Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a few posters commenting on the wood that is used to:
Only one vehicle needs to be affected to move the c of g. If it collides with other poorly restrained vehicles a poor situation can be unmanagable.
If pressurised aircraft were permitted to have square windows, if the world will watch while 6 million Jews were murdered, if an unwinnable asian war dragged on for 10 years, Pearl Harbour was attacked and a US president could be impeached, I think wood can be inappropriately included in a loading system and an enquiry can be tainted.
- prevent the 2 pallets from hinging upwards where they join, especially during loading, unloading and other ground handling
- spread the load
- make a firm connection between the vehicles and the aircraft floor without relying on the vehicle suspension
- the two pallets can possibly hinge upwards where they join, depending on the pallet restraint
- the load is no longer spread as intended
- there is no longer a firm connection to the pallet and aircraft
- the vehicle suspension is now clearly in the equasion
Only one vehicle needs to be affected to move the c of g. If it collides with other poorly restrained vehicles a poor situation can be unmanagable.
If pressurised aircraft were permitted to have square windows, if the world will watch while 6 million Jews were murdered, if an unwinnable asian war dragged on for 10 years, Pearl Harbour was attacked and a US president could be impeached, I think wood can be inappropriately included in a loading system and an enquiry can be tainted.
Last edited by autoflight; 10th Jun 2013 at 02:15.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a loadmaster.
In my opinion that loading method (shown in photos) is deeply flawed
solid wood blocks allow no compression and the blocks under the middle of the vehicle are supporting the solid structure of the vehicle and NOT able to compress (blocks under axles will allow compression by way of the vehicle suspension ) end result its possible to rock in pitch about the blocks set in the middle, possibly even enough to unlatch strap hook ends.
In my opinion the vehicle should have COMPLETELY deflated tyres and NO blocks, the straps and chains then attached to the vehicle compressing the vehicle suspension
I am not in any way saying this method was used in the crash flight or that if it was used, that it caused the crash, but (as a complete amateur in this field with no professional experience) I certainly dont agree with the securing method shown in those loading photos.
In my opinion that loading method (shown in photos) is deeply flawed
solid wood blocks allow no compression and the blocks under the middle of the vehicle are supporting the solid structure of the vehicle and NOT able to compress (blocks under axles will allow compression by way of the vehicle suspension ) end result its possible to rock in pitch about the blocks set in the middle, possibly even enough to unlatch strap hook ends.
In my opinion the vehicle should have COMPLETELY deflated tyres and NO blocks, the straps and chains then attached to the vehicle compressing the vehicle suspension
I am not in any way saying this method was used in the crash flight or that if it was used, that it caused the crash, but (as a complete amateur in this field with no professional experience) I certainly dont agree with the securing method shown in those loading photos.
I still think the same
When you secure a load on a moving vessel you do not want any flexing, but a stiff load and lashing. Deflating the tyres will not provide this as the rubber will flex and the wheels might skid on the rubber as well. In addition I do not think that neither the tyres nor the rims will benefit from such treatment. Using wood blocks is fine provided it is located correctly.
Per
Per
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The image looks to show that there are two elements to the restraint. 10K chains used between the vehicle and a mil spec pallet and 5k straps used for the vehicle/pallet combo to the aircraft floor. Was the restraint of these two seperate operations combined to assess the overall restraint values? The latter should have been the decider IMHO.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stayed away from this until now,
Afganastan and the American contractors there was always a problem securing the load.
if you felt not enough straps they would argue and say we have been doing this for years and we know our job.
Many times we delayed flights for these contractors that load the airplanes.
Flew in and out of there for 3 years with Midex.
For instance if a heavy vehicle was loaded on a flat floor, they would only attach 3 5000 pound straps for this,
i complained many times to midex safety, said in the USAF they used tie down chains, but not in afganastan with Midex.
have the emails to safety one, he was useless, worried about his job.
Another issue we had all A300 not configured for military pallets , smaller that normal ones. had to really enforce the issue for side strapping cargo, since no locks on one side.
