If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Bagram crash recorded on dashcam--oh, my. A big airplane like that shouldn't just stop in mid-air   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 537
    More: Scary, Bagram, Bagram Airfield, public-benefit corporation, evidence  
•       •       •

33884 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Apr 2013 at 9:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 01:23:46 AM

Smeggy Smurf: Growing up I've had a few friends who lost their dads to military aircraft crashes.  My old man was in 3 separate helo crashes.  Just... fark....

/need to go have a drink and a tear
//farking memories


Man hugs buddy. Man hugs.
 
2013-05-01 01:24:22 AM

netringer: phalaeo:This video has a graphic of how load shift works, for anyone who wants to take a look.  It's not the best graphic, but it gives a basic idea of how it happens.

...and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.


I noticed that too.  You would be amazed how many times I had this conversation during my flight training:

Friend/Mom/Coworker:  How was your flight?
Me: Pretty good, we just went out to the practice area and practiced some stalls.
Friend/Mom/Coworker: So is that like in case you run out of gas or something?

I eventually stopped trying to explain aerodynamic stalls and just started saying yes.  My mother still has not grasped the concept that a stall is not plummeting from the air because the engine stopped.
 
2013-05-01 01:27:05 AM

Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Lsherm: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

You are correct. Inertia has nothing to do with it.


Hey, thanks!

As seen in the video, she already had a huuuuge AoA with big big wings and slats full out so it wasn't a controls issue - she had to have enough control to get into that configuration.

My point is exactly that the controls surfaces put her there.  I think it was either uncommanded, suicidal, or possibly something like maintenance mis-rigging.

And her engines were screaming. Highly highly likely a load shift caused by something not being secured or improper loading to begin with once she cleared ground effect and those big muscles on her wings took over and lost the arm wrestling match.

Ground effect?  Really?  What does a reduction in induced drag have to do with it?  There was no force able to drop that nose that became more pronounced at reduced speeds other than CG.
 
2013-05-01 01:29:58 AM
I am at BAF (Bagram).  I was in my office making sure my chair didnt move by sitting in it and I was in and out of doozing off.  Heard the BOOM thought nothing of it cause we have control dets all the time and usually they announce them but every now again they dont.  Any who our loggy came in and said a big ass plane just crashed.  We all went out side and seen the giant fire and GIANT smoke plume.   We stay kinda close to the flight line and they said we may have to evacuate if the smoke gets near us (it didnt).   It was really windy and cold that day.   About an hour after the crash it rained like a mofo.  Hail and everything for a good hour.    I only took one picture of the aftermath.   sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-05-01 01:30:01 AM
I'm flying out of Bagram in 4 days.  Really wish I'd skipped this link.
 
2013-05-01 01:30:22 AM

JH3675: netringer: phalaeo:This video has a graphic of how load shift works, for anyone who wants to take a look.  It's not the best graphic, but it gives a basic idea of how it happens

....and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.

I noticed that too.  You would be amazed how many times I had this conversation during my flight training:


Okay, before this thread, I'd have been hard pressed to tell you the difference between a wing stall and an engine stall. If you replaced the word "wing" with "lift," THAT I probably could have figured out.
 
2013-05-01 01:31:03 AM

Voiceofreason01: Whiteman AFB is only about 10 miles south of I-70. If you're very lucky you'll get to see the B-2's doing training runs. Those bastards are scary to see come flying over, especially since you don't hear them until they're right on top of you.


Maybe you don't hear them in a car but you can hear them pretty far away if they are flying low, if they are up high you won't hear them at all. But yea more or less lucky to see them these days, they don't fly them like they used to around here. I used to live in Warrensburg, MO and would see them flying over all the time. I believe their absence from the skies around here came when they were used during Shock and Awe. I still see them on 50 while driving through Knob but not too often.

/Oh I must also say that flying in the B-2 flight simulator on Whiteman was the most kick ass flight sim I've ever had the chance to play.
 
