Cargo Crash at Bagram
Not a big jet pilot so don't know the answer but if there was so much weight shift as to cause a major nose up and stall, then how; with barely minimum flying speed, did they get the nose back down below the horizontal ?
Just asking; but if the weight of those vehicles had moved very far back, wouldn't the crash have looked more like an SU-27 doing a tail slide ?
It looks like if they had another 1000 feet the outcome may have been different - that doesn't strike me as an unrecoverable "out of CG" problem.
Just asking; but if the weight of those vehicles had moved very far back, wouldn't the crash have looked more like an SU-27 doing a tail slide ?
It looks like if they had another 1000 feet the outcome may have been different - that doesn't strike me as an unrecoverable "out of CG" problem.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Malaysia
Age: 62
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog
For those that are listening to the Video, at 1.35 you hear a dog whine in the car and he settles it down, guess he's some form of security on the base, don’t imagine to many dogs around there, Muslim country, they dont like dogs!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oval3Holer:
While I agree with most of your post regarding their efforts, I believe at some point desperation might have set in as nothing they were doing was apparently working and that lowering the gear might have been a last-ditch effort to somehow regain control. There are aircraft that have that as a procedure when you are in an extreme/unknown attitude (extreme being the case here..). As was pointed out- the gear looked like it was partially extended-giving credence to the idea that it was last-second, so its not an unheard-of thing to do-just my 2 cents worth, hopefully the cause will be found. My condolences to the families...
While I agree with most of your post regarding their efforts, I believe at some point desperation might have set in as nothing they were doing was apparently working and that lowering the gear might have been a last-ditch effort to somehow regain control. There are aircraft that have that as a procedure when you are in an extreme/unknown attitude (extreme being the case here..). As was pointed out- the gear looked like it was partially extended-giving credence to the idea that it was last-second, so its not an unheard-of thing to do-just my 2 cents worth, hopefully the cause will be found. My condolences to the families...
Last edited by waddawurld; 1st May 2013 at 13:01.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know why, I have the feeling that despite that the situation was not correctable, they may have reduced the power setting to help them recover the nose.
I dont know how or why, but everytime I see the video I have this feeling.
I am not blaming anyone of course, but I thing that they may tried this to save the plane.
I dont know how or why, but everytime I see the video I have this feeling.
I am not blaming anyone of course, but I thing that they may tried this to save the plane.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Crash at Bagram
Is it possible for a 747 freighter to land with the stab just inside the nose up greenband, and the Pilots forget to set his new stab trim for takeoff. As he rolls down the runway the nose gear prematurely lifts off and when he does pull back on the column the aircraft over rotates, stalls and crashes?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, most aircraft will pitch forward in a stall. Not all, mind you, but most. This does not imply that the aircraft has recovered from the stall as such. In the case of an aft CofG problem once the aircraft recovers flying speed the problem will occur again leading to another stall. Whilst the aircraft impacts in a fairly level attitude this does not mean that it would have been recoverable if they had a few more thousand feet.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: MIA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barking:
quote:
It is as clear as day.
Extreme angle of climb causes cargo to shift that can clearly be seen as the
a/c passes the antenna, watch the tail, change of attitude, then stall, game
over.
Now the focus will be on the radical departure. Pilot or Company? Dead men cant tell tales.
Look I can tell you...has been sad before....There is no radical departure in OAIX for a B744. Just a standard NADP 1. So the extreme angle was not caused on purpose. It seems to me that the problem occured before or at rotation whether it was a cargo shift, runaway trim, or other control problems. The B744 will give a TO config warning if the stab trim is set wrongly once setting TO pwr fyi.
quote:
It is as clear as day.
Extreme angle of climb causes cargo to shift that can clearly be seen as the
a/c passes the antenna, watch the tail, change of attitude, then stall, game
over.
Now the focus will be on the radical departure. Pilot or Company? Dead men cant tell tales.
Look I can tell you...has been sad before....There is no radical departure in OAIX for a B744. Just a standard NADP 1. So the extreme angle was not caused on purpose. It seems to me that the problem occured before or at rotation whether it was a cargo shift, runaway trim, or other control problems. The B744 will give a TO config warning if the stab trim is set wrongly once setting TO pwr fyi.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V2+10( to +20)
There seems to be a few posters here who have an issue with the "radical" departure.....which is far from the case. Those who [actually] fly here, please forgive me...
