Cargo Crash at Bagram

[Zeffy]

PressTV - Civilian cargo plane crashes in US air base in E Afghanistan (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/29/300892/cargo-plane-crashes-in-e-afghanistan/)

[tubby linton]

Crash: National Air Cargo B744 at Bagram on Apr 29th 2013, lost height shortly after takeoff (http://avherald.com/h?article=46183bb4&opt=0)

[Kim Jong Il]

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

[direct ortac]

Load shift is being reported..

[wrecker]

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

[Safe-T]

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.

[KarlADrage]

According to a listener on frequency the crew reported the aircraft stalled due to a possible load shift.

So maybe not uneducated guessing....

[NigelOnDraft]

rumours about load shifting on takeoff are just pure 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.

[Lous Cyphre]

Eyewitness account from: the Loadstar » Breaking news: National Air Cargo crash at Bagram (http://theloadstar.co.uk/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."

[lomapaseo]

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.

[Lonewolf_50]

: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.

National Air Cargo Group, Inc. dba National Airlines is a Part 121 carrier and member of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) specializing in time-sensitive and heavy-lift domestic and international cargo solutions.

[Safe-T]

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

[Safe-T]

what are the chances that windshear may have been involved

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.

[MungoP]

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.

[Safe-T]

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

[service monkey]

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.

[RandomPerson8008]

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.

[lomapaseo]

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?

[fly1981]

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.

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....

[service monkey]

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

[parabellum]

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).

[Guam360]

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

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

[Lonewolf_50]

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.

[AtomKraft]

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.

[Lonewolf_50]

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.

[countbat]

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.

[Flightmech]

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?

[B-HKD]

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.

[Spread da Aloha]

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 $$$.

[hectopascal]

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

[fdr]

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. 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.

[Guam360]

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....

[lomapaseo]

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?

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.

[FirstStep]

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.

[autoflight]

The 1982 727 accident report (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR83-02.pdf) 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.

[MungoP]

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.

[LiveryMan]

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.

[747JJ]

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.

[Wycombe]

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.

[rolandpull]

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.

[Wycombe]

Thanks Roland, I've seen lighter vehicles (Land Rovers and the like) loaded onto a palletised flat floor, but as the pallet restraint itself is (IIRC) rated to only 10k lbs in most a/c, that doesn't sound like the "belt and braces" restraint you would see applied to these types of heavy items on a mil. freighter (at least one operated by a NATO air arm).

[Lonewolf_50]

Guam, your reply left me somewhat puzzled.
Guam, is it your position that each and every takeoff of a cargo carrying 747 is done at an operational limit?

Your Reply: Absolutely!

OK, I'll ask a different way: what operational limit is the standard departure?

Your explanation that you use a standard departure is understood.

EDIT: I got a few insights in this thread (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/513318-best-angle-best-rate-departure.html) at tech log. I also noted from someone above that there's ample room on departure.

[Guam360]

Lonewolf, what's your question and point?

I commented on plenty of area to depart normally without any special maneuvers.
your curiosities and questions must have all been met here from all the excellent posts by all that have added to this thread.
we operate NADP 2 and 1. 2 being standard. 1 would be a good choice in OAIX.


The loading issues are never rule of thumb, the MRAPS require a minimum of 70 straps per unit, the pallet config is standard military, adjusted from a civilian config.

[SMT Member]

Tactical departures for large a/c were commonly practiced at Baghdad and to the best of my knowledge the A300* that took a hit on departure was not following the recommended 'tactical' departure.The crew did follow the recommend procedure on that flight. They were alternating between spiralling and straight ahead arrivals/departures. In this case they performed a straight ahead departure, basically a max. thrust V2+10 climb to 10K. Sods law had the insurgents at the right time at the right place.

*Corrected from A330

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.A factory built 744F has a restraint system on the main-deck capable of securing 20ft pallets weighing up to 28.757kg (63.400lbs) each. This is using the locks installed on the floor only; no additional restraints required. Depending on the operator and their willingness to adopt a somewhat creative interpretation of the Boeing WBM, it is possible to do floating positions, whereby additional weight may be carried provided additional restraints are used (e.g. straps).

When following such a procedure, there are two different schools of thought. One will have you using additional straps only to secure any weight above published max, e.g. you're loading 15 tons on a position rated for 10 and use additional straps for the extra 5 tons only. The other thought, which is the one I've been brought up on and have always followed, tells you to use straps to secure the full load of the cargo (i.e. all 15 tons in the previous example), and to consider any fixed restraints (locks) as "nice to have" only.

If, however, you are placing your load without using ULDs, the WBM manual will provide you with very detailed, and also quite complicated, instructions on how to place straps, at what angle to the floor, and at which floor stations. That section of the WBM manual alone cover some 50-odd pages, and it's very difficult to access unless you have a lot of time on your hand - and time is a precious commodity in the airfreight business.

Regardless, straps and locks can fail - particularly if not engaged/installed correctly.

[Agaricus bisporus]

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 –

From post No.9

A perfect example of an apparently aviation aware eyewitness report that is utterly devoid of meaning...

Do all swept wing aircraft "pitch" left at 1200ft in a stall? I didn't know that.
But they can apparently "pitch" right too. Fascinating!
It seemed like the pilot tried, did it? Funny thing for him to do but without being on the flight deck how could you possibly know?
It headed for the ground just before impact! Crikey! What was it doing until then? Stalling horizontally while "pitching" left and right?

No wonder the meeja write such nonsense if they have to base it on incoherent drivel like this!

[Captain-Random]

Don't know if the video footage has been posted before...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c32_1367332518

[B-HKD]

You can fit 6 MRAPs on a -400BDSF (same as aircraft involved in accident) with clever use of available floor space. Some operators will load 5 others 6.

Considering a MRAP weighs upwards of 25000lbs / 12000kgs one breaking loose and sliding aft on its pallet could result in a disastrous CG aft of limit condition.

Look closely at the video, 22 second mark. Landing gear is definitely extended.

Latest info is that the aircraft was loaded with 5 MRAPS and crew reported possible load **** after takeoff.

[FirstStep]

I think the "poster" in question did a great job in bringing us an "eyewitness" account of what (he/she) saw.
I think we can all agree that it wasn't a perfect example of analytical observation, devoid of injecture. ( is that a new word?). He brought us just an eye-witness account. I am grateful. How many accidents have to be pieced together from fields of scattered parts and recorders?. Without him we would be filling post after post with conjecture about Taliban involvement, ect.
I guess what I am saying is that I ( maybe it is an acquired skill ) can read past part of his post on "see" what he was seeing, and not have to condemn him or his post.
Service member, or contractor, He is over "there", and I am safe here in Miami ;). I am grateful for him AND his post.

[E_S_P]

Nicely said Firststep :ok:

[ironbutt57]

watching the rather pronounced yaw to the right, one wonders if they were trying to induce a roll to lower the nose as is taught in nose high upset recovery training...

[fireflybob]

National Air Cargo B744 at Bagram on Apr 29th 2013 (http://avherald.com/h?article=46183bb4&opt=0)

[Lonewolf_50]

Guam
Lonewolf, what's your question and point?
After digging a bit more, the answer to my question looks to be "no, you don't use an operational limit." No big deal. As I mulled over the standard procedures you replied with, I better understand the typical departure under discussion for this mission.
we operate NADP 2 and 1. 2 being standard. 1 would be a good choice in OAIX.
Not sure who "we" is but it doesn't matter. Thanks to our brief discussion, I dug up some standard Boeing procedures that look to be universally applicable. Learned something new today. :ok: Thank you for your patience. :ok:
The loading issues are never rule of thumb, the MRAPS require a minimum of 70 straps per unit, the pallet config is standard military, adjusted from a civilian config.
Thanks for that as well. :)
EDIT: SMT, thank you for the explanation on the loading. :ok:

[Magplug]

As a fellow skipper my heart goes out to these guys.

In the same position I would be VERY keen to get out of SAM engagement territory. It is just possible they were rather too enthusiastic with the pitch and precipitated a situation that was irrecoverable.

[SloppyJoe]

Fellow skipper of what? Do you seriously think a professional crew in a 747 pitched up too far, in VMC, and stalled because they were too eager to get away from the ground? So you are claiming these guys, who you do not know, were absolutely incompetent? Please think before you post about something you obviously know nothing about, operating large aircraft.

[PJ2]

I see the gear was still down at impact. That could mean that they experienced the problem early, (shortly after rotation) and were concentrating on control.

[bubbers44]

A DC8 out of MIA experienced a load shift and crashed shortly after take off. Seems like that crash would have prevented a crash like this. There is not much data yet on this crash so hopefully the cause will not be repeated.

[rog747]

the landing gear is still down at impact.

just my own obs below...

whatever event(s) that caused the extremely high AOA bringing on the subsequent stall would likely to have occurred very soon after leaving the ground giving no time for the crew to make the normal timely retraction of the gear after a pos rate of climb call.

by impact point the gear would have normally started to clearly retract had everything been OK straight after leaving the ground...

yes/no?

the other scenario for gear down still was planning for cooling the brakes of course

edit pj2 posted same as me above

[despegue]

On some types, lowering the gear has an effect on your pitch. Is this the case on B744? Could the crew have lowered the gear again in an attempt to lower the nose and aoa?

[tubby linton]

Perhaps both pilots were both trying so hard to push the yoke through the instrument panel to stop the nose rising they didn't have a spare hand to raise the gear.

[notadog]

whatever event(s) that caused the extremely high AOA bringing on the subsequent stall would likely to have occurred very soon after leaving the ground giving no time for the crew to make the normal timely retraction of the gear after a pos rate of climb call.

by impact point the gear would have normally started to clearly retract had everything been OK straight after leaving the ground...


Brilliant observation.

Are there any actual flight crewmembers left on this forum?

[notadog]

On some types, lowering the gear has an effect on your pitch. Is this the case on B744? Could the crew have lowered the gear again in an attempt to lower the nose and aoa?

No and no.

