Boof02671 wrote:

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 and was an ETOPS airplane when it flew revenue passengers.

Not that it is likely relevant to the accident but N1217A was an ETOPS certified airplane so it would have had the HDG installed.

Systems wise the activation of the RAT and HDG are two separate scenarios, the RAT will be deployed automatically (assuming it’s not manually deployed) with a dual engine failure. The HDG will automatically activate with a loss of both AC busses. So while one can lead to the other they are two completely separate systems. Our manuals also state that the RAT provides “hydraulic power to the flight controls portion of the center hydraulic system.” The HDG on the other hand relies on center air demand pump to ensure sufficient pressure and if you have no engines turning you have no bleed pressure so the HDG wouldn’t work. This is a long winded way of saying that if I’m reading this all correctly by the time the RAT automatically deploys you have no way of powering the HDG and your backup power is from the batteries.

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. 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.

While I’m not ruling out anything at this point I believe this is highly unlikely. While it is very likely that goods with batteries were being transported on the airplane they are not stand alone lithium batteries. Referencing the UPS 6 crash, it was a pallet of stand alone lithium batteries that caused the fire. Even though the crew had a fire that they were unable to put out the aircraft flew for almost 30 minutes before it crashed. So while a battery fire may have happened it would have 1.) been on a much smaller scale and 2.) wouldn’t have brought the plane down in less than a minute. If there was a cargo fire we are trained to get the airplane on the ground ASAP, which meant you would have more than likely had the non-flying pilot running the checklist while the flying pilot would be on the radio coordinating with ATC almost immediately. So while you are in a serious time crunch you have minutes to get the airplane on the ground, not seconds. A battery fire doesn’t add up in this case.

guppyflyer wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

The Unreliable Airspeed training is why I think there was also control surface damage. The pilots can sort out the UnrelAS, esp. after the publicity from Lion Air... but if the elevator and/or horizontal stab don't respond ....

Name one scenario that can keep an airplane intact but render complete loss of control to both the stabizers and elevators.

There are a lot of “expert” theories on this thread that have no basis behind them. Now we are even up to suggesting it was pilot suicide.

Let’s let the experts figure out what happened.

Alaska 261 comes to mind.

That was a jackscrew failure in a system that has a different design. Good point, but not applicable to the 767.

SaveFerris wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

NW747-400 wrote:

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 and was an ETOPS airplane when it flew revenue passengers.

Not that it is likely relevant to the accident but N1217A was an ETOPS certified airplane so it would have had the HDG installed.

Systems wise the activation of the RAT and HDG are two separate scenarios, the RAT will be deployed automatically (assuming it’s not manually deployed) with a dual engine failure. The HDG will automatically activate with a loss of both AC busses. So while one can lead to the other they are two completely separate systems. Our manuals also state that the RAT provides “hydraulic power to the flight controls portion of the center hydraulic system.” The HDG on the other hand relies on center air demand pump to ensure sufficient pressure and if you have no engines turning you have no bleed pressure so the HDG wouldn’t work. This is a long winded way of saying that if I’m reading this all correctly by the time the RAT automatically deploys you have no way of powering the HDG and your backup power is from the batteries.

Are you talking about the Hydaulic Motor Generator? I know it as the HMG.

The Dual Engine Failure procedure has memory steps to start the APU and push the RAT switch to back-up the automatic deployment (on the 777 and 787 the APU also starts automatically if both engines go sub-idle).

Reading through your write up, I think the RAT powering the C Hydraulic System would power the HMG. I’d have to talk to a Hydualics expert. I didn’t think you’d need an ADP active in order for the HMG to be active.

BoeingGuy wrote:

guppyflyer wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Name one scenario that can keep an airplane intact but render complete loss of control to both the stabizers and elevators.

There are a lot of “expert” theories on this thread that have no basis behind them. Now we are even up to suggesting it was pilot suicide.

Let’s let the experts figure out what happened.

Alaska 261 comes to mind.

That was a jackscrew failure in a system that has a different design. Good point, but not applicable to the 767.

Agreed, and not only that, but AS261 flew for quite a long time while the crew tried to sort things out.

usxguy wrote:

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.

I'm thinking the same thing - the left turn isn't part of the approach. If the turn was intentional, then the pilots are heroes for not putting this plane down on terra firma and possibly causing significant damage or loss of life.

I was thinking they may have been going for the water as their best chance of surviving. Not to mention avoiding killing people on the ground.

