OT: Bagram Afghanistan 747 Crash

[firerescuefin]

Many have probably seen this. Full disclosure..It's an actual crash of a 747 cargo jet on Monday. 7 flight crew members were killed. I know we have folks here that are rated on this and similar aircraft. How does this happen...it would seem to me that multiple things would have to go wrong in order for something like this to take place.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=icfVsql38oc

[MattTuck]

hard to tell from the video (fish eye lens), but looks to be climbing quickly and then stalls.

Really sad to see this.

[firerescuefin]

hard to tell from the video (fish eye lens), but looks to be climbing quickly and then stalls.

Yeah Matt...I get that, but how does that happen...Were they trying to do something that was outside the plane's performance envelope...engine failure....load shifting...some combo?

[texbike]

Yeah Matt...I get that, but how does that happen...Were they trying to do something that was outside the plane's performance envelope...engine failure....load shifting...some combo?

Supposedly there was a report from the crew of a significant load shift that could have caused the plane to nose up and stall. In a combat theater, isn't it common for many of these flights to take off and land in a steeper trajectory anyway?

Texbike

[staggerwing]

Current speculation is some part of the load broke free and moved sharply backward on takeoff.

If enough out of CG range, there isn't enough control surface in the world to achieve a good outcome.

[Kupe]

Just read some comments on the Washington Post article, from current & retired pilots, that said it was more-than-likely due to a cargo shift to the aft of the plane, causing the nose to pitch up and stall. Given the low altitude, there was no time to recover, whereas they might have been able to from a higher altitude.

[soulspinner]

Supposedly there was a report from the crew of a significant load shift that could have caused the plane to nose up and stall. In a combat theater, isn't it common for many of these flights to take off and land in a steeper trajectory anyway?

Texbike

Not that steep and its a big body plane. Classic stall.........

[FlashUNC]

As others have said. Looks like a load shift. Once the plane's that badly out of balance, not much they could have done really.

[killerrabbit]

****, that was awful to watch :(

[KidWok]

Wow...that is really sad and horrifying to see.

Tai

[firerescuefin]

In a combat theater, isn't it common for many of these flights to take off and land in a steeper trajectory anyway?

Texbike

yes...they would rather not get hit by a Stinger or something similar....military aircraft (including transports) fly with countermeasures (chaff/flares/jammers). These folks rarely do.

[redir]

It looks like the pilot tried to recover with a roll and dive and trying to get the cargo back to where it belonged but it's just about impossible at that point. It's probably just as bad if the cargo goes too far forward. Definitely could have recovered if he had a few thousand feet. RIP.

[mgm777]

Cargo pallets not properly secured or straps break. Load slides aft of cg, way aft, due to nose high attitude. Aircraft is tail heavy, nose high attitude, slow airspeed, max power, not enough altitude to recover from resulting stall, aircraft falls from sky.

[rnhood]

Also Bagram doesn't have lots of low lying terrain around. In fact its just a bowl sunk in the mountains. Its tough on the pilots of big planes. A shifting load probably caused it, and there is no way out. Inexcusable.

[soulspinner]

It looks like the pilot tried to recover with a roll and dive and trying to get the cargo back to where it belonged but it's just about impossible at that point. It's probably just as bad if the cargo goes too far forward. Definitely could have recovered if he had a few thousand feet. RIP.

Ya its a 747 cargo, not combat plane, at one point the plane had all but zero airspeed no chance............

[saab2000]

It looks like the pilot tried to recover with a roll and dive and trying to get the cargo back to where it belonged but it's just about impossible at that point. It's probably just as bad if the cargo goes too far forward. Definitely could have recovered if he had a few thousand feet. RIP.

If there is a significant load shift, as it appears in this video, it is likely unrecoverable regardless of the altitude. The load is so far out of the CG range that there is not enough authority from the horizontal stabilizer to manage, regardless of airspeed and/or power setting. It simply tips backwards, like a seesaw.

