twinotter wrote:

floridaflyboy wrote:

You can write this off as an emotional post. Whatever. But I think there is a small minority in this thread who have their priorities massively wrong.

You're not wrong, and your post is rational. There is a subset of users here who love airplanes (not aviation, airplanes) pathologically. One poster even said his first thought after 9/11 was to think of the airplane. IMO, that indicates a mental illness.

It's a 767. It's an old design that's still in production. The people who care more about aircraft than people are probably not that disturbed about the hull loss in this case.

Anyone who is commenting about feeling unsettled by seeing the particular aircraft shortly prior to the incident are feeling unsettled about seeing the aircraft that would soon carry unsuspecting individuals to a sudden demise. If anyone saw the crew shortly beforehand they would be describing the same phenomenon, but the user in question didn't see the crew, they saw the plane.

weekendppl wrote:

SaveFerris wrote:

In the case of the National crash it was a result of a 15ish ton MRAP breaking free of its straps and rolling to the aft area of the cargo hold.

And the spare tire mounted on the rear of the MRAP punching a hole in the aft pressure bulkhead and breaking one of the mounting points for the horizontal stabilizer jackscrew. NTSB determined that was the reason for LOC, not the weight shift. (Edit to correct: IIRC, what punched through, IIRC, was an antenna mounting bracket mounted on the rear of the truck. Or something along those lines.)

I stand corrected, you are indeed right.

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

BoeingBear wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

Electrical failure wouldn’t bring down a 767

BoeingBear wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

Only if the APU was running. Unless certain abnormal procedures apply, most airliners don’t start their APU until they are on the ground. But if you loose one engine, the other engine driven generator should power a decent amount of stuff (almost everything would be cross-tied to the good generator) on board the airplane. Which in turn would give you time to start the APU for redundancy.

Electrical issues generally won’t bring down an airliner. Failure of multiple instruments could give conflicting information to the crew and they would have to figure out which information is good and bad. If a crew follows the wrong information, that in turn could lead to a loss of control situation.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

People learn from discussion. Why even post the topic if we can’t discuss our thoughts, no matter how uneducated they may be? Frankly, some of the best threads have been those where a tragedy like this is discussed and hashed out in a respectful manner. I’ve learned so much from those threads.

Agreed. I think that given what we know, speculation as to the cause here is probably pretty-random. However, I found it very interesting how our members were able to gather the tower tapes so quickly, and to plot the flight data on various maps. The visual depictions demonstrate a normal descent in IMC with nearby thunderstorms, but also nothing truly-unusual weatherwise. They demonstrate the turn to the left and relevant altitude along the ground track, and they demonstrate the precipitousness and steepness of the dive. This is all valuable initial information, which actually tends to show a minimal likelihood of a lot of potential causes at the same time that it leaves open a whole host of others.

BoeingBear wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

I’m guessing it wasn’t *just* engine failure either. However, the APU more than likely wouldn’t have been on while in the air. Most SOPs instruct pilots to turn off APU after engine start and then turn it back on after landing. They cannot physically be on above a certain altitude on most aircraft including the 767. The only time they are used in the air is if there is an electrical failure of some sort, or a few select other types of failures or abnormals.

drdisque wrote:

jetsetterusa wrote:

Do you guys think you could be a downdraft? Or whatever it's called ...

Downbursts usually are only dangerous on final approach, which it seems this flight was not. Also modern airliners are equipped with equipment to detect downdrafts. I think we'll have to see if there was a mayday call to have a clue what happened.

Equipment to detect Downdrafts?..
REALLY? I have been an airline pilot for 30years and a Air Force pilot before that and a flight instructor before that and a maintence inspector for 25years and never heard of that......

Gliders have some sensitive VVIs but never heard of a downdraft detector..... not being to sarcastic to non pilots as I am sure something is out there.
We have predictive windshear which helps on takeoff and landing but not available outside its limited envelope.

