern at altitude is getting the engines relit not how far can I go. And the best glide speed is not the best engine relight speed.

At a 1000' and less than 200kts (gear down/flaps out) you're not going to get the engines relit -- you're well below windmill relight speed and you can't start the APU that fast -- in the 747 you can't start the APU at all. You're going to hold your minimum descent speed so you have more time to figure out where you're going to park it and "land" at your slowest speed possible.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 98):
A = Airspeed (best glide)
B = Best Field
C = Checklist
D = Declare and Emergency
E = Execute

It's what you learn on the first pilots lesson and I doubt that changes as you move up through type ratings.

That's a good place to start, but at 1000' it's probably:

A= Airspeed (minimum descent) -- you're not going anywhere might as well stay up a while longer
B= Best flat spot without buildings straight ahead +/-
C= Checklist -- oops there isn't one for this
D= Declare -- "We're going down" -- you don't need any special handling
E= Execute -- the best off runway landing you've never made

I know this is gallows humor but that video is what nightmares are made out of.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4868 posts, RR: 16
Reply 100, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 28257 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 100):

So cool to have a real test pilot post here! Thanks for your explanations.   

The consensus on a.net seems to be that this was an unrecoverable upset?


User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 968 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 28186 times:

Could someone please help with a question.

If the Acft had a dramatic shift in weight to the rear and stalled how would the pilot be able to recover as he did after the stall. It appears that if he were at 10,000 ft he would have recovered safely. But if the weight was to the rear in a stall wouldn't he have simply remained in a extreme nose up AOAm and fallen in a tail slide attitude.

As he was able to get the nose down after the stall then I would think a shift to the rear of weight was unlikely.

Could someone help explain how physics does not apply here?



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 102, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 101):
If the Acft had a dramatic shift in weight to the rear and stalled how would the pilot be able to recover as he did after the stall

I did not see a recovery.

We are in a world now where we are able to see video of catastrophic events unfolding, giving is a glimpse of things for the first time. What might make sense or logical in our brains might not be accurate to what really happens.

In other words, it might seem logical to some that a cargo shift to the aft would lead to an aircraft falling out of the sky tail first. But that might not be the case and this video might show what really happens in that situation. Time will tell once the investigation finds a cause.

Quoting billreid (Reply 101):
It appears that if he were at 10,000 ft he would have recovered safely

It is my opinion that if they had more altitude, any recovery would only be temporary unless the weight somehow shifted back, returning the center of gravity back to within safe limits.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2035 posts, RR: 13
Reply 103, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28324 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 101):
As he was able to get the nose down after the stall then I would think a shift to the rear of weight was unlikely.

Could someone help explain how physics does not apply here?

The very same physics applies here. As another a.net member famously said on Airbuses during the AF447 threads: "There is no Alternate Law in physics".

Any stabilizer and control surface (aileron, elevator and rudder) only works with enough air speed. When the 747 was stalled and nose-high, there wasn't enough airspeed and therefore not enough "pressure" (aerodynamic force) on the horizontal stabilizer in order to push the airliner into a horizontal position.

When the airplane accelerated again (when falling down), the air flow increased to a point to put the aircraft into a horizontal attitude, despite being massively tail-heavy. And it pushed farther than this, into that nose-down attitude we've seen and from which the pilots could not recover due to running out of altitude.

Given enough airspeed, the forces on the horizontal stabilizer become large enough to fly with any center of gravity. However... there is the so-called never-exceed velocity (Vne).


I hope that helps.


David

[Edited 2013-05-04 23:19:38]


Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 635 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28173 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting billreid (Reply 101):




If a weight/load shift is the case, the crew would still have the ability to affect the attitude of the aircraft. It's not like the aircraft had lost all lift or all controllability. If you have ever stalled an aircraft you would probably not ask this question. A stall is merely the lack of lift. Regain airspeed and regain lift in most cases. A stall does not mean out of control! Please understand this if anything. In a stall you still have options, the rudder/elevators/stab./flaps still work (granted not as effectively). It is a matter of altitude and vertical speed. In other words they were to close to the ground to recover. Whatever the reason for this accident, there was not enough time to correct the stall.


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 27994 times:

How much room is left over for the M-ATV's to shift? Each one is about 20 feet long. 5 would be 100 feet long if there was no space between each. Six would be 120 feet long.

I think I read somewhere that 5 just do fit in a 744BCF.

It doesn't look like ones in front can get past the ones behind it.

I guess there's really no telling what might happen if a front loaded one broke loose. It might knock the rest loose. 10 or 15 tons on the move is destructive.

I have been thinking of the last one breaking loose, or maybe the 4th one, where there might be a gap at the loading door.

Looks like the rearmost one can't move back much, if at all, without wrecking the back of the cargo bay.

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/fea...itary_vehicle%2baerial_porters.jpg

[Edited 2013-05-05 01:31:05]

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 106, posted (11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 27963 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 99):
In a modern airliner you're not expected to be gliding. AB airplanes have a "green dot" displayed on the speed tape which gives you the best glide speed clean. In the A320 Sullenberger flew about 30kts slower which was the minimum descent rate giving him more time in the air -- distance no longer mattered.

