Bagram Airfield Crash - 7 dead [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Bagram Airfield Crash - 7 dead


Phaze5ive
04-30-2013, 15:20
This tragic accident just happened yesterday. 7 contractors died. Video in link.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/30/video-appears-to-show-deadly-plane-crash-at-bagram-air-field/

Sources say it was carrying 5 MRAP's, which seem to be quite heavy so the load shifting theory may very well be true.

Geko45
04-30-2013, 15:32
It doesn't appear that the pilot made any attempt at all to recover from that stall. They just held the nose high until they fell right out of the sky.

airmotive
04-30-2013, 15:33
Suspected load shift. 5 up-armored vehicles onboard. Only takes one to roll.

Oops...guess I could have read the entire post.

Geko45
04-30-2013, 15:36
Suspected load shift. 5 up-armored vehicles onboard. Only takes one to roll.

Ah, that would explain it. They couldn't get the nose down.

jilverthor
04-30-2013, 15:41
I find that very believable (C.G. shift). This happened during loading not too long ago.

World Cargo Needed a Tailstand (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/safety/71067-world-md-11-its-tail.html)

sopdan
04-30-2013, 16:41
A few of my friends work there, fortunately they weren't on that flight. As said, all speculation and eyewitness accounts (there is a dashcam video of the crash, as well) point toward a load shift.

This one hits very close to home, as it is a small company, and the chance of a very close friend having been at the controls was extremely high.

Eric
04-30-2013, 16:53
Bagram Airfield Crash April 29th 2013 Dashcam footage - YouTube

Rabbi
04-30-2013, 16:55
Bagram Airfield Crash April 29th 2013 Dashcam footage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo51Be2jL8c)

That is insane footage :wow:

aircarver
04-30-2013, 16:57
That is insane footage :wow:

:alex:

Boy Howdy !

Agree on the load shift cause.

.

AK_Stick
04-30-2013, 17:05
Improperly secured cargo......that'll get you every time.



Prayers for the families. atleast it was over quick.

raven11
04-30-2013, 17:07
That driver was pretty calm for having a 747 crash in front of him

capnjim01
04-30-2013, 17:11
Just showed it to my GF and all she could say was OMG OMG OMG! I was thinking the same thing. Wow just wow.

Altaris
04-30-2013, 17:22
That driver was pretty calm for having a 747 crash in front of him

That is probably how I would have reacted as well. Not calm, but not screaming and running around like a little girl either. I tend to become speechless if something shocking happens in front of me. It would probably take me a few minutes to be able to process words after seeing that first hand.

bunk22
04-30-2013, 17:25
Speculating but probably a load shift. Awful and RIP to the crew. Here is a massive load shift off the carrier, circa 1970...

Navy C-2 Greyhound Crash - YouTube

airmotive
04-30-2013, 17:27
ASIs at GE, Boeing and a host of Safety Center guys just canceled their Cinco de Mayo plans. Unfortunately, so did a lot of families in Michigan.
Prayers to all.

AK_Stick
04-30-2013, 17:34
That driver was pretty calm for having a 747 crash in front of him



Well, not to be callous, but what could he do?


There is no surviving, or preventing a crash like that, all you can do is sit back and watch, and hope it doesn't land ontop of you.

Eric
04-30-2013, 17:41
It's weird. Just the night before this crash, I was watching the new episode of Air Disasters on Nat Geo and it featured a Korean Air Cargo 747 that went down in England, just after takeoff. It was a different cause though. In the case of the Korean 747 cargo aircraft, a faulty inertial navigation unit sent bad info to the pilot's artificial horizon, during a port turn. It told him he was still level, so instead of checking the other two instruments, he just kept reefing in left bank. They were at ninety degrees of bank and nose way down when they hit.

When seeing an aircraft that large on takeoff or landing, I've always thought that it simply did not look possible for it to fly. To see one lose lift and fall out of the sky is wrenching though. Eric

GVFlyer
04-30-2013, 17:42
Improperly secured cargo......that'll get you every time.

Prayers for the families. atleast it was over quick.

Roger that. This is not a new mishap, on just one of my tours in Germany, the USAF lost a C-130 and a C-5 at EDAR Ramstein Airbase due to load shifts.

JLedhas
04-30-2013, 18:01
Bless their hearts, wonder what they was thinking during that.

RenoF250
04-30-2013, 18:12
Suspected load shift. 5 up-armored vehicles onboard. Only takes one to roll.

Oops...guess I could have read the entire post.

5 up armored what? A 747-400 can carry a lot of weight, I would not think it would be so heavily impacted by 1 vehicle but I don't know much about flying. It sure seemed to lose all forward airspeed.

It is odd how quiet the video is. There are noises that indicate there is audio but the crash makes noise and the drive does not say anything.

G19Tony
04-30-2013, 18:14
That was horrible to watch. RIP fellow Aviators. :crying:

sopdan
04-30-2013, 18:15
5 up armored what? A 747-400 can carry a lot of weight, I would not think it would be so heavily impacted by 1 vehicle but I don't know much about flying. It sure seemed to lose all forward airspeed.

It is odd how quiet the video is. There are noises that indicate there is audio but the crash makes noise and the drive does not say anything.


Supposedly five MRAPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP). If the front one gets loose I imagine it would break the others free in a domino effect, with all of the weight at the rear of the aircraft.

Think of a giant see-saw/teeter-totter with the vehicles balanced on it... now think of the same see-saw with all five bunched up near one end. That's what the speculation is.

jilverthor
04-30-2013, 18:26
5 up armored what? A 747-400 can carry a lot of weight, I would not think it would be so heavily impacted by 1 vehicle but I don't know much about flying. It sure seemed to lose all forward airspeed.



The comment seem to be indicating it was carrying 5 MRAPs. The MRAP is not a specific vehicle rather a resign philosophy that has resulted in several different designs that generally weigh between 10-25 tons. As for the stall, if the aircraft's center of gravity (C.G.) is outside of certain limits, the plane becomes uncontrollable. The control surfaces will become ineffective if this occurs and the stall continues to get worse.

airmotive
04-30-2013, 18:35
Disregard...but yeah. MRAPS.
That's a lot of thrust...but still not nearly enough.

jilverthor
04-30-2013, 18:42
And yes, here is to you gentlemen :drink:

The Fist Of Goodness
04-30-2013, 19:04
That is insane footage :wow:

I think I have had nightmares that looked just like that.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

RenoF250
04-30-2013, 19:16
I would think a 25 ton vehicle could punch its way right through the tail.

Regardless of how it happened, terrible tragedy.

FLIPPER 348
04-30-2013, 19:30
It doesn't appear that the pilot made any attempt at all to recover from that stall. They just held the nose high until they fell right out of the sky.


The pilot made a huge attempt but there was nothing he could do.

Dennis in MA
04-30-2013, 19:34
F'in Taliban. They take credit if a soldier stubs his toe on his bunk. Turds!

Geko45
04-30-2013, 19:36
The pilot made a huge attempt but there was nothing he could do.

I hadn't heard about the possible load shift when I made my first post.

Lakerdude
04-30-2013, 20:26
"""""

bunk22
04-30-2013, 20:34
The gear is down as well prior to impact as well.

HollowHead
04-30-2013, 20:37
Quite a bit of experience dealing with this problem with radio controlled aircraft. A rearward CG will cause the plane to do exactly what this aircraft did in flight. It becomes totally non-responsive to control input.

To me, it didn't look like the CG shifted. It may have been loaded too far to the rear. Part of the problem would be the true weight of the vehicles inside. A variation of 10 to 20,000 pounds is way too much. The guy loading the plane had to know the exact weight of each vehicle, to load it properly. Typically, the guy who loads the plane is on it, and flies with the aircraft wherever it goes. If that's the case, this is a tragic but self-correcting problem.

I am not a pilot but fly commercials at least once a month. Many times, the pilot will ask people to rearrange around the cabin before pushback to equalize the CG on a plane that isn't full. They must have some way of knowing this before taking off. Are there weight sensors for each landing gear? HH

Edited to add: didn't the Arrow Air charter that crashed in Gander Bay killing all the US servicemen on their way to Lebanon in the early eighties go down tail-heavy because the loading sensors were broken?

jilverthor
04-30-2013, 20:37
To me, it didn't look like the CG shifted. It may have been loaded too far to the rear. Part of the problem would be the true weight of the vehicles inside. A variation of 10 to 20,000 pounds is way too much. The guy loading the plane had to know the exact weight of each vehicle, to load it properly.

The variation comes from the public not knowing which version of an MRAP is loaded.

For instance, this is an MRAP: RG-31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31) (though not owned by US forces)

And this is an MRAP: Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_%28mine_protected_vehicle%29)

You will note that there is no relationship between the two vehicles other than being designed to resist damage from mines.

