Atlas Air 3591 Down in Trinity Bay, Texas

IAHWorldflyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:18 pm

My point was that it is possible that the first two observed behaviors of the aircraft -- increase to max thrust and pitch up to 4 degrees -- could have been autopilot, given that Feith says it was coupled. The kind of thing that could happen if someone gave input to the autopilot that made it think that a significant climb was in order.[/quote]

That's an interesting thought...the NTSB also says that Houston TRACON told the pilots when they turned west to avoid the weather, to descend "rapidly" to 3000'. It could be possible ( I'm not a pilot, so I don't know) that the Pilot or FO input 30000' thus engaging the thrust to full power and a climb? or the opposite, and a low altitude like 300' was selected, causing a dive?

jetmatt777 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:25 pm

IAHWorldflyer wrote:
My point was that it is possible that the first two observed behaviors of the aircraft -- increase to max thrust and pitch up to 4 degrees -- could have been autopilot, given that Feith says it was coupled. The kind of thing that could happen if someone gave input to the autopilot that made it think that a significant climb was in order.

That's an interesting thought...the NTSB also says that Houston TRACON told the pilots when they turned west to avoid the weather, to descend "rapidly" to 3000'. It could be possible ( I'm not a pilot, so I don't know) that the Pilot or FO input 30000' thus engaging the thrust to full power and a climb? or the opposite, and a low altitude like 300' was selected, causing a dive?[/quote]

Even if you select an altitude, you still have to select a vertical speed in the mcp.

ikramerica · Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:28 pm

My point was that it is possible that the first two observed behaviors of the aircraft -- increase to max thrust and pitch up to 4 degrees -- could have been autopilot, given that Feith says it was coupled. The kind of thing that could happen if someone gave input to the autopilot that made it think that a significant climb was in order.

That's an interesting thought...the NTSB also says that Houston TRACON told the pilots when they turned west to avoid the weather, to descend "rapidly" to 3000'. It could be possible ( I'm not a pilot, so I don't know) that the Pilot or FO input 30000' thus engaging the thrust to full power and a climb? or the opposite, and a low altitude like 300' was selected, causing a dive?

EDIT: the website messed up the second quote. Fixing it:

The autopilot won't dive to 300. That would be dangerous.

But yes, if the input was 30000, not 3000, the AP would climb in a safe manner. Then you would have a panicked crew saying "why is it going up into that dangerous cloud!" and then maybe overreact and push down, fighting the AP instead of disengaging it and figuring out why it was doing it. Similar to "why is the elevator trim going and pitching us down!" and then fighting it rather than disengaging it.

wjcandee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:43 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Similar to "why is the elevator trim going and pitching us down!" and then fighting it rather than disengaging it.

Stab trim. But, yeah, exactly.

Of course, someone familiar with the Boeing design philosophy might have thought that if they were hand-flying the plane, no automated system would be countermanding their inputs. And they would be wrong, because MCAS violates that philosophy; indeed it turns it on its head because MCAS is inhibited when A/P is on. In this case, had the Lion Air crew turned ON the autopilot, the MCAS inputs would have stopped. Oy.

But to the extent that the stab trim wheel was spinning away without being commanded to do so by either pilot, it looks like runaway stab trim and if pulling the yoke full back didn't turn that off (which any 737 pilot before the MAX would have expected), the disconnect switches were right there on the podium. Two crews before them figured that out. The accident crew didn't. Disgraceful that hey were forced into that circumstance, of course. In their defense, because of previous 737 design, "fighting" that stab trim input would also be "disengaging" it. But of course on the MAX, Boeing took that feature out.

IAHWorldflyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:50 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
IAHWorldflyer wrote:
My point was that it is possible that the first two observed behaviors of the aircraft -- increase to max thrust and pitch up to 4 degrees -- could have been autopilot, given that Feith says it was coupled. The kind of thing that could happen if someone gave input to the autopilot that made it think that a significant climb was in order.