Very interesting thx. After thinking about it, I agree that best glide is perhaps not the most important if you don't care about distance.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 99):
That's a good place to start, but at 1000' it's probably:

A= Airspeed (minimum descent) -- you're not going anywhere might as well stay up a while longer
B= Best flat spot without buildings straight ahead +/-
C= Checklist -- oops there isn't one for this
D= Declare -- "We're going down" -- you don't need any special handling
E= Execute -- the best off runway landing you've never made

If I survived all that, I predict I would have to violently vomit once the adrenaline rush died down. I've been in one situation where the plane just wouldn't climb once we reached 200-250 feet AGL. Even though we were fine and just needed to push the nose down a touch to get that old dog accelerating, I remember the incipient panic far too well.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 99):
I know this is gallows humor but that video is what nightmares are made out of.

No kidding. I'm amazed I haven't had a nightmare about it yet.

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 98):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 97):
As SlamClick once said, "If I die in the cockpit, I expect to die very busy."

I miss SlamClick. I learned a lot from the two of you. You two make up one third of my respected user list.

I am honored to be in that list, but I don't quite feel that I can be grouped with the rest of the guys. Their knowledge and experience is vastly superior to mine.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 529 posts, RR: 3
Reply 107, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 27204 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 104):
If a weight/load shift is the case, the crew would still have the ability to affect the attitude of the aircraft. It's not like the aircraft had lost all lift or all controllability

No offense but do you even know what an airplane is? Merely exceeding load capacity for certain sections of even smaller aircraft can render things like the trim and elevator useless.

Think about this for a minute, if the load (in this case roughly 250k lbs assuming the first broke the other 4 loose) shifted aft in climb, the only way to get the lift forward is nose down, eventually youre going to need to climb again, then you need to turn, all of this is playing pinball with a quarter million pounds of cargo in the rear. Yes, IF this was the cause, the A/C lost all 'controllability'.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 26982 times:

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 99):
A= Airspeed (minimum descent) -- you're not going anywhere might as well stay up a while longer
B= Best flat spot without buildings straight ahead +/-
C= Checklist -- oops there isn't one for this
D= Declare -- "We're going down" -- you don't need any special handling
E= Execute -- the best off runway landing you've never made

I know this is gallows humor but that video is what nightmares are made out of.

Thank you for this. I would have assumed based on the 767/330 incidents that the procedure was basically the same. This definitely educated me on some stuff that I didn't know before.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 99):
In the A320 Sullenberger flew about 30kts slower which was the minimum descent rate giving him more time in the air -- distance no longer mattered.

Never knew that. I for sure would have thought he maintained best glide until he made the river, at which case line up with it and road the plane down to just above stall speed before hitting the water. Never realized he took it to 30kts slower than Vbg.



Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 635 posts, RR: 1
Reply 109, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 107):
No offense but do you even know what an airplane is? Merely exceeding load capacity for certain sections of even smaller aircraft can render things like the trim and elevator useless.




Buddy, I have been working on and flying airplanes for over 30 years. Yes, I think I know what an airplane is. Read the post I was replying to. Yes an aircraft can lose all "control". Did it happen here? You don't know and neither do I. I was merely saying that just because an airplane stalls does not mean you have NO control.

By the way, just because you say "no offense" does not make your post any less rude.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3963 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27034 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 59):
My uncle works for FedEx at SEA and he always told me that as a loadmaster, if a plane goes down and the cause is related to the load and loading procedures, its your ass.

At Fedex, yes, that is the reason for the load verification process. The pilot cannot physically check his own load due to the nature of ULD use. He can only access the one with the accessible dangerous goods. If the plane goes down, the pilot, while "responsible," is not going to be at fault due to a load issue. That will fall on both the preparing and verifying ramp agents and the load captain who physically supervises the load - including checking all locks and ULD integrity.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 102):
It is my opinion that if they had more altitude, any recovery would only be temporary unless the weight somehow shifted back, returning the center of gravity back to within safe limits.

Technically, the CG could be within "safe limits" and still catastrophically alter the flight profile if the crew is caught off guard. It just takes adjustment and as we saw in the video, there just wasn't enough time or altitude for proper adjustment - whether the CG was within the safe envelope or not.


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 111, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 27034 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 104):

If a weight/load shift is the case, the crew would still have the ability to affect the attitude of the aircraft. It's not like the aircraft had lost all lift or all controllability. If you have ever stalled an aircraft you would probably not ask this question. A stall is merely the lack of lift. Regain airspeed and regain lift in most cases. A stall does not mean out of control! Please understand this if anything. In a stall you still have options, the rudder/elevators/stab./flaps still work (granted not as effectively). It is a matter of altitude and vertical speed. In other words they were to close to the ground to recover. Whatever the reason for this accident, there was not enough time to correct the stall.