[archae86]

Would it still be the NTSB?
A post under John Croft's name on the Aviation Week blog states that The U.S. NTSB has sent a team of four investigators to help the Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation investigate the accident.

[s_bakmeijer]

:mad:for those who missed it. previous link wasnt working for me, found a different link
RAW FOOTAGE National Airlines 747-400 Plane Crash - Apr 29, 2013 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/FhSphWBWdoE)

[VFD]

I see the gear was still down at impact. That could mean that they experienced the problem early, (shortly after rotation) and were concentrating on control
From my view it looks like they are re-extending the gear. It is hard to tell around the 21-22 second mark whether the camera frame speed is making the gear look half extended or if the gear is actually extended.

Short of a load shift/CG problem the only other possibility would be runaway trim/incorrect trim.

I have watched the video several times and still sit here trying to mentally hold the damn plane up in the air until they get control.
Tough to watch.

[toffeez]

The internet is full of plane, car, bus crashes for children to look at.

[Oval3Holer]

VFD, extending the gear after it had been selected UP would be the last thing on any pilot's mind at that point nor is it a procedure to ever do anything on takeoff with the gear except to retract it.

If a load shift caused this crash it probably happened as the aircraft rotated and left the ground. At that point the nose would have continued to rise beyond the 11-1/2 to 12 degrees of normal pitch and at a much more rapid rate of pitch increase than is normal.

The PF would have attempted to arrest the increasing pitch rate and increasing pitch attitude with as much forward pressure on the yoke as he could muster as well as applying nose-down trim.

Most likely, the PNF would immediately also help by trying to push the nose down and possibly applying nose-down trim as well.

There would have been no time, no free hand and no thought of extending the gear in this tragic and preventable situation.

These guys were fighting to get the nose down and avoid stalling the aircraft. It looks like they tried valiantly.

[Flightmech]

I pity the investigator who has to listen to the CVR once it's located and subject to it being usable. Very harrowing video.

[mickjoebill]

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.

Looking at the youtube clip (that does not have the graphics on screen which obscure the first 5 seconds) it appears to me that the right wing dropped ahead of the above description. Note that windscreens can distort the image and create subtle anomalies.

RAW FOOTAGE National Airlines 747-400 Plane Crash - Apr 29, 2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSphWBWdoE&feature=youtu.be)

What was the rate of descent on impact?

[grounded27]

High AOA, one wing starts to stall 2nd stalls hard. Loadshift makes sense. Only the DFDR will tell if there was a pitch over command to fight an un controllable stall due to load given the high aoa.

I remember FineAir Miami, drug the tail prior to rotation due to load shift and went in tail first. on a DC8 you can not walk the deck to do a lock inspection, the 744 is quite different

[B-HKD]

Small picture, but its the only one I could find showing the MRAP locked and strapped into position.

As previously mentioned, they use upwards of 70 straps for each MRAP.

To my knowledge World was the only operator that after some clever thinking managed 6 MRAPs per -400BDSF.

And as confirmed previously, the aircraft involved in the accident was carrying 5.

Picture below is of a atlas -200F

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/features/news/1007_oshkosh_m_atv_military_vehicle_afghanistan/27933659+w250+st0/1007_09+oshkosh_m-ATV_military_vehicle+in_an_atlas_747.jpg

[PJ2]

Lurking;

Re, "I was wondering if a video like that is of actual use in the investigation, or would it just roughly corroborate"

Video is always helpful in an investigation. But how helpful in this accident depends upon the condition of the flight recorders, (DFDR & CVR) and also if all the required parameters were functioning correctly.

[PJ2]

grounded27;

Re, "on a DC8 you can not walk the deck to do a lock inspection, the 744 is quite different "

Yes, I used to fly freight on the DC8 and was always wary of the locks. Even on passenger a/c, the load sheet would verify that 'all locks were up', meaning boarded pallets couldnt' slide fore or aft in the non-occupied positions.

I wasn't aware though that one could inspect the locks on a B744...is that the case?

[Guam360]

yes it's true, even more so on the military config, there is about a two space laterally down the center. a person can walk the entire length of the ship and see all the locks.

[parabellum]

On the B744 freighters I flew, (pure freighter, not BCF), it was possible, in most cases, to walk down the port side of the a/c and look at the cargo carried.

[Mariner]

You can walk around the freight on the main deck of a 744F/BCF, depending a bit on the size of the pallets. I'm pretty skinny and can almost always do a complete round. Heavy size guys have trouble in the front and rear.
We check the main deck before departure; it is especially important with a partial load to check if the freight is in the proper position, and securely locked or strapped.
You can see the locks between the pallets from the side.

But in this case, with large vehicles, the strapping and locks would have been easily visible.

I understand a (the?) loadmaster was among the crew. It would be surprising if he didn't check the load, that he probably loaded himself. Perhaps one vehicle got loose somehow and took the others.

Sad day for the freight community.

[aguadalte]

It is always hard to see fellow pilots die in the line of duty.
I sure hope that this video may help NTSB finding the causes for this accident. Until the last second I can only imagine them fighting against the odds...
But another thing calls my attention: have you noticed that the guy inside the car filming these dramatic events, never made a sound or even an exclamation during the whole process, except for quietening his dog? Odd, very odd.

[con-pilot]

I pity the investigator who has to listen to the CVR once it's located and subject to it being usable. Very harrowing video.

I cannot tell you just how mind boggling horrific it is listening to some of those tapes can be. Very, very sobering and makes one want to go the bar at the first chance.

We were required to listen to some CVR tapes while I was in accident investigator's school. I'll not list the the accidents we listened to out of respect for the families and friends of those lost in these tragic accidents.

But every time I listened to those tapes, I thought, "But for the grace of God..."

Makes one very humble and thankful to have completed a 42 year career without having others listen to a tape of me in such a situation.

And don't think that I have not thanked God for allowing me to screw up on occasion and never put a scratch on any aircraft I ever flew.

The video will provide some valuable information to the NTSB investigators I'm sure, but I suspect that the CVR will provide the best clues.

[stryker one]

This is what I know, after all I had a hand in the transportation of almost 200 of those MRAP's to Afghanistan some years ago.

It is highly unlikely that they were carrying any thing more than 5 MRAP's as the addition of the 6th would have required substantial ballast in the forward of zone F (the upper deck barrier) or a significant amount of ballast fuel in the center tank.

That was the primary reasoning behind the military scrubbing any further trips with 6 as they did not have sufficient cargo to transport at the time and carrying 25000kgs of ballast fuel plus was not considered feasible at the time.

The key question here is what else was being carried as with with only 5 MRAP's the aircraft would have been outside of the aft center of gravity envelope so generally the support equipment was used to balance the aircraft to within trim, occasionally additional ballast was required.

IF the MRAP's were secured in the best possible manner the were loaded on top 22 military pallets joined with a T2 coupler and shored on 4 specific build shoring blocks that distributed the weight evenly and then secured with chains to the pallet. Locks were then relocated within the Cargo Loading System for the best possible alignment in the center of the aircraft both forward and aft of the pallet. They were then treated as floating pallets and secured to the aircraft structure using straps. The number of straps I don't recall offhand but it was close to 50 per vehicle.

Using this method of securing them would render the probability of any load shift remote at best.

However I am not sure if this was the method used to transport the vehicles as some carriers opted to utilize the industry standard 16 or 20 foot pallets and shifting the MRAP's towards the aircraft center line to allow space for other cargo.

There is also one factor that no one that I have seen mentioned yet, on the newer type of converted freighters they have done away with the "Big Wheel" type of Power Drive Unit that were used in the past and moved to the smaller tray mounted retractable units. The only problem with those is that IF you have a shift in load those units do not offer any friction and the cargo is free to roll in either direction.

my 2 cent's worth.

[sevenstrokeroll]

mariner...after I saw the video, the first thing I thought of was load shift, stall/spin. thank you for your first hand insight.

but who really knows...and , I guess I will be a tiny bit sceptical about the video.

it did look like the nose came down...too close to the ground though.

[Typhoon650]

If a part of the load broke loose, what are the chances of the next item behind it holding it, at least for some time? I know polyester straps are rated to a certain load, but having run a test rig in the past certifying polyester webbing slings (testing to destruction), they are easily capable of some incredible overloads before total failure. I used to test webbing safety harnesses with both the harness and webbing rated for 1000kg, to well over 2000kg before total failure.
Also, if the rearmost cargo shifted, is there a rear bulkhead that would stop it's movement and if so, how close to that rear bulkhead would the load carried by this aircraft have been placed to that bulkhead?
I understand that load shift seems most likely, and there was probably a cascading effect if one of the forward vehicles broke loose and broke the strapping of vehicles behind, but I wonder if initially trim was incorrectly set and the subsequent pitch up started the cascading failures? I would guess it's unlikely and would assume this aircraft and crew have carried this load many times before.

[atpcliff]

There is a rear pressure bulkhead, which provides basically no resistance from something going through it. There is also a small metal lip on the back of the main deck 747-400 floor near the pressure bulkhead.

Atlas had a 747 classic get written off because the rear pressure bulkhead was punctured by improperly packaged/loaded cargo.

[moobradidi]

I think crash investigators have to experience worse things than a CVR- including body parts etc. So I would not be scared for them. Police etc see just as bad.

The crash is a classic stall on take off with unknown cause (as yet). Note a couple of things- the idea that the climb angle was the result of excessive enthusiasm in leaving the
MANPAD threat envelope is pretty silly. The pitch angle and airspeed bleed would have been terrifyingly obvious and would have totally occupied crew efforts.

Also note the left wing stalls first followed by a right hand roll. Whether the latter was due to a control input is not clear but as the aircraft descends and gains speed the crew
definitely have aileron authority and roll it level just before impact.

So clearly the crew had working aileron linkages and used them but (a) whether the elevator/HS link was disabled or (b) it was functional but ineffective due to a rear CofG will have to await investigation.

It's obvious that no professionally trained crew would allow their aircraft to get into
such a dangerous attitude and airspeed configuration unless something broke.

