Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody observed several pages back that at the start of the video it rolls right before it makes what people refer to as the initial roll left. This seems to be correct, I initially wondered whether it could be an illusion caused by "fisheye" effect from the camera or a "lensing" effect from the vehicle glass as it turns to face the incident aircraft. However looking at it again it does appear that the rolling motion is oscillating first right, then left, then right again into the stall. What is interesting about this is if you pick a reference point in the roll and time it with a stopwatch, there is some suggestion of periodic motion. Unfortunately there is barely enough video to show this. Does anyone else see it?
Trusting a parking brake to hold any vehicle is dangerous even on the ground with constant 1G gravity.
Trusting your life to a coefficient of friction between tyre and deck under varying G loads would be foolhardy.
Trusting your life to a coefficient of friction between tyre and deck under varying G loads would be foolhardy.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeSitter,
No I'm just asking you to believe that any kind of motor-vehicle, even south of a bicycle would not be driven onto an aircraft like it was a river crossing car-ferry, and just parked up and left there. It's status as a wheeled vehicle would be deliberately curtailed. Go back to the beginning of the thread and start looking for the various photographs of these trucks secured in place.
No I'm just asking you to believe that any kind of motor-vehicle, even south of a bicycle would not be driven onto an aircraft like it was a river crossing car-ferry, and just parked up and left there. It's status as a wheeled vehicle would be deliberately curtailed. Go back to the beginning of the thread and start looking for the various photographs of these trucks secured in place.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: My Stringy Brane
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Though load shift may be a contributing factor, it is unlikely an MRAP broke free.
Each MRAP is placed on two interlocked pallets, tires are partially deflated so chassis is supported by wood blocks, then vehicle is chained to the pallet:
Once in position, the pallets are locked to the floor and then the MRAP is secured to the floor with numerous straps:
Each MRAP is placed on two interlocked pallets, tires are partially deflated so chassis is supported by wood blocks, then vehicle is chained to the pallet:
Once in position, the pallets are locked to the floor and then the MRAP is secured to the floor with numerous straps:
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to Machaca
see my post 348 above on wood pallets.
You realize that if for whatever reason a wood pallet is loose and the vehicle supports its weight the straps in each direction have to support (roughly) acceleration*weight of vehicle.
and since it doesn't take pilot skills (I'm not a pilot):
What it seems to me is that the pallets act as a 'spring loaded' device by the straps, the straps don't support the vehicle, the friction with the wood does, and the whole assembly is supported on the aircraft rails or with extra straps.
why aren't the wood pallets across the LONG dimension of the vehicle since the main forces are along that direction also?
From the pictures you post, I would be amazed if the chains can hold the vehicle IF its on its wheels and under acceleration. The wood does the job. If I was on the front of that aircraft I would demand at least the wood on the long direction of the vehicle, wouldn't like surviving a crash landing and having the vehicles coming from the back.
Again if I'm not mistaken the max loading for anything attached in an aircraft (seats cargo etc) is forward acceleration.
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm not qualified to do so, but the whole thread is revolving around cargo shift.
apologies for any drift or being uninformed if the above suggest that.
You realize that if for whatever reason a wood pallet is loose and the vehicle supports its weight the straps in each direction have to support (roughly) acceleration*weight of vehicle.
and since it doesn't take pilot skills (I'm not a pilot):
What it seems to me is that the pallets act as a 'spring loaded' device by the straps, the straps don't support the vehicle, the friction with the wood does, and the whole assembly is supported on the aircraft rails or with extra straps.
why aren't the wood pallets across the LONG dimension of the vehicle since the main forces are along that direction also?
From the pictures you post, I would be amazed if the chains can hold the vehicle IF its on its wheels and under acceleration. The wood does the job. If I was on the front of that aircraft I would demand at least the wood on the long direction of the vehicle, wouldn't like surviving a crash landing and having the vehicles coming from the back.
Again if I'm not mistaken the max loading for anything attached in an aircraft (seats cargo etc) is forward acceleration.
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm not qualified to do so, but the whole thread is revolving around cargo shift.
apologies for any drift or being uninformed if the above suggest that.
Is it common to have more than one take off when moving these massive loads or is it usually one take off, one loading at load destination? Maybe there was a very slight shift during the first take off and subsequent landing that wasn't noticed during the refueling stop.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surreal
Age: 54
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway (or incorrect) trim is not a consideration for me. Can be countered easily enough.
Watched the vid over and over. Is being pulled from behind (load).
To achieve an altitude of 1200ft is not difficult, given the take-off speed and inertia of such an aircraft.
Simply put, it was being "pulled back", which definitely suggests an aft CofG issue.
Watched the vid over and over. Is being pulled from behind (load).
To achieve an altitude of 1200ft is not difficult, given the take-off speed and inertia of such an aircraft.
Simply put, it was being "pulled back", which definitely suggests an aft CofG issue.
I`d agree with Dimitris with respect to the positioning of the `planks`/blocks under the vehicle,especially due to the fact that they are placed so that their narrower width appears to be in the f/aft direction.The whole geometry of rigging appears wrong,and any crushing of the wood or body movement will loosen tension.The wheels are also not chocked,and no chains on the side -body to pallet and floor either..
