Boing 747 Crashes in Afganistan

[bradl]

If it was overweight enough to cause a stall it never would have gotten off of the ground in the first place. Engine failure could result in a stall if the pilots pulled back instead of pushing down to increase airspeed, but there is no way it would have gone that far nose-up because of an engine failure. That leaves load shift and flight control failure (if the elevators suddenly jammed back) but I think right now load shift is the most likely reason.

Definitely not overweight, as the B744F has a MTOW of 875,000lbs, so if the cargo were overweight, I doubt the USAF would have contracted NCR for the flight. I'm pretty sure that this would have been well under MTOW for safe departure.

The first I heard of this on the radio made it sound like there was some bad weather in the area. Possible that they got some sudden wind gusts they flew into during takeoff?

Sad to see, can't imagine knowing that the plane you're in is going down

Agreed. Here was the METAR in the area at the time:

0AKB 291350Z 18004KT 7000 BKN050 13/04 Q1016 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 291250Z 30007KT 9999 SCT040CB BKN060 15/01 Q1015 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 291150Z 10017G27KT 9999 VCTS SCT090CB BKN120 16/06 Q1013 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 291050Z 11020G30KT 9999 SCT090 OVC120 16/05 Q1012 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 290950Z 10020G30KT 9999 SCT080CB 17/06 Q1012 NOSIG RMK BLU+ BLU+
OAKB 290850Z 10025G42KT 9999 FEW060CB SCT070 17/05 Q1013 NOSIG RMK BLU+ BLU+
OAKB 290750Z 11020G30KT 9999 BKN060 17/06 Q1014 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU
OAKB 290650Z 10017KT 9999 FEW050 BKN060 16/05 Q1015 NOSIG RMK BLU BLU

Nothing completely out of the ordinary, but definitely had weather around the base. ceiling 6000ft, gusty winds though. thunderstorms in the vicinity, scattered cumulonimbus at 9000ft.. What would help to know would be runway orientation. Southeasterly winds would make for a nasty crosswind if the active runway(s) were oriented northeast/southwest (e.g. runway 4/22, 1/19, 18/36, 17/35, etc.), though that is a near 170 degree shift in wind direction around the time of the incident.

Weather definitely could have played a factor. WashPo thinks that as well. A commenter posts:

I fly a 747-400. Weather was not a factor. Takeoff would have been POSSIBLY at TO1 (minimal reduction), but with the load and other local factors, Max Power. Gear still down indicates the shift likely began between Vr and V2, as gear "up" is not called for until V2 and positive rate of climb. My understanding is that the aft pallet positions were empty; which would have allowed the load to shift unstopped and pallet locks would have not stopped them. If the shift did occur, it is likely that the aft pressure bulkhead was breached and behind that in a confined area are located the hydraulic system power packs. Damage to them would have made the airplane uncontrollable. A similar incident a few years back occured when an oil drill bit shifted aft, punched through the bulkhead and came to rest in between the hydraulic packs. Amazingly it missed them all by a couple of inches and the crew was able to return to land. The airplane was written off as a total loss. The 400 is a wonderful plane, loads of power, very stable and very forgiving. A load shift however is something that would exceed the capabilities of the plane. And despite the outstanding experience and professionalism of the crew, unrecoverable. RIP to them and their families, and my fellow airmen.

This is the one thing that still scares the **** out of me, and I haven't got to the part of my training on recovering from stalls. It is reading things like this that make me think about staying with my feet on terra firma. My love for flying is the only thing stopping me from quitting.

BL.

 

[justperry]

Wow, you don't see anything like this often.

I work for UPS, and US Airways.. Philly is our Hub, we be running flights back to back like its water

I work the international flights.. The Boeing 767s, the Airbus A330s 200 series and 300 series

These planes are as big as someone's who block they live on.. Over 335,000 gallons of Jet A fuel.. Too see the plane drop out the sky scared the **** outta me!!! That's crazy. It makes not even want to fly

Those engines failed or stalled.. period!!! Even if the weight shifted.. Those engines would have kept on pulling. Now if the plane was overweight.. Now that's a major what if right there.. I would love to see the flight manifest

Bold.

I am not a pilot nor do I know a lot about planes but I do know you are wrong there.

335,000 gallons = 1268110 L x 0.8 (Kg/L) = Little over 1000 Metric Tons!!!!!

Maximum takeoff tonnage is less than half that amount.
The Airbus 380 has a takeoff weight of a bit more than half that (500 Ton +).
So, clearly you made or a mistake or just no knowledge of planes.