In other words, let's rule out the usual great finger pointed at pilot error.

[aterpster]

aqua:

It is always hard to see fellow pilots die in the line of duty.
I sure hope that this video may help NTSB finding the causes for this accident. Until the last second I can only imagine them fighting against the odds...
But another thing calls my attention: have you noticed that the guy inside the car filming these dramatic events, never made a sound or even an exclamation during the whole process, except for quietening his dog? Odd, very odd.

Combat veteran military police I suspect. Men of steel and indifference.

[storyfulfelim]

Hi Alvin. I am a journalist at a news agency trying to verify dramatic video of this tragic accident. Can you please get in touch with me? Thanks, Félim [[email protected]]

[bubbers44]

We took off out of SNA one day and could not rotate because the MD80 was loaded with non smokers in front. We forgot the gear on climb out trying to compensate for the bad trim setting. When things go south you sometimes worry about survival and forget about fundamental things like gear. We figured it out but were over 1,000 ft before we put the gear up. Maybe they had the same problem we did. Only in the opposite direction.

[White Knight]

But another thing calls my attention: have you noticed that the guy inside the car filming these dramatic events, never made a sound or even an exclamation during the whole process

'Cos the guy isn't 'filming' it... It's a dashcam that catches the crash...

I think I'd be quite speechless if I'd just seen a 744 plough-in:ugh::ugh:

[White Knight]

Stall.

Incipient spin.

Recovering but not enough altitude.

Guy I knew years ago died in a Dak when load shifted on take-off. Straight up, straight down!!!

[grimmrad]

SLF with aviation interest and some image processing (though medical):
Did someone verify the origin of this video. I am wondering about three things:
1.) As someone pointetd out the driver barely makes a noise. I was sitting here watching these horrific images and was saying out loud my thoughts "Oh sh@#!".
2.) The date on the camera is wrong. Yes, could be not set properly but still.
3.) The noise heard from the outside is strange. I can hear the car driving but very little from a fully fueled 747 crashing on the ground.
4.) What is the driver doing after the crash, going a bit here and then there (maybe shock). Seems like a military vehicle (Antenna)?

I am just a bit more careful with ANY video you see these days on the web as a lot of stuff can be manipulated and take it with a grain of salt until confirmed authentic.

[White Knight]

I was sitting here watching these horrific images and was saying out loud my thoughts "Oh sh@#!"

Yeah. You were watching the video. From a dash-mounted camera. The camera saw what the driver may not have been aware of; until the impact! Maybe the driver was concentrating on not driving into the vehicle in front and didn't see the incipient crash!

He does utter a few choice words shortly afterwards!

The date on the camera is wrong. Yes, could be not set properly but still

But still. My GoPro Hero3 is about five weeks off the correct date. I still film with it every time I fly...

The noise heard from the outside is strange. I can hear the car driving but very little from a fully fueled 747 crashing on the ground

It's a little dashcam thingy. Not a cinematic camera with microphone boom operators or special effects. A thump rather than a bang is most likely anyway!

What is the driver doing after the crash, going a bit here and then there (maybe shock). Seems like a military vehicle (Antenna

I would imagine he would have been shocked. Yes......

I am just a bit more careful with ANY video you see these days on the web as a lot of stuff can be manipulated and take it with a grain of salt until confirmed authentic

Gotta to say - sadly - that it looks very authentic. If you know how aeroplanes move at high AOA and high thrust from low slung engines for example.

[StinkyMonkey]

Names have been released.

[grimmrad]

There is one reaction of the driver of the driver which fits - right after impact he is going into reverse and back a bit. Anyhow, thanks to White Knight, I am not doubting it I am just used to question a lot of stuff on the web. Very sad.

[Farrell]

Here's one for the conspiracy nuts who just posted.....

Are the dashcams calibrated for the proper date and if so, why does this say Feb 1st.....?

[mickjoebill]

Also note the left wing stalls first followed by a right hand roll.

In the you tube clip the aircraft is visible for longer as its not obscured by graphics.
Do you see the right wing drop a little first then the left then the right?
RAW FOOTAGE National Airlines 747-400 Plane Crash - Apr 29, 2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSphWBWdoE&feature=youtu.be)

Did someone verify the origin of this video. I am wondering about three things:
1.) As someone pointetd out the driver barely makes a noise. I was sitting here watching these horrific images and was saying out loud my thoughts "Oh sh@#!".

He acted like a cool customer, he stopped and reversed before the aircraft had crashed, that takes some degree of situational awareness and self control.


4.) What is the driver doing after the crash, going a bit here and then there (maybe shock). Seems like a military vehicle (Antenna)?
After stopping and reversing he repositioned closer and then appeared to block the road, perhaps as a traffic control measure.
He then may have tried to make a cell call.
Perhaps then he figured out the crash was still airside so traffic control not required, so went closer?
Perhaps dog is a pointer that he was a security officer, although lack of use of his radio or radio coming to life would be unusual?


2.) The date on the camera is wrong. Yes, could be not set properly but still.
If it were to be used as a record of a shift then the date is curious. The "time" may be hours and minutes since the camera was turned on.



3.) The noise heard from the outside is strange. I can hear the car driving but very little from a fully fueled 747 crashing on the ground.

Hard to judge how loud that would be and also the auto mic would be down fairly low to compensate for the engine and the high pitched interference. Sound of truck passing is also low level which matches the low level of the crash (downwind) in my view.


I am just a bit more careful with ANY video you see these days on the web as a lot of stuff can be manipulated and take it with a grain of salt until confirmed authentic.
Given the duration of the footage and that he travels closer to the crash it would be very very hard to fake. It also correlates with the eyewitness accounts.

[18-Wheeler]

Names have been released.

I hate to ask, but can someone please PM me with the names.
I just found out it's a company I used to work for, I may know some of the crew. :(

[Machinbird]

Aside from the general "It is an ugly crash" feeling, I am noticing a bit of 'roughness' to the fuselage profile in the starboard lower lobe of the fuselage ahead of the tail. There is a lot of pixelation there, but it may also be an effect caused by a heavy vehicle or other cargo hitting that area and penetrating-probably when the starboard wing dropped to 90+ degrees of bank.

It appears that the humidity was fairly high and there appear to be faint vapor effects behind the aircraft including what appears to be a tight vortex behind the rudder just before initial ground contact.

As observed by others, the gear is down.


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? Of course, this might not work well in an 'A' manufactured aircraft, but this was a 'B' with an entirely different control philosophy.

[18-Wheeler]

Are you walking around in a daze? "Oh, I just remembered! I used to WORK for National Air Cargo! Oh, my!"

Obviously not. I used to work for Air Atlanta Icelandic and they hired out their crews and aeroplanes to other airlines. In my time with them I flew for something like 10 - 15 other airlines, so it was entirely possible that the crew of the American company 747 was in fact Icelandic.
But it turns out that even though AAI used to own that aeroplane, they probably sold it to National Air Cargo some time recently.
Condolences to the crew and their families. :(

[Brian Abraham]

For those who worry what the families may feel seeing the video. From Av HeraldMy husbands death
By Linda Garrett on Tuesday, Apr 30th 2013 23:14Z

My ex husband was a mechanic on this plane. I appreciate the person(s) who filmed the last few seconds of my husbands life. I and it makes me feel the raw pain and fear he must've felt in those last few seconds of his life. It is something I can keep for remembrance of his dedication and love for he job he worked at for 23 years. It was truly his first love. My life is forever changed by this lost, and now his daughters must grow up without his love and support. God speed and fly high my love, i'll see you some day soon......Lest We Forget

[Meccano]

Do we know the original destination yet for the flight?

[timbob]

According to company website it was bound for Dubai

[MungoP]

It's interesting how the mike in the humvee failed to pick up the sound of the impact/explosion.. it was loud, very VERY loud.. even from our vantage point approx mid-point on the 12000ft runway.

[Prada]

I wanted to remind that human factors is the most common cause of accidents. I do not blame anyone. For us here, things seem to be much more clearer and obvious than for the actual pilots in the cockpit. Thus we tend to think mostly about pure technical causes of the accident. Of course, this is the place for rumors and speculations, but I see a trend here with underestimating human factor. We are mere humans. Mere humans.

[LiveryMan]

He did. Just took a moment for the shock to clear and what he saw to sink in.

It's highly likely the driver is either ex or current military and has seen death first hand before.

[Farrell]

It's interesting how the mike in the humvee failed to pick up the sound of the impact/explosion.. it was loud, very VERY loud.. even from our vantage point approx mid-point on the 12000ft runway.

For the sound....here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo51Be2jL8c

[mickk]

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.

[mickjoebill]

It's interesting how the mike in the humvee failed to pick up the sound of the impact/explosion.. it was loud, very VERY loud.. even from our vantage point approx. mid-point on the 12000ft runway.

Mungo P, from your knowledge of the perimeter road, how far do you think the camera was from the crash?

It looks like there was a small hill or it crashed in a ditch, so this would have also reduced the sound wave, also you were downwind?
The camera was upwind and (probably) in a sealed car (sound of the horn is faint as is truck passing by..)

Also Mics on cheap cameras are notoriously crap and in this case the auto level control pulled down the "noise" level so as it rose it was pulled down (too far) and muffled.

Unlike similar views from Humvees in Afghanistan this explosion (a deflagration rather than a detonation) did not have a shockwave travelling faster than the speed of sound.

I agree that it was bazaar that the person filming did not even gasp???

Sounded like a Brit(?) on an airport perimeter road in Afghanistan, it may be that he was dog handler in a security role, trained and "switched-on" to keep his utterances under control, good control of voice commands is a pre requisite for dog handlers.

Interesting that his dog apparently needed calming down yet he was pretty cool, perhaps the kind of reaction a parent would have if a child was the car?

He stopped and had the car in reverse before it had hit.

[Sqwak7700]

He stopped and had the car in reverse before it had hit.


Yes, definitely a lot more clued in than the two monkeys driving the vehicles closer to the crash. They continue pressing on until a huge fireball is in their face.

