Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail First
I have wondered about the angle at which the airplane went in myself. The DC-8 that went in at KMIA was in a 23-degree nose up attitude with a 49-degree angle of attack when it went in tail first, followed by one of the wings.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parking Brake
DeSitter: Sorry sir but what? Parking brakes? You seriously think they would secure a battle-worn overweight troop carrier in the cargo hold of a vehicle that moves in three dimensions and secure it with a parking brake? The parking brake would be next to useless even if the vehicle was strapped in and the strapping let go. The vehicles would be parked in gear as a precautionary starting point, but that will only keep it still while the aircraft is stationary.
You don't need such a vastly out of balance rear loading condition that an aircraft can only physically exist in a vertical condition in order for the flight controls to be ineffective. if that were the case it would have crashed a lot sooner or been sat looking at the sky on the loading ramp!
The video clearly shows the aircraft was airborne and flying albeit with high alpha and limited longitudinal control, so we can assume that any load shift, if it occurred, put the CG somewhere behind the aft limit. That doesn't mean all the cargo mass was located at the tail cone!
And no it does not automatically mean that if the cargo moved aft it would necessarily move back forward again, I can see your thinking that if its broken free it can go anywhere, but there's 50-70 straps holding these things in, they shouldn't move at all, but if they so there's all sorts of factors involved that could resist further movement.
Balance is a variable condition. "In balance" is quite a narrow spectrum. "Out of balance" is infinite, but realistically for this aircraft to reach the height it did it must have been somewhere in the early stages of being out of balance... in which case it would be possible for the aircraft to manoeuvre nose down as seen in the video.
As a former USAF C-130, C-141 and C-5 loadmaster, I can assure you that the parking brake does make a difference. When transporting vehicles, the parking brake is always set. Friction has a lot to do with cargo shifting aft. However, if the five unspecified vehicles were palletized, it wouldn't matter. Incidentally, transport category airplanes are only certified for 1.5 lateral Gs (including aft) and military requirements are to tie down for 1.5Gs aft. Civil requirements are whatever the certifying agency approves. Since National is a US company, that would be their POI.
You don't need such a vastly out of balance rear loading condition that an aircraft can only physically exist in a vertical condition in order for the flight controls to be ineffective. if that were the case it would have crashed a lot sooner or been sat looking at the sky on the loading ramp!
The video clearly shows the aircraft was airborne and flying albeit with high alpha and limited longitudinal control, so we can assume that any load shift, if it occurred, put the CG somewhere behind the aft limit. That doesn't mean all the cargo mass was located at the tail cone!
And no it does not automatically mean that if the cargo moved aft it would necessarily move back forward again, I can see your thinking that if its broken free it can go anywhere, but there's 50-70 straps holding these things in, they shouldn't move at all, but if they so there's all sorts of factors involved that could resist further movement.
Balance is a variable condition. "In balance" is quite a narrow spectrum. "Out of balance" is infinite, but realistically for this aircraft to reach the height it did it must have been somewhere in the early stages of being out of balance... in which case it would be possible for the aircraft to manoeuvre nose down as seen in the video.
As a former USAF C-130, C-141 and C-5 loadmaster, I can assure you that the parking brake does make a difference. When transporting vehicles, the parking brake is always set. Friction has a lot to do with cargo shifting aft. However, if the five unspecified vehicles were palletized, it wouldn't matter. Incidentally, transport category airplanes are only certified for 1.5 lateral Gs (including aft) and military requirements are to tie down for 1.5Gs aft. Civil requirements are whatever the certifying agency approves. Since National is a US company, that would be their POI.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the video I calculated that the aircraft was going 75 kts ground speed in the last 2 seconds. I included yaw in the calculation but not pitch nor slip. Including pitch would increase this speed to approx 88 kts.
Edit: I did the calculation including pitch and we get 84 kts ground speed.
Obviously that's way below stall even after the plane losing approx 1000 ft.
Edit: slip
Edit: I did the calculation including pitch and we get 84 kts ground speed.
Obviously that's way below stall even after the plane losing approx 1000 ft.
Edit: slip
Last edited by alph2z; 7th May 2013 at 17:33.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Palletizing vehicles.
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.
You may not be a loadmaster, but I was for 11 years, then I became a professional pilot. Blocks are used when palletizing vehicles as a means of preventing the springs from compressing when a vertical load is placed on the vehicle and causing the restraints to possibly come loose. On airdrop platforms, they're placed on cardboard so they will compress when they hit the ground and make them easier to drive off of the platform.
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.