2013-05-01 01:31:51 AM

thedumbone: Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

The tailplane's natural state is to fly upside down - in normal flight it is actually producing lift that causes a tail-down moment. When the main wing stalls, the tail often stalls as well, either due to the same low speed or because it is in the buffeted slipstream from the wing. The loss of this tail-down moment causes, you guessed it, a nose-down moment. Lower altitude, less time, and the tail-first thing might have played out, but there are a lot of other dynamics at play here as the wings and horizontal stabs alternately tried to go flying again.

The tail is designed to stall after the wing.  A tail stall is a whole different beast and rarely happens outside of icing conditions.

In any event, a stalled tail is producing effectively zero lift.  A flying tail, with the elevator forward, is trying to push the nose down.  A stalled tail would be LESS likely to drop the nose than a flying one.

/CFII, AMEL ASEL, 2000 hrs


No, it doesn't fit the profile of a deep stall. But I'm not buying that it would have been tail down all the way to the ground with an aft load shift, especially when it looks like it went into an incipient spin and had plenty of altitude for other dynamics to factor.

Take an aircraft at cruise altitude and suddenly put the CG far aft - it's not going to simply fly tail first to the ground. it's going to oscillate. Add a little autorotation when it's at the zenith of the oscillation and I guarantee the nose will come down pretty quickly.

For it to go tail-first, it would have to happen before any oscillation could occur or autorotation imparted - and the latter would imply it was one hell of a stable stall.

CPL, AMEL, ASEL (you win!)
 
2013-05-01 01:32:57 AM
Warthog
juvandy: for the uninitiated, can someone explain how a cargo shift causes that?

Get a dinner plate. Balance it on the tip of your finger. Then put a dinner roll on the center of the plate. You can still balance it, because the center of gravity is still at the center of the plate. Now move the roll to the edge of the plate. You can't balance it at the center point, because the center of gravity has moved so far towards the edge of the plate.

In very general terms, in an airplane, you want the center of gravity to be at a point that basically keeps the plane balanced like the plate with the roll at the middle, except with the wings in balance. If the cargo shifts to the tail, the tail falls down, and no amount of control surface movement on the wings will bring the nose down and tail back up. Eventually the wing loses lift, the plane stalls, and gravity takes over. That's EXACTLY what you see in the video.


A dinner roll did THAT?
 
2013-05-01 01:34:49 AM

thedumbone: Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Lsherm: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

You are correct. Inertia has nothing to do with it.

Hey, thanks!

As seen in the video, she already had a huuuuge AoA with big big wings and slats full out so it wasn't a controls issue - she had to have enough control to get into that configuration.

My point is exactly that the controls surfaces put her there.  I think it was either uncommanded, suicidal, or possibly something like maintenance mis-rigging.

And her engines were screaming. Highly highly likely a load shift caused by something not being secured or improper loading to begin with once she cleared ground effect and those big muscles on her wings took over and lost the arm wrestling match.

Ground effect?  Really?  What does a reduction in induced drag have to do with it?  There was no force able to drop that nose that became more pronounced at reduced speeds other than CG.


Oh I'm not arguing it wasn't a CG issue. In fact it's hard to say it wasn't by what I saw in the video. I'm agreeing with your assessment. And yes it could have been a control issue, but given this is a cargo plane and the evidence provided in the video alone it seems far more likely (to me anyway) it was a loading issue, either caused by shift or improper loading to begin with.

Look she had to get off the ground to begin with, so the elevators were at least somewhat working.
 
2013-05-01 01:35:47 AM

thedumbone: Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Lsherm: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

You are correct. Inertia has nothing to do with it.

Hey, thanks!

As seen in the video, she already had a huuuuge AoA with big big wings and slats full out so it wasn't a controls issue - she had to have enough control to get into that configuration.

My point is exactly that the controls surfaces put her there.  I think it was either uncommanded, suicidal, or possibly something like maintenance mis-rigging.

And her engines were screaming. Highly highly likely a load shift caused by something not being secured or improper loading to begin with once she cleared ground effect and those big muscles on her wings took over and lost the arm wrestling match.

Ground effect?  Really?  What does a reduction in induced drag have to do with it?  There was no force able to drop that nose that became more pronounced at reduced speeds other than CG.