Boeing 747-400 Freighter

 

[The-Pro]

Wow, you don't see anything like this often.



Bold.

I am not a pilot nor do I know a lot about planes but I do know you are wrong there.

335,000 gallons = 1268110 L x 0.8 (Kg/L) = Little over 1000 Metric Tons!!!!!

Maximum takeoff tonnage is less than half that amount.
The Airbus 380 has a takeoff weight of a bit more than half that (500 Ton +).
So, clearly you made or a mistake or just no knowledge of planes.

Boeing 747-400 Freighter

He probably went 335000 pounds of fuel, as aircraft fuel is usually always measured in pounds (weight) because the fuel can expand or shrink with changing temperatures.

747-400 has a fuel capacity of 57,285 US Gallons
218,840 L x 0.8 (Kg/L) =175072 Kg = 385967 lb. So he wasn't far off unless my calculations are wrong.
the original 747 had 323,500 lb fuel capacity. So he definitely meant pounds

 

[justperry]

He probably went 335000 pounds of fuel, as aircraft fuel is usually always measured in pounds (weight) because the fuel can expand or shrink with changing temperatures.

747-400 has a fuel capacity of 57,285 US Gallons
218,840 L x 0.8 (Kg/L) =175072 Kg = 385967 lb. So he wasn't far off unless my calculations are wrong.
the original 747 had 323,500 lb fuel capacity. So he definitely meant pounds

Yeah I know, metric is just easier to make my point.

 

[Huntn]

The first I heard of this on the radio made it sound like there was some bad weather in the area. Possible that they got some sudden wind gusts they flew into during takeoff?

Sad to see, can't imagine knowing that the plane you're in is going down

It's possible, but more than wind gusts, it would take wind shear or a microburst. There did not appear to be weather in the video to cause a microburst, but...

 

[juanm]

Why is the guy so eerily quiet on the YouTube video? You'd think that if you saw something like that happen right in front of you you would say "Hly ****" or something. No?

Russians know how to keep calm and carry on, no matter what:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OgCLMI3fgn0

(Yes, I know it's Afghanistan, but I couldn't find anything that particular)

 

[rovex]

Hardly reported anywhere.

 

[bradl]

Hardly reported anywhere.

Umm.. don't be too sure on that.

NPR, CNN, USAToday, and others have all reported on this.

Either way, here's a preliminary report that the NTSB will be taking into consideration as they investigate this when they get to OAKB:

29 APR 2013 Boeing 747-428BCF (N949CA) of National Airlines (National Air Cargo), Bagram Air Base (BPM)- 7(7 )

This e-mail is brought to you by the Aviation Safety Network (ASN). ASN is an exclusive service of the Flight Safety Foundation. Please note this information is preliminary; new information will be added on the Aviation Safety Network at http://aviation-safety.net/ The ASN website always contains the most recent information on each accident.
________________________________________
ASN ACCIDENT DIGEST
________________________________________
Date: 29 APR 2013
Time: ca 15:00
Type: Boeing 747-428BCF
Operator: National Airlines (National Air Cargo)
Registration: N949CA
C/n / msn: 25630/960
First flight: 1993
Engines: 4 General Electric CF6-80C2B1F
Crew: Fatalities: 7 / Occupants: 7
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 7 / Occupants: 7
Ground fatalities:
Airplane damage: Destroyed
Location: Bagram Air Base (BPM) (Afghanistan)
Phase: Takeoff
Nature: Cargo
Departure airport: Bagram Air Base (BPM)
Destination airport: ()
Flightnumber:

A Boeing 747-400BCF cargo plane, operated by National Air Cargo, crashed on takeoff from Bagram Air Base (BPM), Afghanistan. A base spokesman said the aircraft crashed from a low altitude right after takeoff. A fire erupted. An air base official reported that all seven crew members were killed in the accident. Bagram Air Base has a single concrete runway, 03/21 of 11819 feet (3602 m) in length. According to eyewitness reports, the airplane attained a very steep nose-up attitude immediately after takeoff from runway 03. It rolled left and right and entered a stall, descending towards the ground until it struck the ground near the end of the runway. Reportedly N949CA operated into Bagram as flight NCR510 from Châteauroux Airport Airport (CHR), France on April 28. The identity of the accident airplane has not yet been confirmed by authorities. A thunderstorm with Cumulonimbus clouds was approaching the air base at the time of the accident.