The loadmaster (which there would normally be) would know which version was being loaded assuming it was MRAPs and should have been able to compute the CG properly.

.264 magnum
04-30-2013, 20:58
5 up armored what? A 747-400 can carry a lot of weight, I would not think it would be so heavily impacted by 1 vehicle but I don't know much about flying. It sure seemed to lose all forward airspeed.

It is odd how quiet the video is. There are noises that indicate there is audio but the crash makes noise and the drive does not say anything.

Fold together your favorite paper airplane. Give it five test flights. Affix a paper clip to the nose and fly it five times. Then move the clip amid-ship and heave five more times. Then put the paper clip at the stern and go for five more.

G29Reload
04-30-2013, 21:19
I am not a pilot but fly commercials at least once a month. Many times, the pilot will ask people to rearrange around the cabin before pushback to equalize the CG on a plane that isn't full. They must have some way of knowing this before taking off. Are there weight sensors for each landing gear? HH

Edited to add: didn't the Arrow Air charter that crashed in Gander Bay killing all the US servicemen on their way to Lebanon in the early eighties go down tail-heavy because the loading sensors were broken?

Actually 747s have load balancing computers on board tho that may be in more conventional settings for passenger cargo holds. Still, loadmaster for a ramped plane shoukd know exactly where the cargo goes and how its tied down.

3glkdog
04-30-2013, 21:39
I do not want to hear the cvr on this one.

RIP fellow aviators.

F14Scott
04-30-2013, 22:13
Damn.

Amazing video, though. Bunk, I immediately thought of that COD mishap you posted when I saw this. Watching a 747 wallowing around WAY post-stall was incredible. Those guys were working the problem all the way to the deck.

Respect, gents.

RenoF250
04-30-2013, 22:15
Fold together your favorite paper airplane. Give it five test flights. Affix a paper clip to the nose and fly it five times. Then move the clip amid-ship and heave five more times. Then put the paper clip at the stern and go for five more.

A 747 is no paper airplane. The paper clip is ~20% of the weight in the paper airplane. In this case an MRAP is ~5% of the weight of the plane. End result is the same I am just surprised that has such a large effect.

I read somewhere else that the plane could have been loaded tail heavy at takeoff and that just caused the nose to go higher and higher.

AK_Stick
05-01-2013, 00:31
A 747 is no paper airplane. The paper clip is ~20% of the weight in the paper airplane. In this case an MRAP is ~5% of the weight of the plane. End result is the same I am just surprised that has such a large effect.

I read somewhere else that the plane could have been loaded tail heavy at takeoff and that just caused the nose to go higher and higher.


The answer, is it depends. Its not how much total weight, but where the weight is put. If the trucks were positioned to be slightly tail heavy, and the last truck in line broke free and rolled 10 ft aft, you might move the CG so far aft you can't do anything. Also, a load of 5 MRAPs, is over 100K lbs, so its a significant chunk of the airplanes weight. Some MRAPs are over 50K.


Some airplanes, fly better with the CG slightly aft. But within allowable limits (C5 for instance, the AF prefers you to plan and load it slightly tail heavy)

However, if you move that weight too far back, the plane will not have enough control surfaces to physically counter act the weight, and the airplane will go nose high, and climb, until it stalls out, and crashes.


This is exactly what happened in the video. The only question is if the truck broke free of its restraints/was improperly restrained, or if the airplane was loaded with the CG too far aft to start with.

For the people expecting to see a truck smash through the tail of the plane, it didn't break free when the nose went way up in the air, it started to work aft when they started rolling/rotating, what you're seeing is the final stage, the CG is so far back, the plane is in its death climb, and then the stall out, and ensuing crash.

Lone_Wolfe
05-01-2013, 00:46
Damn. Just damn. RIP Brethren. :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

fiveoboy01
05-01-2013, 01:05
Quite a bit of experience dealing with this problem with radio controlled aircraft. A rearward CG will cause the plane to do exactly what this aircraft did in flight. It becomes totally non-responsive to control input.

I used to play with the CG all the time, and always preferred to fly with it aft. The plane did 3D maneuvers better but of course I never did put it so far back that the aircraft was uncontrollable.

To me, it didn't look like the CG shifted. It may have been loaded too far to the rear. Part of the problem would be the true weight of the vehicles inside. A variation of 10 to 20,000 pounds is way too much. The guy loading the plane had to know the exact weight of each vehicle, to load it properly. Typically, the guy who loads the plane is on it, and flies with the aircraft wherever it goes. If that's the case, this is a tragic but self-correcting problem.

I think an unintended CG shift is a more likely scenario than the loadmaster screwing up the placement of the cargo that badly.

98LS-WON
05-01-2013, 03:03
I'm curious to see if the CG shifted or if the CG was miscalculated. Either way, I bet it leaped off of the runway as soon as they rotated. There wasn't a thing they could do about it.

Deployment Solu
05-01-2013, 03:33
RIP Brothers.

crazyasian1
05-01-2013, 05:08
Holy. ****e. Speechless... RIP

GVFlyer
05-01-2013, 05:36
...

Edited to add: didn't the Arrow Air charter that crashed in Gander Bay killing all the US servicemen on their way to Lebanon in the early eighties go down tail-heavy because the loading sensors were broken?

Most likely, ice.

The Canadian Aviation Safety Board was unable to determine the exact sequence of events which led to this accident. The Board believes, however, that the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that, shortly after lift-off, the aircraft experienced an increase in drag and reduction in lift which resulted in a stall at low altitude from which recovery was not possible. The most probable cause of the stall was determined to be ice contamination on the leading edge and upper surface of the wing. Other possible factors such as a loss of thrust from the number four engine and inappropriate take-off reference speeds may have compounded the effects of the contamination.
Four members of the CASB dissented, issuing a minority opinion asserting that there was no evidence presented proving that ice had been present on leading edges such as the wings, and the minority report speculated that:
An in-flight fire that may have resulted from detonations of undetermined origin brought about catastrophic system failures.

GVFlyer
05-01-2013, 06:12
The answer, is it depends. Its not how much total weight, but where the weight is put. If the trucks were positioned to be slightly tail heavy, and the last truck in line broke free and rolled 10 ft aft, you might move the CG so far aft you can't do anything. Also, a load of 5 MRAPs, is over 100K lbs, so its a significant chunk of the airplanes weight. Some MRAPs are over 50K.


Some airplanes, fly better with the CG slightly aft. But within allowable limits (C5 for instance, the AF prefers you to plan and load it slightly tail heavy)

However, if you move that weight too far back, the plane will not have enough control surfaces to physically counter act the weight, and the airplane will go nose high, and climb, until it stalls out, and crashes.


This is exactly what happened in the video. The only question is if the truck broke free of its restraints/was improperly restrained, or if the airplane was loaded with the CG too far aft to start with.

For the people expecting to see a truck smash through the tail of the plane, it didn't break free when the nose went way up in the air, it started to work aft when they started rolling/rotating, what you're seeing is the final stage, the CG is so far back, the plane is in its death climb, and then the stall out, and ensuing crash.

Rearward C.G.'s increase range by reducing drag, but make the aircraft less stable.

Early in the GV development program, the C.G. on the demo jet (which was operating on an "Experimental" ticket) was at 48.5% MAC for some of the distance record runs. Gulfstream pilots will recognize the significance of this number.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 06:26
My research shows that there are weight and balance calculators for the 747-400 (Honeywell) that operate from sensors on the landing gear, but these appear to be optional, rather than standard. I'm still thinking the W&B was OK and the cargo broke loose at rotation.

The takeoff pitch angle does bad things to objects that were OK when the deck was level. (I experienced a pilot seat runaway in a Cessna [used to be a common problem] at rotation.) Things heading for the back of the plane are seriously bad news. :alex:

.

MaxxAction
05-01-2013, 06:54
I think I have had nightmares that looked just like that.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Me Too...

when I was younger, I used to have recurring dreams about watching planes crash. The horror of knowing everyone on board was going to die, and being unable to do a damn thing about it was what always stuck with me about those dreams.

GlockViking
05-01-2013, 07:20
Suspected load shift. 5 up-armored vehicles onboard. Only takes one to roll.

Oops...guess I could have read the entire post.

Gave me the chills...when I flew out of BAF in November, it was on a C-17 with two MRAPs!

I was watching those securing chains during takeoff and landing...they do take a bit of stress and I can only imagine what would happen if they were NOT secured correctly.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

Ian Moone
05-01-2013, 07:29
That is insane footage :wow:

Agreed!! Haven't seen anything like that since the B-52 pilot at Fairchild AFB tried to do a 90 degree bank 1,000 feet off the deck in 1994.

cphilip
05-01-2013, 07:37
Sort of looks to me that the guy taking the Video was looking for something else that might have caused the plane to come down. Like he immediately thought of someone shooting it down and was scanning around looking for something.