Complaints to management fell on deaf ears.
just my 2 cents , but always worried about shifting cargo, our load masters not the best either so we always checked..
Afganastan and the American contractors there was always a problem securing the load.
if you felt not enough straps they would argue and say we have been doing this for years and we know our job.
Many times we delayed flights for these contractors that load the airplanes.
Flew in and out of there for 3 years with Midex.
For instance if a heavy vehicle was loaded on a flat floor, they would only attach 3 5000 pound straps for this,
i complained many times to midex safety, said in the USAF they used tie down chains, but not in afganastan with Midex.
have the emails to safety one, he was useless, worried about his job.
Another issue we had all A300 not configured for military pallets , smaller that normal ones. had to really enforce the issue for side strapping cargo, since no locks on one side.
Complaints to management fell on deaf ears.
just my 2 cents , but always worried about shifting cargo, our load masters not the best either so we always checked..
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The indian loadmasters we had were good,the Jordanian ones would lie through there teeth, you go back and check the extra straps you requested, would say yes i did, but when check never done.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you secure a load on a moving vessel you do not want any flexing, but a stiff load and lashing. Deflating the tyres will not provide this as the rubber will flex and the wheels might skid on the rubber as well. In addition I do not think that neither the tyres nor the rims will benefit from such treatment. Using wood blocks is fine provided it is located correctly.
Per
Per
Lone_Ranger,
I will comment since the picture obviously is not from the ill stricken airplane.
I am a belt and braces guy when it comes to securing cargo, what with a maritime past and working with lifts in the offshore oil & gas industry at present.
Back to the picture, I would have used wood of uniform dimension and secured them as blocks with either bolts through them or steel straps around them. I do not know what the trucks look like underneath, but my gut feeling is that I would have placed the wooden blocks longitudinally to provide more stability and if possible some transverse for good measure.
I can see that my approach is time consuming and might not be feasible in the constraints of an aircraft, but since you asked.
Thankfully I was not there and did not have to make the decisions.
I will comment since the picture obviously is not from the ill stricken airplane.
I am a belt and braces guy when it comes to securing cargo, what with a maritime past and working with lifts in the offshore oil & gas industry at present.
Back to the picture, I would have used wood of uniform dimension and secured them as blocks with either bolts through them or steel straps around them. I do not know what the trucks look like underneath, but my gut feeling is that I would have placed the wooden blocks longitudinally to provide more stability and if possible some transverse for good measure.
I can see that my approach is time consuming and might not be feasible in the constraints of an aircraft, but since you asked.
Thankfully I was not there and did not have to make the decisions.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Liverpool UK
Age: 71
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lashing and Securing
I am not in the aviation industry, but I am a Marine Cargo Surveyor and am a senior partner in a UK cargo lashing and securing company.
Looking at the pictures of the vehicle lashings (I know not in the crash aircraft) I would be very concerned for the following reasons.
1. There are chain lashings and webbing lashings pulling in the same direction, that is a no no, chain and webbing have different stretch coefficients so all the loading is on the chains.
2. No protection on the vehicle front lashing eyes so heavy loading will cause failure, as you tighten the Ratchet the webbing pulls over the sharp edge of the eye and gets damaged.
3. Cargo should be loop lashed with pairs of lashings, ie.fixed to right side attached to left side and pulled back to right side with another lashing fitted the other way round, most just appear to be fed through the eyes.
4. I assume that lashing points on aircraft are lower strength than on ships so you need more lashings to achieve the total lashing strength, but there are so many lashings that it is difficult to tell in what direction each lashing pulls.
5. Wooden chocking appears to be made of planks all one way (transverse) so cargo will fall forward or backwards if lashings fail, chocking planks should be built up in opposite directions to make a square box.
It is always difficult to to make definitive comments from a photograph but this is just my thoughts.
Looking at the pictures of the vehicle lashings (I know not in the crash aircraft) I would be very concerned for the following reasons.
