7 killed in cargo plane crash

ottostreet

Footage is...unbelievable.

Didn't really feel this was appropriate for 'Cool vids and pics' to be honest.

BBC Link

I'd imagine it to be an awful last few seconds, just waiting for the impact. R.I.P.

admiralofthefleet

exactly what i needed to see just before a trip to new york:(

Kylo Ren

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

exactly what i needed to see just before a trip to new york:(

Statistically, if you're going to die in NY it will be by gun or knife. So, cheer up.

burstbuckle

Keno 92 wrote: »

Statistically, if you're going to die in NY it will be by gun or knife. So, cheer up.

A gun & knife wielding Hi Jacker

partyatmygaff

A civilian cargo aircraft crashed at Bagram Air Field, north of the Afghan capital, soon after takeoff on Monday, killing all seven people aboard, the U.S.-led military coalition said.

The Taliban quickly claimed responsibility for the crash, but the coalition said in a statement to The Associated Press: "Taliban's claims are false."

It said the cause of the crash was being investigated by emergency crews that rushed to the site, 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 coalition did not identify the victims, the type of aircraft involved, or the company that owned it.

In another development, President Hamid Karzai accused U.S. forces of killing four civilians and wounding one in the eastern province of Nangarhar on Sunday after an American' convoy was attacked by insurgents.

In a statement issued by his office, Karzai "strongly condemned the killing of innocent civilians."

The U.S.-led military coalition said it was still investigating the weekend clash, which left four soldiers with minor injuries and damaged a patrol vehicle. In a statement issued on Monday, the coalition said the Taliban attacked the coalition patrol with small arms fire and roadside bombs as it moved through a local bazaar in the province where there were civilians.

"Coalition forces engaged the enemy, pushed through the hostile area, and traveled to a nearby Afghan National Army checkpoint," the coalition said in a statement. "An investigation is currently underway to assess whether there are any civilian casualties as a result of insurgent fire."

The story behind it.

It looks as if the plane stalled on takeoff (either the airspeed was too low or the angle of attack was too high). Either way, I can't see any pilot making such a fundamental and fatal error. I'd say there's some foul play in this.

All the same, RIP.

o1s1n

Holy ****! The way it just falls out of the sky, that's terrifying. Wouldn't want to be flying to the U.S. any time soon.

paddy147

Bird strike perhaps??

Isnt that what heppened to the plane that ditched into the river in America few years ago.

The pilot somehow managed to ditch/land in the river and everyone was rescued.

kraggy

o1s1n wrote: »

Holy ****! The way it just falls out of the sky, that's terrifying. Wouldn't want to be flying to the U.S. any time soon.

Happened in Afghanistan.

kraggy

paddy147 wrote: »

Bird strike perhaps??

Isnt that what heppened to the plane that ditched into the river over therea few years ago.

The pilot somehow managed to ditch/land in the river and everyone was rescued.

Birdstrike in both engines is unlikely. A plane can fly on one quite easily assuming the pilot is on the ball.

kraggy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The story behind it.

It looks as if the plane stalled on takeoff (either the airspeed was too low or the angle of attack was too high). Either way, I can't see any pilot making such a fundamental and fatal error. I'd say there's some foul play in this.

Angle of attack seems incredibly high alright. From the road,at that distance, you shouldn't be able to see the whole fuselage.

partyatmygaff

kraggy wrote: »

Birdstrike in both engines is unlikely. A plane can fly on one quite easily assuming the pilot is on the ball.

That's a 747 so there's four engines. Seriously doubt engine failure would've caused something like this. Even if all four engines failed, the plane should still be able to glide down and not just fall out of the sky in an aerodynamic stall.

That said, the plane was probably quite heavy with full fuel tanks and cargo so it may have been just that the pilot(s) made a mistake.

o1s1n

kraggy wrote: »

Happened in Afghanistan.

/Whisper - I was referring to admiralofthefleet's post as he said he's flying to New York

partyatmygaff

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22347199

wandatowell

Keno 92 wrote: »

Statistically, if you're going to die in NY it will be by gun or knife. So, cheer up.

JD DABA

Welllllllllll.........deaths never really going to be a pleasant experience, on the plus side they got it over with quick.
On the negative Im sure it was very inconveniently timed.

With the adrenaline, disbelief, confusion, brevity, and forces involved they probably never felt a thing.

Zaph

It was a cargo plane, and the speculation in the Aircraft & Aviation forum is that the load shifted on takeoff, which in turn caused a spin. Seems plausible, those guys know their stuff when it comes to planes.

noelfirl

This uncropped version catches a bit more higher in the sky. A very unusual vision of flight failure and sad of course for the seven dead.

