Atlas Air 3591 Down in Trinity Bay, Texas

MartijnNL · Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:12 pm

SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Number of confirmed pilot suicides on commercial airliners, ever: TWO (LAM 470, Namibia, 2013 & Germanwings 9525, France, 2015).

What about this one in 1994?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A ... Flight_630

"A later investigation showed that the crash was deliberately caused by the pilot."

Elementalism · Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:13 pm

SuperGee wrote:
I can see why the FBI was involved in certain crash investigations, such as TWA800, because it had a strong appearance of terrorism at first and also AA587 in Queens, because it happened so soon after 9/11.

Is it common for the FBI to be involved in crash investigations such as this one however? An FBI Twitter message (https://abcnews.go.com/US/cias-black-pa ... d=61289094) (go to the Atlas Air story on the side) seems to indicate that they will be taking at least a "co-lead" role along with the NTSB. I'm sure there must be many airline crashes which are investigated without the involvement of the FBI.

>><<

I would assume so. They would run a criminal investigation while the NTSB runs a civil investigation.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:31 pm

The FBI investigates and assist the NTSB until both are satisfied it’s not criminal. Usually, that conclusion comes fairly early and then the FBI assists with interviews, leg work, etc.

The only aerodynamic cause of the rapid pushover is loss of the horizontal tail thru something like failure of the aft pressure bulkhead or previously unheard of structural tail. JAL had a B747 with the pressure bulkhead, but didn’t result in complete departure of the tail. GA planes like the Bonanza have had tail structural failures resulting in nose down descents.

GF

SomebodyInTLS · Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:31 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
SomebodyInTLS wrote:
Number of confirmed pilot suicides on commercial airliners, ever: TWO (LAM 470, Namibia, 2013 & Germanwings 9525, France, 2015).

What about this one in 1994?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_A ... Flight_630

"A later investigation showed that the crash was deliberately caused by the pilot."

That's one of the three disputed ones.

tjerome · Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:54 pm

Tod wrote:
usflyguy wrote:
That's a very small oil/fuel slick... did they have a malfunction and run out of fuel?

Wouldn't cause that decent profile.

Never mind that they would have needed to declare an emergency prior to that point...

kalvado · Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:05 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The FBI investigates and assist the NTSB until both are satisfied it’s not criminal. Usually, that conclusion comes fairly early and then the FBI assists with interviews, leg work, etc.

The only aerodynamic cause of the rapid pushover is loss of the horizontal tail thru something like failure of the aft pressure bulkhead or previously unheard of structural tail. JAL had a B747 with the pressure bulkhead, but didn’t result in complete departure of the tail. GA planes like the Bonanza have had tail structural failures resulting in nose down descents.

GF

not saying that is the reason - but I can think of at least 3 relatively catastrophic engine failures, 2 of those being 767, where shrapnel could do whatever it desired with the frame - including damage of control lines.
That may affect aerodynamics big time and happen without too much warning or time to resolve.

bennett123 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:41 pm

Having read the Flightglobal item, we now know only slightly more than before.

However, IMO the size of the debris field would seem to indicate that it was in one piece until impact.

xjetflyer2001 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:50 pm

This video I've been hearing about from the jailhouse, has it been posted? I can't find it, also tried looking it up on google and can't find it there either
Thanks

klm617 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:57 pm

After the weather advisory was issued the response from 3591 was very short and abrupt perhaps indicating that they were distracted by an issue that was going on on the flight deck. There response to the weather advisory was just 91 to me that's seems a bit odd.

PixelPilot · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:03 pm

xjetflyer2001 wrote:
This video I've been hearing about from the jailhouse, has it been posted? I can't find it, also tried looking it up on google and can't find it there either
Thanks

NTSB said it will be released but most likely not in the next weeks/months.

xjetflyer2001 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:10 pm

PixelPilot wrote:
xjetflyer2001 wrote:
This video I've been hearing about from the jailhouse, has it been posted? I can't find it, also tried looking it up on google and can't find it there either
Thanks

NTSB said it will be released but most likely not in the next weeks/months.

Thank You

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:23 pm

HAHA some of you think things are bad in here at times? Someone on facebook just said he "heard a report that GPWS went off"

:weeping:

I reminded him that there's two ways you'd know that; the crew (deceased) or the CVR (AFAIK, unrecovered).
Plus wth does a GPWS warning have to do with anything when you're at 7300' and there's probably 5 instruments/displays telling them their altitude. He said "well very heavy rain will trigger GPWS".

He's just using BS to boost his weather argument, but whatever.

Does anyone have a more accurate overlay of the weather radar with the aircraft location/plot? The FlightAware weather overlay frame may be a bit delayed, but I still don't think the aircraft was in or very near the line of storms yet, since the controller said it was west of VANNN which looked about 25mi NW of the aircraft.

casinterest · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:33 pm

estorilm wrote:
HAHA some of you think things are bad in here at times? Someone on facebook just said he "heard a report that GPWS went off"

I reminded him that there's two ways you'd know that; the crew (deceased) or the CVR (AFAIK, unrecovered).
Plus wth does a GPWS warning have to do with anything when you're at 7300' and there's probably 5 instruments/displays telling them their altitude. He said "well very heavy rain will trigger GPWS".

He's just using BS to boost his weather argument, but whatever.

Does anyone have a more accurate overlay of the weather radar with the aircraft location/plot? The FlightAware weather overlay frame may be a bit delayed, but I still don't think the aircraft was in or very near the line of storms yet, since the controller said it was west of VANNN which looked about 25mi NW of the aircraft.

There are people that think you can hear the GPWS (Pull) when he said "Ok" at 2:33 in the ATC recording below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRirRCh3Xts

jetmatt777 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:43 pm

casinterest wrote:
estorilm wrote:
HAHA some of you think things are bad in here at times? Someone on facebook just said he "heard a report that GPWS went off"

I reminded him that there's two ways you'd know that; the crew (deceased) or the CVR (AFAIK, unrecovered).
Plus wth does a GPWS warning have to do with anything when you're at 7300' and there's probably 5 instruments/displays telling them their altitude. He said "well very heavy rain will trigger GPWS".

He's just using BS to boost his weather argument, but whatever.

Does anyone have a more accurate overlay of the weather radar with the aircraft location/plot? The FlightAware weather overlay frame may be a bit delayed, but I still don't think the aircraft was in or very near the line of storms yet, since the controller said it was west of VANNN which looked about 25mi NW of the aircraft.

There are people that think you can hear the GPWS (Pull) when he said "Ok" at 2:33 in the ATC recording below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRirRCh3Xts

I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

okie73 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:46 pm

casinterest wrote:
estorilm wrote:
There are people that think you can hear the GPWS (Pull) when he said "Ok" at 2:33 in the ATC recording below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRirRCh3Xts

It sure does sound like there may be a “pull” in the background during the last radio transmission.

That said, I did notice two other things after listening a couple more times. The FO, as expected, handles all the radio calls during pushback and taxi. Then on the first call to departure it’s the captains voice. Normal, probably the FO’s leg.

Again on the first call call to Houston approach, it’s the captain talking, so FO still flying. Then on the last 2-3 transmissions, it’s back to the FO on the radio, and he sounds very hurried. So the captain back to flying. Something was already going on at that point.

casinterest · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:47 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
estorilm wrote:
HAHA some of you think things are bad in here at times? Someone on facebook just said he "heard a report that GPWS went off"

I reminded him that there's two ways you'd know that; the crew (deceased) or the CVR (AFAIK, unrecovered).
Plus wth does a GPWS warning have to do with anything when you're at 7300' and there's probably 5 instruments/displays telling them their altitude. He said "well very heavy rain will trigger GPWS".

He's just using BS to boost his weather argument, but whatever.

Does anyone have a more accurate overlay of the weather radar with the aircraft location/plot? The FlightAware weather overlay frame may be a bit delayed, but I still don't think the aircraft was in or very near the line of storms yet, since the controller said it was west of VANNN which looked about 25mi NW of the aircraft.

There are people that think you can hear the GPWS (Pull) when he said "Ok" at 2:33 in the ATC recording below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRirRCh3Xts

I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

The first few times I listened, I thought it was static from the line being clicked, but now I hear it with "regularity". Don't slow it down. Just listen to the noise behind the "OK" I could be hearing it wrong.

ikolkyo · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:56 pm

casinterest wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

There are people that think you can hear the GPWS (Pull) when he said "Ok" at 2:33 in the ATC recording below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRirRCh3Xts

I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

The first few times I listened, I thought it was static from the line being clicked, but now I hear it with "regularity". Don't slow it down. Just listen to the noise behind the "OK" I could be hearing it wrong.