It seems probable that the load either shifted or the airplane was loaded grossly out of CG without the crew's knowing about it. If it shifted, it was probably a failure of a securing device or netting creating a cascade of mass to the aft part of the cargo hold. Looks unrecoverable, regardless of altitude.

[firerescuefin]

If there is a significant load shift, as it appears in this video, it is likely unrecoverable regardless of the altitude. The load is so far out of the CG range that there is not enough authority from the horizontal stabilizer to manage, regardless of airspeed and/or power setting. It simply tips backwards, like a seesaw.

It seems probable that the load either shifted or the airplane was loaded grossly out of CG without the crew's knowing about it. If it shifted, it was probably a failure of a securing device or netting creating a cascade of mass to the aft part of the cargo hold. Looks unrecoverable, regardless of altitude.

Saab...know you fly similar aircraft...likely to be a loadmaster issue vs. a mechanical failure?...I've been in the back of a c5 and c17 fully loaded..,that stuff is really tied down.

[redir]

If there is a significant load shift, as it appears in this video, it is likely unrecoverable regardless of the altitude. The load is so far out of the CG range that there is not enough authority from the horizontal stabilizer to manage, regardless of airspeed and/or power setting. It simply tips backwards, like a seesaw.

It seems probable that the load either shifted or the airplane was loaded grossly out of CG without the crew's knowing about it. If it shifted, it was probably a failure of a securing device or netting creating a cascade of mass to the aft part of the cargo hold. Looks unrecoverable, regardless of altitude.

I take it by your username you know what you are talking about. Too bad, very unfortunate situation. The only thing that helps for the family's is to know there was absolutely no suffering in the deaths of the crew :(

[Nags&Ducs]

It looks like the pilot tried to recover with a roll and dive and trying to get the cargo back to where it belonged but it's just about impossible at that point. It's probably just as bad if the cargo goes too far forward. Definitely could have recovered if he had a few thousand feet. RIP.

Not very likely that that was the mishap pilot's attempt at recovering. That looked like a classic stall (caused most likely by the shift of cargo as everyone is speculating). When a plane stalls, one wing stalls first and causes the corresponding yaw/roll. In any case, there was nothing that could have saved that bird. Hope it wasn't anyone I knew. RIP.

I too am confounded by the driver/filmer's lack of reaction. I would have been screaming holy shyzza!

[lukasz]

^^^
He's in Afghanistan.

That was terrifying.

[saab2000]

Saab...know you fly similar aircraft...likely to be a loadmaster issue vs. a mechanical failure?...I've been in the back of a c5 and c17 fully loaded..,that stuff is really tied down.

I don't wish to speculate too much. Air carriers like the one in question are fully aware of the risks of shifting cargo and exceeding the CG limits.

It seems probable that it was one or the other but until the investigation is complete it will not be certain. It could even be a mechanical failure of part of the airplane itself unrelated to loading of the cargo. I haven't heard the voice recorder or the ATC tapes but I heard that ATC recordings are out there. The only thing that is certain is that any transport airplane that pitches up as far as this one did is in trouble and big trouble and it pretty much never ends well. Something bad happened with either a gross miscalculation of the load or a mechanical failure of a system on the airplane.

Flying is incredibly safe but as we can see here, if anything goes wrong that window of safety can close.

[sc53]

Not very likely that that was the mishap pilot's attempt at recovering. That looked like a classic stall (caused most likely by the shift of cargo as everyone is speculating). When a plane stalls, one wing stalls first and causes the corresponding yaw/roll. In any case, there was nothing that could have saved that bird. Hope it wasn't anyone I knew. RIP.

I too am confounded by the driver/filmer's lack of reaction. I would have been screaming holy shyzza!
Toward the end, after he'd parked his vehicle, you hear him softly breathe "oh fu@k"

[FlashUNC]

Flying is incredibly safe but as we can see here, if anything goes wrong that window of safety can close.

