Atlas Air 3591 Down in Trinity Bay, Texas

CALTECH · Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:40 am

wjcandee wrote:
CALTECH wrote:

Well, Air France 447 couldn't recover from 38,000 or so feet.

I know you're being snarky, but you realize, of course, that the correct statement is that "AF447 couldn't recover from a bunkie who had the sidestick pulled full-back in manual mode". Given that the captain figured out the problem at the end, if they had had even 10,000 feet they should have been able to recover.

Not being snarky at all. The statement was '7000 AGL is enough to recover with proper technique.' There are many instances where the 'proper technique' wasn't performed at many different altitudes after a LOC, resulting in the loss of the aircraft. West Caribbean Airways 708 is another one that happened at altitude, and along with AF 447, they had plenty of time, minutes to figure it out and recover, but didn't. You even state 'if' AF447 had 10,000 feet they should have recovered, and they weren't in a very fast vertical dive, where seconds are all that a aircraft in a vertical dive has, not minutes.

glideslope900 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:52 am

CALTECH wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
CALTECH wrote:

Well, Air France 447 couldn't recover from 38,000 or so feet.

I know you're being snarky, but you realize, of course, that the correct statement is that "AF447 couldn't recover from a bunkie who had the sidestick pulled full-back in manual mode". Given that the captain figured out the problem at the end, if they had had even 10,000 feet they should have been able to recover.

Not being snarky at all. The statement was '7000 AGL is enough to recover with proper technique.' There are many instances where the 'proper technique' wasn't performed at many different altitudes after a LOC, resulting in the loss of the aircraft. West Caribbean Airways 708 is another one that happened at altitude, and along with AF 447, they had plenty of time, minutes to figure it out and recover, but didn't. You even state 'if' AF447 had 10,000 feet they should have recovered, and they weren't in a very fast vertical dive, where seconds are all that a aircraft in a vertical dive has, not minutes.

I actually agree that it could theoretically be a botched stall recovery and LOC as I mentioned previously, however I think this scenario is very unlikely.

If they used proper technique in a stall recovery, 7000ft is more than enough to recover is what I was saying.

CALTECH · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:05 am

glideslope900 wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Aircraft stalled. Too low to the ground to recover. Weather a factor. Looks so much like other stall with vertical dives.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-hOBoJTOA

https://baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-boein ... -50-killed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri7BYZwKINU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onM9VfDJaJI

https://aviation-safety.net/FZ981

Though I won't speculate on the cause of this accident, there have been other stalls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_676

These crashes have absolutely no comparison to 3591...

They occurred very close to the ground during a botched go around procedure.

The Atlas was descending normally at 7000ft!

They sure do have every comparison to The Atlas.

And the Atlas went vertical and was not descending normally somewhere below 7000ft !

CALTECH · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:12 am

glideslope900 wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

I know you're being snarky, but you realize, of course, that the correct statement is that "AF447 couldn't recover from a bunkie who had the sidestick pulled full-back in manual mode". Given that the captain figured out the problem at the end, if they had had even 10,000 feet they should have been able to recover.

Not being snarky at all. The statement was '7000 AGL is enough to recover with proper technique.' There are many instances where the 'proper technique' wasn't performed at many different altitudes after a LOC, resulting in the loss of the aircraft. West Caribbean Airways 708 is another one that happened at altitude, and along with AF 447, they had plenty of time, minutes to figure it out and recover, but didn't. You even state 'if' AF447 had 10,000 feet they should have recovered, and they weren't in a very fast vertical dive, where seconds are all that a aircraft in a vertical dive has, not minutes.

I actually agree that it could theoretically be a botched stall recovery and LOC as I mentioned previously, however I think this scenario is very unlikely.

If they used proper technique in a stall recovery, 7000ft is more than enough to recover is what I was saying.

Okay, yes should be, if that turns out what happened. It is just a opinion and speculation on what might have happened. The investigation will find the answers to what happened. AF 447 was eye opening that they stalled the airplane and didn't recover. And they had a lot more time and altitude which didn't help.