GVFlyer
05-01-2013, 07:44
Agreed!! Haven't seen anything like that since the B-52 pilot at Fairchild AFB tried to do a 90 degree bank 1,000 feet off the deck in 1994.

Czar 52 - the final command of LTC "Bud" Holland.

http://www.check-six.com/images/Czar52/Czar52-2.jpg

http://youtu.be/ReSm7r45_ds

LTC Tony Kern wrote a controversial book centering on that mishap.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41A3kFOihlL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX285_SY380_CR,0,0,285,380_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Kern's book is used in a number of industrial CRM courses.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

G19Tony
05-01-2013, 07:50
Czar 52 - the final command of LTC "Bud" Holland.

http://www.check-six.com/images/Czar52/Czar52-2.jpg

http://youtu.be/ReSm7r45_ds

LTC Tony Kern wrote a controversial book centering on that mishap.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41A3kFOihlL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_SX285_SY380_CR,0,0,285,380_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Kern's book is used in a number of industrial CRM courses.

http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

Read the book, and the report was briefed a few times when I was in the squadrons. Big airmanship failure, but a bigger leadership failure.

willie_pete
05-01-2013, 07:54
The black spot in front of the tail is the co-pilot ejecting IIRC. He didn't make it.

WP

MaxxAction
05-01-2013, 08:00
What was that guy thinking??

I'm not a pilot, but even someone with no aviation experience could tell from the first second he attempted that turn that it was a bad idea...

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 08:02
What was that guy thinking??

I'm not a pilot, but even someone with no aviation experience could tell from the first second he attempted that turn that it was a bad idea...


The plane made all the decisions, not the pilot.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 08:02
The black spot in front of the tail is the co-pilot ejecting IIRC. He didn't make it.

WP

Thanks, I wondered what that was ... :shocked:

.

MaxxAction
05-01-2013, 08:16
The plane made all the decisions, not the pilot.

ehhhh...

how is that possible?

Geko45
05-01-2013, 08:26
ehhhh...

how is that possible?

When one wing stalls before another the plane will roll sharply on its own. It's not really that the plane made the decision as much as the inevitability of physics.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 08:27
ehhhh...

how is that possible?


dramatic CG shift

TK-421
05-01-2013, 08:28
Man, that's a nasty crash, it really sucks. No time to do anything except watch your plane go into the ground, that has to be a scary feeling. I can't imagine what it must be like to know you're going to die and that there is absolutely nothing you can do, scares me.

Geko45
05-01-2013, 08:31
dramatic CG shift

certainly caused the stall, but the roll?

The Oracle
05-01-2013, 08:32
Supposedly five MRAPs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP). If the front one gets loose I imagine it would break the others free in a domino effect, with all of the weight at the rear of the aircraft.

Think of a giant see-saw/teeter-totter with the vehicles balanced on it... now think of the same see-saw with all five bunched up near one end. That's what the speculation is.


Sadly, load shift is exceedingly foreseeable and preventable.


.

byf43
05-01-2013, 08:33
That is insane footage :wow:

Watched that several times.


:wow:
No words...

Eric
05-01-2013, 08:35
certainly caused the stall, but the roll?

I'm no expert, but I think the pilot induced the roll to get the nose down. He had the nose down and was leveling the wings when he struck the ground. He just ran out of altitude. Eric

Dennis in MA
05-01-2013, 08:37
The plane made all the decisions, not the pilot.

Wait. Are you talking the 1994 incident or the recent one? I think he's referring to the former - meaning pilot error. The plane didn't decide to start turning. . . I don't think.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 08:37
certainly caused the stall, but the roll?

It's going to roll one way or another on the way down.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 08:38
Wait. Are you talking the 1994 incident or the recent one? I don't think.

This thread is about the crash the other day in Afghanistan.

.264 magnum
05-01-2013, 08:40
A 747 is no paper airplane. The paper clip is ~20% of the weight in the paper airplane. In this case an MRAP is ~5% of the weight of the plane. End result is the same I am just surprised that has such a large effect.

I read somewhere else that the plane could have been loaded tail heavy at takeoff and that just caused the nose to go higher and higher.


I have a gram scale here in my office. A paper clip is less than 10% the weight of a good sheet of copy paper. And it proves the point that an ass heavy plane will not fly.

For the tail to have been loaded that much too heavy.....
1. The load master and his crew had to have been drunk or otherwise seriously derelict.
2. Same same for the captain, first officer etc.
3. The automated systems would have had to have failed or be over-ridden as well.
4. During take off the pilot would have felt the nose come up way too hard/early and, assuming there was runway, he would have aborted. Even assuming not enough runway it's way better to blow through the fence and have a shot at survival than to take off ass heavy and stall for sure. Pilots train through this stuff their entire careers.

Could the above have happened? it's possible.

To me it's far more likely that the load shifted.


Godspeed to the crew and their families and friends.

MaxxAction
05-01-2013, 08:41
Wait. Are you talking the 1994 incident or the recent one? I think he's referring to the former - meaning pilot error. The plane didn't decide to start turning. . . I don't think.

Right...

I was curious what a veteran aviator was doing trying to make such a hard turn at such low speed and low altitude.

The most recent one is pretty obvious that when the weigth shifted back that the plane went nose up.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 08:41
I'm no expert, but I think the pilot induced the roll to get the nose down. He had the nose down and was leveling the wings when he struck the ground. He just ran out of altitude. Eric

A possibility, that might have worked with enough altitude, or ... the aerodynamics weren't identical on both wings, so one stalled first (common for most airplanes)

.

Ian Moone
05-01-2013, 08:42
Czar 52 - the final command of LTC "Bud" Holland.

http://www.check-six.com/images/Czar52/Czar52-2.jpg

http://youtu.be/ReSm7r45_ds




There used to be a retired Lt. Col. around these parts that was at Fairchild on the fateful day. He said the pilot was a real hot dog that had a history of low level passes over elevated terrain in the area. He was talking like just a few feet above the surrounding hilltops. Seems that very few were surprised the way he met his demise.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 08:43
Right...

I was curious what a veteran aviator was doing trying to make such a hard turn at such low speed and low altitude.
[Fairchild accident].

Superman syndrome.

.

Geko45
05-01-2013, 08:44
I'm no expert, but I think the pilot induced the roll to get the nose down. He had the nose down and was leveling the wings when he struck the ground. He just ran out of altitude. Eric

I've never flown anything bigger than a single engine prop, but my take was that the plane stalled due to the CG shift and began to roll left. The pilot overcorrected and began to roll right instead. At that point, airpseed was essentially zero so they had no control authority left (no air flowing over the control surfaces means that they are useless). From that point on there was nothing they could do.

Geko45
05-01-2013, 08:46
It's going to roll one way or another on the way down.

Yes, that was my point. CG caused stall. Stall caused roll.

It looks like he pulled it back from rolling left, but then it went drastically right on him.

Dennis in MA
05-01-2013, 08:48
. . . edit. . . need to finish reading before I post. LOL

Flippy - trust me - you know more about it than I do. I'm amazed daily those things stay up in the sky. Putting people in a metal tube and wizzing them around the world is fascinating to me. Not frightening, but fascinating.

willie_pete
05-01-2013, 09:04
Right...

I was curious what a veteran aviator was doing trying to make such a hard turn at such low speed and low altitude.

.

Re: B-52 crash; Google Bud Holland. Pretty bad indictment of the higher levels at the base. Start watching the clip at 4:12. They stop filming because they think he is going to crash.

The last flight of Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland Mishap of B-52 at Fairchild - YouTube

WP

Eric
05-01-2013, 09:05
I've never flown anything bigger than a single engine prop, but my take was that the plane stalled due to the CG shift and began to roll left. The pilot overcorrected and began to roll right instead. At that point, airpseed was essentially zero so they had no control authority left (no air flowing over the control surfaces means that they are useless). From that point on there was nothing they could do.

Maybe so, but as soon as the nose came over, the pilot was able to bring that wing back up. Whether he intentionally rolled or not, he was able to use the roll to bring his nose down and he had already recovered enough airflow over the wings to bring them level. If he had only had a bit more altitude, he might have pulled that one out. Eric

Geko45
05-01-2013, 09:13
Maybe so, but as soon as the nose came over, the pilot was able to bring that wing back up. Whether he intentionally rolled or not, he was able to use the roll to bring his nose down and he had already recovered enough airflow over the wings to bring them level. If he had only had a bit more altitude, he might have pulled that one out. Eric

Yeah, they regained some control when they gained speed during the fall (and that's exactly what it was), but their vertical speed was far to great. I doubt they could have pulled that out with twice the altitude they started with.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 10:11
. . . edit. . . need to finish reading before I post. LOL

Flippy - trust me - you know more about it than I do. I'm amazed daily those things stay up in the sky. Putting people in a metal tube and wizzing them around the world is fascinating to me. Not frightening, but fascinating.

