Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Cargo Crash at Bagram

Old 2nd May 2013, 17:18
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That was the most subtle sarcasm I've ever seen.
WhyByFlier is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:26
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Folks,
In flight, the positions of the outboard engine's thrust line counters inboard engine's same. Unlike twin engine aircraft with engines on pylons, there is very little pitch effect with thrust changes on a B744.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:27
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Reduce thrust?
Kinda defeats the purpose of a go around doesn't it. You could always push.

By the way, in the face of overwhelming correctness, backing out of previous comments by claiming they were sarcasm is just, well, pathetic.
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:32
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LeadSled, is the same true when the wings are producing little, or no, lift and the outboard engines are lower in relation to the C of G?
Lord Spandex Masher is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:38
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lets call a halt,you guys are embarrassing yourselves.

A terrible day for commercial aviation lets just STFU and show some respect.
CodyBlade is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:42
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 65
Posts: 7,358
Received 544 Likes on 343 Posts
Lord Spandex:
The Bournemouth incident AAIB report is very good reading, thanks for the tip. What seems to be similar from that incident to this is crew surprise (it's not supposed to be doing that!) though the initial conditions at stall are different. (Approach versus takeoff phase).

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 2nd May 2013 at 17:43.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:47
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 83
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Almost 50 years ago I became a captain of a 4-engined aeroplane. I finally retired seven years ago. I would like to tell you a story.

In the 1960s and 1970s, us Brits were involved in just about everybody's wars, disagreements and mild skirmishes on a global basis. I spent most of my life in those days flying troops and equipment to such far-flung places as the Middle and Far East and even Central America (Belize).

One of my colleagues wrote an article in one of the Transport Command magazines suggesting how we could make life better. I thought it was a wonderful idea. I was not alone.

The suggestion was that we would invite all of the combatants to visit an area of Salisbury Plain (a large military danger area) to sort out their various problems. So, for example, we could transport the Arabs and Israelis to Larkhill on the first Thursday in July and give them two weeks to sort themselves out. We would then take the survivors home.

Can I suggest that the PPrune management talks to the Ministry of Defence to see if they can get a cheap rate on one of the Salisbury Plain areas (such as Imber) and then we can invite all of the promising hysterics (who know more about aerodynamics than I ever learned and who would be able to conduct a total in depth investigation as to why their B744 has stalled and would be able to effect a recovery within nano-seconds to a successful landing.

Against them we could have the PPLs and also the MS experts who are trying to equate this event with a stall in a PA-28.

NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER HAD TO FACE THE HORROR OF BEING IN THE FRONT WINDOW SEAT OF A BOEING 744 WHICH IS CLIMBING LIKE CRAZY AND IS ABOUT TO STOP FLYING DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS.

This has to be every professional pilot's nightmare.

So, let us get back to fantasy. Perhaps in future the Pprune management could set up an area on Salisbury Plain where we could all reach a good solution to our problems. The protagonists would probably be best organised in pairs. One would be sitting in a baby pram (stroller for my US friends) surrounded with childrens toys and the other member of the team would be pushing (or pulling if appropriate).

Those who have real experience in the subject in hand would be allowed to have quite heavy toys to throw and those who only had a background in theoretical fantasy would only have light toys.

Sciolists would only be allowed to throw toilet rolls.

The winners would get a lift home and the losers would be voted out of court for ever.

Please can we have Pprune back to what it was?

I am just so grateful that I was not at Bagram that day in the front of that Boeing 744.
JW411 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 17:50
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The sky
Posts: 343
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
LeadSlead

Total bs from a non 747 pilot. There is a huge pitch power couple on the 744, so much so that an application of TOGA from a stable approach requires a FORWARD control column input followed by forward trim is required to arrest the pitch up movement.

It might also be necessary on departure if thrust is advanced from reduced thrust to TOGA.

However the Boeing QRH stall recovery manoeuvre does not specifically say to reduce the thrust, however it does say only to "advance thrust levers as required".

However, in an out of limits trim situation when full nose down plus trimming isn't enough, if I had my wits about me I might try to reduce thrust. You have to unstall the wing to recover, regardless of what your altitude is.

Please note I am not suggesting there was anything these poor souls could have done. Their situation looks awful and unrecoverable.

LD (8000 hours and counting)
Locked door is online now  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:02
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JW411 what a 'look at me' post. Everyone has said this situation seemed unrecoverable but it's our job to deal with the non normals - that's where we earn the money. Unfortunately these guys lost their lives - if I'd been flying I'd have handled it differently to how it seems they did but given the likely cause would have ended in the same outcome I'm sure.

As people who perform a highly technical, practical job and as people who do this job because of passion it is completely reasonable and understandable that we discuss this, try and learn from it and better understand. I have genuinely learned some extremely useful things from this site - rules of thumb, things I never considered in non normals and airmanship points. Don't try and polarise this thread into some well wishing, mock crash site where everyone tosses their flowers and heart felt messages and snots into their hankies.
WhyByFlier is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:02
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chaps,

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of Notadogs thoughts and comments. I am able to look at what he has written and think of a few possible reasons he may write what he writes. Notadog may be able to clarify his meanings.