1. There are chain lashings and webbing lashings pulling in the same direction, that is a no no, chain and webbing have different stretch coefficients so all the loading is on the chains.
2. No protection on the vehicle front lashing eyes so heavy loading will cause failure, as you tighten the Ratchet the webbing pulls over the sharp edge of the eye and gets damaged.
3. Cargo should be loop lashed with pairs of lashings, ie.fixed to right side attached to left side and pulled back to right side with another lashing fitted the other way round, most just appear to be fed through the eyes.
4. I assume that lashing points on aircraft are lower strength than on ships so you need more lashings to achieve the total lashing strength, but there are so many lashings that it is difficult to tell in what direction each lashing pulls.
5. Wooden chocking appears to be made of planks all one way (transverse) so cargo will fall forward or backwards if lashings fail, chocking planks should be built up in opposite directions to make a square box.
It is always difficult to to make definitive comments from a photograph but this is just my thoughts.
Wood dunnage
I think Autoflight and Ancient Mariner have it and that "ancient" lessons from lashing cargoes at sea are apropos.
My suspicion from the start has been with that wood chocking under the chassis. I think it was Autoflight who mentioned millimetric shifting or compression. This happens with wood and with nylon and it's very difficult to notice: the strops feel tight. Hope loadmasters worldwide take the lesson on board.
Edit: neglected to mention Mainsail as his post crossed with mine. And I don't think anyone is - or should be - pre-judging loadmasters by nationality. Experience should transcend that and whoever the main contractors are, they should be imparting whatever experience they have to their sub-contractors. Yes, I know, easier said than done.
My suspicion from the start has been with that wood chocking under the chassis. I think it was Autoflight who mentioned millimetric shifting or compression. This happens with wood and with nylon and it's very difficult to notice: the strops feel tight. Hope loadmasters worldwide take the lesson on board.
Edit: neglected to mention Mainsail as his post crossed with mine. And I don't think anyone is - or should be - pre-judging loadmasters by nationality. Experience should transcend that and whoever the main contractors are, they should be imparting whatever experience they have to their sub-contractors. Yes, I know, easier said than done.
Last edited by broadreach; 13th Jun 2013 at 18:57.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earl maybe I have got this wrong but I understand that you were flying with Midex. National use all professional full time crew not Jordanian or Indian contractors. Please don't compare the two companies.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank-you for the recent responses. Good to see this level of cargo experience. It would be a shame if there was another similar accident while we wait for the final accident report. I hope pilots and loadmasters will insist on improved loading methods.
Last edited by autoflight; 13th Jun 2013 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The load masters we had at midex was office staff that they trained as load masters.
Zero experience before at such a job that should have had more experience in weight and balance etc.many times the weight and balance would exceed or nearly exceed on the cg.
They would try and blow it off as to within limits.
Not saying in any way that national had these bad ones.
But will say the american contractors that loaded any cargo left a lot to be desired, loadmaster checked the load and cg.
Never enough straps and never any chains on vehicles. wIth midex anyway.
Always a argument there in afganastan from the contractors and load plan.
Had many arguments with there Contractor american ones.
Need more straps etc.
Actually delayed many flights because if this.
Loading crews there are all contract, unless nation has there own there.
Zero experience before at such a job that should have had more experience in weight and balance etc.many times the weight and balance would exceed or nearly exceed on the cg.
They would try and blow it off as to within limits.
Not saying in any way that national had these bad ones.
But will say the american contractors that loaded any cargo left a lot to be desired, loadmaster checked the load and cg.
Never enough straps and never any chains on vehicles. wIth midex anyway.
Always a argument there in afganastan from the contractors and load plan.
Had many arguments with there Contractor american ones.
Need more straps etc.
Actually delayed many flights because if this.
Loading crews there are all contract, unless nation has there own there.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jopu, out of curiosity. Is the reason for using relatively low WLL (Working Load Limit) straps limited to the maximum load of the aircraft's fixing points? If that's the case it will explain the need for such a large number of straps. Given a choice I would have prefered fewer with higher WLL.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone ever qeustined why chains was not installed instead of this 5000 lbs straps.