.........oh it's frightening at times! The 747 actually started to recover but the same stall would have just happened again with or without any pilot inputs. A simple paper airplane with a mild aft CG will stall and recover a few times, this 747 would have also given enough altitude.

.264 magnum
05-01-2013, 10:26
.........oh it's frightening at times! The 747 actually started to recover but the same stall would have just happened again with or without any pilot inputs. A simple paper airplane with a mild aft CG will stall and recover a few times, this 747 would have also given enough altitude.

Flipper, if the pilot was at say 20,000 ft might he have been able to nose down and gather enough speed for some degree of lift and control maybe allowing the crew to stabilize/move some of the load or maybe even jettison some of the load?

F14Scott
05-01-2013, 10:30
With enough airspeed over the control surfaces, giving them more force to counteract the aft CG, the jet might have been flyable. They just didn't have enough energy added to the jet to have that speed or to trade altitude for it.

I wonder what corner airspeed for a 747 is.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 10:31
No way to eject cargo. Doubtful the outcome would have been any different

.264 magnum
05-01-2013, 10:33
No way to eject cargo. Doubtful the outcome would have been any different

Thanks.

raven11
05-01-2013, 10:34
maybe allowing the crew to stabilize/move some of the load or maybe even jettison some of the load?

747 don't have rear ramps just a nose door and a side door , if the load did shift it would be impossible to remove the MRAPs in flight

sappy13
05-01-2013, 10:34
Wow. that was crazy. RIP to those on the plane

Dalton Wayne
05-01-2013, 11:24
Here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M01RmcKsm2k

Eric
05-01-2013, 11:42
Here's the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M01RmcKsm2k

The copy of this video posted on the first page of this thread doesn't require the viewer to log into You Tube to view it. Eric

aircarver
05-01-2013, 11:45
From what I read about the Air France 447 crash, a big jet needs 10,000 feet to recover from a full stall. ... :alex:

.

HollowHead
05-01-2013, 12:22
From what I read about the Air France 447 crash, a big jet needs 10,000 feet to recover from a full stall. ... :alex:

.

...and a PIC with more than 400 hours. HH

faawrenchbndr
05-01-2013, 12:42
Disheartening...........prayers sent

AK_Stick
05-01-2013, 14:07
Maybe so, but as soon as the nose came over, the pilot was able to bring that wing back up. Whether he intentionally rolled or not, he was able to use the roll to bring his nose down and he had already recovered enough airflow over the wings to bring them level. If he had only had a bit more altitude, he might have pulled that one out. Eric


No, that aircraft was in an unrecoverable condition. If he had pulled it up enough to clear the ground, it would have done the exact same maneuver a second time.

Unless the loose truck had slammed forward into the next truck and become entangled and thus restored the CG to a controllable airframe position, this end result was unfortunetly, inevitable.

jilverthor
05-01-2013, 14:23
No, that aircraft was in an unrecoverable condition. If he had pulled it up enough to clear the ground, it would have done the exact same maneuver a second time.

Unless the loose truck had slammed forward into the next truck and become entangled and thus restored the CG to a controllable airframe position, this end result was unfortunetly, inevitable.

With a little more altitude and a lot of luck, that might have turned into a good landing, but it was never going to be a great landing or flyable.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 14:25
...and a PIC with more than 400 hours. HH

[Re: AF447] Yeah, but you'd think any pilot would have it down in eight hours, that saying about pushing and pulling on the stick; the houses getting bigger or smaller ... :frown:

.

devildog2067
05-01-2013, 14:29
There used to be a retired Lt. Col. around these parts that was at Fairchild on the fateful day. He said the pilot was a real hot dog that had a history of low level passes over elevated terrain in the area. He was talking like just a few feet above the surrounding hilltops. Seems that very few were surprised the way he met his demise.

The way that Bud Holland managed to stay in the cockpit despite all of his antics is actually a well documented case study in leadership failures.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 14:47
With a little more altitude and a lot of luck, that might have turned into a good landing, but it was never going to be a great landing or flyable.

Um, no.

Rabbi
05-01-2013, 14:58
With a little more altitude and a lot of luck, that might have turned into a good landing, but it was never going to be a great landing or flyable.

That plane was falling out of the sky(falling and flying are not the same thing), even though it had a level of forward momentum left. It lacked speed and balance, not altitude. Of course, if it had a great enough altitude it could have recovered...but for this case, the issue was speed and balance.

Hoochrunners
05-01-2013, 15:00
The gear is down as well prior to impact as well.

I saw that too. My guess is with all that was going on at that low altitude they were wrestling with the controls instead.

Geko45
05-01-2013, 15:01
You know, I think we are starting to go a little overboard on the armchair quarterbacking (and I don't exempt myself from that statement). We should wait and see what the findings are.

jilverthor
05-01-2013, 15:03
Flipper, you are forgetting you aviation sayings:

Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing. A landing where they can use the plane again is a great landing.

The terrain at the end of the runway is relatively flat and sparsely populated for a few miles before you encounter the mountains that form the bowl around Bagram. Get the aircraft wings level, gear up, and with a slow sink rate and the pilot had a shot at a belly landing.

NIB
05-01-2013, 15:05
Had a Blackhawk pilot tell me once that flying was the easy part. The hard part was what to do when your crashing.

devildog2067
05-01-2013, 15:07
Get the aircraft wings level, gear up, and with a slow sink rate and the pilot had a shot at a belly landing.

You can't get a slow sink rate. That's the point. With the CG that far back, the airplane isn't flying, it's just falling.

CarryTexas
05-01-2013, 15:15
Get the aircraft wings level, gear up, and with a slow sink rate and the pilot had a shot at a belly landing.

The plane in this case was in a complete stall. It had stopped flying and was just falling. If the load had shifted no amount of altitude would have saved them. From watching the video Id say that there was no way that plane could have been recovered.

I hope that there will be some way of determining exactly what went wrong. Broken chain, improper securing of the cargo etc

GVFlyer
05-01-2013, 15:15
You can't always get the nose back down to regain controlled flight when operating in a stalled condition. In an extreme nose-up attitude, the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer making regaining pitch control not possible.

When we were intentionally stalling the Gulfstream GV during developmental test, we fitted a stall chute to the jet so that if we lost pitch control we could pop the chute to get the nose back down, then cut away the chute.

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDJ0rL761dV_0g7&w=400&h=386&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F88%2FDeep_Stall.png

Geko45
05-01-2013, 15:19
With the CG that far back, the airplane isn't flying, it's just falling.

More precisely, it oscillates like a leaf. Nose up, stall, roll, nose down, dive, repeat until all available altitude has been used.

Eric
05-01-2013, 15:21
No, that aircraft was in an unrecoverable condition. If he had pulled it up enough to clear the ground, it would have done the exact same maneuver a second time.

Unless the loose truck had slammed forward into the next truck and become entangled and thus restored the CG to a controllable airframe position, this end result was unfortunetly, inevitable.

I wasn't aware that an accident report had been released. It is clear from the video that the aircraft stalled, but everything else is conjecture, at this point.

If this was a center of balance issue, it was obviously out of balance enough to pull an aircraft that was going slowly and already in a marked nose-up attitude further into a vertical attitude, but was it out of balance enough to prevent the aircraft from maintaining controllable flight, if the aircraft recovered and had better airspeed? Who knows? I don't. Neither do you.

Anyway, it is all a mute point. The aircraft stalled at too low an altitude to survive. It was not my intention to start a what-if debate. Eric

Zukoda
05-01-2013, 15:26
You can't always get the nose back down to regain controlled flight when operating in a stalled condition. In an extreme nose-up attitude, the wing can blank out the horizontal stabilizer making regaining pitch control not possible.

When we were intentionally stalling the Gulfstream GV during developmental test, we fitted a stall chute to the jet so that if we lost pitch control we could pop the chute to get the nose back down, then cut away the chute.

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQDJ0rL761dV_0g7&w=400&h=386&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F88%2FDeep_Stall.png

Back in the late 70s I saw the same setup on an F-15 and an F-16 out at Edwards AFB in CA. Right then I decided test pilots were nuts.

G23Gen4TX
05-01-2013, 15:33
I wasn't aware that an accident report had been released. It is clear from the video that the aircraft stalled, but everything else is conjecture, at this point.

If this was a center of balance issue, it was obviously out of balance enough to pull an aircraft that was going slowly and already in a marked nose-up attitude further into a vertical attitude, but was it out of balance enough to prevent the aircraft from maintaining controllable flight, if the aircraft recovered and had better airspeed? Who knows? I don't. Neither do you.

Anyway, it is all a mute point. The aircraft stalled at too low an altitude to survive. It was not my intention to start a what-if debate. Eric

The video is shot from the front so it is hard to see the forward speed the airraft had but it looks like it was going slow enough to almost stand still in the air. Then the wing stalls and it rolls and dives.

