Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

xjet wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

This speculation is getting ridiculous.

With respect to everyone on here who knows far more about aircraft than I, could this be a result of a drone strike? Just curious as it seems to have been flying over a populated area at low altitude.

Caveat: I have no idea what I’m talking about- just an amateur non-pilot here...

tenHangar wrote:

Reportedly, a young pilot: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-Air.html

This was the jumpseater. Dailymail gets it wrong again. This is what I’m talking about a lack of known factual information and speculation and how this does nothing but diminish the tragedy these families are experiencing at this point.

xjet wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

Not true, a RAT can provide electricity if the airline had equipped so.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ram ... rbine_(RAT)

Halophila wrote:

With respect to everyone on here who knows far more about aircraft than I, could this be a result of a drone strike? Just curious as it seems to have been flying over a populated area at low altitude.

Caveat: I have no idea what I’m talking about- just an amateur non-pilot here...

No..

Whiplash6 wrote:

xjet wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

This speculation is getting ridiculous.

Yeah... the HDG works great when you have hydraulics, which in a situation that would warrant RAT deployment, you wouldn’t likely have. I was only pointing out that the RAT isn’t an electrical source. I’m in no way “speculating”, just clearing up that bit of information about the RAT.

I have posted links and worked aircraft maintenance for 20 years at US, a RAT can most certainly create electricity.

“Electric

The RAT powers both C1 TRU and C2 TRU, which powers the captain's and first officer's flight instruments, respectively.

The RAT can supply electrical and hydraulic power simultaneously. However, if the RAT is unable to maintain its RPM, the electrical load is shed and provided by the main battery, until RPM is satisfactory.”

Boof02671 wrote:

xjet wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

Not true, a RAT can provide electricity if the airline had equipped so.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ram ... rbine_(RAT)

I understand that a RAT can power a small generator on some airplanes... However, on the 767 it does not. Primary flight controls only.

Halophila wrote:

With respect to everyone on here who knows far more about aircraft than I, could this be a result of a drone strike? Just curious as it seems to have been flying over a populated area at low altitude.

Caveat: I have no idea what I’m talking about- just an amateur non-pilot here...

At 7000 feet, I'd say that it is highly unlikely.

xjet wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

xjet wrote:

The RAT doesn’t provide any electrical power. It exists solely to generate enough hydraulic pressure to move the primary flight controls. No gear, flaps, trim, etc. It deploys only in the event of a dual engine failure, or manual deployment by the crew. The aircraft batteries would provide emergency electrical power and power the navigation system for 30+ minutes.

Not true, a RAT can provide electricity if the airline had equipped so.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Ram ... rbine_(RAT)

I understand that a RAT can power a small generator on some airplanes... However, on the 767 it does not. Primary flight controls only.

Backing up xjet here. The 757/767 RAT only provides emergency hydraulic power. Battery power and (if equipped for ETOPS) a hydraulic driven generator provide emergency electrical power.

That URL from the UK does however seem to have a video of when the 767 "starts to crash". Huh? Not much to see, but it seems to be moving very slowly. That could just be the effect that large aircraft have of appearing to move slowly at low altitudes?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 2442028759

bbcolo22 wrote:

That URL from the UK does however seem to have a video of when the 767 "starts to crash". Huh? Not much to see, but it seems to be moving very slowly. That could just be the effect that large aircraft have of moving slowly at low altitudes?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 2442028759

To me that looks like a hovering helicopter. Not to mention the forward area of the object looks like it is darker. Putting two and two together I find it highly unlikely that is a video of the crash...

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

bbcolo22 wrote:

That URL from the UK does however seem to have a video of when the 767 "starts to crash". Huh? Not much to see, but it seems to be moving very slowly. That could just be the effect that large aircraft have of moving slowly at low altitudes?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 2442028759

To me that looks like a hovering helicopter. Not to mention the forward area of the object looks like it is darker. Putting two and two together I find it highly unlikely that is a video of the crash...

Not to mention the guy who filmed the video says it’s a helicopter.

tenHangar wrote:

Reportedly, a young pilot: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-Air.html
The article says "the pilot" but not sure about that.

These photos certainly put a human touch on the tragedy. It's heart breaking that a young man, doing what he loved and with a young family, perished in this crash. My thoughts go out to his family and those of the other victims of this crash.

The loss of control of this aircraft was so sudden, it will be interesting to discover what caused it.

s.p.a.s. wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

And, a general "control failure" to cover for the rudder hardovers and the like. So the full list comes:

1- load shift
2- Pitch trim runaway, not handled in time
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.
7- severe bird impact affecting pilots, controls, or structural integrity of the aircfraft
8- severe hail incident affecting pilots or controls
9- severe control mechanism failure
10- mismanagement of an initial, otherwise manageable issue
11- quickly spreading fire

Anyway, all of reasons on the list are pretty unlikely. Aviation is safe, so only the very rare events remain...

