|
There are two factors I have seen mentioned and I wonder if they might be related... one being that it is looking likely that this is a load shift accident, the second being that departures from this airport sometimes require quick climbs to get up to altitude. Maybe they rotated a bit more aggressively than usual to a higher pitch angle than usual, which seems like it could cause improperly secured cargo to break loose and shift aft. Whatever happened, I'm sure there will be a few "oh #" in the CVR transcript. As a pilot this has got to be one of the worst situations to find yourself in because you just know there is gently caress all you can do if you're standing on the yoke after rotation and it keeps pitching up.  Also, I know it has nothing to do with what you all are talking about but I've seen it mentioned a few times in the thread, the accident airplane didn't have the fancy swinging nose that allows for straight-in cargo loading. It was a 747 that was converted to be a freighter so it just gets a bigass door on the side like most cargo planes.
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Generic Cola posted:There are two factors I have seen mentioned and I wonder if they might be related... one being that it is looking likely that this is a load shift accident, the second being that departures from this airport sometimes require quick climbs to get up to altitude. Maybe they rotated a bit more aggressively than usual to a higher pitch angle than usual, which seems like it could cause improperly secured cargo to break loose and shift aft. They actually don't climb that quickly (Source: Stationed at Bagram with C-130s), they just have to climb enough to clear the mountains which surround the base, but most aircraft take off on a fairly flat departure pattern. Supposedly the cargo shift was called in by the pilot, so I think they both knew and called in what was about to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They actually don't climb that quickly (Source: Stationed at Bagram with C-130s), they just have to climb enough to clear the mountains which surround the base, but most aircraft take off on a fairly flat departure pattern. Ah, okay. Really curious how that cargo broke loose. I thought for a second about a tail strike possibly causing enough of a jolt to break loose something that was inadequately secured but then wouldn't there be reports of debris or scrapes on the runway?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Generic Cola posted:Ah, okay. Really curious how that cargo broke loose. I thought for a second about a tail strike possibly causing enough of a jolt to break loose something that was inadequately secured but then wouldn't there be reports of debris or scrapes on the runway? Not if the cargo just broke loose and slid to the rear of the aircraft and stopped. It would have to be going fairly fast to break through the entire body of the aircraft. Supposedly it was on a pallet too, so if the straps broke to the pallet or the pallet broke loose from the pallet locks, we won't know for some time. You just need the extra weight of a MRAP in the tail to overload the entire aircraft's balance and ruin its flight characteristics.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
Generic Cola posted:Ah, okay. Really curious how that cargo broke loose. I thought for a second about a tail strike possibly causing enough of a jolt to break loose something that was inadequately secured but then wouldn't there be reports of debris or scrapes on the runway? I can almost guarantee that it was just improperly secured and/or secured using defective tie-downs. Either the cargo (supposedly some MRAPs) wasn't tied down with the appropriate amount of straps/chains or they weren't arranged in the right manner, or something with the tie down system (either the tie down points on the aircraft or some of the straps/chains) failed. Tail strike isn't going to cause all that much more of a jolt to improperly secured cargo that takeoff acceleration isn't going to force it to shift. Someone in the thread posted earlier about some rumint that the MRAPs were only tied down using the minimum amount of chains (11 IIRC). Assuming that's the case, I'd wager on a an accident chain where the decision to only use the minimum amount meant that when one or two of the chains failed/wasn't properly installed/etc there wasn't a safety margin with some additional chains to pick up the slack, resulting in the cargo shifting.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I can almost guarantee that it was just improperly secured and/or secured using defective tie-downs. Either the cargo (supposedly some MRAPs) wasn't tied down with the appropriate amount of straps/chains or they weren't arranged in the right manner, or something with the tie down system (either the tie down points on the aircraft or some of the straps/chains) failed. Tail strike isn't going to cause all that much more of a jolt to improperly secured cargo that takeoff acceleration isn't going to force it to shift. Either way, the flight characteristics of an aircraft are picky, if your weights are out of balance due to fuel or cargo it will make the aircraft extremely difficult to fly or impossible to fly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Yeah that's why I thought about it for a second then dismissed it... it will probably indeed boil down to a simple inadequately secured load that just broke loose. I guess my mind keeps trying to manufacture a different chain of events, something other than some guy hurf durfing the tiedowns. Aviation can really loving suck sometimes
