Cargo Crash at Bagram
 

Without posting names, could someone please confirm the nationalities of the crewmembers?

Load shift is being reported..

A Boeing 747-400BCF cargo plane, operated by National Air Cargo, crashed on takeoff from Bagram Air Base (BPM), Afghanistan. A base spokesman said the aircraft crashed from a low altitude right after takeoff. A fire erupted. A local police chief reported that all crew members were killed in the crash.
Bagram Air Base has a single concrete runway, 03/21 of 11819 feet (3602 m) in length.
Reportedly N949CA operated into Bagram as flight NCR510 from
A thunderstorm with Cumulonimbus clouds was approaching the air base at the time of the accident.

Weather reported about the time of the accident (about 15:00 LT / 10:30 UTC):
KQSA 291155Z 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2996 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 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
KQSA 290955Z COR 10017G30KT 9999 SCT085 BKN140 BKN200 17/06 A2992 RMK PK WND 09032/0856 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT E SLP213 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD COR 13

With all due respect, rumours about load shifting on takeoff are just pure uneducated guessing.
Should rumour #1 (loss of altitude after takeoff) be true, load shifting is just one of several possible accident causes.

From AvHerald
 

So maybe not uneducated guessing....

I would not say "pure uneducated guessing". It is from a link reporting that as having being transmitted from the aircraft.

So being purely factual, it is either a mistake / misunderstanding that such a transmission was made or the transmission did occur and the person transmitting was either correct or not. In neither case does it seem 'pure uneducated guessing' - though whether it is an actual / contributary cause is another matter.

Eyewitness account from: the Loadstar » Breaking news: National Air Cargo crash at Bagram

"I witnessed this crash today and there was no Taliban involvement. I can tell you this for sure – the 747 took off and commenced a quite steep climb out, not unusual for here, then one of two things happened. In my opinion either the strong head wind or a micro up burst caused it to pitch upward at what looked to be at least 85deg. Nose up or the cargo shifted to the rear and caused it to nose up. It then did what all swept wing aircraft do in a stall and pitched left at about 1200 Ft AGL, then it seemed like the pilot tried to correct and it pitched right and headed for the ground just before impact. It looked like it had flattened out to nearly level but had very little or no forward speed – what followed was the ground shook, followed by a large ball of fire and a huge black cloud of smoke. I truly wish I had not seen this, but I did, and my prayers and thoughts go out to all involved – both on board and the family and loved ones of the crew and passengers."

A radio call itself is important as it implies the aviate and navigate have taken place and the problem still exists. Although the intrerpretation of load shift does not in itself confirm the problem other than the effect.

:uhoh:

The two most dangerous times in a flight: takeoff and landing.

I noted the METAR cited above: what are the chances that windshear may have been involved, or a wind shift? :confused:

EDIT:
The name of that company seemed familiar, now I remember. I think they were an element of one of the Op Plans I worked on in the 90's.

If the airplane was stalling, I doubt the PNF would have/take the time to make an r/t call to that effect.

Weather conditions that afternoon seem to have been prone to windshear.
However, the METAR does not show any TSRA until about 1200Z. At 1200Z there are CBs overhead, according to the METAR.
Accident time according to media reports was about 1500-1530 LT, which translates to 1030-1100Z.

Although the 1027Z METAR does report peak winds from 060 degrees at 26 knots at 1005Z and wind shift at 1027Z.