I would like to add another possibility, that is criminal action by one of the crew members/jumpseater. Minded, I don't want to disrespect or tarnish the memories of anyone, but it happened before, i.e. with FedEx in 1994 (FX705 IIRC). Hopefully, the investigation/DFDR/CVR will give us a different reason, but I am sure this line of thought will also be taken as a possibility. Being current on the 767, I can hardly imagine a technical reason bad enough to bring her down so quickly, with no time for reaction/correction by the crew, the airframe is very robust, with many redundancies built-in and that kind of catastrophic failure is a very rare circumstance.

May all RIP, a very sad day for the aviation and air freight community...

I've had one of those crewmembers on my release more than once. How about commenting on things or people you know more about.

Apparently criminal activity and the crew are not one of them.

AirlineCritic wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

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.

Pretty good list. I'd add the birds and hail to the list, as suggested by other posters. Birds or hail alone wouldn't necessarily bring the airliner down, but lets say birds through the windshield or jammed in control or hail hammering parts of the control surfaces away are possible reasons for a crash.

I'd also add "initial manageable event followed by crew error" as a reason; those have been quite common in other accidents. No disrespect to anyone, by the way, just trying to list all the theoretical reasons that would result in this scenario.

Also, quick and severe fire is I think still a possibility, even if (as reported) Amazon tries to ship Lithium-ion battery products on ground transport.

And, a general "control failure" to cover for the rudder hardovers and the like. So the full list comes:

1- load shift
2- Pitch trim runaway, not handled in time
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.
7- severe bird impact affecting pilots, controls, or structural integrity of the aircfraft
8- severe hail incident affecting pilots or controls
9- severe control mechanism failure
10- mismanagement of an initial, otherwise manageable issue
11- quickly spreading fire

Anyway, all of reasons on the list are pretty unlikely. Aviation is safe, so only the very rare events remain...

Looking at the recent accidents, mechanical failures have gotton really rare. As are weather realated accidents. If you look at the discussions and speculation on a lot of accident, it`s very often guessed it was the weather, catastrophic failure, which most of the time turned out not to be the case.

If I look at that list the last accidents at AVHerald show that accidents with aspects of 2, 3, 4 where basically 10 in reality.