As I like to tell my friends who are afraid of flying -- the pilot doesn't want to crash any more than you do.

[redir]

As I like to tell my friends who are afraid of flying -- the pilot doesn't want to crash any more than you do.

So true. I always like to think that when flying. I used to fly little one's. Hope to again some day. Always felt safe in a little Cessna but those big ones are scary especially when not in control!

[saab2000]

As I like to tell my friends who are afraid of flying -- the pilot doesn't want to crash any more than you do.

Bingo. There's no screaming until I'm screaming. I promise you I would have been screaming at the controls of that one.

Very sad accident and not the first of its kind. These things have been known to happen. Exceedingly unlikely on a passenger airplane as the cargo (passengers) are strapped into secure seats. Not much to shift and even if some baggage containers or cargo containers shifted it seems likely that enough mass exists in the cargo compartment to keep things within CG limits.

Bizarre anecdote: I was a passenger on a flight one time where passengers had to be reseated to get the airplane within the CG limitations. This can happen if the computer (the reservations computer) seats too many people in one seating area and there is not enough corresponding baggage to balance it out.

I heard one of the typical ignorant comments in the row ahead of me (I was a passenger but in uniform) whining about government regulations and the intrusion such regs into the smooth operation of the world of business. I was simply stunned. Seriously? I wanted to try to explain the the laws of physics are very real and that the gov't regulations he was complaining about were those that require the airline carrying him to not try to exceed the laws of physics. But he was not in the mood to be talked down to by me and I wasn't in the mood to discuss the obvious with a brick wall. It's not magic, but we like to make people think it is. It's just a lot of smart engineers who figured out how to manipulate the laws of physics that allow 900,000 lb airplanes to fly. But you have to still respect mother nature and physics of one of her laws. Break it and she wins, again. That's why people need to be reseated or baggage loads shifted. And this d-bag was complaining about gov't regs.

This video shows clearly why this stuff matters. I feel bad for the crew of this airplane and their families.

[slidey]

First up, sad to see this.

However from a theoretician's perspective who has worked on various types of control systems I'm more interested in the claims that load shifting beyond center of gravity of the plane implies a crash. I totally disagree! I disagree because I (and every other student of control systems) have designed much more complicated control systems over a wider range of instability on our laptops. Moreover, if that were the case then there wouldn't exist fighter planes...from where I stand, the only reasons behind such a mishap can be one of the two:

1. The kind of control systems on fighter jets are more advanced, i.e. with a wider range of instability incorporated or in other words various controllers having a much wider overlap between them.

2. Assuming it was a load shift, the fact that the load shift happened exactly during take-off phase might imply there is a mutually exclusive loop between controllers aiding take-off/landing phase as opposed to stabilising controllers. The assumption that might've been made here is that tricky manoeuvreability is not expected, and hence the stabilising controller can be shut off during take-off/landing phases.

[saab2000]

First up, sad to see this.

However from a theoretician's perspective who has worked on various types of control systems I'm more interested in the claims that load shifting beyond center of gravity of the plane implies a crash. I totally disagree! I disagree because I (and every other student of control systems) have designed much more complicated control systems over a wider range of instability on our laptops. Moreover, if that were the case then there wouldn't exist fighter planes...from where I stand, the only reasons behind such a mishap can be one of the two:

1. The kind of control systems on fighter jets are more advanced, i.e. with a wider range of instability incorporated or in other words various controllers having a much wider overlap between them.

2. Assuming it was a load shift, the fact that the load shift happened exactly during take-off phase might imply there is a mutually exclusive loop between controllers aiding take-off/landing phase as opposed to stabilising controllers. The assumption that might've been made here is that tricky manoeuvreability is not expected, and hence the stabilising controller can be shut off during take-off/landing phases.