The recommended departure to fly out of Bagram is a STANDARD NADP 1 departure. You fly a pitch that will hold the speed within V2+10 up to v2+20 until 3000' AGL. This profile is flown every day, by thousands of airlines, out of thousands of airports. Nothing radical by the crew. Now, the pitch required to hold the airspeed within those parameters is dependent on available thrust versus the aircraft weight. If the plane is very light, and thrust is high, the pitch will be high, around 16-19 degrees. So, nothing radical, just standard procedures. That said, Bagram is at 4895' field elevation, so performance is slightly reduced, so pitch would be less. Also, if the plane is on the heavier side, like I surmise it is ( hearing that they are REMOVING MRAP's instead of flying them in ), and flight time about 7 hours, I would say the plane isn't exactly light. I would guess the initial pitch to stabilize the speed to be about 16-17 degrees.
So, even though this may be a " zone of conflict ", I don't SEE any way that the flight crew's flying this departure could be seen as radical, or any way out of the norm, or be so excessive as to contribute, or cause a load-shift.
Of course I am speaking to those pundits out there who have very little to no actual flying experience. To all others, forgive my dissertation.
The recommended departure to fly out of Bagram is a STANDARD NADP 1 departure. You fly a pitch that will hold the speed within V2+10 up to v2+20 until 3000' AGL. This profile is flown every day, by thousands of airlines, out of thousands of airports. Nothing radical by the crew. Now, the pitch required to hold the airspeed within those parameters is dependent on available thrust versus the aircraft weight. If the plane is very light, and thrust is high, the pitch will be high, around 16-19 degrees. So, nothing radical, just standard procedures. That said, Bagram is at 4895' field elevation, so performance is slightly reduced, so pitch would be less. Also, if the plane is on the heavier side, like I surmise it is ( hearing that they are REMOVING MRAP's instead of flying them in ), and flight time about 7 hours, I would say the plane isn't exactly light. I would guess the initial pitch to stabilize the speed to be about 16-17 degrees.
So, even though this may be a " zone of conflict ", I don't SEE any way that the flight crew's flying this departure could be seen as radical, or any way out of the norm, or be so excessive as to contribute, or cause a load-shift.
Of course I am speaking to those pundits out there who have very little to no actual flying experience. To all others, forgive my dissertation.
*I didn't hear or see any evidence of the engines surging. Since one could hear the noise of the engines and see the tailpipes in the video.
I did hear the pressure change in the microphone when the plane hit and it sounded immediately clipped to me.
CVRs in cockpit do pickup 'evidence" of explosions both as clipped pressure changes and ringing of the plane structure. In fact the differences in timing between the two can be used to extropolate the location of the explosion, providing the CVR power remains. (I don't see this as germain in this event ?)
Im interested in resolving any possibilities of a cargo shift at VR since this might result in enough time for a crew radio call before a loss of control.
I believe that the CVR info will not be released without significant editing, since cargo flights tend to have extra people in the cockpit. Extras who have no flight control functions tend to verbalize excitedly in cases like this
I did hear the pressure change in the microphone when the plane hit and it sounded immediately clipped to me.
CVRs in cockpit do pickup 'evidence" of explosions both as clipped pressure changes and ringing of the plane structure. In fact the differences in timing between the two can be used to extropolate the location of the explosion, providing the CVR power remains. (I don't see this as germain in this event ?)
Im interested in resolving any possibilities of a cargo shift at VR since this might result in enough time for a crew radio call before a loss of control.
I believe that the CVR info will not be released without significant editing, since cargo flights tend to have extra people in the cockpit. Extras who have no flight control functions tend to verbalize excitedly in cases like this
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo shifted? Most probably, but until the work is done, we just don't know. Why is this being discussed as fact?
Someone asked earlier if there were any genuine aircrew left on this forum....an outsider looking in at this juncture would think not.
And what's with the "radical departure" nonsense? Just because you've seen a few C-117 photos in the publicity shots from the military that you think 747s with half a motorcade inside do this on the weekly run out of Bagram?
It's ridiculous....and more than that, to the crew involved.....it's downright disrespectful.
Get a life!
Someone asked earlier if there were any genuine aircrew left on this forum....an outsider looking in at this juncture would think not.
And what's with the "radical departure" nonsense? Just because you've seen a few C-117 photos in the publicity shots from the military that you think 747s with half a motorcade inside do this on the weekly run out of Bagram?
It's ridiculous....and more than that, to the crew involved.....it's downright disrespectful.
Get a life!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: europe
Age: 38
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know if this has been mentioned before. However on impact the landing gear appears to be down and locked.
Reading between the lines.
It looks to me like they where having major flight control anomalies at the point at witch you would normally retract the landing gear. ie More or less 50ft with a positive rate of climb.
