Maybe im blind but it looks like it only broke into 2 sections, with the break right forward of the wing? If so thats still not bad given how rough the waters can be where it hit. And I dont see the cockpit window/cabin doors open, so if they had to escape through where it broke in half someone upstairs must've been looking out for them. Cant wait to hear them talk about it

Transair has been grounded by FAA due to month long investigation that found Rhodes Aviation has serious maintenance deficiencies.

https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/ ... 96740?s=19

Heinkel wrote:

That was the reason for my recommendation, not to sit in front of the wings on a B737.

The reasoning is sound. You are trading off an improved crash landing survival rate to a very unlikely event vs. The ability to get off the plane sooner than those in the back.

I have never traveled first/business class on A 737/A320, but given a choice I will select the seats further back.

One of the passenger in first class who perished in the Turkish crash was a colleague.

For those interested, note that the 757 fuselage, pictured above, also show a break after of the main wheel well. So the "stout" section of an aircraft do extend aft of the wing box to the wheel well. This is because the wheel well has a keel beam that provide vertical stiffness/strength not typically found in other parts of an aircraft.

bt

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

Transair has been grounded by FAA due to month long investigation that found Rhodes Aviation has serious maintenance deficiencies.

https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/ ... 96740?s=19

Interesting development that the FAA was looking at suspending their maintenance authority 2 weeks prior to the crash.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

Transair has been grounded by FAA due to month long investigation that found Rhodes Aviation has serious maintenance deficiencies.

https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/ ... 96740?s=19

Ruh-roh.

OK, so what maintenance issue would cause both engines to flame out that has nothing to do with fuel contamination?

I flew this particular aircraft when it was in service with CAIL, what a sad ending. 737-200's are sturdy birdies, I have a few thousand hours flying them in and around Canada and the Pacific Northwest.

DocLightning wrote:

Ruh-roh.

OK, so what maintenance issue would cause both engines to flame out that has nothing to do with fuel contamination?

The media reports indicate "maintenance inspections" which could be as simple as a boroscope inspections.

RoyalBrunei757 wrote:

Transair has been grounded by FAA due to month long investigation that found Rhodes Aviation has serious maintenance deficiencies.

https://twitter.com/petemuntean/status/ ... 96740?s=19

I found this July 6 article from KHON2, which states that Transair's safety and maintenance issues have apparently been going on for almost 3 decades.

https://www.khon2.com/always-investigat ... hed-plane/

Ok….how bizarre to be under investigation and then have this accident!?!? But then still take another 10 days to shut them down?? There has got to be so much that we don’t know

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

I am not a pilot or pretend to understand everything, but when you lose one engine and the other isn’t performing well, why didn’t they turn back for the airport immediately….. looks like they went out away for a bit. I know we don’t have all the inside information but I would want my keister on land asap……just wondering

The good thing is, that the crew survived and can tell the story.

Is there any news about the recovery of the flight recorders?

Have the pilots given an interview yet? Do we know if they are OK? What was the extent of their injuries?

MrBretz wrote:

Have the pilots given an interview yet? Do we know if they are OK? What was the extent of their injuries?

The NTSB will not release details except as part of preliminary and final report. The media did report, shown in this thread, that they were released from the hospital.

Heinkel wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

I am not a pilot or pretend to understand everything, but when you lose one engine and the other isn’t performing well, why didn’t they turn back for the airport immediately….. looks like they went out away for a bit. I know we don’t have all the inside information but I would want my keister on land asap……just wondering

The good thing is, that the crew survived and can tell the story.

Is there any news about the recovery of the flight recorders?

I think they are going to try and recover the fuselage pieces intact from the sea floor, so I assume the recorders will come up when the rest of the plane does.

The FAA action seems consistent with the rumours that this operator was flying 737s with ragged-out JT8Ds that weren't, for lack of a more-precise term, in the highest state of repair and so when they lost thrust in the one engine, the other couldn't be set at a high-enough thrust level without overheating, leading directly to this accident. That's consistent with the radio transmissions.

If you're a carrier operating at the edge of the envelope safety-wise and you end up planting a transport-category aircraft into the ocean, it's a fair bet that the FAA is going to take aggressive action.

regarding the ATC staffing in the tower, I believe they have 2 on duty during the "off peak" hours. It could have just been bad timing that the 2nd controller was on a quick break (smoke/bathroom) or dinner. But its not unheard of for solo tower ops in small incriments at a busy airfield like PHNL. Especially since its a joint civilian/military airport.

usxguy wrote:

regarding the ATC staffing in the tower, I believe they have 2 on duty during the "off peak" hours. It could have just been bad timing that the 2nd controller was on a quick break (smoke/bathroom) or dinner. But its not unheard of for solo tower ops in small incriments at a busy airfield like PHNL. Especially since its a joint civilian/military airport.

There's also only about 7-8 ops an hour that time of night. Not a busy ramp.

usxguy wrote:

regarding the ATC staffing in the tower, I believe they have 2 on duty during the "off peak" hours. It could have just been bad timing that the 2nd controller was on a quick break (smoke/bathroom) or dinner. But its not unheard of for solo tower ops in small incriments at a busy airfield like PHNL. Especially since its a joint civilian/military airport.