Let`s look at the last accidents on AVherald, several of them with a nosedive:
Lionair B38M- looks like single sided AOA failure, manageable mismanaged situation by the crew who where not properly informed about new systems.
PK-661 - catastrophic propeller failure due to fatigue - so basically mainteniance error?
West Air Sweden Flight 294 - IRS failure leading to wrong pitch indication, manageable but missmanaged by crew
Skyway Enterprises SH36 - loss of control while initiating a turn without any technical problems due to somatogravic illusion of the PF.
USA Jet Airlines DC91 at Saltillo - unstable final approach without having the runway in sight and consequent loss of control at low altitude before imminent impact.
A Global Aerolineas Damojh CU-972 The investigation so far determined that the crew climbed the aircraft at too steep a pitch angle (angle of attack) out of Havana leading to a stall and subsequent crash.
LAMIA Bolivia RJ85 - criminally planning a flight without any fuel reserves.
Flydubai FZ-981 - Mishandled goaround.
AeroUnion flight 6R-302 While on a missed approach the aircraft impacted terrain as result of loss of control.
Saratov Airlines 6W-703 pitot heatings off
Associated Aviation SCD-361 - The decision of the crew to continue the take-off despite the abnormal No. 2 Propeller rpm indication.Low altitude stall because of low thrust at start of roll for take-off from No. 2 Engine caused by an undetermined malfunction of the propeller control unit.
Tara Air TA-193 - enter into cloud during VFR flight and loss of situational awareness
Trigana Air Avions TGN-257-deviation from the visual approach guidance in visual flight rules without considering the weather and terrain condition
Iran Air IR-277 - bad weather conditions for the aircraft and inappropriate actions by cockpit crew to confront the situation
Sepahan A140 SPN-5915 - Electronic engine control (SAY-2000) failure simultaneously with engine No: 2 shutdown, just about 2 seconds before aircraft lift-off.AFM Confusing performance chart
Guicango D2-FDO - engine failure followed by fire. Around the position of the aircraft there was adverse weather
True AN26 S2-AGZ - Failure to initiate a rejected take off during take off roll following the indication of engine failure;Failure to adhere to the company SOP
Germanwings A320 - FO suicide
MyCargo B744 - Unstable approach
Sun Way IL76 -uncontained engine failure
Skyward F50 - aircraft departed about 500kg over maximum takeoff weight, The #1 propeller's rpm dropped from about 100% to about 50% and remained there for the remainder of the flight
TACA A320 at Tegucigalpa-decision to land on a runway without proper assessment of the operational conditions, weather, aircraft's landing weight and runway conditions
Yeti Airlines DHC6 at Lukla- flight crew's misjudgement, based on the weather information from all the preceding aircraft and Lukla Information, to enter into cloud patch on final
Aviastar DHC6 - Deviation from the company visual route without properly considering the elevated risks of cruising altitude lower than the highest terrain in IMC
Silk Way AN12 - Engine#3 at idle on takeoff
Metrojet A321 over Sinai - Bomb/Terror
Georgian Airways CRJ1 at Kinshasa - microburst
Transasia AT72 at Taipei - Engine failure on takeoff, shutdown wrong engine
Swiftair MD83 over Mali - non-activation of the engine anti-icing systems, crew's late reaction to the decrease in speed
Aliansa DC3 near San Vicente - failure to assess hazards and risks during flight planning as well as decision making during the VFR flight without verification of minimum safe altitudes.
LAM E190 over Botswana - CA suicide
Transasia AT72 at Makung-pilot flying intentionally descended the aircraft below the published MDA of 330 feet in the instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) without obtaining the required visual references.
Tatarstan B735 at Kazan -systemic weaknesses in identifying and controlling the levels of risk, non-functional safety management system in the airline and lack of control over the level of crew training by aviation authorities at all levels, that resulted in an unqualified crew being assigned to the flight.
JS Air B190 at Karachi - problem with its Engine No.2 (Right) immediately after takeoff -Some of the actions by the cockpit crew before takeoff and subsequent to the observed anomaly in the Engine No.2 were not according to the QRH / FCOM which aggravated the situation and resulted into the catastrophic accident.
Indonesia Asia A320 - Manageable technical failure escalated due to totally wrong corrective action by the crew, resulting in alternate law which the pf was unable to cope with leading to a stall.

I would say that statistically, mismanagement of a manageable issue is a lot more likely than the others on that list.

Whiplash6 wrote:

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

bbcolo22 wrote:

That URL from the UK does however seem to have a video of when the 767 "starts to crash". Huh? Not much to see, but it seems to be moving very slowly. That could just be the effect that large aircraft have of moving slowly at low altitudes?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 2442028759

To me that looks like a hovering helicopter. Not to mention the forward area of the object looks like it is darker. Putting two and two together I find it highly unlikely that is a video of the crash...

Not to mention the guy who filmed the video says it’s a helicopter.

Ah. For some reason both times I played the video it did not have audio. My mistake!

Look at the basics. Flying into heavy weather in a an older plane. The debris field is full of large pieces over a decently sized area which means it came in at a moderate angle, but we're never going to see the close up pictures to show all that. The primary return could indicate a breakup in air and seeing the debris reflect radar back, if you see a news report about debris found over a mile away that will confirm that theory. It's probably a combination of a the thunderstorm and mechanical/structural failure or spatial disorientation.

You can basically rule out load shift (amazon packages are light) or a lightning strike (hasn't brought down a modern plane in decades), it was flying really high for birds, terrorism seems like a stretch and suicide has happened like twice in modern history. Double engine failure is even more rare and doesn't result in steep descent rates. Those aren't high probability bets. You can also rule out the "turn away from populated areas" theory. If you're handling an EP you're pretty damn busy and you don't have time for that. And it looks like they were IMC so they probably couldn't see much anyways. It's probably more likely that they saw they were headed towards a gigantic cell and was turning away from it or trying to exit it. Witnesses in aviation mishaps are notoriously unreliable so I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into what they say they saw, although it is interesting that they said there was no smoke or fire, it seems like 99% of the time people claim to see fire even though there was no evidence of it.

RIP to the crew, do the airlines or unions run fundraisers for the family like military organizations do?

At LUS our 767s were equipped as follows:

“It does produce electricity but not directly. The hydraulics that the RAT produces turns a special hydro-electric generator that supplies the electricity.”

klm617 wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Not if your flying surfaces are damaged.

Then the cause would be flight control damage, not a stall...

What facts do we have that it was a stall that brought down the 767

We don’t have any facts. It’s all speculation. I was just saying that a stall/elevator jam or malfunction/ breakup is much more likely than hail or birds.

One should not discount instrument failures considering they may have been in IMC and experienced spatial disorientation.

