Well, not exactly, because the American Air Force Base is treated as "sovereign territory" type real estate, much in the same protocol as foreign embassies are. Afghan authorities may enter by invitation only. 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? |
US military bases in a foreign country are in no sense "sovereign territory", regardless of where those bases may be. Bagram is no exception.
|
Originally Posted by janeczku
Well they are out of the picture, all right. But that is just because they happen to be a country occupied by american forces and have no say in anything, so...
Keep your toxic anti-US and wildly incorrect political BS out of this thread :mad: Back on topic: The NTSB will surely have some input in this investigation. Does the Afghanistan Government even have the facility for such an investigation? |
Stall and Roll
Until the mid 80's, the CAA required full stalls during air tests (they changed their policy due to the severe buffet during clean stalls). I was involved in several of these tests, and carried out many full stalls on the 747. On no occasion did I see the slightest hint of a wing drop during the stall or recovery. The ailerons were effective right down to the stall. We always kept our feet away from the rudder pedals as we were told that any rudder input would cause a rapid roll. Trim Runaway. I have never heard of a trim runaway on a 744. If it did happen, it is easily dealt with. Loading Error Loading can be much more critical on a freighter than on a passenger aircraft. When I flew the 744F, all of the crews were very pedantic about checking the loading of the aircraft and the trim calculations. There are so many safeguards, both manual and electronic, that the holes in the swiss cheese really would have to have lined up on that day Raising the Gear The first thing that happens when the gear is selected up is that all of the gear doors open, causing increased drag. The last thing that the crew would want is increased drag if the aircraft was stalling so would have left the gear down. It would have been very confusing, with the stick shake and pre-stall buffet. Load Shift With the low fuel load to Dubai the CofG would have been very close to the aft limit. It would only take a small aft movement of a heavy pallet to render the aircraft uncontrollable. RNAS Portland used to allow us to carry out our stalls in their danger area so as to ensure clear airspace. If anyone was at HMS Osprey on 3rd August 1983, could you please PM me. |
Please guys... Stop the drivel about stall, spin etc... Rudder here, rudder there, increase/decrease thrust bla bla bla.. If you end up with 80 degree nose up at 1200 ft in a 747 you are dead. No matter what you do. The only one making claims in the basis of made up 'evidence' is you in the last few pages. Me thinks the lady doth protest to much. LW50, I don't think it had time to fully develop into a spin but it's my belief that a big rudder input with a stalled wing made the aircraft roll over like that. It was a heck of a lot of yaw. |
Last I checked, Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Most if not ALL NATO nations have a presence there, including Germany. Keep your toxic anti-U and wildly incorrect political BS out of this thread And - as i already said - the authority over the investigation is with the Afghans and NTSB knows it! Quote NTSB press release: The Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation is leading the investigation and will be the sole source of information regarding the investigation. |
Descent Rate
The video shows a time of perhaps 7 seconds from when the aircraft began descending until impact. Assuming peak altitude of 1200 feet agl, that makes the descent rate >10,000 fpm.:eek:
|
That's quite a rate. The word "brick" comes to mind :sad:
|
Yes, but doesn't that presuppose that the video caught the decent in its entirety?
