Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lone Ranger
(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: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Age: 92
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B747 crash
As long as we are hypothesising it could equally be possible that an elevator trim has "run wild" in the fully nose up position. AC DC8 crash at Ste Therese , Quebec comes to mind !
.
.
Last edited by Yankee Whisky; 4th May 2013 at 15:17.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: France
Age: 85
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to be in the 70's a US airline Stn Mgr in Paris operating with B707, B727, DC8-63CF and B747-200 all convertible acft. I was often involved anywhere in Europe/Africa with one of our DC8's flying any sorts of cargo here and there. As a matter of fact I operated then as a Loadmaster and dealt with Weight & Balance. All manual no computer helping in those days.
With regards to the pic in post #353 I think that the wooden blocks under the vehicules are used to spread the weight on the pallets. In other terms they will help the pallets to remain flat in the center thus enabling these pallets to be properly secured fwd and aft and on the sides. The average weight of such vehicle being around 26000 lbs means that there are 6500 lbs weight on each wheel on the small contact area of the wheel on the pallet. By using those blocks of wood you reduce the weight to 3250 lbs on each one of the 8 contact areas.
I'm afraid that this does look like a load shift for some unkown reason and having flown so very often on the J/S behind the Capt I feel very sorry for them as I know what they have to put up with in that type of operation.
With regards to the pic in post #353 I think that the wooden blocks under the vehicules are used to spread the weight on the pallets. In other terms they will help the pallets to remain flat in the center thus enabling these pallets to be properly secured fwd and aft and on the sides. The average weight of such vehicle being around 26000 lbs means that there are 6500 lbs weight on each wheel on the small contact area of the wheel on the pallet. By using those blocks of wood you reduce the weight to 3250 lbs on each one of the 8 contact areas.
I'm afraid that this does look like a load shift for some unkown reason and having flown so very often on the J/S behind the Capt I feel very sorry for them as I know what they have to put up with in that type of operation.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 757 is quite simple to go around. You just gently push the throttles up and it does a wonderful job. No big deal. I landed at TGU honduras over 600 times, considered the most dangerous airline airport in the world and it was very easy. You just had to pay attention. Don't do stupid stuff.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a lot of comment about the wood.
In far earlier days the axles were chained to the tie down points together with chains and/or straps from the points on the vehicles above the suspension system. This seemed a reasonable system. On my cargo flights then, I signed on an hour before the rest of my crew and literally crawled all over the freight, checking every single retraint, assessing effectiveness and compliance.
Now we see wood, the purpose seeming to be to eliminate the flexibility of the suspension system in the procedure. The principle seems OK, but planks of wood . . . . ? If the wood moves, we finish up with the same original system from all those years ago, except that now the straps and chains above the suspension are no longer firmly attached.
This tie-down method seems like an inferior system.
Anybody know how they came up with the wooden planks system, or if there is a robust standard for the type of timber and a method to ensure it is correctly positioned and stabilised? For such a vital tie-down component, there appears to be little consideration for its importance.
In far earlier days the axles were chained to the tie down points together with chains and/or straps from the points on the vehicles above the suspension system. This seemed a reasonable system. On my cargo flights then, I signed on an hour before the rest of my crew and literally crawled all over the freight, checking every single retraint, assessing effectiveness and compliance.
Now we see wood, the purpose seeming to be to eliminate the flexibility of the suspension system in the procedure. The principle seems OK, but planks of wood . . . . ? If the wood moves, we finish up with the same original system from all those years ago, except that now the straps and chains above the suspension are no longer firmly attached.
This tie-down method seems like an inferior system.
Anybody know how they came up with the wooden planks system, or if there is a robust standard for the type of timber and a method to ensure it is correctly positioned and stabilised? For such a vital tie-down component, there appears to be little consideration for its importance.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TOF
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FlamantRose,
that sort of equal distribution might be achieved by using some sort of standardised, normalised special purpose equipment, but I'm not so sure anymore with regard to piles of cut wood. Wood's own flexibility might do the trick, however wood's flexibility does, too, show in slowly giving in to pressure, incrementally releasing such construction.
Would an equal distribution be desirable or necessary, i've not thought about that one yet...
Thus, be the method tried and tested to date, it might not have to stay that way.
By using those blocks of wood you reduce the weight to 3250 lbs on each one of the 8 contact areas.
Would an equal distribution be desirable or necessary, i've not thought about that one yet...
Thus, be the method tried and tested to date, it might not have to stay that way.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it at all possible that something may have failed with the airplane itself? It was a passenger airplane until a few years ago being converted by a 3rd party. Is the floor strong enough after conversion to handle the load of these vehicles? I have read a lot about load not tied down properly or other theories, but nothing on the fact that this was not a factory built freighter.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely and utterly irrelevant. Don't you get bored of telling people how many times and how dangerous your job was, hero?