Fighter jets have far more advanced control systems with fly-by-wire surfaces and thrust vectoring, which does not exist on commercial transport airplanes. Additionally, fighter airplanes have vastly superior power-to-weight ratios, allowing them to pretty much fly vertically. Finally, fighter jets don't carry cargo at different fore/aft stations. Any mass they carry is designed into the airplane and they likely operate with different limitations with different loads. I will promise that military cargo jets and bombers are much closer cousins to a Boeing 747 than any fighter jet is.

Comparing a Boeing 747 and a fighter jet is like comparing an oil tanker or cargo ship to a jet ski. They both operate on the surface of the water but the mission requirements end there.

[slidey]

I agree. I only made the comparison to make the point that really good control systems do exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that there can be a very robust, stabilising controller made for cargo jets as well which would be able to stabilise the plane around its center of gravity.

Either that, or there needs to be much more well-defined boundaries within the flights interior to make sure that there is little to no wiggle room for the cargo. Would definitely be better than straps/buckles.

Comparing a Boeing 747 and a fighter jet is like comparing an oil tanker or cargo ship to a jet ski. They both operate on the surface of the water but the mission requirements end there.

[saab2000]

I agree. I only made the comparison to make the point that really good control systems do exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that there can be a very robust, stabilising controller made for cargo jets as well which would be able to stabilise the plane around its center of gravity.

Either that, or there needs to be much more well-defined boundaries within the flights interior to make sure that there is little to no wiggle room for the cargo. Would definitely be better than straps/buckles.

Everything is a compromise. There are usually physical barriers and the nets that separate areas of the cargo compartment are serious pieces of equipment. This stuff is well thought out but stuff fails and it is simply not possible to plan for every eventuality. Stuff does have limitations. We can work around that but at some point there is no absolute safety. Airplanes like the 747-400 are designed to fly 14 hour flights after a max weight takeoff efficiently. You could probably change some parameters of that mission profile but at what cost?

I land on short runways sometimes when there are long runways available. Why? Because we all calculate potential risks and they are determined to be within acceptable ranges. Stakeholders would include the owners of the airplanes I fly. They have a significant stake in this. They approve of how I operate that airplane and it is often not the absolute lowest risk profile. I flew in and out of DCA this morning. There is water off the end of the runway in use most of the time. There are no arresting devices. It's not the lowest possible risk place to put an airport. Nor do we have fire trucks standing by for every takeoff and landing even though that would be safer than not having them stand by for every take off and landing.

Absolute safety does not exist. Boeing is a serious company and the FAA is a serious regulatory agency. The owners of the 747 in question are serious people with a lot at stake. They all do their best and sometimes things happen to create an accident.

The engineers at Boeing who conceive and construct control systems are pretty smart people. A lot smarter than I am. I am sure they would welcome your input on this matter. But a lot of smart people have put a lot of thought into securing cargo and calculating center of gravity limitations and control systems.

[MadRocketSci]

wow, I've had nightmares that looked like that...never thought i'd see something like that in RL...horrifying.

planes can be designed to be dynamically stable or unstable depending on application. Unstable designs require control authority and autopilots running at high command/sample rates to maintain overall stability. Jet fighters needing quickness and agility are examples. Passenger jets and the like, which are meant to cruise at level pitch are designed with stability in mind. Can the autopilot for such an aircraft recover when the plane goes unstable? I don't know...

So, in the most basic sense stability is strongly influenced by the relative positions of the plane's aerodynamic center of pressure and its center of gravity. For stability the CG should be in front of the CP, such that when the plane encounters a pitch disturbance, the increase in lift at the CP produces a restoring moment (torque) to bring the nose back down. When the CG is aft the CP, the opposite occurs, where an increase in pitch results in an increase in pitch moment from aerodyamic forces (again at the CP). Most likely (since i don't design airplanes) something the pilot and autopilot aren't equipped to handle.

The result is the plane continues pitching up until its speed drops and loses lift, iow, it stalls.

[MadRocketSci]

First up, sad to see this.