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

Whiplash6 wrote:

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

To me that looks like a hovering helicopter. Not to mention the forward area of the object looks like it is darker. Putting two and two together I find it highly unlikely that is a video of the crash...

Not to mention the guy who filmed the video says it’s a helicopter.

Ah. For some reason both times I played the video it did not have audio. My mistake!

It’s not your mistake. It’s the media. They took that video off of the guy’s Instagram page where he clearly states that it’s a helicopter in the comments and they still published it with the misleading headline. We have a serious fake news problem.

Whiplash6 wrote:

Halophila wrote:

With respect to everyone on here who knows far more about aircraft than I, could this be a result of a drone strike? Just curious as it seems to have been flying over a populated area at low altitude.

Caveat: I have no idea what I’m talking about- just an amateur non-pilot here...

No..

How do you know ? Haha goodness

Just some comments on some things i've been reading on the thread and hopefully to clear some things up on the premise that there may be some lay-people on here that have a difficult time cutting through the bull.

Not getting a call out to ATC: Pilots immediately getting on the radio about being in distress with ATC is a hollywood plot device as a way to narrate to the audience what the pilots are doing/thinking but that doesn't really happen in real life. If you doubt me just go rewatch miracle on the hudson and see how long it takes sully to make his first call to ATC and his aircraft was under control for the duration of the event. ATC is not contacted until the situation is under control and there are at least the broad strokes of a plan in the Captains mind. We want vectors to the nearest airport, we want vectors around weather, what is the weather at airport XYZ, how high is the terrain in this area? ATC can do nothing to help you get an out of control aircraft under control.

Whatever happened to this airplane it happened quick. Airplane crashes are rare, An airplane being down low, close to thunderstorms is a relatively rare event from the context of a whole flight is also rare. Put these two rare events together and it makes it likely that some phenomena of thunderstorms started the dominos to fall that caused this crash. That also means that other rare events that have nothing to do with thunderstorms is unlikely to be the cause. An unrelated random event like a bomb, hijacking/suicide, cargo fire would have more likely happened during the 95% of the flight that they were not near a thunderstorm.

As an analogy, most people in the US are murdered with guns. You walk upon a crime scene and there is a dead body with a gun lying next to it. There is also some random items like a plastic grocery bag full of groceries, a ladies hand bag, and a set of golf clubs sitting in the corner. Is it possible that the person was beaten to death with a golf club, or suffocated with the plastic grocery bag, or strangled with the strap of the ladies purse? Sure. If you are a detective should you work to eliminate those items as possible causes? sure. Is it likely that those other items caused the death of the victim? Probably not. Did this murder have something to do with the gun? Probably yes.

Lastly, I cannot imagine a drone bringing a 767 down so quickly. The 737 in Brazil hit another airplane that was at least 30 times heavier then the heaviest drones. Drones don't seem big enough to bring a 767 down this quickly.

TSS wrote:

KICT wrote:

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

Good point. I remember practicing stall recovery out over this bay area in a GA aircraft years ago out of the nearby Baytown airport.

Come on. Someone would have reported a GA aircraft missing by now.
Give me a break.

Not necessarily. If someone was flying their plane alone to a destination where they were not scheduled to meet up with anyone or to a private airfield somewhere, their absence might not be noted for a while. I'm not saying that's the only explanation or even the best one, but it does seem to be one of the more likely ones to explain the sudden apparent loss of control.

ATC most likely would have picked up the GA a/c on radar and the 767 has TCAS (unless it was deferred). Unlikely scenario IMO. This does make me think of the “primary target” ATC mentioned. But I believe this was after the 767 was going down. Possibly the 767 itself.

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/statu ... 5360812038

NTSB Briefing set for 4:00 PM local (central).

Whiplash6 wrote:

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

Whiplash6 wrote:

Not to mention the guy who filmed the video says it’s a helicopter.

Ah. For some reason both times I played the video it did not have audio. My mistake!

It’s not your mistake. It’s the media. They took that video off of the guy’s Instagram page where he clearly states that it’s a helicopter in the comments and they still published it with the misleading headline. We have a serious fake news problem.

Isn't the Daily Mail known within the UK for being more than a little bit sensationalistic?

Passedv1 wrote:

Just some comments on some things i've been reading on the thread and hopefully to clear some things up on the premise that there may be some lay-people on here that have a difficult time cutting through the bull.