This is 100% not true at all. If you have a large CG shift due to cargo breaking loose, you will never regain control of the aircraft as the CG will be outside of the envelope. This is not normal stall, where you loose airspeed, lower the nose and regain the speed. This is an airplane that is outside of it normal operating center of gravity and is well outside of the design limits for the aircraft. A similar scenario would unfold if the cargo broke loose and moved forward, towards the flight deck. While the plane would not stall, the shift in CG would likely be so great, the elevator and trim would not be able to compensate for it and the plane would crash in a nose down dive!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 112, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26690 times:

A Memorial Site has been created to support the families of the crew :

http://www.ncr102.org/

Rgds.

Moderators, this Memorial site is open to donations, please delete this post if putting this link here is against the rules ( I'm not sure about it ).

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinesuseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 794 posts, RR: 1
Reply 113, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26606 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 111):
This is 100% not true at all. If you have a large CG shift due to cargo breaking loose, you will never regain control of the aircraft as the CG will be outside of the envelope. This is not normal stall, where you loose airspeed, lower the nose and regain the speed. This is an airplane that is outside of it normal operating center of gravity and is well outside of the design limits for the aircraft.

My thoughts exactly. My understanding was that once you lose the CG tail heavy like that, and essentially start falling "backwards" you of course still have relative speeds (i.e. falling is relative speed), but you have no "airspeed" as the plane needs it. Thus the wing and control surfaces lose their effectiveness. Hence the reason weight and balance is so important to do before each flight.

I of course will wait for any final judgement and this of course is only speculation, but the fact the pilot got the nose back down is still one of the things I don't understand after watching this footage if it was in fact loose cargo that moved the back of the aircraft.

[Edited 2013-05-05 12:50:22]


Currently at PIE, requesting FWA >> >>
User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3689 posts, RR: 12
Reply 114, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26669 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 105):
How much room is left over for the M-ATV's to shift? Each one is about 20 feet long. 5 would be 100 feet long if there was no space between each. Six would be 120 feet long.

I think I read somewhere that 5 just do fit in a 744BCF.

It doesn't look like ones in front can get past the ones behind it.

On a BCF you can't load the vehicles in positions A1, A2, B1, CL/R. DL/R, EL/R or T. This means that there will be one centerloaded in FG, GH, HJK, KLM, RS. There would be a gap between the little bit of the M position that was used and the R positions. This came out to about 260'' which is more than enough room for a dramatic load shift.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 115, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 26516 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 113):
I of course will wait for any final judgement and this of course is only speculation, but the fact the pilot got the nose back down is still one of the things I don't understand after watching this footage if it was in fact loose cargo that moved the back of the aircraft.

I don't think the "pilot got the nose down". To me it looks like a stall leading to the aircraft just falling out of the sky.

I'm no expert, but since the engines were presumably at full power, I assume they'd still have some influence on how the aircraft behaved as it fell.

Also, IF this was shifting cargo, I wonder if as it stalled and the nose came down if cargo shifted again as the orientation changed.

Obligatory note that I am, of course, simply speculating...thinking out loud.

[Edited 2013-05-05 13:41:04]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 116, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26348 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 113):
I of course will wait for any final judgement and this of course is only speculation, but the fact the pilot got the nose back down is still one of the things I don't understand after watching this footage if it was in fact loose cargo that moved the back of the aircraft.

If you look carefully at the video, it does not appear that the nose simply lowered. In fact, the aircraft seemed to fall on its side in about a 90 degree bank. (Looks like one wing stalled before the other.) That may have gained them enough airspeed temporarily to make the control surfaces somewhat effective again, and the pilot was then able to straighten out. But obviously not enough lift was being generated to pull out of it in time, and most likely the same thing would have happened again even if they did.

I think the thing some people are forgetting when they say it should have crashed "tail first" is the effect of lift, and the effect of losing that lift. If the wings are generating lift, then they're acting as the pivot point and having an unbalanced aft load will cause the nose to rise. Remove the lift from the wings, though, and suddenly the wings, engines and everything else ahead of that load now becomes dead weight. The wings are no longer the pivot point, and there is a lot more weight ahead of the new pivot point. So the nose falls.

[Edited 2013-05-05 14:47:29]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25694 times:

Could they have dragged the tail? Would we be able to tell?

I was thinking that if the cargo was already loose, it would shift right at rotation, and the tail might drag?

That might account for them being too preoccupied to even raise the gear.

I guess if it was already loose, it would actually shift when they throttled up?


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 118, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 25387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 116):
If you look carefully at the video

1/-The first frames show the airplane climbing and a continuously dropping **left** wing.

2/- There is a definite pilot action : a yawing movement to the **right**; This caused the left wing to be faster than the right one, hence more lift on the left wing and a rolling motion to the right. That in fact is how to control roll close to the stall.
But :

3/- due to the inertia of the aircraft, that correction is over done, the roll to the right becomes extreme - 90° of bank seems conservative - The pilot acts again to counteract the right bank. here we see that an important **left** rudder deflection occurs and the aircraft achieves an almost wing level attitude. The nose down movement at this point is - whether from pilot action or aircraft movement in the stall - akin to a hammerhead or chandelle aerobatics figures.
But :

4/- the aircraft, low on energy and attitude cannot sustain more lift and hits the ground.