Let’s wait for the investigation armchair pilots.....might be instructive...

Cheers

ual763 wrote:

BoeingBear wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

I’m guessing it wasn’t *just* engine failure either. However, the APU more than likely wouldn’t have been on while in the air. Most SOPs instruct pilots to turn off APU after engine start and then turn it back on after landing. They cannot physically be on above a certain altitude on most aircraft including the 767. The only time they are used in the air is if there is an electrical failure of some sort, or a few select other types of failures or abnormals.

The APU can be operated at any phase of flight and altitude, but aren’t usable for pneumatics above 17,000. Regardless, the apu almost certainly would’ve been off at this point of the flight.

BoeingBear wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

Here is a better cobbling together of the ATC audio than the other one that is circulating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... RirRCh3Xts

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Yeah, for what it's worth, I'm not entirely-clear of the significance of that bit of transmission from ATC. If it is about 3591, her radar at that distance from the airport/radar is not going to have visibility at the lowest altitudes, and I'm unclear how long a primary target is going to remain on her screen if there's no subsequent return from the target. Also, without getting too detailed, there may be reasons that the transponder at that distance isn't susceptible of interrogation for a certain period of time before the end.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I do wish the FAA wouldn't drag their feet in implementing the recommendations of the NTSB. They often give operators years to make changes. That is unacceptable.

I disagree with this. Many of the NTSB recommendations often take years just to figure out a plausible solution. Even then, the solution may be different for different parts of the industry. Take for instance, cockpit distractions, this problem has many ways to approach it and many different solutions depending on what is type of flight is being conducted. IE the distractions encountered by a 121 crew taking off from Miami will be different than a primary instruction flight in a Cessna from Truckee, CA. Same can be said about CFIT. Same could be said about ILOC. Then when you’ve finally figured out a reasonable solution that doesn’t cost the average operator a fortune, you have to get it through the lawyers and make sure the reg is written correctly and place in the proper manual, (FAR, AIM, Instrument Handbook, etc.).

Whiplash6 wrote:

ual763 wrote:

BoeingBear wrote:

At 3:00 in this video, a female I90 (HOU Approach) controller says GTI3591 is "now a primary [radar] target only" and "intermittent ... type and altitude unknown." This means the transponder stopped working more than a few seconds prior to impact, which points to electrical failure.

Did electrical failure bring down the airplane? Probably not, but that's a clue to whatever did happen. It makes weather feel a bit less likely, although I agree those wx radar images mean they were probably not far from heavy precip and/or turbulence.

I doubt it was engine failure -- or at least not *just* engine failure -- as the transponder should have continued running off the APU, right?

I’m guessing it wasn’t *just* engine failure either. However, the APU more than likely wouldn’t have been on while in the air. Most SOPs instruct pilots to turn off APU after engine start and then turn it back on after landing. They cannot physically be on above a certain altitude on most aircraft including the 767. The only time they are used in the air is if there is an electrical failure of some sort, or a few select other types of failures or abnormals.

The APU can be operated at any phase of flight and altitude, but aren’t usable for pneumatics above 17,000. Regardless, the apu almost certainly would’ve been off at this point of the flight.

Sorry, yep you’re right.

KICT wrote:

I wonder if they had a shipment of lithium ion batteries on board?

I would seriously doubt it. I work at an Amazon fulfillment center and I am pretty confident that ANY package that includes a lithium ion battery is transported via ground. Any such package would have a label specifically stating that it must be transported by ground.

just had a listen to the live atc recording, the last message from them was 'ok' - only 50 seconds later approach gets no response to "Giant 3591 Houston Approach?", 35 seconds after that another controller asks for anyone picking up an ELT.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kiah/ ... -1830Z.mp3

8.35 to 10.05

G500Captain wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I do wish the FAA wouldn't drag their feet in implementing the recommendations of the NTSB. They often give operators years to make changes. That is unacceptable.