The accident was witnessed by a number of us on the ground. The National Air Cargo 747-400 took off and as is fairly usual with these crews entered a steeper than 'normal' climb.. this is often done here and referred to as a tactical departure.. we perform them so as to avoid close proximity to any ground based insurgents.. The pitch angle of the a/c was seen to increase beyond even what we normally witness until it could only be described as extreme.. the left wing was then seen to dip slightly before the role was countered followed by a role to the right causing the right wing to drop. The a/c appeared to be fully stalled with a wing drop at between 1000 and 1200 feet agl. The a/c then descended with the nose dropping and right wing low as it disappeared from view at a very low altitude. It's unlikely that the nose had any significant pitch down attitude at the time of impact. The a/c crashed within the confines of the airfield close to holding point Alfa.
The above is accurate and witnessed by most of our people on the ramp so can be easily verified. There was no insurgent activity and although the weather here is currently unstable with considerable thunderstorm activity the weather was not a factor in the accident. At the time of the crash there was no verticle activity close to the airport and the wind was moderate and steady.. we had landed shortly before with the wind at 090/14. (R03)
We have heard from airport sources that there were 8 people on board made up of the flight crew and load-masters.. I can't confirm this.. It has also been reported that a communication from the flightcrew shortly after take-off stated that they were having control problems. I can't confirm this either but it does seem possible.
The appearance of the flight profile did suggest that either a miscaculation had been made regarding the loading CofG/Weight or that part of the cargo had shifted during rotation. I'm stating this only to help describe the sequence of events as seen from the ground and not speculating.

Good factual reporting MugoP, thanks. This helps us better understand the circumstances.

Quote:
"The National Air Cargo 747-400 took off and as is fairly usual with these crews entered a steeper than 'normal' climb.. this is often done here and referred to as a tactical departure.. we perform them so as to avoid close proximity to any ground based insurgents.."

I understand what you're saying, I like to stay far away from the ground in Bagram as well but... Boeing does not have a procedure for this, nor does the B744 ACMI operator I fly for, I don't know what National's procedures are.

My point is, being with all the conjecture thus far, if there was some type of "tactical departure technique" being performed by the flight crew, it could very well be a contributing factor. Of course, more speculation.

Speculation of course.....

I fly for another 744 operator who goes to OAIX regularly and there is no such "tactical departure" in use by us at least......just a standard NADP-1 is adequate, with the possible exception of acceleration height being delayed until 4 or 5000 feet AGL.

from MungoP post

I take it then that the aircraft had not entered a stall when the radio call was made ?

Nor was there a crew report of a load shift ?

This might make a difference as whether the crew understood what was causing their problems?

of course it is speculation, but its educated, something a forum like this promotes. Of course there is such a thing as a "tactical departure", done it out of many runways in that area on many occasions, pakistan, iraq and lots of other war torn countries employ this manoeuvre! just because your company doesnt do it, doesn't mean "there is no such thing....." Load shift sounds like the most believable "speculation", especially after reading MungoP's post....

AFAIK, there's no "tactical departure" for the B744.

There is no way Boeing are going to publish "tactical departures" for civilian aircraft. It will be a company specific thing, if required or recommended, remaining within the flight envelope.

(Yes, have flown such arrivals and departures in civil aircraft).

no, there is no procedure in a 747-400.

Although it performs very well empty, with a load they are discussing, no way..

I think I am going to get some popcorn.

Guam, is it your position that each and every takeoff of a cargo carrying 747 is done at an operational limit?

I am not a freight hauler, at least no anymore, so I'd be interested in your explanation for your assertion.

Never flown the 747, but surely a V2 (or V2+10) climb, possibly with higher acceleration height and maybe no de-rate, would be within SOPs?

That would probably look like a 'tactical' initial climb to onlookers.

Consider some standard performance metrics:

Best rate of climb
Best angle of climb

Are either of these done near a critical AoA? :confused:

Magnus post is about the only post in this thread that has shed any light.

Apologies to all for adding to the chaffe.

Today is a sad day for aviation, and specially for cargo brothers. All that for a crappy pay check.
The so called, "Tactical departure" and here I am just assuming, must be climb as high as possible, as fast as possible.
If it was load shifting, which it is possible, but the plane had at least one Load Master and US soldiers as loaders, who, and here I am assuming again, checked everything loaded to be in order. That doesn't exclude the possibility, during climb, one or more pallets to snap off and induce a roller coaster effect.
If it was a microburst, it must have been a darn huge one to crash a B 747. I am assuming again, a microburst would have been seen from the ground too, being a very dusty and sandy place. After all we are talking Afghanistan here, which is not the greenest place on the planet.
So, until, some official reports will be out, everything else is just speculation. Personal I incline toward load shifting, due to stress on the load during a steeper turn and climb.

