“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

This link has a bit more data showing a very strange flight path. https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/150586311...



So looks like there was a partial recovery before the final descent.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Flightradar24 for the plane (from above).

Flightradar24 uses transponder data (mostly not radar, despite the name). The transponder speed seems to stay almost the same throughout the descent, which might indicate a problem with the speed sensing if it's not just an artifact of the reporting.

Can't be sure. (It's a Boeing.)
Approximately 200mph vertical. Terminal velocity.


A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Hmm this is a bit strange.

This is a photo taken of the plane 2022 feb 22.



https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/10511807

This is from a video tweet.
https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id...



The color of the text isn't the same.
Either there is 2 planes involved or the video tweet isn't from this accident.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Those are from the wing, no?

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Yes, look at the second photo in Red's post. You can clearly see black characters on the bottom of the wing.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

What part of the plane is this bit?

Full video here. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/chin...

It doesn't look the same writing as all the photos as the Chinese characters are in red on all the photos I can find, but is clearly a long way from the impact location. Those dash cam / CCTV is horrendous. If the FDR survives that in any shape able to provide data it will be outstanding. But I guess the german wings crash survived something similar.





I was too late! - Good spot John = so it looks like the wings fell off....

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

ADS-B that you get off the web aviation tracking sites is GPS ground speed. And the data rate is spot values ever 3 seconds.

Its great and more than sufficient for controlled flight tracking and air traffic control. This crash investigation usage it is not very good.

Only thing I can comment is that it looks as if it was in one piece.

And for your information the max speed of the 737-800 at 10 000ft is 350 knots (650 km/h). Now you have to watch what the out put is of the flight radar stuff what units its in and its lateral ground speed so you would have to work out the angle with the rate of decent to get an approximate airspeed. Those numbers 550 looked hellish to me, how did the wings stay on, until I realised they were km/hr.

Quote (Approximately 200mph vertical. Terminal velocity.)

With the glide ratio of a piano...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Yeah. That's how I figured it's a wing.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Some video wizard using the dashcam footage reckons the tail was missing. Which would account for pitch attitude seen in the video.

In one link someone compared this flight with the same flight and plane the day before, they sade the dive started when the previous day the "normal" decent had started.
So what is done to start the landing approach?

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

You set the FMS up about 15 mins before top of decent and brief.

Then you get cleared by airtraffic to descend which you set on the altitude selector then normally manually descend using vertical speed with the auto pilot flying at about 1000ft/min until the pressurisation has sorted itself out then descend on what ever the company policy is. There are various ways to do it, power at flight idle or a 3 deg path are the most common depending on how fussy they are about fuel economy. And from friends that used to fly in China pre covid they don't care about fuel economy there. The Captain always fly's the aircraft.

China Eastern actually have quiet a good safety record.

FMS ?

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

flight management system, probably

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Flight management system.

It is the brain of the automatic system linked with Navigation.

I am not sure how much it covers on the 737-800. But modern aircraft eg 787 handle vertical and horizontal navigation and also aircraft performance for takeoff and landing. the company defines policy's for various stages of flight and they upload them into the FMS and it manages the aircraft.

You have three main modes, FMS is providing the flight inputs to the autopilot via the flight director and autothrottle. Manual selection of vertical, horizontal modes and speed. And you fly it manually. It is extremely unusual to the point of only ever done with a technical issue for a swept wing jet to be flown manually at cruise levels. You have a extremely small window between stall and over speed called coffin corner. And its extremely twitchy to manual control inputs due to the swept wing aero dynamics. It is not normal in china to fly manually in any stage of flight.

https://www.thehindu.com/business//article59894319...
Boeing finds problem in 787 Dreamliners’ tail
IANS WASHINGTON JUNE 26, 2010 10:45 IST
UPDATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2021 21:05 IST
........ Just saying.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

From the security cam video, it appears the aircraft was on an ever steepening trajectory. This would be consistent with the impact photos. The aircraft may have been rotating about its longitudinal axis.

I grabbed some frames from the video, aligned them on the fixed point that appears at the lower right side, and traced the path (red):

https://youtu.be/uUkSlxcC8Jc

This guy is a 777 pilot.

It depends on the angle of view... from straight ahead, the fall would be vertical and from the side, a true idea of the slope would be presented.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

The possibility exists that the aircraft is veering to one side or the other, however in this situation, more down is consistent with a crash and it would eliminate the possibility that the pilot was able to counteract the negative influences that led to the crash. Once again, we are looking for patterns not quanta.

Even the dash cam video is at an awkward angle, looking up and to the left; it's not clear whether the descent was even as steep as shown in the other video.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

The impact zone is very small. That would mean it was very perpendicular.

As for the 787 tail, the article says horizontal stabilizer but that is also a composite construction aircraft and has nothing in common with the 737 design outside of having 2 engines. I don't think it's constructive to speculate a link between the two.

Tug, some here would just like to disparage Boeing, regardless of facts.

its a 737-800 not a 787.

Its a 1960 design there is loads of stuff in the MAX threads on its tail and trimming system.

If the tail is off there is nothing to keep the plane level and it will go basically vertical. This will be the same for all aircraft.

Is that wing part at the crash site?

The video that Nukeman posted has some good bits on the jack strew at the back. That rotating shaft is a single point of failure.

It doesn't meet modern certification standards but they got it through on the 737-800 NG a few months before the modern certification standards came in. And were then able to grandfather it onto the max as they only played around with the control system to it not the actual system.

To be fair that system now has flown millions of hours and is well inside the 1 in the 10000000 fatality criteria for safety analysis.

Crash location (China_Eastern_737_Crash.kmz):
Structure on the hill:

Tower at head of valley:

Rescue Crew:

Google Earth .kmz file:

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=85350279-6cc5-4b9c-a8f9-3

I am going to be truly impressed if the data modules have survived that crash though from the cockpit voice recorder and flight data.

If its a technical issue they might be quiet forward releasing data. If its human error I don't expect them to release it.

Last one. North is to the top of the image this time.

Quote (Tug, some here would just like to disparage Boeing, regardless of facts.)

Their history may not be stellar...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

This reference shows Embraer to be the safest manufacturer, with Airbus and Boeing virtually tied for second.

https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-planes-to-fly-i....

Read some speculation on-line that the pilot may have deliberately crashed the plane - similar to Egypt Air flight 990 and SilkAir flight 185.

Most of the 737 crashes apart from the MAX are pilot error. Although its up for debate if some of those pilot errors were actually technical but Boeing were very good at covering their bum. The 737 rudder hard over problems the outcome is extremely suspect.

There is also a colossal difference between pre merge Boeing company of engineering excellence. And the current abortion of MBA management.

As I review the Chinese road system in proximity to the crash, I think the freeways have extremely restricted access. The only on/off ramps are onto other freeways. All of the locals have little to no access.

Thanks for the updates.

I presume your more local than I am in Europe. What's your feeling for how they are going to investigate it?

I'm not local, just hit upon an idea that helped zero in on the crash location.

Off the top, I think the flight data and voice recorders are lost (as in able to provide any useful information) as are any parts that stayed with the plane as it went down. That shouldn't stop them from digging up every last bit of metal they can find in that hole just in case there is a clue to be found. From an investigative perspective, the recorders are always the last to go in the ground so that's a positive. If parts fell off the plane prematurely, it covered 17 miles from the start of decent with much of the terrain awkward and thickly overgrown. When the United DC-10 flight went down over Iowa/S.D., the turbine disk was revealed during harvest. This won't be the same.

That leaves an investigation of the crew. Not much more to say. There is always additional information that we won't be privy to so stay tuned. There are always more revelations.

I fly A220 for a job. So have a working knowledge how they do things in most of the world but not China.

Even if the black boxes have been totally destroyed they can usually pull the solid state data out of them. They are not tape drives any more. But even so its going to be impressive if they have survived that.

The ways and means of accomplishing things in China would be different than western cultures but that doesn't necessarily mean things won't get done.

I know that's why I was asking. Mates who are western were flying for Eastern on the Embraer pre covid and got released when it all shut down. There is huge cultural difference, but the engineering and technical was brilliant they tell me.

As I said above

Quote (Alistair )

China Eastern actually have quiet a good safety record.

If I don't remember wrongly the base is the same on this plane and the Max so it would look something like this.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

So ... what? You guys (you know who you are) think that being different models makes it impossible to have common faults? Did we not learn that when there is a corporate culture of cover ups and time is money, common faults are not limited to model number?

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote (1503-44)

So ... what? You guys (you know who you are) think that being different models makes it impossible to have common faults?

As I understand it this is a system that has been around for over 55 years. Its tried, true and tested. Sure it is imperfect. But most of those imperfections are well known by now.

