Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that's what is stated, I just dont understand that routing. Once you depart Bagram for Dubai, you basically overfly Bastion again 90 mins later. Bastion - Dubai is in the opposite direction vs Bastion - Bagram. Would be much easier to grab fuel in Bastion or Kandahar right next door.
But I guess we are not privy to the logistics arrangements, and these issues are pretty much irrelevant to the fact that for some or other reason yet to be explained, there was an uncontained pitch up on departure, followed by the aircraft impacting the ground in an extremely low energy state.
*what I find hard to believe is no fuel at Bastion or KAF. But as mentioned above, it might be an issue of logistics I am not privy to.
But I guess we are not privy to the logistics arrangements, and these issues are pretty much irrelevant to the fact that for some or other reason yet to be explained, there was an uncontained pitch up on departure, followed by the aircraft impacting the ground in an extremely low energy state.
*what I find hard to believe is no fuel at Bastion or KAF. But as mentioned above, it might be an issue of logistics I am not privy to.
Last edited by I.R.PIRATE; 3rd May 2013 at 03:46.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
janeczku . . .
"Military bases are NOT embassys. I can asssure you from all the US military bases in Europe there is NOT a single one that is souvereign territory of the US of A. Where do you get the information that it is anything but different with the Bagram base? Did you read the SOFA agrrement between US and Afghanistan? Maybe you just mixing up souvereign territory with jurisdiction over military personnel?"
Access by Afghanistan authorities to Bagram base is by invitation ONLY, in any matters.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the technical. If you are doing a tactical or high performance take off, shouldn't you raise the gear as soon as possible? To be that high with the gear still extended also doesn't make sense!
THERE IS NO TACTICAL DEPARTURE PROCEDURE for the 744.
Standard NADP1 applies.
An no, you aren't going to call gear up if the nose suddenly begins pitching up. Furthermore, pulling the gear up will initially increase drag.
Read the thread.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the cargo probably shifted just as they rotated.
This would explain why no one had a spare hand to get the gear up.
If my guess (which is all it is) is right then about the only thing that they could have tried was to pull all the power off and slap it back on the deck.
No doubt they'd have done some sort (or maybe a lot) of damage either landing or in the ensuing overrun, but they might have lived.
I'm not surprised they didn't do that though. It's a huge mental leap to accomplish.
This would explain why no one had a spare hand to get the gear up.
If my guess (which is all it is) is right then about the only thing that they could have tried was to pull all the power off and slap it back on the deck.
No doubt they'd have done some sort (or maybe a lot) of damage either landing or in the ensuing overrun, but they might have lived.
I'm not surprised they didn't do that though. It's a huge mental leap to accomplish.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as the ship came from Bastion and landed at Bagram for a fueling stop and added no extra cargo... doesn't this reduce the likelihood of a load shift?
It appears that the load would have been inspected twice once in bastion when it was loaded and secured and again when they had landed in bagram
It appears that the load would have been inspected twice once in bastion when it was loaded and secured and again when they had landed in bagram
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does. But doesn't make it impossible.
The crew did report they thought the cargo had shifted. However, they had little time to troubleshoot the problem, so what they thought had happened may not be correct.
Any drivers here care to wade in and say what, if any, conditions could cause a severe uncommanded nose up pitch and not be caused by load shift but could at first glance/feel be mistaken for such? Other than runaway trim.
The crew did report they thought the cargo had shifted. However, they had little time to troubleshoot the problem, so what they thought had happened may not be correct.
Any drivers here care to wade in and say what, if any, conditions could cause a severe uncommanded nose up pitch and not be caused by load shift but could at first glance/feel be mistaken for such? Other than runaway trim.
Last edited by LiveryMan; 3rd May 2013 at 09:15.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
has the crew reporting a load shift on frequency been actually confirmed??
this still strikes me as a bit odd....with all that was happening announcing that on the radio
Ps Sick of hearing "well if i was there or this is what i would have done"....fact is if any of us had been there guess what.... we would all be dead aswell
this still strikes me as a bit odd....with all that was happening announcing that on the radio
Ps Sick of hearing "well if i was there or this is what i would have done"....fact is if any of us had been there guess what.... we would all be dead aswell
Last edited by Livesinafield; 3rd May 2013 at 09:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the apparently illogical flight-plan, does it seem more likely that the plane was either picking up some extra cargo or offloading something before flying to Dubai? They may well also have taken on fuel for the flight to Dubai, but the geography suggests that there must have been a reason to fly in the opposite direction to their destination.
I'm wondering if there was something changed in the cargo configuration at Bagram, whether it's been admitted to or not.
I'm wondering if there was something changed in the cargo configuration at Bagram, whether it's been admitted to or not.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Uganda
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If five MRAP's break loose, or even one broke loose, where would it go? from what I have seen , centre loading them all in the Q7 positions, one behind each other, with a small gap between them, they could only move a few metres to the rear before they hit the rear bulkhead. there is not much more space for them to go. Alot of posts here seem to indicate that they moved from the front to the back, but thats not possible, as they are too high for the Q6 positions at the front. the load shift would have only been a few metres, does anybody know if that enough to make the aircraft so tail heavy it cannot be controlled? they are around 28,000 lbs each so it it would be alot of weight to move, and cause damage to the rear of the aircraft. I also believe that with these MRAP's loaded, you need alot of ballast at the front in the forward hold or Q6 positions.