5/- Regarding the landing gear : it was being lowered : see the nosewheel doors being in transit : for a fully deployed gear, they are retracted. See also the amount of hanging *things* under the fuselage: seems to be also that the barn doors are in transit.

That crew died very busy and was certainly not giving up.

Just my two cents.

[Edited 2013-05-06 03:16:16]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 25278 times:

Yes, the barn doors are definitely open. The number of things I didn't realize at first view of the video is growing.

How long does it take to raise or lower the gear? Can you tell, with the doors in transit, whether they were being raised or lowered?

[Edited 2013-05-06 03:46:32]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 24972 times:

Another video ( POST Crash ,taken from Bagram Airbase ) shows the black smoke moving fast towards the base.
Looking at the smoke, the US flag and the cover of the cannon in the foreground, it seems there was strong winds at the moment of the accident.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=767_1367281769

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 968 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 24333 times:

Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 113):
I of course will wait for any final judgement and this of course is only speculation, but the fact the pilot got the nose back down is still one of the things I don't understand after watching this footage if it was in fact loose cargo that moved the back of the aircraft.

This was my question. It appears a stall occurs where all forward flight is lost. The aircraft appears to lose all inertia and comes to almost a full stop.
At that point the airspeed is so slow that I cannot fathom aoa going nose forward if the center of gravity has dramatically moved aft. What would over come the effects of gravity? I would believe all control surfaces are useless if the aircraft has no forward motion.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 116):
The wings are no longer the pivot point, and there is a lot more weight ahead of the new pivot point. So the nose falls.

Then you verify my theory that there was no cargo shift, because gravity does not alow for a new center of gravity to move from the back of the aircraft to the front. If the aircraft was flying the crew could create a nose down aoa, but not if the aircraft isn't generating lift. The stall was caused by some event and if the crew or nature could overcome the shift without lift then was there a shift at all?



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offlinerickabone From United States of America, joined May 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24102 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 116):
I think the thing some people are forgetting when they say it should have crashed "tail first" is the effect of lift, and the effect of losing that lift. If the wings are generating lift, then they're acting as the pivot point and having an unbalanced aft load will cause the nose to rise. Remove the lift from the wings, though, and suddenly the wings, engines and everything else ahead of that load now becomes dead weight. The wings are no longer the pivot point, and there is a lot more weight ahead of the new pivot point. So the nose falls.

Bingo


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4947 posts, RR: 28
Reply 123, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24085 times:

I dont think they could have dragged the tail. The impact alone tells me they did not have enough airspeed to slow the descent. One thing that cant be denied, is the crew tried their hearts out to recover.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 124, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 24104 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 121):
Then you verify my theory that there was no cargo shift, because gravity does not alow for a new center of gravity to move from the back of the aircraft to the front. If the aircraft was flying the crew could create a nose down aoa, but not if the aircraft isn't generating lift. The stall was caused by some event and if the crew or nature could overcome the shift without lift then was there a shift at all?

You might be trying to read the stall too much. First things first, if the cargo is loose in the back, what is stopping it from rolling forward once the airplane has come to a full stall and is in the process of coming back down to earth? If one of the vehicles broke loose and crashed into another one, whats stopping that other vehicle from breaking loose as well? It wouldn't take much for a loose piece of cargo in the back to bring the aircraft from a severe aft CG into a severe forward CG, which would still leave the pilots hopeless in the recovery effort.

Also, just because the nose of the aircraft comes down, does not indicate that aircraft did not have a full aft CG. The pilots, using yaw could and likely did initially break the stall, before loosing all lift and then stalling again. A Hammerhead routine (generally done in aerobatics) which consists of opposite rudder and ailerons could break a severe aft CG induced stall initially, but odds are the pilot would still not be able to fully recover the aircraft unless the CG situation is solved.

Still a lot of unknowns yet from this crash, but everything I see, right down to the gear still being down during the crash point to a cargo shift upon rotation that the crew could and likely never would have been able to recover from. I guess only time will tell what really happened?



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 125, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 23760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 116):
The wings are no longer the pivot point, and there is a lot more weight ahead of the new pivot point. So the nose falls.

So what's - where is ? - the *next* fulcrum or pivot point ? We are now dealing with a static situation : the CoG hasn't changed... and aerodyn&mic effects removed, we are left with a balanced soilid with its CoG well aft and everything balanced around it.( After all, that's the definition of CoG ).

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 124):
the gear still being down during the crash

The gear was being lowered in the final instants of the flight. As I wrote earlier, the position of the nose gear doors makes this a **fact**

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 124):
It wouldn't take much for a loose piece of cargo in the back to bring the aircraft from a severe aft CG into a severe forward CG, which would still leave the pilots hopeless in the recovery effort.

