Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Cargo Crash at Bagram

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Cargo Crash at Bagram

Old 3rd Feb 2015, 22:07
  #661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Press Release -

NTSB Opens Docket on 2013 Crash of Boeing 747 Cargo Plane in Bagram, Afghanistan


Docket List -

Accident ID DCA13MA081 Mode Aviation occurred on April 29, 2013 in Bagram, Afghanistan Last Modified on February 03, 2015 12:02 Public Released on February 03, 2015 12:02 Total 51 document items
Halfnut is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 01:50
  #662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Posts: 1,007
The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Flight Data Recorder (FDR) both cease recording sometime immediately after the aircraftís rotation during its departure from Bagram Airfield.
That really sucks, was not aware of that until now.

Read the CVR transcript up to rotation though, and it is quite chilling and telling if the cause was indeed a cargo shift.
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 15:02
  #663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 35
Having both recorders stop abruptly at rotation does make one suspect that the integrity of the area around the aft pressure bulkhead was violated at that moment, likely by inadequately secured cargo.
Orestes is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 15:11
  #664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
I've taken the time to read through 90% of the reports provided by the NTSB. Although no concrete conclusions have been reached yet, the NTSB report does strongly suggest that the #1 MRAPV (mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle) broke loose from its tie-downs during the takeoff sequence and smacked into the aft pressure bulkhead of the accident aircraft, taking out the #1 and #4 hydraulic systems as well as the horizontal stabilizer jack screw. (Or whatever it's called.)

Prior to the flight the flight crew had remarked on a broken tie-down from one of the 5 MRAPV's in the aircraft's hold.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 16:47
  #665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,826
NTSB report does strongly suggest that the #1 MRAPV (mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle) broke loose from its tie-downs during the takeoff sequence and smacked into the aft pressure bulkhead
I had an off the record discussion with an FAA type a while back where he said that not only had an MRAP broken loose, it had punched a hole in the airplane and they had found bits of airplane and cargo on the runway near the takeoff point
tdracer is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 17:04
  #666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 917
Looking at the picture in post 661. I'm Very surprised that they are using strops rather than chains. In another life in the early 70's on the ATL98's we always used chains for vehicles (to stop the stretch) & were trained to calculate the number required taking into account the tie down points to hold fast in a 9g impact. (Well that is what we were taught) before we were entitled to do a load & trim sheet.
IcePack is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 17:19
  #667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
tdracer:

the bits and pieces of the aircraft, and cargo, found on the runway area is also contained in the NTSB report. As are descriptions of the marks the MRAPV made on the rear pressure bulkhead.

A loadmaster did not do his job that day. Not at all.

Icepack:

I was appalled when I saw the use of strops to hold down an 18-ton vehicle (x5). Back in my SP Howitzer days we even used chains to tie down our 155mm guns to railway cars, let alone an 18 ton vehicle in an aircraft.
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 19:07
  #668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,635
On Duty for 21hrs, looks like the plane was running late.No-one's mentioned the F word yet.
Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 21:29
  #669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,146
I was appalled when I saw the use of strops to hold down an 18-ton vehicle (x5). Back in my SP Howitzer days we even used chains to tie down our 155mm guns to railway cars, let alone an 18 ton vehicle in an aircraft.
An airplane is not a railway car. First, it is made largely of aluminum, not steel. Second, there is a limit to the amount of flex allowed. So, chains are NOT allowed for securing cargo to the airplane. Chains ARE allowed to secure cargo to a pallet in addition to nets and straps; but a combination of the pallet restraints built into the airplane and additional straps as required must secure the pallet and/or cargo to the airplane deck.

The Weight & Balance Manual for the airplane will dictate the number, angles, and distribution of the straps and the number of individual tiedown points that must be used; based on the size, weight, and position of the cargo.
Intruder is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 21:41
  #670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Posts: 1,007
Also significant is that on the landing in the inbound sector it sounds like they planted it on and really harped on the brakes, for whatever reason. They had a subsequent brake overheat and it was all part of the discussion captured on the CVR about pallets that had shifted and broken some straps.