The only thing that could have saved it is height and that, it did not have enough of.

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 15:52
The video is .......

The only thing that could have saved it is height and that, it did not have enough of.


Once again, no. Had the airframe recovered to straight and level it would only have been a transition right into another stall.

aircarver
05-01-2013, 15:57
There was not enough pitch authority to get the nose down enough to break the stall ... :frown:

.

3glkdog
05-01-2013, 16:45
You know, I think we are starting to go a little overboard on the armchair quarterbacking (and I don't exempt myself from that statement). We should wait and see what the findings are.

Exactly, cvr/fdr will be found soon, lets just leave it to the investigators.

I just read that 4 of the crews were under 40, 2 have wives that are pregnant, one pilot just got married 2 weeks ago. So sad

I'll say it again, I do not want to hear the content of the cvr.

AK_Stick
05-01-2013, 16:56
I wasn't aware that an accident report had been released. It is clear from the video that the aircraft stalled, but everything else is conjecture, at this point.

If this was a center of balance issue, it was obviously out of balance enough to pull an aircraft that was going slowly and already in a marked nose-up attitude further into a vertical attitude, but was it out of balance enough to prevent the aircraft from maintaining controllable flight, if the aircraft recovered and had better airspeed? Who knows? I don't. Neither do you.

Anyway, it is all a mute point. The aircraft stalled at too low an altitude to survive. It was not my intention to start a what-if debate. Eric


Even if he'd recovered enough airspeed to keep flying, the plane would have transitioned into a nose high, un-controlable attitude, and done precisely the same thing a second time. The 747, doesn't have enough control authority, to physically force the nose down. If he'd had enough control authority to force the nose down, as soon as the airframe began to over-rotate, he'd have had the ability to push forward, control the rotation, and fly through.


Aircraft load building/load planning for military airlifts, is one of my additional duties, and I'm a airforce trained and certifed planner. I build loads that travel on those same CRAF (civil reserve air fleet) aircraft.

Aditionally, as a QC guy in the military, and as a civilian, weight and balance and center of balance computations, are duties I perform in the course of my regular job.


I can't tell you what chain of events happened before rotation, but there is no conjecture about the events that happen on camera.

G23Gen4TX
05-01-2013, 16:59
Once again, no. Had the airframe recovered to straight and level it would only have been a transition right into another stall.

Nose up in take off - weight shifts back.

When the nose goes down, the weight will shift forward.

Will it be a continuous pendulum effect until crashing if there was more altitude? I don't know but it looks like the pilot had some control right before they hit the ground.

3glkdog
05-01-2013, 17:02
Agreed!! Haven't seen anything like that since the B-52 pilot at Fairchild AFB tried to do a 90 degree bank 1,000 feet off the deck in 1994.

Or the C-17 pilot that try to do the same thing at Elmendorf in Anchorage in 2010.

robin303
05-01-2013, 17:20
The black spot in front of the tail is the co-pilot ejecting IIRC. He didn't make it.

WP

:wow: Never noticed that before.

GeorgiaGlocker
05-01-2013, 17:28
You can read more about LTC Bud Holland here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

GVFlyer
05-01-2013, 17:42
Or the C-17 pilot that try to do the same thing at Elmendorf in Anchorage in 2010.

Ugh.

http://youtu.be/qJ2we7EB3Qs

This video reminds me that after I give my official flight brief, I give my informal one - "Don't let me F_ _k-up, don't hurt me, don't get me fired."

bunk22
05-01-2013, 17:47
I saw that too. My guess is with all that was going on at that low altitude they were wrestling with the controls instead.

I think so to.

In my experience, when a stall occurs (when the critical angle of attack is exceeded), a wing tends to drop off, such as it looked like here. So lets say the left wing drops, the pilot counter acts with right aileron, it rolls right but being it's still in a stall as the critical angle of attack is still exceeded. You have to reduce the AOA in order to recover. Granted, he most likely could not here, the aircraft was in a stalled condition, he had no hope of recovery.

When I flew OCF flights in the T-45C, we would stall the jet, let the wing fall off, counter act it and let the aircraft depart, much like it did in the video but we had to hold the stick aft and kept the power at idle (high AoA and max power could cause a compressor stall in the 45). We did these things to train the IP's and students to recognize and recover. Of course we did it at altitude and if worst came to worst, we pulled the yellow and black handle.

Al Czervik
05-01-2013, 18:32
Condolences to their families.
I was in an aft CG stall, but it was a self correcting problem.....in the back of a tailgate jumpship, too many people behind the red line, plane stalls, poops out jumpers, recovers as CG returns within limits. Sorting through all the bodies, trying to figure out what just happened, and seeing a large spinning plane with big spinning props will get your attention.
Then, you buy the drivers beer for not turning you into red mist.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

CombatCamera
05-01-2013, 20:10
Flying into KAF
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8261/8700942398_392ab21511_b.jpg


Gave me the chills...when I flew out of BAF in November, it was on a C-17 with two MRAPs!

I was watching those securing chains during takeoff and landing...they do take a bit of stress and I can only imagine what would happen if they were NOT secured correctly.

:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

FLIPPER 348
05-01-2013, 20:20
I don't know but it looks like the pilot had some control right before they hit the ground.


Ray Charles could have watched the video and known that the pilot never had any control of the 747.

Paul53
05-01-2013, 22:17
Prayers to the crew and their families.

Predicting there were multiple causes here. They were too busy early on to get the gear up. Something was wrong from the get go. Fighting a sudden high angle of attack right after liftoff, then who knows what the cargo did. Couldn't see the flaps/slats, but never retracted the gear. By the time the nose got down, the sink rate was high and nobody could have recovered. Low altitude stalls will get you every time.

Yeah, I know I'm stating the obvious. Just wondering if the aircraft was configured correctly for takeoff.

F14Scott
05-01-2013, 22:43
Even if he'd recovered enough airspeed to keep flying, the plane would have transitioned into a nose high, un-controlable attitude, and done precisely the same thing a second time. The 747, doesn't have enough control authority, to physically force the nose down. If he'd had enough control authority to force the nose down, as soon as the airframe began to over-rotate, he'd have had the ability to push forward, control the rotation, and fly through.


I agree that this version is what actually happened. My guess is that the load cut loose on or just before rotation, pitching the nose up immediately. The pilots spent the entire flight pushing on the stick and trying to keep the wings level, to no avail, because they had decreasing airspeed the entire flight. They neglected to raise the gear because they were saturated with a runaway pitch-up jet, or perhaps they thought they could get it back on the runway if they pushed hard and fast enough.

However, the fastest they flew was the moment they left the runway, probably 155 KIAS or less. That's below "corner" airspeed of a 747, the point at which the pilot could generate placard G (-1 G, in this case) with full stick deflection. Of course, placard G only applies if further flights appear likely. Otherwise, if over corner, push until something breaks.

Hypothetically, though, if the jet had been able to climb more and then trade that altitude for airspeed, the aft CG might have been counteracted by the pilots, if they had more g available once the speed came up. As it was, that jet was never more than just above stall the entire flight, and, so, had no chance of using control forces to force the nose down. And, if they had been able to get the nose down at, say, 300 KIAS, I'm not sure if that would have saved them, since landing that fast would be a low-probability event, too.

Maybe they could take it out over the water, fly at 50', cut the throttles, and hold altitude with forward stick as speed wound down and the tail settled into the water. Still low probability, but better than the sh** sandwich they were dealt.

AK_Stick
05-01-2013, 23:22
I agree that this version is what actually happened. My guess is that the load cut loose on or just before rotation, pitching the nose up immediately. The pilots spent the entire flight pushing on the stick and trying to keep the wings level, to no avail, because they had decreasing airspeed the entire flight. They neglected to raise the gear because they were saturated with a runaway pitch-up jet, or perhaps they thought they could get it back on the runway if they pushed hard and fast enough.

However, the fastest they flew was the moment they left the runway, probably 155 KIAS or less. That's below "corner" airspeed of a 747, the point at which the pilot could generate placard G (-1 G, in this case) with full stick deflection. Of course, placard G only applies if further flights appear likely. Otherwise, if over corner, push until something breaks.

Hypothetically, though, if the jet had been able to climb more and then trade that altitude for airspeed, the aft CG might have been counteracted by the pilots, if they had more g available once the speed came up. As it was, that jet was never more than just above stall the entire flight, and, so, had no chance of using control forces to force the nose down. And, if they had been able to get the nose down at, say, 300 KIAS, I'm not sure if that would have saved them, since landing that fast would be a low-probability event, too.

Maybe they could take it out over the water, fly at 50', cut the throttles, and hold altitude with forward stick as speed wound down and the tail settled into the water. Still low probability, but better than the sh** sandwich they were dealt.