A weather report shows winds began shifting from 100 degrees at 09:55 UTC to 350 degrees at 10:55 UTC. Accident time was about 15:00 LT / 10:30 UTC:

KQSA 291155Z 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2996 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 60000 70000 51014
KQSA 291059Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN065 BKN090 14/05 A2993 RMK WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD
KQSA 291058Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN080CB BKN150 14/05 A2993 RMK LTG DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD
KQSA 291055Z 02007KT 9999 FEW040 BKN080CB BKN150 18/06 A2994 RMK PK WND 06026/1005 WSHFT 1027 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD
KQSA 290955Z COR 10017G30KT 9999 SCT085 BKN140 BKN200 17/06 A2992 RMK PK WND 09032/0856 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT E SLP213 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD COR 13

Now knowing the runway configuration, that would have been a nasty crosswind to start with, having to change configuration altogether from departing 21 to departing 3.

FlightGlobal has some very good analysis of the video of what also may have happened, which also does substantiate the weight shift claim. They also explain the rate of climb and pitch of the -400BCF on departure.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...rt-analyses-bagram-747-crash-sequence-385338/

Again, stuttering stuff.

BL.

 

[rhett7660]

^In the above video, does anybody else see the black smoke that comes out of the plane (unknown if engine or what) right before it hits the ground?

That is scary and I could only imagine what the crew was thinking as the plane started to fall out of the sky like it did...

 

[quagmire]

^In the above video, does anybody else see the black smoke that comes out of the plane (unknown if engine or what) right before it hits the ground?

That is scary and I could only imagine what the crew was thinking as the plane started to fall out of the sky like it did...

That is due to the camera. I didn't see any smoke.

 

[Huntn]

Now knowing the runway configuration, that would have been a nasty crosswind to start with, having to change configuration altogether from departing 21 to departing 3.

KQSA 291155Z 33008G17KT 9999 -TSRA SCT050CB BKN090 BKN170 13/04 A2996 RMK CB OHD MOV N SLP139 60000 70000 51014
KQSA 291059Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN065 BKN090 14/05 A2993 RMK WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD KQSA 291058Z 35011G17KT 9999 FEW050 BKN080CB BKN150 14/05 A2993 RMK LTG DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD
KQSA 291055Z 02007KT 9999 FEW040 BKN080CB BKN150 18/06 A2994 RMK PK WND 06026/1005 WSHFT 1027 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT NW SLP124 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD
KQSA 290955Z COR 10017G30KT 9999 SCT085 BKN140 BKN200 17/06 A2992 RMK PK WND 09032/0856 LTG DSNT NW CB DSNT E SLP213 WND DATA ESTMD ALSTG/SLP ESTMD COR 13

A 17 knot loss of airspeed should not cause a stall, however -TSRA (light thunderstrom rain) in the weather report could be associated with a microburst. Normally when I think of a microburst, I think of a thunderstorm over head. Did not see that in the video, but...

 

[quagmire]

Seriously CNN? Is there questions of the video being fake cause I am at a loss as to why CNN would put this up.....

 

[rhett7660]

That is due to the camera. I didn't see any smoke.

Gotcha, I can see it in the one video but not the other, might be compression artifact or something.....

 

[bradl]

A 17 knot loss of airspeed should not cause a stall, however -TSRA (light thunderstrom rain) in the weather report could be associated with a microburst. Normally when I think of a microburst, I think of a thunderstorm over head. Did not see that in the video, but...

I don't think TSRA would as well, but you are onto something. With that quick of a shift in wind direction, wind sheer would definitely be a factor in the loss of airspeed. That would explain the loss of air speed. That, plus SOPs for departing out of a war zones like BGM are all contributing factors. I'd expect changes to be made to those SOPs.

Seriously CNN? Is there questions of the video being fake cause I am at a loss as to why CNN would put this up.....

Simple. Sensationalism in the hopes of attracting people to their site to get hits and make money. It should say a lot when media outlets sacrifices their integrity for profit.

BL.

 

[ct2k7]

I'm going to watch the video again and read the METARs, available TAFs and any other reports before I comment.

My initial observation is that there was a failed or no attempt to adopt the SSR prcedure, however, given the conditions, I'm not entirely sure it would have been successful.

 

[bradl]

I'm going to watch the video again and read the METARs, available TAFs and any other reports before I comment.

My initial observation is that there was a failed or no attempt to adopt the SSR prcedure, however, given the conditions, I'm not entirely sure it would have been successful.

TAFS are available at NOAA. http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars

You can search for KSQA or OAKB, though I believe it only goes back 36 hours.