The core faults of the MAX were really restricted to the MAX. That was a new aspect that was designed an implemented solely for the MAX.

Nobody is talking specifically about the max. That may be exactly the problem here. Manufacturing, assembly, inspection and quality control are also not (entirely) model dependent. In some cases parts and software may be completely interchangeable. Even still BP failures were not limited to offshore drilling, but also affected downstream operations. Corporate culture has wide ranging implications. That's what makes it so dangerous. And the 737/800 has not been entirely without previous issues, just none that required grounding. At this point, nothing should be discounted.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

just for info

Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 41474
Line Number 5453
Aircraft Type; Boeing 737-89P(WL)

First Flight 5 Jun 2015
Age 6.8 Years
Production Site Renton (RNT)

Its quite a young aircraft design Certified in 1998.

This is doing the rounds of pilot circles.

I post it because most think it's not the aircraft. So if you see it be warned

I wonder which rear pressure bulkhead it had. I see that Boeing offered a Flat rear pressure bulkhead* for the NG series from 2006 with a suggestion that it was going to be standardized with a weight gain of ~200 lb. I see japan airlines optioned it for their 737-800's.

*normal bulkhead is domed, & well proven with the configuration being carried over from the 707. The flat pressure bulkhead can allow an extra seat row to be fitted.

Quote (Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical)22 Mar 22 18:11)

This is doing the rounds of pilot circles.

From Twitter:


... and even that is being debated. Thanks for the heads up.

Quote (This is doing the rounds of pilot circles.)

Rotate it 90deg clockwise, and all is well... time to go for a brew...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

interesting point verymadmac.

My gut feel is its something mechanical that's gone twang.

But it could be the crew stalled it but that's extremely unlikely at 29 000 ft the window between over speed and stall is colossal that low. Your not even limited by mach numbers at that alt.

From the diagram provided by RedSnake there are about 25 individual components that provide control of the tail mechanism- and failure of just one of them may lead to disaster- I suspect the crash investigation should focus on reviewing the manufacturing QC documents for each of those 25 parts to determine if a fabrication defect slipped through the QC process. It is hoped that the QC process includes NDT of each part before they are accepted for use.

I seem to recall that in the 1980's a GE turbine engine failed on a US airliner, and the QC documents showed there had been a crack found in a rotating part and that it was supposed to be rejected , but was used anyway. GE offered something like a $10 million USD reward if a property owner found the part on their land and surrendered it to GE and not to the FAA, perhaps to avoid the legal N-word ( negligence) in the claims by the relatives of the crash victims. Anyway, the part was found in a corn field, the farmer became rich, and the court defense was that the actual part used was not the one shown in the QC documents.

"...when logic, and proportion, have fallen, sloppy dead..." Grace Slick

most of them have alternative/backup parts to my knowledge.

The yoke that attaches to the jackscrew and it are the two that are a single point of failure.

I might add its the same on the MAX and hasn't been acceptable since 1998 for new design certification. Everything else modern has 3 triple redundancy of actuation and power source.

But that's not to say anything will change if it does prove to be the issue. The 737 has amassed enough flight hours without a fatality involving this system that they can say it meets the safety failure criteria.

Apparently voice recorder has been recovered.

Twitter1 also Twitter2

That's the data module that I was on about. Apparently they are rated at 1000 g and as it was a spear in with the rest of the plane acting as a crumple zone it should be well within limits for good data recovery.

The Twitter account raises an interesting issue; can the data be stored on the cloud? even for a backup, for flight data as well as voice? Other than countries, or aircraft manufacturers objecting to not having control over the data.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

there is some data squirted back to maint mostly engine data but not the full flight profile data. its normal on a out of envelope trigger.

There has been talk about having real time flight data system but the FDR records I think 3300 variables at 0.2 second intervals the data capacity required through the sat data system would be monumental.

Actually it's monumental to store on board. Is it really recorded 5 times/s?

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

the flight data stuff is something like that with a stupid number of variables.

There is a cut down version called QFDR which the airline legally has to down load every 3 days which is used to monitor the pilots through a quality system.

The A220 if you bust an aircraft limitation automatically triggers a data dump. What's in it I have no clue. Also if a caution or warning is triggered it also triggers a data dump through the ACARS system. Its not unusual to turn up on stand and there to be 2 technicians vans sitting waiting for us and then after pax gone its announced aircraft grounded give us the techlog. The aircraft has sent the maint a problem in flight and not told the pilots because there is nothing we can do about it.

maybe big, but not monumental unless the agency is against cloud storage... Can you have a device that automatically triggers cloud storage of all the data in the red 'black' box?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

no it starts at engine start and finishes at engine stop for the bulk of the aircraft data. Some of it for apu and power buses etc goes the the aircraft health management system which is a parallel system which focuses on the systems which is not included in the FDR data. But to be honest its not something a pilot needs to know anything about.

The heath management stuff records 10 times more stuff than the FDR. They know how often the toilet flushes, how often the door cycles. It times valves opening and condition monitoring etc etc.

This is on a new FBW A220 I really doubt the 737 NG or MAX have anything like this modern standard. I presume it just has the legal bare minimum number of variables and all the systems have a distributed data retention.

In fact Boeing have applied for a dispensation for the MAX 10 certification because it looks like the law brought into force after the MAX fiasco for certification will come into effect before they can complete the MAX 10. And its utterly impossible for it to meet modern safety standards. So if the FAA doesn't give them another 12 months then the max 10 is scrap. Some think that they won't complete in 12 months anyway.

The ACARS data stream is via a VHF link when the exceedance trigger does a data dump.

Others will have to tell you how much and how fast it can do that dump.

All I know is that these days the techs know what's happened before we are on the ground but the first thing they do it plug the laptop into the data bus in the cockpit and its not finished by the time we go 10 mins later. They have zero interest in what we think we saw.

But please note this is only valid for modern certified aircraft I would be extremely surprised bordering on gobsmacked if the 737 will have this capability. The systems are just not on a common data bus and half of them won't have a sensor on them because it would trigger recertification and if its not required they will be the same 1960 analogue sensor aka the 737 max AOA sensor which will be pumped through a ADC to some black box single channel processor chip with 50kb of RAM which will then if legislation requires will be sampled at the minimum data capture rate... Because that's what puts the money in the MBA's bonus packet every year.

I'm not much on digital math, but isnt 33k variables, maybe 8 chr ea, 8 bits per chr, 5x/second ... 3600s/h = 38 GB/h ? Anyway, it's going to be a lot, even if it's 1/0

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

I really don't have a clue of facts I just know its utterly colossal what the FBW machines store.

They do selectively dump when they transfer from buffer to recorded if nothing abnormal has happened. But if one of the triggers has occurred they dump everything.

There are different capture rates depending on variable and registry. Your going to have to wait until a real aero turns. Us stick monkeys really don't need to know to fly the contraption.

Here is an article with some numbers.

https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/ar....

It says the engines sample at 5000hz. A 787 will generate 500GB of data in a flight. An A380 can have up to 25k sensors.

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)

My gut feel is its something mechanical that's gone twang.

But it could be the crew stalled it but that's extremely unlikely at 29 000 ft the window between over speed and stall is colossal that low. Your not even limited by mach numbers at that alt.

Given it was largely intact & the angle, unfortunately a deliberate dive has to be high on the cards.

29,000 ft isn't really that high when it comes to Oxygen issues, that altitude will still kill you but it 40,000 ft should be survivable. Unless it was depressurization plus covid related loss of lung capacity in the pilots.

Maintenance is always interesting, I seen the results of crap heavy checks on aircraft in the USA & Europe (how do you sign off a gear inspections with no jacks on site), nothing like using the lowest bidder. I know Qantas has had issues in the PRC when a 747 heavy check got too hard and the Chinese MRO just push it out on to the hardstand to maintain their schedule, & Qantas had to fly their guys up to get it to ferry flight standard to bring it back to OZ to complete the work.

It is possible to shake the tail off a plane, even without manufacturing or maintenance defects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_...

Quote:

Given it was largely intact & the angle, unfortunately a deliberate dive has to be high on the cards.

Since the steep dive started at the same point as a normal descent would have started it seems more unlikely that it was deliberate why wait to that exact point to do it.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Quote (RedSnake)

...why wait to that exact point to do it.

Stop thinking like a non-suicidal person. If you just want to commit suicide, there is no reason to take innocent people with you. But if you want to also damage the airline industry and the aircraft manufacturer while not harming your family's reputation or their ability to collect your life insurance, then it seems to make a bit more sense to a twisted mind.