No sure what joint use has to do with it.

Not having enough trust to climb at MTOW on one engine is one thing, but not enough trust to maintain altitude with a plane that should be below MTOW is another, no ?

harleydriver wrote:

I'm curious how you can have a controller alone with no backup. I'm just throwing this out there, what if she maybe had some local Ahi that wasn't as fresh as it should have been and an expedited run to the restroom was required, is there not someone else there to take over her responsibilities if needed?

We work nights alone at some stations - you simply have to pucker up then. I used to routinely work a tower, approach and the whole FIR from the cab at night, and I was literally the only person in the building - even the technician was on call out.

All about the money.

KingOrGod wrote:

harleydriver wrote:

I'm curious how you can have a controller alone with no backup. I'm just throwing this out there, what if she maybe had some local Ahi that wasn't as fresh as it should have been and an expedited run to the restroom was required, is there not someone else there to take over her responsibilities if needed?

We work nights alone at some stations - you simply have to pucker up then. I used to routinely work a tower, approach and the whole FIR from the cab at night, and I was literally the only person in the building - even the technician was on call out.

All about the money.

Jesus. I hope they at least let you bring in a Home Depot bucket just in case.

jetmatt777 wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

harleydriver wrote:

I'm curious how you can have a controller alone with no backup. I'm just throwing this out there, what if she maybe had some local Ahi that wasn't as fresh as it should have been and an expedited run to the restroom was required, is there not someone else there to take over her responsibilities if needed?

We work nights alone at some stations - you simply have to pucker up then. I used to routinely work a tower, approach and the whole FIR from the cab at night, and I was literally the only person in the building - even the technician was on call out.

All about the money.

Jesus. I hope they at least let you bring in a Home Depot bucket just in case.

The bog wasn't too far to go, but if you have traffic on frequency then you have to just clamp it closed. We are used to it. Doesn't make it right. Or safe.

zmatt1 wrote:

The Asiana 777 crash at SFO slammed into the sea wall. Did a mid air flip and came to rest intact except for a separation of the tail section.

330 rotation, not a flip. Also it sounds like every part of the plane that hit the seawall, the MLG and tail-- broke off. (MLG as designed.) Hard to compare that to this, as this ditching likely didn't involve the MLG being down.

From NTSB via Ian Duncan https://twitter.com/iduncan/status/1455538809983090702

Full photoset: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157719519744779/  and B-Roll:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRMW-rsn--w

Amazing pictures

Incredible. Miracle there were no fatalities.

I'm amazed at the amount of carnage on the underside of the front fuse, and yet it stayed in two big pieces. Like everything from the floor down was sliced off. Starting from the lower edge of the radome and running "cleanly" backyards. You can see where the lower circular edge of the radome mount was bent back under the floor in the B roll (7:45). The water must have started to rip the aircraft there and then took the front gear off and backwards. Taking with it everything below the floor, until it reached the wingbox, and then the forces went up over the wing and broke the barrel? Wasn't there a report that it hit as swell as it was ditching? Looking like the nose "dug in", or if the attitude was a flare, there was still a lot of speed when the nose hit water resistance?

Incredible both crew got out of that tangle of metal and wire. Interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with.

How beaten up were the black boxes? Any pics of those or not?

Pics remind me of CI#611 pics during its salvage. Glad this had no pax involved and the crew survived.

ATCJesus wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

CNBC says crew members have been rescued, waiting to hear more but that is great news.
https://twitter.com/cnbcnow/status/1410 ... 69441?s=21

Of course CNBC was trying to imply it was possibly a MAX and connecting it to Boeing share price….

The sentence "the aircraft was not a 737 MAX" is literally in the article. Calm down.

Glad everyone is OK, great work by the crew

The tail section looks pretty well in tact I'd assume the black boxes are likely in good shape unless the water tight seal got broken

eightcone wrote:

I'm amazed at the amount of carnage on the underside of the front fuse, and yet it stayed in two big pieces. Like everything from the floor down was sliced off. Starting from the lower edge of the radome and running "cleanly" backyards. You can see where the lower circular edge of the radome mount was bent back under the floor in the B roll (7:45). The water must have started to rip the aircraft there and then took the front gear off and backwards. Taking with it everything below the floor, until it reached the wingbox, and then the forces went up over the wing and broke the barrel? Wasn't there a report that it hit as swell as it was ditching? Looking like the nose "dug in", or if the attitude was a flare, there was still a lot of speed when the nose hit water resistance?

Incredible both crew got out of that tangle of metal and wire. Interesting to see what the NTSB comes up with.

Not only got out, but got out through the main cabin door, if I remember correctly. Absolutely amazing.

It looks like (from watching the video) the first officers cockpit window is open, I am guessing the first officer got out through there and the captain through the main door?

Also appears that one of the engines was rotating somewhat (when they show thew backside of the engine) on impact, dont know if windmilling could cause that kind of bend?

Flaps look like at flaps 5 setting?

Still amazed how well that thing held together.