Could be, but you're introducing yet more assumptions - locks / fasteners / belts failures -...
On another hand, the crew attempted to correct the aft CoG with a lot of nose down pitch trim... which became then another hindrance when they needed to pitch up.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 727 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 23608 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 125):
The gear was being lowered in the final instants of the flight.

Concur. Gear definitely appears to have been in transit. I would normally expect to see the backwards-slung wing MLG bogeys prominent just before impact...but they're NOT in a full-down position at that point...and the barn doors definitely appear open, too.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16908 posts, RR: 67
Reply 127, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 23398 times:

Here's an experiment regarding aft CG.
- Take a model airplane. Balsa will do. Notice how the CG is forward of the center of lift.
- Attach a weight to the tail in order to move the CG far aft.
- Drop it from the roof.
- It won't fly but certainly the empennage will affect airflow in such a way that at times the nose will be pointing down. It won't simply fall tail first and stabilize.

I tried it just now with a paper airplane. I attached four paper clips to the tail and dropped it. It did not stabilize into a tail first fall, but wobbled around like a leaf, at times being nose down. This is due to the effect of airflow on the surfaces as it gains downward speed. It isn't a 747 but it does have some demonstration value.

Quoting billreid (Reply 121):
This was my question. It appears a stall occurs where all forward flight is lost. The aircraft appears to lose all inertia and comes to almost a full stop.

"Appears" being the operative word here. The angle is tricky.

Quoting billreid (Reply 121):
At that point the airspeed is so slow that I cannot fathom aoa going nose forward if the center of gravity has dramatically moved aft. What would over come the effects of gravity? I would believe all control surfaces are useless if the aircraft has no forward motion.

- Angle of attack and pitch angle are different things. You can be pitched way down and be stalled or be pitched way up with AoA within limits.
- The empennage certainly has an effect once the aircraft starts falling.
- Exhaust airflow from the engines has an effect on control surfaces even with no airspeed. Don't know how significant that is in a 747.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 116):
I think the thing some people are forgetting when they say it should have crashed "tail first" is the effect of lift, and the effect of losing that lift. If the wings are generating lift, then they're acting as the pivot point and having an unbalanced aft load will cause the nose to rise. Remove the lift from the wings, though, and suddenly the wings, engines and everything else ahead of that load now becomes dead weight. The wings are no longer the pivot point, and there is a lot more weight ahead of the new pivot point. So the nose falls.

I'm with Pihero. The CG is the pivot point by definition, not the center of lift.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 120):

Another video ( POST Crash ,taken from Bagram Airbase ) shows the black smoke moving fast towards the base.
Looking at the smoke, the US flag and the cover of the cannon in the foreground, it seems there was strong winds at the moment of the accident.

As was established from the weather reports, it was windy, but not windy enough for this to be a problem for a 747.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 635 posts, RR: 1
Reply 128, posted (11 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 22993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 111):
Quoting cbphoto (Reply 111):
This is 100% not true at all. If you have a large CG shift due to cargo breaking loose, you will never regain control of the aircraft as the CG will be outside of the envelope. This is not normal stall, where you loose airspeed, lower the nose and regain the speed. This is an airplane that is outside of it normal operating center of gravity and is well outside of the design limits for the aircraft. A similar scenario would unfold if the cargo broke loose and moved forward, towards the flight deck. While the plane would not stall, the shift in CG would likely be so great, the elevator and trim would not be able to compensate for it and the plane would crash in a nose down dive!




See, I quoted you and no one has any idea of what was said before. I never ever said anything about this crash in my explanation of a stall. This is so ridiculous. All I said was that a stall is not, repeat not an out of control situation. This is a fact, not speculation. What I spoke of was merely a answer to a question that seems to be lost along this thread. Could these folks recover? No way. Have I recovered form stalls, absolutely. That was the point. Get off of your high horses. I've been flying since 1976 and been working as an A&P since 1980. You Think you know something but you don't. Go ahead and berate me. Again, get off of the high horse and realize you don't know everything. I have seen alot but I still don't know everything..............


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 129, posted (11 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 22751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 128):
See, I quoted you and no one has any idea of what was said before. I never ever said anything about this crash in my explanation of a stall.

There is no need for that sort of aggressiveness. And this is not - as cbphoto remarked - in any way a classical stall event.
Why ?
We can assume that they had an unexpected extreme aft CoG, due to a load shift to the rear and / or a CoG position which hasn't taken into account the removed load from the forward hold.
Anyway, after takeoff, as the nose kept on raising and raising, the crew could still defend themselves with the introduction of a lot of nose-down trim... if that wasn't enough - and I suspect it wasn't - the only last resort was to throttle down, eliminating the nose-up moment that the log-hung engines are causing at full thrust. ( I can't confirm this factually as the quality of the video isn't high enough to show - or not - the shimmering visual effect of the jet blast or its absence ).
Somehow, they managed to lower the nose and the video shows, without a doubt, two crew actions :
- One, when the aircraft almost leaves the top of the frame : the left wing drop is countered by a movement of the tail to the right

- Two, when the right wing drop was countered by a full left rudder, quite visible on the video.