BoeingGuy wrote:

SaveFerris wrote:

Boof02671 wrote:

The Atlas 767 was used and was an ETOPS airplane when it flew revenue passengers.

Not that it is likely relevant to the accident but N1217A was an ETOPS certified airplane so it would have had the HDG installed.

Systems wise the activation of the RAT and HDG are two separate scenarios, the RAT will be deployed automatically (assuming it’s not manually deployed) with a dual engine failure. The HDG will automatically activate with a loss of both AC busses. So while one can lead to the other they are two completely separate systems. Our manuals also state that the RAT provides “hydraulic power to the flight controls portion of the center hydraulic system.” The HDG on the other hand relies on center air demand pump to ensure sufficient pressure and if you have no engines turning you have no bleed pressure so the HDG wouldn’t work. This is a long winded way of saying that if I’m reading this all correctly by the time the RAT automatically deploys you have no way of powering the HDG and your backup power is from the batteries.

Are you talking about the Hydaulic Motor Generator? I know it as the HMG.

The Dual Engine Failure procedure has memory steps to start the APU and push the RAT switch to back-up the automatic deployment (on the 777 and 787 the APU also starts automatically if both engines go sub-idle).

Reading through your write up, I think the RAT powering the C Hydraulic System would power the HMG. I’d have to talk to a Hydualics expert. I didn’t think you’d need an ADP active in order for the HMG to be active.

Yes, our manuals call it the Hydraulic Driven Generator (HDG) but it is the exact same thing. You are correct about the Dual Engine failure procedure and once the APU is up and running the center ADP would be operating powering the entire center system, so essentially the RAT is now redundant. I think what this boils down to is will the RAT power the HMG/HDG until the APU is started. If you do find an answer from a hydraulics guru please PM me, I’m now very curious.

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

Bird strikes ("bird flak") discussed upthread.

Indy wrote:

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

I've never heard of a bird strike making a 200 ton airplane suddenly do a nose dive. If both engines had failed due to a bird strike they would have been able to fly dead stick for several minutes, probably 15 miles at least. They would have been talking to ATC and looking for a place to land.

I'm not familiar with that area, and whether there are any airports nearby they could have glided to.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Indy wrote:

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

I've never heard of a bird strike making a 200 ton airplane suddenly do a nose dive. If both engines had failed due to a bird strike they would have been able to fly dead stick for several minutes, probably 15 miles at least. They would have been talking to ATC and looking for a place to land.

I'm not familiar with that area, and whether there are any airports nearby they could have glided to.

Certainly, or ditch in the bay. This doesn’t appear to be a loss of thrust in both engines.

KentB27 wrote:

We haven't had a commercial airliner crash on US soil with fatalities since 2009.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_ ... Flight_214

A commercial airliner crash on US soil with three fatalities in 2013.

But again, point taken. No offense. Airliner crashes are far more news worthy than car crashes. Because they are rarer and usually involve more casualties.

The LIon battery / fire scenario is an interesting one.

While we're at it: drone interference?

Given the strange dip in airspeed as well as a shallow climb just before the nose dive. Is it possible to have selected too much speed brake as the autopilot was leveling off and the airplane pitched the nose up too high and the pilots didn't see it until it was too late, then they responded incorrectly?

I used to believe speed brakes were not used in the last few minutes of flight (or maybe below 10,000 ft) but on an UA A319 from PHX to Houston on Sep 21st 2018 in the same situation (a line of storms over the approach path (common for IAH, i'd imagine)) we held SW of Houston at 18,000 feet for a half hour and the captain kept updating us. He said "we're holding at 18000 feet sw of Houston looking for a window to get in to Houston, ATC has started allowing approaches to Houston so were expecting to get an approach clearance momentarily. Then 5 minutes later he said "alright folks we are beginning our approach to Houston should be on the ground in 20 minutes. cabin crew take your seats." What a bumpy, scary approach. 2 minutes after we left the hold were going through the clouds and the rain is coming down so heavy it's deafening. I rarely get scared flying but this was bad. It was so dark and the visibility was so bad. I noticed the speed brakes came out and they were just staying out. We took a steep left turn and then a long right turn. Then our flaps were coming out and the speed brake was still up. Finally, we get a break in the clouds and we are maybe 5000 feet up. Then flaps 2 or maybe 1+F, not sure and the speed brake finally goes away. Then we go right back into a thunderstorm its dark visibility is so bad I cant see the wing tips clearly, I can barely see out the window. We touch down and there is applause - usually, American's don't applaud a landing but it was a pretty intense approach. The captain says "Well we just eeked in, they just closed the airport again." 10 minutes after we landed flights began arriving again. Then 10 minutes later it was pouring down so hard I couldn't see the closest runway lights (8R) from the international terminal.