Definitely sounds like “Pull” from the GPWS.

AirlineCritic · Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:58 pm

I think people on this thread should chill... we should all get off our high horses. Or zebras :-)

IIRC no one on this thread has claimed to have made a definite conclusion of what happened. I believe discussion of the list of possible theories that fit the observed event and current information is fine. I have found it valuable to discuss what things are in practice possible on such a short timespan.

Besides, that list of causes that even in theory fit the situation still has some variation in the likelihood of events. We discussed earlier whether a bird impact could have caused this accident. Maybe... in theory, should the bird enter through the cockpit windshield or jam the horizontal stabilizer. But, as far as we know, no such accident has ever occurred, so that's a pretty thin odds for that theory. Would need something to happen that we've not seen before... possible, but very, very unlikely. Same with fire, as we've never seen so quick effects from fire.

And I'd put the malicious behaviour in the same bucket as well, something that should be kept on the list of possible causes but it isn't a perfect fit either: odd phase of flight, no evidence of any motive or problem behaviour.

The problem is of course, that many of the possible causes on the list are also very unlikely. Like the tail suddenly breaking off. Possible, but we've never seen it happen. I do think though that momentary spatial disorientation in IMC conditions rises a bit higher in the odds, either as the root cause or as the reason why an otherwise benign other incident in the flight lead to this outcome. Another one with maybe a bit higher odds than the rest is some kind of runaway trim situation.

But we don't know what the reason is yet. And should openly say so, rather than claim "it was the butler" :-)

However, I for one would like to defend the ability of the board to discuss -- it is a discussion board, after all -- possible theories.

sabrinakw · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:02 pm

Interview with locals that had a boat in the water within minutes
https://youtu.be/Km2CeI8Ttpg

seabosdca · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
But we don't know what the reason is yet. And should openly say so, rather than claim "it was the butler"

However, I for one would like to defend the ability of the board to discuss -- it is a discussion board, after all -- possible theories.

That is the right balance.

It's human to want to know what happened. It's human to try to fill in the gaps. We can accommodate those human impulses without pretending we know the answers or being disrespectful to the families and loved ones of the crew, some of whom may well be reading this discussion because they too feel a need to learn more even before the investigators tell us the answers.

This is a situation, though, where I expect the FDR will tell us what happened pretty definitively. Whatever it was, it was sudden and dramatic.

4holer · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:09 pm

Why would he just say "OK" if they were experiencing major issues? That seems odd to me.

Finn350 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:14 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

The first few times I listened, I thought it was static from the line being clicked, but now I hear it with "regularity". Don't slow it down. Just listen to the noise behind the "OK" I could be hearing it wrong.

Definitely sounds like “Pull” from the GPWS.

Cannot hear anything besides the "OK".

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:25 pm

Okay - I understand the controversy about possibly hearing "pull" or GPWS, but what does that have to do with anything?

Two problems with that - 1) Someone implied it was heavy rain-related returns triggering the GPWS, which seems unlikely. 2) Wasn't its final VS somewhere over 30,000FPM?! GPWS wouldn't even have time to make a single peep, and I kinda doubt they'd key the mic staring straight at the ground.

I think a few flights just talked over each other for a second.

goboeing · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:31 pm

You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Just as a reminder, it's louder than anyone's voice in the cockpit and it wouldn't just sound like something in the background -- it would be just as loud as the pilot's voice even with the boom mic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Z-d1Zx02o

Western727 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:32 pm

estorilm wrote:
Okay - I understand the controversy about possibly hearing "pull" or GPWS, but what does that have to do with anything?

Two problems with that - 1) Someone implied it was heavy rain-related returns triggering the GPWS, which seems unlikely. 2) Wasn't its final VS somewhere over 30,000FPM?! GPWS wouldn't even have time to make a single peep, and I kinda doubt they'd key the mic staring straight at the ground.

I think a few flights just talked over each other for a second.

I have doubts about how heavy the rains were in that cell. The doppler radar image didn't have any of the dreaded pink or to a less-serious extent, dark red. There was only a small amount of red in the cell, and it was mostly green-yellow-orange.

Western727 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:33 pm

goboeing wrote:
You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Confirmation bias, perhaps, as they call it in academia?

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:35 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
The problem is of course, that many of the possible causes on the list are also very unlikely. Like the tail suddenly breaking off. Possible, but we've never seen it happen. I do think though that momentary spatial disorientation in IMC conditions rises a bit higher in the odds, either as the root cause or as the reason why an otherwise benign other incident in the flight lead to this outcome. Another one with maybe a bit higher odds than the rest is some kind of runaway trim situation.

But we don't know what the reason is yet. And should openly say so, rather than claim "it was the butler"

However, I for one would like to defend the ability of the board to discuss -- it is a discussion board, after all -- possible theories.

Exactly - and the forum is here to discuss while we all pull our hair out waiting for more information.

Plus, most in-flight breakups are usually unlikely where the debris field is fairly confined, unless they happened when the aircraft was already at an exceptionally high vertical descent rate (ie Lauda ironically, where damage was still within 1km, with in-flight break-up). For the tail to independently fall of first, RESULTING in the crash itself, would certainly imply that it would be located elsewhere.
The same goes for any control surface break-up theories. The damage is uniform and confined in this case.

Could there be a vertical stabilizer failure mode of the actuators which allows the entire surface to move freely? I know the actuators themselves have redundancy, but I'm talking about the attachment points to the unit itself. I'm guessing it's probably one of the strongest things in the entire aircraft lol.

The scary thing is.. once you rule all of that out, the remaining causes for a predictable arc'd descent with little to no lateral deviation at all become very low, and those that remain are certainly things none of us want to speculate about.

NYPECO · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:35 pm

Finn350 wrote:
Cannot hear anything besides the "OK".

jetmatt777 wrote:
I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

Try turning your volume all the way up and listening with headphones.

goboeing · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:35 pm

Western727 wrote:
goboeing wrote:
You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Confirmation bias, perhaps, as they call it in academia?

Exactly. Doesn't help that it's already written in the youtube video. How the person who made the video heard it in the first place is beyond me.

Almost reminds me of the playing of some Beatles songs backwards.

Whiplash6 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:41 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
casinterest wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

I slowed the video down to listen to that part and don’t hear anything after “Ok”.

The first few times I listened, I thought it was static from the line being clicked, but now I hear it with "regularity". Don't slow it down. Just listen to the noise behind the "OK" I could be hearing it wrong.

Definitely sounds like “Pull” from the GPWS.

No it doesnt

Silver1SWA · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:41 pm

Western727 wrote:
goboeing wrote:
You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Confirmation bias, perhaps, as they call it in academia?

It’s there. I couldn’t hear it until I used earbuds.

casinterest · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:49 pm

Silver1SWA wrote:
Western727 wrote:
goboeing wrote:
You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Confirmation bias, perhaps, as they call it in academia?

It’s there. I couldn’t hear it until I used earbuds.

It's conjecture for now. The CVR will shed light on whether it is there or not.

wjcandee · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:51 pm

Western727 wrote:
estorilm wrote:
Okay - I understand the controversy about possibly hearing "pull" or GPWS, but what does that have to do with anything?

Two problems with that - 1) Someone implied it was heavy rain-related returns triggering the GPWS, which seems unlikely. 2) Wasn't its final VS somewhere over 30,000FPM?! GPWS wouldn't even have time to make a single peep, and I kinda doubt they'd key the mic staring straight at the ground.

I think a few flights just talked over each other for a second.

I have doubts about how heavy the rains were in that cell. The doppler radar image didn't have any of the dreaded pink or to a less-serious extent, dark red. There was only a small amount of red in the cell, and it was mostly green-yellow-orange.

A meteorologist has a very-interesting and detailed, professional explanation posted on the professional pilots rumor network thread on this. There's a lot of chaff in the thread, but you can find his analysis, which is tight and detailed. The post is time stamped 2/24/19 21:40.

litz · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:57 pm

n6238p wrote:
tenHangar wrote:
Reportedly, a young pilot: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-Air.html

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

Shockingly, the Daily Mail (or "Fail", as the UK'ers describe it) got this one correct.