Is this the beginning of a conspiracy theory?

I need you to explain, in simple terms, why you think that plane took off ass down and nose up right off the runway to the point that it fell into a stall that suddenly shifted.  In a cargo plane.  Use physics.
 
2013-05-01 01:37:00 AM

thedumbone: neilbradley: To anyone who is a pilot (or know about such things), why didn't he put the nose down and power up? If you can see you're about to be in a stall situation, that's fairly easy to determine in VERY short order.

That's just what they'd be expecting.

/I'm sure that they tried to do exactly that, but were unable to for unknown reasons.


The ground was too close to the plane? That seems pretty knowable.
 
2013-05-01 01:41:08 AM

netringer: phalaeo:This video has a graphic of how load shift works, for anyone who wants to take a look.  It's not the best graphic, but it gives a basic idea of how it happens.

...and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.


You can "stall" the engines too if you take enough of the airstream away from the intakes.
 
2013-05-01 01:41:40 AM

Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

The tailplane's natural state is to fly upside down - in normal flight it is actually producing lift that causes a tail-down moment. When the main wing stalls, the tail often stalls as well, either due to the same low speed or because it is in the buffeted slipstream from the wing. The loss of this tail-down moment causes, you guessed it, a nose-down moment. Lower altitude, less time, and the tail-first thing might have played out, but there are a lot of other dynamics at play here as the wings and horizontal stabs alternately tried to go flying again.

The tail is designed to stall after the wing.  A tail stall is a whole different beast and rarely happens outside of icing conditions.

In any event, a stalled tail is producing effectively zero lift.  A flying tail, with the elevator forward, is trying to push the nose down.  A stalled tail would be LESS likely to drop the nose than a flying one.

/CFII, AMEL ASEL, 2000 hrs

No, it doesn't fit the profile of a deep stall. But I'm not buying that it would have been tail down all the way to the ground with an aft load shift, especially when it looks like it went into an incipient spin and had plenty of altitude for other dynamics to factor.

Take an aircraft at cruise altitude and suddenly put the CG far aft - it's not going to simply fly tail first to the ground. it's going to oscillate. Add a little autorotation when it's at the zenith of the oscillation and I guarantee the nose will come down pretty quickly.

For it to go tail-first, it would have to happen before any oscillation could occur or autorotation imparted - and the latter would imply it was one hell of a stable stall.

CPL, AMEL, ASEL (you win!)


Is there room for a CPL(H)?
 
2013-05-01 01:42:30 AM

Lsherm: I need you to explain, in simple terms, why you think that plane took off ass down and nose up right off the runway


Pilot thought he could maneuver it in the same manner as an F-22 at take off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ti9GwnlVs
 
2013-05-01 01:42:44 AM

Lsherm: thedumbone: Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Lsherm: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

You are correct. Inertia has nothing to do with it.

Hey, thanks!

As seen in the video, she already had a huuuuge AoA with big big wings and slats full out so it wasn't a controls issue - she had to have enough control to get into that configuration.

My point is exactly that the controls surfaces put her there.  I think it was either uncommanded, suicidal, or possibly something like maintenance mis-rigging.

And her engines were screaming. Highly highly likely a load shift caused by something not being secured or improper loading to begin with once she cleared ground effect and those big muscles on her wings took over and lost the arm wrestling match.

Ground effect?  Really?  What does a reduction in induced drag have to do with it?  There was no force able to drop that nose that became more pronounced at reduced speeds other than CG.

Is this the beginning of a conspiracy theory?

I need you to explain, in simple terms, why you think that plane took off ass down and nose up right off the runway to the point that it fell into a stall that suddenly shifted.  In a cargo plane.  Use physics.


And this is what I was trying to ask albiet in a nicer "not arguing on the Internet" kind of way.

As Lsherm has correctly pointed out, she had just cleared the runway and was already in a high stall configuration and damn near stopped mid-air. The elevators were controlled to get her off the ground. So either the load wasn't tied down or broke loose and went aft on a set of loading tracks on takeoff, or she was improperly loaded for CG to begin with.
 
