Are you serious?!

Can you please tell me how pushing forward with the C of G barreling towards the back galley and the airspeed dropping off like the proverbial lead balloon with control surface authority disappearing at the same rate, is going to get the nose down?

I'm not trying to be smart. I just fail to understand your logic.

notadog, what I got from his post was he'd push forward, reduce power, the nose should (may?) have dropped, but he'd be dead anyway due to running out of altitude while trying to recover, as the mishap crew did.

Farrell, what I think he's getting as is pitch reduction by power reduction, since there appears to be a consensus that any pilot in that situation will already be pushing forward on the yoke to get as much pitch authority as is available.
I may be reading something into this that he didn't mean.
As noted before, reducing power at that time and place in the take off might also contribute to a losing airspeed, so you're in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, still falling ...

(I am not sure what pitch trim augmentation or assist might be available in such a situation, and his post didn't seem to address it).

Quote:
This occurred on a military base, so the Afghans are out of the investigative picture, I'm told. Let the NTSB review the evidence and announce the cause.
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...

Other than that, the international law is pretty clear here:
The accident occured within Afghan airspace/territory.
Furthermore this was a civil aircraft and not a military/state aircraft.
The investigation is therefore under the authority of the Afghans - read Art. 26 Chicago Convention.

In the unlikely case that an Afghan investigator should show up at the gates of Bagram airbase, they would have to let him in to do his job.
Last edited by janeczku; 2nd May 2013 at 06:10.

Reply:

If reports are true, the Afghans have stated they will not investigate. In any case, the NTSB would have a major role, regardless of the Chicago Convention. Afghanistan these days is about as Third World as it gets.

I think, given the state of the country (see above sentence), the NTSB folks will fly into Bagram AFB directly. Getting through the gate to investigate a CRAF aircraft accident on a military base would be a non-issue, especially if they are already "inside the wire" to be housed in transient quarters.

And the flap would attempt to lower the nose, the slat lower the stall speed and the reduction in thrust to lower the nose.

And yes I'm serious, pushing forward should lower the nose! Past the aft limit, at rotation they'd have needed to push forward.

I do not believe in any aircraft the stall procedure is not a memory item. Utter crap.

Lonewolf...

I dunno. Maybe.
Thing is, I get a lot of ATPL holders with a TR who got through the exams with a Question Bank DVD and the six months of trial and error until the whole thing is memorized.

I'm not saying that this is the case here, but it's showing up all over this forum of late. Answers are known, but the 'why' and 'how" are not there.
Neither is there any appreciation of external factors including moments, vectors, lines of force etc.
It seems common even for some to see the aircraft as the whole situation, rather than it being one item in a fluid environment. Kind of like the tortoise and the hare analogy equated to say, engine spool-up racing against the line of force of a moving cargo palette. Who will win?

The most powerful questions I have in my interview arsenal are "how?" and "why?".
You'd be astonished at the number of blank expressions and periods of silence I get.

"Children of the magenta line" was what one pilot called them :)

All that being said, I'm sure "WhyByFlier" has his head screwed on, though.

WhyBy, if the slats deploy and reduce the stall speed, but you are already stalled, you still need time (altitude) for that change to help your corrective action. Someone previously mentioned inertia. Time is/was in short supply.

411 hit on a good point, which I think is embedded in the term "upset" as applied to this mishap. Somewhere in and around vref, rotation, lift off, and initial climb, control of pitch wasn't as expected/normal.
Very brief window of time to salvage this upset, if it can be.
That last is not yet known. If the load moved (or for some other reason CG got/was too far aft) this may not have been salvageable despite anyone's most perfect efforts.

Lantirn: "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."

You nailed it in the first sentence...and then went downhill afterwards...rapidly.

Funny, I believed I could stall at flight levels BEFORE AF447.

I do have thousands of hours and years in the 747. There is very little pitch up moment as a result of increasing thrust in the 747...unlike some other four engine airplanes I have flown. Under those circumstances (from my present perspective in watching the video), I would not have reduced thrust.