I think that they where probably flighting to control the aircraft and where ether to busy or forgot to retract the gear. I dont think this was caused bye pilot error. If is more likely in my opinion that this was ether caused bye a loading or mechanical failure/error.
Reading between the lines.
It looks to me like they where having major flight control anomalies at the point at witch you would normally retract the landing gear. ie More or less 50ft with a positive rate of climb.
I think that they where probably flighting to control the aircraft and where ether to busy or forgot to retract the gear. I dont think this was caused bye pilot error. If is more likely in my opinion that this was ether caused bye a loading or mechanical failure/error.
Children of a different Magenta Line
FirstStep: thank you for the detailed explanation. 
Regardless of whether they were using NADP1 or NADP2, it appears from that brief video clip that things were going wrong before they had reached 800' ... caveat: since what is available on that video clip does not include the take off roll, rotation, etc, the observers in the tower may have seen something during rotation and takeoff that will change the course of this discussion were their observations available.
hectopascal:
Thank you, sir.
Thought: with reliance more and more on automation and software (my line of thinking at this point refers to the pre flight and mission planning phases) I'll guess that the NTSB team will look into possible GIGO issues before it ever got rolling.
Regardless of whether they were using NADP1 or NADP2, it appears from that brief video clip that things were going wrong before they had reached 800' ... caveat: since what is available on that video clip does not include the take off roll, rotation, etc, the observers in the tower may have seen something during rotation and takeoff that will change the course of this discussion were their observations available.
hectopascal:
The B744 will give a TO config warning if the stab trim is set wrongly once setting TO pwr fyi.
Thought: with reliance more and more on automation and software (my line of thinking at this point refers to the pre flight and mission planning phases) I'll guess that the NTSB team will look into possible GIGO issues before it ever got rolling.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 1st May 2013 at 14:56.
Originally Posted by stacee jaxx
A swept wing could be expected to tip-stall first; this would explain the high pitch angles, coupled with aft c of g issues with a load shift or out of limits CoG.
Post removed thanks to a "polite" suggestion that it was rude to stacee.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 1st May 2013 at 15:45.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the nose rises uncontrollably, the natural reaction is to fight it with all that you have to attempt to push it back down. Some aircraft I have flown had procedures to instead immediately drop a wing to prevent reaching a high nose up attitude when encountering an uncontrollable pitch up. Are such procedures used in the cargo community?
For landing, it would be high speed, zero flaps or minimal flaps. Once stopped on the pavement, the tail would squat.
This scenario can be trained in the sim with a programmed CG shift at rotation.
normal initial pitch attitude
1st step;
Flight time from Bagram to Al Makthoum is about 2,5 hrs iso 7, depending on the headwinds.
I'd guess 40 tons of blockfuel, 50 max. Even with a (partial-) load of say 80 tons, that would give a not at all heavy TOW of about 285 tons (max structural TOW = 396 tons). Does anyone know the load yet?
During rotation you normally aim for about 15 degr pitch attitude, and as soon as you get airborne follow the FD and shoot for V2 +10.
Initial pitch attitude out of a field elevation of ±5000' with this kind of weight (and derated) would be around 13 degr I would guess. With a full rated TO it would be higher, then the 16-17 degr you mention could be right.
Perhaps they don't use derated TO's for safety reasons there, I don't know. I've never been there and wouldn't mind if it stayed that way.
On the Classic we used to calculate the initial pitch attitude, but on the -400 you just go for 15 degr and then follow the FD. Couldn't find a table for it.
Perhaps someone here has the info, if it is relevant that is.
Flight time from Bagram to Al Makthoum is about 2,5 hrs iso 7, depending on the headwinds.
I'd guess 40 tons of blockfuel, 50 max. Even with a (partial-) load of say 80 tons, that would give a not at all heavy TOW of about 285 tons (max structural TOW = 396 tons). Does anyone know the load yet?
During rotation you normally aim for about 15 degr pitch attitude, and as soon as you get airborne follow the FD and shoot for V2 +10.
Initial pitch attitude out of a field elevation of ±5000' with this kind of weight (and derated) would be around 13 degr I would guess. With a full rated TO it would be higher, then the 16-17 degr you mention could be right.
Perhaps they don't use derated TO's for safety reasons there, I don't know. I've never been there and wouldn't mind if it stayed that way.
On the Classic we used to calculate the initial pitch attitude, but on the -400 you just go for 15 degr and then follow the FD. Couldn't find a table for it.
Perhaps someone here has the info, if it is relevant that is.
Last edited by Mariner; 1st May 2013 at 15:20. Reason: derated or full thrust t/o