You may not be a loadmaster, but I was for 11 years, then I became a professional pilot. Blocks are used when palletizing vehicles as a means of preventing the springs from compressing when a vertical load is placed on the vehicle and causing the restraints to possibly come loose. On airdrop platforms, they're placed on cardboard so they will compress when they hit the ground and make them easier to drive off of the platform.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loadies
If you mean "Load Masters" then use those words, please.
"Loadie" is a common term used in the US military for loadmasters (which is one word, not two.) There was a National Airlines loadmaster on the airplane, and he would have been responsible for supervising the loading and checking the restraints and, possibly, computing the weight and balance. I say "possibly" because its done using computers now, and the position of the load is planned before it reaches the airplane.
"Loadie" is a common term used in the US military for loadmasters (which is one word, not two.) There was a National Airlines loadmaster on the airplane, and he would have been responsible for supervising the loading and checking the restraints and, possibly, computing the weight and balance. I say "possibly" because its done using computers now, and the position of the load is planned before it reaches the airplane.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather
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.
Actually, the weather was VERY remarkable. There had been thunderstorms over the airports earlier in the day and one was approaching the airport at the time of the crash. An hour after the crash, Bagram was getting rain and ice pellets/hail. The winds were gusty and shifting.
Actually, the weather was VERY remarkable. There had been thunderstorms over the airports earlier in the day and one was approaching the airport at the time of the crash. An hour after the crash, Bagram was getting rain and ice pellets/hail. The winds were gusty and shifting.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Houston
Age: 78
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many Possibilities, One Cause
I just joined this forum after being sent to it by Bing a number of times so I could post. There seems to be a lot of confusion on here, particularly regarding stalls.
1. Bear in mind that the FAA and manufacturers of transport category airplanes publishes procedures for stall recovery at "the first indication", which can be the burble or stick shaker.
2. Sweptback wing airplanes can have vicious stall characteristic and are prohibited from being intentionally stalled at low altitudes because it takes so much altitude for recovery. For example, the Hawker HS 125 crew manual contained an admonishment against stalls below 10,000 feet. That didn't stop one crew in my area from decided to practice stalls at 4,000 feet while on a training flight. They're not here anymore.
3. Regarding the video, bear in mind that the vehicle and 747 are approaching each other at a high rate of speed. I've been around airfields all of my adult life. When observing an airplane coming straight toward you, it will appear to be in a nose up attitude. This is also true in flight. There is really no way to determine the deck angle of the airplane from the video.
4. There were thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport at the time of the crash. The METARS have been posted on the Net. Thunderstorms may be accompanied by dry microbursts, which can ruin your day. There was a rash of them from 1970 to 1985, but it's been several years since an airline aircraft was lost to one in the US, at least. Vertical winds in a microburst have been recorded as high 168 MPH - straight down. Escape procedures call for as high of a nose angle as it takes to get the airplane climbing, and maintaining aircraft configuration.
5. Regarding a load shift. If it's going to occur, it will most likely be during the takeoff roll when aft Gs are most prominent (and they're not that much.) The Gs experienced at rotation are positive, not aft. The military and civilian cargo operators tie loads down for restraint in all directions, usually 3Gs forward, 1.5Gs lateral and aft and 2Gs vertical (in military transports, if passengers are in front of the load, the forward requirement is increased to 9Gs.) There is also a down requirement but its met by the floor. Apparently some vehicles have to be palletized to load on a 747-400 rather than driven in. In that case, the load is secured to the pallet, which is locked, then additional restraint is applied to the airplane floor. For a pallet to shift, the locks and the restraints would have to fail.
6. I once was a simulator instructor. The training industry and manufacturers has determined that it takes an average of 10 seconds for a crew to even recognize they have a problem, let alone start to deal with it. Until the transcript of the CVR is released, no one is going to know what the crew thought their problem was and what actions they took.
This is a terrible tragedy - all fatal accidents are. I'm sure something will eventually be published since it involved a US crew working for a US company flying a US registered airplane.
1. Bear in mind that the FAA and manufacturers of transport category airplanes publishes procedures for stall recovery at "the first indication", which can be the burble or stick shaker.
2. Sweptback wing airplanes can have vicious stall characteristic and are prohibited from being intentionally stalled at low altitudes because it takes so much altitude for recovery. For example, the Hawker HS 125 crew manual contained an admonishment against stalls below 10,000 feet. That didn't stop one crew in my area from decided to practice stalls at 4,000 feet while on a training flight. They're not here anymore.