It should unless there was damage to the airplane that prevented the controls from functioning normally. Where do you suppose a 25,000 pound MRAP would be going if it broke loose? Why do you suppose the crew of this flight apparently couldn't get the nose down?

Your choice to believe what you wish. Perhaps it is a training item and not a QRH item?

WhyByFlier,

I wonder at how effective the controls would be in the latter stages of this incident. When the aircraft is rolled over on to its' straboard side would the fin have more effect in laterally levelling the aircraft than the ailerons and increase the forces to rotate the nose downwards, for instance.

Obviously sweep back of the main wings will help as well. It is very difficult to understand what the forward velocity component is.

Lonewolf_50...

It may very well be that there was no pitch control available to the crew.

Some here are assuming that the airplane was controllable in pitch, and that the nose could be lowered normally by a combination of pitch/thrust. That may not be the case.

back on topic a little...
 

As to whom have experience in cargo and the 744 in question...

• how many would have been on the flight deck and who apart from the pilots (loadmasters for example jumpseat or cabin rear for example)?
• How much time would have passed from V1-VR to say the moment the aircraft was first captured in the video(probably seconds, but how many +-)

Regards

You're right of course.

Anyway I'd suggest that as they'd just got airborne then the flaps and slats would be partly deployed already, increasing the flap setting, in the absence of any other available action, merely deepens the stall and requires a larger pitch change to get unfu**ed.

b263354,

I reckon that we are unable to see approximately four seconds from when the aircraft left the runway.

Based on what exactly?

Metar for KQSA, a bit of a guess at the load mass (70 to 80 tonnes) with a full fuel load and Boeings 747-400 operating procedures.

Then assuming that 1200' is the altitude agl the aircraft reached plus a stop watch.

So a fair few assumptions then...
-------------

KQSA 291155Z COR 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2990 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD 60000 70000 51014=
KQSA 291059Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN065 BKN090 14/05 A2993 RMK WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291058Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN080CB BKN150 14/05 A2993 RMK LTG DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=
KQSA 291055Z 02007KT 9999 FEW040 BKN080CB BKN150 18/06 A2994 RMK PK WND 06026/1005 WSHFT 1027 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD=

in a vain attempt to get the thread back on track
 

so if the cargo had already flown one sector and was checked on the ground in Bagram this would indicate that it was something other than just poor loading that would have caused the alleged cargo shift. I wonder if the cargo ripped out the fixing points on the fuselage.

STN Ramp Rat,

The fact that the aircraft had already flown loaded, and was stopping at Bagram to take on fuel had not eluded me either.

Perhaps an element of the MRAP cargo failed, (eg an axle collapsed, unlikely I realise), that then lead to abnormal forces on other loading points and a movement of part of the cargo outside the C of G envelope.

No, of course in this instance (and all swept wing airliner take offs bar the 767 under certain circumstances I believe????) slats would already be extended. My point was, if the nose wouldn't go down through all the pushing and thrust reduction then I would consider extending flaps further as there effect is to lower the nose. I appreciate it also lowers the Alpha at which stall happens but if the nose won't go down it's something I'd try - at least to this day - with further thought, study and discussion, in the future I may not! It'd probably be as fruitless as rolling it to get the nose to drop at this height.

Wow! Having read your posts, suffered through your arrogance, and now wittnessed your vast array of type ratings, coupled with your vast experience that exceeds by far that of everyone else on the forum, together with your USA origin, and the glow from your literally awe inpiring wisdom I can only conclude that you must be a full fledged Deltoid. Sorry, I know I shouldn't "profile" others but yours is so obvious I just couldn't resist.

Thank you for allowing the rest of us to worship at your feet. I will now return to doing so in respectful silence.

PS: Here's a tip for you free of charge:

You should know that for most professional airmen pomposity is not highly regarded. In fact it's down right tacky.