This guy's SA is definitely in war mode, good for him based on where he is located. You can definitely hear mobile interference right after the crash, probably the guy trying to get a hold of somebody.

Quite a disturbing video. I wonder if the cargo shift was bad enough to make it irrecoverable. Will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up.

[givemewings]

I agree. just because we would say "holy crap!" does not mean everyone would. Good point also about the dog. I know a few canine handlers and they are the same- very careful about being controlled and not shouting when working with the dog.

It's also quite possible he was not even looking in that direction- how many of us drive a familiar route while looking out of the side window? I imagine this would be more important in a hostile area as well, rather than driving happily along only looking out of the front window. The camera was facing forward- driver may not have been.

Also sounds as though a text was being sent or received- I know that sound can just result from the phone picking up a signal, but drive rcould also have been distracted by the phone which could explain why it took him some time to react.

You just don't know how you will react. I was once in a situation where you would expect anyone to shout/scream/make a noise... apparently all I said was quietly "oh sh!t" and stood there for a second or two before moving. So no, an immediate reaction is not always there. Especially, as someone mentioned, for someone experienced to operate in a war zone where exclaiming loudly could get you killed.

ETA: posted same time re: phone. Pretty safe bet he was trying to get ahold of someone. You can also hear the hazard lights clicking on and off...

[Lon More]

It's interesting how the mike in the humvee failed to pick up the sound of the impact/explosion.. it was loud, very VERY loud.. even from our vantage point approx mid-point on the 12000ft runway

Dash Cam mike is probably inside the vehicle and aimed back towards the driver. I know mine does not pick up much from outside the vehicle at all - even loud noise are muted.

[pull-up-terrain]

It's pretty sad :( , supposedly the first officer had got married 2 weeks ago.

[18-Wheeler]

It's pretty sad , supposedly the first officer had got married 2 weeks ago.

He did - Pilot who married in Detroit two weeks ago among dead in Afghanistan crash | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130430/NATION/304300396/NTSB-investigate-Afghan-plane-crash-killed-7?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)
:(

[rcsa]

I do know about cameras and audio equipment. Critically, the camera here is mounted INSIDE an armoured vehicle. You can see the armoured glass of the windscreen. 7mm armoured glass cuts out pretty much all sound.

Then there's the matter of the recording equipment. The mic on a GoPro or similar dashboard cam will be set to automatically adjust sound to the same level all the time. So the driver's breathing and dog whimpering are recorded at the same level as the detonation. And as mickjoebill remarked there is no supersonic shock wave from a fireball. So no sharp "crack". You can hear the engines surging on the aircraft as it falls, then the automatic level control "clips" the audio level, and by the time of the impact the levels are reduced almost to zero.

I would expect that the decibel level of the surging engines at this distance would be about the same as the decibel level of the explosion - 130dB? Something like that? (that's a guesstimate, by the way). So the audio rec circuit would have already compensated for the increasing audio level as the aircraft fell.

In addition, as noted, the audio record quality is notoriously poor on a cheap camera. You can try it yourself on your camera phone - alternately whisper and shout and see what you hear.

The audio you hear when you watch a movie is totally unlike what is recorded by the microphones in real life. It's all overlaid, edited, with multiple layers of sound added to make the explosion sound more "real'.

I've filmed incoming artillery rounds, and a B-52 dumping a full load on Serbian positions in Kosovo, and land mines detonating, and IEDs; and even with full professional kit, when you play back the recording they sound fake and tinny.

Another point - No one gets into Bagram without being in some way connected to the military. From the little evidence we have, this guy is almost certainly a Brit with the K9 patrol unit. He will probably be an ex Royal Military Police dog handler, and he will know how to react to critical situations, having almost certainly served with the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's almost certainly seen plenty of stuff go bang, and seen much more graphic and disturbing sights.

He kept his cool. That's all. Good man.

[BARKINGMAD]

Can't help wondering which rulemaker/desk pilot insists on ANY NADP in what is still an active theatre of war?

Surely the crews operating to such locations have more pressing and vital methods of operating to try to ensure their a**e isn't shot off by the locals?

Alas it may have been the touted load shift as a cause of this ghastly accident, but I fear for the cargo moving community as the comparative lack of negative publicity and lack of pressure on the operators will change little, as it was "only crew casualties" and not 300+ SLF.

So carry on operating large aircraft, without separate firewatch crewmembers, ferrying large quantities of Li-Ion batteries and whatever else lethal cargoes are out there making money for the operators.

If special restraints are necessary for these vehicles in a C17 and other mil aircraft, who decided that it was acceptable to strap them into a civilian cargo aircraft, and 6 instead of 5 as may be the case?

The inmates are running the asylum............................ :ugh:

[givemewings]

Gob, the fact that it's a civilian aircraft possibly? Or that it's not every day you see something that size appear to 'fall' out of the sky? Military or not, it would be shocking. Just because the reaction (to us) may seem understated doesn't mean it wasn't shocking to (military) witnesses... ?

[grimmrad]

@Farrell - harsh. I seriously reject your automatically labeling me as nut job and conspiracy theorist. I was simply asking a few questions regarding the authenticity of the video, is that so wrong? If you got the video from a buddy, reliable source, fine. If just found it on youtube well... (Flying like a bird | part 14/14 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/GYW5G2kbrKk)). Do you believe everything you see on YouTube immediately? I am scientist and as that used to question things. That doesn't mean I don't accept it as correct with the right answers. And I don't label other people who ask critical questions. BTW - what conspiracy would that be!

[MungoP]

Mungo P, from your knowledge of the perimeter road, how far do you think the camera was from the crash?

I don't drive the perimeter road that often, usually only when practicing on the range but I'd guess only maybe 300+ mtrs..
I was hoping for an educated response from someone familiar with audio equipment and RCSA supplied that.. thank you.

As for people witnessing some horror or other out here, keep in mind that there are maybe 30,000 personnel on the base.. a small town.. and that less than 10% of any military contingent ever see any form of active service, they may wander around the base varying M4s and side arms but that's more part of the uniform. 90+% are support staff working at various tasks, never leave the base and have no idea of conditions beyond the walls. As pilots we're more fortunate.

I've been back to the sight since to try to clarify whether we saw 5 or 6 MRAPS but the security people are preventing anyone from loitering.. we only had a brief opportunity to assess things on our first look so I can't be adamant about whether we saw 5 or 6.. don't wish to mislead anyone.

The video checks out in every way what we witnessed. No conspiracy theories please. Extremely lucky that as far as we can tell nobody on the ground was injured.. the a/c banking right saved a number of lives.. there are many people working to the left of the runway overrun at that location.

[prozak]

You can hear the explosion in the video, just need to apply a bit of a high cut filter. The sound of the gearbox and (what I would guess to be) wheel slippage on the shoulder of the road while reversing the vehicle masks it.

The offset between visual/audio of the event is about 750 ms, assuming a speed of sound of 344 m/s that would put the camera around 250 meters from point of impact.

Looking at loudness, not knowing many of the specific parameters, assuming 170 dB at 1 meter distance (now this is a bit of a thumb suck), that would decrease to around 110 dB at a distance of 250 meters, 8 mm of bullet proof glass would probably give an additional 30 dB or so of attenuation.

All under correction of course

[arewenotmen]

What happens with regard to accident investigation in this context? Is it more important that it was civil, or that it was in a military context presumably doing military transport work?

In other words, can we ever expect to see a public report?

[18-Wheeler]

..... as nut job and conspiracy theorist. I was simply asking a few questions regarding the authenticity of the video, is that so wrong?

Not picking on you here at all but just using that text to make a point - I have had a video camera in my cars for the last couple of years. I can set the time & date but give the sodding things a couple of weeks and they reset themselves so the date is quite incorrect. I've given up trying to fix it and I'm very comfortable in saying that is exactly what's happened with the date/time stamp in the crash video. Nothing sinister at all, just someone getting fed up with modern technology making life harder instead of easier.

[MungoP]

NTSB are on their way..

[Lonewolf_50]

Barking:
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.
???
Barking, what if a load shift (or something else in flight control system) led to nose higher than usual? I am not sure how you come to that conclusion about what caused what.

Some of the other pilots, who have posted here, and who fly that freight aircraft, do not agree that a "radical departure" is a common method.
Do you have inside information?
If so, the NTSB may wish to hear what you have to say.

agua:
But another thing calls my attention: have you noticed that the guy inside the car filming these dramatic events, never made a sound or even an exclamation during the whole process, except for quietening his dog? Odd, very odd.
At 1:`14, he says, with some feeling, "Ah, fcuk!"
FWIW, the accent doesn't sound British to me, sounds more American, but it's very brief and the above noted "lousy mics" on cameras may have influenced that. Agreed with the folks above that this gent seems to have kept his cool very well.

Thanks to those who explain how the load system works. :ok:

[Dave Gittins]

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.

[wongsuzie]

The video is an omni-directional mic quite sensitive, its weird no impact sound was captured.

Just shockwave would have moved the diaphram

[paulftw]

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!

[paulftw]

And its a British Accent!

[Richard Ewing]

The television report said it was an American crew.

[waddawurld]

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...

[noclue]

Either that or the gear was never raised in the first place

[Lantirn]

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.

[Annulus Filler]

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?

[Roger Greendeck]

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.

[hectopascal]

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.

[FirstStep]

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.

[lomapaseo]

*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

[Farrell]

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!

[lear999wa]

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.

[Lonewolf_50]

FirstStep: thank you for the detailed explanation. :ok:

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.
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.

[Capn Bloggs]

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.
You could expect that if you have no idea about aerodynamic design but No, all swept wings have some sort of washout. Wiki explains it. It'd be pretty dumb to design a wing that would stall tips-first, don't you think?? :cool:

[Lonewolf_50]

Post removed thanks to a "polite" suggestion that it was rude to stacee.

[GlueBall]

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?