3. Regarding the video, bear in mind that the vehicle and 747 are approaching each other at a high rate of speed. I've been around airfields all of my adult life. When observing an airplane coming straight toward you, it will appear to be in a nose up attitude. This is also true in flight. There is really no way to determine the deck angle of the airplane from the video.
4. There were thunderstorms in the vicinity of the airport at the time of the crash. The METARS have been posted on the Net. Thunderstorms may be accompanied by dry microbursts, which can ruin your day. There was a rash of them from 1970 to 1985, but it's been several years since an airline aircraft was lost to one in the US, at least. Vertical winds in a microburst have been recorded as high 168 MPH - straight down. Escape procedures call for as high of a nose angle as it takes to get the airplane climbing, and maintaining aircraft configuration.
5. Regarding a load shift. If it's going to occur, it will most likely be during the takeoff roll when aft Gs are most prominent (and they're not that much.) The Gs experienced at rotation are positive, not aft. The military and civilian cargo operators tie loads down for restraint in all directions, usually 3Gs forward, 1.5Gs lateral and aft and 2Gs vertical (in military transports, if passengers are in front of the load, the forward requirement is increased to 9Gs.) There is also a down requirement but its met by the floor. Apparently some vehicles have to be palletized to load on a 747-400 rather than driven in. In that case, the load is secured to the pallet, which is locked, then additional restraint is applied to the airplane floor. For a pallet to shift, the locks and the restraints would have to fail.
6. I once was a simulator instructor. The training industry and manufacturers has determined that it takes an average of 10 seconds for a crew to even recognize they have a problem, let alone start to deal with it. Until the transcript of the CVR is released, no one is going to know what the crew thought their problem was and what actions they took.
This is a terrible tragedy - all fatal accidents are. I'm sure something will eventually be published since it involved a US crew working for a US company flying a US registered airplane.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since there's been some discussion of the use of wooden pallets, and since it seems to have escaped everyone that "wood" is just a word embracing a wide range of very different materials, may I ask what wood is used for pallet construction, what the spec is, and what controls are applied to bought-in pallets ?
The wood was used for weight distribution along the pallets, so the pallets didn't buckle so much as to prevent them from engaging the rail locks. The wood blocks were placed under various points on the hull and suspension so all the weight was not on the tires. I don't know what type of wood was used.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the video I calculated that the aircraft was going 75 kts ground speed in the last 2 seconds. I included yaw in the calculation but not pitch nor slip. Including pitch would increase this speed to approx 88 kts.
Edit: I did the calculation including pitch and we get 84 kts ground speed.
Obviously that's way below stall even after the plane losing approx 1000 ft.
Edit: I did the calculation including pitch and we get 84 kts ground speed.
Obviously that's way below stall even after the plane losing approx 1000 ft.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: TOF
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alph2z
How do you cater for the obvious component of GS which points straight towards the cam?
I.e. the fuselage not transiting the cam at constant distance, but rather coming nearer, read: "becoming longer" in the observer's eye.
What method did you employ to generate stills from the sequence?
Would you mind giving a hint?
How do you cater for the obvious component of GS which points straight towards the cam?
I.e. the fuselage not transiting the cam at constant distance, but rather coming nearer, read: "becoming longer" in the observer's eye.
What method did you employ to generate stills from the sequence?
Would you mind giving a hint?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Tango, Even if your calculations were right, what exactly are you telling us that we don't already know since hundreds of posts back???
Machrihanish: Pitch is obvious, for yaw we are fortunate that the port wing tip aligns with the rear tip of the fuselage; just use 747F dimensions. Slip impossible. Just any video player with pause and step. Use small time span to try to limit yaw and pitch changes.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alph2Z
You may be interested to learn that wings do not stall because of the speed they are travelling through the air.
What makes them stall is if the angle of attack of the approaching air exceeds a certain angle which varies with the design of the wing and any leading or traing edge flap angles in use.
A wing's angle of attack is known in the trade as alpha.
Given your monika that is quite interesting.
You may be interested to learn that wings do not stall because of the speed they are travelling through the air.
What makes them stall is if the angle of attack of the approaching air exceeds a certain angle which varies with the design of the wing and any leading or traing edge flap angles in use.
A wing's angle of attack is known in the trade as alpha.
Given your monika that is quite interesting.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed calculation?
alph2z,
Is the port wingtip not substantially to the right of the tip of the tail on impact? By maybe 20%?
Did you consider using the mist trail above the wing a few frames before impact?
For what it's worth, I also notice in the stepped frames that both engines on the port wing are probably running hard on impact, as I think they both generate the first flashes as their rotational energy is dumped into the ground on impact.
