Cap-10 Posted May 11, 2013 Share Posted May 11, 2013 I've done many HATR/HAP investigations during my time at Bagram...all of the Tower/RAPCON comm is recorded just like stateside. Cheers, Cap-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkFE Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Computer simulation of the crash. Not sure how accurate it is, but still.... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ca_1367498083#qpJXkClEZFjH5buT.01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I can't even imagine the thoughts of those poor guys trying to make that damn jet fly... :beer: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkFE Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I can't even imagine the thoughts of those poor guys trying to make that damn jet fly... :beer: I know what you mean. It kills me to watch that simulation. I can't imagine being there and seeing it like LL Windshear. Them Them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milchstrasse Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Watching that video was tough. They showed the crash three times and slowed it down, giving you plenty of time to think about how much time they had to think about their fate. Just a note, it's not as much a simulation as it is an animation of the flight path based on the video (using perspective techniques). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herculean Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 SAFO13005.pdf Check the attached SAFO (Safety Alert for Operators) from the FAA. It states that "the FAA is concerned about the procedures for carrying and securing heavy vehicle special cargo loads." It even goes on to list some "best practices for heavy vehicle special cargo operations and restraint" which reads like loadmaster 101. Whatever the cause of this HORRIBLE accident, the feds seem to think something warrants getting some info out on this pretty quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LL Windshear Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Just heard about this... http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/747-cargo-plane-crash-afghanistan-determined-19311154 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunes Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 so the afghan version of the ntsb led the investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nunya Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 (edited) Yes. Apparently that's the ICAO rules - location of the incident has the lead for civilian mishaps. I sincerely hope the NTSB is very involved. http://www.ntsb.gov/...013/130430.html April 30 The National Transportation Safety Board will lead a team to assist the Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation in the investigation of a cargo plane crash at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. NTSB Senior Air Safety Investigator Tim LeBaron will be the U.S. accredited representative. He will lead a team of three additional investigators from the NTSB as well as representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration and The Boeing Company. The private cargo plane, a Boeing 747-400 operated by National Air Cargo, crashed just after takeoff from the U.S.-operated air base at 11:20 a.m. local time Monday. All seven crewmembers onboard were killed and the airplane destroyed. The seven crew members were all American citizens. The accident site is within the perimeter of Bagram Air Base. The international cargo flight was destined for Dubai World Central - Al Maktoum International Airport, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Afghanistan Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation is leading the investigation and will be the sole source of information regarding the investigation. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, they can be reached at (873) 68 2341450 / 49 or by fax at (873) 68 1280784. Edited June 3, 2013 by nunya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopyeast Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 NOVA put out a video a number of years ago about the COPA 201 flight in Panama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Airlines_Flight_201 Even though the Panamanians ran the investigation, the video shows a lot of involvement with the NTSB and Boeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) Spoke with one of the investigators on this accident and he let me know some facts. The aircraft had 5 MRAPS on it. The other contract carriers only carry 3. With 5 vehicles on the aircraft 2,3,&4 have ZERO forward and aft restraint. 1 has aft restraint and 5 has some forward restraint. The rear vehicle did break free and penetrate the aft bulkhead. Now this is what sucks. With that many vehicles, one shifting, even crashing through the bulkhead was not enough to cause this accident. They still would have had plenty of elavator authority. Unfortunately, when the vehicle slammed through the bulkhead it severed hydraulic lines to 2 separate systems, Took out the CVR and FDR (9 seconds after the rotate call), and finally did what actually brought the aircraft down. It hit the stabilizer trim unit and jammed it to 6 degrees none up, nothing they could do at that point. The MRAP that broke free survived the crash (because it was in the tail) and they actually found orange marks on it from the FDR. Edited June 8, 2013 by Butters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tunes Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stract Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsu8992 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 wow. Regarding the incoherent details or atrocious grammar? Hopefully btrs can find the Edit when subered uup! Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Regarding the incoherent details or atrocious grammar? Hopefully btrs can find the Edit when subered uup! Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2 Dude, I am on my iPhone. Not the easiest thing to type on, drunk, while driving the boat. Give me a break. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooter Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 drunk, while driving the boat. Not something I would exactly brag about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Not something I would exactly brag about... I see you are not a boater. Beer makes the boat float dumb ass. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Spoke with one of the investigators on this accident and he let me know some facts. The aircraft had 5 MRAPS on it. The other contract carriers only carry 3. With 5 vehicles on the aircraft 2,3,&4 have ZERO forward and aft restraint. 1 has aft restraint and 5 has some forward restraint. The rear vehicle did break free and penetrate the aft bulkhead. Now this is what sucks. With that many vehicles, one shifting, even crashing through the bulkhead was not enough to cause this accident. They still would have had plenty of elavator authority. Unfortunately, when the vehicle slammed through the bulkhead it severed hydraulic lines to 2 separate systems, Took out the CVR and FDR (9 seconds after the rotate call), and finally did what actually brought the aircraft down. It hit the stabilizer trim unit and jammed it to 6 degrees none up, nothing they could do at that point. The MRAP that broke free survived the crash (because it was in the tail) and they actually found orange marks on it from the FDR. wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarHeelPilot Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 It has to be cheaper to ship MRAPs back via land/rail and eventually sea back to the US, right? There's no rush in getting them back to the States... hell, leave them in Germany until we invade <insert middle eastern country here> next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KState_Poke22 Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 It has to be cheaper to ship MRAPs back via land/rail and eventually sea back to the US, right? There's no rush in getting them back to the States... hell, leave them in Germany until we invade <insert middle eastern country here> next. To be be fair, there's a 90% chance they get intercepted by the Taliban in Pak if we do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupe Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 To be be fair, there's a 90% chance they get intercepted by the Taliban in Pak if we do that. Or just stuck at the border because of some spat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Probably cannot meet the TPFDD dates for all the equipment if we only ship via the "overland" route. Have you seen the routing overland, then across the water and back to rail and the customs, etc requirements to ship that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-21.Pilot Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Just a question.... I heard from a news source that their was a recording of the word "Wait" or "Weight"....which could be implied to mean several things. I believe, if the CVR was rendered unusable, this could have been a quick discussion of "Weight shift"....but it was cut short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) Just a question.... I heard from a news source that their was a recording of the word "Wait" or "Weight"....which could be implied to mean several things. I believe, if the CVR was rendered unusable, this could have been a quick discussion of "Weight shift"....but it was cut short. It was cut short when the MRAP crashed into it. They can't send these things overland because they cannot protect them over the entire route. Just like the other guys said. Edited June 8, 2013 by Butters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 It has to be cheaper to ship MRAPs back via land/rail and eventually sea back to the US, right? There's no rush in getting them back to the States... hell, leave them in Germany until we invade next. Pak GLoc has been pretty much closed for almost three years now. We still ship stuff like toilet paper over it but pretty much any and all military end user equipment is a no go. It's either left in country as TPE or airlifted home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now