|
Airclues:
I was involved in several of these tests, and carried out many full stalls on the 747. On no occasion did I see the slightest hint of a wing drop during the stall or recovery. The ailerons were effective right down to the stall. We always kept our feet away from the rudder pedals as we were told that any rudder input would cause a rapid roll. Much obliged, gentlemen. *tips cap* Enter guesswork here: with Airclues' point in mind, and considering pilots trying to make the aircraft respond (this don't work, that don't work, the other don't work, try this ... ) some chance of a right rudder input made (in desperation ... never give up ... try to make it fly ... get nose down) thus the right wing drop. And maybe not. |
FullWings
Cutting the engine power might possibly have helped slightly but who's to know? |
Please guys... Stop the drivel about stall, spin etc... Rudder here, rudder there, increase/decrease thrust bla bla bla.. If you end up with 80 degree nose up at 1200 ft in a 747 you are dead. No matter what you do. This. |
I have an intuitition that they reduced their thrust the last seconds before the fully developed stall. Its an intuitition only, trying to get desperately a little nose down pitching moment. Who knows. FDR will prove. Thrust was REDUCED? The airplane is falling out of the sky and the crew REDUCED thrust? Right. Congratulations. This qualifies for the most ridiculous statement in this thread. :sad: |
This qualifies for the most ridiculous statement in this thread. |
notadog
What attitude is this? Why it is ridiculus. I am talking for the seconds before the fully developed stall not while falling and I said, intuition not something for granted. (but who cares? I am not NTSB, just having some nice talk!) This type of approaching accidents and hindsight is not the correct approach. We have no idea what this crew had in mind. I am not blaming the crew of 747, but thinking of stability and that those engines are below the line of CG, you could understand what I wanted to say with this. Dont forget, no one could believe before that they could stall it at cruise flight level (AF447). No I dont have thousands of hrs on 747s. |
Speed, altitude, ideas. Pick two... Sadly, not much of any available in this case.
Notadog, I'm sure you're aware that while reducing thrust is counter intuitive, it remains a [jointly developed] standard Airbus/Boeing recovery technique. Let's wait for the analysis and not half baked intuition. |
Just adding, from Boeings AERO magazine, Upsets.
I paste here the important aspects. NOSE HIGH, WINGS LEVEL. In a situation where the airplane pitch attitude is unintentionally more than 25 degrees nose high and increasing, the kinetic energy (airspeed) is decreasing rapidly. According to the energy management discussed earlier, the energy is actually being stored as potential energy. As airspeed decreases, the pilot's ability to maneuver the airplane also decreases. If the stabilizer trim setting is nose up, as for slow-speed flight, it partially reduces the nose-down authority of the elevator. Further complicating this situation, as the airspeed decreases, the pilot could intuitively make a large thrust increase. This will cause an additional pitch up for underwing-mounted engines. At full thrust settings and very low airspeeds, the elevator -- working in opposition to the stabilizer -- will have limited control to reduce the pitch attitude. If normal pitch control inputs do not stop an increasing pitch rate, rolling the airplane to a bank angle that starts the nose down should work. Bank angles of about 45 degrees, up to a maximum of 60 degrees, could be needed. Unloading the wing by maintaining continuous nose-down elevator pressure will keep the wing angle of attack as low as possible, making the normal roll controls as effective as possible. With airspeed as low as stick shaker onset, normal roll controls -- up to full deflection of ailerons and spoilers -- may be used. The rolling maneuver changes the pitch rate into a turning maneuver, allowing the pitch to decrease. Finally, if normal pitch control then roll control is ineffective, careful rudder input in the direction of the desired roll may be required to induce a rolling maneuver for recovery. Only a small amount of rudder is needed. Too much rudder applied too quickly or held too long may result in loss of lateral and directional control. Because of the low energy condition, pilots should exercise caution when applying rudder. The reduced pitch attitude will allow airspeed to increase, thereby improving elevator and aileron control effectiveness. After the pitch attitude and airspeed return to a desired range the pilot can reduce angle of bank with normal lateral flight controls and return the airplane to normal flight. Aerodynamic Principles of Large-Airplane Upsets |
Notadog, I'm sure you're aware that while reducing thrust is counter intuitive, it remains a [jointly developed] standard Airbus/Boeing recovery technique. |
If you end up with 80 degree nose up at 1200 ft in a 747 you are dead. No matter what you do. "If you stall at 1200 ft in a 747 you are dead" is tough to argue against. Time and altitude for recovery probably not available. I don't see where "80 degrees nose up" comes from, in this event, based on what evidence is available. Lantirn: The reduced pitch attitude will allow airspeed to increase, thereby improving elevator and aileron control effectiveness. After the pitch attitude and airspeed return to a desired range the pilot can reduce angle of bank with normal lateral flight controls and return the airplane to normal flight. |
Why it is ridiculus. I am talking for the seconds before the fully developed stall not while falling and I said, intuition not something for granted. Have you ever actually flown a heavy transport category jet airplane? You do realize that the excerpt you posted refers to upsets at high altitude, not at 1000', right? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.