The reason for lowering the gear could be twofold :
1/- Aiding the nose down action
2/- an attempt at landing. I posit that had they had another five seconds in hand, the crash - there wasn't any chance of it being otherwise - could have been survivable.... but they had to completely reverse their trim action.

All in all, I'm afraid that your light aircraft experience isn't fully applicable to this event.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 22540 times:

NAC said that it was a fuel stop only. No cargo was added. Cargo was inspected.

They didn't say no cargo was removed, but I think that's implied.

How likely is it that one of the MATV's was loose after the prior leg and after a cargo inspection?

Since they refueled, could it be a fuel loading error?

Fuel seems to be the only cargo change.

It's early though, of course, and we may find out something completely new as the investigation moves along.

[Edited 2013-05-07 06:15:40]

User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 6
Reply 131, posted (11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22463 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 125):

The gear was being lowered in the final instants of the flight. As I wrote earlier, the position of the nose gear doors makes this a **fact**

After reviewing the tape a few more times, it appears you are correct, the gear does seem to be in transit at the time of impact. This is something that I really have a hard time wrapping my head around, as it would go against every pilots instinct and training to lower the gear in a deep stall and create more drag. They must have either lowered it to try and change the CG and to stabilize it more, or something else that was not crew initiated caused the gear to extend. Interesting conclusion non the less, something I am sure the NTSB will be looking at!

Good Catch   

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 104):
If a weight/load shift is the case, the crew would still have the ability to affect the attitude of the aircraft. It's not like the aircraft had lost all lift or all controllability.

That is what you said and it is not true at all! There is no high horse or anything, it's just factually incorrect, that is all! If you have a load shift, that is outside of the aircraft's CG envelope, you will not have control over the altitude or anything really, as the aircraft will stall (aft CG) and you will likely never recover it. In this case, a stall would be an out of control situation, simple as that. This can happen to big jets, it has happened to turboprops (think Air Midwest 5481) and it can certainly happen to GA airplanes if they are overloaded in an incorrect way. I respect the fact you have been flying a long time but we as pilots are always learning new things and I still learn new things all the time, even with 5000+ hours!

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 128):
See, I quoted you and no one has any idea of what was said before. I never ever said anything about this crash in my explanation of a stall. This is so ridiculous. All I said was that a stall is not, repeat not an out of control situation. This is a fact, not speculation. What I spoke of was merely a answer to a question that seems to be lost along this thread. Could these folks recover? No way. Have I recovered form stalls, absolutely. That was the point. Get off of your high horses. I've been flying since 1976 and been working as an A&P since 1980. You Think you know something but you don't. Go ahead and berate me. Again, get off of the high horse and realize you don't know everything. I have seen alot but I still don't know everything..............



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 132, posted (11 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 22357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 130):
They didn't say no cargo was removed, but I think that's implied.

   Otherwise the stop makes no sense.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 130):
Since they refueled, could it be a fuel loading error?

It's possible but they needed not much fuel for the trip and, if the aircraft hasn't been modified by Boeing, the first AF 744s didn't have a tail tank.

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 130):
It's early though, of course, and we may find out something completely new as the investigation moves along.

I agree.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineairtran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3689 posts, RR: 12
Reply 133, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22238 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 132):
Otherwise the stop makes no sense.

It was most likely a permit issue. That corner of the world is a bit anal about you coming from and going to where your permit says. AMC may have changed to Bastion and the National had a permit for Bagram, so they stopped in Bagram to use the permit.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 922 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22223 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 132):
Otherwise the stop makes no sense

How is it that a stop that both delivers some cargo and also takes on fuel makes no sense?


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 135, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hivue (Reply 134):
How is it that a stop that both delivers some cargo and also takes on fuel makes no sense?

It's the **this was only a fuel stop** that made no sense, although, with airtran737 # 133, a question of permit and military cargo could be an explanation I hadn't thought about.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4737 posts, RR: 26
Reply 136, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 127):
Here's an experiment regarding aft CG.
- Take a model airplane. Balsa will do. Notice how the CG is forward of the center of lift.
- Attach a weight to the tail in order to move the CG far aft.
- Drop it from the roof.
- It won't fly but certainly the empennage will affect airflow in such a way that at times the nose will be pointing down. It won't simply fall tail first and stabilize.

   I thought to try this as well.

[Edited 2013-05-07 08:28:20]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 137, posted (11 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 22260 times:

Regarding the tail tank, AFAIK BCF's and BDSF's have it deactivated.

As a 744 pilot myself, I have a very hard time believing the gear extension theory. Here's another wild idea: Suppose the gear was still retracting as the cargo broke loose (if this is what happened), went straight through the aft bulkhead and sheared some hydrolic lines. Could a retracting gear freefall back if all hydrolic pressure to system 1 (and 4) is suddenly lost? Perhaps an engineer can debunk that one for me.

Other semi-educated guesses: catastrofic flight control failure (stabilizer) or incorrectly programmed FMS (ZFW entered in TOW boxes).