Cargo Crash at Bagram
 

Just curious. Who would do the investigation of a civilian aircraft accident at a US military facility in a hostile country. Would it still be the NTSB?

In 2004 a Korean Airlines Cargo 747-400F in Oslo, Norway was loaded incorrectly and began its takeoff roll with a CG of 37.8% MAC. Thus being loaded 4.8% past the aft limit of 33% MAC.

The aircraft began to autorotate at 120 (KCAS) and thanks to the commander immediately suspecting a load error, the appropriate action was taken. However, nose attitude reached 19 degrees before sufficient downwards stab trim hab been applied.

Once in the air they contacted KAL operations through SATCOM and determined they could improve the situation by shifting a few pallets in the air. FO and relief FO proceded to shift a few pallets and the flight continued to Seoul.

Aircraft ended up landing with CG 7.2% aft of the limit.

When taking into consideration a possible rapid and extreme load shift far aft of the limit, it becomes evident that even with quick crew action the situation could become irrecoverable.

I am a 744 driver and have been into all the big US bases in Afghanistan. Our company procedures is a standard NADP-1 departure profile. There is no "tactical" departure in a 744 except maybe to turn early but everyone does the same thing. Personally I try to keep it at 250 or whatever we need operationally all the way through FL 180 before accelerating just to get above the service ceiling of the more expensive MANPADS but most of the bad guys don't have that kind of $$$.

There is no tactical dep procedure for a B744. Maybe the military aircraft use one in OAIX. Just a standard NADP1.

off thread
 

B-HKD

... actually 58kts the nose wheel was off the ground. Aircraft was actually airborne at 120kts. On taxy to the runway the NLG WOG was intermittently air mode. The guys were the luckiest pilots on the planet.

FWIW, the Cm of the flaps is beneficial with an aft cg, MLG retraction is slightly beneficial. burning off the CWT may be wonderful for WBM structural considerations but guarantees the cg shifts aft. The arrival of that aircraft resulted in it departing the edge of the runway, however that is open to interpretation as the NLG was about 3' in the air, over the grass, but the MLG was on the concrete.

Had the AP disconnected in the cruise flight the aircraft probably would have been lost, as even with the AP engaged it exhibited longitudinal instability, and the elevator dP was rapidly cycling as was the elevator TE position in smooth air.

Not the first time, won't be the last time. Loading systems have many opportunities for variation from the expected process due to human ingenuity. A control problem close to the ground is a critical and generally untrained event. The opportunities for crosschecking are limited and need vigilance. I have bene caught out on the same type where 6.5T of cargo bound for the aft cargo comp went into the fwd comp, and we got to see the end of the runway up close and personal, took an extra 3000' of runway to get a rotate in, ended up with a part flap landing and full manual stab trip and still out of trim. Nowhere near as dangerous as the opposite case which appears to be a likely condition at Bagram.

lonewolf.

absolutely! it doesn't matter what is in the back, I operate the aircraft the same as it would with any load, it is all weight, that's it, OAIX or not. except horses.

what would you like to know?

Spread da Aloha, yes I agree with you 100%, and yes occasionally we will speed intervene with input programmed in the MCDU for 250/180, without it, it still makes the turn left off of rwy 3, it drags around that turn but does just fine. The extra climb to 180 helps the controllers feel good about changing you to Kabul and sending you on you way with a few vectors before proceeding to you clearance point.

there is enough room in that valley to make the turn without anything other NADP-1

that's enough of this tactical thing....

Typically the NTSB providing that protections can be assured. Depends on the circumstances.