2013-05-01 01:43:35 AM

Peki: JH3675: netringer: phalaeo:This video has a graphic of how load shift works, for anyone who wants to take a look.  It's not the best graphic, but it gives a basic idea of how it happens

....and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.

I noticed that too.  You would be amazed how many times I had this conversation during my flight training:

Okay, before this thread, I'd have been hard pressed to tell you the difference between a wing stall and an engine stall. If you replaced the word "wing" with "lift," THAT I probably could have figured out.


I get that, and most people never have a need to know the difference.  I just found it amusing that literally no one, aside from a few engineer types, knew what the hell I was talking about.
 
2013-05-01 01:44:37 AM
I would have just rolled it over, no problem.  /itg
 
2013-05-01 01:47:07 AM

JH3675: Peki: JH3675: netringer: phalaeo:This video has a graphic of how load shift works, for anyone who wants to take a look.  It's not the best graphic, but it gives a basic idea of how it happens

....and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.

I noticed that too.  You would be amazed how many times I had this conversation during my flight training:

Okay, before this thread, I'd have been hard pressed to tell you the difference between a wing stall and an engine stall. If you replaced the word "wing" with "lift," THAT I probably could have figured out.

I get that, and most people never have a need to know the difference.  I just found it amusing that literally no one, aside from a few engineer types, knew what the hell I was talking about.


I'm sure these poor people don't give a fark about it right now either.

What a shame. I'm going to have nightmares after watching this shiat tonight.
 
2013-05-01 01:47:13 AM

aedude01: jayhawk88: Seeing a plane do something like that when you're on the ground near it has got to be one of the most pants-crapping moments a person can have (aside from being on the plane I guess). Wichita has a couple of areas near Mid Continent and McConnell where landing planes can come in fairly low over roads, and anytime you're driving and feel that shadow pass it kind of gives you chills.

Yup.  Right by Boeing.  I've driven that road many a time.

For some crazy reason they keep building houses under the flight line.  One of these days they're going to learn the hard way. :/




Picture taken from beach bar, If I remember correctly.
mw2.google.com
 
2013-05-01 01:47:15 AM

Tiberius Sulla: remus: SpikeStrip: remus: this isn't going to be pretty.

opposed to what?

I worked one where the pilot ejected and only got a few scratches on his arm from the sage brush while he was walking out to the nearest road.

I worked another where the co-pilot was beheaded by a bird coming thru the canopy.

The worst, hands down, was the A-10 Lt Col who ejected in a full bank horizontal to the ground; his seat worked perfectly right until it hit the Oak tree.  It was worse than the decapitated guy because the lab reeked for weeks.

// have actually had a conversation, while eating lunch, that included the words "what's that?  I think it's a piece of tongue..."
// continued eating lunch...

I am so going to hell. I laughed way too hard at the A-10 bit.

/Still laughing
//Aisle seat


I don't mind the window seat as long as you're not fat and bogarting the arm rests.

It's funny now, but the stench in that lab was unbelievable and it took an entire week with the A/C on full to vent it out after we got the exhibits out.  I'll take a decapitation any day over a high speed body cavity smashing.

This crash will be straight up for the investigators.  The bodies will be largely intact with massive burn injuries.  I suspect this will be figured out largely from the black box for this one.  It will probably show clues that the CG suddenly shifted, which will be deduced from the sudden reaction of the aircraft and the resulting attempts to fight it.  My best guess is that a tie down strap/chain came loose.  One of those big vehicles rolled towards the back, and the rest is history.
 
2013-05-01 01:48:52 AM

Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

Take an aircraft at cruise altitude and suddenly put the CG far aft - it's not going to simply fly tail first to the ground. it's going to oscillate. Add a little autorotation when it's at the zenith of the oscillation and I guarantee the nose will come down pretty quickly.

For it to go tail-first, it would have to happen before any oscillation could occur or autorotation imparted - and the latter would imply it was one hell of a stable stall.


I like your reasoning a lot!  Of course, being a CFI, I have a few small issues.  :)  This airplane didn't "simply fly tail first in the ground" either.  It stalled first, which completely changes things.  It ceases to become an aerodynamic issue and is mostly CG - and that's why I keep harping about the nose-first impact.

Oscillation happens with things that are neutrally stable, which is the usual case for silly pilots trying to push things a little too far, so that's what they write in the books.  A CG aft of the certified envelope is not necessarily aft of the center of lift.  An "Aft CG" from a POH standpoint can be a neutral CG from an aerodynaic standpoint.  Enough weight in the tail to force the nose this high is highly stable - just in a tail-first sort of way.  Static and dynamic stability are both in play here.

CPL, AMEL, ASEL (you win!)

Nice!  I keep telling people to get their CPL, but they just don't listen.  The maneuvers seem so pointless until you suddenly find that you're a much better pilot.
 
2013-05-01 01:53:05 AM

Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Void_Beavis: thedumbone: Lsherm: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

Oh I'm not arguing it wasn't a CG issue. In fact it's hard to say it wasn't by what I saw in the video. I'm agreeing with your assessment. And yes it could have been a control issue, but given this is a cargo plane and the evidence provided in the video alone it seems far more likely (to me anyway) it was a loading issue, either caused by shift or improper loading to begin with.

Look she had to get off the ground to begin with, so the elevators were at least somewhat working.


I think that we're misunderstanding each other.  I'm saying that it was NOT a CG issue.  The nose dropped in the stall, just as it should have, so the CG was reasonable.  The elevators weren't just working, they were doing too much and caused the event!

This is consistent with a yank-back-on-the-yoke-and-don't-let-go event, and not consistent with a put-a-huge-weight-in-the-tail event.
 
2013-05-01 01:57:09 AM

JH3675: Peki: JH3675: netringer: ....and caused the engines to stall..." ARRGH!  NO!

The WINGS stalled.

I noticed that too.  You would be amazed how many times I had this conversation during my flight training:

Okay, before this thread, I'd have been hard pressed to tell you the difference between a wing stall and an engine stall. If you replaced the word "wing" with "lift," THAT I probably could have figured out.

I get that, and most people never have a need to know the difference.  I just found it amusing that literally no one, aside from a few engineer types, knew what the hell I was talking about.


I had an endless conversation with a thick-headed maroon telling me that when his buddy landed the Cessna the ENGINE STALL horn went off.  (If the stall horn sounds during the flare in landing, that's a good landing. You want to be in a wing stall to be going as slow as possible.)  No matter how many times I said it wasn't the engine he kept telling me that he didn't want to fly in planes where the engine stalled.

"Witnesses heard the airplane's engine stall before the crash."  No they didn't.
 
2013-05-01 01:57:11 AM

marksman: katerbug72: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: katerbug72: Crew
Jamie Brokaw, pilot, Monroe, MI
Brad Hasler, pilot, Trenton, MI
Jeremy Lipka, pilot, Brooklyn, MI
Rinku Summan, pilot, Canton, MI
Michael Sheets, loadmaster, Ypsilanti, MI
Gary Stockdale, mechanic, Romulus, MI
Timothy Garrett, mechanic, Louisville, KY

So sad for their families. RIP.

RIP and condolences, despite my joking throughout the thread

If it helps you, I have you tagged as "flood of terror diarrhea". I tend to joke in bad situations because it's either that or break down and cry and I don't like doing that.

Sad for the families, but glad my brother wasn't on board. RIP guys....


Saying a prayer for all these families tonight. What a shame. Sucks.
 
2013-05-01 01:58:44 AM

remus: Peki: Warthog: But then they landed.  In the middle of a herd of angry west Texas steer.  They ended up climbing what passed for a tree in that part of Texas -- a scrawny thing full of thorns -- and ended up sustaining greater injuries from the tree while evading the bovines than they did in the ejection.  Everyone in the unit thought this was hilariously funny.

I've always wondered about these stories. The line I was told was that ejection seats generally compress your spine so badly in the attempt to get you TFO of the way that walking afterwards is pretty much impossible.

The vid is just gnarly. Thanks for the Farkers who explained cargo shift, because my family has been in the aerospace business long enough that I know there's not much mechanical that can cause that.

That was true of the old F-111.  A number of pilots were actually, measurably, shorter after ejecting and had life long spinal problems.  The newer seats such as the ACES II do not have this problem.  They ramp up their speed over a short time to accelerate the pilot out of the aircraft rather than reaching full thrust instantly.  That protects them from the instantaneous G forces that caused the spinal problems.




I was told while in, that the F-16 was the worst due to steeply reclined position.
 
2013-05-01 02:00:21 AM
If the armor was loose, couldn't it come forward as well?  Maybe that's why it went so nose down...
 
2013-05-01 02:00:45 AM

thedumbone: I think that we're misunderstanding each other.  I'm saying that it was NOT a CG issue.  The nose dropped in the stall, just as it should have, so the CG was reasonable.  The elevators weren't just working, they were doing too much and caused the event!

This is consistent with a yank-back-on-the-yoke-and-don't-let-go event, and not consistent with a put-a-huge-weight-in-the-tail event.


Because 747 pilots have no idea that yank-back-on-the-yoke-and-don't-let-go will lead to a stall/spin but you do?
Good Fark handle.
 
2013-05-01 02:02:14 AM

thedumbone: Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Charlie Freak: thedumbone: Put me down as the (first?) to say - NOT a load shift.

Take an aircraft at cruise altitude and suddenly put the CG far aft - it's not going to simply fly tail first to the ground. it's going to oscillate. Add a little autorotation when it's at the zenith of the oscillation and I guarantee the nose will come down pretty quickly.

For it to go tail-first, it would have to happen before any oscillation could occur or autorotation imparted - and the latter would imply it was one hell of a stable stall.

I like your reasoning a lot!  Of course, being a CFI, I have a few small issues.  :)  This airplane didn't "simply fly tail first in the ground" either.  It stalled first, which completely changes things.  It ceases to become an aerodynamic issue and is mostly CG - and that's why I keep harping about the nose-first impact.

Oscillation happens with things that are neutrally stable, which is the usual case for silly pilots trying to push things a little too far, so that's what they write in the books.  A CG aft of the certified envelope is not necessarily aft of the center of lift.  An "Aft CG" from a POH standpoint can be a neutral CG from an aerodynaic standpoint.  Enough weight in the tail to force the nose this high is highly stable - just in a tail-first sort of way.  Static and dynamic stability are both in play here.


Okay, either I must be arguing against someone else's point that I attributed to you, or I totally misread your argument earlier. I'm still not sold either way on mechanical vs pilot error vs load shift, but me harping on the tail down thing is likely misdirected. I think. I'm so tired, I'm not going back and re-reading the thread tonight. Hah. I think I need to sleep.

CPL, AMEL, ASEL (you win!)

Nice!  I keep telling people to get their CPL, but they just don't listen.  The maneuvers seem so pointless until you suddenly find that you're a much better pilot.


No joke. I was 99% of the way to being a CFI - one review flight and the practical itself left, when I decided to hang it up. Should have at least converted the passed written into a ground instructor certificate...
 
2013-05-01 02:02:42 AM

lewismarktwo: If the armor was loose, couldn't it come forward as well?  Maybe that's why it went so nose down...


It could have, but not until after the nose went down.  It couldn't have caused the nose to go down to begin with.
 
2013-05-01 02:03:07 AM

HighZoolander: I had to turn it off after the expletive at the 1:15 mark - that just pushed the video past an intensity level that I can handle. What happened after that?


Gilbert Gottfried runs into frame and, with arms extended, shouts -- "The Aristocrats!"
 
2013-05-01 02:13:31 AM

netringer: thedumbone: I think that we're misunderstanding each other.  I'm saying that it was NOT a

Because 747 pilots have no idea that yank-back-on-the-yoke-and-don't-let-go will lead to a stall/spin but you do?
Good Fark handle.


I never said that the pilots didn't know about stalls.  Certainly, they did.  When I mentioned "human error" earlier I was mostly referring to suicide, maintenance mis-rigging, or something obscure.