This could have been the catalyst to what happened on the next takeoff. The broken pieces of hydraulic tubing found on the runway do make you wonder. I guess the cargo impact on the rear bulkhead was substantial enough to clarify as a "crash" which severed or compromised the CVR and FDR power, making them stop recording shortly after.

I wonder if the QAR recorder was destroyed beyond use. I know many of the cockpit parts where, so it probably was. I'm sure this came up during the investigation but I did not read the entire report.
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 21:52
  #671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 652
Intruder

Chains are used directly on many (inc. McDDouglas/Boeing) cargo aircraft, by design.



Are you suggesting the 747 freighter has specific limitations on the use of chains on its floor tie down rings? Seems odd.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2015, 22:40
  #672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,146
Civil transport aircraft?

Military aircraft are designed to significantly different specifications and requirements.

The 747 does not have any tiedown rings in the cargo floor. From our W&B manual which covers the 747 and 767:

The use of chains or other rigid devices for tie-down onto Company aircraft floor seat tracks is prohibited.
. . .

The use of chains for tiedowns is prohibited on Company aircraft.
. . .

The use of chains for tiedowns is prohibited on Company aircraft.
. . .

The use of chains for tiedowns is prohibited on Company aircraft.
I think that is quite clear.
Intruder is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 03:02
  #673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,853
Ok, so why is that ?
stilton is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 03:49
  #674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 93
Lets all take a deep breath.. The 747 is not a C5 or a C17… We do not use chains to tie cargo to the floor. We use straps.. And lots of them. Everyone keeps posting pictures of cargo on military planes using chains to secure cargo. We CAN NOT use chains. In 24 years as a 747 loadmaster I have moved all kinds of large cargo. From a 150000 pound generator on two 20 foot pallets. To a 30000 pound role of cable..I always do the same thing. Put locks up FWD and AFT of the pallet and then strap it like we have no locks. The fact of the matter is 1000+ MATV's have moved from CHS to OAI on 747 200. 300 and 400's. With out issue. National did something different that day. Those buckle straps suck.. They Never should have be used on a heavy load..
sidman is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 06:42
  #675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North England
Posts: 29
My guess would be that the chains are stronger than the fixings so when they're tightened up the fixings give and eventually break under stress. But I'd guess that manual comes from a passenger aircraft rather than a cargo aircraft and has a different design?

Edit: Just read your last comment about 747 cargo craft.
McWho is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 13:20
  #676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Posts: 59
Could fatigue be a significant factor in the crash. The crew were on duty for 21 hrs prior to the accident.
sunbird123 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 15:38
  #677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ft. Worth TX
Posts: 17
If the vehicle smashed the THS jackscrew, any pitch control movements by the crew may have been moot. ...

.
aircarver is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 15:49
  #678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
If the vehicle smashed the THS jackscrew, any pitch control movements by the crew may have been moot. ...
According to the NTSB report, referenced above, the THS jackscrew had quite a few scuff marks of paint on it. The same paint color as one of the MATV's. The report does not go so far as to make a claim that this scuffing is indicative of an MATV sliding into the THS but.......
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 15:58
  #679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 62
Posts: 436
The following extract from the NTSB report is the beginning of a conversation on the flight deck, concerning MATV's which were found "loose" in the aircraft.

TIME and
INTRA
-
COCKPIT COMMUNICATION
TIME and
AIR
-
GROUND COMMUNICATION
SOURCE
CONTENT
SOURCE
DCA13MA081
CVR Factual Report
-
Page
11
of
29
08:51:09
[start of recording]
09:57:23
[Start of Transcript]
09:57:33
CAM
-
2
thereís your trouble Brad.
09:57:35
CAM
-
1
what is it?
09:57:37
CAM
-
1
what the
# was that from?
09:57:39
CAM
-
2
one of those #
straps is busted.
09:57:42
CAM
-
3
* * tire.
09:57:44
CAM
-
1
no no, I know that... * no I know, but....
09:57:45
CAM
-
2
give you one guess what was right there.
09:57:49
CAM
-
1
what was right where?
09:57:49
CAM
-
2
right here.
09:57:50
CAM
-
1
a knot?
09:57:51
CAM
-
2
uh huh.
09:57:52
CAM
-
1
that was the one right at the door?