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3517 posts, RR: 12
Reply 138, posted (11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 22055 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 121):
Then you verify my theory that there was no cargo shift, because gravity does not alow for a new center of gravity to move from the back of the aircraft to the front.

Gravity is not the only force at work here. Airflow and lift (in varying degrees throughout the event) are also in play. Gravity does not change, but airflow and lift do.

You're trying to look at everything individually. You (and others who are confused about this) need to look at all the forces in action together and how they're interacting.

[Edited 2013-05-07 09:36:06]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 139, posted (11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 21969 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 135):
a question of permit and military cargo could be an explanation I hadn't thought about.

Another reason to stop at Bagram is if the direct route to the Gulf destination was closed due to military air activity.

This is an active war zone, and certain blocks of airspace will be closed to non-mission aircraft without prior notice.

They could have planned to fly direct, if you include the curve to avoid Iranian airspace, to Muscat. Then have been told the route was not available, and needed additional fuel.

As near as I can determine, there are only three places in Afghanistan this aircraft could have obtained fuel, Bastion, Bagram or Kandahar. Bagram is the only place with a fuel pipeline, so it is most likely to have extra fuel available.

EDIT

I know there are other airports with fuel in Afghanistan, but with this aircraft cargo and contract, it would only have been able to stop at a military controlled airport.

[Edited 2013-05-07 10:17:02]

User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 140, posted (11 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 21865 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
But maybe we have to consider other possibilities as well.

The authorities will also be looking at sandstorms or any combination of sand and humidity. The weather report a pilot or military aircraft commander receives is old as soon as it is received. The entire Southwest Asia region is prone to frequent sand storms. Even if it was clear on the ground sand often times swirls around aloft from points down range. Bagram Air base if I understand was built in a desert.

I would think the investigation would rule out a sand-humidity combination also. DOD and other forces in theater go through a lot of computers in tent settings for the same reason. Sand heat and humidity just destroys them.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (11 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 21688 times:

Okay, it flew from Châteauroux to Bastion. Picked up and inspected cargo at Bastion. Did not/could not refuel at Bastion. Had to fly to Bagram to refuel for the flight to Dubai?

[Edited 2013-05-07 13:01:13]

[Edited 2013-05-07 13:05:44]

User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4140 posts, RR: 76
Reply 142, posted (11 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 21564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 138):
Gravity is not the only force at work here. Airflow and lift (in varying degrees throughout the event) are also in play. Gravity does not change, but airflow and lift do.

You're trying to look at everything individually. You (and others who are confused about this) need to look at all the forces in action together and how they're interacting.

Problem is that your theory doesn't hold much water : the study of all the forces applied to an aircraft are relative to the CoG. Nothing else. In this instance, the fact that the CoG had a rearward motion modifies drastically the statics of the forces :
1/- a normally balanced aircraft will see a center of mass relative to which all the forces are referenced. These forces are the aerodynamic lift and drag, applied to a point summing all these individual forces called the center of lift.
Then you have the moment arm of the tailplane - elevator and stabilizer... and last but not least, the moment arm from the engines which tends to induce a nose up pitch movement.

All the forces are balanced and we determine the extreme positions of the CoG : too far forward and the airplane is ulta stable, to the point that one cannot change the stable positrion : for instance, the pilot would be unable to rotate at takeoff ; too far aft, and the system is unstable, a *quality* looked for in a fighter, but with a proviso that the aircraft becomes unpilotable.

2/- Now let's look at what happens when we approach the total stall : first of all, loss of lift, and as the trailing edge is the first part of the wing that's affected, we see the move forward of the center of lift.

3/- If we're looking at a CoG that's aft of the center of lift, we can see that the situation becomes very serious : the lift and the engines thrust add to each other to generate a nose up pitching moment which can only be counteracted with trimming the tailplane into a nose down position... If that's not enough, the only way to generate another pitch down momrent is to throttle the engines down.

4/- Now let's us look further into the stall : the center of lift has moved forward but at a reduced value, we still have a pitch up moment from the wing, albeit reduced... until further into the stall, with most of the wings stalled, there is still
a significant lift provided by the outboard part of the swept wing - last to stall for design reasons : a lesser AoA - That effect of the outboard wing causes a normally balanced aircraft to pitch **down** in the stall... but was it enough in this instance ?

5/- looking at the above, the question is :" Could all this have happened to our aircraft ? " and " what degree of unbalance did the crew have to face ?"
It all depends on the CoG position... and personal reading of the video .



Contrail designer
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2035 posts, RR: 13
Reply 143, posted (11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 19364 times:

It is now clear which organization is conducting the investigation?

NTSB, the USAF, the Afghanistan Air Force (if they have any)... Google didn't turn up an Afghan air accident investigation bureau.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130430.html says it's the Afghan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation. Sadly their website (http://www.motca.gov.af/) isn't the greatest.


