What's new

Crash: National Air Cargo B744 at Bagram on Apr 29th 2013, lost height shor

It's by far one of the most spectactular and horrifying aircraft accidents i've seen in my life.....what do you do when youre on that plane? are you calm -knowing that youre time is up and that's it....are you freacking out and flying all over the fuselage as it veers sideways and drops to the ground?

as i said in other thread -- i believe it was over-loaded (hopefully just afghan heroin and nothing valuable)....


but man -- i played the video about 5 times. What a fcked up way to "exit" the world
 
.
I watched the video again and the landing gears are also not retracted, at 1500 ft seems strange.
 
.
People who died, were they Americans or some other nationality?
 
. .
It seems that military vehicle it was carrying were not tied up. I mean, you can easily see the load shifting from one end to the other.
 
. .
The load shifted. The loadmaster needs to explain what happened.

Can't say with too much assurity...although this is a probable cause.

CB clouds were also reported in the aerodrome METAR and whether changed in last half hour.
 
.
Can't say with too much assurity...although this is a probable cause.

CB clouds were also reported in the aerodrome METAR and whether changed in last half hour.

Wasn't it reported that the pilot radioed that the load had shifted as the plane pitched up?
 
.
Wasn't it reported that the pilot radioed that the load had shifted as the plane pitched up?

He only reported that the plane had pitched up and entered a stall AFAIK, nothing regarding loadh shifting, that was just the obvious conclusion.
 
. .
Taking off, the aircraft would be using a lot of power, those engines on 747 generate over 50, 000 pounds of thrust each.
It just can't fall out of sky like a stone....it seems to tilt and then drop......like total power failure. !!
 
.
Taking off, the aircraft would be using a lot of power, those engines on 747 generate over 50, 000 pounds of thrust each.
It just can't fall out of sky like a stone....it seems to tilt and then drop......like total power failure. !!

All four engines at the same time? Or even two or three? Four engine jumbos are the most reliable in terms of engine power.
 
.
I've tried to observe and figure out the possible reasons for the crash. As apparent, the aircraft was not gaining enough power which possibly encourage the trooper to switch on his cam. It stalled itself to crash. The maximum take-off weight for B1F is 362,870KG and 396,890KG for B5F. The aircraft was carrying five military vehicles. B1F can carry cargo 120,200 KG MAX including fuel, and B5F can carry 145,150 KG MAX including fuel. However, the ground engineers aren't stupids to overload the aircraft.

Possible scenarios could be:

The center of gravity of the aircraft was not eventually distributed, which resulted in stall and crash seconds after take-off.

The pilot had a high pitch to gain altitude as quick as possible to avoid ground-fire (a C-17 was hit on take-off in Afghanistan last year). This is comment from a US-Army MP I found:
Having been in Iraq and watching many aircraft attempt to climb out at angles exceeding their intended design limits (and getting away with it), it appears that the pilot took off and attempted to gain altitude at a climb angle too great for the capabilities of the aircraft to avoid ground fire, resulting in an unrecoverable stall. The plane reaches a max ordinate, stalls, wallows, then falls from the sky completely out of control. I would assume that an aft CG situation should have resulted in a tail low attitude all the way to the ground... It IS possible that if this aircraft was loaded, the load or part of it may have broken loose in the attempt at a max rate climb, initiating an aft CG situation and resulting stall. I'd be interested in seeing the final report on this one...


The engine(s) faced technical issues and failed to respond. Highly unlikely though.
 
.
The probable conclusions being discussed all over the aviation community on the net and real life is that:

1- Load shifting to the back

2- CB clouds in the area as reported by METAR.

Couple this with the sharp angle of climb and you have a disaster.

The landing gears were also open at 1500 feet so maybe the pilot got some kind of a prior warning or got preoccupied by different warning.

He was in control of the aircraft as the aircraft rolled to the right before impact.
 
.
Taking off, the aircraft would be using a lot of power, those engines on 747 generate over 50, 000 pounds of thrust each.
It just can't fall out of sky like a stone....it seems to tilt and then drop......like total power failure. !!

It will fall out of the sky like a stone if the wings aren't doing any lifting.

From another forum:

Yeah theoretically you probably could, but reality the plane is just too heavy. You would need massive amounts of thrust to overcome the wings being useless, for an extremely heavy plane like the 747 the airframe would have be incredibly strong. As the plane climbs the engines become less and less powerful, and eventually they wouldn't produce enough power to keep the plane flying (and so it'll stall, spin etc).

Fighter jets can do vertical climbs because they produce massive amounts of thrust compared to their weight. But here's some fun facts for you. 1 747 engine produces almost the same thrust as the f-22's 2 engines do with the afterburner engaged. 1 777 engine can produce just under twice as much trust as the afterburning f-22. Those engines are ridiculously powerful as it is.

F-22 engine with afterburner: 35,000 lbs
747-400 Engine: 63,300 lbs (the 8l has slightly more powerful engines that produce 65,000)
777-300 engine: rated at 115,300 lbs of thrust, but has been tested at 128,000 or something like that.

The other thing is it would be an extremely unstable plane. The thrust would keep the plane in the air but the rear CG would keep forcing the nose up, and you'd have to have a massive horizontal stabilizer to keep forcing the nose back down. But having a massive horizontal stabilizer would make for a very very sensitive plane.

So anyways, yes a massive amount of thrust would theoretically work at first, but the other design considerations wouldn't make it effective. The only real way to fix such a massive load shift would be to well shift the load back to the appropriate CG range. If this plane was at altitude, they might have had the time to be able to do that. But they just took off and it happened so fast (they didn't even have the landing gear retracted) that they were pretty much dead the second the straps broke and the cargo fell backwards.

The most likely scenario was that the cargo the plane was carrying wasn't secured down properly, hence when the plane started climbing, the load shifted to the back and created a rear CG. If the rear CG was severe enough (like in this case) it'll cause the plane to stall and the elevators won't have enough authority to bring the nose back down. So the plane will remain in a stall, possibly spin and eventually crash to the ground (like in this case).

Generally speaking it's the captains responsibility to make sure the cargo he's carrying has been secured down properly and the weight and cg locations are within limits. After years though a lot of them get complacent and just trust that the load master did his job correctly (which they should have done).

The cargo that it was carrying was 5 MRAPs and apparently the final communication to ATC was a loud banging noise heard from the back which could possibly mean the straps snapped and the cargo fell backwards causing a cascading effect. Each of those MRAPs weighs 14+ tons, so that's going to be a major load shift.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom