MR

Wow.

Fact Finder wrote:

Rick wrote:Wow.

Did you watch till the end, looks like they just missed some fuel trucks?

No but thank god for that.

Luckily, there was only seven crew on board.

I saw this earlier today and the news anchor said that there have been some reports that the video is not real and that they were investigating it for its authenticity. So....
But, if it is, HOLY SHIT! Can you imagine being in one of those trucks and seeing not just a plane falling out of the sky at you but a freakin' 747?!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/04/30 ... air-field/

Shocking new video appears to show the fiery crash Monday of a civilian cargo plane at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan.
The American-owned plane bound for Dubai crashed shortly after takeoff, killing all seven people on board, according to the U.S.-led military coalition.
In the video, which military sources tell Fox News may have been taken from the dashboard camera of a servicemember, the Boeing 747-400 takes off, then appears suspended in the air for a moment before turning and nose-diving into the ground, erupting into a cloud of smoke and flames.

The Taliban quickly claimed responsibility for downing the plane, but NATO said in a statement to The Associated Press that the Taliban "claims are false." The coalition says the cause of the crash was being investigated, but there was no sign of insurgent activity in the area at the time.
Capt. Luca Carniel, a coalition spokesman, said the aircraft crashed from a low altitude right after takeoff.

The plane -- owned by National Airlines, an Orlando, Florida-based subsidiary of National Air Cargo -- was carrying vehicles and other cargo, according to National Air Cargo Vice President Shirley Kaufman. She said those killed were four pilots, two mechanics and a load master, who was responsible for making sure that the weight and balance of the cargo is appropriate.
Five of the seven fatalities were from Michigan, said Kaufman.
Fox 2 reports one of the victims has been identified as Brad Hasler, a Michigan father of two whose wife is pregnant.
"Yesterday morning our family learned of the terrible tragedy that occurred at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and that Brad was among the crew members who perished. Brad was a wonderful father to two young children, a beloved husband to a wife who is expecting another child, a loving son, and the most loyal and supportive brother I could have ever asked for," Hasler's brother, Bill, wrote in a statement released Tuesday.
The identities of the other passengers have not yet been revealed.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and the Afghanistan Civil Aviation Authority are investigating the crash, according to The Associated Press.
National Airlines was based until recently at Michigan's Willow Run Airport, west of Detroit in Wayne County's Van Buren Township. It carries cargo both commercially and for the military, Kaufman said. She said it employs about 225 people.

Apparently the pilot radioed the load had shifted..

slucero wrote:Apparently the pilot radioed the load had shifted..

Yeah, the load shifted, forcing the nose up and putting the plane in a stall. For any aircraft with four engines, getting the nose up or turning sideways can do that.
A huge increase in the Angle of Attack usually spells doom for big planes.

Here's a B-52 Bomber where the Pilot was hotdogging and ended up stalling the aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEhNKBi4DY

Trading altitude for air speed will bring most planes out of a stall, unless there is not enough altitude.....then you're fucked. At best you can attempt a "belly land", but not if you can't get the nose up a few degrees above the cordline.

Fact Finder wrote:Unreal footage. It was a cargo plane headed to Dubai and they think a Tank or some heavy equipment broke loose and shifted the load on takeoff. They hardly got up in the air. Wow, what a big plane. Sad for the families.

WARNING!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjO0sKBDDw

Yep, load shift is one of the most probable causes for this crash, either because of securing equipment failure or incorrectly secured. Second is incorrect location of load in relation to the a/c's cg. Pilot error is the least of the three but can't be ruled out at this time. Pilot may have climbed too steep on take-off and stalled the a/c. Incorrect location of load in relation to the a/c's cg could also contribute to stall at take-off as well and perhaps why a/c's climb was so steep after leaving the runway - tail heavy.

The video shows that the a/c didn't have any apparent structural damage before impact which could rule out terrorist attack by surface to air weapon or on-board explosion and there doesn't seem to be any indication of engine failure such as fire or smoke coming out of the engines prior to impact. Turning up the volume you can hear the engines screaming before impact.

Really bad stall at only around 1,200 feet, completely unrecoverable.

steveo777 wrote:Trading air speed for altitude will bring most planes out of a stall, unless there is not enough altitude.....then you're fucked. At best you can attempt a "belly land", but not if you can't get the nose up a few degrees above the cordline.

You need air speed for a "belly land" unless it's a flat spin but that would then be a "belly flop". That's exactly what this jet was experiencing up until the time of impact, a flat spin.

The Sushi Hunter wrote:

steveo777 wrote:Trading air speed for altitude will bring most planes out of a stall, unless there is not enough altitude.....then you're fucked. At best you can attempt a "belly land", but not if you can't get the nose up a few degrees above the cordline.

You need air speed for a "belly land" unless it's a flat spin but that would then be a "belly flop". That's exactly what this jet was experiencing up until the time of impact, a flat spin.

I just realized that my original post was hastily typed. The correct manuever is the trade altitude for air speed, not the opposite. You need speed to be able to pull up and in the case of a plane losing power, engines(s), the only way to gain speed is to sharply descend, but in this case, it appears there was no time, nor altitude

Don wrote:Yeah, the load shifted, forcing the nose up and putting the plane in a stall.