I disagree with this. Many of the NTSB recommendations often take years just to figure out a plausible solution. Even then, the solution may be different for different parts of the industry. Take for instance, cockpit distractions, this problem has many ways to approach it and many different solutions depending on what is type of flight is being conducted. IE the distractions encountered by a 121 crew taking off from Miami will be different than a primary instruction flight in a Cessna from Truckee, CA. Same can be said about CFIT. Same could be said about ILOC. Then when you’ve finally figured out a reasonable solution that doesn’t cost the average operator a fortune, you have to get it through the lawyers and make sure the reg is written correctly and place in the proper manual, (FAR, AIM, Instrument Handbook, etc.).

That's a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of fire suppression equipment for the cargo holds after the Valujet crash. Or fuel tank inerting. Once they have it figured out and the refs written, make the airlines comply ASAP.

twinotter wrote:

floridaflyboy wrote:

You can write this off as an emotional post. Whatever. But I think there is a small minority in this thread who have their priorities massively wrong.

You're not wrong, and your post is rational. There is a subset of users here who love airplanes (not aviation, airplanes) pathologically. One poster even said his first thought after 9/11 was to think of the airplane. IMO, that indicates a mental illness.

A mental illness to think of what you saw before what you didn't see? I would suggest it is quite normal. It is what happens in situations of shock or confusion. If you are going to throw around accusations of mental illness you might want to study the field a bit. Human beings are programmed by biology to respond to direct sensory inputs prior to emotional and logic inputs. It is the reason cockpit warnings work as they do (direct sensory alerts via visual and auditory response systems). It is also why disorientation events so often lead to fatal crashes.

I understand the poster you are responding to has family that works at Atlas. I understand his concern, panic and fear experienced today. I have had family members in the vacinity of disasters.

With that said a lot of people are getting caught up in wording and crusading on some made up moral high ground. Being holier than though is as disrespectful or moreso than someone who says "I feel for those who died but am grateful it wasn't worse". Or "I just saw that aircraft this morning I can't believe it crashed". This is an online forum not everyone is going to pick and choose every word correctly before posting. Those folks are expressing their opinions. You and others are judging them for either a) misreading/intrepretting their intentions or b) them not stating what they meant to say in a more clear way.

In short:. Being on your high horses in this thread to win internet arguments is more disrespectful to the dead than any other posts I have read on this thread.

is an electrical failure occurred resulting in no transponder we wouldn't have any FR24 data?

flyer737sw wrote:

What about potential damage due to large hail? A large cumulonimbus cloud can eject hail laterally miles from the cell.

A collapsing storm can throw out a lot of downforce.

Had me thinking, if they hit turbulence, could cargo have gotten loose (i.e. weight shift)?

n797mx wrote:

CanesFan wrote:

jetmechanicdave wrote:

Defiantly not. In the way T/R deployment is done...No

I was just thinking of the Lauda Air crash back in the 90's.

IIRC there was an AD issued to solve that problem

And OE-LAV had Pratt 4060s. This aircraft had GE CF6s.

There are 6 things that bring down an aircraft in this manner:

1- load shift......doubt that based on the cargo.
2- Pitch trim runaway. Would be controllable IF they completed their immediate action items and turned off the STAB cutoff switches.
3- stall but it would have had to have been a deep stall (think Airfrance) to be unrecoverable.
4- loss of reliable airspeed creating a loss of control inflight.
5- catastrophic failure of the airframe
6- suicide or terrorism.

Everything else is manageable to a high degree. It was not a single or dual engine failure. It was not a decompression. It was not an electrical failure, the HMG would provide power. There is no such thing as an elevator hard over. Inadvertent spoiler extension could be controlled as would asymmetric flap/slay extension. The altitude they were at Windshear would have been recoverable. Windshear is typically a small area and a microburst is even smaller, with that amount of altitude they would have flown through it. Hail would not bring down a jet just look at DL in ICN and AA in PEK. Lightning would not bring down a jet.