However from a theoretician's perspective who has worked on various types of control systems I'm more interested in the claims that load shifting beyond center of gravity of the plane implies a crash. I totally disagree! I disagree because I (and every other student of control systems) have designed much more complicated control systems over a wider range of instability on our laptops. Moreover, if that were the case then there wouldn't exist fighter planes...from where I stand, the only reasons behind such a mishap can be one of the two:

1. The kind of control systems on fighter jets are more advanced, i.e. with a wider range of instability incorporated or in other words various controllers having a much wider overlap between them.

2. Assuming it was a load shift, the fact that the load shift happened exactly during take-off phase might imply there is a mutually exclusive loop between controllers aiding take-off/landing phase as opposed to stabilising controllers. The assumption that might've been made here is that tricky manoeuvreability is not expected, and hence the stabilising controller can be shut off during take-off/landing phases.

your control moment depends on the relative distance between the (tail) elevators and the cg...as the cg shifts back you have less control authority, not more. Also, the control bandwidth for a passenger jet is low for comfortable flight dynamics (probably less than 1 Hz?) so depending on degree of instability (a far out pole in the RHP, or tons of phase loss), the out of whack system will probably not be stable as designed. On those old 747's, do they use adaptive control?

[slidey]

Sure, there is a stability control mechanism on the tail but your conjecture leads me to believe that the mechanism on the tail is the only such system. In which case, you're right...the relation of the control input with the CG will take precedence, in fact is all that matters. I was trying to use the engines/thrusters as also points of control as well. I believe this is how the thrusters are used in more advanced jets to aid skillful manoeuvring past the limits of usual boundaries for a tail-only actuated controller.

As for what kind of control mechanism is employed...I'm not very sure - but sure robust, adaptive control isn't out of reach of budgetary systems so could very well be in place. As I mentioned, I'm a theoretician and my skill set is unfortunately not of much use in the real-world. :cool:

Thrusters for everyone!

your control moment depends on the relative distance between the (tail) elevators and the cg...as the cg shifts back you have less control authority, not more. Also, the control bandwidth for a passenger jet is low for comfortable flight dynamics (probably less than 1 Hz?) so depending on degree of instability (a far out pole in the RHP, or tons of phase loss), the out of whack system will probably not be stable as designed. On those old 747's, do they use adaptive control?

[MadRocketSci]

the ailerons also could be used (the moveable flaps on the wings), but at takeoff the main flaps are fully deployed, so they're not going to have much effect. the engines aren't thrust vectorable, and are at full power on takeoff, so no help there. I think the elevators are it, unless they want to slap some canards on there...

[Nags&Ducs]

I agree. I only made the comparison to make the point that really good control systems do exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that there can be a very robust, stabilising controller made for cargo jets as well which would be able to stabilise the plane around its center of gravity.

Either that, or there needs to be much more well-defined boundaries within the flights interior to make sure that there is little to no wiggle room for the cargo. Would definitely be better than straps/buckles.

In the cargo world, it doesn't take much out of the envelope to cause mishaps.

Incorporating a more robust stabilizing control surface is theoretically attainable. Not economically justifiable. Won't ever happen.

[goonster]

your conjecture leads me to believe
This is where I would go looking for more . . . whadda ya call 'em . . . facts.

[FlashUNC]

the ailerons also could be used (the moveable flaps on the wings), but at takeoff the main flaps are fully deployed, so they're not going to have much effect. the engines aren't thrust vectorable, and are at full power on takeoff, so no help there. I think the elevators are it, unless they want to slap some canards on there...

Even the ailerons are more or less useless in that scenario. They're used to adjust the plane along the longitudinal axis for rolling and banking. No way the weight shift was keeping that plane level.