Correct: The only life-saving technique in a significant cargo shift as such would be to roll into an IMMEDIATE bank, 30 to 40 degrees, whatever it takes to keep the nose from coming up beyond 18 degrees; maintaining configuration & power and accelerating in a continuous climbing turn with full forward stab and elevator. 250-280kts ...whatever speed and bank it takes to keep from stalling and to keep the nose down. When the nose is lowered, extra crew can go downstairs and push one or two pallets forward, or in case of vehicles, drive them forward.

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.

[Mariner]

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.

[rog747]

re my earlier post and pj2's where we mentioned the gear was down on impact so it seemed possible it never was retracted after lift off if the crew faced immediate problems

i have now watched the video on a very big TV and i think i can make out the nose wheel doors are open ? just before impact so maybe the gear was being lowered again as some pilots have mentioned on here as an attempt to use this during a stall recovery...although someone mentioned (hotdog?) you do not do this on this a/c type....

I'm not 100% sure though as video is fuzzy when increased...that's all....
perhaps someone else will see better than me.

[janeczku]

What happens with regard to accident investigation in this context? Is it more important that it was civil, or that it was in a military context presumably doing military transport work?

Considering the governing factors, i don't think this flight qualified as state aircraft under Art. 3 Chicago Convention.
It was a civil registered aircraft, operating under contract of carriage and there was no military personal aboard.

The accident investigation is thus governed by the Chicago Convention. Which means that the afghans have authority with the NTSB being merely observer.

This being Afghanistan of course, applying rule of (international) law is purely academic speaking.

[JW411]

Anyone who thinks that it would have made any difference whatsoever to the outcome of this catastrophe as to whether the gear was up or down is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The crew were confronted suddenly with an unflyable aeroplane.

In any event, all you MS experts out there should know by now that if hitting the ground becomes inevitable, it is always better to have the gear down than up. At least it will absorb some of the impact.

In this case, it was irrelevant.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

The aircraft was en-route to DXB but does anyone know where it had arrived from. The crew compliment suggests a heavy crew.

[atakacs]

Absolute ignorant here of all things military transport but assuming they were indeed moving those MRAPs how much actual space is there in the cargo hold for them to shift assuming a fully loaded aircraft ?

[Lonewolf_50]

atakacs, go back a few pages in this very thread. There are some explanations of how to load an MRAP on a cargo plane, a picture of one strapped down in an aircraft, how many one can fit into a 744, and some of the other issues involved. :ok:


strapped in (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/513650-cargo-crash-bagram-4.html#post7820050)

someone who shipped MRAPS in (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/513650-cargo-crash-bagram-4.html#post7820161)

Things that go wrong when loads shift (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/513650-cargo-crash-bagram-5.html#post7820206)

possible reactions to a cargo shift (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/513650-cargo-crash-bagram-8.html#post7821295)

[Old King Coal]

If the plane is very light, and thrust is high, the pitch will be high, around 16-19 degrees.

When I take off out of Bagram (in my B738):
On a relatively short flight (either back to Dubai or down to Kandahar).
With, say, 100 pax, and fuel being tankered (fuel in Bagram is cheaper than in Dubai... go figure?!).
Using full rated thrust (in order to, as fast as possible, put as much distance between me and any Taliban, i.e. a 'tactical' departure, as some might call it?!).

The acceleration down the runway can be breathtaking and the subsequent pitch angle required (i.e. to control the air speed within V2 to V2+15kts) is typically up to 25º nose up.

Just sayin'...

[FirstStep]

Mariner,

Your numbers right on. Flt time is little over 2 hours ( not the 7 hours I posted ) the fuel and payload guestimate seems nuts on. Thanks.

[STN Ramp Rat]

The aircraft was en-route to DXB but does anyone know where it had arrived
from. The crew compliment suggests a heavy crew.


This may be a factor, from flightradar 24 the aircraft left CHR/LFLX at 15:50Z on Sunday 28th, I understand from other sites that it routed to an airbase in Afgan before flying to Bagram. The crash occurred at 11:00Z on Monday 29th. assuming there was no slip crew available in either of the Afgan locations and the crew joined in CHR/LFLX then at the time of the crash they had been on duty for some 19+ hours. I might be wrong on my assumptions and maybe a fresh crew did join in Bagram.

[Lonewolf_50]

WhyBy:

1. From that brief video clip, I don't see a spin in evidence. My own experience with spins is from smaller aircraft, which tend to go through stall, post stall gyration, and incipient spin stages (however brief) before entering a spin.

I freely admit to not being familiar with the characteristics of stall, post stall behavior, nor incipient spins in 747s. Some of the folks who did test flying back in the 60's or 70's may be able to explain that.

After reading GlueBall's post a page back, a possible explanation for what we see in that clip is that the second wing drop was an attempt by the flight crew to get the nose to drop (see below) and restore controlled flight ... we do see the wings returning to level before impact .. but they ran out of altitude for recovery.

I am sure there are other explanations.

From GlueBall:
The only life-saving technique in a significant cargo shift as such would be to roll into an IMMEDIATE bank, 30 to 40 degrees, whatever it takes to keep the nose from coming up beyond 18 degrees; maintaining configuration & power and accelerating in a continuous climbing turn with full forward stab and elevator. 250-280kts ...whatever speed and bank it takes to keep from stalling and to keep the nose down. When the nose is lowered, extra crew can go downstairs and push one or two pallets forward, or in case of vehicles, drive them forward.
FWIW

[UV]

So, the driver, presumably military and on duty in a military vehicle, probably on patrol in or near a secure and no doubt very sensitive area, sees this and downloads his vehicles dashcam onto the internet within 48 hours of a major incident/accident. All from a combat area.

Where do the authorities sit with that?

I wouldnt like to be that man right now.

[rgbrock1]

UV:

Why assume the driver of the military vehicle is the one who downloaded the footage? After he returned to base I'm sure the contents of that camera were confiscated by persons higher up the pecking order than he. Anyone of whom could have done the same with the contents.

[givemewings]

Perhaps the driver was not the person who uploaded the video? Just a thought... (sorry, just refreshed the page and saw someone already suggested same)

[hectopascal]

The flight did come indeed from CHR, and it landed somewhere else in Afghanistan before landing in OAIX. In regards to National they fly heavy crew most of the time I believe. (even if it is a relative short day)
As far as flight time goes...I believe it is more in the 3.5 hr range (depending of wind), since a lot of airlines (especially one being US) can not fly through Iranian airspace. Just my 2 cents.

[captplaystation]

Whilst I am fairly convinced by the load-shift explanation, I have in the back of my mind a DC8F crash caused by a rock/stone (?) jammed between the elevator/Stab during taxy-out control checks due "FOD" by the engines. On departure they could pull back, but not push forward. Judicious application of fwd trim might have saved the day, but time/altitude were in short supply.

Many possibilities here, even if I think it WILL be load-shift.


Edited to say, or was it a pax DC8 on a trooping contract ?

[John Hill]

If it was a case of load shifting how were the crew ever able to get the aircraft back on a level attitude, which it was at the time of impact?

[aerotransport.org]

Was a there a report ever published on the loss of 747 N527MC ? Cargo shift there, the drivers fought 30 mns airborne and were lucky. Not found on NTSB.

http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/313824-atlas-air-b747-damaged-lfw.html
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-2D7B N527MC Lome Airport (LFW) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080202-0)

[EngineOut]

John Hill:

In a slip most of the drag comes from the vertical stabilizer. Hence the nose will drop.

[John Hill]

Thanks, that makes sense..:ok:

[Old King Coal]

John Hill: how were the crew ever able to get the aircraft back on a level attitude, which it was at the time of impact?
Not withstanding any possible effects of control and / or thrust inputs buy the pilots... when the aircraft rolled (to the right) and then slid sideways out of the sky, it's possible (probable?) that the sweep of the downward going wing would most likely cause that wing to generate lift (remembering that it's a very big wing, with a lot of sweep) and which... referencing my copy of D.P.Davies 'Handling The Big Jets' (3rd edition)... is a phenomenon that's more properly known as 'an increase in the projected span'.
Conversely, the wing on the other side would generate no lift and therein the asymmetric lift between the two wings would cause the aircraft to roll (in this case to what just happened to be an almost level attitude prior to it impacting the ground).

[Lonewolf_50]

stacee:
I'm sure you're aware tip stall is a known phenomenon in swept wing aircraft.
Yes indeed. As that characteristic was discovered about six decades ago (see Galaxy Flyer's point on the F-100), I think you will find that aerospace engineers have come up with a variety of ways to mitigate the problems of spanwise flow. Even as far back in history as the 1970's we were taught about slats, stall fences, et al.
I imagine the extreme alpha involved in this tragic case would make any washout irrelevant.
I am not so sure.
As you are doubtless aware, washout isn't the only method used to mitigate for spanwise flow.
EDIT:
If you look at this picture
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQboSqytfk6nv5VGO_RjLBv7561RkK9SvzlSoMC_qk yAgvf5Khp
you'll see one way that design engineers addressed that issue.
On a different scale in a fighter of a generation or two after the F-100 Galaxy Flyer pointed to, this picture shows the same basic idea at work:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQYyoNOvLSKBq_q32CNfPWJn9bqlUPiG06Pi-oZRcnc_P-OYxdAcQ

My less than gracious response to you suggested primary pitch control (and maybe I should have pointed specificallyl to longitudinal control authority) being a more likely source of the problem.

But we don't know. Hopefully, the FDR survived the crash.

[Lone_Ranger]

LW, writes....
"As you are doubtless aware, washout isn't the only method used to mitigate for spanwise flow."

Washout has nothing to do with mitigating spanwise flow on a swept wing, its primary function is exactly the same as in an unswept wing, I.E. delaying tip stall by reducing the AoA the tip 'sees'

[sycamore]

I did ask a question earlier,but it seems to have been deleted by someone...
Most aircraft exhibit a nose-down trim change when flaps are fully lowered,which may restore some more pitch authority.....Anyone care to comment,especially those who operate 744s..?