That's an interesting thought...the NTSB also says that Houston TRACON told the pilots when they turned west to avoid the weather, to descend "rapidly" to 3000'. It could be possible ( I'm not a pilot, so I don't know) that the Pilot or FO input 30000' thus engaging the thrust to full power and a climb? or the opposite, and a low altitude like 300' was selected, causing a dive?

Even if you select an altitude, you still have to select a vertical speed in the mcp.[/quote]

That makes sense, thanks for the correction

VS11 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:06 pm

This looks to me a stall recovery: pitch down, full power. Maybe they thought they were getting into a stall, initiated stall recovery but the pitch down was too much and they couldn’t recover in time.

SheikhDjibouti · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:09 pm

ikramerica wrote:
The autopilot won't dive to 300. That would be dangerous.

But yes, if the input was 30000, not 3000, the AP would climb in a safe manner. Then you would have a panicked crew saying "why is it going up into that dangerous cloud!" and then maybe overreact and push down, fighting the AP instead of disengaging it and figuring out why it was doing it. Similar to "why is the elevator trim going and pitching us down!" and then fighting it rather than disengaging it.

If you were already in cloud, were initially slow to realize you were entering a climb, fought the autopilot by pushing hard forward to make it level off, and then disengaged autopilot; what would be the immediate effect.
This is a 767, not a fighter jet - but (and I hesitate to even mention it) in the Egyptair case, that 767 experienced zero-g during such a manoeuvre.

You're already blind-flying in cloud, experiencing zero-g all of a sudden; how quickly do you reach 49deg down before realizing you have massively over-corrected?

(Yes, I note the strong hint that the AP was not necessarily disengaged; I'm just asking the question)

washingtonflyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:20 pm

VS11 wrote:
This looks to me a stall recovery: pitch down, full power. Maybe they thought they were getting into a stall, initiated stall recovery but the pitch down was too much and they couldn’t recover in time.

Air speed was constant and no stick shaker sound.....

PropClear · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:50 pm

Don't know that we should read anything into the 4 deg nose up, that's likely just a result of the plane's natural response to the engines going to max thrust.

casinterest · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:57 pm

PropClear wrote:
Don't know that we should read anything into the 4 deg nose up, that's likely just a result of the plane's natural response to the engines going to max thrust.

Why did they release this report? It leaves more questions than answers. Guess we need to wait for the full report.

IAHWorldflyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:57 pm

This is a quote from the NTSB document, there was an increase in airspeed from 230 knots to 430 knots. I would think that was caused by a combination of full power and a pitched dive.

"Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

FDR, radar, and ADS-B data indicated that the airplane entered a rapid descent on a heading of 270°, reaching an airspeed of about 430 knots. A security camera video (figure 4) captured the airplane in a steep, generally wings-level attitude until impact with the swamp. FDR data indicated that the airplane gradually pitched up to about 20 degrees nose down during the descent."

Tn55337 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:01 pm

Question for guys who know the 767 cockpit, is it possible the jumpseater was up and moving around (possibly coming back from the bathroom) then falling/getting thrown forward by the turbulence into the throttles and control colum pushing them both forward? I know it does not explain the nose up. I am just thinking out loud.

rayfound · Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:03 pm

“Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.”

Emphasis mine. There's a clear linguistic distinction here - on the engines front they specifically do not mention what the thrust increase was in response to, which sort of hints that it was the AP/AT system, whereas the pitch controls were noted as being column input, indicating human control.

But hard pitch down sounds like stall recovery... but crew had no indication they were in/approaching stall.

It doesn't make any of this less weird. I don't get it.

pugman211 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:21 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
The autopilot won't dive to 300. That would be dangerous.

But yes, if the input was 30000, not 3000, the AP would climb in a safe manner. Then you would have a panicked crew saying "why is it going up into that dangerous cloud!" and then maybe overreact and push down, fighting the AP instead of disengaging it and figuring out why it was doing it. Similar to "why is the elevator trim going and pitching us down!" and then fighting it rather than disengaging it.