I think it's safe to say that aircraft performance is not a factor here. The -400BCF isn't that old of an aircraft as far as performance goes; This particular one was delivered 20 years ago. By comparison, the original B777s were delivered to United and American in 1995. They are still in service.

I don't think we're looking at performance here; I think it is more about the shift in weight in the aircraft.

BL.

 

[ct2k7]

TAFS are available at NOAA. http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars

You can search for KSQA or OAKB, though I believe it only goes back 36 hours.

I think it's safe to say that aircraft performance is not a factor here. The -400BCF isn't that old of an aircraft as far as performance goes; This particular one was delivered 20 years ago. By comparison, the original B777s were delivered to United and American in 1995. They are still in service.

I don't think we're looking at performance here; I think it is more about the shift in weight in the aircraft.

BL.

I normally get them from the MET office. ADDS used to give them for previous 48 hours at one point, if I recall correctly.

 

[Huntn]

Seriously CNN? Is there questions of the video being fake cause I am at a loss as to why CNN would put this up.....

I did a quick search and found one reference in a CNN article that said they could not confirm the authenticity of the video. I wonder if that is the basis of the question or is there something else?

----------

I don't think TSRA would as well, but you are onto something. With that quick of a shift in wind direction, wind sheer would definitely be a factor in the loss of airspeed. That would explain the loss of air speed. That, plus SOPs for departing out of a war zones like BGM are all contributing factors. I'd expect changes to be made to those SOPs.

Large commercial aircraft take off with a substantial buffer above stall that I'm comfortable saying that the airplane normally should be able to fly through a 30 knot loss of airspeed, but there could be other factors, failed engines, a steep climb profile (due to terrain, or enemy threat) of which, I know none of the details for this airport, sabotage, or possibly pilot error..

 

[dannyp1996]

A pilot friend of mine has seen this. He thinks it could be an issue with the Autopilot. He didn't elaborate.

 

[Tinmania]

According to National the cargo was loaded in Camp Bastian for the flight to Dubai, with a stopover in Bagram. No additional cargo (or personnel) was loaded in Bagram, though it was inspected again prior to take-off.

Not sure if this lends more credibility to factors other than cargo-shift but the aircraft did take off successfully with the same cargo prior to the incident.

http://www.examiner.com/article/national-releases-facts-prior-to-boeing-747-crash-afghanistan




Michael

 

[bradl]

According to National the cargo was loaded in Camp Bastian for the flight to Dubai, with a stopover in Bagram. No additional cargo (or personnel) was loaded in Bagram, though it was inspected again prior to take-off.

Not sure if this lends more credibility to factors other than cargo-shift but the aircraft did take off successfully with the same cargo prior to the incident.

http://www.examiner.com/article/national-releases-facts-prior-to-boeing-747-crash-afghanistan

Michael

I was actually about to post this, but you beat me to it. The question now becomes: Was the cargo modified or access to it opened while they were at KSQA? If so, I wonder how far the conspiracy theorists will go to give traction to the Taliban statement..

BL.

 

[Pugman1943]

Another Possibility

I have spoken with a qualified pilot. He offered this possibility.

*The plane was definitely in a nose-high (too high) attitude and an obvious stall resulted -- too much angle of attack to maintain airspeed necessary to provide lift. *

The problems with stalls on takeoff and landing are that usually when they occur, there is not enough altitude for normal stall recovery (nose down, throttle up) to work before the plane will impact dirt. I don't think it was load-shift, as some in the thread mention, as had the load moved rearward enough to cause the CG to shift to the point the nose could not be lowered, the plane would have mushed tail-first or pancaked into the ground -- that the plane nosed over indicates that CG was proper when the stall happened.

*Most modern, large commercial aircraft have a stall warning consisting of a stick-shaker (and some, voice alerts, and all some sort of stall warning indicator -- hell, even the little Cessna 150s have a tab in a wing edge which audibly vibrates (high pitched buzz) when turbulence reaches the front edge of the wing over the top -- an imminent stall condition. *So, the questions become, why was the plane in such a nose-up attitude to begin with? *Why didn't the pilots lower the nose at the first indication of an imminent stall? Control failure? *Maybe. Pilot inattention or distraction? Possible, but what could have been such a distraction as to cause them to disregard stall warnings? *Pilot disabled by heart attack or something else? *Those things take off with two pilots at the controls.

*Want hear a way out one, off the top of my head? *The autopilot was engaged, intentionally or accidentally, and once it had control surface authority and wanted to climb, was unable to be fought by the pilot(s), who didn't have time to figure out what was wrong and correct the issue, much less recover from the resulting stall. *[I'm not sure just how sophisticated modern autopilots are, but I do know that smaller planes have crashed because of inadvertent engagement of the autopilot, or neglect (forgetting to turn it off) when the pilots desired to take over.]