Not getting a call out to ATC: Pilots immediately getting on the radio about being in distress with ATC is a hollywood plot device as a way to narrate to the audience what the pilots are doing/thinking but that doesn't really happen in real life. If you doubt me just go rewatch miracle on the hudson and see how long it takes sully to make his first call to ATC and his aircraft was under control for the duration of the event. ATC is not contacted until the situation is under control and there are at least the broad strokes of a plan in the Captains mind. We want vectors to the nearest airport, we want vectors around weather, what is the weather at airport XYZ, how high is the terrain in this area? ATC can do nothing to help you get an out of control aircraft under control.

Whatever happened to this airplane it happened quick. Airplane crashes are rare, An airplane being down low, close to thunderstorms is a relatively rare event from the context of a whole flight is also rare. Put these two rare events together and it makes it likely that some phenomena of thunderstorms started the dominos to fall that caused this crash. That also means that other rare events that have nothing to do with thunderstorms is unlikely to be the cause. An unrelated random event like a bomb, hijacking/suicide, cargo fire would have more likely happened during the 95% of the flight that they were not near a thunderstorm.

As an analogy, most people in the US are murdered with guns. You walk upon a crime scene and there is a dead body with a gun lying next to it. There is also some random items like a plastic grocery bag full of groceries, a ladies hand bag, and a set of golf clubs sitting in the corner. Is it possible that the person was beaten to death with a golf club, or suffocated with the plastic grocery bag, or strangled with the strap of the ladies purse? Sure. If you are a detective should you work to eliminate those items as possible causes? sure. Is it likely that those other items caused the death of the victim? Probably not. Did this murder have something to do with the gun? Probably yes.

Lastly, I cannot imagine a drone bringing a 767 down so quickly. The 737 in Brazil hit another airplane that was at least 30 times heavier then the heaviest drones. Drones don't seem big enough to bring a 767 down this quickly.

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The 767 has an HMG for electrics not a RAT. The 757 has a RAT

[*]

CriticalPoint wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The 767 is equipped with. RAT (Ram Air Turbine) that deploys to provide hydraulics and electricity.

The 767 has an HMG for electrics not a RAT. The 757 has a RAT

They have BOTH. HMG for electrics and RAT for flight controls.

glideslope900 wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

Just some comments on some things i've been reading on the thread and hopefully to clear some things up on the premise that there may be some lay-people on here that have a difficult time cutting through the bull.

Not getting a call out to ATC: Pilots immediately getting on the radio about being in distress with ATC is a hollywood plot device as a way to narrate to the audience what the pilots are doing/thinking but that doesn't really happen in real life. If you doubt me just go rewatch miracle on the hudson and see how long it takes sully to make his first call to ATC and his aircraft was under control for the duration of the event. ATC is not contacted until the situation is under control and there are at least the broad strokes of a plan in the Captains mind. We want vectors to the nearest airport, we want vectors around weather, what is the weather at airport XYZ, how high is the terrain in this area? ATC can do nothing to help you get an out of control aircraft under control.

Whatever happened to this airplane it happened quick. Airplane crashes are rare, An airplane being down low, close to thunderstorms is a relatively rare event from the context of a whole flight is also rare. Put these two rare events together and it makes it likely that some phenomena of thunderstorms started the dominos to fall that caused this crash. That also means that other rare events that have nothing to do with thunderstorms is unlikely to be the cause. An unrelated random event like a bomb, hijacking/suicide, cargo fire would have more likely happened during the 95% of the flight that they were not near a thunderstorm.

As an analogy, most people in the US are murdered with guns. You walk upon a crime scene and there is a dead body with a gun lying next to it. There is also some random items like a plastic grocery bag full of groceries, a ladies hand bag, and a set of golf clubs sitting in the corner. Is it possible that the person was beaten to death with a golf club, or suffocated with the plastic grocery bag, or strangled with the strap of the ladies purse? Sure. If you are a detective should you work to eliminate those items as possible causes? sure. Is it likely that those other items caused the death of the victim? Probably not. Did this murder have something to do with the gun? Probably yes.

Lastly, I cannot imagine a drone bringing a 767 down so quickly. The 737 in Brazil hit another airplane that was at least 30 times heavier then the heaviest drones. Drones don't seem big enough to bring a 767 down this quickly.

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Um yes they do the wind shear created by them brought down the Delta L1011 in DFW and the US DC9 in CLT.

Once again

At LUS our 767s were equipped as follows:

“It does produce electricity but not directly. The hydraulics that the RAT produces turns a special hydro-electric generator that supplies the electricity.”

We should all be smarter and dig up news ourselves. If I am looking for objective news I visit NTSB’ website or twitter first. Local news from the area where the aircraft ended should be your secondary option, although all information is preliminary pending details from NTSB and updates from recovery operations. Local news have direct quotes from NTSB go team and first responders (Sheriff, Coast Guards, local PD). Use technology or technology will abuse you!