There is honestly very few things that cause aircraft to just crash......

A sad day in the aviation community I have thousands of hours in 767s and am anxious to read the NTSB report. RIP to the crew.

redzeppelin wrote:

Regarding the cargo: Do Prime flights mostly carry merchandise that is already boxed, labeled and en route to the consumer? I was under the impression that they carried a lot of inventory into Amazon's fulfillment centers, which might be more densely packed.

Every package that leaves our fulfillment center is packaged with the appropriate shipping labels, regardless of internal transport (ie. ground transport to a sort center or Amazon Air transport) or whether it's delivered by a third-party (UPS, FedEx). Semi-related: I can't speak for the entire network, as my fulfillment center only handles smaller packages (under 50 lbs), but I believe most oversized/bulk items are transported by ground.

It seems like the most probable issue would be a structural or major control surface failure. Whatever happened quick as just a couple minutes before the problem the pilot is having a normal conversation with ATC.

If there was any type of instrument, engine, or electrical failure they were dealing with for more then the final couple minutes, I would expect someone on the ground would have been made aware.

I'm not familiar with the conversion process, but this plane appears to have been converted in the last 2 years. Could there possibly have been a structural defect caused during the conversion process that got missed, covered, and not identified because it hasn't been due on a maintenance check yet?

Redwood839 wrote:

You see to know a bit of the process so I'll chime in.

Little. An FC employee won't know it's heading to the plane at all, they don't know how it's being transported. After it's been packed it moves down the conveyor and at the end it's when it get's it's label, even then, it still doesn't say how it's being transported to any employee who sees it as in transit to the dock. The label would say the sort center it would go through and the destination center. I.E - LAS6 (Vegas), ONT (Ontario). Can a manager see it, sure, someone in logistics too. Access is severely restricted.

Switching of items is known, yes. But it would have to be something within a very low spec to be able to move through. The tolerance is VERY low for package weight if the scales are calibrated.

In regards to FBA items being transported, yes, it can happen. They can easily be relabelled to be Amazon stock by accident.

I will say, it's a bit far stretched to think that a warehouse employee would cause something like this because of their "caliber". It's completely possible, I'm not saying it's not, it's just a bit too far. There's so many things that would have to be done for this to happen, but whatever Prime Air has in place.

FYI - ex Operations Manager FC (6 years). Was there before Air and after it came along.

The labels have since been updated so now, they show the source and destination(s). The FC employees who work the docks (a small percentage of the entire FC staff) would have an idea as to whether a package is being transported by ground or air if only to properly assign it to the right pallet and avoid mis-sorting the item and sending it to the wrong destination.

usflyguy wrote:

That's a very small oil/fuel slick... did they have a malfunction and run out of fuel?

I don't think they ran out of fuel, but considering they were on approach to IAH, that might explain why there wasn't a larger oil/fuel slick at the crime scene (then again, I'm not an expert on this topic by any means).

ctrabs0114 wrote:

redzeppelin wrote:

Regarding the cargo: Do Prime flights mostly carry merchandise that is already boxed, labeled and en route to the consumer? I was under the impression that they carried a lot of inventory into Amazon's fulfillment centers, which might be more densely packed.

Every package that leaves our fulfillment center is packaged with the appropriate shipping labels, regardless of internal transport (ie. ground transport to a sort center or Amazon Air transport) or whether it's delivered by a third-party (UPS, FedEx). Semi-related: I can't speak for the entire network, as my fulfillment center only handles smaller packages (under 50 lbs), but I believe most oversized/bulk items are transported by ground.

Plenty of stuff gets moved between FCs in tote bins with no shipping labels outside of the destination building.

Video of aircraft taxing for departure

https://twitter.com/PTZtv/status/1099523727744655360

ctrabs0114 wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

That's a very small oil/fuel slick... did they have a malfunction and run out of fuel?

