National Airlines B747-400 Freighter (BCF) Down in Bagram, Afghanistan

What are the chances of a mechanical failure in the elevator control, much like the Alaska MD80 crash, causing this vs a load shift. I only ask because when you watch the video the nose of the aircraft is coming down fast when it impacts the ground. I don't know what kind of weight shift it would take in a heavy like that, but I would think that if there was a large enough shift in CG to cause the aircraft to nose up uncontrollably like that, it would have come down tail first, not nose first, despite the drag the tail would create in the fall.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Boeing 757. Outboard ailerons only, with spoiler augmentation.

Of course, that might not count as "large" for you "professionals" flying widebodies. ;)
Click to expand...
767 has inboard ailerons as well. The outboards are normally locked out until you're at a sub 200 knots or something like that. You probably know more about that than I do! ;)
 
Derg said:
767 has inboard ailerons as well. The outboards are normally locked out until you're at a sub 200 knots or something like that. You probably know more about that than I do! ;)
Click to expand...
The Dash has inboard and outboard roll spoilers too. Out boards are inhibited unless you are below 140 knots. And its not even a Heavy!
 
jtrain609 said:
So don't discount webbing just because it isn't metal...
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt the strength of webbed material. But... MRAPs are crazy heavy. Between ~14 and ~26 tons, depending on their class and how they are outfitted. The effective holding power of the tie downs will be affected by the angle that they are attached to the load and the floor. Those were some pretty extreme angles in the pictures from that forum. The pictures I've seen of MRAPS tied down in military aircraft by military personnel show some pretty serious chains, and comparatively low angles between the load and the floor. In addition, the metal clasps at the end of those straps looked awfully dinky for a load that size, where as the chains end in a rather beefy turnbuckle. That, of course, might have a lot to do with the type of mounts available on a BCF.

Getting super deep into speculation here, of course, but again... it gets me thinking about how (or if!) I secure loads when I get back to flying, and I don't even fly cargo for a living.

Pardon me while I run out to get some chains for my flight bag. ;)
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
What are the chances of a mechanical failure in the elevator control, much like the Alaska MD80 crash, causing this vs a load shift. I only ask because when you watch the video the nose of the aircraft is coming down fast when it impacts the ground. I don't know what kind of weight shift it would take in a heavy like that, but I would think that if there was a large enough shift in CG to cause the aircraft to nose up uncontrollably like that, it would have come down tail first, not nose first, despite the drag the tail would create in the fall.
Click to expand...

The crew radioed that there was a load shift. The aft CG caused the airplane to stall, and loss of airspeed caused the nose to drop. If sufficient altitude was available, that pattern would have repeated - indefinitely. You break the cycle by generating enough forward airspeed where the elevator could maintain level flight.
 
SteveCostello said:
Oh, I don't doubt the strength of webbed material. But... MRAPs are crazy heavy. Between ~14 and ~26 tons, depending on their class and how they are outfitted. The effective holding power of the tie downs will be affected by the angle that they are attached to the load and the floor. Those were some pretty extreme angles in the pictures from that forum. The pictures I've seen of MRAPS tied down in military aircraft by military personnel show some pretty serious chains, and comparatively low angles between the load and the floor. In addition, the metal clasps at the end of those straps looked awfully dinky for a load that size, where as the chains end in a rather beefy turnbuckle. That, of course, might have a lot to do with the type of mounts available on a BCF.

Getting super deep into speculation here, of course, but again... it gets me thinking about how (or if!) I secure loads when I get back to flying, and I don't even fly cargo for a living.

Pardon me while I run out to get some chains for my flight bag. ;)
Click to expand...

Of course, how could I be so naive so as to give professionals some credit for the work that they do.
 
tomokc said:
The crew radioed that there was a load shift. The aft CG caused the airplane to stall, and loss of airspeed caused the nose to drop. If sufficient altitude was available, that pattern would have repeated - indefinitely. You break the cycle by generating enough forward airspeed where the elevator could maintain level flight.
Click to expand...
Didn't read any transcripts... Sucks....
 
SteveCostello said:
That, of course, might have a lot to do with the type of mounts available on a BCF.
Click to expand...
This might be the problem. 25,000# chains don't do you any good if the tie-down points on the cargo floor are only rated to 5 or 10,000#. I don't know what 747's have installed, but I would bet that's why you only see straps and not chains.
 
Derg said:
767 has inboard ailerons as well. The outboards are normally locked out until you're at a sub 200 knots or something like that. You probably know more about that than I do! ;)
Click to expand...
I used to. But I don't have a cool device like "break in upstairs every afternoon" for it.

(Flap position comes to mind actually.)
 
jtrain609 said:
Of course, how could I be so naive so as to give professionals some credit for the work that they do.
Click to expand...