The problem I have with the suicide theory is that the pilot wasn't alone in the cockpit. There was a copilot and a third pilot who apparently was some sort of trainee or observer. Given that it was time to start their descent, it's highly likely they would have all been in the cockpit. So the pilot decides to crash the plane, and the other two just sit there? Surely one would attempt to take control while the other overpowered the pilot?

I believe I've seen some comments that the aircraft also veered to the side when it started dropping? If so - could the pilot have been making an abrupt evasive action and lost control or over stressed parts of the tail? Perhaps evading a drone or even a formation of birds? (Yes, there are birds in Asia that fly at 20,000 ft., I checked.)

The .kmz file that I uploaded earlier plots the flightradar24 data and shows that the flight path was no longer direct upon and after the initial decent. Unfortunately there is a data point missing between the last known straight and level and the first deviant points.

From Getty Images I can now see that the hillside north of the crash site is scorched so I've deleted my previous post being skeptical of the extent of fire.

Quote (Debirlfan)

The problem I have with the suicide theory is that the pilot wasn't alone in the cockpit

Presumably you’d incapacitate the others first.

Twitter "Aviation expert David Learmount explained to @CGTNEurope ..." argues for emergency decent.

Quote (1503-44 (Petroleum) 23 Mar 22 23:21)

20 g's pulling out of the dive sounds rather extreme. I wouldn't doubt that the aircraft could handle it but I doubt that the pilots could hold onto the controls. No experience, just conjecture.

And to think, I just learned in another thread on the site that photos from 'Getty Images' are stock photos, not to be taken as current. How do we know that the photo of that area is of the crash site?

Someone linked to that photo on twitter. That's how we know ;) Otherwise you are correct. I tried to search Getty and came up empty.

Quote (Sym P. le )

Twitter "Aviation expert David Learmount explained to @CGTNEurope ..." argues for emergency decent.

But why would they be in that big of a hurry to descend? It's not like they were high enough that breathing would be an urgent issue.

If they recover anything off the voice recorder, maybe we will soon find out. None of this makes much sense.

Not a great news source... The flight crew did not respont to ATC, it would appear. A possible explanation is that, if you're up to your neck in gators, no time to answer the call...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642875/...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (TugboatEng)

It is possible to shake the tail off a plane, even without manufacturing or maintenance defects.

While that load case is missing from FAR 25, it is noted that missing that load case was actually an Airbus problem, rather than a Boeing problem.

Quote (Debirlfan)

But why would they be in that big of a hurry to descend? It's not like they were high enough that breathing would be an urgent issue.

At 28000 ft the Time of useful consciousness is 1.25 to 1.5 minutes, noting those figures are for 20 somethings. 25,000 ft is I seem to recall about the limit of survival (you may be unconscious but probably unlikely to die).

29000 ft time of useful consciousness is 60 seconds if a explosive decompression occurs. But we have oxygen systems and quick donning masks.

It is a possibility but even an emergency descent you wouldn't get anywhere near the attitudes that this aircraft did. Its done with automatics anyway. Dial in 10000ft flight level change which brings the thrust back to idle, max spoilers speed 350 knts and the plane will go down at about 6000 to 8000 ft per min depending on weight.

Eastern China has 3 pilots in the front all of the time. And this flight was a command upgrade flight apparently. So LHS was the new Captain. RHS was a trainer who had over 20 000 hours and the jump seat had a normal first officer.

Suicide always comes up with these sort of things but in the grand scale of things its unlikely. But for some reason people seem to prefer it to component failure then messing up a drill.

Most of the time its a technical issue which is not handled correctly by the crew. But as we saw in the MAX threads the 737 NG and MAX are pretty much unique these days for commercial jets not having an EICAS and ECAM system and have a distributed caution warning system. And having a colossal paper QRH to find and then find the correct card and read through it.

https://www.737ng.co.uk/737-800%20Quick%20Referenc...

Its actually very hard to get the aircraft into that attitude with manual control inputs but not impossible. And then we have the inability to manually trim the aircraft once its outside a speed window of the current setting. Which we discussed at great length in the MAX threads.

The tail empennage produces down force (in the aircraft xyz coordinate system) from my understanding of the system even if the jack screw goes to the stab the elevators should still work. Bit of a mind screw because to get the nose to go down you would apply back pressure which the elevator would then float the stab to give it. But it might work.

My gut feel is something has gone wrong with the trim system but what I have no clue. There was issues with the wiring runs of various things came to light in the MAX which were deemed to be outside compliance with the NG as well. Now they have the CVR and it looks like its in a good state hopefully the FDR will turn up soon. Quite what the investigators will release was behind my question above

Quote (me)

What's your feeling for how they are going to investigate it?

I posted that link, because I thought it was added info... not to point to possible suicide. I don't know yet, but I suspect the crash was the result of a catastropic electro/mechanical failure of some kind, of the system and that all the aircrew were desperately trying to remedy it. Communication with the rest of the world would be the last of my concerns at a time like that.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (verymadmac)

While that load case is missing from FAR 25, it is noted that missing that load case was actually an Airbus problem, rather than a Boeing problem.

It was everyone's problem all OEM's changed the manuals after that one and put a warning in about cyclic input of all controls.

You can break every aircraft doing it.

And the FAA completely changed the US flight upset training. Prior to that all commercial FAA pilots were taught to lift the wing in flight upsets using the rudder. In EASAland we were/are taught to only use the rudder to control the yaw. And then correct any roll attitudes using roll control inputs.

The latest gen simulators have a structural load module now and when we do flight upset training we get plots of structural loading compliance. With FBW machines with it in normal mode the aircraft protects itself in xyz. In direct mode (failure mode without any protections) you can easily step outside the limits if you don't keep the yaw indicator centred.



In fact its not uncommon to get FDR exceedance emails when you hit turbulence on approach when your in a 30 deg bank. You can get round it by applying half bank to the autopilot but that really screws up ATC vectoring if you do that. But I think they are working on some software change to deal with it. As you more than likely know it generates a phase 1 inspection which is more of a paperwork PIA for the technicians than actually does any damage.

Quote (fdr)

High Lateral Acceleration [Lateral G - max abs = 0.42 G]

That's one I got in the storms last month

All pilots are taught Aviate Navigate Communicate. And to be honest how is declaring a Mayday going to help this situation. Also the problem is as soon as you start talking then you will be asked questions like how many souls on board, do you have any dangerous goods what the problem is etc etc in most places in the world. There are a few exceptions. The Dutch controllers at Schiphol are poo hot dealing with sick aircraft no nonsense off them.

Neat... the index items are hot links to the section referenced... that's really handy.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

that's not what they have on the aircraft. Its a 1" thick plastic ring binder.

EICAS systems links into the ECAM system and automatically bring up the correct electronic checklist for the system failure A220 also prioritises them as well. As sometimes by the time you have finished the first one its fixed all the others and they disappear.

Anyone covered accidental deployment of reverse thrust?

Here is a report of a 767 that had that.

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incid...

Hey, its a new spreadsheet.
Gs were indeed wrong.
New max is 3.7

Gx Gy G total
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 -0.3 0.3
0.0 -1.8 1.8
-0.2 -0.7 0.7
0.2 -2.8 2.8
0.5 3.6 3.7
0.1 0.5 0.5
0.0 -0.7 0.7
0.0 -0.2 0.2
0.2 0.7 0.7
-0.1 0.7 0.7
-0.2 0.7 0.8
-0.2 0.3 0.4
-0.1 -0.3 0.3
0.0 -1.1 1.1
-0.5 0.7 0.9

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Whew! I thought I would pass out there for a bit. How does 3.7 compare to a roller coaster? I still imagine it was uncomfortable but at least at this rate it's more plausible that the aircraft stayed together.

Quote (Alistair_Heaton)

reverse thrust accident report

Thanks. that was both horrifying and informative. It that a real possibility here? seems so to me but I am not knowledgeable in such things

Without G pants +3.7G will give some people eyesight issues. But it depends on the duration.

The normal max G is 2.5 G under FAR25 flaps up.

60° bank pulls 2g. I did that exactly once. On a Braniff flight through a Houston-Dallas wintertime storm front in 1969 with 40k ft thunderstorms on each side, there was a stewardess and a drink service cart and a lot of glasses riding on the ceiling for 30 seconds. That was all I ever wanted to see. Not kool.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Don't know if its a possibility or not. I have never been rated on the 737 so don't know.

I would have liked to think that there are multiple interlocks to stop it being deployed in cruise. I think also they are depowered from the hydraulic system via the gear three position handle.

Trim runaway nose down would be more likely in my opinion.

They found a piece of the plane 10 km away.

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-search...

Finding a piece 10 km away certainly changes the story.

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

I haven't looked at the maps yet, but this could easily be a result of what seems to be an attempt at a high speed pull up at 8-10,000 ft. Something getting ripped off then if its small could easily be 10km from the crash site and not the initiating event.