I could very well be wrong - and I'd love to be convinced that I am.  I was hoping for well-reasoned arguments, not ad hominem.  I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I am a flight instructor, and I did just happen to give some instruction (including stalls) to a 727 pilot this afternoon, although that's pretty unusual for me!
 
2013-05-01 02:20:55 AM
1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.
 
2013-05-01 02:21:19 AM

Charlie Freak: Nice! I keep telling people to get their CPL, but they just don't listen. The maneuvers seem so pointless until you suddenly find that you're a much better pilot.

No joke. I was 99% of the way to being a CFI - one review flight and the practical itself left, when I decided to hang it up. Should have at least converted the passed written into a ground instructor certificate...


D'oh!  If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you could have converted it anyway.  It's the same question bank, but it's a different test code.  Well, at least it was a few years ago.

Also, don't pay too much attention to my earlier statements on static/dynamic stability and oscillations.  The more I think about them, the less I like them, though it doesn't change my conclusions regarding this accident.

It's been a pleasure, but it's past my bedtime.  Good night!
 
2013-05-01 02:31:43 AM

Peki: boywondered: More than likely, the pilots were pushing forward on the controls as hard as they could to get the nose down, but the elevator was not effective enough.

Question: Is turning effective? It would seem to me that if your nose is pointing damn near vertical, any direction would get the nose down.


No.  If the CG is too far back, it's doesn't matter which way you turn, the tail will always point down.
 
2013-05-01 02:38:24 AM
Google "Fine Air 101" which was a DC-8F crash out of Miami back in the late 90's, pretty much the same scenario.

Except it was carrying blue jeans instead of armored vehicles.
 
2013-05-01 02:40:30 AM
You jerkoffs trolling about this being a false flag, does it make you feel all manly and "bigger" now!?

People are DEAD and you witless freaks think it's amusing to shart your foul Alex Jones monstrousities on them.

Go choke on a bowl of shredded flags.
 
2013-05-01 02:51:09 AM
But there's just no way an airplane crash can produce such a big explosion. Just ask any of the "Truthers".
 
2013-05-01 03:19:09 AM
RIGHT ON! DEATH ON VIDEEOOOZ!!!
 
2013-05-01 03:19:43 AM

StretchCannon: 1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.


You are so full of shait, it's amazing your chair isn't experiencing CG shift.
 
2013-05-01 03:20:40 AM

Lsherm: I need you to explain, in simple terms, why you think that plane took off ass down and nose up right off the runway to the point that it fell into a stall that suddenly shifted.  In a cargo plane.  Use physics.


This could be completely wrong, but I've been told that Bagram, being in a combat area, means that the planes are supposed to take off and immediately go for altitude to avoid surface-to-air missiles.

So, the plane gets airborne, the pilot points the nose up quite a bit more sharply than your typical Southwest Airlines commuter.  One of the vehicles in cargo isn't secured properly, and goes backwards with enough impulse to break loose.  Center of gravity shifts way back, end of story.

A flatter takeoff might not have given the cargo item enough momentum to break free.  Did I get that right?
 
2013-05-01 03:38:56 AM

italie: StretchCannon: 1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.

You are so full of shait, it's amazing your chair isn't experiencing CG shift.


You are so full of insults, you can't justify your position, present evidence that contradicts mine, or accomplish much but make a fool of yourself.
 
2013-05-01 03:54:01 AM
Shostie:

Sometimes I like to sit down for a nice movie with a bowl full of exclamation points.

I'm sorry Shawstie, us liters down here sometimes miss the obvious ones.


THOSE WEREN'T EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!
NSFW.
penis.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3DRa9yfQ0eFsMEMGz9VNYWRsxu 8w TWGKN3Z4qUXy6F3YUhfNxSyH4weRl
 
2013-05-01 03:57:35 AM

netringer: HBK:  So fark pilot folks my question is this- I thought jet wash dissipates pretty rapidly. So how close were we to another jet for jetwash to cause what happened? And did the jetwash cause the engines to stall, or was a rapid descent done to avoid a stall?

It has nothing to do with the engines.