TSS · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:54 am

litz wrote:
TSS wrote:
it seems like the best way to keep all the found parts organized would be to lay them out in their original location within the outline of a 767 on the floor of a warehouse even if reconstructing the aircraft in 3D on scaffolding as was done with TWA 800 proves unnecessary. Also, if the data from both the CVR and the FDR seem to agree on a specific cause such as structural or control surface failure, it would be much easier for investigators to literally walk to the area of the failure on the aircraft and start looking for clues as to the cause there rather than having to sift through crates, boxes, and containers to find the pieces they want.

This is exactly what they do ... it's a 2D recovery/layout at first, then if they need to go into 3D, they have the parts at hand, from the 2D layout.

You can actually see this process in great detail in the NASA documentation of the Columbia investigation, as well as TWA800.

For that matter, last Sunday's episode of Air Disasters, which covered MH17, they did the same thing as well, with a floor level layout, before moving into a 3D wireframe of the cockpit area + forward fuselage.

Using the floor layout past a certain point in the collection process would also make it clear which pieces the investigators are missing that might have come off the aircraft before the crash and thus wouldn't be found in the main debris field such as a big chunk of wing root faring or a lower cargo hold door and the horizontal stabilizer on the same side. I'm not saying either one of those is likely in this particular scenario, just using them as examples.

wjcandee · Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:27 am

OB1504 wrote:
I recall uproar at Amerijet because they either didn’t have lavs on their 727s or didn’t plan to install them on their 767s

It wouldn't have been the 767s. Those are leased from CAM, an ATSG subsidiary. The 767-200s were, to my recollection, IAI conversions and ex-Airborne/ABX, and would have had lavs. The 767-300s are recently-converted BDSFs from IAI, which also have lavs. The 727s, years ago, I dunno. I heard some of this with respect to DC8s at some airlines, I think. But not being all that concerned with fecal functionality on aircraft I'm never going to fly on, I can't say that I paid enough attention.

wjcandee · Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:47 am

CALTECH wrote:
AF 447 was eye opening that they stalled the airplane and didn't recover. And they had a lot more time and altitude which didn't help.

But they were idiots, and the altitude should have made it possible to safely-recover. If the captain had tossed the Left Bunkie out of his seat and taken control of the aircraft (and told the Right Bunkie to take his hands of the effin' controls), the incident would have been maybe a footnote in some incredibly-nerdy aircraft journal (that we probably all read).

His big mistake was presuming that the two nitwits were competent. Heck, the engines were at full-power and the thing is 35 degrees nose up, but it's descending. There a few very-obvious potential causes of this, but most likely these didn't enter his mind because of (a) a background assumption that the automation would prevent them and, if not, (b) the nitwits at the controls wouldn't be what was inducing them.

Same thing with that UA 747 in SFO. When the FO froze and followed the flight director instead of the engine-out profile, aiming the crabbing aircraft for the top of a hill while not keeping it trim with the rudder, the captain didn't take it away from him. When he realized that they really were probably gonna crash, he took control, and by doing so just instinctively made the correct control inputs and cleared the hill by what some estimate to be a preposterously-small number. That incident shook UAL hard, and some changes were made, but the fact is some people are gonna freeze up when stuff gets squirrely, and the Captain is in the left seat for a reason.

wjcandee · Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:53 am

WPvsMW wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
CALTECH wrote:

Well, Air France 447 couldn't recover from 38,000 or so feet.

I know you're being snarky, but you realize, of course, that the correct statement is that "AF447 couldn't recover from a bunkie who had the sidestick pulled full-back in manual mode". Given that the captain figured out the problem at the end, if they had had even 10,000 feet they should have been able to recover.

And the left seat FO and right seat FO were sometimes simultaneously commanding opposite max pitch up/down, and never once tried to reinstate normal law. For the last several thousand feet, AF447 pitch up was never less that 35 degrees. (The a/c stayed in alternate mode... no stall protection.) I think the 5Y incident and AF447 are basically different. AF447 fell out of the sky, pilot-error stall. Based on the school video, 5Y3591 flew into terrain.

Absolutely.

