IAHWorldflyer wrote:

NTSB says they plan to release a transcript of the CVR in the next week. Will be interesting to see that.

I have a question for those who work in aviation here. The NTSB says the audio quality of the CVR is poor and needs some enhancement. On this thread people have said by looking at the pictures that this is likely an original Siemens product which would date it over 20 years old. Do these old ones work like the cassette tapes of my youth in that they just erase and tape over old conversations? If that's the case, wouldn't the sound quality be expected to deteriorate over decades? Or do they not use magnetic tape to record?

F9Animal wrote:

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.

cougar15 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

glideslope900 wrote:

Really surprising that no one here has mentioned that the NTSB statement today basically rules out foul play/suicide...

No one has mentioned it because it has not been ruled out.

Your starting to push a few buttons my friend, too bad if you can´t read, but even on an enthusiasts site it is about time for a little respect for 3 fine aviators and their families!

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

NTSB says they plan to release a transcript of the CVR in the next week. Will be interesting to see that.

I have a question for those who work in aviation here. The NTSB says the audio quality of the CVR is poor and needs some enhancement. On this thread people have said by looking at the pictures that this is likely an original Siemens product which would date it over 20 years old. Do these old ones work like the cassette tapes of my youth in that they just erase and tape over old conversations? If that's the case, wouldn't the sound quality be expected to deteriorate over decades? Or do they not use magnetic tape to record?

Siren 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

This accident has no resemblance to FlyDubai 981 other than the fact that they both went into the ground at a high rate of speed. That's it. That's the only similarity.

The other accident is the Tatarstan 737-500 incident. Both of these are incidents that were caused by a loss of control during a go-around. Both aircraft were climbing rapidly before they lost control and descended suddenly. That is not the case with Atlas 3591. The aircraft leveled out from a descent according to the ADS-B returns and it looks like it nosed over and went into the ground. Why? We don't know yet, and we're speculating. But, to compare this to "737 Go-Around Syndrome" is a bit 'out there'. Things obviously went from normal to sideways very quickly on that flight, and let's hope the CVR has the answers.

FlyHossD wrote:

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.

smartplane wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

NTSB says they plan to release a transcript of the CVR in the next week. Will be interesting to see that.

I have a question for those who work in aviation here. The NTSB says the audio quality of the CVR is poor and needs some enhancement. On this thread people have said by looking at the pictures that this is likely an original Siemens product which would date it over 20 years old. Do these old ones work like the cassette tapes of my youth in that they just erase and tape over old conversations? If that's the case, wouldn't the sound quality be expected to deteriorate over decades? Or do they not use magnetic tape to record?

Perhaps there should be CVR sound quality checks at each major maintenance, and mandatory replacement at 10 years.

usxguy wrote:

Wondering if the 76 drivers can chime in here:

What are you guys doing at 7,000 feet and that far out? What systems are being used/initiated, etc... accidents are never just ONE item, they are always a series of events spurred by one. Just wondering if something could have triggered a mechanical disruption that took out the control systems (ie - hydraulic pump explode/fail/burst, etc - and wipe out other systems --- or a short in the circuit boxes that wiped out other systems).

TSS wrote:

smartplane wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

NTSB says they plan to release a transcript of the CVR in the next week. Will be interesting to see that.

I have a question for those who work in aviation here. The NTSB says the audio quality of the CVR is poor and needs some enhancement. On this thread people have said by looking at the pictures that this is likely an original Siemens product which would date it over 20 years old. Do these old ones work like the cassette tapes of my youth in that they just erase and tape over old conversations? If that's the case, wouldn't the sound quality be expected to deteriorate over decades? Or do they not use magnetic tape to record?

Perhaps there should be CVR sound quality checks at each major maintenance, and mandatory replacement at 10 years.

I'd want to investigate in what way and why the audio quality is poor first:

Lots of alarms/warnings going off at once as well as multiple crew members shouting over each other?

Scratchy microphone on one or more crew member's headset (I'm assuming the audio for the CVR is taken from multiple headset microphones and not from a separate CVR-only microphone in the cockpit)?

Mumbled speech and/or poor enunciation on the part of crew members?