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Either way, the flight characteristics of an aircraft are picky, if your weights are out of balance due to fuel or cargo it will make the aircraft extremely difficult to fly or impossible to fly. Like that 1900D that crashed in Charlotte due to misrigged controls, it flew fine on a few other legs that day but the accident leg had a bunch of fatties on it with some heavier than usual cargo in the bin behind the cabin which shifted the CG just aft enough to be unrecoverable.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Generic Cola posted:I guess my mind keeps trying to manufacture a different chain of events, something other than some guy hurf durfing the tiedowns. Why? We have come to the point where 'professional' media are speculating on whether or not that vid is actually real while there's places on the internet where friends and co-workers get their answers from aviation enthousiasts.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
It will be very interesting to find out what happened, hopefully they can. Evidence in a plane crash is like a message from the grave about what not to do. Might be difficult conditions for NTSB to work in though... Time for a positive story, click link for excellent video: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10109810 Norwegian medevac helo, in crosswind near a sheer cliff and power cables, sets it down on the guardrail like a loving pro. Which he is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Generic Cola posted:Yeah that's why I thought about it for a second then dismissed it... it will probably indeed boil down to a simple inadequately secured load that just broke loose. I guess my mind keeps trying to manufacture a different chain of events, something other than some guy hurf durfing the tiedowns. Aviation can really loving suck sometimes There's a loadmaster (I'm assuming with the RAF, based on his use of British slang like "right proper hosed") in the GBS thread commenting that it may have been a defective chain tie-down, according to him in military settings its not uncommon for entire batches of tie-downs to get recalled and scrapped. Of course, in the private sector scrapping high-price hardware is going to cut into your bottom line and you have to worry more about your shareholders than your aircraft and crew, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Watch that Norway video, it's pretty awesome! Question about AF447. How connected are the pilots to the attitude of very large aircraft from their pilot seats? Can they feel when the plane is nose up or wing down or do they have to rely on their instruments?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Watch that Norway video, it's pretty awesome! The most basic instrument flying lessons teach you that you cannot trust your inertial senses to determine what the aircraft is doing. You need instruments. This is even mandatory training for private (non-instrument) pilots.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:The most basic instrument flying lessons teach you that you cannot trust your inertial senses to determine what the aircraft is doing. You need instruments. This is even mandatory training for private (non-instrument) pilots. Exactly. We put Inertial sensing systems into aircraft because often our own sense of inertial movement at speed is wrong. Gyros make it easier for us to look at your ADI and tell you what the aircraft is doing as far as pitch, roll, yaw, and your nose up/down heading. Trust your instruments.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:The most basic instrument flying lessons teach you that you cannot trust your inertial senses to determine what the aircraft is doing. You need instruments. This is even mandatory training for private (non-instrument) pilots. Well poo poo, now I'm afraid of planes.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroPeru_Flight_603 What if you can't trust your instruments? Also, do commercial Pilots do a walk-around of their aircraft before they take off, or is that left to an engineer's signature? *Not really, lets be honest there is a gently caress ton (metric) of air traffic on any given day and almost none of it ever has any fatal problems.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:What if you can't trust your instruments? All you can do is trust them and hope everyone has done their job correctly, which in that case someone screwed up. Most aircraft also have redundant systems to help alleviate this problem though, so that you might notice if one system is reading off.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Oh man I could write so much about this but my phone is dying.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Instruments have various redundant systems and pilots are trained on partial panel flying. Total failure is really really rare. I don't know firsthand about commercial/airline ops but there is a rigorous preflight by various crew and walkaround done by a captain or FO that should be checking for basic things. I'm sure other people here would know more and there are some airline guys in the A/T Aviation Megathread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Ola posted:http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10109810 Holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Also, do commercial Pilots do a walk-around of their aircraft before they take off, or is that left to an engineer's signature? Depends on the airline, the station, the turnaround time, the pilot, and even the size of aircraft. Best case you get 5 walk-arounds: Ramp lead on arrival, engineer on arrival, engineer prior to departure, pilot prior to departure, ramp lead prior to departure. Bare minimum is just the engineer or pilot. Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
