Chris6791 said...
^^^ only 5 min without talking? that puts you in the talk all the time category.

Hey, I was giving myself some credit there too. 5 minutes is a long long time Anyone that can go that long without talking is obviously a psycho and are only thinking to themselves about their next psychotic episode.

By 'talk all the time', I meant literally the people that only pause to catch their breath, and are in no way listening to you for a response. Almost like those people that offer up questions about conspiracies, but never want to listen to the answer.

I'm impressed with the aircraft control system.
When the load first shifted (assuming that is what happend, and it certainly looks like that) the pitch control couldn't do anything about it because the speed was too low due to being on initial climb out. All that could happen was a stall.
The aircraft remained reasonably wings level even though you can see it tried to dip the left wing and then dipped the right wing. By the time it hit the ground it had recovered both lateral and longitudinal stability and and was managing to do a good job of levelling out. Had they been a few thousand feet higher they probably would have got out of it with only some grubby undies.

The only consolation is that it would have been fast and in situations like that, you actually don't have time to be scared, just very very alert.

Cargo shift it was for sure but it had to be a massive weight shift, I used to be a load master in the aviation industry.

I once was in charge of a plane load were we loaded 5 tonne on a plane more than its max payload it was due to a simple computer program mistake(for my sake the investigation found no error by me or other staff) It shoulnt of been able to take flight. I had the unfortunate experience of watching the plane take off to only almost nose dive straight into the runway. If it wasn't for an amazing quick reacting pilot and sheer luck he managed to pull the nose up just enough to have its wheels underneath it as it bounced hard on the Tarmac. We were told later if the load hadn't been so well balanced it would of been a whole different story for the plane and crew. Was the worst feeling I've ever had watching a plane almost crash out of control when I was the person signing off on its load.

Until the investigation is complete know one for sure is going to know what happened. I can think of several scenarios that would lead to that outcome with the aircraft performing the way it did, however as stated above, weight shift to cause that sort of upset on a 74-400 would be huge.

But one thing is for certain, in 99.9999% of accidents, there is more than one contributing factor. The accident that grounded the Concord for example had over 12 different factors and not ONE of them on their own (including the fire) would've caused that incident.

Skid said...

Toph said...
Until the investigation is complete know one for sure is going to know what happened. I can think of several scenarios that would lead to that outcome with the aircraft performing the way it did, however as stated above, weight shift to cause that sort of upset on a 74-400 would be huge.

But one thing is for certain, in 99.9999% of accidents, there is more than one contributing factor. The accident that grounded the Concord for example had over 12 different factors and not ONE of them on their own (including the fire) would've caused that incident.

^^ Swiss cheese effect

Affirmative Skid

If you were the average weekend hack pilot in your rattley little cessna 172 maybe yes, but a 747 has a lot of warnings to let you know you are about to stall, and then the plane will do something about it before you do.
In any case, from the vid, the aircraft appears to stall and then is held hard in the stall while the left wing dips and then is recovered by the application if right rudder.
If the pilot took the correct action in recoving the left wing dip with rudder then it is highly unlikely he would sit there dragging the nose still higher with the over use of up elevator, so you would have to conclude the nose high attitude was due to something other than elevator control input.
With the aircraft still held hard nose high and the speed rapidly diminishing, the right wing drops rapidly as would be expected in a full stall condition.
The amazing thing is that from here it should have spiralled down clockwise and speared in almost vertically and facing the opposite direction, but it didn't.
I take that as an indication that hard left rudder was applied to lift the wing and held all the way down until the right wing lifted and the nose had dropped.
I think the pilots did all the right things but were beaten by circumstance.
I would be taking a serious look at the tiedown lugs to see if they were used at all. If they were then it would indicate that the aircraft was loaded incorrectly. It can and does happen.
An aircraft at low speed is very critical on weight distribution, even big ones.
If anything slides to the rear and results in a positive weight moment on the tailplane you are in serious trouble. At high speed it's still serious but possibly not fatal, but at initial climb out the speed is low so the aircraft MUST be balanced.
There have been other accidents from aircraft being loaded tail heavy and they mostly end badly.
I suppose the question is whether the aircraft was loaded with an incorrect weoght distribution to begin with or did the cargo move.
Because it happened at such a low altitude it is quite possible that it took off tail heavy. In such instances the aircraft will take off normally but since the tail is heavy it procedes along without gathering speed and unable to lower the nose to increase speed. It's a bit like an overloaded boat which cant quite get up on the plane. It just continues to push water at full throttle.
When the speed gets close to the stall the tail can no longer carry the excess weight and the stall rapidly reaches completion, even with full forward stick.
I might point out that normally the tailplane carries a negative load, that is it does not contribute to the lift, it pushes down. This is so that when the aircraft stalls the nose will automatically drop and the aircraft is thus intrinsically self restoring to controlled flight. If you alter this configuration by loading it tail heavy then you negate this design feature and the aircraft becomes naturally unstable.

yep and once the pilot gets the nose down to try for recovery, the loose gear would naturally head for the nose of the aircraft, upsetting the cog again.

"Catch 22" the work load would then be immence, probably way beyond the crews strength. It could be somewhat like a bath full of water,

pweedas said...
If you were the average weekend hack pilot in your rattley little cessna 172 maybe yes, but a 747 has a lot of warnings to let you know you are about to stall, and then the plane will do something about it before you do.
In any case, from the vid, the aircraft appears to stall and then is held hard in the stall while the left wing dips and then is recovered by the application if right rudder.
If the pilot took the correct action in recoving the left wing dip with rudder then it is highly unlikely he would sit there dragging the nose still higher with the over use of up elevator, so you would have to conclude the nose high attitude was due to something other than elevator control input.
With the aircraft still held hard nose high and the speed rapidly diminishing, the right wing drops rapidly as would be expected in a full stall condition.
The amazing thing is that from here it should have spiralled down clockwise and speared in almost vertically and facing the opposite direction, but it didn't.
I take that as an indication that hard left rudder was applied to lift the wing and held all the way down until the right wing lifted and the nose had dropped.
I think the pilots did all the right things but were beaten by circumstance.
I would be taking a serious look at the tiedown lugs to see if they were used at all. If they were then it would indicate that the aircraft was loaded incorrectly. It can and does happen.
An aircraft at low speed is very critical on weight distribution, even big ones.
If anything slides to the rear and results in a positive weight moment on the tailplane you are in serious trouble. At high speed it's still serious but possibly not fatal, but at initial climb out the speed is low so the aircraft MUST be balanced.
There have been other accidents from aircraft being loaded tail heavy and they mostly end badly.
I suppose the question is whether the aircraft was loaded with an incorrect weoght distribution to begin with or did the cargo move.
Because it happened at such a low altitude it is quite possible that it took off tail heavy. In such instances the aircraft will take off normally but since the tail is heavy it procedes along without gathering speed and unable to lower the nose to increase speed. It's a bit like an overloaded boat which cant quite get up on the plane. It just continues to push water at full throttle.
When the speed gets close to the stall the tail can no longer carry the excess weight and the stall rapidly reaches completion, even with full forward stick.
I might point out that normally the tailplane carries a negative load, that is it does not contribute to the lift, it pushes down. This is so that when the aircraft stalls the nose will automatically drop and the aircraft is thus intrinsically self restoring to controlled flight. If you alter this configuration by loading it tail heavy then you negate this design feature and the aircraft becomes naturally unstable.

really awesome info! man I miss the aviation industry