[mgm777]

Sure, there is a stability control mechanism on the tail but your conjecture leads me to believe that the mechanism on the tail is the only such system. In which case, you're right...the relation of the control input with the CG will take precedence, in fact is all that matters. I was trying to use the engines/thrusters as also points of control as well. I believe this is how the thrusters are used in more advanced jets to aid skillful manoeuvring past the limits of usual boundaries for a tail-only actuated controller.

As for what kind of control mechanism is employed...I'm not very sure - but sure robust, adaptive control isn't out of reach of budgetary systems so could very well be in place. As I mentioned, I'm a theoretician and my skill set is unfortunately not of much use in the real-world. :cool:

Thrusters for everyone!
Slidey - The best stabilizing control systems in the world still rely on sufficient airflow over the control surfaces. In this case, just after takeoff, with a nose high attitude, made even higher by the load shift, the aircraft just didn't have sufficient airspeed over its control surfaces to be able to recover. Gotta have sufficient air flow over those surfaces to move the plane around. Altitude or airspeed, pick one. In this case, the doomed crew had neither.

[slidey]

True, true...even theoretically it isn't as easily solvable as I had thought as it would be. mainly because MadRocketSci put the nail in the coffin of my fantasy when he helped me realise that wing-based ailerons would've little to contribute as they're already committed/locked on to the take-off phase. In principle, it seems that the "kind" of controllers which would hence work for such a drastic tipping of the tail would be the kind used in fighter jets. Even in this case, there is the issue of increased payload of the freight jet resulting in magnified boundary constraints on those controllers as well. This leads me to believe (hastily, as it isn't my project), that an electronic solution would be largely academic at this point.

The only possibility to prevent such a shifting of load, if indeed that was the cause, is to put in place more well-defined boundaries within the cargo-hold to prevent this from happening.

EDIT: I overlooked the possibility of additional directional thrusters in the tail-section.

Slidey - The best stabilizing control systems in the world still rely on sufficient airflow over the control surfaces. In this case, just after takeoff, with a nose high attitude, made even higher by the load shift, the aircraft just didn't have sufficient airspeed over its control surfaces to be able to recover. Gotta have sufficient air flow over those surfaces to move the plane around. Altitude or airspeed, pick one. In this case, the doomed crew had neither.

[afrizzledfry]

I too am confounded by the driver/filmer's lack of reaction. I would have been screaming holy shyzza!

I'm not. He's probably seen lots of horrible things in that country.

[Louis]

For some reason the link in the OP doesn't work for me, so I went to YouTube and found some stuff. The "dashcam" video (it's about 3 min long), because of the angle, really doesn't show a whole lot. It looks to me like a stall, but since you can't really gauge the angle of attack, it's tough just looking at it. Obviously a stall at such a low altitude, and you're SOL. I tend to agree with the shifting load theory - that's why Loadmaster is such an important position in cargo aircraft.

If someone has a link to a better video with a side-view please post it. If all the discussion above is based on the view from the front of the plane, we really don't have much data to go on. I'm sure the flight data recorders will have a story to tell, and the investigation will figure out what happened.

[wallymann]

747 was designed in the late '60s. being a freighter, this was proably a very old and tired example. think long and hard about that.

basically none of the comments about what "should" be are relevant in the real world. it's an old and very tired a cargo/passenger aircraft, one that's been arguably underpowered its entire life. given it's age and old technology, both for control and power mean that it's control envelope is nowhere near what you're thinking. a freighter is a big tube with wings that carries stuff inside, ideally well fixed in place...and often loaded to the gills with *just* enough power and control authority to fly safely in benign circumstances. and those control limits are significantly lower in the low speed/altitude environment at takeoff/landing.

clearly something happened here that's "out of tolerance" and well beyond what the engine and flight controls/surfaces could manage. a buddy who's in the USAF over in the sandbox tells me that thrust-loss was apparently the initial event causing the pitch-up, then cargo shift, then stall, cascade. simply shocking to see. rest in peace.