I suspect nothing will be clear until they find the FDR and hopefully it spills out some information.

But the pilot and co pilot are very experienced so it would be difficult to think they couldn't work out something between them if it wasn't an equipment failure / malfunction.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Hmm not sure it does.. just as an example.
He looses the elevator funktion the plane dives then he can only use the horizontal stabilizer to regulate the pitch when he comes out of the dive, doing it to abruptly can brake things off.



What I mean is that the problem started at 29 000 feet and things can fly a long way if dropped high enough especially if it is wing shaped.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

The real question - is that piece the cause or an effect? And will they find more parts?

10 km is the lowest point in the flight path prior to the slight recovery. Still no indication though of whether structural issues caused the decent or just compounded the problem. It will make the search for distant broken pieces more intense.

The purple line represents 10km from impact. The red ground path is raised to the elevation of the last data point.

Quote (that's not what they have on the aircraft. Its a 1" thick plastic ring binder.)

as a backup... a tablet with the hot links would be a lot faster.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (Finding a piece 10 km away certainly changes the story.)

Could it have fallen off during the decent?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Yes it defiantly could or at least when braking the decent staring going up again.



“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Got the FDR now.

Great... how long does it take to review this device? a week or two? assuming the data is good.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

That'll depend on the degree of damage to the FDR. If it were undamaged, they'd have preliminary results within a day or two.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Why don’t they have multiple FDR and CVR in different parts of the plane to increase the chance of finding a good one in the event of a serious crash? Is it simply cost?

I saw that the new ones can supposedly survive 1000 G impact. 100% solid state. I would also imagine that the odds of finding 1 of 2 is not much lower than 2 of 2, at least in cases where the plane can be found at all.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote (specs)

A DFDR must obviously have a high degree of ‘crashworthiness.’ The first units were required to withstand a momentary shock force of 1-000gs- the latest test standards now call for a test to 3-400gs for a duration of 6.5 milliseconds. The units also have to withstand a static crushing force at all of its six axis points of an applied load force of 5-000lbs for 5 minutes on each axis. Third- it must withstand a 500lbs piercing force test conducted by dropping it onto a ¼ inch steel pin from 10 feet. Lastly it must withstand a 1-100°C fire test for 60 minutes- and a 260°C oven test for 10 hours.

It is also required that these units are mounted within the tail area of an aircraft- away from the potential crushing force of any engines mounted nearby. The DFDR must be watertight to a depth of 20-000 feet in sea water- and survive at this depth for 30 days - and it must be fitted with an underwater locator beacon which will act like a sonar transmitter- by ‘pinging’ a signal through the medium of water that it might be laying in.

here you go if your interested

It sounds like it must have the shape of an egg then suspended inside another compartment shaped like an egg filled with cornstarch batter and a Nokia shark fen antenna IP69K with a sonar.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

No, it's like a 10 Russian doll construction.


Maybe
A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Wouldn't the cornstarch batter transmit the forces to the inner shell?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Word for the day "dilatant" to describe corn starch solutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant#Examples, although, in a sealed volume, the impact (pun intended) might be irrelevant, since the fluid has nowhere to go, and is otherwise incompressible, so force is transmitted, regardless of any shear thickening

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Thanks IRS... pretty much what I thought...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

It's sad to see people die in the accident, waiting for more truth to solve this problem and stop it happen again.

China Eastern flight MU5735: suspected debris found 10km from crash site, search area widened

The location as described by the article is still a bit vague but Google Earth labels an area of Yatang just beyond the 10km mark and there are rice paddies there and at the 10km mark.

I thought the longitude and latitude were posted earlier; are these not correct? From the accuracy indicated it narrowed the space down to about a foot (not really realistic).

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

A foot is realistic with aircraft systems with western hardware.

Since I couldn't read the whole article I am making a guess here.

The piece was found here ?







I say it again if you try to take the plane out of a dive to fast on purpose or it doing it on it's own it will brake and pieces will fall off.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Thanks Alistair... I was aware the accuracy is such, but locating the plane crash site to that small an area is a bit off...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Quote (RedSnake (Electrical) 26 Mar 22 20:07)

I am making a guess here.

The piece was found here ?

That's the gist of it but with a ton of waffle room.

You get to the foot and better accuracy with G
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_...

You get to the accuracy levels Allister is stating with differential correction of GPS signals. This is some information about the FAA managed portion of the system.
Satellite Navigation - WAAS - How It Works

https://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/RT_WaasSatelliteStatus...

The FAA does not support the China airspace with this system.

We don't actually use WAAS in Europe we use SBAS. And there is a version in china called SNAS or something like that links into their Biedou system and GPS.

https://www.icao.int/APAC/APAC-RSO/GBASSBAS%20Impl...

In theory the Level 2 Galileo commercial signal doesn't need it. But things have gone quiet on that front since Brexit. And there hasn't been any noise about the car systems either which they were planning on making every new car sold in europe have one fitted.

FYI, they found the flight data recorder. Sounds like it's in pretty good shape.

https://news.sky.com/video/china-plane-crash-secon...

looks in very good condition.

...a zip top like a beer. How clever!

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Wonder how they get data and power into it.

Well insulated battery of some kind... I'd think something other than lithium. It might be that it's detachable. I think the power would be independent of the aircraft power. The solid state memory should not require power after the crash. Solves the problem of it being viable after 30 days.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

it attaches to another box with the Pinger etc in it. I don't think it will have a battery internally. Just couldn't see any connection ports.

'Pinger' is that the alarm 'beacon'? It would need a source of power to activate that and keep it going for 30 days...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

Do they survey a crash site with a total station? or maybe a drone with Lidar? to record all the 'parts'?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

I guess it depends on who is doing the investigation.
The Swedish Accident Investigation Board didn't do that here in Umeå, they didn't take all parts and they didn't find all parts, one piece was recovered more the 9 month later even though it was on an isle and it isn't very big.
But I am guessing it is different when it is a commercial pax plane.

They weren't even interested in all the debris, because it was just "scrap" meaning it wasn't useful for the investigation.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Regarding batteries in the "black" boxes, it has been a long time since I personally touched one, but as I recall the FDR and the CVR do not have batteries for the recording function. They record from aircraft power. However, the CVR typically also has a "pinger" [beacon] that is powered by a battery when the CVR is in water. To the best of my knowledge the "pinger" only works when immersed. However, persons with more current knowledge than I have may be able to describe it more accurately.

A little further info for those who might wish to dig deeper. I was in error in one statement where I only noted the CVR would have a "pinger" (Underwater Lcoator Beacon or ULB) - actually both the CVR and FDR can have a battery driven ULB. However, as I noted, the battery for the ULB will only power the ULB to locate the article underwater. No batteries exist in the CVR or FDR to provide backup power to record data once aircraft power is lost.

Cockpit Voice Recorder TSO-C123( ) which refers to EUROCAE document ED-112A for the Minimum Performance Standards.

Flight Data Recorder TSO-C124( ) which refers to EUROCAE document ED-112A for the Minimum Performance Standards.

Underwater Locating Devices TSO-C121( ) which refers to SAE document AS-8045a for the Minimum Performance Standards.

Also to help avoid potential confusion, the Cockpit Voice Recorder or CVR generally goes by that naming convention. However, depending upon the decade of the flight recorder (and the age of the person discussing it), it may be referred to as Flight data recorder (FDR), Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR), Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU), or Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit (DFDAU).

To note the CVR and FDR have multiple power sources in the aircraft. Engines, Batteries and RAT *ram air turbine

Its in the last items list that looses power.

Thanks for the added info...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

The quantity of data streaming from an particular airplane, above what it required by the operational rules for the airspace they fly in, is really going to be determined by how much money the operator wants to spend.

I have the video below book marked as a teaser for interns visiting our office. It's fun. It is dated, I doubt anyone is using a tape voice recorder any more.

https://youtu.be/1NK_027e0u4

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm professionally affiliated with.

Alistair, you are absolutely correct that the CVR and FDR are on the most critical electrical bus that has engine power, battery power and ram air turbine power for maximum redundancy. I was not very clear in my statements. What I was speaking of was when ALL sources of aircraft side power are lost (such as an event that cuts the power wiring to the aft section of the aircraft where the CVR and FDR reside) there are no internal batteries in the CVR and FDR that will keep them recording. Only the ULB will contain batteries, and they are only for operating the ULB when underwater.

Thanks for making me clarify my statements for accuracy.

It makes sense that there's no internal battery for data storage; if power isn't available, it's likely none of the sensors are going to be giving coherent data anyway. Most of the instruments would be on a primary power bus that also likely supplies power to the recorders.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

From the article I linked to earlier:

It was a long white strip ... about 1.3 metres long and 10cm wide ... 1cm thick and had a few dozen hexagonal screws or rivets on it. There was a small area of blue paint at the centre of the strip,

Could this be a strip off the rudder?