Yep, but thats a long flight from Bag to anyplace with that much water.

jilverthor
05-01-2013, 23:47
Yep, but thats a long flight from Bag to anyplace with that much water.

Yes, about half an hour even in a jet to get to a lake of any significant size. The other thing working against them was the density altitude, BAF is about 5000 ft elevation and the temp this time of the year is going to be above standard atmosphere.

JLB768
05-02-2013, 00:41
My son showed me the video today, I was left speachless, what a horrible thing for the crew, and families.

sns3guppy
05-02-2013, 03:31
I don't know many members of this board are qualified on that aircraft, doing that mission, or who have experience doing it in that aircraft, but I am.

I'll say this, without any need for speculation: the crew never had a chance, and the situation was NOT recoverable.

Speculation is not appropriate. We don't know the cause, and guesswork accomplishes nothing.

As for load calculations: those are done by professional load engineers, and are not calculated by the aircraft. Complete weight and balance documentation is used, as are very detailed manuals and instructions for loading and securing the cargo. The weight and balance documentation is completed by load masters and examined by the captain and first officer, as is the cargo. It's not a matter of guess work.

ArtyGuy
05-02-2013, 04:45
Amazing, but sad, video footage. I pray the families find strength during this difficult time.

Quick question for those with flying experience-- many moons ago when I was a Lieutenant at Fort Bragg, I went through the air load planners course. I have a firm grasp on CG and securing loads. But how much would a load need to shift to have a drastic effect (assuming that is the cause in this crash)?

I ask because when loads are secured, they are chained down, wheels chocked, vehicles are put in park, and the emergency brakes are applied. Not to mention what, if any, additional restraints were applied. Therefore, I personally have a hard time imagining 5 MRAPS breaking free and sent to the back of the aircraft. But could one have broken free and changed the CG that much?

Hopefully the black box was recovered and they can retrieve its data. For the families sake, I hope it wasn't pilot error.

airmotive
05-02-2013, 06:26
All depends Arty.
And let's remember there's still a lot of work left to do. A shifting MRAP is only one theory that's supported by the video evidence. Nothing else.

Air Midwest 5481 makes an interesting comparison.
While it was loaded aft of CG limits, it also had a mis-rigged elevator.
While each problem by itself would have been barely noticeable, when combined, they brought down the aircraft in much the same way this 747 was brought down.

Air Tacoma planted a Convair a mile from the airport in Columbus, Ohio due to a mis-rigged elevator a few years ago.

Point being...the only thing we know right now is that the aircraft was not in control. The next question is, the five "whys".

GlockViking
05-02-2013, 07:25
Flying into KAF
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8261/8700942398_392ab21511_b.jpg

Definitely a moment of "tension" when taking off and landing...I remember seeing those chains in the front straining during T/O and the rear ones during landing.

Hated seeing that jet down down...can't imagine the terror before impact...at least it went quickly. RIP to the crew

.264 magnum
05-02-2013, 07:27
I don't know many members of this board are qualified on that aircraft, doing that mission, or who have experience doing it in that aircraft, but I am.

I'll say this, without any need for speculation: the crew never had a chance, and the situation was NOT recoverable.

Speculation is not appropriate. We don't know the cause, and guesswork accomplishes nothing.

As for load calculations: those are done by professional load engineers, and are not calculated by the aircraft. Complete weight and balance documentation is used, as are very detailed manuals and instructions for loading and securing the cargo. The weight and balance documentation is completed by load masters and examined by the captain and first officer, as is the cargo. It's not a matter of guess work.

I watched the vid with a neighbor who flew C-130s for many years. He concours that the pilot did everything possible but had absolutely no chance to recover.

Speculating about horrible events is to be expected.

G19Tony
05-02-2013, 08:21
Statement from NAC.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5387895/statement-from-national-air-cargo.html

ArtyGuy
05-02-2013, 09:03
All depends Arty.
And let's remember there's still a lot of work left to do. A shifting MRAP is only one theory that's supported by the video evidence. Nothing else.

Air Midwest 5481 makes an interesting comparison.
While it was loaded aft of CG limits, it also had a mis-rigged elevator.
While each problem by itself would have been barely noticeable, when combined, they brought down the aircraft in much the same way this 747 was brought down.

Air Tacoma planted a Convair a mile from the airport in Columbus, Ohio due to a mis-rigged elevator a few years ago.

Point being...the only thing we know right now is that the aircraft was not in control. The next question is, the five "whys".

Thanks for the response. I agree that it's too early to tell. I was just asking a question based upon my experience, which also includes sitting in the back of C-130s and C-17s flying in and out of Afghanistan with large pieces of rolling stock (MRAPs included) and doing air land operations at FT Bragg where a C-130 performing a dirt landing with a 16,000 lb howitzer in the back is "interesting" to say the least. I just don't remember being instructed that our calculations had almost no room for error. Heck I hope they didn't because we did it the hard way in 1995'ish-- we used pencils and calculators to figure it out!! :supergrin:

One of my co-workers is a retired USAF Colonel-- he flew B-52s. He also mentioned the possibility of a stuck elevator. Who knows. But you're right, it's probably a combination of things-- it always is. We use a saying in the Army, "Every oh ***** is preceeded by a bunch of little uh-ohs".

AK_Stick
05-02-2013, 09:07
Thanks for the response. I agree that it's too early to tell. I was just asking a question based upon my experience, which also includes sitting in the back of C-130s and C-17s flying in and out of Afghanistan with large pieces of rolling stock (MRAPs included) and doing air land operations at FT Bragg where a C-130 performing a dirt landing with a 16,000 lb howitzer in the back is "interesting" to say the least. I just don't remember being instructed that our calculations had almost no room for error. Heck I hope they didn't because we did it the hard way in 1995'ish-- we used pencils and calculators to figure it out!! :supergrin:

One of my co-workers is a retired USAF Colonel-- he flew B-52s. He also mentioned the possibility of a stuck elevator. Who knows. But you're right, it's probably a combination of things-- it always is. We use a saying in the Army, "Every oh ***** is preceeded by a bunch of little uh-ohs".


We still do it with pencils and calculators in school. Works pretty good if you know the math.

airmotive
05-02-2013, 09:17
We still do it with pencils and calculators in school. Works pretty good if you know the math.

Uhoh....here comes Rabbi!

G19Tony
05-02-2013, 09:45
Once a year, during FE recurrent, we had to do a Form F. It was a basic one, but if you don't do it for awhile... I had much respect for our Loads. They were great! They always had beer too! :supergrin:

3glkdog
05-02-2013, 12:46
We still do it with pencils and calculators in school. Works pretty good if you know the math.

All I remember about aviation math is:

Weight x arms = moment

I fly Airbus now so I don't really do anything anymore, But I can type 50 wpm.

G23Gen4TX
05-02-2013, 14:25
Statement from NAC.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/01/5387895/statement-from-national-air-cargo.html

That's very interesting. So it's either the cargo broke off and shifted (after being inspected twice) or maybe a mechanical failure.

GVFlyer
05-02-2013, 14:34
All I remember about aviation math is:

Weight x arms = moment

I fly Airbus now so I don't really do anything anymore, But I can type 50 wpm.

That's funny...(and your airplane calls you a "Retard".

:cool:

bunk22
05-02-2013, 14:38
I don't know many members of this board are qualified on that aircraft, doing that mission, or who have experience doing it in that aircraft, but I am.

I'll say this, without any need for speculation: the crew never had a chance, and the situation was NOT recoverable.

Speculation is not appropriate. We don't know the cause, and guesswork accomplishes nothing.

As for load calculations: those are done by professional load engineers, and are not calculated by the aircraft. Complete weight and balance documentation is used, as are very detailed manuals and instructions for loading and securing the cargo. The weight and balance documentation is completed by load masters and examined by the captain and first officer, as is the cargo. It's not a matter of guess work.

It's the internet, what are you going to do? Everyone's an expert. On the military forums, as I'm a recently retired Navy pilot, we would lock threads on Navy/MC/CG mishaps if any speculation started. This isn't quite the same sort of forum.

G19Tony
05-02-2013, 15:11
All I remember about aviation math is:

Weight x arms = moment

I fly Airbus now so I don't really do anything anymore, But I can type 50 wpm.

Short bus? :whistling: :tongueout:

G19Tony
05-02-2013, 15:13
That's very interesting. So it's either the cargo broke off and shifted (after being inspected twice) or maybe a mechanical failure.

I can't speculate, just passing along info. The NTSB does good work. I'll leave it to them.

airmotive
05-02-2013, 15:24
That's very interesting. So it's either the cargo broke off and shifted (after being inspected twice) or maybe a mechanical failure.

..or a pilot failure. (Egypt Air)

See the fine line between 'investigating' and 'chasing rabbits'?