Point being, it seems like there is pressure in Houston to get flights in even during bad weather and the bad weather there is extremely dynamic and unpredictable. It seems like it would really increase the work load. Someone I was sitting next to watching the storm, said this isn't really that bad, Houston gets really bad thunderstorms. After they bent a 767 last year i'm wondering if Atlas is hiring good pilots or just whatever they can find so they can cash in on this amazon Prime thing. It seems like there have been quite a few crashes of cargo aircraft in the last decade at the same times there hasn't been one hull loss of a passenger plane.

How do guys retrieve the old metars for the time of the accident? I’d be interested to see if the airport was turning around and if a runway change was a concern.

klm617 wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

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?

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control. So yes you need to focus ALL you attention at getting the bird under control and the last thing you're thinking of is contacting ATC to relay back some information that is not going to help you get the aircraft under control.

Thank you for the explanation klm617 (and others too). I was more thinking in telling the outside world (ATC) what's going on. So we at least have a clue right away instead of maybe many months later. But I can imagine that's not how it works.

savethequads wrote:

After they bent a 767 last year i'm wondering if Atlas is hiring good pilots or just whatever they can find so they can cash in on this amazon Prime thing. It seems like there have been quite a few crashes of cargo aircraft in the last decade at the same times there hasn't been one hull loss of a passenger plane.

It's unfortunate that you had to go there in an otherwise decent (not descent) post. They have co-workers who have commented in this very thread and who knew at least one of the pilots on the doomed flight - I'm sure they will respond in due order.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

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

If it was a suicide, why on approach and not in the middle of the mile deep GOM?

Whiplash6 wrote:

How do guys retrieve the old metars for the time of the accident? I’d be interested to see if the airport was turning around and if a runway change was a concern.

IAH was west flow the whole time.

savethequads wrote:

Given the strange dip in airspeed as well as a shallow climb just before the nose dive. Is it possible to have selected too much speed brake as the autopilot was levelling off and the aeroplane pitched the nose up too high and the pilots didn't see it until it was too late, then they responded incorrectly?

This would require a massive loss of situational awareness not only from the PF, but from the PNF and the jumpseater. You can pretty much apply full speed brake at any moment you like (provided flaps are down to max 5º)* without any fear of adverse inputs from the autopilot or autothrottle systems. Also, any nose-up tendency is compensated by the autopilot (via rudder/rudder trim inputs). Once you level-off, and with speed brakes out, the autothrottle will start to add power when the speed approaches the selected speed, and this input is gentle (not an instant firewalling of the engines), so pitch/power couple is not an issue, as I see it.

*You can apply the speed brake with any flap setting, but not recommended by Boeing on settings greater than 5º, due to vibration onset.

klm617 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control.

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

Babyshark 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.

.

7- midair

Happened to a 738 in Brazil that hit an EMB135BJ in cruise over the Amazon. The 738 lost its stab I believe, nosed over and crashed killing all aboard.

Not saying that’s what happened but to be fair it has happened.

But, IIRC in that Brasil crash it was quickly determined it was a midair, and this was in a remote area of the earth in a second-world country. This was Houston, with countless redundant communications and tracking systems...where is the other aircraft?

Is the idea of an inflight fire too far fetched? I know most aircraft these days have a fire suppression system on board but with how many devices out there using Li-ion batteries.

deltadudejg wrote:

Is the idea of an inflight fire too far fetched? I know most aircraft these days have a fire suppression system on board but with how many devices out there using Li-ion batteries.

A fire can certainly bring a plane down but not in a few seconds. If there had been a fire the crew would have been seeking an airport to land at immediately and would certainly be communicating with ATC.

It would be interesting to know when the last transponder return was received by Flight Radar 24. In the Houston area, I would think that there are several receiving sites. Some may be closer to the crash site than the controller site which would be at the radar site. This might show better how close to the ground the plane was and it's transponder was interrogated by any radar and thus still had power.

If you dismiss all the "what if's" that have a probability of occurrence, considering the available facts at hand, of .01 percent or less, and the seconds in the crash sequence, you are left with an on board catastrophic event that has enough energy to disable the pilot's ability to control the aircraft. A explosion is one obvious event, but you would think that, considering the time sequence, the plane would have come down in several pieces. An engine disintegration if it came apart in the right way, cutting control cables for instance, might do it. The ANG had a plane that crashed from that, but in that case it was a prop that came off and sliced through the plane sitting off a chain of events that resulted in the plane coming apart. In this event the plane was descending and the engines were probably at very reduced power and unlikely to have a turbine failure.