TTailedTiger · Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:10 am

wjcandee wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
AF 447 was eye opening that they stalled the airplane and didn't recover. And they had a lot more time and altitude which didn't help.

But they were idiots, and the altitude should have made it possible to safely-recover. If the captain had tossed the Left Bunkie out of his seat and taken control of the aircraft (and told the Right Bunkie to take his hands of the effin' controls), the incident would have been maybe a footnote in some incredibly-nerdy aircraft journal (that we probably all read).

His big mistake was presuming that the two nitwits were competent. Heck, the engines were at full-power and the thing is 35 degrees nose up, but it's descending. There a few very-obvious potential causes of this, but most likely these didn't enter his mind because of (a) a background assumption that the automation would prevent them and, if not, (b) the nitwits at the controls wouldn't be what was inducing them.

Same thing with that UA 747 in SFO. When the FO froze and followed the flight director instead of the engine-out profile, aiming the crabbing aircraft for the top of a hill while not keeping it trim with the rudder, the captain didn't take it away from him. When he realized that they really were probably gonna crash, he took control, and by doing so just instinctively made the correct control inputs and cleared the hill by what some estimate to be a preposterously-small number. That incident shook UAL hard, and some changes were made, but the fact is some people are gonna freeze up when stuff gets squirrely, and the Captain is in the left seat for a reason.

I'd put the brakes on your assumptions. Lots of high time captains have crashed planes and an FO who knew they were in trouble and should have taken control.

794946356 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:39 pm

wjcandee wrote:
glideslope900 wrote:

The FO was doing the communication on the ground as is standard procedure in the US. Once airborne the Captain took over the radio. This implied it was the FO’s leg (the FO was actually flying)

The captain checked in with approach and all sounded normal...then it was the FO back on the comms.

This means either

A. The Captain took control of the airplane for some reason and gave the radios to the FO

Nobody but nobody would have expected what happened to the two seemingly-very-fine-and-responsible pilots who tried to make "Club 41" on an RJ ferry flight and ended up destroying their engines and crashing and killing themselves.

To what incident are you referring?

BAeRJ100 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 2:41 pm

GSOflyerDL wrote:
To what incident are you referring?

Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701

F9Animal · Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:25 pm

CALTECH wrote:
Just putting out thoughts 'out there'.

Another video of a stall and vertical dive. Things happen quickly,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqnE86R7urE

It very well could have been. I mean, the causes of this crash are pretty endless at this point. As for everyone's speculation on this, I do appreciate it. It is almost like a mystery, or a weekly TV show that everyone is guessing on what will happen next. As we are all mostly passionate aviation enthusiasts, there is absolutely no wrong doing by guessing and speculating.

Based on the only video we have seen, it does seem possible a stall may have happened. Perhaps even spatial disorientation? We have seen it happen even with the best of technology.

As for the possibility of suicide? I just cant see the jumpseater doing something like that. I really hope the cause of this exonerates those speculations. Rest in peace to those 3 souls. I am sure they did everything they could to avoid this horrific outcome.

klm617 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:55 pm

Another accident where an unqualified person was allowed to fly the aircraft during a critical phase of the flight. It's not out of the question.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation revealed that, during the cargo turnaround at Detroit, the pilots had a conversation in the cockpit; at one point, the captain asked the first officer if he would like to trade seats with the flight engineer and allow him to perform the takeoff (contrary to both United Airlines and Federal Aviation Administration rules).From the linked article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ai ... light_2885

ubeema · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:04 pm

FDR was recovered on March 3, 2019 per NTSB:

https://twitter.com/ntsb_newsroom/statu ... 78082?s=21

KLMatSJC · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:13 pm

The talk of stalls got me thinking: what if the speedbrakes didn't retract and stayed deployed? Would that have the power to make the aircraft descend so quickly?

Whiplash6 · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:21 pm

KLMatSJC wrote:
The talk of stalls got me thinking: what if the speedbrakes didn't retract and stayed deployed? Would that have the power to make the aircraft descend so quickly?