Sure, there is a stability control mechanism on the tail but your conjecture leads me to believe that the mechanism on the tail is the only such system. In which case, you're right...the relation of the control input with the CG will take precedence, in fact is all that matters. I was trying to use the engines/thrusters as also points of control as well. I believe this is how the thrusters are used in more advanced jets to aid skillful manoeuvring past the limits of usual boundaries for a tail-only actuated controller.

As for what kind of control mechanism is employed...I'm not very sure - but sure robust, adaptive control isn't out of reach of budgetary systems so could very well be in place. As I mentioned, I'm a theoretician and my skill set is unfortunately not of much use in the real-world. :cool:

Thrusters for everyone!

[PSC]

That aircraft was a 747-400 model and is a fairly new model early 90's or so, which is not that old considering some cargo carriers are still using 747-100 series aircraft from the 60's. I have been a loadmaster on C-5's and currently on the C-17's and the load envelope on these aircraft are fairly small considering the size of the cargo box. My understanding is that aircraft are test to operate outside of there load envelopes to a certain extent, but if you have a dramatic/sudden shift of cargo on take off (critical phase of flight) the consequences can be fatal, See:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cargo-Shift-Worried-Crew-in-Crash-Victims-3305208.php

In the Air Forse the loadmaster is there to ensure that the cargo is properly restrained and within aircraft limits. All the loadplans for these aircraft are computer generated and unless cargo was not weighed properly, the plans are generally spot on. Whether it is properly restrained inside the aircraft is the job of the loadmaster.

I have had a couple come to Jesus moments in my flying career and can tell you it is not fun. Not sure what happened to this aircraft, but what ever it was, it sucked!

I will be in Bagram this weekend and maybe I will find out a bit more info.

[Louis]

I checked with a buddy of mine up in Seattle (an engineer at Boeing) to ask him if they were talking about this, and he confirmed that all the talk up there was about a load shift on takeoff. We'll have to wait for the investigation report, but it sounds like that's what happened.

BTW, the aircraft can handle CG shifts, but it has to be planned and under the right conditions: C-17 Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RXoG-GeGek)

[Tabularosa78]

My first job out of college was as a loadmaster for FedEx. I've moved all kinds of freight from killer whales to classified military shipments. In very small writing at the top of every weight and balance manifest was a statement that basically said if this planes crashes due to CG issues the preparing loadmaster was f*ck*d and assumed all responsibility.

Many people don't realize how hard and stressful a live load is. I've calculated a CG for an Airbus-310 once and some dumb manager wanted to load 20lbs of late dangerous goods that arrived to my ramp late. I had to recalc the weight balance and just that 20lbs put me into forward CG where half the place had to be offloaded then reloaded. Loading takes into account fuel onboard, alternate and destination airports, weather, etc..Not to mention that each plane's CG is not a static thing. It moves up and down the envelope during a live load and sometimes you just have to pray to god that you did enough pre-planning to make it all work.

The most stressful job I ever had but boy did it prepare to deal with crap when sh*t hits the fan.

[oldpotatoe]

Current speculation is some part of the load broke free and moved sharply backward on takeoff.

If enough out of CG range, there isn't enough control surface in the world to achieve a good outcome.

Same thing here..it was carrying a jet engine, broke free on cat shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlDmMwI9cik

[saab2000]

747 was designed in the late '60s. being a freighter, this was proably a very old and tired example. think long and hard about that.

basically none of the comments about what "should" be are relevant in the real world. it's an old and very tired a cargo/passenger aircraft, one that's been arguably underpowered its entire life. given it's age and old technology, both for control and power mean that it's control envelope is nowhere near what you're thinking. a freighter is a big tube with wings that carries stuff inside, ideally well fixed in place...and often loaded to the gills with *just* enough power and control authority to fly safely in benign circumstances. and those control limits are significantly lower in the low speed/altitude environment at takeoff/landing.

clearly something happened here that's "out of tolerance" and well beyond what the engine and flight controls/surfaces could manage. a buddy who's in the USAF over in the sandbox tells me that thrust-loss was apparently the initial event causing the pitch-up, then cargo shift, then stall, cascade. simply shocking to see. rest in peace.