Looks consistent. Higher res image of rudder has same shape of blue swoosh as the debris photo

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

In the past its not the lack of power which causes an issue its it getting power after a crash and it over writing data.

So these days there is logic to stop it recording when, no airspeed, no weight on wheels and no oil pressure on one engine.

A220 records 2 or 25 hours of CVR and 50 hours of FDR.

The CVR does have an independent power system which gives it power to it for 10 mins after the aircraft power goes. But they don't tell pilots what it is.

To be honest we never touch or really ever think about them. We can MEL one of them with a restriction of 3 days or 8 flights but the other needs to be working.

Yes but the debris photo looks like it is more then just a strip of about 1.3 metres long and 10cm wide ... 1cm thick though.
So is that the actual photo?

There is also this photo??



“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Looks very suspiciously like a wing, elevator or other flight surface. This is not going to be good. So did that cause the descent, or was it the result of the high velocity. Since it was found at the end of the dive's ground track, it may be an indirect result.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

It’s the trailing edge of the winglet. Same swooshes as on the tail. But at the right scale.

Looked like a lot of rivets for a winglet, but I can't say I've ever looked that closely at them either. May be the view is too far away, but they look pretty slick.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=737+winglets&t=brave...

H & V stabilizers, elevators and rudder. Only semi-close up I can find. I'll go with one of these for now.

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/attachment.php?atta...

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

To clarify, I was talking about the piece located 10km from the main impact site, and I havn't seen any images of it yet. Any identifiable items at the impact site are useful to eliminate pieces that may have departed earlier.

I believe rudder issues are high on the suspect list as a cause for the departure from straight and level flight.

I think it's off the tail cone. Under the Apu.

Loads of rivets in that area due the shape.

I am pretty sure they sorted the rudder hard over stuff back in the 90's.

APU? Got me. This? https://cielus.blogspot.com/p/como-funcionan-las-a... ??

I would think it would have to be stuck out into the air stream.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote:

Any identifiable items at the impact site are useful to eliminate pieces that may have departed earlier.

Was about to ask about that, the pictures above is from the crash site at least that is what is sade in some of articles I have found them in.

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

Auxiliary power unit.

Small turbine engine in the tail of the aircraft. Usually the exhaust is a circle at the very last bit of the tail cone.

It has air bleed, hydraulics, and electrical power sources.

There is also a door so they can get into service it.

Google 737 tail cone. I am sure there will be pics of it.

I did. Nothing looks like what I think it should, if that picture above is supposed to be the piece we're looking for.
https://cielus.blogspot.com/p/como-funcionan-las-a...

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Fair enough. They will know what its off.

The FDR will tell all anyway

Just an update on the black boxes.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04...

Well with nearly 200 planes grounded until they figure it out in China, sending it to the NTSB to try and retrieve the data has made some sort of sense at least.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

I saw that the recorders are coming back to the US, but what took so long; weren't they discovered at least a week ago?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Given how fast they turned over the evidence, they must be pretty certain of the conclusion and somehow I doubt they are betting on "pilot error".

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

This is just speculation on my part....

It seems quite a few countries have a generic ability to download both and be able to process the data. But there are only a few countries that have the number crunching power and software capability to go the extra detail out of it.

I know the AAIB in the UK has an extensive frequency analysis capability for the CVR and I am sure the USA has something similar. Again some countries will have access to the full performance databases which won't be allowed to others. And then there is the number crunching power to process the raw data.

So what I suspect is they have copied what they have and then quite rightly handed it over to people that can get the most out of the data. And as 1503-44 says their initial analysis has shown that they need to be seen as completely open about things and they have nothing to hide.

The fact that there has been no reaction yet by EASA or FAA means that its not a world wide fleet issue like the MCAS was.

...a new hiccup. At least the wheels didn't fall off.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10688807/...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

H'mm most likely not a technical issue.

Forgot to take it out of auto pilot is the usual cause for us floaters.

Not dissimilar, its usually the FMS has been set up wrong or they haven't sequenced things so there is a transfer from "pink" to "green" ie from computer generated track to the radio ILS being active and armed to couple.

They will have been on vectors and then didn't do what's called an Extension on the A220 which means the auto FMS NAV to radio nav transfer won't occur when it senses the ILS lateral guidance coming in. Or they armed the approach with more than 70 degs course track angle to the localiser. Which can mean it transfers onto a false localiser beam.

If the transfer isn't sequenced properly you loose the go around FMS nav and have to fly it old school manual nav. Which isn't an issue but if you have just flown long haul for the last 8-12 hours and are jet lagged its more than a few holes in the cheese lined up.

CDG is a parallel approach, dual runway ops so any deviation through the approach your cleared for conflicts with the other runway. And out bounds need to cross the go-around path. They have warning systems on the radar and if you are more than 0.2 Nm out of the localiser slot alarms start going off.

Anyway recovered and second safe approach performed. Bit of a none event to be honest. They will have an interview with the flight safety officer after the flight data has been down loaded and possibly winter training program will have something similar added to it so everyone learns from it.

TugboatEng what are "us floaters"?

Mariners, shipping.

There is common human machine interaction and spatial awareness of automation mode active.

It been an issue since the 50's and NASA has done loads of work on it.

Its come forward leaps and bounds in the last 70 years but there is still windows for human error and human factors to cause the loss of situational awareness.

The self driving cars are going through the same thing by the looks of it.

Alistair Heaton Got it - thank you!

oh i should have added there has been a load of work done in the Nuclear industry as well. In no way is aviation the subject leader in this field. In fact in some ways we lag behind due to certification rules allowing grandfathering of systems and methods which everyone knows are out of date and flawed.

I might add the 777 cockpit has all the latest safety features. But its still possible to perform an error. But as they discontinued the approach and reset the procedures worked to prevent an accident.

Yes, floaters and flyers.

While we wait for the voice recorder data, what is the opinion on the Air Canada near miss at SFO where the cockpit voice recorder info was immediately purged after the incident?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_...

I don't think it was immediately purged, but we do have the facility to do that due to some labour law or other. But to be honest I have forgotten how to do it. What I do know though is how to secure it so that it can't be over written.

This incident though only came to light 2 days afterwards and was not a reportable event (which has now changed in the US it would have been in europe) so by the time they started pulling the data in the CVR was over written by the previous 2 days flights. So it wasn't a crew commanded deletion just a normal usage cycle The FDR records 50 hours worth of data on a cycle so it was still available.

Personally I wouldn't do a visual onto a multiple runway airport its just way to easy to screw it up in the day time never mind night. But the way they deal with approaches and landing clearance in the USA is quiet different to what I am used to.

SFO has a colossal history of issues, the locals seem to take an almost perverse joy out of it. Others hate operating in there. I have seen a US pilot write that when her alarm goes off in the morning to fly into there she already knows that 30 odd holes are lined up in the accident swiss cheese model and she hadn't even had a shower yet never mind start an engine. Airport layout, ATC attitude, procedures, shite weather... the list is colossal. Nothing changes though and the excuse is that they are known problems and the pilots know about them and should mitigate them.... And if its left to the pilots eventually someone will screw things up. Throw an Air China into the mix and chaos ensues. Which might be amusing listening to in the comfort of your computer room it certainly isn't when your in the middle of it.

Fyi . . . interesting . . .

https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/tourism/i-thought-...

Marine bunkers in the region have been causing loss of power incidents on ships lately. The fuel was contaminated with halogens which inhibit combustion. These chemicals are not normally tested for.

Would a sudden lost of both engines on an aircraft cause such a decent?

I don't see that. Inherently any decent aircraft design glides reasonably well. I assume the powered controls have backup systems that leave adequate control to the pilots in the event of all main engines stopping.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

I don't know that a plane can glide well at 36,000 feet?

There's some interesting speculation on pprune.org (airline pilot's forum) in the rumors area regarding why the co-pilot had so many hours. Maybe totally innocent, maybe not. Interesting reading, if nothing else.

If you dig back far enough, there was extensive discussion about the Air Canada incident, too. No need to register to read.

777 supposedly has a glide ratio on the order of 19:1 https://answerstoall.com/users-questions/what-is-t...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

I can remember the description of the glide path of an F4. Something about a brick...

I’ll see your silver lining and raise you two black clouds. - Protection Operations

There is the story of the "Gimli Glider".

But I do still wonder, can these planes glide at high altitude or do they have to "descend" to a lower altitude before they can start gliding more effectively?

They glide but the decent gradient is linked to aircraft weight and drag Coefficient it just depends on the drag and the amount of potential energy you have.