A crystal clear recording of mumbled speech through a scratchy microphone is going to be difficult to decipher, but the medium used for recording is not where the fault lies in that example. If the ATC recordings I've tried to listen to on other occasions are any example, holding bad or at least iffy microphones waaaaay too close to pilot's mouths is a common problem throughout the airline industry. While air traffic controllers accustomed to hearing such pass for intelligible speech might get some meaning out of it, all I get a lot of the time is "Hrrr hr, hrrr hur-hur seven three hrrr…. Hrrr, hr hrrr".

trnswrld wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Wondering if the 76 drivers can chime in here:

What are you guys doing at 7,000 feet and that far out? What systems are being used/initiated, etc... accidents are never just ONE item, they are always a series of events spurred by one. Just wondering if something could have triggered a mechanical disruption that took out the control systems (ie - hydraulic pump explode/fail/burst, etc - and wipe out other systems --- or a short in the circuit boxes that wiped out other systems).

Good question, but I think you will find its relatively similar for most commercial aircraft. I wanted to ask the same question myself. So at that phase of flight the aircraft is almost certainly on autopilot correct? So like other crashes its when auto pilot is disengaged for unknown reasons where the pilot must take over. That along with IMC conditions, and possibly incorrect data displayed to the pilots and its a recipe for disaster....which my understanding is basically exactly what happened to AF447 and JT610 right? Obviously different contributing factors, but both basically perfectly good flyable aircraft flown, or stalled into the ground from bad data, confusion, poor airmanship etc etc. Don't wanna be another one of those guessers, but I feel this is probably just gonna be another one of those.

Carlos01 wrote:

Well my speculation would have two options:

1. The plane hitting CLAT, dropping the 1000+ feet in an instant, which ends up severely damaging some of the control surfaces, which leads a few seconds later into a full nosedive. Not sure how much G-forces the tail can take, but at least for AA587 the pilot managed to break the vertical stabilizer off just by being stupid, with no external involvement of anything. Could explain also why the CVR had bad quality, if wiring was damaged by some of the tail breaking off.

2. What if the windshield broke in for whatever reason? Direct hit by a couple of big birds or even a bigger drone? Would that automatically disengage the autopilot? If yes, it could also lead to the pilot leaning over the column making the plane dive? That would for sure create a lot of noise in the cockpit making it difficult to hear the conversation afterwards.

I guess we'll find out soon enough though.

usxguy wrote:

Wondering if the 76 drivers can chime in here:

What are you guys doing at 7,000 feet and that far out? What systems are being used/initiated, etc... accidents are never just ONE item, they are always a series of events spurred by one. Just wondering if something could have triggered a mechanical disruption that took out the control systems (ie - hydraulic pump explode/fail/burst, etc - and wipe out other systems --- or a short in the circuit boxes that wiped out other systems).

At 7,000 on the arrival I think it has a 210kt restriction on the arrival. If so they would be at Flaps 1 or 5. In the 767 when you select flaps 5 the inboard ailerons droop and the nose tends to pitch up somewhat significantly. If hand flying you had to apply forward pressure and trim and the nose down. The 777 fixed this with the FBW controls. There was a slight up blip on the data which could support the selection of flaps 5 just before the crash.

The video I saw of the crash did not appear to be a stall crash. Unless it was a recovery from a stall that ran out of altitude.

s.p.a.s. wrote:

usxguy wrote:

Wondering if the 76 drivers can chime in here:

What are you guys doing at 7,000 feet and that far out? What systems are being used/initiated, etc... accidents are never just ONE item, they are always a series of events spurred by one. Just wondering if something could have triggered a mechanical disruption that took out the control systems (ie - hydraulic pump explode/fail/burst, etc - and wipe out other systems --- or a short in the circuit boxes that wiped out other systems).

My 0.02 worth of experience on the 767 (close to 5K hours on her)

Around 7000ft and with an MSL landing elevation (like KIAH), on a bumpy/wx busy arrival, we would be doing cruising along with AP/AT engaged, around 240kt and getting ready for the first speed reduction, in order to select Flaps 1. On traffic intensive areas, like the US, sometimes you can expect early reductions to 210kt, depending on the traffic ahead or the arrival flow. But nothing really out of the ordinary going on. The 767 is a highly automated aircraft in regards to systems operation, and besides selecting packs on or off (depending on the SOP) or turning the APU on, or activating the engine/wing anti-ice systems (when needed) the overhead panel is hardly used while airborne, under normal conditions.

Also, it was designed and built with ETOPS in mind, so the level of redundancies installed is very good. If you lose one (of the three) HYD SYS (hydraulic pumps don't explode, they might overheat and are turned off). If it is not the centre system, you can continue without much checklist work. The centre system powers the Flaps and Landing Gear, so losing it is a bit more complicated as you have to configure early using the alternate systems. But again, these scenarios are trained every year during recurrent training in the sim, so the crew should be proficient.

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

NTSB says they plan to release a transcript of the CVR in the next week. Will be interesting to see that.

