That said, I read that link you provided, and saw this: "...One of the key recommendations was to mandate training for all load masters..."
Really? Training for loadmasters????
Posted on 07/19/2017 3:38:14 PM PDT by KeyLargo
That said, I read that link you provided, and saw this: "...One of the key recommendations was to mandate training for all load masters..."
Really? Training for loadmasters????
Can someone educate me? My understanding has always been that if the military uses commercial aircraft for transport of military equipment, then military loadmaster still has a say in how the loading and securing is done.
If any of the 3: civilian loadmaster, military loadmaster, or pilots do not agree then the plane doesn’t fly.
Is this not the way it works?
Were the loadmaster and crew adherents to islam?
Coincidentally I toured the aircraft and met the crew a few days before it left from Fresno for Afghanistan. A wasteful tragedy.
That's seriously unfair.
To idiots.
Used straps and not chains? WTF?
I knew it was a load shift the first time I watched the video.
From the wall of my old flight school:
“Like the Sea, flying is not in and of itself inherently dangerous, but like the Sea, the Air is ready to punish a moment’s inattention, the slightest degree of an attitude of laxitude or the smallest detail overlooked.”
An aircraft with a CG too far aft is an unstable system and impossible to fly without a computer constantly making corrections.
Are you out of your mind? You don’t pack an AF plane. The loadmaster loads a plane. The packmaster doesn’t pack a plane.
Japan Airlines Flight 123 crashed in 1985 due to an aft pressure bulkhead failure which destroyed the hydraulic systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
.
>> “Like I said, it is not the tail sinking that causes the stall.” <<
You read something in to my comment that was not there.
When the tail dropped due to the load shift, there was no means to put the nose down; the air friction of the forward portion of the aircraft just by itself is enough to prevent the nose from dropping sufficiently to regain forward motion.
The aircraft becomes a heavy kite with the resistance at the wrong end.
.
Stall is simply a lack of sufficient forward motion to make the control surfaces function.
The subject flight of this thread was well beyond a “stall.”
.
>> “one needs to
know the working load limits of the straps and attaching points.” <<
Hey, they was jus doin research man...
.
>> “Training for loadmasters?” <<
Truly a novel idea!
.
Boy, no kidding.
I guess the pilots should get some training too...
After the load and shifted, no chance in the world of recovery; even if the hydraulics were functional.
For me what is missing is the decision of the loadmaster. As explained to me by a couple career Air Force C-17 loadmasters, there is a book and/or file which tells precisely the number of restraints forward, aft and to each side, and for each vehicle or pallet load. It also specifies the size of the restraints. Either the load is tied down the right way or the plane does not take off.
If I were flying the plane, then someone who works for me, who I trust, would have to say it is OK. I have never faced that situation, but I have been difficult in other scenarios where I could have ended up without a job.
As you say the Air Force has a load plan for each vehicle or load that goes on a C-17. But this was a 747 so they would need a custom load plan.
As you see above the contract company planned this load and supplied a given number of restraints for each vehicle. Which from reading the article I guess was less than half the number that Boeing said was necessary for loading the vehicles on the 747.
So, anyway, they had a load plan certified by the plane’s crew’s employer. But what might have saved the crew is if they had practiced the due diligence of a good crew and checked the tie downs themselves.
The article says that some of the tie downs were damaged and some were out of date.
I supervise crane operations as part of my job. All lifting devices and tie downs have an inspection frequency that requires a tag on the sling or strap indicating when the inspection expires.
Had the crew inspected the load and found the damaged and expired restraints they could have refused the load until they were replaced.
I think that it is possible had the faulty restraints been replaced the plane may have been able to make the flight safely.
If flight loading is the same as crane loading the plan would require that the load must be able to be supported with one third of the restraints failed. That is if one third of the supports were to break the load would not fall.
But add to that a restraint then would be engineered to be able to support at least one and a quarter of its rated load.
Also consider that a flight load plan is going to be written to ensure that the load remains secure under the worst likely flight maneuver.
So, given that the vehicles had about a half the number that Boeing said they needed by the book the plan might have had enough restraints for normal circumstances.
So, I surmise that the plan may have been able to make the trip if all of the restraints had been fully functional. It is only an educated guess.
I guess they conveniently ignored the possibility of sabotage.
MRAPs owned by the United States loaded on an aircraft flown by citizens of the United States.
Are loaded by Middle Eastern Muslims under a plan designed and written by Middle Eastern Muslims.
I am perhaps a little jaded after four decades of Middle Eastern terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.