AlaskaAV
GONE WEST
Mission, TX
At one time, an unnamed airline was using a DC-4, possibly 88940, for cargo operations out of Fairbanks.
The load on this trip was a coil of Caterpillar crawler track chains, possibly without pads (the tracks used on a Cat bulldozer) but a gross payload. Needless to say, the tail stand was in place when loading and the load was moved over the wings properly and it appeared as though everything was tied down properly so I heard. Lots of dunnage was used I am sure.
Now comes the "fun?" if a person can call it that. On take off, the tiedowns slipped or broke and the chains slid clear to the back of the aircraft. The crew was able to keep it flying but to me, that would be almost impossible but you know how pilots in Alaska are. If you tell them it can't be done, they will do it just to prove you wrong. Works in an overloaded Super Cub too not that I would know of course.
Since it was rather hard to keep under control in flight, they elected to make an immediate landing regardless of gross landing weight. They made several passes but had a rather hard time getting it to flare within reason. Finally they decided to just fly it on at rather high fence speed and hope it didn't hit too hard to snap a gear. They had plenty of runway to play with.
It is my understanding they got it on the ground and off the runway by using max brakes and lots of power to keep the tail up. Picture smoking brakes. Once they got the DC-4 into a parking area away from the public view, they just sat there with the brakes locked and wheels chucked and enough power to keep the tail up while a ground crew built a tail stand out of empty cargo pallets, no small feat in itself. Lots of prop blast needless to say and those pallets only weighed 35 pounds each. No one wanted to trust that flimsy tail stand. Finally, the engines were idled back to let them cool down for a while before shutting them down.
For those from Fairbanks that might remember this flight, please hold back on posting the airline name. Would not add anything to the story. Thanks.
Guess who was watching all of this? The good old watch dogs, the FAA, of course.
Paperwork? Cargo manifest showed one piece of cargo with a weight that brought the aircraft up to max takeoff weight but not over gross but I don't remember the numbers.
Weight and balance? This is where it gets a little sticky. It showed the entire weight split up into many sections of the cabin cargo area including the radio compartment. If I recall right, some 1000 pounds of cargo weight was shown as loaded in the radio compartment just behind the cockpit and some shown in the lavatory in the back. Floor loading? Still makes me shudder. Remember, a lady slightly overweight and wearing spike heels exceeded the max floor loading on the early 747s. Thank goodness the FAA did not require us to ask a boarding lady her weight when wearing spike heels back in those days.
Wien flew that DC-4 aircraft on lease a few years later and there was a standing joke that anyone walking under the aircraft on turnaround should wear a rain coat to catch all the oil dripping off the engines. It was a real work horse for the bush for both airlines though and it made many resupply trips to the Arctic Research Lab's ice island research stations out of Point Barrow before we got our 749 Connie 7777G.
The recommendations of the FAA on this flight are not important here but I have a feeling that had it not been a Douglas aircraft of that era, it probably would not have made it. Sounds possible, right? Not always. It takes a great crew, flight and tower, to put it all together and make it work and Douglas later agreed. I have seen Boeing aircraft do the impossible too with the right crew.
This goes for Super Cubs also. As so many outstanding drivers here have said, they only get into situations they feel comfortable with, not what others have done. "Only way to live" I once heard in a joke of some kind.
The load on this trip was a coil of Caterpillar crawler track chains, possibly without pads (the tracks used on a Cat bulldozer) but a gross payload. Needless to say, the tail stand was in place when loading and the load was moved over the wings properly and it appeared as though everything was tied down properly so I heard. Lots of dunnage was used I am sure.
Now comes the "fun?" if a person can call it that. On take off, the tiedowns slipped or broke and the chains slid clear to the back of the aircraft. The crew was able to keep it flying but to me, that would be almost impossible but you know how pilots in Alaska are. If you tell them it can't be done, they will do it just to prove you wrong. Works in an overloaded Super Cub too not that I would know of course.
Since it was rather hard to keep under control in flight, they elected to make an immediate landing regardless of gross landing weight. They made several passes but had a rather hard time getting it to flare within reason. Finally they decided to just fly it on at rather high fence speed and hope it didn't hit too hard to snap a gear. They had plenty of runway to play with.
It is my understanding they got it on the ground and off the runway by using max brakes and lots of power to keep the tail up. Picture smoking brakes. Once they got the DC-4 into a parking area away from the public view, they just sat there with the brakes locked and wheels chucked and enough power to keep the tail up while a ground crew built a tail stand out of empty cargo pallets, no small feat in itself. Lots of prop blast needless to say and those pallets only weighed 35 pounds each. No one wanted to trust that flimsy tail stand. Finally, the engines were idled back to let them cool down for a while before shutting them down.
For those from Fairbanks that might remember this flight, please hold back on posting the airline name. Would not add anything to the story. Thanks.
Guess who was watching all of this? The good old watch dogs, the FAA, of course.
Paperwork? Cargo manifest showed one piece of cargo with a weight that brought the aircraft up to max takeoff weight but not over gross but I don't remember the numbers.
Weight and balance? This is where it gets a little sticky. It showed the entire weight split up into many sections of the cabin cargo area including the radio compartment. If I recall right, some 1000 pounds of cargo weight was shown as loaded in the radio compartment just behind the cockpit and some shown in the lavatory in the back. Floor loading? Still makes me shudder. Remember, a lady slightly overweight and wearing spike heels exceeded the max floor loading on the early 747s. Thank goodness the FAA did not require us to ask a boarding lady her weight when wearing spike heels back in those days.
Wien flew that DC-4 aircraft on lease a few years later and there was a standing joke that anyone walking under the aircraft on turnaround should wear a rain coat to catch all the oil dripping off the engines. It was a real work horse for the bush for both airlines though and it made many resupply trips to the Arctic Research Lab's ice island research stations out of Point Barrow before we got our 749 Connie 7777G.
The recommendations of the FAA on this flight are not important here but I have a feeling that had it not been a Douglas aircraft of that era, it probably would not have made it. Sounds possible, right? Not always. It takes a great crew, flight and tower, to put it all together and make it work and Douglas later agreed. I have seen Boeing aircraft do the impossible too with the right crew.
This goes for Super Cubs also. As so many outstanding drivers here have said, they only get into situations they feel comfortable with, not what others have done. "Only way to live" I once heard in a joke of some kind.