I have a question for those who work in aviation here. The NTSB says the audio quality of the CVR is poor and needs some enhancement. On this thread people have said by looking at the pictures that this is likely an original Siemens product which would date it over 20 years old. Do these old ones work like the cassette tapes of my youth in that they just erase and tape over old conversations? If that's the case, wouldn't the sound quality be expected to deteriorate over decades? Or do they not use magnetic tape to record?

Lrockeagle wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

Well my speculation would have two options:

1. The plane hitting CLAT, dropping the 1000+ feet in an instant, which ends up severely damaging some of the control surfaces, which leads a few seconds later into a full nosedive. Not sure how much G-forces the tail can take, but at least for AA587 the pilot managed to break the vertical stabilizer off just by being stupid, with no external involvement of anything. Could explain also why the CVR had bad quality, if wiring was damaged by some of the tail breaking off.

2. What if the windshield broke in for whatever reason? Direct hit by a couple of big birds or even a bigger drone? Would that automatically disengage the autopilot? If yes, it could also lead to the pilot leaning over the column making the plane dive? That would for sure create a lot of noise in the cockpit making it difficult to hear the conversation afterwards.

I guess we'll find out soon enough though.

1: No. and lmao

2: No.

That data suggesting the steep descent is not accurate. And the weather people have already chimed in that they weren’t close enough to the storm for that to have impacted the aircraft, certainly not so drastically.(and jetstream-type CLAT is NOT at 7000’) You would need a microburst from the storm to impact the plane and that wouldn’t break the plane, it would push it towards the earth with some weather-vaning action.
They would be able to hear on the CVR if the windscreens had been destroyed

Moosefire wrote:

cougar15 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

No one has mentioned it because it has not been ruled out.

Your starting to push a few buttons my friend, too bad if you can´t read, but even on an enthusiasts site it is about time for a little respect for 3 fine aviators and their families!

All respect to the dead but it’s premature to say “3 fine aviators” when poor airmanship is still a distinct possibility

jetskipper wrote:

Newly found video. Aircraft appears to be intact.

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/new ... ea9e9abbf6

trnswrld wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

jetskipper wrote:

Newly found video. Aircraft appears to be intact.

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/new ... ea9e9abbf6

Holy crap, that video is a LOT better. I could be wrong, but I swear I see that airplane slowly trying to pull out of that descent. It looks like before impact the angle of descent was reduced from when it entered frame. They were fighting it

CLTRampRat wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

jetskipper wrote:

Newly found video. Aircraft appears to be intact.

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/new ... ea9e9abbf6

Holy crap, that video is a LOT better. I could be wrong, but I swear I see that airplane slowly trying to pull out of that descent. It looks like before impact the angle of descent was reduced from when it entered frame. They were fighting it

I agree, I saw the same thing. What on earth would cause a plane to dive like that.

MR27122 wrote:

The Egypt Air & the Lauda Air 767's came off the line right after one another & were the last 2 767-3's delivered in 1989 by Boeing.

trnswrld wrote:

CLTRampRat wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

Holy crap, that video is a LOT better. I could be wrong, but I swear I see that airplane slowly trying to pull out of that descent. It looks like before impact the angle of descent was reduced from when it entered frame. They were fighting it

I agree, I saw the same thing. What on earth would cause a plane to dive like that.

Any number of things, but damn it looks like they were getting close to recovering it.

CO953 wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

CLTRampRat wrote:

I agree, I saw the same thing. What on earth would cause a plane to dive like that.

Any number of things, but damn it looks like they were getting close to recovering it.

Think back to witnesses saying it sounded like the engines were going strong, and you could have the elements of classic nose-down, high-throttle, low-altitude stall recovery technique, which of course is basic airmanship but also counterintuitive to the human instinct to pull up. GIven the approach speeds to IAH, I'd think it still could be an unexpected stall - a sudden transient weather event took it out of envelope and the only hope was to nose down and firewall it. Remember the 787 that was doing, what 800 mph groundspeed a couple weeks ago? Been some crazy weather this month pretty much all over the country. Maybe a freak event. Video is hard to watch - you're just rooting for them the whole way....

DL_Mech wrote:

Am I the only one who saw the year 1989 and immediately looked at the author of the post?

CLTRampRat wrote:

trnswrld wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

jetskipper wrote:

Newly found video. Aircraft appears to be intact.