I wouldn't say they are great but they glide no problems.

Quote (There is the story of the a"Gimli Glider".)

Just north of here a tad... first near casualty of early metrification in Canada.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

flown the profile in the sim. The pilot was a gliding champion and had local knowledge of Gimli.

Most that have a shot at the profile including myself don't get it in first attempt. I managed on my 3rd in a Q400 from 25k. First we reset at 10k because we weren't going to get in, second I turned in too early, third we landed and then the gear collapsed.

I landed an actual glider at Gimli, toward the end of my short gliding career. That was the end point of a 59 minute flight from our base near Pigeon Lake, in which I achieved the distance and height gain legs toward a Silver 'C'.

"Schiefgehen wird, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

Neat... I've only been in a glider once... it's eerie; you can almost hear your blood flowing. My second employer, Paul Krauss, was a glider pilot.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Might as well stick it here


https://aviationsourcenews.com/news/dhl-boeing-757...

757 having to land heavy after an incident in the air. Over ran and spun into the storm ditch.

I might add DHL pilots are one of the best trained and supported pilot groups in the USA. Far better looked after than most of the commercial pax pilots.

Nah the DHL had a hydraulic failure of the left, which caused only half the spoilers to engage. You can see only 50% up. But the pilot makes a mistake, he pulls the stick left which caused the spoilers on the right to disengage. Instead should have used rudder left. This is why the aircraft did a sharp right turn.

Very quiet here.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

They've restarted flights: https://www.business-standard.com/article/internat...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

That's test flights. Which may be linked to something they have found. Or its so they don't have to start doing the long-term storage program.

As there isn't any global AD's been issued it doesn't indicate a problem with the aircraft type common to all.

I thought I saw somewhere that they promised to release initial findings one month after the crash.

Seems they have, but it doesn't really say anything we didn't already know. Click on the English translate

http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/1/202204/t20220420_13...

I haven't yet found a copy of the full report - anyone?

The trailing edge of the right winglet was found 12km away, but nearly all other major parts - engines, wings, tail, rudder and stabiliser were all apparently found in the crater.
Nothing apparently untoward in terms of the crew, cargo or any pre flight faults. No weather issues reported.

I guess it's wait for the data from the recorders time, so hopefully it gives us all some answers.


Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

New data points added to flight path - white push pins

the full report will be a year at least.

I would expect a report with factual data from the flight recorders is released relative soon.

Seems the CDG incident was pilot screwup..

Too many people trying to waggle the stick.

Which AF crews have loads of history with.

Link to CDG incident report here (Reuters)

Note. This is not the CN incident, but Air France.

"the columns had become decoupled" => "IT BROKE"

It broke? "The stick" broke?


A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

I noticed the article about the CDG incident did not mention which pilot had control, though I'm inferring that the nose was not high enough for the copilot and they tried to change it a few times:
"The captain held the control column in a slightly nose-down position while the co-pilot made several, more pronounced, nose-up inputs," the report said."

Must have been a pretty good arm wrestling contest to "decouple" it.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

In case it was missed, the Boeing 777 is fly-by-wire.

Quote:

If opposing forces on the two columns pass a certain limit, the link between them is deactivated or "desynchronised" ...

They are not broken and the article does not discuss whom control is passed to.

I believe the 737 is not fly-by-wire (with the exception of spoilers on the MAX) so that is a significant difference between the two incidents (China and CDG).

The Boeing version of fbw is different to everyone else's.


They had this keep everything as it was before with the controls in front of you and both could be seen to move when the auto pilot was engaged or other pilot was moving them.

Control disconnects have been a certification requirement since 80's I think on old school direct wire to surfaces. There was a requirement for dual control runs to the flight surfaces. The yokes in the front each had there own set which was then link via a tooth clutch. A handle could be pulled which would separate them. 737 doesn't have them as its base certification is 1960's.

Side stick fbw are not linked but both sides gets pumped through 3 or 4 flight controllers or directly to the actuators in direct mode. If you both waggle the stick an extremely loud "dual input" aural warning sounds on A220. Would have thought there should be a caution if this disconnect feature triggered.

The nose attitude is more to do with aircraft speed. So nose pitch up is to go slower. You want to descend you take the power off and increase drag. Going faster does increase drag but then you start getting the aircraft out of its stabilization energy slot. Personally I would ask for more track miles.

In any case in modern day western procedures it's one person flying on the controls.

There is history with AF on this subject and it seems they haven't fixed the culture since the last crash.

And 737 does not have fbw. Which is the whole reason why they used MCAS to sort out there flight dynamics issues when the max was produced. To note the Chinese aircraft is not a max it's a 737-800 new generation model.

Quote (hokie66)

some here would just like to disparage Boeing, regardless of facts.

Boeing does more than enough to disparage itself.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Exactly. If they didn't, neither would I. I've always been a great believer in Boeing products, but they have left me disillusioned to the point of nonbelief when they misused my trust and I no longer wear my Boeing cap, which I did quite regularly before their max-fiasco. I also happen to believe that commercial airliners should not need software to keep them within stable flight envelopes during totally normal maneuvers by use of software. Call me crazy. I don't care.






A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote:

I also happen to believe that commercial airliners should not need software to keep them within stable flight envelopes during totally normal maneuvers by use of software.

You're just choosing to ignore what the computers of all fly by wire planes do?

Fly by wire has benefits and can prevent an incident like this:

https://youtu.be/alpGMjCZ83Y

No. There is a difference. Fly by wire means control input forces are amplified and transmitted to control surfaces by hydraulic/electric actuators, rather than a pilot arm wrestling the controls, much the same way as my car has hydraulic steering. However my car does not need hydraulic steering to stay within its primary operating envelop. Without hydraulic steering, my car will not make a self-initiated 90° left hand turn and run off the road. It does not need a software package to keep it from doing stupid things. It has been a long accepted design principle that aircraft "fly themselves", Taking your hand off the stick during a 15° banked turn from straight and level flight will in effect cause a self-return to straight and level flight. I.e. Removing control input results in stable flight. I accept departure from that principle only for designated aerobatic, military and other aircraft clearly marked "experimental". Basically I want a PIC flying my airplane, as independently as possible of some nurd tallying votes trying to override him at any given opportunity to do so. We aren't at that point where I'm ready to relinquish what little control of my life I have not already given up to some MBA watching CNBC more than his assembly line.

FBW can't do a thing for helicopters, unless the wires are holding the pieces together.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

You do get fbw for helicopter's. But similar to fixedwing most of its job is imposing limitations of control inputs so the aircraft remains inside the controlled flight envelope and airframe load envelop.

Fbw low level is just a method of getting the pilots control inputs to the flight surfaces.

Second level up is envelope protection high speed and low.

Third is load protection.

Fourth is input method which is what Airbus does with its flight path adjustment logic so you set an angle and then don't touch it and it will maintain it.

The forth has gone out of fashion and I can't see any more new aircraft types using it. Airbus will stick with it but I suspect they will have a revamp of its logic eventually. The lack of control feedback to the pilot is a known issue.

Both emb and BOM fbw systems are third level and my experience on the a220 is its very good. It feels and operates just like a Cessna 150 and when it down grades the plane control method doesn't change. A320 the aircraft changes from flight path back to pitch when it down grades. Which isn't a good idea if things get aerobatic and muscle memory plays a large part of pilot responses.

Oh I believe fbw can be used to normalize control inputs to give a linear response as per normal in modern certification standards.

So in the max case in that part of the envelope the gain would follow a curve so the control feel would be the same as normal. This would have meant no messing about with the trim to create an artificial control load.

Thanks Alistair. Actually it's the last bit that upsets me the most. "some MBA watching CNBC more than his assembly line."

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

It's worse than that... They are watching fox

Ha Ha Ha. You're gonna catch flak when they wake up over there.
But you're right. Fox fans were complaining about both selling oil from SPR and the high cost of gas at the same time last week. I told them to relax, the SPR bought it for 20 and was selling at 95, making money, reducing the cost at the pump and beating up the speculators all at the same time. Duh. They'd at least know that, if they watched anything else. They moved on to Hunter's laptop being seen in the posession of bigfoot on some DC tourist bus.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Boeing is not the engineering company that everyone quite rightly is proud of.

Boeing now is just the name of MacDonald Douglas which always did have the reputation of issues.

Great MBA stock tactic. Buy the brand, then trash it for everything its worth.
10 years to extract max value then sell off the remains.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

1503, in that helicopter video the pilot made a control input that exceeded the envelope of the aircraft which caused the main rotor to strike the tail mast, severing it. FBW could have prevented such an input.