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Upstairs
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as you can see I am not all that anonymous!
I have read a lot of these posts from several ill informed users.
Just my penny's worth from someone who flies the B744F and also currently operates to Bagram and other Afghan airports.
1. There are no published tactical procedures. Just ATC, Jepp charts and common sense.
2. It is the load masters responsibility to ensure the correct loading and securing of all cargo. However, the Captain shall always check this, especially the military cargo for obvious reasons.
3. An incorrect stabiliser trim setting will trigger a takeoff warning as soon as the thrust levers are advanced.
4. Pilots should always have a ballpark figure for the takeoff CG calculation. Confirmed by the load sheet and experience.
5. Increasing thrust on an aircraft with under slung wing mounted engines will cause a pitch up moment. However, not to the extent that it will lead to a stall.
6. Stall recovery techniques should be practiced during recurrent training and the recovery technique should be one from muscle memory.
A load shift can and has led to catastrophic events, often outside the performance envelope of the aircraft involved and the abilities of the most highly trained and skilled pilots.
In aviation there is always something waiting to catch ALL of us out and it is our job as crew members to try and eliminate these possibilities to the best of all of our abilities.
Sadly sometimes the impossible is presented and the event becomes a matter of public record.
I have read a lot of these posts from several ill informed users.
Just my penny's worth from someone who flies the B744F and also currently operates to Bagram and other Afghan airports.
1. There are no published tactical procedures. Just ATC, Jepp charts and common sense.
2. It is the load masters responsibility to ensure the correct loading and securing of all cargo. However, the Captain shall always check this, especially the military cargo for obvious reasons.
3. An incorrect stabiliser trim setting will trigger a takeoff warning as soon as the thrust levers are advanced.
4. Pilots should always have a ballpark figure for the takeoff CG calculation. Confirmed by the load sheet and experience.
5. Increasing thrust on an aircraft with under slung wing mounted engines will cause a pitch up moment. However, not to the extent that it will lead to a stall.
6. Stall recovery techniques should be practiced during recurrent training and the recovery technique should be one from muscle memory.
A load shift can and has led to catastrophic events, often outside the performance envelope of the aircraft involved and the abilities of the most highly trained and skilled pilots.
In aviation there is always something waiting to catch ALL of us out and it is our job as crew members to try and eliminate these possibilities to the best of all of our abilities.
Sadly sometimes the impossible is presented and the event becomes a matter of public record.
Champagne anyone...?
Why apologise? Those of us professionals that work, or have worked, in heavy cargo aviation know them as "loadies" as do the loadmasters themselves. 
As for all the speculation, well I'm loving all the scientific speculation from all these "experts" who, at the end of their diatribes, then caveat it all by saying "oh, by the way, I know nothing about aviation cargo handling".
In my 24 years of aviation, the majority of it as a heavy cargo pilot in the military, I can say from experience that while mistakes do happen, the folk doing the loading and tie-down schemes know what they're talking about and aren't just a bunch of monkeys making it up as they go along, as it appears some of you clowns seem to think they are
Big vehicle tyres are partially deflated to reduce the vehicle height to get it through the cargo doors. The vehicles aren't "balanced" on the load spreaders, they are just additional contact points. The tie-down scheme is scientifically designed to provide fore, aft and vertical restraint of the load to, in this case, the pallet. The guidance and floor locking system is designed to hold said pallet firmly in place - up to a certain weight limit.
What happened in this case? No idea, I don't have enough of the facts. Would I speculate? Yes. Either a mis-weighed pallet loaded out of sequence (or an entire load incorrectly sequenced) putting the trim way out or some of the load shifted at rotate. I'd tend to go with the former but who, at this stage, knows? Very few if any people and certainly none of the "was it perhaps aliens?" speculators on here.....
As for all the speculation, well I'm loving all the scientific speculation from all these "experts" who, at the end of their diatribes, then caveat it all by saying "oh, by the way, I know nothing about aviation cargo handling".
In my 24 years of aviation, the majority of it as a heavy cargo pilot in the military, I can say from experience that while mistakes do happen, the folk doing the loading and tie-down schemes know what they're talking about and aren't just a bunch of monkeys making it up as they go along, as it appears some of you clowns seem to think they are
Big vehicle tyres are partially deflated to reduce the vehicle height to get it through the cargo doors. The vehicles aren't "balanced" on the load spreaders, they are just additional contact points. The tie-down scheme is scientifically designed to provide fore, aft and vertical restraint of the load to, in this case, the pallet. The guidance and floor locking system is designed to hold said pallet firmly in place - up to a certain weight limit.