If you were already in cloud, were initially slow to realize you were entering a climb, fought the autopilot by pushing hard forward to make it level off, and then disengaged autopilot; what would be the immediate effect.
This is a 767, not a fighter jet - but (and I hesitate to even mention it) in the Egyptair case, that 767 experienced zero-g during such a manoeuvre.

You're already blind-flying in cloud, experiencing zero-g all of a sudden; how quickly do you reach 49deg down before realizing you have massively over-corrected?

(Yes, I note the strong hint that the AP was not necessarily disengaged; I'm just asking the question)

That would be my thinking, wrong altitude selected (but surely the FDR would show anything like that?) The plane goes into climb mode and commands full throttle, the pilot's counteract that by pushing forward on the column, without cancelling AP/AT resulting in only seconds, approximately 18 iirc to fix their error, hence why the descent angle reduced to 20 degrees?

But still, surely ALL of that theory can be determined by the FDR data?

VS11 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:21 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
VS11 wrote:
This looks to me a stall recovery: pitch down, full power. Maybe they thought they were getting into a stall, initiated stall recovery but the pitch down was too much and they couldn’t recover in time.

Air speed was constant and no stick shaker sound.....

You don’t need the stall alarm to think you are approaching a stall. In fact, the testing standards for stalls, at least PPL, is to verbalize “imminent stall” just before you hear the horn.

If the airplane pitched up 4 degrees, the airspeed would have decreased without power inputs. In my opinion, the power inputs and pitch down were in response to the pitch up of 4 degrees, which may have been caused by turbulence per the NTSB “consistent with turbulence” language.

CobraKai · Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:57 pm

Just looking at this quote:

Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

I assume these events are listed chronologically, so thrust increase, pitch up, then pitch down due to column input.

Further, I would love to hear a 76 driver chime in on the following:

1. "pitch increased to about 4°" - from my understanding, this would be about 1 to 2° from the normal nose up cruise attitude, which I have to imagine would not make anything think stall
2. If you were disoriented, and the feeling from the thrust increase plus pitch up did make you think the aircraft was pitching up into a stall, would 49° nose down be an appropriate response for recovery? That seems overkill, but I only fly little bug smashers. The vomit comet only goes 45° for zero g, so to get to 49° in such a short order it feels like you would have to pin it all the way forward, no?

michi · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:10 pm

I am not familiar with design of the flight controls of the B767. Therefore I have some questions regarding the phrase "in response to column input". Does the B767 still have cables/wires between the control column and the hydraulic actuators?

Would there be a possible column movement because failure of those cables? The FDR might only store the control column angle, but not "who moved it". What happens in a B767 when the cable between the control column and the hydraulic actuator fails?

The wording by the NTSB sounds like they don't know the source for the movement. This might indicate a failure in between the data points of the FDR. They might have control column input angle and elevator angle.

What is the control column position on ground with no hydraulic pressure? Is it full forward?

Anyone with some B767 insight knowledge?

VS11 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:28 pm

CobraKai wrote:
Just looking at this quote:

Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

I assume these events are listed chronologically, so thrust increase, pitch up, then pitch down due to column input

What’s the shortest time interval the FDR can record: 1s, 1ms?

yblaser · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:30 pm

RyanVHS wrote:
The NTSB just posted an update here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pag ... MA086.aspx. One thing to note is: “Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.”

It looks like they updated the post, it now says "The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection."

cdp · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:34 pm

I just followed the link to read the NTSB statement and it appears the wording has changed:

Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up. The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

It seems they don't want to imply (at this stage) that the dive was manually commanded.

SamYeager2016 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:42 pm

yblaser wrote:
It looks like they updated the post, it now says "The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection."

Given the change to the explicit wording above what are people's thoughts on what might have caused this? My obvious theory has to be that the turbulence caused some fault that caused the downward deflection but how realistic is this theory?

slamcannon · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:49 pm

It seems a lot of the discussion here does not mention the idea of an intentional pitch down input on the controls to 49 degrees, have I missed out on some facts that 100% rule out pilot suicide?