We hauled many heavy vehles in the USAF, always chains there for tie downs.
With Midex put of afganastan only tie down straps.\
many times not enough.
some how claimed the American contractors there in bagram and camp bastion, we always had issues about not secure cargo especially vehicles.
This was a big issue with me before hope this is not what happened now
We hauled many heavy vehles in the USAF, always chains there for tie downs.
With Midex put of afganastan only tie down straps.\
many times not enough.
some how claimed the American contractors there in bagram and camp bastion, we always had issues about not secure cargo especially vehicles.
This was a big issue with me before hope this is not what happened now
Our loading manual, which parrots Boeing's W&B manual, specifically says not to use chains. It's in a NOTE which in Boeing speak means there is a chance of damaging the airplane if the procedure is not followed.
It's been a year since I've been through Bagram but I recall USAF personnel doing the load under the direction of our LM. My company didn't give a whole lot of guidance as to what to do if there was an attack while we were on the ramp (just stay on the plane) and I figured I'd do what they did. They were the professionals.
It's been a year since I've been through Bagram but I recall USAF personnel doing the load under the direction of our LM. My company didn't give a whole lot of guidance as to what to do if there was an attack while we were on the ramp (just stay on the plane) and I figured I'd do what they did. They were the professionals.
Last edited by MarkerInbound; 14th Jun 2013 at 05:38.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe because floor is not stressed for chains.
Chains are essential for any heavy weight cargo.
If floors and tie downs are for straps only then Boeing should get out of the cargo heavy weight vehicle carriage.
Even 4 tie down straps rated at 5000 pounds each is not enough.
True vehicle may weigh less than this.
But if it breaks the straps that weight is increased many times.
Depending on the aircraft pitch, domino affect.
Chains are essential for any heavy weight cargo.
If floors and tie downs are for straps only then Boeing should get out of the cargo heavy weight vehicle carriage.
Even 4 tie down straps rated at 5000 pounds each is not enough.
True vehicle may weigh less than this.
But if it breaks the straps that weight is increased many times.
Depending on the aircraft pitch, domino affect.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: In da north country
Age: 62
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chains without any nylon straps is a bad idea. Chains do not stretch at all and can shock load the fasteners holding the attach tracks to the floor. Chains should be used to attach the nylon straps to a steel loop attached to the machine, but nylon straps need to be used thereafter.
Boats and ships have entirely different criteria and working restraints and should not be compared.
Also, all 44 to 50 straps used to secure the machine, need to be attached at least 20 inches apart on the floor tracks, so as not to overload the floor tracks at one point.
These special loads are for professionals to deal with, not your average rampy.
Boats and ships have entirely different criteria and working restraints and should not be compared.
Also, all 44 to 50 straps used to secure the machine, need to be attached at least 20 inches apart on the floor tracks, so as not to overload the floor tracks at one point.
These special loads are for professionals to deal with, not your average rampy.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chains used on the Car Ferry were wrapped around the four inflated tyres, which should have provided a degree of shock-loading for the chains themselves.
Having each wheel firmly fastened to the aircraft meant that the rest of the vehicle could move, but only within what its suspension (its own springs and shock absorbers) allowed, a matter of inches, only UP or DOWN. Lateral or fore and aft movement of the vehicle was made impossible.
I have forgotten, if I ever knew, what was the strength of the tie down points, but the Bristol Freighter 170 Mk32 had been made specially for this work. We carried a lot of cars over the years.
The weights at Bagram WERE very different.
Having each wheel firmly fastened to the aircraft meant that the rest of the vehicle could move, but only within what its suspension (its own springs and shock absorbers) allowed, a matter of inches, only UP or DOWN. Lateral or fore and aft movement of the vehicle was made impossible.
I have forgotten, if I ever knew, what was the strength of the tie down points, but the Bristol Freighter 170 Mk32 had been made specially for this work. We carried a lot of cars over the years.
The weights at Bagram WERE very different.