I am left with an event in the cockpit that prevented the crew from controlling a perfectly good aircraft, resulted in an odd left turn and a strong pushover, and occurred in seconds. Hard to believe that was not the result of the actions of one or more crewmembers.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Indy wrote:

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

I've never heard of a bird strike making a 200 ton airplane suddenly do a nose dive. If both engines had failed due to a bird strike they would have been able to fly dead stick for several minutes, probably 15 miles at least. They would have been talking to ATC and looking for a place to land.

I'm not familiar with that area, and whether there are any airports nearby they could have glided to.

When I saw birds mentioned earlier in the thread I had a specific scenario in mind - a large bird hitting the window and penetrating it, knocking one of the pilots unconscious, causing him to slump forward on the controls and push the plane into a dive. Is that something that could conceivably happen?

There's a reason for CVRs.... one of which is that pilots may not get to the communicate step during an uncommanded dive.

ClubCX wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Indy wrote:

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

I've never heard of a bird strike making a 200 ton airplane suddenly do a nose dive. If both engines had failed due to a bird strike they would have been able to fly dead stick for several minutes, probably 15 miles at least. They would have been talking to ATC and looking for a place to land.

I'm not familiar with that area, and whether there are any airports nearby they could have glided to.

When I saw birds mentioned earlier in the thread I had a specific scenario in mind - a large bird hitting the window and penetrating it, knocking one of the pilots unconscious, causing him to slump forward on the controls and push the plane into a dive. Is that something that could conceivably happen?

No

ELBOB wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control.

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

All of those other stakeholders aren’t onboard the doomed flight, therefore, cannot possibly relate to what’s going on in the minds of this crew.

Oh and by the way, trying to regain control of any jet is AVIATING. Do you not see how ridiculous you sound?

How do you know the crew knew what the problem was? What if in the heat of the battle they state the entirely wrong reason for their demise and possibly send the investigators down the wrong path? You take way too many liberties with your theory. The only thing certain in all of this was they quickly realized they were at the end of their lives. How in the hell would you expect them to think of anyone other than their own survival or best case their own families?

You’re digging deeper a hole unnecessarily just to attempt to be right.


ILL

ELBOB wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control.

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

WOW, what a condescending comment filled with inaccuracies.

First of all, have you heard of "it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings"? That means, until you're really done (in this case, in the ground), there is always time to try something to save you and your crew.
Second, human nature says we (as Humans, and pilots are Humans) will do everything we can to save ourselves.

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either

That is utterly wrong. Many incidents or disasters have been avoided due to extremely quick reaction from pilots; the last one I can think of is the 787 go-around in London (LHR I believe) a week or two ago, where the pilots responded to what appeared to be a windshear with only a few seconds to react.

We don't know what brought down this plane; maybe the pilots (RIP) didn't even know. Maybe it was indeed unrecoverable, maybe it could have been.

Don't judge them until we know the facts.

TTailedTiger wrote:

deltadudejg wrote:

Is the idea of an inflight fire too far fetched? I know most aircraft these days have a fire suppression system on board but with how many devices out there using Li-ion batteries.

A fire can certainly bring a plane down but not in a few seconds. If there had been a fire the crew would have been seeking an airport to land at immediately and would certainly be communicating with ATC.

Such an example of that is UPS Flight 6; the flight went down about 30 minutes after the fire was discovered.

Catastrophic failures are generally the result of several failures any which alone does not bring an aircraft down.

They were heading towards a storm system and in a migratory bird path. Given the rate of descent it's likely they had power. There is no indication of a mid air break up.

They had power but not control.
-Pilot incapacitation
-Loss of structural integrity/control of the flight surfaces
-a lack of time to respond to conflicting information

They were likely focused on the weather. Something happened, maybe a bird strike. Maybe some unknown degredation of something "broke" as a result and sent the situation into something unrecoverable in the 20 seconds it took to go down.

I hope they find the recorders soon, especially for the families so they will have answers.

It looks like they just retired the flight number 3591 and changed/replaced it to 4543: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI ... /KMIA/KIAH

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.

I have to say, that's what I was thinking too.

ELBOB wrote:

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

Elbob - do you care to elaborate how you view this as a slogan?