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks, Lone Ranger, I see what I did there. Been too long, mixing stuff up in the memory again. :ugh::ugh:

[dcoded]

Did anyone address the possibility of a trim runaway?

[kazzie]

Just out of curiosity.. How would these military vehicles be loaded? Would they be lashed onto a pallet with the pallet locked into position, Or loaded freely (bulk) and lashed to tie down points?

I only have experience in loading narrow body passenger aircraft. So have no idea how it works with cargo aircraft.

Sorry for a irrelevant question.

Video is both chilling and terrifying. Would make anyones blood run cold. RIP to the crew x

[bubbers44]

A review of AF 447 will show that AOA is relevant only to flight path of aircraft. This 747 was coming down at a very steep angle so to not be stalled would have to reference to this angle. We don't have the info at this point to know the cause but landing flat with a 60 degree descent angle still puts you in a deep stall.

[AtomKraft]

Reminds all of us of that old maxim.

And it doesnt really matter why it happened or what sort of aircraft you are piloting.

If you get the nose too high, be it your fault or someone elses, a stall will follow. As sure as eggs are eggs.

Stall, spin, die.

No pilot should ever forget it- and I'm sure this crew never did.

Sometimes you are just fresh out of luck.:sad:

[Desert185]

Dcoded: "Did anyone address the possibility of a trim runaway?"

Not likely. In the 747 there are two stab trim cutout switches just aft and to the right of the thrust levers. Corrective action would have been accomplished prior to the trim running away to the point that nose up trim would result in the witnessed accident.

[Desert185]

Someone asked who was onboard.

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CARGO_PLANE_CRASH_AFGHANISTAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Willie Nelson]

Pitch Trim runaway is one of many very unlikely possibilities, I would put money on a load shift. The boys didn't even have the opportunity to get the gear up before they were battling with the extreme nose up attitude.

The FDR will likely reveal the control input versus pitch attitude which should clear things up.

Watching this video sends chills up my spine. Prayers and condolences to the crew and their families. :(

[barit1]

In a deep stall, will the horizontal tail (not a T-tail) see such an airflow that it tends to level the aircraft or even drop the nose? Is that what I see in the video?

If that is the case, then the (presumed) loose cargo which had shifted aft at rotation could be free to shift back forward - perhaps even beyond its original planned location - and exaggerating the nose drop.

[parabellum]

Someone asked earlier if there were any genuine aircrew left on this
forum....an outsider looking in at this juncture would think not.


I think, at this stage, all that needs to be said of this tragic accident was said in the first couple of pages, after that most of the professionals stood back and only posted thereafter to right a serious wrong. The rest of the thread consists almost entirely of speculation that ranges from highly educated to pure fantasy. MungoP's contribution is by far the most useful.

[grimmrad]

Can someone she light on this - would it take one of these vehicles to presumably cause this if it shifts position and therefore COG, two, more? Chain reaction where one hits the next which rips loose etc?

[bubbers44]

We need to hear what the CVR says and the ADC to get any real information. We know if pitched up for some reason but don't know why. Cargo shift or runaway trim could have caused it. We must wait for the black boxes to tell us.

[Capn Bloggs]

but I'm sure you're aware tip stall is a known phenomenon in swept wing aircraft.
Modern swept-wing aircraft DO NOT tip-stall first. Period. They are designed that way, with washout. Your earlier point that the nose will pitch up due to tip stalling in a modern jet is simply wrong.

[Desert185]

Grimmrad: "Can someone she light on this - would it take one of these vehicles to presumably cause this if it shifts position and therefore COG, two, more? Chain reaction where one hits the next which rips loose etc?"

Reportedly, there were five MRADs on the aircraft. An MRAD weighs ~25,000#. Even in a 747, this would be a considerable load shift depending on the loaded location and the distance moved.

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.

[crazyaviator]

If i were a betting man, i would consider a steeper take-off profile combined with having 1 heavy vehicle coming loose from its hold downs and breaking the other(s) free. Lack of awareness on the load ratings of the hold-down points combined with "wear and tear" reducing the available hold down points structural strength would be high on my list

[autoflight]

I'm trying to think of the simplest single reason for the loss. Does the 747 a take-off warning (like the A320) if power levers are advanced with stab trim outside of acceptable range?

[hectopascal]

To auto flight:

Yes a B744 has a TO config warning system warning for an incorrect stab setting.

[bubbers44]

1990 we flew 727's out of Managua, Nicaragua so did steep climbs and descents to get as high as possible knowing there were shoulder AA missles unaccounted for in the country. A Russian Mig base was on the north side of the lake by Managua. We should know soon if cargo shifted aft or trim caused this crash. It sounds very similar to the DC8 crash at MIA when the cargo slid back at high pitch attitude on take off. The DC8 didn't have the bear claws on the floor securing the cargo as I recall.

[Voodoo 3]

[QUOTE]I'm trying to think of the simplest single reason for the loss. Does the 747 a take-off warning (like the A320) if power levers are advanced with stab trim outside of acceptable range?/QUOTE]

Certainly the 737 does. I would imagine that it is a common feature across all Boeings. Having said that I would think that it a requirement for all public transport aircraft to have this alert as we can see the consequences can be catastrophic.

[WhyByFlier]

I don't need to have done stalls or spins in a 747 to see that the aircraft wing drops left, yaws massively to the right, wing drops to the right and loses height rapidly 'on a knife edge'. Who knows why they applied rudder but I do know that the technique taught is rudder to prevent further wing drop. It's my opinion that people over kill this technique. I won't be using rudder in a stall. I'm not touching it.

Having done stalls in the A320 sim with my company ( following the AF447 accident) I can tell you it requires alot more pitch down than a light aircraft, a very gentle recovery out of the nose down attitude to avoid a subsequent stall (which comes surprisingly easily) and an extension of slats helps alot. These were generally done 10000' and at high altitude.

Having what looks like such a high attitude stall in something with as high a mass as a 747 at this level must have been a nightmare.

[Lantirn]

Who knows why they applied rudder but I do know that the technique taught is rudder to prevent further wing drop. It's my opinion that people over kill this technique. I won't be using rudder in a stall. I'm not touching it.

Except if they didnt have time to realize that their ailerons are ineffective due to high alpha on the apex of the climb and the only way of getting this nose down was the rudder, or they would fall vertically straight down still with high pitch attitude.

[NSEU]

Does the 747 a take-off warning (like the A320) if power levers are advanced with stab trim outside of acceptable range?/QUOTE]

On standard 747-400's, it depends on what data the pilots enter into the FMC (as per their loadsheets): Weight, thrust, CG, etc. i.e. Garbage in, garbage out.

However, prior to this, if the wrong data is entered, there is a chance it could be caught prior to takeoff. The aircraft does a rough check between entered data and the nose gear strut pressure. There is a pressure sensor which sends data to the alerting system. Strut pressure identifies aft or forward CG (roughly). An advisory message is generated if there is large discrepancy.

ALSO, on aircraft fitted with operative Weight & Balance systems (common on Freighters), computed weights and CG are displayed on the CDUs in small font for comparison with manual entries.

[WhyByFlier]

I wouldn't recommend using the ailerons either ( and I'm well aware that ailerons are ineffective and even reversed at very high alpha).
Lower the nose, unloading the G, roll the wings. Nevertheless I believe this was unrecoverable - so no slight on the crew. I remember I was taught early on by an examiner, having been taught by a 20 something instructor that regurgitated the text book technique to me - don't you touch that rudder in a stall! I don't fancy spinning today! You really have to know what you're doing. And I mean not spew out on pprune some quote written by a very capable test pilot - I mean practice these procedures in a type or similar at sensible timescales.

[CaptAirProx]

Whybyflier et al,

I believe the reason rudder is mentioned and used in some stall recovery methods, is because it is the yaw that develops at the point of stall due to the sudden increase in drag of that wing at the point of stall. The wing drop is normally the bit we as pilots see more visually. So rudder is used to prevent further yaw, not actually wing drop.

In this incident, we get a perfect view underneath the jet so we are not seeing it from a pilot's eye view. I would guess that if you look at any aircraft that stalls one wing first for what ever reason (rudder application, dirty wing, gust, aileron input etc) it would look like a massive yaw has developed from a pilot input.

So - although none of us know exactly what or wasn't applied in this event it seems to appear to me, for whatever reason (pilot induced or not) the right wing finally stalled causing a rapid yaw with resultant roll in the direction of yaw. . . basically a spin entry that due to the delightful 747 it briefly headed 'towards' a spiral dive which then self corrected? That perhaps more altitude may have given them a fighting chance . . . but there for the grace of god and all that.

However I am not a swept wing specialist so perhaps my straight wing stalling theory is flawed?

[NutLoose]

When the nose dropped would you not face the then problem of the load ( if that caused the problem) shifting fwd?

[BOAC]

I think if you have a loose heavy load, all 'conjecture' is off?

[fdr]

clip is that the second wing drop was an attempt by the flight crew to get the nose to drop (see below) and restore controlled flight ... we do see the wings returning to level before impact .. but they ran out of altitude for recovery. LW50

TOC... the second wing drop is exceeding the normal aileron only roll max rate, for high aoa on the B744. If the roll off to starboard was from pilot input, it would be using rudder to give the roll, which would give the rate easily. The image doesn't give much help without pixel level evaluation to indicate the aileron position or the rudder position at the start of the roll off.

As for incipient spin, the aircraft has a roll rate initially to starboard, (at TOC) and then a yaw to starboard, but it has a roll then to port, with yaw reducing. The pitch rate is not a sustained pitch up, so I doubt that there is any inertial coupling going on, just some roll and yaw without extended coupling. The B74 has very benign handling normally, just needs half a chance and some altitude. (Last B744 type stall event at low level I am aware of was about a month before... not stability related, just environmental and crews with a SA/1 disconnect; lucky boys). These guys were faced with a catastrophic stability issue and in a time critical situation. We don't train this one, but it is a painfully possible event due to the functional resonance of socio-technological systems.