Does anyone know if the NTSB hearing will be streamed?

Boof02671 wrote:

Once again

At LUS our 767s were equipped as follows:

“It does produce electricity but not directly. The hydraulics that the RAT produces turns a special hydro-electric generator that supplies the electricity.”

Not all 757/767 ships have an HDG. They are only installed on ETOPS capable tails. Non-ETOPS birds have a RAT for hydraulic power and batteries for emergency electrical power. LUS 767’s were all ETOPS capable, so you’re referencing a small sample.

TSS wrote:

Isn't the Daily Mail known within the UK for being more than a little bit sensationalistic?

Referred to by many in the UK as "The Daily Fail".

Boof02671 wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

Just some comments on some things i've been reading on the thread and hopefully to clear some things up on the premise that there may be some lay-people on here that have a difficult time cutting through the bull.

Not getting a call out to ATC: Pilots immediately getting on the radio about being in distress with ATC is a hollywood plot device as a way to narrate to the audience what the pilots are doing/thinking but that doesn't really happen in real life. If you doubt me just go rewatch miracle on the hudson and see how long it takes sully to make his first call to ATC and his aircraft was under control for the duration of the event. ATC is not contacted until the situation is under control and there are at least the broad strokes of a plan in the Captains mind. We want vectors to the nearest airport, we want vectors around weather, what is the weather at airport XYZ, how high is the terrain in this area? ATC can do nothing to help you get an out of control aircraft under control.

Whatever happened to this airplane it happened quick. Airplane crashes are rare, An airplane being down low, close to thunderstorms is a relatively rare event from the context of a whole flight is also rare. Put these two rare events together and it makes it likely that some phenomena of thunderstorms started the dominos to fall that caused this crash. That also means that other rare events that have nothing to do with thunderstorms is unlikely to be the cause. An unrelated random event like a bomb, hijacking/suicide, cargo fire would have more likely happened during the 95% of the flight that they were not near a thunderstorm.

As an analogy, most people in the US are murdered with guns. You walk upon a crime scene and there is a dead body with a gun lying next to it. There is also some random items like a plastic grocery bag full of groceries, a ladies hand bag, and a set of golf clubs sitting in the corner. Is it possible that the person was beaten to death with a golf club, or suffocated with the plastic grocery bag, or strangled with the strap of the ladies purse? Sure. If you are a detective should you work to eliminate those items as possible causes? sure. Is it likely that those other items caused the death of the victim? Probably not. Did this murder have something to do with the gun? Probably yes.

Lastly, I cannot imagine a drone bringing a 767 down so quickly. The 737 in Brazil hit another airplane that was at least 30 times heavier then the heaviest drones. Drones don't seem big enough to bring a 767 down this quickly.

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Um yes they do the wind shear created by them brought down the Delta L1011 in DFW and the US DC9 in CLT.

The Delta flight was much lower. This is not a good comparison.

Wind shear would not have brought down a plane from this height.

... Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

They most certainly can and have done - Air France lost two hull less than 2 years apart due to thunderstorms and crewmember incompetence. Countless other windshear/microburst events exist worldwide.

I can't imagine any scenario owing to engine flame out, bird strike, fuel starvation, hail, icing or the like being in play here. Aircraft can glide after loss of power. While there were thunderstorms, no reports of any hail on the ground anywhere near that.

NW747-400 wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

Once again

At LUS our 767s were equipped as follows:

“It does produce electricity but not directly. The hydraulics that the RAT produces turns a special hydro-electric generator that supplies the electricity.”

Not all 757/767 ships have an HDG. They are only installed on ETOPS capable tails. Non-ETOPS birds have a RAT for hydraulic power and batteries for emergency electrical power. LUS 767’s were all ETOPS capable, so you’re referencing a small sample.

The Atlas 767 was used as an ETOPS plane when it flew revenue passenger flights.

o0OOO0oChris wrote:

Let`s look at the last accidents on AVherald, several of them with a nosedive:
Lionair B38M- looks like single sided AOA failure, manageable mismanaged situation by the crew who where not properly informed about new systems.
PK-661 - catastrophic propeller failure due to fatigue - so basically mainteniance error?
West Air Sweden Flight 294 - IRS failure leading to wrong pitch indication, manageable but missmanaged by crew
Skyway Enterprises SH36 - loss of control while initiating a turn without any technical problems due to somatogravic illusion of the PF.
USA Jet Airlines DC91 at Saltillo - unstable final approach without having the runway in sight and consequent loss of control at low altitude before imminent impact.
A Global Aerolineas Damojh CU-972 The investigation so far determined that the crew climbed the aircraft at too steep a pitch angle (angle of attack) out of Havana leading to a stall and subsequent crash.
LAMIA Bolivia RJ85 - criminally planning a flight without any fuel reserves.
Flydubai FZ-981 - Mishandled goaround.
AeroUnion flight 6R-302 While on a missed approach the aircraft impacted terrain as result of loss of control.
Saratov Airlines 6W-703 pitot heatings off
Associated Aviation SCD-361 - The decision of the crew to continue the take-off despite the abnormal No. 2 Propeller rpm indication.Low altitude stall because of low thrust at start of roll for take-off from No. 2 Engine caused by an undetermined malfunction of the propeller control unit.
Tara Air TA-193 - enter into cloud during VFR flight and loss of situational awareness
Trigana Air Avions TGN-257-deviation from the visual approach guidance in visual flight rules without considering the weather and terrain condition
Iran Air IR-277 - bad weather conditions for the aircraft and inappropriate actions by cockpit crew to confront the situation
Sepahan A140 SPN-5915 - Electronic engine control (SAY-2000) failure simultaneously with engine No: 2 shutdown, just about 2 seconds before aircraft lift-off.AFM Confusing performance chart
Guicango D2-FDO - engine failure followed by fire. Around the position of the aircraft there was adverse weather
True AN26 S2-AGZ - Failure to initiate a rejected take off during take off roll following the indication of engine failure;Failure to adhere to the company SOP
Germanwings A320 - FO suicide
MyCargo B744 - Unstable approach
Sun Way IL76 -uncontained engine failure
Skyward F50 - aircraft departed about 500kg over maximum takeoff weight, The #1 propeller's rpm dropped from about 100% to about 50% and remained there for the remainder of the flight
TACA A320 at Tegucigalpa-decision to land on a runway without proper assessment of the operational conditions, weather, aircraft's landing weight and runway conditions
Yeti Airlines DHC6 at Lukla- flight crew's misjudgement, based on the weather information from all the preceding aircraft and Lukla Information, to enter into cloud patch on final
Aviastar DHC6 - Deviation from the company visual route without properly considering the elevated risks of cruising altitude lower than the highest terrain in IMC
Silk Way AN12 - Engine#3 at idle on takeoff
Metrojet A321 over Sinai - Bomb/Terror
Georgian Airways CRJ1 at Kinshasa - microburst
Transasia AT72 at Taipei - Engine failure on takeoff, shutdown wrong engine
Swiftair MD83 over Mali - non-activation of the engine anti-icing systems, crew's late reaction to the decrease in speed
Aliansa DC3 near San Vicente - failure to assess hazards and risks during flight planning as well as decision making during the VFR flight without verification of minimum safe altitudes.
LAM E190 over Botswana - CA suicide
Transasia AT72 at Makung-pilot flying intentionally descended the aircraft below the published MDA of 330 feet in the instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) without obtaining the required visual references.
Tatarstan B735 at Kazan -systemic weaknesses in identifying and controlling the levels of risk, non-functional safety management system in the airline and lack of control over the level of crew training by aviation authorities at all levels, that resulted in an unqualified crew being assigned to the flight.
JS Air B190 at Karachi - problem with its Engine No.2 (Right) immediately after takeoff -Some of the actions by the cockpit crew before takeoff and subsequent to the observed anomaly in the Engine No.2 were not according to the QRH / FCOM which aggravated the situation and resulted into the catastrophic accident.
Indonesia Asia A320 - Manageable technical failure escalated due to totally wrong corrective action by the crew, resulting in alternate law which the pf was unable to cope with leading to a stall.

I would say that statistically, mismanagement of a manageable issue is a lot more likely than the others on that list.

Thank you for this list. And I agree.

There is an Airworthiness Directive out since 2107 that requires replacement of the rear pressure bulkhead at around 60,000 hours, or 37,500 cycles. One would have to assume this has been done to this airplane? Very big job that requires many man hours and obviously a good MRO. Without this in place there is a very real possibility of structural failure and subsequent break up in place according to the AD language.

Having ordered alot of Amazon stuff in the past, another thought that came to mind. Batteries.... I have had a ton of lithium batteries from toys and hobbies shipped to me. Could it be possible that a sudden raging fire without warning hit suddenly? Say a fire in the back of the plane?

Would also be interesting to see the aircrafts maintenance history. So many possibilities, the guesses can be countless.

glideslope900 wrote:

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Passedv1's point wasn't that weather brought the a/c down by itself, but that it became one domino in a chain. Many air accidents these days seem to be composed of several errors, each one in itself not able to crash the flight, but put them together in the right order that causes them all to fall in the right (wrong) way and crash the flight. So the theory there is that weather was a contributing factor - in itself not enough to crash the flight - but caused something else bad to happen that did lead to the loss of aircraft.