Ghost Train

Damage or failure at the tail of the plane maybe? definitely stalls for some reason. Video is like something from a movie, poor folks on board

kraggy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's a 747 so there's four engines. Seriously doubt engine failure would've caused something like this. Even if all four engines failed, the plane should still be able to glide down and not just fall out of the sky in an aerodynamic stall.

That said, the plane was probably quite heavy with full fuel tanks and cargo so it may have been just that the pilot(s) made a mistake.

Very hard to start a glide in the ascent just after take off. From the cruise definitely but fully loaded with fuel and only a couple of hundred feet up in the ascent, no chance.

I'm going for a stall due to angle of attack, or hydraulics failure.

Chuck Stone

Wonder what the causes were?

kraggy

Zaph wrote: »

It was a cargo plane, and the speculation in the Aircraft & Aviation forum is that the load shifted on takeoff, which in turn caused a spin. Seems plausible, those guys know their stuff when it comes to planes.

The sudden yaw to the Starboard side suggests that might be possible but a hydraulics lock might be the cause too. We will find out in due course.

RIP to the poor souls on board.

Micky Dolenz

Wow, in the short few seconds it was going to crash, imagine what the crew were thinking. Unthinkable. Talk about sh!t luck or bad planning.

The Backwards Man

I'd say your man driving the bus fair dirtied the pants, he didn't see it at all til it came down beside him.

Suasdaguna1

The cargo went aft folks---

Chuck Stone

Suasdaguna1 wrote: »

The cargo went aft folks---

Source?

Aphex

That is the most striking footage I have ever seen of a plane crash!
R.I.P to the poor souls on board.

vinylbomb

The chatter on Aviation-safety.net says Stall, which to be fair looks about right, angle of attack is really high and you can practically see the plane stop in mid air.

Some smart cookies over on that site.

RIP all involved. Horrific way to go.

Delta Kilo

The plane stalled alright, and it appears the load inside it shifted aft. Apart from a serious malfunction of the tail, which to me doesnt seem at all plausible, the way the plane stalled and crashed suggests that a serious shift in the planes centre of gravity caused it to happen.

I heard that the aircraft had a payload of tanks, each weighing 13,000kg. This load would have been positioned at the centre of gravity position which is near the centre of the fuselage. When one slides aft to the back of the aircraft, thats a mass of 13,000 kg quite a distance from the centre of gravity. This is a massive moment and no pilot would be able to overcome such an imbalance.

shruikan2553

The plane rotates to its left before turning to the right, could of been cargo getting loose from the steep angle then the engines stalled

BillyMitchel

Holy crap, that was heart stopping.. Couldn't even begin to imagine what it was like for the people on board.


If it was cargo moving, does that still mean it was human error? It wasn't put in correctly or something?

partyatmygaff

kraggy wrote: »

Very hard to start a glide in the ascent just after take off. From the cruise definitely but fully loaded with fuel and only a couple of hundred feet up in the ascent, no chance.

I'm going for a stall due to angle of attack, or hydraulics failure.

It was hard to tell when exactly the stall started from the first video but with that second video... at that altitude they had no chance whatsoever.

I'm just speculating but it looks as if the centre of gravity shifted to the rear and caused a huge and uncontrollable increase in the angle of attack. The angle of attack looks unusually high and the way the plane slows to an almost complete stop in mid air before spinning down to the ground would lead me that for some reason or another they couldn't control their angle of attack. Whether that's down to failure in the aircraft or unrestrained cargo moving to the rear on takeoff is impossible to say.

BillyMitchel

Its been said on Reddit that there was 5 14 ton trucks on the plane. :eek:

Standard Toaster

Same driver who took video of Chelyabinsk meteor.

RIP

Posted on the other thread over on Cool Vids and Pics.

This is my ultimate nightmare and something I always fear.

Can you imagine what that fall must have felt like? The few seconds it took probably seemed like forever and you know there's little or no chance of surviving.

JonathanAnon

Ghost Train wrote: »

Damage or failure at the tail of the plane maybe? definitely stalls for some reason. Video is like something from a movie, poor folks on board

Immediately reminded me of the plane crash scene in Knowing..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFX1RcfBq2U

artanevilla

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The plane rotates to its left before turning to the right, could of been cargo getting loose from the steep angle then the engines stalled

Engines don't stall on aircraft, wings do, it's when the airflow breaks away from them so there's a dramatic reduction in lift. Usually due to high angle of attack.

Looks like a tip stall, which I explained in the aviation forum:

artanevilla wrote: »

It's where the tip of the wing stalls before the rest of it. It is more dangerous to stall at the tip due to the fact that it causes the plane to go into a spin as can be seen in the vid.