I don't think they ran out of fuel, but considering they were on approach to IAH, that might explain why there wasn't a larger oil/fuel slick at the crime scene (then again, I'm not an expert on this topic by any means).

Totally implausible. Closer to impossible.

Can't help but wonder about midair with GA traffic - Chambers Co Aiport directly below flight path before rapid descent....

@jetblueguy22: I am aware that some items are shipped between Amazon fulfillment centers without shipping labels. I was referring to those items whose eventual network destinations are sortation centers. I probably should have clarified that point, but you are correct.

(Sorry to bring up a technical issue on this thread, but I couldn't reply directly to JB22's comment because the page is formatted kinda awkwardly on my MacBook; the text appears to extend further than normal, and the "quote post" function is obscured by the side ads.)

Redsand187 wrote:

It seems like the most probable issue would be a structural or major control surface failure. Whatever happened quick as just a couple minutes before the problem the pilot is having a normal conversation with ATC.

I'm not familiar with the conversion process, but this plane appears to have been converted in the last 2 years. Could there possibly have been a structural defect caused during the conversion process that got missed, covered, and not identified because it hasn't been due on a maintenance check yet?

My own thought is this: What happened was either an unsurvivable catastrophic failure, or a potentially-survivable failure that the crew was unable to diagnose and figure out the right response to in the minimal time they had, which will be debated ad nauseum. Either way, it is what it is.

As to the conversion, this was a BCF (Boeing Converted Freighter), which roughly 1/3 of the Amazon Air fleet at Atlas is. (The rest are BDSFs from IAI.) This one was converted at QPG. Almost always, the conversion house does very heavy maintenance at the time of conversion with additional inspection/maintenance done by the airline at around the same time. The goal is to give the aircraft another 20 years of service following the conversion. Sometimes, after conversion, the different duty that the airframe now sees reveals issues that may not have arisen at the previous airline. Also, little details and differences based on when-built and for-whom reveal themselves in interesting ways. (ATSG had an issue like this on one conversion, relating to flap deployment difficulty, that took a concerted effort to solve. Had to do with behavior of one version of actuator in long stage lengths in deep cold. However, that manifested shortly after conversion.) There have been so many 767s converted at this point that I wouldn't be placing any bets on that of itself being an issue.

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

Do we know that the aircraft was nose down? Or was it simply in a high rate of descent?

There was at least one witness who told the Sheriff that it went in nose down. Take that for what it's worth. As another person pointed out somewhere, the area likely has a lot of surveillance video and we may well see (or at least hear about) some come Monday morning.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

usflyguy wrote:

That's a very small oil/fuel slick... did they have a malfunction and run out of fuel?

The thing is carrying so much energy that even if it did run out of fuel it wouldn’t fall out of the sky....we like to forget that planes are meant to fly, not fall. Even with no power they should be able to glide for some period of time, not nosedive....

The glide ratio of a 767 with winglets is probably around 20:1. They could have glided 15-20 miles from their altitude. They also would have been talking to ATC if both engines had failed. I’m not familiar with that area or what airports are nearby, but if they ran out of fuel they likely could have landed if there were an airport within at least 15 miles.

We’ll let the experts figure out what happened. Based on the circumstances, it probably won’t be fuel starvation.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

SaveFerris wrote:

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

What about a sudden cockpit intrusion? A flock of geese through the windows? Rapid decompression?

My guess is #1 mechanical, #2 environmental, (combination of the two).......#3 suicide/intentional deployment of the TR......#4 act of terror or sabotage.

RIP to the crew and peace be with the families.

If by “cockpit instrusion” you mean someone gaining access to the flight deck you could rule that out. The way the freighter is designed there is no flight deck door as there is no cabin. You walk in the L1 door and the whole flight deck area is open. Unfortunately we can’t rule out nefarious actions by crew members but there would be no “instrusion” as the jumpseater would have been up in the flight deck the entire time. Rapid decompression can be ruled as well as the airplane was so low, even if a door blew out the cabin would only climb to 7000ish feet, the crew wouldn’t even need to be on oxygen.