For instance, both PF and PNF may not have been able to remove their hands from the control yokes due to the forces required to have control of the yoke. I don't know. I do know that the forces required for pushing the yoke forward are significantly less than pulling the yoke back. With the aircraft achieving the attitudes and velocities it did I am not sure what forces would be required.

Perhaps Notadogs is alluding to the fact that the pilots, psychologically, may not have got to the stage where they had thought of reducing thrusts and hoped that maximum thrust might be the only solution.

There could be other reasons. For instance how valid are Leadsleds comments in this situation?
hval is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:02
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JW 411

Thank you Sir (or Madam) - please may I have a front seat and the brief to ban all the participants from this forum for ever.
frieghtdog2000 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:13
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For instance, both PF and PNF may not have been able to remove their hands from the control yokes due to the forces required to have control of the yoke. I don't know. I do know that the forces required for pushing the yoke forward are significantly less than pulling the yoke back. With the aircraft achieving the attitudes and velocities it did I am not sure what forces would be required.
Hval...

I think you have the big picture.

The crew was likely a bit busy to stop and ponder the various aerodynamic forces and nifty stall recovery QRH checklists while strapped to a very heavy airplane very close to the ground while it was pitching to an angle that likely none of them had ever experienced before.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
notadog is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:15
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airclues wrote:
In my last airline (744F) we used to teach the technique highlighted by Lantirn of applying a large bank angle when recovering from very high pitch up situations (roll wings level when nose is below the horizon). It was often the only way to avoid a stall. It looks to me as though that is what the crew were trying to achieve. The recovery could be achieved in about 3000ft Unfortunately this crew didn't have that available.

A few years ago a 744 carried out a go-around. The F/O, who was flying it, thought that the autopilot was in, but it wasn't. The go-around thrust caused a very high pitch angle. A stall was avoided by the combination of full down elevator and a reduction in thrust to allow the nose to pitch down. Thrust was re-applied when the pitch was reduced.
Thank you for sharing.

Many things I quoted before from Boeing's AERO magazine are copy-paste from the 747 FCOM as I see. The possible reduction in thrust is also documented as well, with re-application of full thrust after recovery.
Lantirn is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:15
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
-if I'd been flying I'd have handled it differently to how it seems they did
WhyByFlier,

How would you have handled it?
notadog is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:25
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At this height - lowered the nose, reduced the thrust, not touched the rudder or ailerons, probably asked for further flaps ( which in turn would give slats and help push the nose down), put my head between my legs and kissed my ass goodbye.

nifty stall recovery QRH checklists while
It's a memory item that's included in the QRH. The operative words there are 'it's a memory item'. Can you advise which airline you fly for so I can avoid them please?

Last edited by WhyByFlier; 2nd May 2013 at 18:26.
WhyByFlier is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:26
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,487
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 12 Posts
JW411, WBF, et al
By all means deport or ban these contributors, but a sad fact is some might be pilots attempting to gain a professional status. Thus ridiculing or ignoring them as trolls, etc, does little to help with the education they sorely need.
The forum professional posters must judge which aspect to follow, but continuing to lead by example with well-considered educational responses should aid the needy and perhaps embarrass the uninitiated.

Re “How would you have handled it?”
This is one of those (not so rare) occasions where all reasonable effort is required to avoid the situation – double check / independent crosscheck of manifest and loading, lashing, takeoff trim setting … …
These are aspects of human behaviour; it’s about how we think about safety, the world, life … …
safetypee is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:28
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some people working for NASA wrote a paper, sometime ago (before 2000) that looked at using thrust/ asymmetrical thrust for flight control. This induced yaw and quite a high roll rate. Also looked at using thrust for pitching.

Ahah! Found it. Document is here

Last edited by hval; 2nd May 2013 at 18:29.
hval is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:35
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At this height - lowered the nose, reduced the thrust, not touched the rudder or ailerons, probably asked for further flaps, put my head between my legs and kissed my ass goodbye.
Thanks for the reply. Interesting. May I ask what type of airplane you fly?

It's a memory item that's included in the QRH. The operative words there are 'it's a memory item'.
Are you sure about that? At every airline?
notadog is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:39
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I fly the A320 hence the A320 quotes.

I'm absolutely certain that stall procedures are memory items, yes. More sarcasm?
WhyByFlier is offline  
Old 2nd May 2013, 18:50
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I fly the A320 hence the A320 quotes.

I'm absolutely certain that stall procedures are memory items, yes. More sarcasm?
Perhaps at your airline they are memory items. I don't fly Airbus.

You are making the assumption that the nose could have been lowered in this instance, yes?
notadog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.