Likely scenario, especially when the FO is the pilot flying as the speed brake handle is located on the other side of the thrust levers. The location makes it easy to forget when they are deployed and leaving them deployed is a common mistake even in normal flight. A stall with speed brakes fully deployed would definitely exasperate the problem.

Possible that they were trying to slow down to 250 knots below 10,000 with speed brakes and got distracted leveling off at 6,000. Add in moderate chop and you have a much higher than normal stall speed.

FlyHossD · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:24 pm

glideslope900 wrote:

These crashes have absolutely no comparison to 3591...

They occurred very close to the ground during a botched go around procedure.

The Atlas was descending normally at 7000ft!

I didn't state that they did compare to the 5Y3591 tragedy; please don't read something into my post that I didn't say. Rather, I was simply noting that other - in addition to the accident already noted by CalTech - airliners had stalled and crashed. I do agree that that a crash after a go-around is different than the 5Y3591 crash.

Indy · Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:49 pm

usxguy wrote:
The Mesa jumpseater was a fairly senior captain, with 6 years in the E175. Im pretty sure he was capable enough to handle a 767.

He has just become a father- 6 month old son, and he & his wife was looking at buying a new home in Colombia.

So not sure he also fits the suicidal profile either.

That is clearly not how a mental break works. Remember that AS mechanic? Everything seemed fine until he snapped and stole a plane and took it out on a joy ride and killed himself. One of my friends (probably 30 years ago) killed a mutual friend and eventually himself. No one saw that coming. Another friend of mine killed himself at a party when his young children were in the house. A complete shock that no one saw coming. It is nearly impossible to tell when something is going to break someone. Not saying it applies to this person, but the pressures of life (new child and a house in the works) could have been too much for him. Or perhaps one of the other pilots was living with a darkness that no one knew about. That is just the unfortunate reality of mental illness. It isn't always wrapped up in an easy to identify package.

MSNfan · Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:47 pm

Hopefully they are able to gather some data from the CVR soon and release an update because it is getting old reading all of these dark accusations and debates about which of these 3 victims was most likely to be suicidal. If that is where the investigation leads so be it but that is one of many possible causes behind this accident. I am still very curious about the existing ATC recordings and why they seemed to have changed pilot flying duties but not indicated any distress in the final transmissions.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:53 pm

Sometimes you swap radios to get the ATIS, PF takes ATC; PNF (CA here) listens to ATIS, Company, etc. Not unusual at all, but might be tad late here.

GF

wjcandee · Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:54 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'd put the brakes on your assumptions. Lots of high time captains have crashed planes and an FO who knew they were in trouble and should have taken control.

No doubt. But in this case the captain was awakened from his bunk, returned to the cockpit, and discovered that the two Bunkies were sitting there with an aircraft that had departed normal flight. So it wasn't a case of an FO (experienced or not) using CRM techniques to keep a captain from doing something stupid. When the captain arrived on the flight deck, the aircraft had departed normal flight and the two guys flying it were clueless about why and what to do.

I fully-understand that it was totally-appropriate and within his discretion for him to command them and work to problem-solve rather than pulling the Left Bunkie and taking his seat. However, had he done so...

wjcandee · Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:56 pm

ubeema wrote:
FDR was recovered on March 3, 2019 per NTSB:

https://twitter.com/ntsb_newsroom/statu ... 78082?s=21

As expected, it's an Allied Signal model of the type original to that aircraft. You can see the list of parameters covered by a similar model in the Flight 93 report.

sealevel · Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:12 am

In any event - good news - they now have both recorders....

EstherLouise · Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:52 am

Reading this thread is like listening to the audio of a streaming football game where high school-aged kids speculate on all sorts of stuff they know nothing about and the guys who are professional coaches can't get a word in edgewise to say what is really happening.

TTailedTiger · Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:07 am

KLMatSJC wrote:
The talk of stalls got me thinking: what if the speedbrakes didn't retract and stayed deployed? Would that have the power to make the aircraft descend so quickly?