Touch the metal; follow the evidence.

Right now, all that we actually knows is: there were MRAPS onboard, the aircraft stopped for fuel, control of the aircraft was lost on takeoff.

Frustrating, ain't it?

devildog2067
05-02-2013, 15:24
It's the internet, what are you going to do? Everyone's an expert. On the military forums, as I'm a recently retired Navy pilot, we would lock threads on Navy/MC/CG mishaps if any speculation started.

Yes, because in the military, no one would ever dream of speculating about something they know nothing about.

Just ask any Gunny.

jilverthor
05-02-2013, 15:27
Right now, all that we actually knows is: there were MRAPS onboard, the aircraft stopped for fuel, control of the aircraft was lost on takeoff.

Frustrating, ain't it?

Actually, I am not even sure we know there were MRAPS onboard. We do know that the cargo was inspected twice.

airmotive
05-02-2013, 16:06
Good point...The MRAPs is on me. Taken from the "professional pilots rumor network"
Another cargo plane flew over the crash site the next day and reported seeing the 5 vehicles.

GVFlyer
05-02-2013, 16:38
I spent over 3 years investigating fatality aviation accidents at my services safety center and I attended the USC aviation accident investigation (http://viterbi.usc.edu/aviation/courses/aai.htm) course among others. While I agree that speculation about causation should be avoided, the circumstances of the mishap certainly point you in a direction to begin the investigation. While the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder will clearly be useful, there are other facts in evidence: wheeled cargo weighing 14 tons each, 5,000 ft MSL airport, steeper than usual departure angle to avoid anti-aircraft fire and a prior flight immediately preceding this technical stop with the same cargo on board in which the aircraft performed normally.

With these factors present, the first two things I would investigate, sans any CVR or FDR evidence to the contrary, would be load shift or power loss.

Here's a couple of interesting blogs about the mishap.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/05/national-air-flight-102-a-preliminary-report/#.UYLqH8q-N34

http://www.warisboring.com/2013/05/02/747-crash-and-shifting-cargo/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=747-crash-and-shifting-cargo

bunk22
05-02-2013, 16:55
Yes, because in the military, no one would ever dream of speculating about something they know nothing about.

Just ask any Gunny.

That's why we had to lock it down. I spent 20 years in the Navy, flying, I don't have a need to ask any Gunny.

Rabbi
05-02-2013, 16:57
Speculation is one of the ways people learn. Speculation before a truth will come is even better as there will be resolution.

Everyone puts their ideas on the table. That it life. We tend to replace bad ideas with better ideas and better ideas with even better ideas and at some point we simply arrive at "correct" or close to it.

It also is important for knowing who you are dealing with about a subject.

I dont know how to fly a helicopter. I do know a lot about Physics. My speculation along with the practical knowledge of someone who has actually done it can lead to a lot of good data. I also know, every time I am wrong about something, if someone is right, at the end of that exchange, I will now have less deficiency in my knowledge bank. If I am right, I hope someone learns something.

airmotive
05-02-2013, 17:02
I spent over 3 years investigating fatality aviation accidents at my services safety center and I attended the USC aviation accident investigation (http://viterbi.usc.edu/aviation/courses/aai.htm) course among others. While I agree that speculation about causation should be avoided, the circumstances of the mishap certainly point you in a direction to begin the investigation. While the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder will clearly be useful, there are other facts in evidence: wheeled cargo weighing 14 tons each, 5,000 ft MSL airport, steeper than usual departure angle to avoid anti-aircraft fire and a prior flight immediately preceding this technical stop with the same cargo on board in which the aircraft performed normally.

With these factors present, the first two things I would investigate, sans any CVR or FDR evidence to the contrary, would be load shift or power loss.

Here's a couple of interesting blogs about the mishap.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/05/national-air-flight-102-a-preliminary-report/#.UYLqH8q-N34

http://www.warisboring.com/2013/05/02/747-crash-and-shifting-cargo/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=747-crash-and-shifting-cargo

I like the NYC guy. He's factual. (except for the smoke from the engines bit. That's speculative. Surges. Bleed valves closing/opening...lots of things can cause a puff. That's why GE will be on site.)
He's done this before.

Haven't read the second one.

PS..GV, ya got the hat?:wavey:

aircarver
05-02-2013, 17:04
I like the NYC guy. He's factual. (except for the smoke from the engines bit. That's speculative.)
He's done this before.


High AOA compressor stalls ?

.

sns3guppy
05-02-2013, 19:35
But how much would a load need to shift to have a drastic effect (assuming that is the cause in this crash)?

I ask because when loads are secured, they are chained down, wheels chocked, vehicles are put in park, and the emergency brakes are applied. Not to mention what, if any, additional restraints were applied. Therefore, I personally have a hard time imagining 5 MRAPS breaking free and sent to the back of the aircraft. But could one have broken free and changed the CG that much?

5 MRAPS don't need to break free. Just one.

With just four or five people on board and hand flying, I can feel a slight shift in trim if one person walks from the flight deck to the back of the upper deck area, or from one end of the aircraft to the other. Very surprising, but I've noticed it.

A 35,000 lb weight shift is considerable, especially if already operating with an aft CG. It would be wrong and unprofessional to speculate on the cause of this mishap, let alone to attempt to assign a CG shift as the cause.

A "jammed elevator" would be a first for that aircraft, and highly improbable, given the design of the flight control systems. The elevators can operate separately, can be overridden using pilot input, and the two control columns can be moved to override, separately if a control column jams. The elevator isn't rotated far enough aft to create an issue on takeoff; if it stuck at the position used for rotation, it would be a normal climb-out; it's not overrotated then relaxed; the control column doesn't move far on rotation, and doesn't move much after, either. Additionally, procedures are available for a jammed stab, which operates off the trim controls. In the event of a trim runaway, several methods exist for control and stopping the runaway. Those are not common nor historical issues on the 747.

I was just asking a question based upon my experience, which also includes sitting in the back of C-130s and C-17s flying in and out of Afghanistan with large pieces of rolling stock (MRAPs included) and doing air land operations at FT Bragg where a C-130 performing a dirt landing with a 16,000 lb howitzer in the back is "interesting" to say the least. I just don't remember being instructed that our calculations had almost no room for error.

Understood. My experience includes flying the 747 in and our of Baghram (and other locations throughout Afghanistan) on a regular basis for a number of years, with the same load as this mishap, as well as many others, as well as regularly performing the weight and balance calculations for those loads, or approving them after loadmasters had done the calculations.

I won't speculate on the cause, but I do see an entirely unrecoverable situation develop, with a complete loss of control, developing from a stalled state into a high rate of descent and ultimately an impact on the base. It hits close to home on multiple levels.

Lots of wild speculation on the NYC site that's far off base, and obviously made by those who have no understanding of the aircraft involved or experience with that type, or mission.

Rabbi
05-02-2013, 20:02
5 MRAPS don't need to break free. Just one.

With just four or five people on board and hand flying, I can feel a slight shift in trim if one person walks from the flight deck to the back of the upper deck area, or from one end of the aircraft to the other. Very surprising, but I've noticed it.



I find that fascinating. Please, keep posting. I really like the big tin. As a low time VFR pilot, all I can do is live vicariously through stories that folks like you tell.

G23Gen4TX
05-02-2013, 20:44
..or a pilot failure. (Egypt Air)

See the fine line between 'investigating' and 'chasing rabbits'?

Touch the metal; follow the evidence.

Right now, all that we actually knows is: there were MRAPS onboard, the aircraft stopped for fuel, control of the aircraft was lost on takeoff.

Frustrating, ain't it?

Yes, it can be a pilot issue or a passenger issue a la the UPS airplane and the guy with the hammer but that is probably a remote possibility.

Frustrating? No. It is simply interesting and hopefully there will be lessons learned from this accident.

F14Scott
05-02-2013, 22:35
Speculation is healthy, as long as everyone understands and agrees that such speculation is incomplete and, very possibly, wrong. IIRC, one of the first steps of a mishap investigation is to spitball all potential causes of the mishap, even the very improbable, and then set about disproving as many of them as possible, in order to leave the remaining causal factors as those accepted as the reasons for the mishap's occurrence.

In aviation mishaps, as in life, Occam's Razor applies more often than not. That the 747's flight path mimicked almost exactly the COD off the cat is, IMO, the most telling evidence. Both planes pitched up unnaturally, hung in the sky as they ran out of airspeed, stalled, dipped a wing, and started downhill nose-first without enough altitude to scoop it out. Sure, there are a lot of other potential causes of this mishap, but my money is on the obvious one.

I can understand why the military discourages speculation, as does any corporation (including NAC): the negative consequences of rumor and conjecture could ruin innocent careers. However, Glocktalk is sufficiently disassociated from a civilian plane crash that I can't see any harm in our SWAGs about a widely published video. Were it a military crash, then I'd say the active military guys should probably recuse themselves from the discussion.