Personally I'd rather have a better pilot. One that knows the limitations of his aircraft, or knows what the green, yellow and a red line on the airspeed indicator mean.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

I think it was a Robinson r22.

There is something funny about the rotorhead.

Think it's called a teetering rotor head. They get a thing called mastbumping.

I am not going to even pretend to be knowledgeable about it. Mechanical Palm trees are death traps. Basically from the moment the start button is pressed the pilot has to stop them from spontaneously crashing.

There is a huge amount of opinion and comment about r22's best to Google it yourselves. If they put a fbw system on a r22 there wouldn't be enough performance to get it off the ground.

FBW may have not prevented that Robinson accident, envelope exceedance can be achieved by failing to slow down for turbulence (seems to be not uncommon issue).

The fundamental issue with Robinsons seems to be its a cheap helicopter, brought by cheap operators who then like to fly them like they have the margins of expensive helicopters.

With emphasis on the later.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

They are the base training machine in many organisations.

They are extremely limited. And I wouldn't say cheap although they are cheaper than the rest.

It's also a petrol piston engine.

Compared to fixedwing and say a Piper tomahawk pa38. The r22s safe operating envelope is a postage stamp on the pa38's envelope. And the pa38 official envelop is folded in half of what you can get away with and survive. R22 if you take a 2 ltr bottle of water along and camera bag it can bite your bum.

Training it's the norm to have a relatively inexperienced pilot teaching a student. It's the same with fixed wing. I was the same 200 hours teaching a lady called Joan on my first paid job as a pilot. And to be honest just as I was useful and borderline competent 900 hours 1 year later I went off to fly airlines and another 200 hour instructor took over.

Hehehehe...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

As I mentioned to Alistair the other day, I couldn't have dreamed of getting into any airline. You had to have 5000 hours flying MAC transports on the Vietnam routes before anybody would talk to you back then. Crop dusting ... maybe, but lots of competition there too. Even aerospace engineers were driving trucks and designing roof trusses. Settle was a black out.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Most European airlines take first officers out of school with 170-200 hours in Thier log books.

Quote (Alistair)

There is something funny about the rotorhead.

Think it's called a teetering rotor head. They get a thing called mastbumping.

Just for the record... the Robinson rotorhead design has a couple of unique features, but they have nothing to do with mast bumping. Mast bumping is a potential failure mechanism on every rotary wing airframe design which uses a semi-rigid rotor; there are many. Most common would be the Bell UH-1/AH-1, and the huge family of Bell JetRanger-and-analogue products which followed.

Mast Bumping is a danger unique to a semi-rigid rotor system but it occurs almost entirely due to pilot error. As the disc load on any helicopter decreases from 1g toward 0g, the rotor generally becomes more responsive to control inputs (or, as disc load diverges from 1g to 0g, control gain goes up). In practical terms this means that in any helicopter with a semi-rigid rotor system, you need to be very, very careful about the magnitude of control inputs when you're in a g-light state. There was an unfortunate set of UH-1 pilots in Vietnam who found this out while flying map-of-the-earth flightpaths which resulted in the main rotor detaching itself from the shaft due to mast bumping when they performed a hard nose-down control input while under near-zero g at the top of a hill or whatever.

Thanks for that, I learned very early on in my career that the fatality rate amongst rotary pilots is utterly collosal.

And it doesn't seem to matter what experience level they are there is a vast number of random factors which can get them.

As I said I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about mechanical Palm trees. The way I minimise my risk with them is just never go near them with even a hint of blades spinning.

And that includes keeping my engine wash away from them when I am flying fixed wing.

And you really don't want to be anywhere near their disk wash. Been there got the t shirt with a seaking in a 7 ton turbo prop. 1 thousand ft below crossing his track under radar vectors near Prestwick in Scotland. It all got rather aerobatic for 20 seconds.

Just as good a place as any for interest.

A safety system saving the day.

I can only presume the report has taken so long because the captain is part of the French aviation mafia and they waited until he retired. Same mafia fiddle the Concorde crash conclusions.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4867f2bd&opt=0

Actually, this really isn't a good place to be putting random crap about other accidents or helicopters.

Ok fair enough I won't do it again. I was just doing my weekly incident learn from others mistakes homework.

And to add as there has been none what so ever notices to other operators it's pretty certain it's not an engineering failure.

The stuff is interesting... and appreciated.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Now I want something (non fatal obviously) to happen in France so we can hear more about the French aviation mafia

The silence over this crash is very worrying. I think most of the extreme ideas have been discounted by the physical evidence that the plane was virtually complete when it speared into the ground at several hundred knots.

So what's left?
Explosion?
A fight in the cockpit?
Auto pilot gone mad?
What's the current pilot talk or is it a varied as this thread is?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

"Forget it Jake, its Chinatown."

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

The pilot chat is centred round the cockpit crew dynamics and cultural issues with Chinese and loss of face.

I find those issues tend to be strongest where they take their responsibilities seriously and the consequences of failure could be more than one initially thought when setting out the task.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

But something caused the plane to nose dive.

That wasn't the crew having a disagreement.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Where did you see that it was not crew related?
I don't think we know that it was, neither that it wasn't.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Chinese culture in Aviation is extremely different to western. They have a very beat everyone with a stick mentality and quite the opposite of no blame culture.

Fines and down grades are the norm for trivial transgressions of arbitrary flight parameters which quite often are defined by none pilots or engineers. Also operation mistakes there is a finger pointing exercise of who gets the penalty. As such there can not be human error due environmental or physiological reasons.

I won't trot out the back ground of the crew on that flight or the history behind why a lot of people think it might have played a large part in what happened.

As such the black box data has been accessed and absolutely nothing technical has appeared relating to the type.

Pre covid there was a quite a few western crews working there on contract they were mostly released when covid started. The conditions the local crews have to live there are apparently horrific. We are talking solitary confinement for weeks on end if there is even a hint that you have been in contact with a covid positive person. Which includes one person on a plane testing positive within 14 days of flying and the whole aircraft will get taken away to a camp to isolate. And they don't stop for 5-6 levels down the tree of contacts. Some do 3 weeks in confinement and then get out and fly home and then its straight back in again because someone on that flight tested positive as well.

It appears they think they have found the perfect excuse to keep the entire population in line now, figuratively and literally. Its looking more like North Korea every day. Inevitable end for strong-man govs. They all seem to get there one way or another.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

Quote (AusG )

Now I want something (non fatal obviously) to happen in France so we can hear more about the French aviation mafia

We have discussed the latest one above in the thread. But as requested I won't be discussing it here in depth.

I'm not saying it wasn't crew related, what I am saying is that something happened which shouldn't have happened and so far we all don't appear to have been given any clear evidence as to what that something was, other than it doesn't appear to be a 737-800 system issue.

But a perfectly functioning airplane ended up spearing into the ground and so far there is no plausible explanation being offered by anyone. That's what is worrying.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

There is a plausible reason being offered to do with face saving and Chinese culture. And also it involves communist party leaders.

And the plausible reason is???

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Not touching it sorry my colleague was killed in an aircraft accident with no technical reason for it occuring.

It was horrible for all of us that knew him what the speculation was.

Rip Tim your still remembered.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542...

I believe Alistair is implying deliberate CFIT by the flight crew.

I figured that out - just wasn't sure how in a three man crew you could do that and why no one has come out with this officially yet, unless the CVR is too damaged to supply accurate words or noises. I fully get the Chinese culture of blame etc and I think silencing of the victims families, but something needs to give here. German Wings it came out pretty fast after they found the CVR, why not here?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Because there is collosal loss of face involved. And no way now of punishing the person.

CVR can tell them what you ate for lunch by the sound of your fart.

They can tell which bearing in the engine failed by the acoustic signature outside the normal hearing range. They will know exactly what happened. And if it involves a family member of someone high up in the system it will be now a loss of face management exercise.

Go to pprune.org and read the discussion there on the rumors/news forum. You don't need to be a member to read.

It is starting to look a lot like my second option is getting some legs.

A small amount of googling brought all the theories to the surface.

Even so, you just wonder what exactly triggered anything or how anyone can actually do what the speculation and basic facts are telling you.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Exactly which is why I was extremely reluctant to promote them. They are all speculation and not even worthy of even being called a theory.

You can do it in the 737 just power trim forward and then kill the electrics. If the other pilot doesn't catch it before the speed increases more than 15knots you can't manually trim anyway due to the same issues with resolving the mcas issue on the max.

Most stuff that is publicly touted as 'theory' does not even clear the bar of 'hypothesis'.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

It is though what happens when there is no official pronouncement based on verifiable facts from the two recorders, i.e. nature abhors a vacuum, be that on earth or information.