 

[quagmire]

The problems with stalls on takeoff and landing are that usually when they occur, there is not enough altitude for normal stall recovery (nose down, throttle up) to work before the plane will impact dirt. I don't think it was load-shift, as some in the thread mention, as had the load moved rearward enough to cause the CG to shift to the point the nose could not be lowered, the plane would have mushed tail-first or pancaked into the ground -- that the plane nosed over indicates that CG was proper when the stall happened.

The nose only came down after the plane went on its side( due to loss of directional control) and the thrust from the engines rotated the plane into a nose low situation.

*Want hear a way out one, off the top of my head? *The autopilot was engaged, intentionally or accidentally, and once it had control surface authority and wanted to climb, was unable to be fought by the pilot(s), who didn't have time to figure out what was wrong and correct the issue, much less recover from the resulting stall. *[I'm not sure just how sophisticated modern autopilots are, but I do know that smaller planes have crashed because of inadvertent engagement of the autopilot, or neglect (forgetting to turn it off) when the pilots desired to take over.]

Autopilots can be overridden by the pilots even if the autopilot is engaged( and can't be disengaged). But, certainly could be a factor considering it's still tough to move the controls with the autopilot on( at least my experience flying a Diamond DA42).

 

[Huntn]

I have spoken with a qualified pilot. He offered this possibility.

*The plane was definitely in a nose-high (too high) attitude and an obvious stall resulted -- too much angle of attack to maintain airspeed necessary to provide lift. *

The problems with stalls on takeoff and landing are that usually when they occur, there is not enough altitude for normal stall recovery (nose down, throttle up) to work before the plane will impact dirt. I don't think it was load-shift, as some in the thread mention, as had the load moved rearward enough to cause the CG to shift to the point the nose could not be lowered, the plane would have mushed tail-first or pancaked into the ground -- that the plane nosed over indicates that CG was proper when the stall happened.

*Most modern, large commercial aircraft have a stall warning consisting of a stick-shaker (and some, voice alerts, and all some sort of stall warning indicator -- hell, even the little Cessna 150s have a tab in a wing edge which audibly vibrates (high pitched buzz) when turbulence reaches the front edge of the wing over the top -- an imminent stall condition. *So, the questions become, why was the plane in such a nose-up attitude to begin with? *Why didn't the pilots lower the nose at the first indication of an imminent stall? Control failure? *Maybe. Pilot inattention or distraction? Possible, but what could have been such a distraction as to cause them to disregard stall warnings? *Pilot disabled by heart attack or something else? *Those things take off with two pilots at the controls.

*Want hear a way out one, off the top of my head? *The autopilot was engaged, intentionally or accidentally, and once it had control surface authority and wanted to climb, was unable to be fought by the pilot(s), who didn't have time to figure out what was wrong and correct the issue, much less recover from the resulting stall. *[I'm not sure just how sophisticated modern autopilots are, but I do know that smaller planes have crashed because of inadvertent engagement of the autopilot, or neglect (forgetting to turn it off) when the pilots desired to take over.]

My comments in this thread have been speculative. I agree that the indication is that plane was nose high and stalled. Actually I think there is general agreement on this. The question is why?

Cargo shift is an obvious candidate because in combination with a high angle T.O, climbing out at a higher pitch, lower speed, with less of a stall buffer (in hostile areas to get away from ground as to not be shot at), it would cause the aircraft to pitch nose up and the stall would come much faster. Pushing in full rudder to get the wing to roll and the nose down, could achieve this with a cargo shift, but again all speculation as I don't know what kind of T.O. they were doing.

While anything is possible, I think the odds are relatively low that the autopilot would hijack the aircraft and drive it into this situation. Even so, some pilots put the aircraft on autopilot right away after takeoff, but many, I even would say most do not. Even if they did, and they are monitoring, they would see this situation developing and click it off before it gets out of hand, to make a correction.

What could mess up a recovery from an unexpected nose high situation? A cargo shift, engine failure, or flight control malfunction, keeping in mind the cargo shift could precipitate the situation.

 

[Dr McKay]

Why is the guy so eerily quiet on the YouTube video? You'd think that if you saw something like that happen right in front of you you would say "Hly ****" or something. No?

I've witnessed multiple car pileups and accidents, obviously nothing on this magnitude and my reaction is to be silent and watch it intently.