Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/30/video-appears-to-show-deadly-plane-crash-at-bagram-air-field/

I'm honestly suprised I didn't hear about this at work.

Not particularly news worthy, but it really jumped out at me. The video isn't exactly graphic, but it can be hard to watch.

Why was there no sound at all from the crash? I think we should have heard something from that. Heard sounds from the cars.

That was almost like, a movie explosion. Just instant fireball. The silence was slightly disturbing.

The plane -- owned by National Airlines, an Orlando, Florida-based subsidiary of National Air Cargo -- was carrying vehicles and other cargo, according to National Air Cargo Vice President Shirley Kaufman. She said those killed were four pilots, two mechanics and a load master, who was responsible for making sure that the weight and balance of the cargo is appropriate

That looked like a stall to me, possibly caused by either a poorly balanced air craft or a severe shift in the cargo.

Horrendous crash. Those poor bastards.

Something bad had to have gone on in there, the aircraft was vertical before it stalled out. 747's don't go vertical.

It probably was a bad weight shift. Maybe ties snapped and everything fell towards the ass end of the plane.

Wouldn't that have broken out the tail end though? Aluminum isn't exactly the strongest metal.

It seems like a military grade vehicle that broke its ties would have crashed right through the end of the plane.

Not necessarily. Those holds are built pretty stout, and it's not like a load that broke it's lashes or wasn't lashed properly would be free falling inside the plane.

All it takes is a small shift of a huge weight to cause BIG issues.

When I was taking private pilot lessons, I could feel a huge difference the few times I had someone in the back seat while I flew.

I suppose.

I will say I've always had fears of something like this happening during my career. Over 11 years now, and there hasn't been a single aircraft crash while I've been present. It's almost odd. In my career only 1 aircraft from a unit I've been associated with has been lost, and that was while it was deployed to Iraq (I was still in Japan). Losing aircraft isn't exactly a rare thing, so I'll consider myself lucky that it hasn't happened on my watch yet.

We train routinely for accidents such as these. When I was stationed in South Carolina, we had an exercise where a KC-135 missed the runway on landing, crashed into the fuel tanks, and then the debris flew into the single Airmen dorms by the runway. That was probably the most extensive one I'd seen.

 kronk wrote:
All it takes is a small shift of a huge weight to cause BIG issues.

Yeah, on a small two-seat plane the safe range for the center of gravity is measured in inches, and you have to be really careful how you load it to avoid screwing up the stability and crashing. A cargo 747 would have a much better margin of error, but something shifting on takeoff could very plausibly make it too tail heavy for the pilot to get the nose down and avoid a stall (almost always fatal at that low altitude).

And agreed on the cargo being the most likely explanation. I can't imagine anyone qualified to fly a 747 being so incompetent that they'd stall on takeoff like that, you'd have to notice something going that badly wrong and just push the nose down a bit. If it's not a cargo problem then some other mechanical failure is the only thing that really makes sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I suppose.

It certainly could have been a mechanical issue, too. As Peregrine points out.

All aircraft take off at full speed in Afghanistan...and climb as steep as possible. I know where the driver was at on Bagram.....Burn pits....even money say a pallet that was loaded first was not secured properly. Contract cargo carriers play close to aircraft weight/lift limits. Bagram being so high up in the mountains air density plays a major role in max weight limits.

Each cargo pallets get auction off literally...lowest bidder gets the cargo. Though I doubt this one was carrying vehicles.

Says right in the story it was carrying vehicles.

 Jihadin wrote:
Bagram being so high up in the mountains air density plays a major role in max weight limits.

But if it was overloaded the result should have been a really shallow climb (or even failing to get off the ground), not a steep climb and stall. To get that kind of loss of control you'd have to have a balance problem, not just total weight, and density altitude wouldn't have anything to do with the internal weight distribution.

I suppose it's possible that the crew could have been holding a specific climb angle that wasn't sustainable under that combination of load and altitude, but if that was the case the pilots should have immediately noticed that their airspeed was dropping and lowered the nose. I just find it hard to imagine someone with the kind of experience and training required to fly a 747 making such an incredibly stupid and suicidal mistake.

It was not carrying vehicles. The floor to ceiling height of the aircraft alone is not high enough to clear MRAP, MATV's...Hell the current family of military vehicles in Afghanistan. Mind you all vehicles in Afghanistan and hell that were in Iraq are uparmored. Seriously it was not carrying vehicles even though news source says so. More money in pallets then in vehicles. Its a space (volume) issue.

Also the aircraft in question loads from the side not from the tail. Also...money the other issue. Now the contract company has to pay for the cargo if they were at fault. Would you rather pay for pallet cargo compare to FMC vehicles?