Flight EA 401 in the Everglades should be a good reminder of why it’s important (and supported by NTSB).

TTailedTiger wrote:

kabq737 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

Is all cargo screened? This is absolutely tragic but will be even more devastating if this was something criminal.

I'm not making any preidctions but crashing from weather seems a little far-fetched. When was the last time a transport category jet crashed due to weather in the US? The US Air DC-9 at CLT?

I think criminal activity is probably more far fetched than weather to be honest. Not to say that this accident is any less tragic because there were only 3 souls onboard but the fact of the matter is that having only 3 onboard doesn’t make it a very big target. It is also worth noting that as an all amazon flight it would be very hard for anything but common goods to be on this flight. Not saying it’s impossigle but it doesn’t seem extremely likely either.

I see your point. And like I said I'm not making any claims to what happened. I'll wait for the NTSB report. Just thinking about things that could have caused such a quick disaster. But perhaps someone with a grudge working for or as a contractor for Atlas put a device among the packages. And not all bombs make the plane explode in one big kaboom. Especially if they are not at a high altitude such as this crash. See Metrojet 9268 as an example. They were able to save the flight since the bomb went off before reaching the cruise altitude. Perhaps something similar happened here but it took out a critical flight component.

I did see online that 6 witnesses saw the plane go down intact. A bomb also usually goes off soon after departure

ELBOB wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control.

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

But the mind doesn't process things that way. It wants to survive and do what ever it can to try to live until the aircraft impacts with the ground.

BN727227Ultra wrote:

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

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

If it was a suicide, why on approach and not in the middle of the mile deep GOM?

*If* it was...It's not a mental state where you can always inject a rational thought process into such an irrational action.

log0008 wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

More likely the turn was to avoid weather, which is what they wanted from ATC.

GF

Doubtful. That turn is sudden and intentional... not ATC instructed. This looks like a turn to avoid casualties on the ground.

I'm not discounting this but to me it doesn't make sence, at the time of the turn the aircraft was descending at a stable rate, what could go so wrong that you thought you were going to loss control very shortly, but you had enough control to make the turn? The turn was definitely intentional, just a matter of why, could have been due weather but for some reason they didn't tell ATC or Liveatc missed the message. Its even possible that something cause a loss of comms meaning they couldn't advise of the turn.

I would like to point out that losing control of the elevators doesn't mean you lose control of the ailerons. If they lost pitch control, they could still roll left towards uninhabited land. Still unlikely, but it can't be ruled out.

ClubCX wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Indy wrote:

I was going to ask if it was possible that it could have been a situation involving a bird strike. They were relatively near water and birds do fly that high. But that wouldn't have prevented them from making a distress call. I also cannot imagine even a massive bird strike taking down a jet that fast. Whatever this was, it happened fast and didn't allow the crew time to make a distress call. Would that narrow the list of possible causes?

I've never heard of a bird strike making a 200 ton airplane suddenly do a nose dive. If both engines had failed due to a bird strike they would have been able to fly dead stick for several minutes, probably 15 miles at least. They would have been talking to ATC and looking for a place to land.

I'm not familiar with that area, and whether there are any airports nearby they could have glided to.

When I saw birds mentioned earlier in the thread I had a specific scenario in mind - a large bird hitting the window and penetrating it, knocking one of the pilots unconscious, causing him to slump forward on the controls and push the plane into a dive. Is that something that could conceivably happen?

The windows are heated to make them not shatter. They are also tested to withstand bird strikes. Further if one pilot slumlord over the controls, the other pilot could maintain control of the airplane. You are also forgetting that the pilots are wearing shoulder harnesses. He’s restrained in the event of incapacitation.

How about we let the experts figure out what happened, shall we?

In 1977 a Dan-Air 707 lost a horizontal stabilizer on final due to undetected corrosion. Airplane lost pitch control, nosed down and crashed.
Similar?

WayexTDI wrote:

ELBOB wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It has nothing to do with how easy it can be done. It has to do with diverting attention away from trying to solve and issue. You have seconds to deal with an upset and you have to think quickly and rationally and you need to have complete focus on getting the plane under control.

"Aviate - navigate - communicate" is a slogan that contributes to the cult of the Hero Pilot and probably causes more deaths in subsequent crashes until root causes are found. Note how it's only pilots that consider it a truism, not ATCOs or dispatchers or air-accident investigators?

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either. Might as well get something useful out to the World. A quick call on the PTT by the FO "World Air 223 uncommand dive".