The aircraft can still climb with speedbrakes deployed, but by no means will you get optimal performance. That was the reason the AA 757 crashed in Cali. They forgot to retract the speedbrakes when responding to the GPWS. But they almost cleared the mountain even with speedbrakes deployed. Had they retracted them they would have made it.

freakyrat · Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:10 am

The FDR was recovered today and is on it's way to Washington.

7673mech · Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:12 am

EstherLouise wrote:
Reading this thread is like listening to the audio of a streaming football game where high school-aged kids speculate on all sorts of stuff they know nothing about and the guys who are professional coaches can't get a word in edgewise to say what is really happening.

20 pages in, finally a respectable post.
Considering the FDR was only found today, maybe soon the needless speculation can stop.

http://m.atwonline.com/safety/searchers ... -freighter

litz · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:05 am

The better news is that visually, the Crash Survivable Memory Units appear to have done their jobs and survived the crash in apparent intact condition.

Let's hope what's inside them is in as good a condition.

sxmarbury33 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:34 am

Did anyone who saw the youtube video (see bottom for link) of the final takeoff in miami notice the relatively short take off roll and rather high rate of inital climbout?

I know my observations are 1. completely subjective 2. that this was a very short segment (very light fuel load), and 3. Amzn cargo loads are light compared to other cargo ops, but was this possibly an empty positioning flight or something along those lines? Has it been confirmed that cargo was actually on board?

I'm assuming this would have been a derated take off in either event, but that climbout seemed pretty high performance. Anyone agree? Maybe the long lense camera is messing with my perception?

Just to be clear I'm not trying to link any of that to the crash, it just stood out to me and mainly wanted to establish if we know that the aircraft was in fact carrying cargo. Kind of curious your guys opinion.

The part im talking about 7 minutes 40 seconds in. https://youtu.be/V3gzVdY3-To

freakyrat · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:43 am

sxmarbury33 wrote:
Did anyone who saw the youtube video (see bottom for link) of the final takeoff in miami notice the relatively short take off roll and rather high rate of inital climbout?

I know my observations are 1. completely subjective 2. that this was a very short segment (very light fuel load), and 3. Amzn cargo loads are light compared to other cargo ops, but was this possibly an empty positioning flight or something along those lines? Has it been confirmed that cargo was actually on board?

I'm assuming this would have been a derated take off in either event, but that climbout seemed pretty high performance. Anyone agree? Maybe the long lense camera is messing with my perception?

Just to be clear I'm not trying to link any of that to the crash, it just stood out to me and mainly wanted to establish if we know that the aircraft was in fact carrying cargo. Kind of curious your guys opinion.

The part im talking about 7 minutes 40 seconds in. https://youtu.be/V3gzVdY3-To

The crash site is littered with small packages and clothing etc.

wjcandee · Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:47 am

EstherLouise wrote:
Reading this thread is like listening to the audio of a streaming football game where high school-aged kids speculate on all sorts of stuff they know nothing about and the guys who are professional coaches can't get a word in edgewise to say what is really happening.

Right. Because professional-pilot-only sites like APC and PPRUNE are completely-free of anything but serious, mature conversation that focuses solely on issues and contains only carefully-curated facts.

With regard to certain aspects of the discussion here, however, folks there are being more circumspect, although not everyone.

OB1504 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:47 am

sxmarbury33 wrote:
Did anyone who saw the youtube video (see bottom for link) of the final takeoff in miami notice the relatively short take off roll and rather high rate of inital climbout?

I know my observations are 1. completely subjective 2. that this was a very short segment (very light fuel load), and 3. Amzn cargo loads are light compared to other cargo ops, but was this possibly an empty positioning flight or something along those lines? Has it been confirmed that cargo was actually on board?

I'm assuming this would have been a derated take off in either event, but that climbout seemed pretty high performance. Anyone agree? Maybe the long lense camera is messing with my perception?

Just to be clear I'm not trying to link any of that to the crash, it just stood out to me and mainly wanted to establish if we know that the aircraft was in fact carrying cargo. Kind of curious your guys opinion.

The part im talking about 7 minutes 40 seconds in. https://youtu.be/V3gzVdY3-To

Could it have just been the angle the video was shot at? I saw it take off and it didn’t seem any different from any other takeoff.

Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

Whiplash6 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:26 am

The takeoff roll was relatively short as they weren’t very heavy that day, but I know for a fact they had approximately 25,000 lbs of cargo on board.

TSS · Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:55 pm

OB1504 wrote:
sxmarbury33 wrote:
Did anyone who saw the youtube video (see bottom for link) of the final takeoff in miami notice the relatively short take off roll and rather high rate of inital climbout?

I know my observations are 1. completely subjective 2. that this was a very short segment (very light fuel load), and 3. Amzn cargo loads are light compared to other cargo ops, but was this possibly an empty positioning flight or something along those lines? Has it been confirmed that cargo was actually on board?

I'm assuming this would have been a derated take off in either event, but that climbout seemed pretty high performance. Anyone agree? Maybe the long lense camera is messing with my perception?

Just to be clear I'm not trying to link any of that to the crash, it just stood out to me and mainly wanted to establish if we know that the aircraft was in fact carrying cargo. Kind of curious your guys opinion.

The part im talking about 7 minutes 40 seconds in. https://youtu.be/V3gzVdY3-To

Could it have just been the angle the video was shot at? I saw it take off and it didn’t seem any different from any other takeoff.

Same here. I was looking closely for something, anything unusual, but… nothing. It appeared to be a bog-standard takeoff from start to finish.

OB1504 wrote:
Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

OMG yes! It is totally worth reading the comments under the video because several of them are laugh-out-loud funny but be warned, reading those comments may cause you to lose IQ points by association.

Jouhou · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:33 pm

OK, so when is the ntsb going to throw us a bone here? They surely at least have the cvr contents useable now, could they just give us a summary of what it sounds like?

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:41 pm

In about a year, standard time for an investigation to get to the public presentation. I’ve written some internal company safety investigations and that seems somehow a given.

GF

VirginFlyer · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:43 pm

Jouhou wrote:
OK, so when is the ntsb going to throw us a bone here? They surely at least have the cvr contents useable now, could they just give us a summary of what it sounds like?

One month on from the event is the standard time for the publication of the first interim factual report.

V/F

IAHWorldflyer · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:53 pm

It was reported by local Houston media yesterday that the remains of the Captain of the aircraft have now been fully recovered. The families of the Captain and jump-seater were also taken out to the crash site this weekend so they could have some closure.

estorilm · Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:55 pm

A year? A month? Neither is true - I think people are confusing the time it takes to publish a complete (or interim) report with any sort of info release at all.

As far as being "thrown a bone" - I'm sure if there is something glaringly obvious, or which would change the general direction of the investigation, they would likely tell people. This would have to be an event which is 100% factual and cannot be disputed - something said in the cockpit, something like loss of pressurization, a fuel issue, etc (I'm not saying those have anything to do with this event, just info which may be released early as there's little room for misinterpretation).

We've seen this PLENTY of times in the past.

Jouhou · Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:02 pm

estorilm wrote:
A year? A month? Neither is true - I think people are confusing the time it takes to publish a complete (or interim) report with any sort of info release at all.

As far as being "thrown a bone" - I'm sure if there is something glaringly obvious, or which would change the general direction of the investigation, they would likely tell people. This would have to be an event which is 100% factual and cannot be disputed - something said in the cockpit, something like loss of pressurization, a fuel issue, etc (I'm not saying those have anything to do with this event, just info which may be released early as there's little room for misinterpretation).

We've seen this PLENTY of times in the past.

And the CVR info can quickly settle speculation into whether or not something was done *intentionally*.

wingman · Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:18 pm

OB1504 wrote:
Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

This is my favorite:

There’s the problem, origin is Miami. Ghetto airport. Probably most safety related hardware has been stolen and resold. Probably most maintenance people can’t speak our countries language which makes the maintenance reliability skeptical.

There's nothing like an American accusing immigrants of not being able to speak English when he himself screws up the grammar in the process. And then the crash verdict. It'd certainly be a first for the NTSB but in this political climate nothing would shock me.

