Court suits regarding the April 29 747 freighter crash at Bagram Airfield
 

From an Oct. 2 Bloomberg story:

"National Air Cargo Group Inc. and its insurer sued the U.S. for breach of contract, saying the government failed to provide reimbursement of as much as $45 million for the crash of a Boeing 747-400 on a military mission in Afghanistan that killed seven crew members.

"The Federal Aviation Administration improperly denied a claim to pay out on an insurance policy covering aircraft contractors working for the Defense Department in a hostile setting, according to a complaint filed yesterday by the air carrier and Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington.

". . . In August, the estates of three pilots killed in the crash sued Boeing Co. in state court in Illinois, alleging negligent conversion of the plane from passenger to cargo use."

"The cases are pending."

National Air Cargo Sues U.S. in Afghan Military Crash - Bloomberg

Bah...

They're gonna have a hard time proving that if (when) it's found the load was inadequately restrained (and may have even suffered a hard landing before attempting to take off).

My sympathies to the families of the crew, but their lawyers may be barking up the wrong tree--deep pockets notwithstanding.

Just another day in lawyer-land.

As a person that was formerly within the ranks of National, as soon as the FAA gets someone on the inside willing to spill their guts on their operational proceedures and the internal events before and after the accident, then it will trigger an investigation.

Lawyers
 

Usually final crash report comes out well after deadline to sue. So lawyers sue everyone possibly involved first, then wait for facts to be established and drop cases if necessary (unless settled). More effective than waiting for report and watch lawsuit deadline come and go (say lawyers).

I talked to an FAA investigator about this accident. He said there was definitive evidence that improperly restrained cargo not only shifted during takeoff, it punched a hole in the fuselage when they rotated (pieces and debris were found on the runway :eek:). Further, they found evidence that some of the cargo restraints had failed before they departed. :=
Yep, time to sue Boeing :ugh:

I don't know. It depends on the extremely technical findings of the report. Just to say sue Boeing because "cargo restraints failed". Is that the main deck mechanism or the chains/turn buckles or ratchets? Or vickers rings?

Bar one, all of those aren't even made by Boeing. With a very old aircraft it's hard to prove liability for equipment failure in their part because you have to prove it wasnt years of poor non-Boeing standard maintenance of the main deck system or mishandling or oversight of loading procedures. It's so damn hard to truthfully find what caused it and then actually prove it. Freighters have so many get out clauses for the manufacturer it's unreal due to damage/ maintenance issues/poor handling/ non standard loading. Those poor families are desperate for the truth, I hope they find it.

Cliff
The was sarcasm. I thought that would be clear after the discussion of failed tie-downs...

Sorry man, knackered and skim read. I wasn't referring to your post anyway just the actuality of suing being talked about in the thread.

Bagram was a fuel stop. Since the load had "held" in position during the 1ST sector, the load master (who was aboard) likely had made only a cursory inspection of tie-downs and bear traps. Obviously, some of the originally secured cargo (MRAPS) had come unglued undetected. :{

Load shift?
 

I think it's time to take the focus off the crew and in particular the Loadmaster. It has already been established that the load did in all probability shift at some point as the aircraft accelerated down the runway. Why did this happen? The investigation is focusing on a number of factors. Broken restraints are one of the main issues. What might surprise many of you who have offered an opinion is the probable chain of events that led to the load moving. All restraints, either certified straps (brownlines) or chains etc are fixed to either the pallet or as in most cases like this, the floor of the aircraft by way of the fixed seat tracks. Although not published (yet), it seems some of the seat tracks 'gave way' and came away from the floor, this in turn would have put addition stress on the remaining tie down equipment to such an extent the remaining tie downs were unable to hold the load in place against the force of the accelerating aircraft. Thus the result was inevitable and unfortunate in the extreme. The Loadmaster can only be guided by the restrictions published by the manufacturer. Did you know the only restriction placed on the use of the seat tracks is the distance between the points used (about 20 inches if the restraints are in the same direction). This is about the same distance separating the restraint points under a passenger seat. There is no published restriction ( as far as I know, and I've been loading cargo aircraft longer than I care to remember) on the weight that can be restrained via the seat track. It's not rocket science to work out the amount of stress put on the seat track In relation to the weight of the load. Any
Loadmaster worth his salt would ensure all his tie downs were as tight as possible. Now take into account the weight of the vehicles he was carrying, the amount of tie downs he was using and then consider the effect this had on the fixings holding the seat track to the airframe and you have a recipe for disaster which was probably never imagined by the manufacturer.
We are all just waiting for a final verdict and a statement from the aircraft manufacturer restricting the future use of seat tracks for load restraint on all cargo aircraft. Do not point fingers or even speculate on the job done by a highly professional individual, look first for facts.

Although this was a relatively old airframe, the cargo conversion was quite recent so liability issues would probably still be possible.
When it comes to strapping, the aircraft contains the same Telair cargo loading
and locking system as the factory produced freighter (minus the nose loading/ locking functions) with nearly the full cargo floor structure as well.
So there was no seatrail strapping and the ability to strap to the airframe structure is more defined than with seatrails only.
However it is a science in itself when it comes to overweight loads.
And by the way - no chains allowed!

Binthere . . .
 

Sorry, but the "seat tracks" from the original delivered Air France passenger jet B747-428, delivered in 1993, were not part of the cargo restraint equation.

It was a Boeing Converted Freighter (B747-428BCF) with completely rebuilt floor structure and structural capacity of 237,750 lbs (107,842 kgs). :ooh:

Glueball
 

Next time you go anywhere near a cargo ULD, take a look at the fixing track that the net or the straps are attached to - seat track.

Next time you get into a big freighter with overweight cargo
look where the straps are fixed to - the loading system!

.....and the loading system consists of?