Maybe a B747 LM could comment if that enough to do this?
Just asking.
Maybe a B747 LM could comment if that enough to do this?
Just asking.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
744 drivers said in previous posts that it is possible due to low fuel carried the CG would have been already aft. Then, a slight load shift could bring the aircraft out of the flying envelope and being unstable.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by hval; 3rd May 2013 at 11:48.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
60 something tons of vehicles moving just a few metres back wold still be quite a CG shift. Alternatively, if ballast must be carried towards the front of the aircraft then that breaking loose could have the same effect. Presumably the ballast would be carried as far forward as possible to minimise the dead weight required, therefore raising the risk of it sliding backwards a significant distance.
A couple of other thoughts, from experience of flying helicopter underslung loads, are that load weights may be incorrectly declared. When lifting a vehicle declared at a certain weight, it was not unheard of for the vehicle to be loaded with cargo of its own and the true weight to be way over what was declared. APCs leaving Afghanistan could well have been filled with kit to send home.
Although apparently a sector had successfully been flown in this load configuration already addition of fuel particularly to the outboard tanks of the swept wing would shift the CG further rearwards. An inaccurate loadsheet may not catch the error, and then you're in trouble even with load shift.
Still shocked to see such a large aircraft fully stalled like that. Those that are saying the pilot had pitch and roll control, hence the nose coming down and wings being level at impact are dreaming. It probably had more than 45 AoA at impact and was flying like a brick. A further 3000ft probably wouldn't have been enough.
A couple of other thoughts, from experience of flying helicopter underslung loads, are that load weights may be incorrectly declared. When lifting a vehicle declared at a certain weight, it was not unheard of for the vehicle to be loaded with cargo of its own and the true weight to be way over what was declared. APCs leaving Afghanistan could well have been filled with kit to send home.
Although apparently a sector had successfully been flown in this load configuration already addition of fuel particularly to the outboard tanks of the swept wing would shift the CG further rearwards. An inaccurate loadsheet may not catch the error, and then you're in trouble even with load shift.
Still shocked to see such a large aircraft fully stalled like that. Those that are saying the pilot had pitch and roll control, hence the nose coming down and wings being level at impact are dreaming. It probably had more than 45 AoA at impact and was flying like a brick. A further 3000ft probably wouldn't have been enough.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of posts here seem to indicate that they moved from the front to the back, but thats not possible, as they are too high for the Q6 positions at the front. the load shift would have only been a few metres, does anybody know if that enough to make the aircraft so tail heavy it cannot be controlled? they are around 28,000 lbs each so it it would be a lot of weight to move, and cause damage to the rear of the aircraft.
Last edited by GlueBall; 3rd May 2013 at 11:58.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AtomKraft
I think the cargo probably shifted just as they rotated.
This would explain why no one had a spare hand to get the gear up.
If my guess (which is all it is) is right then about the only thing that they could have tried was to pull all the power off and slap it back on the deck.
No doubt they'd have done some sort (or maybe a lot) of damage either landing or in the ensuing overrun, but they might have lived.
I'm not surprised they didn't do that though. It's a huge mental leap to accomplish
I think the cargo probably shifted just as they rotated.
This would explain why no one had a spare hand to get the gear up.
If my guess (which is all it is) is right then about the only thing that they could have tried was to pull all the power off and slap it back on the deck.
No doubt they'd have done some sort (or maybe a lot) of damage either landing or in the ensuing overrun, but they might have lived.
I'm not surprised they didn't do that though. It's a huge mental leap to accomplish
Despite what some (Desert185) have claimed here, there is a large increase in pitch-up from the thrust of the engines.
Everyone keeps speculating on the main deck load. What was in the aft lower? And I am not sure I buy the tech stop only story from the company.
I have 15+ years flying 74's 200,300,400,LCF & -8, 7 years in the left seat. Many flights out of Afghanistan including 30+ flights out of Bagram. Also as a note, Last month I did 3 flights out of Camp Bastion. We always tankered enough fuel to get to Baku from there because fuel is $10 a gallon so we were told.