B737900ER · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:51 pm

SamYeager2016 wrote:
yblaser wrote:
It looks like they updated the post, it now says "The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection."

Given the change to the explicit wording above what are people's thoughts on what might have caused this? My obvious theory has to be that the turbulence caused some fault that caused the downward deflection but how realistic is this theory?

Turbulence wouldn’t cause 49 degree elevator deflection

spacecadet · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:53 pm

slamcannon wrote:
It seems a lot of the discussion here does not mention the idea of an intentional pitch down input on the controls to 49 degrees, have I missed out on some facts that 100% rule out pilot suicide?

No, but you have missed out on the basic human notion that you don't go there until all the other possible causes have been ruled out. For one thing, it is statistically the least likely of any cause of an airliner crash - pilot error, mechanical failure, design deficiencies and even terrorism are much more likely. So to bring it up before more likely causes have been ruled out is kind of strange.

The fact that the pilots requested a return to the airport also makes it less likely than it even would be by default.

jetmatt777 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:59 pm

spacecadet wrote:
slamcannon wrote:
It seems a lot of the discussion here does not mention the idea of an intentional pitch down input on the controls to 49 degrees, have I missed out on some facts that 100% rule out pilot suicide?

No, but you have missed out on the basic human notion that you don't go there until all the other possible causes have been ruled out. For one thing, it is statistically the least likely of any cause of an airliner crash - pilot error, mechanical failure, design deficiencies and even terrorism are much more likely. So to bring it up before more likely causes have been ruled out is kind of strange.

The fact that the pilots requested a return to the airport also makes it less likely than it even would be by default.

Am I missing something? Did they request a return to MIA earlier on, but decide to continue?

seabosdca · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:05 pm

Wondering if something (whether the FO's body, either for medical reasons or in extreme turbulence, or something else knocked loose by turbulence) might have fallen forward onto the control column causing the extreme nose-down input. That would certainly be a very disorienting event.

slamcannon · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:05 pm

spacecadet wrote:
slamcannon wrote:
It seems a lot of the discussion here does not mention the idea of an intentional pitch down input on the controls to 49 degrees, have I missed out on some facts that 100% rule out pilot suicide?

No, but you have missed out on the basic human notion that you don't go there until all the other possible causes have been ruled out. For one thing, it is statistically the least likely of any cause of an airliner crash - pilot error, mechanical failure, design deficiencies and even terrorism are much more likely. So to bring it up before more likely causes have been ruled out is kind of strange.

The fact that the pilots requested a return to the airport also makes it less likely than it even would be by default.

Wait what? They requested to return to KMIA?

Anyways, as far as I can tell, there are two possible situations here based on what we know, stall recovery or pilot suicide, what else could require a pitch down of 49 degrees and full thrust?

Indy · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:32 pm

"the engines increased to maximum thrust"

Given where the plane was (heading, altitude, speed,etc), what reasonable explanation would there be for going with maximum thrust and then down at 49 degrees?

rayfound · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:35 pm

cdp wrote:
I just followed the link to read the NTSB statement and it appears the wording has changed:

Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up. The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

It seems they don't want to imply (at this stage) that the dive was manually commanded.

That is a potentially enormous change of verbiage.

BHM · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:41 pm

Could flight controls be easily sabotaged on this type of aircraft by say a freight loader? For example, would it be easy to access a flight control cable and damage it is a way that it could fail in flight?

wjcandee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:45 pm

Folks: Once again, this is the NTSB not wanting to blame the pilots until all the ducks are in a row. But based on what Feith said, the direction the investigation is heading is that this was pilot error, notwithstanding that they have yet to disclose what the precipitating event is (and that may be what they are working on).

This isn't the controls failing to work. This isn't something snapping. This isn't somebody dying and falling forward on the controls. This isn't somebody falling when coming back from the bathroom. This isn't a catastrophic failure of the airframe.