09:57:54
CAM
-
2
no... this was at.... * *.
09:57:56
CAM
-
1
so
you
(
go on/goin
)
puttin more straps (on #)?
09:57:59
CAM
-
2
(well) it just shifted (apparently/barely).
09:58:01
CAM
-
3
there was a bunch of them first... that first (truck).
09:58:02
CAM
-
1
did it move? .... #
moved?
09:58:04
CAM
-
2
yes. just tightened up on the straps.
09:58:06
CAM
-
2
the truck?
09:58:06
CAM
-
3
* like.... tightened those straps up uh, quite a bit,
on the first one.
09:58:13
CAM
-
2
you know how that...well you go look at the.... went
and looked at them now... all the ones * they had
a
bunch like this, to keep them from movin
backwards...a bunch like this * * movin forward? all
the ones that were keepin em from m
ovin
backwards were all #
loose.
09:58:28
CAM
-
3
what
the #
do you think'
s gonna happen when you
#
slam it on th
e r
unway and slam on the #
brakes
and don't use reverse... [
said
in a joking manner]
09:58:35
CAM
-
1
[sound of laughter]

09:58:36
CAM
-
2
there ain't nothin you coulda done about that.
09:58:37
CAM
-
3
* * I'm putting it on the
#
#
board I'm gettin off this
plane, I'm scared. [
said
in a joking manner
]
09:58:43
CAM
-
?
* *.
09:58:46
CAM
-
1
thow that
out man, thatís evidence. * @
[the
loadmaster] don't want that hangin around either.
09:58:50
CAM
-
?
no.
09:58:53
CAM
-
1
I hope instead of * rather than just replacing that
(
strap
) I hope he's beefing the straps up more.
09:58:59
CAM
-
?
just on that one spot.
09:59:00
CAM
-
2
yeah.
09:59:02
CAM
-
?
all the rest of them are fine.
09:59:06
CAM
-
2
he's cinching them all down.
10:14:49
CAM
[
break in transcript]
10:14:57
CAM
-
1
whatís up, dude?
10:15:01
CAM
-
2
did you throw that other strap away?

0:15:04 CAM
-
1
what did you
-
did you put a couple more on?
10:15:11
CAM
-
1
how far did it move.... a couple of inches?
10:15:13
CAM
-
4
yeah, they just moved a couple inches... cause
you k
now, its nylon ya know, so.
10:15:20
CAM
-
2
(you throw some) numbers (in here)?
10:15:21
CAM
-
1
thatís scare
-
... that's #
scary
-
10:15:24
CAM
-
1
without a lock (for those big heavy things / **
anything) man I don't like that.
10:15:27
CAM
-
1
I saw that, I was like #
, I never heard of such a
thing.
10:15:30
CAM
-
?
* I'd be kinda interested ta ... wish I could put a
camera down there and watch it.....
10:15:36
CAM
-
2
(you'd probably) #
yourself.
10:15:37
CAM
-
1
right.
10:15:37
CAM
-
?
see what they do.
10:15:39
CAM
-
1
those things are so #
heavy you'd think though that
they probably wouldn't hardly move no matter
what.

10:15:42
CAM
-
4
they always move.... everything moves. If
itís
not
strapped
-
10:15
:46
CAM
-
1
no no
-
I
-
10:15:48
CAM
-
4
it'll roll on them things [makes a 'motorized' sound
]
10:15:51
CAM
-
1
[sound of laughter]







rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2015, 16:40
  #680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,252
Strap Fatigue

Once overloaded, it's time to retire the strap.

Unlike aluminum parts where a crack propagation can be seen and analysed, I don't know what could be found by examining a failed strap. This will be a new area for the NTSB to explore.

If these straps had been used over dozens of flights with some overstresses, they would not be at full new strength.

Climbers retire equipment after one or more falls.

The landing seems to have damaged some straps, likely those restraining forward movement. Then we have a failure in straps restraining backward movement. Was there an elastic rebound on landing that overstressed the straps restraining backward movement

Or did the straps hold while the anchor points gave way?
RatherBeFlying is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.