Cargo Crash at Bagram
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
Needless to say, the pitch attitude of the airplane was extreme, and the resulting stall was unrecoverable.
Thanks, I had missed that eyewitness report, caveat noted. Roger the rest.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Saffron walden
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are those that don't know and those that don't know they don't know. You are the later.
Last edited by WhyByFlier; 2nd May 2013 at 15:45.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you ever actually flown a heavy transport category jet airplane?
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!)
Last edited by Lantirn; 2nd May 2013 at 15:56.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notadog, you CLEARLY haven't flown an under slung jet airliner.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Damn, I hope I am not talking to an FSX pilot!)
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.
Last edited by notadog; 2nd May 2013 at 16:19.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Wood
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any 73/74 pilots want to clarify this for me?
Now, how will you do that?
Also you'd do well to google the Thomson incident at Bournemouth.
Mistrust in Management
notadog
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
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notadog, you're not an airliner pilot.
Can't say anything else about the quality of his comments though
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