No, I meant geese (or hail) breaking the cockpit windows rapidly and suddenly. That kind of intrusion. Obviously, not through the cockpit door.

Could you imagine geese trying to gain control of the aircraft by storming through the cockpit door?

musman9853 wrote:

KICT wrote:

That left turn is bizarre.

only reason i can think of that makes sense is that they knew they were doomed and didnt want to hurt anyone on the ground.

As magnanimous as that notion is, the reality is whatever happened to this poor crew, happened fast. We frequently hear reports of a doomed crew steering away from schools and such - the reality is they were simply fighting for their lives. There was no time or ability to digest or avoid what was coming at them through the windscreen. No turning away, no avoiding population - just survival.

Rest in peace

I’ve been flying Boeing heavies a long time and I’m not speculating on this accident BUT the first thing that comes to mind in these kind of sudden nose downs - is pitot blockage due debris such as hail or other.

Air France instruments went haywire due weather, Lion air due technical - either way, the ability of air crews in startle scenarios to assess and act accordingly, especially when so close to the ground, can be interesting.

Above is a broad comment - in no way presuming it happened to 3591

There is Instagram video of what they say is an Atlas aircraft a few hundred feet over the water in the distance that the Daily Mail and some outlets have put up. Its kids on the beach with an aircraft in the distance. As I look at it more, it seems just to be a helicopter hovering over the lake.

The birds idea is an interesting one. We do have a lot of birds at this time of year. That whole area around Trinity Bay is a popular migration tract. Recently I've seen flocks of egrets, pelicans, turkey vultures, other waterfowl flying in formation. Presumably birds wouldn't have sufficient mass to smash through a jet window though.

Based on the news reports, which I understand are largely unqualified, the aircraft went in nose-first with the engine(s) providing power. This, along with the descent profile, would likely rule out fuel starvation, as well as engine flameouts. Pure speculation, but I would think that one of the more likely possibilities would be some kind of structural failure of the air frame. I'm not a pilot, nor an A&P mechanic, but has there been instances where the elevator becomes "stuck" in an unfavorable/unrecoverable position? The descent profile makes it seem (if accurate...it is FR24 data) that they were in a continually (more or less linear) increasing descent/dive. Maybe flying through turbulence and something bent or stuck in a nose-down command?

It should go without saying that all of us on this board are sad to see any loss of life and/or air frame. It also goes without saying that as part of our interest and enthusiasm, we want to learn more about how things work. At times, I have learned some very amazing and significant things in this forum. Additionally, in watching many episodes of Air Disasters and the like, there are many (occasionally unrelated) issues that are identified, and while they may not actually have impacted the outcome of the incident, are recommended for correction. If we only look at what directly caused the incident, we would be remiss for not identifying other problems or defects that could alter future incidents not of the same type. In other words, while speculation is just that, going in with an open mind and evaluating all possibilities is what the NTSB does, and ultimately makes our skies safer.

wjcandee wrote:

There is Instagram video of what they say is an Atlas aircraft a few hundred feet over the water in the distance that the Daily Mail and some outlets have put up. Its kids on the beach with an aircraft in the distance. As I look at it more, it seems just to be a helicopter hovering over the lake.

Daily Mail posted that video saying it was the final moments. I just read an update, and it was indeed a rescue helicopter.

ClubCX wrote:

The birds idea is an interesting one. We do have a lot of birds at this time of year. That whole area around Trinity Bay is a popular migration tract. Recently I've seen flocks of egrets, pelicans, turkey vultures, other waterfowl flying in formation. Presumably birds wouldn't have sufficient mass to smash through a jet window though.