This is automation doing one thing and the pilots doing another and/or not understanding what the automation is doing and why. Read the Feith commentary again in light of the NTSB statement. They are clearly saying one thing without actually saying it because they don't want to make the accusation yet because that is not the official, formal process, and the families are still grieving.

And if you look carefully at the Feith commentary, ask yourself, "Whose leg was it?"

VeeCee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:47 pm

spacecadet wrote:
slamcannon wrote:
It seems a lot of the discussion here does not mention the idea of an intentional pitch down input on the controls to 49 degrees, have I missed out on some facts that 100% rule out pilot suicide?

No, but you have missed out on the basic human notion that you don't go there until all the other possible causes have been ruled out. For one thing, it is statistically the least likely of any cause of an airliner crash - pilot error, mechanical failure, design deficiencies and even terrorism are much more likely. So to bring it up before more likely causes have been ruled out is kind of strange.

The fact that the pilots requested a return to the airport also makes it less likely than it even would be by default.

I think you're in the wrong thread.

rayfound · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:00 pm

VS11 wrote:

You don’t need the stall alarm to think you are approaching a stall. In fact, the testing standards for stalls, at least PPL, is to verbalize “imminent stall” just before you hear the horn.
language.

If AF447 taught me anything it is that an aircrew can stall without comprehending it.

F9Animal · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:03 pm

Spatial disorientation possible here?

trnswrld · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:03 pm

Ok this is very interesting news. Full power pushed nose down into the ground...wow. So why am I not seeing anything about what was said on the CVR? Has that information been discussed? I know they said poor sound quality, but surely they can make out something that either points this towards major pilot error/confusion, or some sort of intentionally act.

VeeCee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:25 pm

trnswrld wrote:
Ok this is very interesting news. Full power pushed nose down into the ground...wow. So why am I not seeing anything about what was said on the CVR? Has that information been discussed? I know they said poor sound quality, but surely they can make out something that either points this towards major pilot error/confusion, or some sort of intentionally act.

The initial CVR release said "Crew communications consistent with a loss control of the aircraft began approximately 18 seconds prior to the end of the recording although the overall quality of the audio is considered poor, except when using advanced audio filtering. "

So not indicative of intentional act. I get the feeling that's why they changed the report today. Because to a lay person it read like a potential pilot suicide.

ThePinnacleKid · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:44 pm

Feith's statements are sensationalist and alarmist at best. He isn't privy to the information in the investigation related to this accident. He can only speculate like anyone else can on this forum. There are others in this forum who have more valuable knowledge and more relevant experience than that man and so I caution about giving him too much "his word is gospel."

I can say, I have my personal opinions and feelings related to this accident. I am not at liberty nor do I wish to share them here. I will say though, before you keep going down the lack of experience and training route that some seem to be going... these aren't new guys involved... nor new to the type. The NTSB report indicated the following... CA: 11,000 hrs total time roughly... FO: 5,000 total time.... both men at the controls held multiple type ratings... this wasn't their first rodeo... nor were either new to the 767.

So lets just say, that the CVR and FDR in full detail will tell the tale.

pugman211 · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:46 pm

If they reduced the dive from 49 degrees to 20 degrees then I don't think it was an intentional dive, just something that caught them off guard/ disoriented.

FriscoHeavy · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:54 pm

ThePinnacleKid wrote:
Feith's statements are sensationalist and alarmist at best. He isn't privy to the information in the investigation related to this accident. He can only speculate like anyone else can on this forum. There are others in this forum who have more valuable knowledge and more relevant experience than that man and so I caution about giving him too much "his word is gospel."

I can say, I have my personal opinions and feelings related to this accident. I am not at liberty nor do I wish to share them here. I will say though, before you keep going down the lack of experience and training route that some seem to be going... these aren't new guys involved... nor new to the type. The NTSB report indicated the following... CA: 11,000 hrs total time roughly... FO: 5,000 total time.... both men at the controls held multiple type ratings... this wasn't their first rodeo... nor were either new to the 767.