Forgive me, but weren't these pictures posted to illustrate a general idea of the vehicles/size and how they are loaded, NOT specific to the actual loading method on the day?
If this is a general photo, then if there is any flaw in the loading does not necessarily mean it was done the same way on the ill-fated flight. Just don't want any media to run with this as they have done in past accidents...
If this is a general photo, then if there is any flaw in the loading does not necessarily mean it was done the same way on the ill-fated flight. Just don't want any media to run with this as they have done in past accidents...
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding hand brakes, soft tyres, in gear, planks collapsing etc. none of this is relevant if it was the pallet that broke free and not the vehicle it was carrying.
Regarding the load shifting rearward, if anything was free to move in the cargo area then it could have started to move rearwards due it's own inertia, as power was applied, at the start of take off, so that the aircraft was already out of trim by Vr.
Regarding the load shifting rearward, if anything was free to move in the cargo area then it could have started to move rearwards due it's own inertia, as power was applied, at the start of take off, so that the aircraft was already out of trim by Vr.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a loadmaster.
In my opinion that loading method (shown in photos) is deeply flawed
solid wood blocks allow no compression and the blocks under the middle of the vehicle are supporting the solid structure of the vehicle and NOT able to compress (blocks under axles will allow compression by way of the vehicle suspension ) end result its possible to rock in pitch about the blocks set in the middle, possibly even enough to unlatch strap hook ends.
In my opinion the vehicle should have COMPLETELY deflated tyres and NO blocks, the straps and chains then attached to the vehicle compressing the vehicle suspension
I am not in any way saying this method was used in the crash flight or that if it was used, that it caused the crash, but (as a complete amateur in this field with no professional experience) I certainly dont agree with the securing method shown in those loading photos.
In my opinion that loading method (shown in photos) is deeply flawed
solid wood blocks allow no compression and the blocks under the middle of the vehicle are supporting the solid structure of the vehicle and NOT able to compress (blocks under axles will allow compression by way of the vehicle suspension ) end result its possible to rock in pitch about the blocks set in the middle, possibly even enough to unlatch strap hook ends.
In my opinion the vehicle should have COMPLETELY deflated tyres and NO blocks, the straps and chains then attached to the vehicle compressing the vehicle suspension
I am not in any way saying this method was used in the crash flight or that if it was used, that it caused the crash, but (as a complete amateur in this field with no professional experience) I certainly dont agree with the securing method shown in those loading photos.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southgate, Michigan
Age: 72
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive been reading all these opinions as to what really happened, and at this point it is all pure speculation.
Considering the known facts, I am leaning towards an issue with the Horizontal Stabilizer trim. My conclusion is based upon a similar accident on January 11, 1983 with UA 2827 out of DTW when the DC-8-54CF did almost the exact same thing and was found to have the Horiz Stab not set right.
Now, the National B-744 had loaded but not fueled at another location 300 KM from the accident airport. Did anyone re dispatch this flight from Baghrum, or did they just "fudge" the Weight and Balance on the airplane at Baghrum? They added fuel which would have increased the TOW and possibly called for a reset of the Horizontal Stabilizer trim settings. If this was not done whether in oversight or assumption is something worth looking at. The overrotation at T/O could have caused a shift on board which amplified the problem.
Considering the known facts, I am leaning towards an issue with the Horizontal Stabilizer trim. My conclusion is based upon a similar accident on January 11, 1983 with UA 2827 out of DTW when the DC-8-54CF did almost the exact same thing and was found to have the Horiz Stab not set right.
Now, the National B-744 had loaded but not fueled at another location 300 KM from the accident airport. Did anyone re dispatch this flight from Baghrum, or did they just "fudge" the Weight and Balance on the airplane at Baghrum? They added fuel which would have increased the TOW and possibly called for a reset of the Horizontal Stabilizer trim settings. If this was not done whether in oversight or assumption is something worth looking at. The overrotation at T/O could have caused a shift on board which amplified the problem.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could there have been an error in calculation of CG, after fuelling, perhaps compounded by an error in calculation of TOW due to incorrectly supplied cargo weights ?
I have never flown the 747. I would have thought that any incorrect hori stab setting would be able to be over ridden by manual forward yoke input as it is in other Boeings. This assumption leads me to think it more likely that the load shifted. Can a 747 pilot confirm that even with full nose up trim on the hori stab the forces can be over ridden with control inputs?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone_Ranger,
You could damage the tyres and possibly the wheels. The tyres could come off the rims and allow the vehicle to move anyway as you now have slack in strops and chains. Taking the wheels of is also a complete pain. you then need some systems to put them on to platforms and then also get the wheels on.
Loadies have many years of experience and have much training. Vehicles have been flown about for many years with few problems. It's not like you have aircraft falling out of the skies on a daily basis due to them having a load of vehicles with wheels on.
As to the suspension being compressed, who says that it isn't.