The 747 is a very relevant airframe in today's world even if it was designed 40+ years ago. If it weren't relevant there wouldn't still be hundreds in revenue service all over the world with relevant airlines. It has a superb safety record and is still in production today in the form of the 747-8. It is old but hardly 'tired', whatever that means. These aren't Honda Accords with facelifts and a 1% power bump every 3 year cycle.

It is flown by respected operators like United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, Qantas, Air New Zealand, UPS, Atlas Air Cargo, and many more. These carriers seem to have faith in the airframe and the safety of the design and procedures.

The fact is that an airplane doesn't pitch up 90º unless there was a catastrophic failure of a system which is entirely unrelated to its design era or the tiredness of the design. Something failed and it would have had the same result in a 777 or an A380.

How does your buddy over in the 'sandbox' (what's the sandbox?) know that a thrust loss was the initiating event for this accident? Or in any way related? Does he have the final results of the investigation? Does he fly for National? Is he a pilot for a 121 carrier? Does he know about engine-out performance and terrain clearance requirements and the various climb segments? I didn't think so.

Your post is sensationalism best reserved for tabloid 'journalism'.

The 747 operates safely hundreds of times per day and has done so for over 40 years and the number of accidents that are attributable to airframe design can probably be counted on one hand. It is a very, very safe airplane and Boeing did their homework with this one. And this comes from a pilot who flies professionally for a living and has no loyalty to any specific airframe or power plant maker. I call it as I see it. I would happily climb into a Boeing 747 tomorrow to fly anywhere.

[Louis]

Does loss of thrust suddenly cause a significant pitch up?

[saab2000]

Does loss of thrust suddenly cause a significant pitch up?

No.

[Louis]

No.

That's what I thought.

[TPetsch]

Wow, sad to see this.

Plus 1 Saab!

I'm an A&E, used to work as a machinist and mechanic on 747's at Pan Am, helped to convert several for cargo duty during Operation Desert Storm. As far as I'm concerned 47's are the safest plane ever built, several back up systems if one should fail & "four" very capable engines. What ever happened to her sprung up on the pilot in a flash IMO, not so much the fault of the AC -or the pilot- but more a factor of a possible heavy cargo shift and slow speed cocktail as others have mentioned.

The 747 is a very relevant airframe in today's world even if it was designed 40+ years ago. If it weren't relevant there wouldn't still be hundreds in revenue service all over the world with relevant airlines. It has a superb safety record and is still in production today in the form of the 747-8. It is old but hardly 'tired', whatever that means. These aren't Honda Accords with facelifts and a 1% power bump every 3 year cycle.

It is flown by respected operators like United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, Qantas, Air New Zealand, UPS, Atlas Air Cargo, and many more. These carriers seem to have faith in the airframe and the safety of the design and procedures.

The fact is that an airplane doesn't pitch up 90º unless there was a catastrophic failure of a system which is entirely unrelated to its design era or the tiredness of the design. Something failed and it would have had the same result in a 777 or an A380.

How does your buddy over in the 'sandbox' (what's the sandbox?) know that a thrust loss was the initiating event for this accident? Or in any way related? Does he have the final results of the investigation? Does he fly for National? Is he a pilot for a 121 carrier? Does he know about engine-out performance and terrain clearance requirements and the various climb segments? I didn't think so.

Your post is sensationalism best reserved for tabloid 'journalism'.

The 747 operates safely hundreds of times per day and has done so for over 40 years and the number of accidents that are attributable to airframe design can probably be counted on one hand. It is a very, very safe airplane and Boeing did their homework with this one. And this comes from a pilot who flies professionally for a living and has no loyalty to any specific airframe or power plant maker. I call it as I see it. I would happily climb into a Boeing 747 tomorrow to fly anywhere.