The articles does indeed describe the pilot as not flying, and commuting to work on the flight.

(as we know now, this was a young Mesa pilot jumpseating)

adamant365 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:59 pm

Silver1SWA wrote:
Western727 wrote:
goboeing wrote:
You guys have some kind of super special hearing if you're hearing the word "PULL" in the background of that half-second long "OK" transmission.

Confirmation bias, perhaps, as they call it in academia?

It’s there. I couldn’t hear it until I used earbuds.

I agree that there's something in the background. But to me, it sounds more like "woah!" than "pull." The GPWS is very loud and would be heard much more clearly than what's on the ATC audio. Someone in the other seat or in the jump seat saying "woah" would be fainter, such as we hear on the audio.

bennett123 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:00 pm

If the plane was diving almost straight down, (which seems to be the consensus) surely we would EXPECT the GPWS to sound.

Or am I missing something.

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:03 pm

OK, let's pretend for a second that "PULL" is heard in the audio.

Soooo what? We already know it was going in at 45deg+ at the ground and crashed. Is there any other contributing element or clue to the crash that such a discovery might offer?
Nope.

Still, at 30,000fpm descent rate (I think it was higher on the graph) that gives you roughly 500 feet per second.
First GPWS sounds off at what, 1000'?

You're honestly telling me that 3591 happened to key the mic during the exact TWO SECONDS before impact when you might be able to hear a GPWS call? Sure the data is rough, but even if you pad the numbers 200% they are still absurd.

bennett123 wrote:
If the plane was diving almost straight down, (which seems to be the consensus) surely we would EXPECT the GPWS to sound.

Or am I missing something.

I wrote that after you had posted, but people are forgetting the extreme descent rate of the aircraft just before impact. I'm not sure what type of GPWS this plane had, but I don't think any activate before 1000', but I'm not sure - data is sketchy.

Based on the descent rate and VS of the crash aircraft, from the time GPWS would make its first call-out, to the time of impact, would be a couple seconds (2 seconds if you go off 30kFPM). The odds of a mic being keyed (for the first time since the flight was over the ocean) during that instant, is incredibly unlikely.

In fact it takes a while for the system to repeat itself and finish the aural warning anyways, probably 3 seconds or so?

EDIT - Gr, I'm ignoring the descent rate mode for the GPWS and EGPWS (was this aircraft fitted eith EGPWS?) which may have given the system time to repeat "SINK RATE, PULL UP" as the descent rate reached the threshold for a few seconds longer. STILL not very long though.

airkas1 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:07 pm

I thought there was another press conference around this time. Does anyone know if I recall correctly and if so, where I can find a link to a stream?

EDIT: answered my own question.
"NTSB will not hold a media briefing today on the Feb 23, 2019, crash of a cargo jet in Texas. Additional information will be released as it becomes available. #Anahauc"
https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:11 pm

airkas1 wrote:
I thought there was another press conference around this time. Does anyone know if I recall correctly and if so, where I can find a link to a stream?

EDIT: answered my own question.
"NTSB will not hold a media briefing today on the Feb 23, 2019, crash of a cargo jet in Texas. Additional information will be released as it becomes available. #Anahauc"
https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom

Does anyone have the previous one? Someone said 5pm CENTRAL yesterday but I'm guessing that was EST because it was over when I looked lol.

ikolkyo · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:15 pm

estorilm wrote:
OK, let's pretend for a second that "PULL" is heard in the audio.

Soooo what? We already know it was going in at 45deg+ at the ground and crashed. Is there any other contributing element or clue to the crash that such a discovery might offer?
Nope.

Still, at 30,000fpm descent rate (I think it was higher on the graph) that gives you roughly 500 feet per second.
First GPWS sounds off at what, 1000'?

You're honestly telling me that 3591 happened to key the mic during the exact TWO SECONDS before impact when you might be able to hear a GPWS call? Sure the data is rough, but even if you pad the numbers 200% they are still absurd.

bennett123 wrote:
If the plane was diving almost straight down, (which seems to be the consensus) surely we would EXPECT the GPWS to sound.

Or am I missing something.