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 144, posted (11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18983 times:

Hi David. My understanding is that the Afghan M of Transport will lead the investigation with the support of the NTSB, Boeing, NAC and the Engine's manufacturer. Every country where an accident happens has the right to conduct the investigation, but the less developed countries usually ask for the Help of the most famous agencies. Since this was a US based airline flying a US made plane, NTSB should be the obvious choice.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 2793 posts, RR: 27
Reply 145, posted (11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18466 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 144):
the less developed countries usually ask for the Help of the most famous agencies.

Actually, the country of registration has the right to participate (although it's not the lead).



Note à moi-même - il faut respecter les cons.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8719 posts, RR: 29
Reply 146, posted (11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 18495 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 131):
After reviewing the tape a few more times, it appears you are correct, the gear does seem to be in transit at the time of impact. This is something that I really have a hard time wrapping my head around, as it would go against every pilots instinct and training to lower the gear in a deep stall and create more drag. They must have either lowered it to try and change the CG and to stabilize it more, or something else that was not crew initiated caused the gear to extend. Interesting conclusion non the less, something I am sure the NTSB will be looking at!

Perhaps the crew thought they could crash-land the plane? From some Mayday episodes I learned that pilots sometimes lower the landing gear because it will absorb some energy at impact.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3209 posts, RR: 25
Reply 147, posted (11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

what is the possibility one or all the crew became incapacitated either from something they ate or stowaway inflicted?

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4493 posts, RR: 14
Reply 148, posted (11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18195 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 147):

what is the possibility one or all the crew became incapacitated either from something they ate or stowaway inflicted?

I could see an intruder in the cockpit or someone on the plane sabotaging it being a problem. I cant see the entire crew all getting food poisoning to a severity to incapacitate them all at the same time!


User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18510 times:

This was sent to me last week. Not much left




User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2849 posts, RR: 3
Reply 150, posted (11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18136 times:

Quoting 76er (Reply 137):
Other semi-educated guesses: catastrofic flight control failure (stabilizer) or incorrectly programmed FMS (ZFW entered in TOW boxes).

I keep waiting for other explanations.

I as well tried to throw that out the CoG issue to see what else could cause the problem.
Mis-trim and runaway trim got shot down on the first thread.

So the next far fetched thought would be an APU catastrophic failure damaging hydraulic lines to the elevator hydraulics or electrical controls. I have no idea how close the APU is to hydraulics or electrical, then again not sure if they would normally have the APU in use for this phase of the flight for cargo operations.


Okie


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 151, posted (11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 18105 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 149):
This was sent to me last week. Not much left

Uffff..... after the video of the plane crashing and this picture I can say without a doubt that this is one of the most heartbreaking threads I can remember... Hard to see....

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3209 posts, RR: 25
Reply 152, posted (11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 148):
I cant see the entire crew all getting food poisoning to a severity to incapacitate them all at the same time!

not the whole crew, but the pilot or FO would be sufficient .. or a fight where someone was clinging to the wheel while others attempted to remove them..

All I'm suggesting is the shifting cargo idea isn't the only scenario.. although we don't like to think about a saboteur on board or in the mess hall


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 529 posts, RR: 3
Reply 153, posted (11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 18010 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 152):
All I'm suggesting is the shifting cargo idea isn't the only scenario.. although we don't like to think about a saboteur on board or in the mess hall

You're going to need to explain how even this theory could lead to the crash.... Food poisoning alone simply could not cause something like this... The throttles have auto-lock features and to expect a crew (both) member to immediately get sick right as the a/c is taking off is absurd.

We have veered far from the very likely cause.



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlinemoriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (11 months 2 days ago) and read 17749 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 149):

This was sent to me last week. Not much left

Pic as scary as vid. Any official or near official words on the events yet? I haven't found any and guess it's too early. Still...



Proud to part of www.novelair.com.
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17407 times:

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 149):
This was sent to me last week. Not much left

Would there really be that little left, or have they begun to clean the area up?


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (11 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17422 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 150):
So the next far fetched thought would be an APU catastrophic failure damaging hydraulic lines to the elevator hydraulics or electrical controls. I have no idea how close the APU is to hydraulics or electrical, then again not sure if they would normally have the APU in use for this phase of the flight for cargo operations.

I don't see any sign of catastrophic trouble at the rear of the plane, though. No smoke or fluid. The resolution is low, but it seems like we would see signs of a dramatic APU failure.


User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 157, posted (11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17437 times:

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 155):
Would there really be that little left, or have they begun to clean the area up?

I received the picture on May 9th so I would doubt that clean up would have begun yet. If it had, you would think that they would clear the road first


User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 17322 times:

It just looks a little odd. No wing impact marks, or engine impact marks. Maybe it's the resolution?

Then again, they would probably be further back, given the forward speed at impact.

That's probably just where the fuselage came to rest.

[Edited 2013-05-20 06:57:22]

User currently offline76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 159, posted (11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 17092 times:

Regarding the APU, it is normally shut down after the engines have started. On some 744 versions there is an APU-to-pack takeoff procedure that can be used to increase the performance limited takoff weight. Looking at the relatively short hop to the UAE we can pretty much rule that out.