Not casting aspersions to all civilian LMs or GSCs, least of all the one(s) responsible for this particular flight, but this post raises a post of consideration: http://www.flyingsquadron.com/forum...ash-at-bagram/page__view__findpost__p__347107

There is the potential for a big difference between military and civilian LMs. One is under the pressure of an organization that is striving to be profitable, and may not have the extensive training that the military affords to its personnel. The use of straps, however, probably has more to do with the availability of super duty places to attach turnbuckles and/or use the 463L pallets, neither of which the BCF apparently tends to be capable of.

Definitely not letting the military LMs off the hook, though. I was stationed on the USS Eisenhower during Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. A few of us were hanging out on the waist bubble, which was lowered for all of the helo ops we performed (was a crazy two weeks!), enjoying the breezes from the CH-53 above our heads on a warm day. The helo left the deck, drifted slightly off the port side during departure. Once out of ground effect, it plummeted and splashed down in the Port-au-Prince bay right in front of us. To say we were surprised is a bit of an understatement. After a few seconds bobbing in the water, it came up about 20 or 30 feet, **splash**. A few more seconds pass, and the pilot punches the external fuel tanks, comes back out of the water, and starts heading back to the deck. We duck back inside, and the helo lands safely, and quite a few fellas had some extra laundry to do that night. Turns out the helicopter was significantly overloaded.

So yes... professionals make mistakes, too. To be clear, not saying that definitely happened in the Bagram incident.
 
jtrain609 said:
Steve, what do you do professionally?
Click to expand...
Nothing that places me in a position of responsibility for anyone else or their safety. That's probably a good thing. :)

I'll tell you what I am not:
  1. A loadmaster or GSC
  2. A professional pilot, cargo or otherwise (yet... but still hopeful)
  3. Any longer involved in military operations (Navy vet, first Gulf War)
  4. An aircraft incident investigator
But I know where you are going, why I have ruffled your feathers, and I definitely get it. I question things that I have anecdotal knowledge of, if only to educate myself. If someone tells me that web straps are good enough to hold a heavy load like that within a vehicle with some occasionally rather dynamic movement, then so be it.
 
SteveCostello said:
Nothing that places me in a position of responsibility for anyone else or their safety. That's probably a good thing. :)

I'll tell you what I am not:
  1. A loadmaster or GSC
  2. A professional pilot, cargo or otherwise (yet... but still hopeful)
  3. Any longer involved in military operations (Navy vet, first Gulf War)
  4. An aircraft incident investigator
But I know where you are going, why I have ruffled your feathers, and I definitely get it. I question things that I have anecdotal knowledge of, if only to educate myself. If someone tells me that web straps are good enough to hold a heavy load like that within a vehicle with some occasionally rather dynamic movement, then so be it.
Click to expand...


You haven't ruffled my feathers, I simply think you're making a fool of yourself and I'm providing you with an opportunity to stop doing so. Friends of mine have thankfully stepped in and done the same to me when I've played this same game.

And nobody needs to tell you that web straps are good enough. That they are used seemingly often, across multiple carriers, indicates that they're commonly used for the specified application. The risk involved here is a $300 million airframe, all the military hardware in it, and all the civil lawsuits that will invariably follow cases like this. And my guess is that National isn't so well capitalized so as to be able to pay for all the damages IF they were found liable, and IF National was liquidated in the process. Why in the world would a company take that kind of risk? Because they're stupid? I doubt it. The more likely answer is that we don't know what we're talking about.

So all this tells me the chances of the professionals being wrong about issues like this, and the internet being right, is slim at best. If Atlas, National and a bunch of other companies are using webbing to secure stuff like this, there's probably a reason. And it's probably not that webbing is cheaper than steel; I'd wager that it's MUCH more expensive.
 
Derg said:
Is it 190 now? I have no idea. Last time I had to worry about FAA standard weights was 1997! Ha!

(Yeah yeah, you were in Junior high school, I know. STAY THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!!)
Click to expand...
Sixth grade (fifth? I dunno). But by legislative fiat everyone lost five pounds on 01 May. Keep up the good work, guys!
 
I know that you aren't supposed to bother the configuration of the aircraft at such a low speed high AoA like that, but could extending the flaps have given them a little more last minute lift? I know it takes several seconds for a 747's flaps to move.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
What are the chances of a mechanical failure in the elevator control, much like the Alaska MD80 crash, causing this vs a load shift. I only ask because when you watch the video the nose of the aircraft is coming down fast when it impacts the ground. I don't know what kind of weight shift it would take in a heavy like that, but I would think that if there was a large enough shift in CG to cause the aircraft to nose up uncontrollably like that, it would have come down tail first, not nose first, despite the drag the tail would create in the fall.
Click to expand...


Anything is possible whereas a number of accidents are on record in which the crew thought the problem was something else. As a professional pilot and A&P I tell people if they can determine whats wrong with their aircraft in flight you might as well perform surgery on yourself while you or at it because if you guess wrong, kiss your behind goodby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top