In my opinion the vehicle should have COMPLETELY deflated tyres
Loadies have many years of experience and have much training. Vehicles have been flown about for many years with few problems. It's not like you have aircraft falling out of the skies on a daily basis due to them having a load of vehicles with wheels on.
As to the suspension being compressed, who says that it isn't.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sycamore writes:
I`d agree with Dimitris with respect to the positioning of the `planks`/blocks under the vehicle,especially due to the fact that they are placed so that their narrower width appears to be in the f/aft direction.The whole geometry of rigging appears wrong,and any crushing of the wood or body movement will loosen tension.The wheels are also not chocked,and no chains on the side -body to pallet and floor either..
I`d agree with Dimitris with respect to the positioning of the `planks`/blocks under the vehicle,especially due to the fact that they are placed so that their narrower width appears to be in the f/aft direction.The whole geometry of rigging appears wrong,and any crushing of the wood or body movement will loosen tension.The wheels are also not chocked,and no chains on the side -body to pallet and floor either..
If you've ever ridden in an aircraft, you should know that *most* of the directional changes you experience are side-to-side, not fore-to-aft - meaning you lean left and right far more often than you do forward or backward.
That's why the experts, who have shipped hundreds of these and thousands of similar vehicles, do it the way they do it.
You're not looking at the work of some gap-toothed rednecks trying to get a station wagon home using a rented trailer.
Thank you Machaca for the photos of what one presumes is "typical" tie-down SOP. I have to agree 100% with Dimitris that chocking the axles with narrow strips of wood dunnage athwartships is a wonderful formula for disaster. Get those strips slightly misaligned during the course of one take-off, a landing and then another take-off, and when the dunnage collapses there will be a sudden yank on the tie-downs. Two or three of those collapsing and allowing several units of cargo to move back 40cm would surely have a significant effect on CG.
A caveat: my observation, on the back of Dimitris's, does not come from aircraft loading, although I've done a bit of that as well, but from cargo vessel stowage, where pitch and roll also apply.
A caveat: my observation, on the back of Dimitris's, does not come from aircraft loading, although I've done a bit of that as well, but from cargo vessel stowage, where pitch and roll also apply.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who remembe the British Airways 747-400 departure out of Johannesburg in '09 will tell you that you don't need load shift to cause a stall out of a hot/high airport.BA 747 crew commended for escaping near-stall on take-off - 11/05/2009
In my opinion that loading method (shown in photos) is deeply flawed
1. The load is locked to the pallet (also in a way to keep the pallet flat for step 2).
2. The pallet is locked to the aircraft (bowed pallets dont fit/lock correctly).
3. The load is then additionally locked to the aircraft via straps (the manual states how msny straps depending on the weight).
A couple of 747 facts.
The 747 is fitted with leading edge kreuger flaps and leading edge variable camber flaps not slats. A mod sorted out the lufthansa issue and the BA issue.
The aircraft crosschecks the CG entered by the crew against the nose gear pressure switch generating a stab greenband EICAS if there is a disagreement, it sometimes occurs if the tail stand it still supporting some load, clears as the tail stand is lowered. Investigate otherwise!
This is unrelated to the weight and balance computer fitted to some Freighters.
If the stab is not set corectly it will generate a master warning "config stab" on application of
take off thrust.
A runaway stab is cut off automatically by hydraulic cut out, it can be done manually also.
The forward CG limit is aligned approximately at the front wing gear axle.
The aft limit being approximately aligned with the body gear strut.
So as you can see is not very big, I'd attach a pic of I could.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW
In the 1960s we carried a lot of cars ( 90,000 pa.) on the Cross Channel Car Ferry service ( three ordinary sized or two " big" ones ) in Bristol Freighters. Each of the cars' main wheels were clamped to the floor fittings with chains around the tyres. The car's body was allowed to bounce in any turbulence (or on landing !). The cars' passengers sat in a cabin at the rear of the aircraft for the flight.
I do not know whether there was any tyre damage, but I doubt whether this standard way of loading would have continued for many years if there had been. And these were ordinary civilian tyres - not " Military" ones, with a run-flat potential.
In the 1960s we carried a lot of cars ( 90,000 pa.) on the Cross Channel Car Ferry service ( three ordinary sized or two " big" ones ) in Bristol Freighters. Each of the cars' main wheels were clamped to the floor fittings with chains around the tyres. The car's body was allowed to bounce in any turbulence (or on landing !). The cars' passengers sat in a cabin at the rear of the aircraft for the flight.
I do not know whether there was any tyre damage, but I doubt whether this standard way of loading would have continued for many years if there had been. And these were ordinary civilian tyres - not " Military" ones, with a run-flat potential.
Last edited by Linktrained; 4th May 2013 at 00:15.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notadog
You've flown the 757 and don't think you need to push to counteract the thrust pitch couple in a go-around?
Terrifying! I can only assume (and thank our lucky starts) that you never did a go-around on the 757
You've flown the 757 and don't think you need to push to counteract the thrust pitch couple in a go-around?
Terrifying! I can only assume (and thank our lucky starts) that you never did a go-around on the 757
Last edited by busTRE; 4th May 2013 at 00:26.