As can be seen on this site when the two most recent structural disasters to hit the US - miami bridge and the towers also in miami - led to thousands of posts, many based on very little other than wild speculation. Only when the official report came out can some sort of proper discussion take place.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Quote (LittleInch)

Only when the official report came out can some sort of proper discussion take place.

By the time that happens the 24 hour news cycle has moved on to the next scandal or shiny object, and we have clicked on the next bait.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Hot off the whatevers...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10826335/...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Well When there's nothing left blame the crew.

But the evidence is mounting up.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Sounds like the NTSB will issue no further statements nor perform any further investigation. They're going to defer to the Civil Aviation Administration of China.
Interesting wording in the statements.
"The NTSB will not be issuing any further updates on the CAAC's investigation of the China Eastern 5735 crash," the NTSB said in a statement. "When and whether CAAC issues updates is entirely up to them. And I haven't heard anything about any plans for them to do so." -from ABC News

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

just to note for european readers. They started off with additional medical checks for EASA pilots after the german wings. And my last medical two weeks ago there was a discussion about mental health and what I did during covid.

And apparently when you start a new job now the company has to get a aviation phycologist report on you. And people have been failing it.

Quote (Alistair Heaton)

And people have been failing it.

Maybe not for the persons involved, but for me that's actually quite reassuring. I don't know how many civilian airliner deaths/crashes have been put down to pilot suicide, but it seems to be one every 3 to 4 years if you add in the unexplained like MH370. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot

So hopefully part of another hole in the swiss cheese model is being made smaller.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

To what consequence?

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

To be honest a yearly check I think only ticks a box.

The people outside aviation I have seen spiral it wasn't obvious and then it was in a matter of a couple of weeks. Thankfully they were all spotted and the situation taken on by professionals before it became a disaster

Quote (Alistair Heaton)

get a aviation phycologist report on you

What happens if the aviation psychologist is crazy?

Brad Waybright

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Takes one to know one.

We're spinning down the drain here.

The big failures are administrative and institutional, and when you follow events in the UK the problem is only getting worse despite all the policy barriers and emphatic assurances by leaders (I'm using the term 'leader' extremely loosely in this example).

There are so many examples where the 'systems in place' failed to catch psychopaths and sociopaths operating for years or decades in plain sight. Psychological screening will fail to intercept the truly dangerous candidates.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

https://qz.com/503328/social-psychologists-are-alm...

Pilots do get a few more hurdles to jump through that most professions. And every 6 months they are in the sim.

I think the biggest change in EU is that the airlines came away from selection then training and limited themselves to self selected minimum training candidates. Which to be honest I fall into as I paid to get to the basic level myself because there was no other option in 2000.

And there are some extremely intelligent individuals doing a job that they are not suited for on an emotional and personality level and were trapped in the job due social and financial reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if it was some mof these types that are failing while supply outstrips demand in the job market.

Quote (ironic metallurgist)

The big failures are administrative and institutional, and when you follow events in the UK the problem is only getting worse despite all the policy barriers and emphatic assurances by leaders (I'm using the term 'leader' extremely loosely in this example).

There are so many examples where the 'systems in place' failed to catch psychopaths and sociopaths operating for years or decades in plain sight. Psychological screening will fail to intercept the truly dangerous candidates.

Agreed. In the US, it seems that to get to the "leaders" level you have to be a sociopath/psychopath to a certain degree. In some ways the fox is guarding the hen house, but hard to know how to fix it when elections are a popularity contest and virtually unlimited, unaccountable money is available to spend on spreading facts or lies or a little of both about a candidate or issue.

Overvoltage its the same problem world wide. Gone are the old school leaders. The politicians most of them I wouldn't piss on them to put the flames out if they were on fire.

Thank you Alistair, my feelings exactly:)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

TBE,

Psychologists were happy to perform the intellectual gymnastics useful to justify torture (yes it was torture) of detainees at Guantanamo. Were they all 'liberals' too?

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I'm just thinking that pilots may not be too keen on psychological evaluation as pilots tend to be more conservative.

Quote (Previous Article)

They found that while many conservative respondents personally experienced hostility at work as a result of their politics, liberals claimed to be blithely unaware that any such discrimination occurred. Yet almost 40% of liberal respondents said they would be willing to discriminate against a conservative job applicant.

Especially, when discussing thoughts and opinions might result in discrimination.

Secondly, psychology itself isn't much of a science. It's mostly speculation and full of conflicting information. It rarely seems to be an effective indicator of future behavior. Modern psychology seems to focus on justifying bad behavior instead.

We decking hate it.. it's career gone due some person that has zero clue about the job.

Plus also the modern values of personal rights do effect us all.

And my plane I signed for it if you don't like it sex and travel doesn't sit with modern discussion antic's

I don't know any psychologists, but do know a couple of psychiatrists, and they are weird.

psychiatrists where i am are trained licensed doctors. Psychologists may have a MA degree.

I think those definitions hold everywhere, and a psychiatrist is a specialist. But my description holds about the psychiatrists I know. Maybe they just couldn't make it in other fields of medicine?

err not the Uk system they have to complete the basica core to be able to registered to be able to prescribe drugs.

There are a few specialities that can come off that program but they are normally only hard core pathologists or something along the dead meat line.

I think Canada is similar; psychiatry is one of many specialties like podiatry or orthopedics, and they can prescribe. There are more specialist MDs here than GPs, which by itself tells you something about our system. While far better than the Yanks in terms of equity and universality, it is far from perfect (as with most things, Canadians are content with just being better than the Yanks, even if that level is mediocrity). I have not experienced a full, proper physical exam in my entire life and I don't even know my own blood type.

I have no idea how psychologists are regulated, but the bar for entry seems pretty low. Many select themselves for the job after experiencing one or another life challenges (don't we all at one time or another). IMO the majority are unfit for the job, but that is not to say there aren't some very good ones.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The thot plickens...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

We had some intruders smash some airplanes into buildings in our recent history in USA. What the Chinese describe is not an improbable situation. I'll wait on the voice recorder information before I speculate.

If the voice recorder information is withheld, I will speculate more intensely.

It is honorable that the NTSB (or other agencies) not "blab".

It is honorable for China to release the recordings.

It is honorable for NTSB to affirm that the released recordings match what they found.


Anyone feel like being dishonorable? Or honorable?



spsalso

Its not normal to release the CVR recording. Key statements which add to the situation will be included in the report but not the full transcript.

I might add it would be extremely unusual if not unique for the NTSB as secondary support in an investigation to release any data which they have helped with or issue a statement.

Yes the FAA can issue a statement saying that there is no flight safety issues rising from an on going investigation on an aircraft type who they are primary certification holders of. But the actual details of why they won't give details.

To be honest the FAA issuing that statement says more to me than anything else but we will have to wait for the investigation to finish.

dik,

CPC under Xi is now so reactionary that they automatically lash out at anything that deviates from fullblown praise of their world domination policies. Which, if anyone needs reminding, includes aggressive hacking and IP theft, extra-territorial political interference and intimidation, industrial scale internment camps, constant surveillance of citizens, hostage diplomacy, and loansharking poorer countries with natural resources.
The US is far from perfect (China plays the hypocrisy card endlessly), but I know who I would trust more in this situation...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Its the old rock and a hard spot. Releasing a statement or remaining silent.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

When the statement might include revenge, loss of face its no wonder nobody wants to give a statement. They wouldn't in the western world either due having to spend years in court being sued.

At least you'd get to go home at night :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

Quote (CPC under Xi is now so reactionary)

Let's keep the politics out of this.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

I'm afraid it's already well embedded in the story and in this thread, but I take your point.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

dik,

It is not about politics, it is the tyrannical Chinese Communist Party. Are you defending or apologizing for its suppression of information?

Nope, Hokie... it's just a different form of suppression...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

Different from what?

Btw I haven't seen anything different with the Chinese investigation or release of data compared to what happened with the investigation with German wings.

Which was completely a French/German investigation.

It will all be revealed soon enough.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Out of curiosity I went looking the other day to see any updates.

Since the flurry of reports in Nay about basically one of the crew apparently deciding to fly it into the ground, not a single word since then.

When is the report meant to be issued legally?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

The video capture of the plane in nose dive, shows faint condensation shock over the wings, and the timeline-elevation data suggest near sonic descent. Basically the craft experienced aerodynamic stall at flight elevation, and due to the automated flight controls malfunction or an atmospheric downburst that reversed the airflow over the wings that forced a major stall and loss of lift, tend to force the craft into full nose dive.

Above a critical, near sonic velocity, the flight controls for subsonic flight only increase the descent. Modern supersonic craft automatically account for the reverse-acting control requirements, but not commercial subsonic passenger craft.

There is no possible recovery of proper flight control at that point.

They will have to issue an update in March next year.

But it might not contain much