What happened in this case? No idea, I don't have enough of the facts. Would I speculate? Yes. Either a mis-weighed pallet loaded out of sequence (or an entire load incorrectly sequenced) putting the trim way out or some of the load shifted at rotate. I'd tend to go with the former but who, at this stage, knows? Very few if any people and certainly none of the "was it perhaps aliens?" speculators on here.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart,
I am used to calling Loadmasters Loadies as well. I apologised as English may not be Cresmers' first language and I may have introduced a term he did not know.
I am also puzzled on how people appear to believe that you just throw a cargo inside an aircraft, haphazardly tie it down with a few bits of string and some granny knots and " Bob's you uncle".
I am used to calling Loadmasters Loadies as well. I apologised as English may not be Cresmers' first language and I may have introduced a term he did not know.
I am also puzzled on how people appear to believe that you just throw a cargo inside an aircraft, haphazardly tie it down with a few bits of string and some granny knots and " Bob's you uncle".
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StopStart
Either a mis-weighed pallet loaded out of sequence (or an entire load incorrectly sequenced) putting the trim way out
PS Yes, a loadie is a loadie even when of the 'alternative' gender
(and lovely those are too!)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I try to summarise the last twenty pages?
The weather was unremarkable. We are told that the stop at Bagram was for fuel only, so the cargo configuration was presumably unchanged. That being so, a lashing problem or a cargo CG problem seem unlikely. If the fuel taken caused a large and for some reason unrecognised change in longitudinal CG, the loadcell on the nose leg, assumingthat it was fitted and operational, would presumably have triggered an alarm. An incorrect horizontal stabiliser setting would have triggered an alarm when the throttles were advanced to take off setting.
Thus, all the "simple explanations" for this accident can be eliminated.
We can reasonably assume that the crew did not attempt any abnormal evolution, so we may assume that the aircraft departed in an essentially unflyable condition, which was unknown to the crew until the aircraft was airborne, and which they were unable to correct in the few seconds available to them.
What remains for speculation, pending the publication of the report of the NTSB investigation, is the possibility of a combination of circumstances, no one of which would have been fatal in itself, which led to the aircraft departing in such an abnormal configuration.
The weather was unremarkable. We are told that the stop at Bagram was for fuel only, so the cargo configuration was presumably unchanged. That being so, a lashing problem or a cargo CG problem seem unlikely. If the fuel taken caused a large and for some reason unrecognised change in longitudinal CG, the loadcell on the nose leg, assumingthat it was fitted and operational, would presumably have triggered an alarm. An incorrect horizontal stabiliser setting would have triggered an alarm when the throttles were advanced to take off setting.
Thus, all the "simple explanations" for this accident can be eliminated.
We can reasonably assume that the crew did not attempt any abnormal evolution, so we may assume that the aircraft departed in an essentially unflyable condition, which was unknown to the crew until the aircraft was airborne, and which they were unable to correct in the few seconds available to them.
What remains for speculation, pending the publication of the report of the NTSB investigation, is the possibility of a combination of circumstances, no one of which would have been fatal in itself, which led to the aircraft departing in such an abnormal configuration.
Last edited by Methersgate; 4th May 2013 at 12:45.
Just a quick question for those who may know....
"Why would they return to Bagram to refuel, rather than just depart straight from Bastion?"
Is it the limit of fuel or length of the runway at Bastion that would stop it flying straight to the destination. Seems if nothing was loaded or taken off, why the stop in Bagram.
"Why would they return to Bagram to refuel, rather than just depart straight from Bastion?"
Is it the limit of fuel or length of the runway at Bastion that would stop it flying straight to the destination. Seems if nothing was loaded or taken off, why the stop in Bagram.
Last edited by MATELO; 4th May 2013 at 11:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did this 747-400 have the horizontal stabiliser fuel tanks
I am wondering if this Boeing 747-428 BCF had the horizontal stabiliser fuel tanks installed and in use. Ditto for the lower, forward, cargo hold auxiliary fuel tanks.
If the horizontal stabiliser tanks were installed and in use they can hold approximately 173,976* kg of fuel at 15C.
Please note. I obviously can not add up. As has been pointed out by Airclues I deserve a slap around the head. This figure should be 10,00kg
My apologies for the duff gen
If the horizontal stabiliser tanks were installed and in use they can hold approximately 173,976* kg of fuel at 15C.
Please note. I obviously can not add up. As has been pointed out by Airclues I deserve a slap around the head. This figure should be 10,00kg
My apologies for the duff gen
Last edited by hval; 4th May 2013 at 12:41. Reason: Admit I can not add up.