[FullWings]

These guys were faced with a catastrophic stability issue and in a time critical situation.
Agreed.

I think the video, sadly, shows a "departure from controlled flight" with probably little to no chance of recovery. I'm sure they did pretty much everything they could with the controls during the short period they were airborne but it ended in extreme AoA and high RoD.

A *recoverable* jet upset at high altitude is bad enough (see AF447) but, as is likely, having heavy cargo on the loose inside the fuselage at low level makes it non-surviveable, IMHO. It's a bit like making a paper dart that is aerodynamically unstable - no matter how fast or slow you throw it, it just flutters randomly to the ground. Cutting the engine power might possibly have helped slightly but who's to know?

[Lonewolf_50]

fdr, thanks. I could not make out what the rudder was doing, I was trying to understand the right roll, and hadn't considered roll rate limitations. (DOH!) Thanks also on the incipient spin and inertial coupling points. :ok: Insofar as the wings being more or less level at impact, do you think (once the nose fell through) that sufficient control authority was restored to roll level using ailerons (roll rate limits considered)? :confused:

[janeczku]

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.

[WhyByFlier]

The question isn't what happened - it's why it happened. It is clear what happened - they stalled, wing dropped, they tried to balance it (secondary effect of left roll defo isn't right yaw), they had the spin entry and it crashed. No one knows what begun this sequence of events - they only think. My opinion is the application of rudder didn't help. At best it shortened the petrifying roller-coaster. They were able to roll and pitch before impact, clearly - you can see that, but it was too late. The beginnings of the spin sealed the deal. A 747 at take off has an eye watering amount of inertia, it takes time to do things. Once it was yawed right from that wing drop it was game over - the knife edge turn basically put it in free fall from 1200' with bugger all energy.

[Lonewolf_50]

A 747 at take off has an eye watering amount of inertia, it takes time to do things.
I got that. .
Once it was yawed right from that wing drop it was game over - the knife edge turn basically put it in free fall from 1200' with bugger all energy.

Also got that.

I still don't see how that's a spin, but I think I can piece together how what you are describing is similar to a spin entry. *scratches head* As the nose drops and the wings level, it appears, from what little we see, that it is still in a stall but it does not appear to be rotating about the vertical axis (again, the view may inform this impression) which is what I associate with a spin.

[Capn Bloggs]

Insofar as the wings being more or less level at impact, do you think (once the nose fell through) that sufficient control authority was restored to roll level using ailerons (roll rate limits considered)?
I think the situation was more basic than that: the aircraft hit the gorund going almost vertically down with hardly any forward speed. None of the flight controls would have been effective; it was a falling leaf. Quite possibly, if it had another couple of thousand feet under it, it would have wing-rocked again, ala AF447.

I think CaptAirProx has it right:

basically a spin entry that due to the delightful 747 it briefly headed 'towards' a spiral dive which then self corrected?

[GlueBall]

janeczku: "You are wrong. The accident occurred 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."

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.

[Lonewolf_50]

Glueball: also, SOFA (status of forces) agreements address coordination with local authorities as part of that agreement. It's been some years since I saw the SOFA that included Bagram air base, pre Karzai, so I don't know what it looks like now. I do recall that if an Afghan civilian or military or police was injured/involved, or property damage, there were some protocols to handle cases with a joint investigation and adjudication of claims.
That's all memory provides at the moment.
We mostly let the JAGs handle that.

[Volume]

the aircraft hit the gorund going almost vertically down with hardly any forward speed.Which is most probably just an optical illusion due to the viewing angle and the distorted view through the windscreen. You can see the aircraft getting bigger quite rapidly, so although it seems to stand almost still, it was in fact moving fast. During impact you can see debris moving forward rapidly trailing burning fuel. Compared to the size of the fuselage they travel at least one fuselage length in a second, so some 100+ kt. Without forward speed the roll rate to level the wings would not have been possible either.

[F Dolarhyde]

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.

[janeczku]

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. That would be extremely unusual. Military bases are NOT embassys. I can asssure you from all the US military bases in Europe there is NOT a single one that is souvereign territory of the US of A.

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?

[rgbrock1]

US military bases in a foreign country are in no sense "sovereign territory", regardless of where those bases may be. Bagram is no exception.

[LiveryMan]

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...

Last I checked, Afghanistan is a NATO operation. Most if not ALL NATO nations have a presence there, including Germany.
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?

[Airclues]

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.

[WhyByFlier]

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.



Said in a David Attenborough voice - and here we have the flight sim pilot who crops up every 20 posts or so, trying to shout down those with an opinion. No one is being offensive, just interested and together trying to understand. There have been a number of great, insightful points made.

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.

[janeczku]

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 threadYou are the only one getting political here.

And - as i already said - the authority over the investigation is with the Afghans and NTSB knows it!

Quote NTSB press release (http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2013/130430.html):

The Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation is leading the investigation and will be the sole source of information regarding the investigation.

[Sidebar]

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:

[LiveryMan]

That's quite a rate. The word "brick" comes to mind :sad:

[rgbrock1]

Yes, but doesn't that presuppose that the video caught the decent in its entirety?

[Lonewolf_50]

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.
Thank you. Thanks also to CapnBloggs, WhyBy, and CaptAirProx. With your points in mind, I have watched the sequence of events a few more times. Makes more sense now. Got a better picture of the yaw with the right roll. Also paid more attention to the ground impact and the inertia/forward splash of debris.

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.

[Lantirn]

FullWings

Cutting the engine power might possibly have helped slightly but who's to know?

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.

[notadog]

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.

[notadog]

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.

An "intuition"? (I assume your "intuition" is based on your thousands of hours in B747's, right?)

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:

[BOAC]

This qualifies for the most ridiculous statement in this thread. - actually no - whether the dog was whining in the van or the driver was English or American or if he swore - surely these win hands down?

[Lantirn]

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.

[spleener]

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.

[Lantirn]

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.

You can access the article here
Aerodynamic Principles of Large-Airplane Upsets (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/textonly/fo01txt.html)

[notadog]

Notadog, I'm sure you're aware that while reducing thrust is counter intuitive, it remains a [jointly developed] standard Airbus/Boeing recovery technique.


Really? Boeing recommends reducing thrust as a recovery technique during a departure stall close to the ground? Could you point me to where that is published?

[Lonewolf_50]

If you end up with 80 degree nose up at 1200 ft in a 747 you are dead. No matter what you do.
Notadog:

"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.
The Boeing article excerpt is of interest, thanks. Of course, that last bit doubtless presumes "altitude/time sufficient to do all that."

[notadog]

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.

Lantirn...

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?

[notadog]

"80 degrees nose up" comes from an eyewitness report that is likely inaccurate.

Needless to say, the pitch attitude of the airplane was extreme, and the resulting stall was unrecoverable.

[Evanelpus]

Have you ever actually flown a heavy transport category jet airplane?

Oh I don't know, he sounds like a seasoned FS9/FSX pro to me!

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks, I had missed that eyewitness report, caveat noted. Roger the rest.

[Stevewearing]

Guys

People died here, so lets remember this.

I have probably 15,000 hours flying 747s over 19 years and I wouldn't speculate or pontificate on the causes of this tragic accident on a forum like this.

I have my personal views on what caused the accident, and I certainly wouldn't publicly air them: there is nothing to be gained from this.

Thankfully there is a video that will help the NTSB, but in the meantime please let's have some decorum and respect our deceased professionals and their families.

[WhyByFlier]

Quote:
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.
An "intuition"? (I assume your "intuition" is based on your thousands of hours in B747's, right?)

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.




Notadog, you CLEARLY haven't flown an under slung jet airliner.

From A320 QRH (so not 747 but still under slung, swept wing jet) - Stall recovery:

STALL RECOVERY

As soon as any stall indication (could be aural warning, buffet...) is recognized, apply the immediate actions:

NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL..................................................... ...............APPLY This will reduce angle of attack

Note: In case of lack of pitch down authority, reducing thrust may be necessary.

BANK........................................................ ..........................................WINGSLEVEL

● When out of stall (no longer stall indications) : THRUST...................................................INC REASESMOOTHLYASNEEDED

Note: In case of one engine inoperative, progressively compensate the thrust asymmetry with rudder.

Read the bit I have made bold and underlined. It's a fair idea to reduce thrust and extend slats if you're struggling with the pitch. Don't be such an aggressive little twerp.

There are those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know. You are the later.

[Lantirn]

Have you ever actually flown a heavy transport category jet airplane?

notadog, no I havent.

I am an ATPL fellow.

The point is that you (and no-one) cant expect every flight crew to react like you would with your experience.

The reaction patterns are of course standardized but in extreme abnormal situations the correct reactions may not be commited to procedural knowledge due to lack of sim training.

Given the lack of time, the exceptionaly high work overload, you may see extraordinary things happening just because something happens "out of the pattern". In fact, declarative knowledge is somewhat useless in such situations because it is not coupled with motor skills.

Many things come into play when thinking human factors, but thats not the point.

(Damn, I hope I am not talking to an FSX pilot!)

[notadog]

Notadog, you CLEARLY haven't flown an under slung jet airliner.

Clearly.

Thank you for correcting my lack of experience.

The next time I stall my airplane at 1000'AGL on departure with the flaps/slats/gear extended I'll just reduce thrust and push the nose over and recover.

Silly me, I had forgotten it was so simple.

I'll go turn in my B747/757/767/727 and MD11 ratings in now.

[boguing]

As a layman I'm struggling to understand this:-

If load shift happened as a result (apart from not being locked down) of pitch up, and was not controllable, how did a stalled aircraft manage to pitch over? Wouldn't a massively aft cofg force to it descend nose up? It was far too slow for control surfaces to overcome that?

[WhyByFlier]

Well you're not considering the pitch power couple - it's a technique to assist lowering the nose. You're never too experienced to learn and given I very much doubt you've done anymore stalls in an airliner than any/many on here there's something you may have missed.

[notadog]

(Damn, I hope I am not talking to an FSX pilot!)