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/new ... ea9e9abbf6

Holy crap, that video is a LOT better. I could be wrong, but I swear I see that airplane slowly trying to pull out of that descent. It looks like before impact the angle of descent was reduced from when it entered frame. They were fighting it

I agree, I saw the same thing. What on earth would cause a plane to dive like that.

itripreport wrote:

I know speculating is probably the least a non-expert in the field like me should be doing. But considering the fact that the third Body was taken longer to find, do we know if something in the lines of the FedEx 705 incident that happened years ago could be somewhat what happened here?

trnswrld wrote:

[
Any number of things, but studying the raw video (not the one edited by the media), it just appears that from when the aircraft entered the frame to just before impact it looks to be at almost half the descent angle. Does anyone else see the same thing or am I out of line here?

yoshua16 wrote:

New footage of the crash was posted
https://youtu.be/-GeQycmuco4

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

EstherLouise wrote:

I just remembered a 1000 foot drop in altitude (according to the pilot) on a CO 747 I was in on approach to IAH in Summer 1994.. Everything loose, including the flight attendants, hit the ceiling. All of the passengers that I could see were belted, as I recall. To this day, that was the only time death crossed my mind while flying. That drop took all of two seconds and I felt negative G's.... definitely. The weather that day was 100 degrees F, humid, and clear. I recall that because my suitcase full of 70 pounds of Cadbury chocolates melted while sitting on the tarmac for an hour at IAH.

F9Animal wrote:

No question they were trying to get the nose up before impact. This really raises my suspicion that spatial disorientation may be possible here. Is it safe to say they were in the clouds when they began their plunge?

Just gut wrenching video.

KPDX wrote:

Even if the elevator was jammed, the aircraft could still have elevator compression from such a high speed dive hence it starting to gradually nose up prior to impact.

filejw wrote:

Lrockeagle wrote:

Carlos01 wrote:

Well my speculation would have two options:

1. The plane hitting CLAT, dropping the 1000+ feet in an instant, which ends up severely damaging some of the control surfaces, which leads a few seconds later into a full nosedive. Not sure how much G-forces the tail can take, but at least for AA587 the pilot managed to break the vertical stabilizer off just by being stupid, with no external involvement of anything. Could explain also why the CVR had bad quality, if wiring was damaged by some of the tail breaking off.

2. What if the windshield broke in for whatever reason? Direct hit by a couple of big birds or even a bigger drone? Would that automatically disengage the autopilot? If yes, it could also lead to the pilot leaning over the column making the plane dive? That would for sure create a lot of noise in the cockpit making it difficult to hear the conversation afterwards.

I guess we'll find out soon enough though.

1: No. and lmao

2: No.

That data suggesting the steep descent is not accurate. And the weather people have already chimed in that they weren’t close enough to the storm for that to have impacted the aircraft, certainly not so drastically.(and jetstream-type CLAT is NOT at 7000’) You would need a microburst from the storm to impact the plane and that wouldn’t break the plane, it would push it towards the earth with some weather-vaning action.
They would be able to hear on the CVR if the windscreens had been destroyed

To early to eliminate weather from the the conversation. Strong velocity wind shears, roll cloud, micro burst can extend further away from storms than people generally think.

Scarebus34 wrote:

I am not in agreement it looks like they are trying to pull up before impact. I believe it’s just the angle of the video.

flightless wrote:

KPDX wrote:

Even if the elevator was jammed, the aircraft could still have elevator compression from such a high speed dive hence it starting to gradually nose up prior to impact.

I agree. It could have been an intentional pullout, but it might also have been the bottom of a phugoid - the water was just too close.

glideslope900 wrote:

It does look like the descent angle is reduced...

One thing worth noting is how open the NTSB is with the investigation, as opposed to the Indonesian investigators in the Lion Air crash who recovered the CVR and are keeping everything a secret.

flightless wrote:

KPDX wrote:

Even if the elevator was jammed, the aircraft could still have elevator compression from such a high speed dive hence it starting to gradually nose up prior to impact.

I agree. It could have been an intentional pullout, but it might also have been the bottom of a phugoid - the water was just too close.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

flightless wrote:

KPDX wrote:

Even if the elevator was jammed, the aircraft could still have elevator compression from such a high speed dive hence it starting to gradually nose up prior to impact.

I agree. It could have been an intentional pullout, but it might also have been the bottom of a phugoid - the water was just too close.

Unless it can be proved they lost all three hydraulics resulting in no flight controls, I don’t think phugoid is in the picture. See UA 232, C-5 at Saigon, etc.

Dive recovery, maybe. They must have leveled at 6,000 (?) at 210 or greater, so getting to a stall would have taken probably a minute. A minute, with the throttles set at idle, where none of the pilots noticed the speed decay.

GF