TSS · Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:48 pm

Jouhou wrote:
OK, so when is the ntsb going to throw us a bone here? They surely at least have the cvr contents useable now, could they just give us a summary of what it sounds like?

I'm not sure if two days is long enough to fully and carefully desalinate and then dry out the CVR prior to downloading it's data, much less analyze anything interesting or unusual found within that data.

buzzard302 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:27 pm

wingman wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

This is my favorite:

There’s the problem, origin is Miami. Ghetto airport. Probably most safety related hardware has been stolen and resold. Probably most maintenance people can’t speak our countries language which makes the maintenance reliability skeptical.

There's nothing like an American accusing immigrants of not being able to speak English when he himself screws up the grammar in the process. And then the crash verdict. It'd certainly be a first for the NTSB but in this political climate nothing would shock me.

As someone from south Florida, I read that as a cheap attempt at humor. Poor grammar or not, Miami is seething with crime and theft. Obviously not relevant to this airplane, but it's a jab at Miami.

OB1504 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:28 pm

wingman wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

This is my favorite:

There’s the problem, origin is Miami. Ghetto airport. Probably most safety related hardware has been stolen and resold. Probably most maintenance people can’t speak our countries language which makes the maintenance reliability skeptical.

There's nothing like an American accusing immigrants of not being able to speak English when he himself screws up the grammar in the process. And then the crash verdict. It'd certainly be a first for the NTSB but in this political climate nothing would shock me.

My personal favorite was the guy who said this was the airplane’s first flight in five years, going off the flight log on Airfleets. When told he was wrong, he told a poster to “go be a Millennial somewhere else”.

Honorable mention goes to the person who said the engines “sounded stressed”, the person who declared that it was clearly pilot error if the first officer was the one at the controls, and the person who said it was a wiring problem because they somehow couldn’t see the beacon/nav lights/strobes in the video.

TSS · Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:55 pm

wingman wrote:
OB1504 wrote:
Also, the comments on that YouTube video make this thread seem like it’s full of Nobel laureates by comparison.

This is my favorite:

There’s the problem, origin is Miami. Ghetto airport. Probably most safety related hardware has been stolen and resold. Probably most maintenance people can’t speak our countries language which makes the maintenance reliability skeptical.

There's nothing like an American accusing immigrants of not being able to speak English when he himself screws up the grammar in the process. And then the crash verdict. It'd certainly be a first for the NTSB but in this political climate nothing would shock me.

I dunno, for sheer whack-a-doodle-ness it's hard to top the guy who thinks the controls may have been taken over remotely, then tops himself in the same post by implying the FBI's presence at air crash scenes might be for nefarious rather than investigative purposes.

bennett123 · Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Is he seriously saying that the plane crashed due to the Navigation Lights not working.

estorilm · Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:42 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Is he seriously saying that the plane crashed due to the Navigation Lights not working.

You know, that actually never even crossed my mind!

TSS · Mon Mar 04, 2019 7:43 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Is he seriously saying that the plane crashed due to the Navigation Lights not working.

The guy OB1504 is referring to did indeed suggest that a wiring problem is what brought the aircraft down and his evidence for the presence of a wiring problem was the apparent lack of navigation lights during broad daylight.

If you haven't read the comments on the YouTube video yet, dude, seriously, treat yourself. Just make sure not to have ANY fluid in your mouth while reading the comments because you don't want to have to buy yourself a new keyboard.

thewizbizman · Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:06 pm

TSS wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Is he seriously saying that the plane crashed due to the Navigation Lights not working.

The guy OB1504 is referring to did indeed suggest that a wiring problem is what brought the aircraft down and his evidence for the presence of a wiring problem was the apparent lack of navigation lights during broad daylight.

If you haven't read the comments on the YouTube video yet, dude, seriously, treat yourself. Just make sure not to have ANY fluid in your mouth while reading the comments because you don't want to have to buy yourself a new keyboard.

Yeah, I'm going to have to take a jab at those comments

enilria · Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:24 pm

Am I crazy or is that one of the most unclearly caused crashes over land in like decades? Usually there is a thread from the first day that ends up being close to the cause, but I see nothing here.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net