I wrote that after you had posted, but people are forgetting the extreme descent rate of the aircraft just before impact. I'm not sure what type of GPWS this plane had, but I don't think any activate before 1000', but I'm not sure - data is sketchy.

Based on the descent rate and VS of the crash aircraft, from the time GPWS would make its first call-out, to the time of impact, would be a couple seconds (2 seconds if you go off 30kFPM). The odds of a mic being keyed (for the first time since the flight was over the ocean) during that instant, is incredibly unlikely.

In fact it takes a while for the system to repeat itself and finish the aural warning anyways, probably 3 seconds or so? "TERRAIN TERRAIN, PULL UP...... repeat"

Probably wasn’t triggered by a Terrain alarm but rather a Sink rate alarm. “SINK RATE, PULL UP”

richierich · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:15 pm

It did sound like the word "pull" was quickly spoken in the background but I think it was too quick and too quiet for it to have been the GPWS. We know the plane went into a nosedive, so by the time the GPWS activated (if it even did), I doubt anybody would have been replying "Ok" to a routine transmission anyway. It seems very unlikely. I think it is more likely that somebody else in the flight deck said the word "pull", perhaps "pull up", at a time when they were struggling to maintain control.

Far too early for anything other than conjecture, but the more nuggets of information we get the more complete the puzzle starts to look. (This one has a long way to go.) However, it sure sounded to me like that final "Ok" was a hurried reply and it wouldn't surprise me if something was very wrong at that point - whether or not the pilots knew it was catastrophic, perhaps only the CVR can answer that.
Very scary way to go...my thoughts and prayers are with their families and colleagues.

casinterest · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:17 pm

estorilm wrote:
OK, let's pretend for a second that "PULL" is heard in the audio.

Soooo what? We already know it was going in at 45deg+ at the ground and crashed. Is there any other contributing element or clue to the crash that such a discovery might offer?
Nope.

Still, at 30,000fpm descent rate (I think it was higher on the graph) that gives you roughly 500 feet per second.
First GPWS sounds off at what, 1000'?

You're honestly telling me that 3591 happened to key the mic during the exact TWO SECONDS before impact when you might be able to hear a GPWS call? Sure the data is rough, but even if you pad the numbers 200% they are still absurd.

bennett123 wrote:
If the plane was diving almost straight down, (which seems to be the consensus) surely we would EXPECT the GPWS to sound.

Or am I missing something.

I wrote that after you had posted, but people are forgetting the extreme descent rate of the aircraft just before impact. I'm not sure what type of GPWS this plane had, but I don't think any activate before 1000', but I'm not sure - data is sketchy.

Based on the descent rate and VS of the crash aircraft, from the time GPWS would make its first call-out, to the time of impact, would be a couple seconds (2 seconds if you go off 30kFPM). The odds of a mic being keyed (for the first time since the flight was over the ocean) during that instant, is incredibly unlikely.

In fact it takes a while for the system to repeat itself and finish the aural warning anyways, probably 3 seconds or so? "TERRAIN TERRAIN, PULL UP...... repeat"

Someone with more experience with the GPWS on a 767 will have to respond, but my understanding is that if the sink rate/current altitude will result in an impact in less than 30 seconds without corrective action , then you are going to get the terrain warning. This would exclude normal landing sink rates .

The warning could have been much earlier than 1000 or 2000 feet of altitude.

airkas1 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:19 pm

estorilm wrote:
Does anyone have the previous one? Someone said 5pm CENTRAL yesterday but I'm guessing that was EST because it was over when I looked lol.

https://youtu.be/Me7zDd-YN7Y

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:20 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
estorilm wrote:
OK, let's pretend for a second that "PULL" is heard in the audio.

Soooo what? We already know it was going in at 45deg+ at the ground and crashed. Is there any other contributing element or clue to the crash that such a discovery might offer?
Nope.

Still, at 30,000fpm descent rate (I think it was higher on the graph) that gives you roughly 500 feet per second.
First GPWS sounds off at what, 1000'?

You're honestly telling me that 3591 happened to key the mic during the exact TWO SECONDS before impact when you might be able to hear a GPWS call? Sure the data is rough, but even if you pad the numbers 200% they are still absurd.

bennett123 wrote:
If the plane was diving almost straight down, (which seems to be the consensus) surely we would EXPECT the GPWS to sound.