Is the port wingtip not substantially to the right of the tip of the tail on impact? By maybe 20%?
Did you consider using the mist trail above the wing a few frames before impact?
For what it's worth, I also notice in the stepped frames that both engines on the port wing are probably running hard on impact, as I think they both generate the first flashes as their rotational energy is dumped into the ground on impact.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looming in the speed calculation?
I think there's another implicit piece of information about the degree to which the aircraft might have been approaching the camera:
The potentially battle-hardened driver of the vehicle was sufficiently worried about the situation that he braked hard and then reversed hard. Does that imply that he perceived the aircraft to be "looming", and so some component of speed towards the camera might be involved?
The potentially battle-hardened driver of the vehicle was sufficiently worried about the situation that he braked hard and then reversed hard. Does that imply that he perceived the aircraft to be "looming", and so some component of speed towards the camera might be involved?
Sam, thanks for explaining very concisely some of the aspects of the cargo and restraint concepts, and loads on the cargo. Some PPRuNe goodness there. 
As to the "ten second mean time" point, does that include simple problems like "pitch too high, need to correct" (a basic scan derived action) or is that a broad average of crews dealing with lots of things going wrong on the flight deck in various stages of a mission?
I ask this due to the phase of flight the crew were in for this mishap:
takeoff/departure, with pilot at the controls flying a departure procedure.
Takeoff/departure and approach/landing would seem to be when crews are most alert, and reaction times at a "best case."
My guess is that this crew figured out things were wrong in somethng less than ten seconds.
As to the "ten second mean time" point, does that include simple problems like "pitch too high, need to correct" (a basic scan derived action) or is that a broad average of crews dealing with lots of things going wrong on the flight deck in various stages of a mission?
I ask this due to the phase of flight the crew were in for this mishap:
takeoff/departure, with pilot at the controls flying a departure procedure.
Takeoff/departure and approach/landing would seem to be when crews are most alert, and reaction times at a "best case."
My guess is that this crew figured out things were wrong in somethng less than ten seconds.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 7th May 2013 at 20:45.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pictures of the MATV's on pallets being loaded in the plane are the way they have been built and loaded since the first one was loaded in a 747-200 as a test 4 years ago. In the past 4 years I would have to guess that almost 1000 of them have moved on a 747 with out a problem. Something was done different this time. Maybe they were not loaded on Military pallets this time and commercial pallets were used. Maybe being on two short legs with a high pitch T/O was enough to get one or two moving. We do not know.. All I know is that I never want to see something like that again. To all the pilots on this site. Go down stairs and take a good look at what your loadmasters ( I am one) are doing. Grab straps and pull on them check locks. A good loadmaster will never get insulted. I tell the crews I fly with to check and double check my work. If they see something that concerns them speak up. No one is perfect even after 23 years.. The main goal is for us all to get home to our loved ones. Or just to the hotel. Lets see what the final outcome of this is and learn from it. Fly safe everyone..
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Samc130, yes the MIa dc8 crashed nose up but if you look at the NTSB report you will see it was well nose down after the stall. They had enough speed to mush in but in this crash they didn't.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't recovery of the FDR and CVR be a relatively straightforward affair? The wreckage is readily accesible. Either they are intact or destroyed, but that fact (either way) should not take this long to determine, should it?
But not a hint / word almost 2 weeks after the accident?
I understand there may be issues about the recoverability of the data, but there's not anything so far about the devices themselves. Not a word from anywhere... Just curious, nothing sinister implied!
But not a hint / word almost 2 weeks after the accident?
I understand there may be issues about the recoverability of the data, but there's not anything so far about the devices themselves. Not a word from anywhere... Just curious, nothing sinister implied!
An Afghan matter
Originally Posted by CafeClub
But not a hint / word almost 2 weeks after the accident?
The Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation is leading the investigation and will be the sole source of information regarding the investigation. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, they can be reached at (873) 68 2341450 / 49 or by fax at (873) 68 1280784.
Last edited by archae86; 8th May 2013 at 00:28. Reason: correct typo
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sol, sector ZZ9 plural Z alpha
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't panic about the fact the Local Authority are heading up the investigation. Despite what our media would like us to believe, Afghanistan has been a country with people doing jobs in offices for many hundreds of years. They are also members of the ICAO so they should have more than adequate procedures in place for this task working with their NTSB and Boeing contributors. I doubt we'll see anything until they feel they have something to report, which since all the evidence is on hand could even be after the report is finished. They have no reason to release interim facts or news about this in the meantime, they are a government agency, not a magazine stand!