But go on ahead Being A Hero, riding the bird down in radio silence. Let others die too in ignorance in your footsteps.

WOW, what a condescending comment filled with inaccuracies.

First of all, have you heard of "it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings"? That means, until you're really done (in this case, in the ground), there is always time to try something to save you and your crew.
Second, human nature says we (as Humans, and pilots are Humans) will do everything we can to save ourselves.

If you only have seconds to regain control, you're not going to have time to aviate either

That is utterly wrong. Many incidents or disasters have been avoided due to extremely quick reaction from pilots; the last one I can think of is the 787 go-around in London (LHR I believe) a week or two ago, where the pilots responded to what appeared to be a windshear with only a few seconds to react.

We don't know what brought down this plane; maybe the pilots (RIP) didn't even know. Maybe it was indeed unrecoverable, maybe it could have been.

Don't judge them until we know the facts.

That’s a little overly dramatic. Boeing airplanes have two different Windshear alerting systems that would alert them of the condition so they can take action. Pilots are trained in the Windshear escape maneuver.

At that point, in a normal approach into IAH (& just before the unexplained left turn) what would the crew be doing that would/could change flight characteristics, mechanical stresses, or computer inputs/control. Something changed/happened over Anahuac so I'm thinking in terms of action/cause and effect.

Who here has seen the very brief video clip of the plane shortly before it went down? The news report said the plane was at about 1000 feet in the video. It looks to be flying level. Whether it was 1000, 2000 or 3000 feet, that plane looked under control for at least those few seconds. Eyewitness reports said it went down at about a 45 degree angle. Of course I wouldn't put much faith in that kind of an estimate. But we we know the plane lost a lot of altitude in a hurry and then was flying level at a low level near the lake. From there it apparently went down at a decent angle.

savethequads wrote:

Given the strange dip in airspeed as well as a shallow climb just before the nose dive. Is it possible to have selected too much speed brake as the autopilot was leveling off and the airplane pitched the nose up too high and the pilots didn't see it until it was too late, then they responded incorrectly?

I used to believe speed brakes were not used in the last few minutes of flight (or maybe below 10,000 ft) but on an UA A319 from PHX to Houston on Sep 21st 2018 in the same situation (a line of storms over the approach path (common for IAH, i'd imagine)) we held SW of Houston at 18,000 feet for a half hour and the captain kept updating us. He said "we're holding at 18000 feet sw of Houston looking for a window to get in to Houston, ATC has started allowing approaches to Houston so were expecting to get an approach clearance momentarily. Then 5 minutes later he said "alright folks we are beginning our approach to Houston should be on the ground in 20 minutes. cabin crew take your seats." What a bumpy, scary approach. 2 minutes after we left the hold were going through the clouds and the rain is coming down so heavy it's deafening. I rarely get scared flying but this was bad. It was so dark and the visibility was so bad. I noticed the speed brakes came out and they were just staying out. We took a steep left turn and then a long right turn. Then our flaps were coming out and the speed brake was still up. Finally, we get a break in the clouds and we are maybe 5000 feet up. Then flaps 2 or maybe 1+F, not sure and the speed brake finally goes away. Then we go right back into a thunderstorm its dark visibility is so bad I cant see the wing tips clearly, I can barely see out the window. We touch down and there is applause - usually, American's don't applaud a landing but it was a pretty intense approach. The captain says "Well we just eeked in, they just closed the airport again." 10 minutes after we landed flights began arriving again. Then 10 minutes later it was pouring down so hard I couldn't see the closest runway lights (8R) from the international terminal.

Point being, it seems like there is pressure in Houston to get flights in even during bad weather and the bad weather there is extremely dynamic and unpredictable. It seems like it would really increase the work load. Someone I was sitting next to watching the storm, said this isn't really that bad, Houston gets really bad thunderstorms. After they bent a 767 last year i'm wondering if Atlas is hiring good pilots or just whatever they can find so they can cash in on this amazon Prime thing. It seems like there have been quite a few crashes of cargo aircraft in the last decade at the same times there hasn't been one hull loss of a passenger plane.

The weather in Houston was not "bad" at the time of this accident.

Does anyone know if the NTSB briefing is streaming anywhere? I can't seem to find it.

Brandon757 wrote:

Does anyone know if the NTSB briefing is streaming anywhere? I can't seem to find it.

Live stream:
https://abc13.com/live/23374/

The NTSB has video of the aircraft from the Chambers County Jail..... "steep descent" is noted in the video.

per NTSB: "no HAZMAT on-board."