Theory, anyway. Eager to hear about the NTSB update.

Boof02671 wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

Just some comments on some things i've been reading on the thread and hopefully to clear some things up on the premise that there may be some lay-people on here that have a difficult time cutting through the bull.

Not getting a call out to ATC: Pilots immediately getting on the radio about being in distress with ATC is a hollywood plot device as a way to narrate to the audience what the pilots are doing/thinking but that doesn't really happen in real life. If you doubt me just go rewatch miracle on the hudson and see how long it takes sully to make his first call to ATC and his aircraft was under control for the duration of the event. ATC is not contacted until the situation is under control and there are at least the broad strokes of a plan in the Captains mind. We want vectors to the nearest airport, we want vectors around weather, what is the weather at airport XYZ, how high is the terrain in this area? ATC can do nothing to help you get an out of control aircraft under control.

Whatever happened to this airplane it happened quick. Airplane crashes are rare, An airplane being down low, close to thunderstorms is a relatively rare event from the context of a whole flight is also rare. Put these two rare events together and it makes it likely that some phenomena of thunderstorms started the dominos to fall that caused this crash. That also means that other rare events that have nothing to do with thunderstorms is unlikely to be the cause. An unrelated random event like a bomb, hijacking/suicide, cargo fire would have more likely happened during the 95% of the flight that they were not near a thunderstorm.

As an analogy, most people in the US are murdered with guns. You walk upon a crime scene and there is a dead body with a gun lying next to it. There is also some random items like a plastic grocery bag full of groceries, a ladies hand bag, and a set of golf clubs sitting in the corner. Is it possible that the person was beaten to death with a golf club, or suffocated with the plastic grocery bag, or strangled with the strap of the ladies purse? Sure. If you are a detective should you work to eliminate those items as possible causes? sure. Is it likely that those other items caused the death of the victim? Probably not. Did this murder have something to do with the gun? Probably yes.

Lastly, I cannot imagine a drone bringing a 767 down so quickly. The 737 in Brazil hit another airplane that was at least 30 times heavier then the heaviest drones. Drones don't seem big enough to bring a 767 down this quickly.

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Um yes they do the wind shear created by them brought down the Delta L1011 in DFW and the US DC9 in CLT.

Well, the Delta was on short final at a lower altitude, configured for landing, at a slower speed. This B767 was at 7000ft and clean with room and altitude to maneuever. Also, many other aircraft flew through the same area.

The poster stated a thunderstorm never brought down a plane, I simply pointed out that it has. The poster had no prequalifiers in the post.

smithbs wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

I would have to disagree that thunderstorms played a role in this accident. Flying in the vicinity of thunderstorms can cause severe turbulence, yes. But they do not bring down jetliners.

Passedv1's point wasn't that weather brought the a/c down by itself, but that it became one domino in a chain. Many air accidents these days seem to be composed of several errors, each one in itself not able to crash the flight, but put them together in the right order that causes them all to fall in the right (wrong) way and crash the flight. So the theory there is that weather was a contributing factor - in itself not enough to crash the flight - but caused something else bad to happen that did lead to the loss of aircraft.

Theory, anyway. Eager to hear about the NTSB update.

Don't they say that, usually, a crash is the result of at least 3 failures? Remove one and it is downgraded to an incident.

The speculation here has really gone off the deep end. I'm perfectly fine with people not knowing things, but we need to have a little bit of common sense.

Mid-air collision? Come on. There is no other plane missing, and EVEN IF you dig way down into the weeds and assume that aircraft was trying to hide, unless it was the latest stealth technology available to the flying public, that aircraft would still paint a primary target on a radar scope. Given no traffic advisories were issued to GTI3591, we can easily rule this one out.

It's a lot harder to figure out what did happen, but it can be pretty easy to figure out what didn't happen.

Anything that would cause the aircraft to stop producing thrust (double flameout, birds ingested into both engines a la Cactus 1549, fuel starvation etc.) simply wouldn't result in a rapid, uncontrolled descent.

The same is true of bird strikes, drone strikes, hail, lightning. Those things just don't bring down a transport category aircraft.

The list is fairly short that can is pretty short, and given the circumstances and phase of flight, some mechanical failure is probably a major factor.

F9Animal wrote:

Having ordered alot of Amazon stuff in the past, another thought that came to mind. Batteries.... I have had a ton of lithium batteries from toys and hobbies shipped to me.

Were those delivered via ground service?