When I worked on the ramp for an airline the lead for the gate crew did a walk around of sorts, primarily checking doors and hatches. A mechanic did a full walk around with a series of checks, like engine oil, hydraulic fluid, and tire pressure. The First Officer did a full walk around prior to departure.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Linedance posted:Depends on the airline, the station, the turnaround time, the pilot, and even the size of aircraft. Typical walk-around scenario for nearly every airline flight is ramp lead on arrival, aircrew and ramp lead on departure. The ramp lead is inspecting for damage on arrival and departure so that their station isn't held accountable for anything that might have happened during their turnaround or the previous one. The aircrew has a very specific walkaround that they perform to ensure the aircraft is airworthy for the next flight. An engineer may or may not look at the aircraft; typically, that only happens if a maintenance issue has been reported, or if line maintenance is needed in between flights. First flight of the day is different, as there is a much more detailed walkaround performed individually by both a member of the aircrew and a mechanic.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Ola posted:Time for a positive story, click link for excellent video: Holy gently caress! loving pro, indeed. They guy that jumps out seems completely comfortable with that, too.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Watch that Norway video, it's pretty awesome! In terms of trusting your instruments, the inertial platforms and standby ADI are triple redundant on all modern aircraft. Once aligned they only require electrical power to operate, and then they have an internal battery to help with any problems with the electrical supply. They do not require any input from sensors, they are self contained and only generate outputs. Things like airspeed indicators and altimeters require sensors on the outside of the aircraft, and as such are susceptible to icing, insects, sand and someone herp-derping around with speedtape. There is a reason aircraft like the B-1 can still use inertial systems to navigate to bombing targets as they are nigh impervious to enemy fuckery like jamming or interference. Of all instruments, the redundant IRS/INS/IRU/gyro or whatever your craft has is by far the most trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
I just found this about using your spacial awareness to fly: After the autopilot had been disengaged, the pilot flying increased engine thrust in reaction to a decrease in airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking (spatial disorientation). The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the flight path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Geoj posted:There's a loadmaster (I'm assuming with the RAF, based on his use of British slang like "right proper hosed") in the GBS thread commenting that it may have been a defective chain tie-down, according to him in military settings its not uncommon for entire batches of tie-downs to get recalled and scrapped. Of course, in the private sector scrapping high-price hardware is going to cut into your bottom line and you have to worry more about your shareholders than your aircraft and crew, etc. etc. Hey look: uncalled-for anti-corporatism. Airplanes, flight crews, and insurance is EXPENSIVE. New cargo locks are CHEAP. Even my retarded-rear end fly-by-night airline (who wouldn't even spring for rags for the mechanics,) had a ready supply of new locks and rails, and encouraged its mechanics, loadmasters, and flight crews to write up any cargo-deck related issues on the spot, even if it meant grounding the airplane, or deferring maintenance on that cargo location. We only ever grounded a plane for cargo-related issues once, when the floor right inside the cargo door cracked, and we didn't have a replacement on hand. (That section of floor is different, it has roller balls instead of longitudinal roller tracks, so you can spin cargo pallets as they come through the door.) Of course, we had Fine Air 101 as an example...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Hey look: uncalled-for anti-corporatism. Was anyone expecting something that wasn't tone-deaf hyperbole to come out of GBS?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Even my retarded-rear end fly-by-night airline (who wouldn't even spring for rags for the mechanics,) had a ready supply of new locks and rails, and encouraged its mechanics, loadmasters, and flight crews to write up any cargo-deck related issues on the spot, even if it meant grounding the airplane, or deferring maintenance on that cargo location. You should probably call the NTSB and tell them they can call off their investigation because the company you worked for had a perfect safety record and didn't cut corners, therefore the only possible explanation is freak accident. "Faulty equipment" or "corporate policy dictating doing the bare minimum to save on overhead costs on lucrative defense contracts" or "we get paid an extra $X million if we get this off the ground in the next hour so don't bother checking that again/using more chains than the spec calls for" couldn't possibly be a reason for the load to have shifted, could it? Geoj fucked around with this message at 06:53 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Obviously the solution to the 747 crash is RATO bottles. Fire those off and get enough airspeed to climb up and away.