Or am I missing something.

I wrote that after you had posted, but people are forgetting the extreme descent rate of the aircraft just before impact. I'm not sure what type of GPWS this plane had, but I don't think any activate before 1000', but I'm not sure - data is sketchy.

Based on the descent rate and VS of the crash aircraft, from the time GPWS would make its first call-out, to the time of impact, would be a couple seconds (2 seconds if you go off 30kFPM). The odds of a mic being keyed (for the first time since the flight was over the ocean) during that instant, is incredibly unlikely.

In fact it takes a while for the system to repeat itself and finish the aural warning anyways, probably 3 seconds or so? "TERRAIN TERRAIN, PULL UP...... repeat"

Probably wasn’t triggered a Terrain alarm but rather a Sink rate alarm. “SINK RATE, PULL UP”

Yeah I had a huge brain fart there and corrected myself before I even read this haha, oops! At that rate, it probably only added a few seconds (maybe 2 or 3 total repeats of any one warning).

n6238p · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:21 pm

litz wrote:
n6238p wrote:
tenHangar wrote:
Reportedly, a young pilot: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... e-Air.html

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

Shockingly, the Daily Mail (or "Fail", as the UK'ers describe it) got this one correct.

The articles does indeed describe the pilot as not flying, and commuting to work on the flight.

(as we know now, this was a young Mesa pilot jumpseating)

According to their edits, they updated the story. That's why the original comment mentions age. The original article said he was the pilot of the plane.

FredrikHAD · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:31 pm

At least the vertical stabilizer and possibly the rudder came to rest among the other debris. In the Fox10 helo video at 1:08:30 a pretty large portion of either can be seen on a piece of land. It is a part with a white arrow-style marking on gray background that is seen. It is only (as far as pics of this aircraft shows) painted on the vstab right side and the left hand surface of the rudder. This only shows that a significant portion of the tail was still attached to the fuselage when it hit the ground.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 1838743943

Picture here:

http://avherald.com/img/atlas_b763_n121 ... 0223_3.jpg

/Fredrik

Philbky · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:33 pm

Twenty and more years ago the industry was much exercised by the problems posed by geriatric jets. Twenty years before that this accident has a chilling resonance to the present investigation https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 19770514-0.

It may turn out not to have anything to do with the horizontal stabilisers but it may just be that, forty two years on, and after strenuous efforts to ensure the safety and longevity of older airframes, one has slipped through the net.

SeaKing4 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:33 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Having read the Flightglobal item, we now know only slightly more than before.

However, IMO the size of the debris field would seem to indicate that it was in one piece until impact.

In that’s the case then where is the fuel. Very little fuel contamination reported on the ground.

BCEaglesCO757 · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:35 pm

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.

No more dynamic in September than anywhere along the Gulf Coast with VCTS and convection as the air heats up in late afternoon in Spring through late summer.

estorilm · Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:44 pm

casinterest wrote:
Someone with more experience with the GPWS on a 767 will have to respond, but my understanding is that if the sink rate/current altitude will result in an impact in less than 30 seconds without corrective action , then you are going to get the terrain warning. This would exclude normal landing sink rates .

The warning could have been much earlier than 1000 or 2000 feet of altitude.

Yup my bad, GPWS/EGPWS have a descent rate mode that will sound earlier. It was never designed to operate at ~30,000FPM though and I'm not sure how quickly it would pick it up and be able to warn in the limited time available.

I did look into the system a little bit, but this info is based on the Mode 1 of Honeywell EGPWS. I'm assuming the limits are similar?
I was a little surprised to learn that it looks like even the descent rate alert mode will not enable till the aircraft is below 2500' AGL, again only giving the system (in this case) only a second or two to create a single alert. For that to be picked up on radio would still be pretty bizarre IMHO.

SeaKing4 wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Having read the Flightglobal item, we now know only slightly more than before.

However, IMO the size of the debris field would seem to indicate that it was in one piece until impact.

In that’s the case then where is the fuel. Very little fuel contamination reported on the ground.

Oh come on, the plane was on approach for landing - would not have been carrying much fuel at that point. This is historically typical of crashes during approach and landing phases

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net