Also a huge thanks to the NTSB for creating and posting that video!

I dont know if they are still operating with covid, but there used to be a submarine expedition off Wakikiki and the route had some intentionally sank planes on the bottom (I believe YS-11's), only took you down approx 100ft but still deep enough to be a little bit nervous.

One thing I noticed, compared to other water crashes like Swissair 111, Silkair 185, and Egyptair 990, this plane seemed relatively intact. Probably because it didn't enter the water at high speeds and obliterate into pieces. But still, how come the wreckage removal took basically from the beginning of July to today. As I'm not experienced in this type of thing, is this amount of time normal to take for such an operation? AFAIK, I thought that they managed to get 75% of the Silkair plane out of the Musi river within a month of the dredging, and that was a high speed crash that much wreckage ended up deep within the mud. Transair 810 now seems much more straightforward, but how come it took longer?

I would guess it took so long due to the logistics of getting the proper watercraft coordinated (Im not sure how far out the specialized ROV equipped watercraft get booked in advance/getting a barge that could handle that kind of lifting) as well as well as a gameplan to retrieve the wreckage in as few pieces as possible. It was also hampered by the fact at that depth its impossible to get divers down safely so the ROV had to handle everything on the seabed. Watching the NTSB briefing from early October before it began they mentioned the back end could end up weighing up to 90,000lbs. Then theres also the side of who was going to pay for it, Im guessing it easily went up into the hundreds of thousands costwise

Boeing757100 wrote:

One thing I noticed, compared to other water crashes like Swissair 111, Silkair 185, and Egyptair 990, this plane seemed relatively intact. Probably because it didn't enter the water at high speeds and obliterate into pieces. But still, how come the wreckage removal took basically from the beginning of July to today. As I'm not experienced in this type of thing, is this amount of time normal to take for such an operation? AFAIK, I thought that they managed to get 75% of the Silkair plane out of the Musi river within a month of the dredging, and that was a high speed crash that much wreckage ended up deep within the mud. Transair 810 now seems much more straightforward, but how come it took longer?

Also, no one died in this incident. That would make it a little less time-sensitive I'd think.

BenTheGreat97 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

One thing I noticed, compared to other water crashes like Swissair 111, Silkair 185, and Egyptair 990, this plane seemed relatively intact. Probably because it didn't enter the water at high speeds and obliterate into pieces. But still, how come the wreckage removal took basically from the beginning of July to today. As I'm not experienced in this type of thing, is this amount of time normal to take for such an operation? AFAIK, I thought that they managed to get 75% of the Silkair plane out of the Musi river within a month of the dredging, and that was a high speed crash that much wreckage ended up deep within the mud. Transair 810 now seems much more straightforward, but how come it took longer?

Also, no one died in this incident. That would make it a little less time-sensitive I'd think.

As well as not a ton of these flying around. If it were a newer model with extensive passenger service there would be some urgency to ensure a root cause can be identified sooner in case it was a manufacturing or operating issue.

Agreed pretty low priority event to recover, but certainly worthy of further investigation.

Boeing757100 wrote:

One thing I noticed, compared to other water crashes like Swissair 111, Silkair 185, and Egyptair 990, this plane seemed relatively intact. Probably because it didn't enter the water at high speeds and obliterate into pieces. But still, how come the wreckage removal took basically from the beginning of July to today. As I'm not experienced in this type of thing, is this amount of time normal to take for such an operation? AFAIK, I thought that they managed to get 75% of the Silkair plane out of the Musi river within a month of the dredging, and that was a high speed crash that much wreckage ended up deep within the mud. Transair 810 now seems much more straightforward, but how come it took longer?

The difference here is this was a controlled ditching. More similarities to Sully than those incidents. If you ditch an airplane in a controlled, energy managed manner, there is a much better chance of survival.

RogerMurdock wrote:

Full photoset: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157719519744779/  and B-Roll:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRMW-rsn--w

Thank you for sharing these photo. I wonder if they recover the underbelly of the aircraft since it was all but scrapped off? Perhaps the airframe can be used for movie prop after investigation is concluded. Maybe sink her back into water as artificial reef.

Kudos to the team doing the recovery effort.

Western727 wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

One thing I noticed......I thought that they managed to get 75% of the Silkair plane out of the Musi river within a month of the dredging, and that was a high speed crash that much wreckage ended up deep within the mud. Transair 810 now seems much more straightforward, but how come it took longer?

I imagine the water currents might be a factor, though that's only speculation.

The equipment needed for deep water recovery of large heavy items is not just sitting around in all locations in the world; and there is a limited amount of it.

It literally may have taken months just to get the right equipment onsite from as far as half way around the world (although usually its within 1/3 of the way around the world) - if it was immediately available (this equipment is usually doing something other than sitting around).

My guess is that this recovery is in the 1/2 - 1 $ Million range.

RogerMurdock wrote:

Full photoset: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/sets/72157719519744779/  and B-Roll:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRMW-rsn--w

Wow!! Absolutely incredible. Those pilots are so lucky. A successful ditching at sea at night. Surprised the damage isn't worse.