Not being of the engineering type of mindset, I didn't know a load shifting once the plane was airborne could affect the aircraft like that. I assumed it followed the same principle as a fly buzzing around in your car while you're going 65 mph. If you hit the brakes real fast, the fly doesn't slam into the windshield just like if you accelerate real quick it doesn't hit the back window.

JRNYMAN wrote:

Don wrote:Yeah, the load shifted, forcing the nose up and putting the plane in a stall.

Not being of the engineering type of mindset, I didn't know a load shifting once the plane was airborne could affect the aircraft like that. I assumed it followed the same principle as a fly buzzing around in your car while you're going 65 mph. If you hit the brakes real fast, the fly doesn't slam into the windshield just like if you accelerate real quick it doesn't hit the back window.

The plane is like a seesaw when it's in the air. When the load broke free, the nose of the plane was up just enough for it to roll backwards putting too much weight in the back. With the tail now down and the front up, there is more mass moving forward, turbulence is hitting the flat bottom of the plane instead of being a like a mattress under it. It's like a wave of water rising in front of the plane; you can dive into a wave but you can't let it hit you right in the chest and not get knocked back by it. The engines need the air striking them to convert into thrust which they need more of now to compensate for the plane flying with unbalanced weight in the rear but now they are pointing upwards so much they are being starved, thus causing a stall.

Don wrote:

JRNYMAN wrote:

Don wrote:Yeah, the load shifted, forcing the nose up and putting the plane in a stall.

Not being of the engineering type of mindset, I didn't know a load shifting once the plane was airborne could affect the aircraft like that. I assumed it followed the same principle as a fly buzzing around in your car while you're going 65 mph. If you hit the brakes real fast, the fly doesn't slam into the windshield just like if you accelerate real quick it doesn't hit the back window.

The plane is like a seesaw when it's in the air. When the load broke free, the nose of the plane was up just enough for it to roll backwards putting too much weight in the back. With the tail now down and the front up, there is more mass moving forward, turbulence is hitting the flat bottom of the plane instead of being a like a mattress under it. It's like a wave of water rising in front of the plane; you can dive into a wave but you can't let it hit you right in the chest and not get knocked back by it. The engines need the air striking them to convert into thrust which they need more of now to compensate for the plane flying with unbalanced weight in the rear but now they are pointing upwards so much they are being starved, thus causing a stall.

Okay... that makes sense. Thanks. Watching the video several times now and slowing it down, you can see right at the instant that the plane comes into view the tail drops significantly which stands the plane straight up vertically. The thing I noticed which I thought was strange was that the landing gear was still extended. From everything I've learned and seen regarding aircraft takeoff, they pull the gear up as soon as logistically and physically possible to reduce the tremendous amount of drag they create. Just thought it was odd and wonder if that might have also played into them not being able to produce enough or at least more thrust to compensate.

Stall occurs when air does not move over the wing surfaces at a high enough rate of speed to create lift, causing a loss of lift and the use of the control surfaces (ailerons, elevators and vertical stabilizer).

The attitude of the plane (vertical, sideways, inverted) has nothing to do with stall, as long as the plane can handle the stress of that attitude.

when the weight shifted to the rear(tail)... it pitched the plane nose up... and as Don said.. the engines could not provide enough thrust to maintain enough airspeed (air moving over the wing/control surfaces).. so the plane went from having the aerodynamics of an airfoil to those of a rock.

Fate of crew unknown as US plane crashes in Kyrgyzstan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22397266

A search is under way for the three crew of a US military refuelling plane that crashed in northern Kyrgyzstan.

The KC-135 Stratotanker disappeared off the radar near Chaldovar village, some 160km (100 miles) west of the base near Bishkek from where it took off.

Witnesses said they saw the plane, believed to have been laden with fuel at the time, explode in mid-air.

The wreckage is scattered across a wide area. US officials said: "The status of the crew is unknown".

Kyrgyz media quoted some witnesses as saying they saw at least one pilot escape the burning plane - one report said by ejector seat - but these accounts have not been substantiated.

Kyrgyz officials said the plane had taken off from the US transit centre at Manas international airport, near Bishkek, with some 70 tonnes of fuel on board.

It crashed at around 15:00 local time (09:00 GMT).

"I was working with my father in the field, and I heard an explosion. When I looked up at the sky I saw the fire. When it was falling, the plane split into three pieces," resident Sherikbek Turusbekov was quoted by the Associated Press as saying.

In a statement, the US transit centre confirmed the crash and said "emergency response crews are on the scene". "The cause of the crash is under investigation," the statement added.

An unnamed defence official in Washington told the Associated Press that the plane was on a refuelling mission to Afghanistan at the time.

The scene of the crash was being guarded overnight, and officials said a search for the missing crew members would resume in the morning.

The base at Manas has been used by the US military since 2001 as a hub for its operations in Afghanistan.

The United States is leasing the facility for $60m a year and wants to extend the lease beyond its end date of June 2014. Kyrgyzstan is reluctant to extend the lease, saying the presence of the base is a threat to its security.

Seven crew members died when a US civilian Boeing 747 cargo plane crashed at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan on Monday.