So lets just say, that the CVR and FDR in full detail will tell the tale.

‘Not at Liberty’ to discuss. Oh Puh-lease. You aren’t that special. Don’t use that kind of clown language. You have no clue what happened at this point.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:56 pm

rayfound wrote:
VS11 wrote:

You don’t need the stall alarm to think you are approaching a stall. In fact, the testing standards for stalls, at least PPL, is to verbalize “imminent stall” just before you hear the horn.
language.

If AF447 taught me anything it is that (an aircrew) nitwits can stall without comprehending it.

GalaxyFlyer · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:02 pm

It’s hard to picture a situation where full thrust would be set followed by an input forcing 49* nose down attitude. Forty-nine degrees is dive bomb territory and not easily done with a push over. And only the two inputs would result in 430 KIAS.

GF

wjcandee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:05 pm

ThePinnacleKid wrote:
Feith...isn't privy to the information in the investigation related to this accident. I will say though ... these aren't new guys involved... nor new to the type. The NTSB report indicated the following... FO: 5,000 total time.

I think that Feith likely has a lot of informal ways to get that information. And it's a pretty-specific declaration.

As to the FO, about a year-and-a-half at Atlas, and about 500 hours in type. Captain was 3.5 years at Atlas, 1250 time in type.

TTailedTiger · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:34 pm

This doesn't sound good. It seems the NTSB wants to make sure they didn't miss anything before coming to the tragic conclusion.

awthompson · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:37 pm

pugman211 wrote:
If they reduced the dive from 49 degrees to 20 degrees then I don't think it was an intentional dive, just something that caught them off guard/ disoriented.

Yes, but what if the 'other' pilot tried to counteract after realizing what was happening?

SierraPacific · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:47 pm

The change in words from the NTSB is huge since it seems like the initial verbiage referenced some sort of pilot suicide/error while now it reads "in response to nose-down elevator deflection" which seems like it was some sort of mechanical problem that started the catastrophic series of events. I really wonder what happened with this crash since, with the last pilot suicide case, it was known almost immediately that it was CFIT while now we have weird almost cryptic lines from the NTSB and no real answers 3 weeks later.

wjcandee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:47 pm

SamYeager2016 wrote:
yblaser wrote:
It looks like they updated the post, it now says "The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection."

Given the change to the explicit wording above what are people's thoughts on what might have caused this? My obvious theory has to be that the turbulence caused some fault that caused the downward deflection but how realistic is this theory?

It is the explosion on social media of comments from nitwits who interpreted this as confirmation of pilot suicide. So they changed it so only grownups would understand.

wjcandee · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:49 pm

SierraPacific wrote:
The change in words from the NTSB is huge since it seems like the initial verbiage referenced some sort of pilot suicide/error while now it reads "in response to nose-down elevator deflection" which seems like it was some sort of mechanical problem that started the catastrophic series of events. I really wonder what happened with this crash since, with the last pilot suicide case, it was known almost immediately that it was CFIT while now we have weird almost cryptic lines from the NTSB and no real answers 3 weeks later.

I disagree. Once again, take the original wording in light of the Greg Feith comments. Read the thread, rather than just posting. They are saying that the pilots messed up. No details on how or why, but that's where they are headed. Clear enough?

usxguy · Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:57 pm

76/75 Drivers:

How long do you need to have the column pushed forward for you to be in a 49* degree dive?

slamcannon · Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:05 pm

usxguy wrote:
76/75 Drivers:

How long do you need to have the column pushed forward for you to be in a 49* degree dive?

Assuming thrust is at max before doing so, I'd say it would take a deliberate push to accomplish that.

TTailedTiger · Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:18 pm

If the NTSB finds that this was a deliberate act does it then become a case for the FBI or other agency to find out why? I wouldn't think the NTSB would know much in the investigation of a crime.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net