How hostile, how willing is the countries government etc.?. Sometimes only a single designated rep to report back on the findings.

Incorrect stab trim?.
 

I operate 744, as well as out of Bagram. We ( not National btw ) use a Close-in Noise Abatement procedure. V2 ( to V2+10 ) until 3000' AGL. The pitch may be around 15-17 degrees ( as I recall ). We are usually light, as we have ( in the past ) carried more "in" than "out". With the reduction of force, maybe the load factors are shifting in the other direction ( no pun intended ).
Other than a load shift ( you don't need an aggressive pitch to shift rolling stock ), I am thinking an improperly set stabilizer. Weather looked good ( as per picture taken shortly afterwards in Cargo forum ) to me,and what was described by the witnesses seems to be "a classic" stall to me.
Incorrect stab trim setting, load shift, or some flt control malfunction.

Just another PPRUNE reader, saddened at the loss of fellow aviators, guessing and trying to make sense of a tragedy.

microburst
 

The 1982 727 accident report at page 12 indicates that a Cessna Citation crew considered the weather unacceptable and chose a more suitable runway for take-off. The accident aircraft crew was satisfied with the radar returns.

There was less concern with windshear in those days, but that lower understanding is no longer an issue. Nobody think that heavy metal is immune from the full affect of microbursts and windshear.

The reason for the 747 accident is yet to be determined, but no pilot can ignore the lessons of the past unless they are content to risk repeating them.

Looking down on the impact signature this morning it would appear that the a/c impacted the ground in an almost completely flat attitude.
Looking over the wreckage it could be seen that the cargo included at least 6 MRAPS (Mine resistant Ambush Proof) Vehicles.. these are large heavily armoured personnel carriers weighing up to around 25000 lb each.

As for all the discussion regarding 'tactical' departures, not being a 747 pilot I'm not qualified to comment other than to say that from our vantage point on the ground it does appear that some departing 'heavies' adopt a noticably higher pitch attitude on departure compared to what we see on typical pax flights at airfields around the world.... we carry out similar profiles when departing from 'sensitive' airfields located close to high ground where insurgents can gain a good vantage point. Also we adopt 'tactical' arrivals which involve arriving overhead at 6000ft agl, flaps approach, gear down then tight spiral (45deg) descent at gear limiting speed.. this keeps us within the confines of small airfields. No manufacturer is going to publish numbers for this type of operation and aircraft are ultimately at the disposal of the crew.

Tactical departures for large a/c were commonly practiced at Baghdad and to the best of my knowledge the A330 that took a hit on departure was not following the recommended 'tactical' departure.

I don't pretend to know the details of that one and would be interested to get the correct story.

I believe it was an A300 that took an RPG to the wing in Baghdad. But thank you for the info.

From your witness statement, I'm expecting "load shift" as being down on the cause in the final report.

The higher than usual rate of climb or pitch on a 747 out of Bagram could be that we usually are quite empty out and heavy in. With 230 some tons take off weight it tends to climb a bit better than when heavy.

Does the 744F have the required restraint points to secure this type of heavy wheeled/tracked load? If I recall, the rules (that I worked to in UK MoD) say you would apply sufficient restraint to cope with a 4G acceleration forward, 3G aft etc.

If the load was secured correctly, it should probably still be restrained to the floor of the crashed aircraft.

Sounds like the type of load that should be in a C5 or C17 where all the tools needed to apply that are available as a/c role equipment.

These jets tend to operate with a palletised 'flat' floor, all locked in with conventional lower deck type restrain systems. from what I have seen Hummers etc are just driven on and moved into position and restrained to the pallets with 5000lb (usually) restraint devices (strops). Its all rule of thumb stuff really. Interestingly the C17's the RAF were using into MALI with French wheeled APC's, the French Government were using 747F's to move the same out of OAKB - again main deck loads using transfer loaders. Just goes to prove that the routine can jump up and bite. Sad day for the cargo community.