Last edited by Fr8Dog; 3rd May 2013 at 12:27.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: west with the night
Age: 43
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^agreed.
by the time they appear on video it looks like they were so far gone out of the performance envelope that any kind of recovery (even if full pitch authority and c of g were restored) was slim to none. one thing you can do in the air if you end up with an uncontrollable pitch up is control the plane in which the pitch is translating (ie bank into a turn to minimize energy loss at best, or at worst- keep it closer to the ground if that's where you're going to end up). with a pitch excursion after rotation (as might have been here, the midwest be1900 crash, etc) there is such a small window to consider this that i'm doubtful that i would have the presence of mind to consider it, frankly.
regarding thrust and pitch- our stall recovery procedures were modified on manufacturer's recommendation in reaction to the AF447 crash to the paradigm of "pitch to break the stall (thrust reduction may be necessary) and then add thrust smoothly" rather than the previous "reduce pitch, firewall and power out of the stall". i recently transitioned off of aircraft that had an elevator thrust compensation system that neutralized the pitch up tendency with thrust application and did wonders for controllability in go-arounds and stall recoveries (hey i need all the help i can get!). i can't help but wonder why this simple yet effective control law algorithm isn't adopted on more aircraft.
edit//grammar
by the time they appear on video it looks like they were so far gone out of the performance envelope that any kind of recovery (even if full pitch authority and c of g were restored) was slim to none. one thing you can do in the air if you end up with an uncontrollable pitch up is control the plane in which the pitch is translating (ie bank into a turn to minimize energy loss at best, or at worst- keep it closer to the ground if that's where you're going to end up). with a pitch excursion after rotation (as might have been here, the midwest be1900 crash, etc) there is such a small window to consider this that i'm doubtful that i would have the presence of mind to consider it, frankly.
regarding thrust and pitch- our stall recovery procedures were modified on manufacturer's recommendation in reaction to the AF447 crash to the paradigm of "pitch to break the stall (thrust reduction may be necessary) and then add thrust smoothly" rather than the previous "reduce pitch, firewall and power out of the stall". i recently transitioned off of aircraft that had an elevator thrust compensation system that neutralized the pitch up tendency with thrust application and did wonders for controllability in go-arounds and stall recoveries (hey i need all the help i can get!). i can't help but wonder why this simple yet effective control law algorithm isn't adopted on more aircraft.
edit//grammar
Last edited by OnTheStep; 3rd May 2013 at 13:16.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Reading
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1974 a Lufthansa B74F (i think) stalled after take off at Nairobi.
I believe the cause of that was someting to do with air bleed valves incorrectly set with the effect that leading edge slats did not deploy and therefore induced a stall.
Could this saddening accident have been caused by a similar problem?
I believe the cause of that was someting to do with air bleed valves incorrectly set with the effect that leading edge slats did not deploy and therefore induced a stall.
Could this saddening accident have been caused by a similar problem?
Last edited by UncleAlbert; 3rd May 2013 at 13:54.
Uncle Albert, is the point you are making that the bleed air/slat issue would lead to a high pitch attitude by itself, or would it induce a stall at a lower pitch attitude/AoA? 
I think you are suggesting the latter, but I may have missed something subtle there. What seems consistent in the reports for those who saw this take place is that the nose attitude looked "higher than normal" for the departure.
I think you are suggesting the latter, but I may have missed something subtle there. What seems consistent in the reports for those who saw this take place is that the nose attitude looked "higher than normal" for the departure.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 3rd May 2013 at 14:10.
NBO crash
LH 747-200B was a passenger flight, and it did not really get airborne hardly.
(NBO hot n high.....) a/c contacted ground 1200m from end of runway and stayed almost in one piece but caught fire.
although crew blamed, a Boeing mod to prevent re occurrence of slats not deploying plus a T/O config warning added was undertaken...
i recall a BA 747 had a near miss with this issue too?
In the National 744F crash video i cannot see the slats position, but flaps and gear are out.
if no slats were out on this a/c i have a feeling they would not have reached this altitude in the first place? yes/no?
Spanair md80 MAD had no slats out and they did not get airborne.
LH 747-200B was a passenger flight, and it did not really get airborne hardly.
(NBO hot n high.....) a/c contacted ground 1200m from end of runway and stayed almost in one piece but caught fire.
although crew blamed, a Boeing mod to prevent re occurrence of slats not deploying plus a T/O config warning added was undertaken...
i recall a BA 747 had a near miss with this issue too?
In the National 744F crash video i cannot see the slats position, but flaps and gear are out.
if no slats were out on this a/c i have a feeling they would not have reached this altitude in the first place? yes/no?
Spanair md80 MAD had no slats out and they did not get airborne.
Last edited by rog747; 3rd May 2013 at 14:18. Reason: edit
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 66
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question from a layman.
IF this accident was indeed caused by a cargo shift when the aircraft entered, what appears to me to be a 90 degree bank, would have any of the shifting cargo further compromised the CoG, and the flight envelope, had this shifted cargo then shifted elsewhere? I'm thinking if something had gotten lose and shifted on takeoff/rotation and then the aircraft started the roll that theoretical loosened cargo would have further shifted and added exponentially to the problem. Is this feasible?
IF this accident was indeed caused by a cargo shift when the aircraft entered, what appears to me to be a 90 degree bank, would have any of the shifting cargo further compromised the CoG, and the flight envelope, had this shifted cargo then shifted elsewhere? I'm thinking if something had gotten lose and shifted on takeoff/rotation and then the aircraft started the roll that theoretical loosened cargo would have further shifted and added exponentially to the problem. Is this feasible?