It's called wake turbulence:

[www.faa.gov image 550x399] [www.pilotfriend.com image 300x354]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x280]

The air gets stirred up in vortexes - little tornadoes - from the tips of the wings of a preceding jet.  The vortexes can last for a long time in still air. They descend below the previous jet's flight path and and spread out horizontally.

They can flip a smaller plane on its back, and they're invisible.  Planes have to try to fly above the flight path of the previous.

Maverick and Goose had an engine flameout when they got so close to the previous jet's exhaust one of their F-14's engine intake starved for clean air and the engine quit.


I saw a plane flying right below a cloud layer and you could see its flight path in the clouds. Another day, there was a fairly low thin cloud layer moving perpindicular to the runway and you could see a line of holes in the clouds where each plane had flown through.
 
2013-05-01 04:00:25 AM

StretchCannon: italie: StretchCannon: 1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.

You are so full of shait, it's amazing your chair isn't experiencing CG shift.

You are so full of insults, you can't justify your position, present evidence that contradicts mine, or accomplish much but make a fool of yourself.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the one throwing out speculative conclusions based upon a complete lack of sound and measurable logic. I feel so silly.
 
2013-05-01 04:02:50 AM

italie: StretchCannon: italie: StretchCannon: 1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.

You are so full of shait, it's amazing your chair isn't experiencing CG shift.

You are so full of insults, you can't justify your position, present evidence that contradicts mine, or accomplish much but make a fool of yourself.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the one throwing out speculative conclusions based upon a complete lack of sound and measurable logic. I feel so silly.


To be fair... You both seem like juvenile piece of shiat scum.
 
2013-05-01 04:04:14 AM

tuna fingers: italie: StretchCannon: italie: StretchCannon: 1) This was a microburst. It's obvious. You can see the thunderstorm that caused it in the shot. You can see the plane pitching in the column of air.
2) You can be damn sure that the weather guys told the pilot not to take off with the thunderstorm cell that close, but the pilot chose to ignore them.
3) Pilots will blame this on the load shifting because pilots don't like blaming pilot error on pilot error. They'll try to blame the loadmaster. A load shifting wouldn't cause the plane to suddenly tilt opposite the control surface orientation. I watched seasoned pilots recover from worse wind sheer than this for four years at Dover AFB in Delaware.

You are so full of shait, it's amazing your chair isn't experiencing CG shift.

You are so full of insults, you can't justify your position, present evidence that contradicts mine, or accomplish much but make a fool of yourself.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was the one throwing out speculative conclusions based upon a complete lack of sound and measurable logic. I feel so silly.

To be fair... You both seem like juvenile piece of shiat scum.


Welcome to the party.
 
2013-05-01 04:07:09 AM

JH3675: HBK: WizardofToast: One of my greatest fears is riding a plane that just drops out of the sky mid-flight. Now I'm going to hate every take off unless all the fat people are kept in the center seats.


. . . .

Wake turbulence descends through the air column as it dissipates, so you can be a fair distance (1000-1500 ft vertically, 1-2 miles horizontally) away from the generating aircraft  and still feel the effects, especially if you are following or overtaking it at a lower altitude.  The descent was most likely an attempt to get below the turbulence. Think of the wake vortex descending left to right (\) and your aircraft descending right to left (/), the shortest way through the "danger zone" will make an X shape.  That said, unless it was an extreme case,  wake turbulence at altitude is more on an annoyance than a safety issue.

Per the engine question; even if the engines had ...


You actually said that and no Farker linked to the Kenny Loggins video? I am disappoint, Fark.

/Playing the cavalier Farker
//So sorry for the loss of life.
 
2013-05-01 04:10:59 AM

Haliburton Cummings: RIGHT ON! DEATH ON VIDEEOOOZ!!!


Yeah snuff movies are usually scorned on Fark, but this is an exception. A good one too.
 
2013-05-01 04:14:36 AM
It remains unclear how, exactly, the plane crashed.

Well, it looks like it fell out of the sky, and hit the ground, George.

Maybe they meant "why".

In reference to some comments earlier in the thread,
www.pikosky.skNadine Velazquez is, indeed, hot.
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report