No. You are not. I do have a bit of a background in heavy jet operations, including the B747.

I can assure you that that crew was doing all they could to save their airplane and their lives. And in the situation they found themselves in, one of the things they were likely not doing was reducing engine thrust at 1200' AGL as they stalled.

You and others here can spout all of the nice aerodynamic theory and quote all of the checklists you like, but you obviously have zero real world experience, and you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Low altitude stall recovery doen not include reducing engine thrust. Period.

[flyingchanges]

They did not pitch over, the nose came down during the time they were at 90 angle of bank. Big difference.

[notadog]

Well you're not considering the pitch power couple - it's a technique to assist lowering the nose.

Right.

The "pitch power couple". OK.

Thanks for the reminder.

:ugh:

[WhyByFlier]

Notadog, you're not an airliner pilot. Your understanding and argument are weak and without any substance.

Pitch/power couple - ok it should be pitch/thrust couple. It has a significant effect - ask any 73/74 pilot who has done a go around - you have to push forward! In a very high alpha stall with the engines at full chat you'd do well to reduce thrust and increase smoothly out of the stall - note smoothly - a rapid application could take you back to square one.

That's the end of my comms with you - I don't like your attitude, contributions or lies.

[FullWings]

Sorry for starting the argument but there are certainly aircraft in which a combination of aft trim and underslung engines at high power can cause uncontrollable pitch up at slow speeds, such that stall recovery becomes difficult. Some models of 737, for instance, hence the Boeing and Airbus guidance. All pilots of under-wing engined aircraft should be aware of these effects. If you have run out of other options, it's something to try, much like reducing thrust on the good engine if you're below Vmca after a failure.

If load shift happened as a result (apart from not being locked down) of pitch up, and was not controllable, how did a stalled aircraft manage to pitch over? Wouldn't a massively aft cofg force to it descend nose up? It was far too slow for control surfaces to overcome that?
Relative to the horizon, it does pitch down. Because the rate of descent was of the same magnitude as the forward speed, the angle of attack of the wing was very high, likely 40-50degs. The aircraft, relative to the airflow, was very much tail low still. To unstall the wings would require a further pitch down of c.30degs or more from what we see in the final moments.

[notadog]

Notadog, you're not an airliner pilot.

Actually I am, but I'll certainly defer to your obvious knowledge that you are clearly demonstrating here.

Your understanding and argument are weak and without any substance.

Duly noted.

Pitch/power couple - ok it should be pitch/thrust couple. It has a significant effect - ask any 73/74 pilot who has done a go around - you have to push forward!

Hmmm...to do a go around one has to push forward? I've been doing it wrong for all these years! I was under the impression that to go up one pulled back on the yoke. I'm really confused. Any 73/74 pilots want to clarify this for me?

In a very high alpha stall with the engines at full chat you'd do well to reduce thrust and increase smoothly out of the stall - note smoothly - a rapid application could take you back to square one.

And this would be done at 1000' AGL in a large heavy jet in the takeoff configuration? (BTW...what is "full chat"?)

That's the end of my comms with you - I don't like your attitude, contributions or lies.

Roger, over and out!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Any 73/74 pilots want to clarify this for me?

Sure. If you're trimmed correctly, at approach speed and you apply TOGA thrust you WILL need to counter the nose up pitching moment caused by the underslung engines, more specifically the thrust line which is below the C of G.

Now, how will you do that?

Also you'd do well to google the Thomson incident at Bournemouth.

[exeng]

As a 737 pilot I can confirm that a full thrust go-around, particularly from low altitude, and particularly after the autopilot has trimmed nose up on a dual channel ILS - a nose down input is required. To pull the nose up would end in tears.

Regards
Exeng

[eppy]

Notadog, you're not an airliner pilot.


WhybeFlier - I can confirm that Notadog has a current Airline Transport Pilot licence.

Can't say anything else about the quality of his comments though :rolleyes:

[Airclues]

In my last airline (744F) we used to teach the technique highlighted by Lantirn of applying a large bank angle when recovering from very high pitch up situations (roll wings level when nose is below the horizon). It was often the only way to avoid a stall. It looks to me as though that is what the crew were trying to achieve. The recovery could be achieved in about 3000ft Unfortunately this crew didn't have that available.

A few years ago a 744 carried out a go-around. The F/O, who was flying it, thought that the autopilot was in, but it wasn't. The go-around thrust caused a very high pitch angle. A stall was avoided by the combination of full down elevator and a reduction in thrust to allow the nose to pitch down. Thrust was re-applied when the pitch was reduced.

[notadog]

Now, how will you do that?

Reduce thrust?

Guys, I flew the 747/757/767...

I'm pretty familiar with the go around characteristics.

Apparently the sarcasm was not clear enough.

[WhyByFlier]

That was the most subtle sarcasm I've ever seen.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
In flight, the positions of the outboard engine's thrust line counters inboard engine's same. Unlike twin engine aircraft with engines on pylons, there is very little pitch effect with thrust changes on a B744.
Tootle pip!!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Reduce thrust?

Kinda defeats the purpose of a go around doesn't it. You could always push.

By the way, in the face of overwhelming correctness, backing out of previous comments by claiming they were sarcasm is just, well, pathetic.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

LeadSled, is the same true when the wings are producing little, or no, lift and the outboard engines are lower in relation to the C of G?

[CodyBlade]

Lets call a halt,you guys are embarrassing yourselves.

A terrible day for commercial aviation lets just STFU and show some respect.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lord Spandex:
The Bournemouth incident AAIB report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/3-2009%20G-THOF.pdf)is very good reading, thanks for the tip. What seems to be similar from that incident to this is crew surprise (it's not supposed to be doing that!) though the initial conditions at stall are different. (Approach versus takeoff phase).

[JW411]

Almost 50 years ago I became a captain of a 4-engined aeroplane. I finally retired seven years ago. I would like to tell you a story.

In the 1960s and 1970s, us Brits were involved in just about everybody's wars, disagreements and mild skirmishes on a global basis. I spent most of my life in those days flying troops and equipment to such far-flung places as the Middle and Far East and even Central America (Belize).

One of my colleagues wrote an article in one of the Transport Command magazines suggesting how we could make life better. I thought it was a wonderful idea. I was not alone.

The suggestion was that we would invite all of the combatants to visit an area of Salisbury Plain (a large military danger area) to sort out their various problems. So, for example, we could transport the Arabs and Israelis to Larkhill on the first Thursday in July and give them two weeks to sort themselves out. We would then take the survivors home.

Can I suggest that the PPrune management talks to the Ministry of Defence to see if they can get a cheap rate on one of the Salisbury Plain areas (such as Imber) and then we can invite all of the promising hysterics (who know more about aerodynamics than I ever learned and who would be able to conduct a total in depth investigation as to why their B744 has stalled and would be able to effect a recovery within nano-seconds to a successful landing.

Against them we could have the PPLs and also the MS experts who are trying to equate this event with a stall in a PA-28.

NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER HAD TO FACE THE HORROR OF BEING IN THE FRONT WINDOW SEAT OF A BOEING 744 WHICH IS CLIMBING LIKE CRAZY AND IS ABOUT TO STOP FLYING DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS.

This has to be every professional pilot's nightmare.

So, let us get back to fantasy. Perhaps in future the Pprune management could set up an area on Salisbury Plain where we could all reach a good solution to our problems. The protagonists would probably be best organised in pairs. One would be sitting in a baby pram (stroller for my US friends) surrounded with childrens toys and the other member of the team would be pushing (or pulling if appropriate).

Those who have real experience in the subject in hand would be allowed to have quite heavy toys to throw and those who only had a background in theoretical fantasy would only have light toys.

Sciolists would only be allowed to throw toilet rolls.

The winners would get a lift home and the losers would be voted out of court for ever.

Please can we have Pprune back to what it was?

I am just so grateful that I was not at Bagram that day in the front of that Boeing 744.

[Locked door]

LeadSlead

Total bs from a non 747 pilot. There is a huge pitch power couple on the 744, so much so that an application of TOGA from a stable approach requires a FORWARD control column input followed by forward trim is required to arrest the pitch up movement.

It might also be necessary on departure if thrust is advanced from reduced thrust to TOGA.

However the Boeing QRH stall recovery manoeuvre does not specifically say to reduce the thrust, however it does say only to "advance thrust levers as required".

However, in an out of limits trim situation when full nose down plus trimming isn't enough, if I had my wits about me I might try to reduce thrust. You have to unstall the wing to recover, regardless of what your altitude is.

Please note I am not suggesting there was anything these poor souls could have done. Their situation looks awful and unrecoverable.

LD (8000 hours and counting)

[hval]

Chaps,

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of Notadogs thoughts and comments. I am able to look at what he has written and think of a few possible reasons he may write what he writes. Notadog may be able to clarify his meanings.

For instance, both PF and PNF may not have been able to remove their hands from the control yokes due to the forces required to have control of the yoke. I don't know. I do know that the forces required for pushing the yoke forward are significantly less than pulling the yoke back. With the aircraft achieving the attitudes and velocities it did I am not sure what forces would be required.

Perhaps Notadogs is alluding to the fact that the pilots, psychologically, may not have got to the stage where they had thought of reducing thrusts and hoped that maximum thrust might be the only solution.

There could be other reasons. For instance how valid are Leadsleds comments in this situation?

[WhyByFlier]

JW411 what a 'look at me' post. Everyone has said this situation seemed unrecoverable but it's our job to deal with the non normals - that's where we earn the money. Unfortunately these guys lost their lives - if I'd been flying I'd have handled it differently to how it seems they did but given the likely cause would have ended in the same outcome I'm sure.

As people who perform a highly technical, practical job and as people who do this job because of passion it is completely reasonable and understandable that we discuss this, try and learn from it and better understand. I have genuinely learned some extremely useful things from this site - rules of thumb, things I never considered in non normals and airmanship points. Don't try and polarise this thread into some well wishing, mock crash site where everyone tosses their flowers and heart felt messages and snots into their hankies.