Its not about the window, it’s about the damage a bird could do to pitot & AOA vane instruments on either side of the cockpit windows

PlanesNTrains wrote:

People learn from discussion. Why even post the topic if we can’t discuss our thoughts, no matter how uneducated they may be? Frankly, some of the best threads have been those where a tragedy like this is discussed and hashed out in a respectful manner. I’ve learned so much from those threads.

It really doesn't seem like they do. Case in point? The cargo shift question, asked and answered at least 3 times already. Multiple people referencing Lauda Air, even though thrust reversers were redesigned long ago so it's theoretically impossible (which has been mentioned at least once). I could understand people who don't know much about aviation thinking all sorts of things could cause a nosedive, but the same questions over and over are tedious. Same with the "same as X accident? they were the same type of plane," even though no other part of the circumstances line up. It wouldn't be so hard to read the whole thread if there weren't so much of this stuff in it.

EDIT: Someone even asked the cargo shift question again between the post I quoted and this one.

Jetlady wrote:

Can't help but wonder about midair with GA traffic - Chambers Co Aiport directly below flight path before rapid descent....

Their TCAS would have issued a Resolution Advisory. That’s assuming the possible other airplane had his Transponder on.

My theory: elevators and horizontal stab jammed with bird parts and/or irreparably damaged by bird stirkes. Coupled with damage to pitot, AOA, etc. Too much to sort out in <20 seconds.
http://sirorfeo.tripod.com/idtraining/alt.htm

worldranger wrote:

I’ve been flying Boeing heavies a long time and I’m not speculating on this accident BUT the first thing that comes to mind in these kind of sudden nose downs - is pitot blockage due debris such as hail or other.

Air France instruments went haywire due weather, Lion air due technical - either way, the ability of air crews in startle scenarios to assess and act accordingly, especially when so close to the ground, can be interesting.

Above is a broad comment - in no way presuming it happened to 3591

The 767 doesn’t have the sophisticated Flight Controls systems like AF447. As I’m sure you are well aware, Boeing has a robust procedure for Unreliable Airspeed that includes memory recall items to disconnect automation and stabilize the airplane with memorized pitch and power settings. Pitot blockage will result in Airspeed anomalies. Crews are well trained in handling such. I don’t see how that scenario would bring down a 767.

WPvsMW wrote:

My theory: elevators and horizontal stab jammed with bird parts and/or irreparably damaged by bird stirkes. Coupled with damage to pitot, AOA, etc. Too much to sort out in <20 seconds.
http://sirorfeo.tripod.com/idtraining/alt.htm

I don’t see how the stabilizer and elevators on both sides could be jammed by bird strikes. Even if one or the other was hummed, they could fly the airplane using the remaining pitch control surface. Birds aren’t going to make the airplane rapidly pitch down.

I’m not going to comment on the recent 737 event, but the 767-300 doesn’t have that system. Erroneous AOA inputs may cause a nuasance stickshaker, but again, the crews are well trained to handle such scenarios.

CriticalPoint wrote:

There are 6 things that bring down an aircraft in this manner:
...
3- stall but it would have had to have been a deep stall (think Airfrance) to be unrecoverable.

A deep stall is all but impossible on a conventional tail aircraft (and therefore did not happen to the Air France flight either). The plane was pretty close to the ground. Any sort of stall would be pretty hard to deal with.

Some witnesses are reporting that the engines were surging as the aircraft dived toward the water. Could it really be pilot suicide? If it was in fact a rapid commanded descent with full or close to full power, it sure sounds like it. Here’s the article which mentions it: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/23/us/t ... index.html

Re: bird strikes. okJammed ... or irreparably damaged. Bird mass vs. empennage mass, at 250 KIAS or whatever descent speed they were maintaining. Enough "bird flak" and LOC.

OB1504 wrote:

In a loss of control situation? No. If you can't aviate, you're sure as hell not able to communicate.

I thought a pilot only has to press a button on the control stick, which he already holds in his hand while flying manually, before he can speak in the microphone of his headset, which is already in front of his mouth? Is this not the case?