G19Tony
05-03-2013, 00:53
Yes, it can be a pilot issue or a passenger issue a la the UPS airplane and the guy with the hammer but that is probably a remote possibility.

Frustrating? No. It is simply interesting and hopefully there will be lessons learned from this accident.

There are always lessons to be learned. Coming soon, to a simulator near you. The unusual, is what makes the sim worthwhile.

LawScholar
05-03-2013, 02:50
It makes me feel sick to watch but I can't stop. R.I.P.

What are the odds of something like this happening when I fly commercial?

98LS-WON
05-03-2013, 04:26
It makes me feel sick to watch but I can't stop. R.I.P.

What are the odds of something like this happening when I fly commercial?

Significantly less than you dying on the way to the Airport if that makes you feel any better.

98LS-WON
05-03-2013, 04:30
There are always lessons to be learned. Coming soon, to a simulator near you. The unusual, is what makes the sim worthwhile.

LMAO, I hate that there is a short between the gear handle and the engine that causes a fire every time I put the gear up. Or that the engine that controls the hydraulics to raise the gear constantly seizes on takeoff. Or that when the airplane doesn't catch fire, I'm certain that I missed something and hooked ride.

ArtyGuy
05-03-2013, 05:01
Unconfirmed but the news (on TV) just reported that a US air refueler out of Manassas AB, Kyrgyzstan crashed. Initial reports are it crashed shortly after take off. No word on causalties.

I think the only tankers at Manas are the KC-35s.

Here's the only print article I can find on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/03/world/asia/kyrgyzstan-us-aircraft-missing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

aircarver
05-03-2013, 06:12
Unconfirmed but the news (on TV) just reported that a US air refueler out of Manassas AB, Kyrgyzstan crashed. Initial reports are it crashed shortly after take off. No word on causalties.

I think the only tankers at Manas are the KC-35s.

Here's the only print article I can find on it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/03/world/asia/kyrgyzstan-us-aircraft-missing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/05/kyrgyzstan-us-transit-center-airplane-crashed-near-the-kyrgyz-kazakh-border/

.

G19Tony
05-03-2013, 09:29
LMAO, I hate that there is a short between the gear handle and the engine that causes a fire every time I put the gear up. Or that the engine that controls the hydraulics to raise the gear constantly seizes on takeoff. Or that when the airplane doesn't catch fire, I'm certain that I missed something and hooked ride.

Yea, as much as those things cost, you think they could build one where both engines work all the time. :rofl:

3glkdog
05-03-2013, 13:30
It makes me feel sick to watch but I can't stop. R.I.P.

What are the odds of something like this happening when I fly commercial?

Those guys were also flying commercially.

Lone_Wolfe
05-04-2013, 02:20
Yes, about half an hour even in a jet to get to a lake of any significant size. The other thing working against them was the density altitude, BAF is about 5000 ft elevation and the temp this time of the year is going to be above standard atmosphere.

Plus, you'd still have to get over those mountains. This one rattled me, too, because I've flown in and out of that base several times.


........ but I am.
.......

I'm just happy to see you posting right now, my friend. :wavey:

LawScholar
05-04-2013, 10:30
Those guys were also flying commercially.

Gotta love the Internet, knowing what you mean but correcting you anyway. :p

sns3guppy
05-04-2013, 15:13
I'm just happy to see you posting right now, my friend.

And I'm glad you're still among us.

You've seen far more than your share in that theater of operations, and out.

iDivideByZero
05-04-2013, 17:58
...The guy loading the plane had to know the exact weight of each vehicle, to load it properly. Typically, the guy who loads the plane is on it, and flies with the aircraft wherever it goes. If that's the case, this is a tragic but self-correcting problem.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you saying that because the guy who might be responsible for the accident was on the plane when it crashed then the problem is solved from happening again? ... If so, that is a pretty ****ed up thing to say.

devildog2067
05-04-2013, 23:00
Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you saying that because the guy who might be responsible for the accident was on the plane when it crashed then the problem is solved from happening again? ... If so, that is a pretty ****ed up thing to say.

There's a reason why parachute riggers have to jump once a week... when people know their own lives depend on the quality of their work, it often makes them take a bit more care.

sns3guppy
05-05-2013, 02:07
There's a reason why parachute riggers have to jump once a week...

No, there isn't, because they don't.

No such requirement exists. Most riggers do jump, but its because they want to do so.

The loadmasters on these flights also fly on them, however, and they fly on them regularly.

The Oracle
05-05-2013, 04:56
No, there isn't, because they don't.

No such requirement exists. Most riggers do jump, but its because they want to do so.

The loadmasters on these flights also fly on them, however, and they fly on them regularly.



What about Airborne?

...how strong is the tradition that all U.S. Army parachute riggers are required to be prepared to jump ANY parachute packed by ANY U.S. Army parachute rigger, without checking log book for name of the rigger who packed it.

That tradition seems like a good idea to me.




.

Al Czervik
05-05-2013, 08:55
As was previously stated, there is no reqirement for riggers to jump weekly. I know lots of riggers, most took up rigging as they started to jump less frequently, or stopped altogether, but still wanted to be part of the scene.
Their continued work and beer supply depends upon those utilizing their reserve packs surviving, but most people don't pull the silver handle very often.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

F14Scott
05-05-2013, 09:29
If there were a military requirement for every guy who performed a life-critical maintenance function to personally risk his life on the functionality of his work, things would move pretty slowly. It does happen, sometimes.

One example I can think of, that I always thought was pretty cool, was the way an aircraft on the catapult aborts a cat shot.

When a jet is ready to go, i.e. weapons armed, final checks done, launch bar down and hooked up to the shuttle, holdback fitting engaged, and the ship's jet blast deflector up, the pilot "takes tension." He selects launch power (in the Tomcat A, Zone 5 afterburner), does a control wipe out, checks his motors' instruments, and salutes (or, at night, turns on his lights). The ship's shooters then energize the catapult, do a couple of last checks of their own, and then direct the "button guy" to hit the button and shoot the jet.

Once a pilot takes tension, he is committed to taking off; he must leave the throttles plugged in at full power. If there is a problem, even a huge problem, he cannot back down, for if the button guy hits the button and the jet is not at full power, it will go straight in the water. So, someone may scream "SUSPEND CAT 1," but the pilot must sit there, gritting his teeth, while the catapult sequence is stopped and made safe. Finally, when the shooter is sure the catapult is shut down, he will run from his place behind the safety of the foul line to directly in front of the jet, signalling for the pilot to retard the throttles.

In other words, the shooter is stating, with his life, that he is sure the catapult is not going to launch the jet, because it it did, it would kill him.

.40 caliber
05-05-2013, 12:41
I am here at BAF now. That crash scared the living hell out of me, extremely loud. REALLY had me shaken up. I first thought it was incoming, but I know incoming way to well and that was not it.

Then the smell was very strong as well. Opened up my office door and really had me choking up a lot.

The word is the last MRAP came loose and threw everything off. Nothing the pilot could do.

Aircraft load planning is something I do constantly out here. I get nervous everytime I send a plan up hoping I did not miss anything because something can go bad really fast.

RIP to all on board.

AK_Stick
05-05-2013, 14:32
As was previously stated, there is no reqirement for riggers to jump weekly. I know lots of riggers, most took up rigging as they started to jump less frequently, or stopped altogether, but still wanted to be part of the scene.
Their continued work and beer supply depends upon those utilizing their reserve packs surviving, but most people don't pull the silver handle very often.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I do believe that they're talking about .mil riggers, not for fun jumpers.

92R1,2,3,4 or 5P's do have to jump, and if I'm not remembering incorrectly, they can be tasked to jump ANY parachute, packed by any army rigger, at any time, without checking the log book to see who packed it.

Al Czervik
05-05-2013, 16:35
I do believe that they're talking about .mil riggers, not for fun jumpers.

92R1,2,3,4 or 5P's do have to jump, and if I'm not remembering incorrectly, they can be tasked to jump ANY parachute, packed by any army rigger, at any time, without checking the log book to see who packed it.

Interesting, thanks.
Not a job I would want.
Any GTers also Nylo-Americans?

sns3guppy
05-05-2013, 19:51
I do believe that they're talking about .mil riggers, not for fun jumpers.

He's making reference to military riggers (army, specifically); a small percentage of the riggers out there, and a small percentage of the rigging operations done on an annual basis.

We're talking about a civil 747 which crashed, which really has no bearing on a relatively small number of military parachute riggers in one service.

We could always compare smoke jumpers, where every jumper must be a rigger.

Remember when talking parachute operations that every jumper must pack his or her own canopy. It's just reserves that the FAA (and ICAO member state affiliate organizations) require riggers to pack.

I've had several reserve rides myself.