Wings are actually designed with a twist so that if a stall does occur it happens at the root first rather than the tip, which is much safer.

My name is URL

Apparently the plane had it's decal etc painted in Dublin

from the aviation forum -

N7777G wrote: »

This is the aircraft involved in the crash - it had been painted at Dublin in September 2010

http://flic.kr/p/8NEmDR

My thoughts are with their families, RIP.

Sky King

kraggy wrote: »

I'm going for a stall due to angle of attack, or hydraulics failure.

Engines don't stall on aircraft, wings do, it's when the airflow breaks away from them so there's a dramatic reduction in lift. Usually due to high angle of attack.

Aerodynamic stall is always due to angle of attack.

*Edit* And it's not possible to determine the angle of attack by simply looking at the plane as is being suggested here, because the angle is measured against the relative airflow, not the ground. It follows that you could have a plane flying upside down, vertically upward or any other direction and still have an angle of attack below the critical angle, thus not in a stalled condition..

Lots of people here apparently like to appear like they know what they are talking about, even though they don't !!

artanevilla

Sky King wrote: »

Aerodynamic stall is always due to angle of attack.

*Edit* And it's not possible to determine the angle of attack by simply looking at the plane as is being suggested here, because the angle is measured against the relative airflow, not the ground. It follows that you could have a plane flying upside down, vertically upward or any other direction and still have an angle of attack below the critical angle, thus not in a stalled condition..

Lots of people here apparently like to appear like they know what they are talking about, even though they don't !!

Aye, normally at a high AoA, but obviously can happen at a low AoA, depending on airspeed....

SEPT 23 1989

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Its been said on Reddit that there was 5 14 ton trucks Mary Harney was on the plane. :eek:

.

The_Gatsby

My name is URL wrote: »

Apparently the plane had it's decal etc painted in Dublin

from the aviation forum -

Why is this relevant? Why do people always feel the need to link everything to Ireland in some way?

As for the video, I couldn't believe it when I saw it. It's like something out of a film. I don't know much about aeronautics but I think the theory with some cargo coming loose seems most plausible. ~14 tons is a lot of weight moving about, if that's what was on board.

Sky King

artanevilla wrote: »

Aye, normally at a high AoA, but obviously can happen at a low AoA, depending on airspeed....

False. You are totally incorrect. It happens at the same AoA, called the critical angle. The airspeed has nothing to do with it. It is wholly dependent on the angle of attack. High angle of attack occurs in slow flight conditions but is not governed by them. It can happen at high speeds too.

From wikipedia:

A fixed-wing aircraft by definition is stalled at or above the critical angle of attack rather than at or below a particular airspeed. The airspeed at which the aircraft stalls varies with the weight of the aircraft, the load factor, the center of gravity of the aircraft and other factors. However the aircraft always stalls at the same critical angle of attack. The critical or stalling angle of attack is typically around 15° for many airfoils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

The problem here is that a lot of flight instructors don't know this either.

My name is URL

The_Gatsby wrote: »

Why is this relevant? Why do people always feel the need to link everything to Ireland in some way?

I never said it was relevant. Just thought it was an interesting point.

Why do people get upset over the most innocuous of things?

kona

artanevilla wrote: »

Engines don't stall on aircraft,:

Compressor stall.

artanevilla

kona wrote: »

Compressor stall.

Well you know what I mean. Stalling in a car would refer generally to the engine, aircraft generally refers to the wing.

Dyr

paddy147 wrote: »

Bird strike perhaps??

Jihadi goose?

kraggy

Sky King wrote: »

False. You are totally incorrect. It happens at the same AoA, called the critical angle. The airspeed has nothing to do with it. It is wholly dependent on the angle of attack. High angle of attack occurs in slow flight conditions but is not governed by them. It can happen at high speeds too.

From wikipedia:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack

The problem here is that a lot of flight instructors don't know this either.

So what do you call it if an aircraft is cruising level and suddenly drops the speed to zero knots?

ScumLord

kraggy wrote: »

So what do you call it if an aircraft is cruising level and suddenly drops the speed to zero knots?

Crashing into a mountain?

ectoraige

kraggy wrote: »

So what do you call it if an aircraft is cruising level and suddenly drops the speed to zero knots?

I'd call that an impact, presumably with a mountain.

Sky King

kraggy wrote: »

So what do you call it if an aircraft is cruising level and suddenly drops the speed to zero knots?

Deceleration.

BostonB

kraggy wrote: »

So what do you call it if an aircraft is cruising level and suddenly drops the speed to zero knots?

TopGun..."I'll hit the brakes, he'll fly right by."