Suicide Watch fucked around with this message at 08:50 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Obviously the solution to the 747 crash is RATO bottles. Fire those off and get enough airspeed to climb up and away. So you RATO up to a thousand feet and then bring bring the nose down to try and bring your loose cargo forward...at which point you get to see a 747 vomit MRAPs.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Obviously the solution to the 747 crash is RATO bottles. Fire those off and get enough airspeed to climb up and away. No the 747 should have an emergency parachute that would have deployed to allow it to float gently to the ground. I'm sure such a thing exists but those drat corporations (  ) won't pony up the extra bucks to purchase it. You see I read an article on aerodynamics on Wikipedia and
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Hey look: uncalled-for anti-corporatism. Not cargo-related, but the straps that connect emergency egress slides to the jet had to be replaced on the entire USAF E-3 fleet a few years ago after they were found to be defective/unreliable. I don't know how many years this batch was in use, but as soon as a slide blew away in the wind after a high-speed abort, they were all replaced in a couple of weeks with a visibly different strap.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
tactlessbastard posted:So you RATO up to a thousand feet and then bring bring the nose down to try and bring your loose cargo forward...at which point you get to see a 747 vomit MRAPs. In this case though, by the time they realized that they needed additional speed and altitude and would have hit the button for the RATOs, their nose was either already pointing down, or had enough swinging momentum that the video would have been a 747 rocketing into the ground instead of belly flopping onto it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Blistex posted:In this case though, by the time they realized that they needed additional speed and altitude and would have hit the button for the RATOs, their nose was either already pointing down, or had enough swinging momentum that the video would have been a 747 rocketing into the ground instead of belly flopping onto it. You're just not thinking creatively enough. Where we're going, we don't need aerodynamic lift...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:You're just not thinking creatively enough. Where we're going, we don't need aerodynamic lift... Gotta think outside the box.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
I saw a neat old war bird yesterday at work, I looked up because it sounded way different than the normal small aircraft that usually buzz around. What I saw I didn't manage to get a picture of, but I rattled the description off to my dad and he came back with it most likely being some flavor of P47 Thunderbolt. the pictures I googled look dead on, definitely close enough to satisfy me. Apparently they're pretty rare?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
14 INCH DETECTIVE posted:I saw a neat old war bird yesterday at work, I looked up because it sounded way different than the normal small aircraft that usually buzz around. What I saw I didn't manage to get a picture of, but I rattled the description off to my dad and he came back with it most likely being some flavor of P47 Thunderbolt. the pictures I googled look dead on, definitely close enough to satisfy me. Apparently they're pretty rare? About a dozen or so in flying condition in the US. Nowhere near as many as there are, say, P51s, which were popular racing aircraft after the war, but a lot more than some other contemporaries.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If we sacrifice about 4/5ths of the cargo capacity for fuel we can slap a quartet of Rocketdyne F-1s on the bottom and put that fucker into orbit. MIRV ICBMRAP platform. Love it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I can almost guarantee that it was just improperly secured and/or secured using defective tie-downs. Either the cargo (supposedly some MRAPs) wasn't tied down with the appropriate amount of straps/chains or they weren't arranged in the right manner, or something with the tie down system (either the tie down points on the aircraft or some of the straps/chains) failed. Tail strike isn't going to cause all that much more of a jolt to improperly secured cargo that takeoff acceleration isn't going to force it to shift. And if it is one of the units in the middle of the plane, it shifts, snaps the straps/cables/chains, slides into the next one, overloading its tiedowns, rinse/repeat. While I've never loaded a plane before, it can't be much different then any other way to gently caress a load.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If we sacrifice about 4/5ths of the cargo capacity for fuel we can slap a quartet of Rocketdyne F-1s on the bottom and put that fucker into orbit. You say that like it's never been thought of before... 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 23:40
|
|