Everyone does a steep climb in Afghanistan...everyone....its a combat theater. As for lowering the nose well there's a couple ridgelines you do not see before hitting the steep sides of a mountain....not to mention the minefields still out there....

Maybe it was carrying vehicle parts, hence some confusion.

There are a ton of regular vehicles on base. You can see some in the video.

We're drawing down in Afghanistan. Their probably pulling things like general cars and trucks that never leave the wire. Plus the 747-400F (cargo variant) nose raises just like the C-5 so they can load large cargo.

When I head into work tomorrow I'll see if I can find out more about this. I've been working in a section that isn't as tied into the operations floor the last few weeks, so that's probably why I haven't heard much about this yet.

 Jihadin wrote:
As for lowering the nose well there's a couple ridgelines you do not see before hitting the steep sides of a mountain....not to mention the minefields still out there.

And if you don't lower the nose in that situation you stall and die. There's no alternative here, if you're trying to hold a steep climb as your airspeed is dropping and the stall warning is going off you either immediately lower the nose to a safe angle or you commit suicide. The risks of enemy fire or nearby terrain are trivial compared to the 100% fatality rate of a low-altitude stall in a 747, and the correct reaction to that situation is supposed to be instinctive without even taking time to think about anything else. If there wasn't some kind of mechanical problem involved you're talking about a mistake that would be inexcusable stupidity in a pre-solo student pilot.

Maybe...now I'm thinking trailers...like generators being an example. They do carry those...and we have lots of trailer from potable water trailers...IE water buffalo's to generator trailers...maybe not 60K but smaller.....also I remember the contract company jumping on those. Damn I still have my contact list from over there....Now if it was a cargo trailer they be all over it. 401st is a money maker for whoever hauling. Thinking some vehicle cargo trailers were on the aircraft....because they can combine loads if going to the same place..depending on the cargo...I can go down air movement in Afghanistan with the math involve for fix and rotary wing for different locations...few will get it...I also have air temp/lift ratio for the Strykers....just have to leave out who the cargo carriers are.....I know one company will throw everyone for a loop and they corner the market on one type of mission.

edit

Hopefully everyone can read a map....mind you this old intell.....really old....but have a terrain map..its not a military map but...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/bagram-imagery.htm

Saw a similar thing on Tv on a passenger plane where it was to heavily loaded in the rear, and there was problems with the horizontal stabalizer, so you couldn't push the nose down. It just ended up having an extreme angle of attack and then stalling.

I find it odd how it goes from a left turn to a right spiral dive, unless the pilot just jammed the rudder down. Also note how the landing gear was down before impact, normally at that point in flight it would be surely up.

Anyway RIP to those aboard and hope they find out the real reason why this happened.

 tuiman wrote:
I find it odd how it goes from a left turn to a right spiral dive, unless the pilot just jammed the rudder down.

The high wing in a climbing turn stalls first, so the right wing would drop sharply and reverse the direction of the turn.

(And it doesn't even have to start from a turn, sometimes even with a straight and level stall one wing will stall first and you'll end up turning a bit before it all levels out and you recover.)

Thanks Peregrine, makes sense.

Now if only someone had thought to explain the whole sometimes-one-wing-drops-first thing to me before I was out solo as a student pilot and scared myself nicely thinking I'd come dangerously close to getting into a spin.

5 MRAP's were on board. That's per a USTRANSCOM source.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now if only someone had thought to explain the whole sometimes-one-wing-drops-first thing to me before I was out solo as a student pilot and scared myself nicely thinking I'd come dangerously close to getting into a spin.

Haha, nice, Ive only just started (about 5 hours) so still learning all these things

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5750623/

Five MATV's one source citied here. Barely fits. I wouldn't have done it but then....we're pulling out.

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1007_oshkosh_m_atv_military_vehicle_afghanistan/photo_03.html

How they did it to fit a MAT-V in

No way would I have signed off on this. Whoever the Movement NCO is in the 401st didn't flat out go with it whoever came up with the idea I hope or have favorable look upon on a resume dropped just recently..Or the AIr Force change the status on the cargo itself to contract haul...I think a few carrers ended with this to. As for the crew RIP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KK I really hate this because now its on my nerves on why I wouldn't do it. Biggest reason is they exceeded the limitation of the 463L pallet the MAT-V is on by volume. There's no room for bracing. So all thats holding the cargo is a mixture of 5K and 10K ratchet straps and a pallet lockdown in the floor. When your suppose to use chain lockdown ratchet to "brace" the vehicle against the floor at all four points. The floor of the aircraft was not designed to handle the load. I'm getting a feel this was a Mission Bird.....similiar to a Stryker Mission bird..but this mission just started...As in one type of aircraft on a continuos cycle transport a certain cargo.