LTC8K6 wrote:

I remember hearing about Quick Access recorders long ago. I recall discussion of one from that BA777 that had the engines quit from fuel starvation.

Wireless data capability goes way back as well.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010924085 ... ndlink.asp

Perhaps there is confusion over what a QAR is?

The device Dan spoke of in his video is a QACVR. I think this is the article he displayed during his latest video linked above while he mentioned them. I was just wondering if they actually transmit data real-time to a cloud like he suggested. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/06/2 ... tion-year/

randomdude83 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Is it just me or is this getting weird(er)?

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

http://www.donica.com/en/assistance/20.html

I don't see any indication of real time data transmission.

NIKV69 wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Is it just me or is this getting weird(er)?

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

NTSB has the CVR.

NIKV69 wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Is it just me or is this getting weird(er)?

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

Huh? Have you been following this whole thing? If not I recommend read the last few pages before posting. The CVR was damaged and has been sent to the US for downloading, considering the FDR is also damaged the same thing probably will happen.

I find funny that people automatically assume there will be a coverup involved, even though China has always conducted air accident investigations professionally and openly, its safety record speaks for itself. I had hoped most A net posters can put aside ideology and stereotype, but it's looking increasingly likely that I'm too naive.

LTC8K6 wrote:

I remember hearing about Quick Access recorders long ago. I recall discussion of one from that BA777 that had the engines quit from fuel starvation.

Wireless data capability goes way back as well.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010924085 ... ndlink.asp

Perhaps there is confusion over what a QAR is?

I don't think there's been many pilots who haven't discussed how real time transmission of cockpit voice recordings and some flight data was inevitbale. Further, I've had some think its being done now without our knowledge (the voice aspect) but that subject is for the conspiracy theorists who are at every operation. I've always maintained the position to not say anything in the cockpit you wouldn't say to the boss and you're safe.

LTC8K6 wrote:

http://www.donica.com/en/assistance/20.html

I don't see any indication of real time data transmission.

Thanks, I couldn't find any indication of that either. I read through the patent as well, and it does say 4G/WiFi downloading of the 2000 hours of QACVR data can be done in place of the memory card download, but from what I could gather it has to be done on the ground.

OMP777X wrote:

Thanks, I couldn't find any indication of that either. I read through the patent as well, and it does say 4G/WiFi downloading of the 2000 hours of QACVR data can be done in place of the memory card download, but from what I could gather it has to be done on the ground.

That is correct, airports have wifi at the gate which aircraft connect to, and the fallback is 4G. QAR is different to FDR data, there is a lot more parameters for engine and system monitoring, the primary user of the data is engineering. There is no voice involved. Normally the day after I do a flight I can see the flight on my ipad and go through the flight profile.

889091 wrote:

Apologies if this question may sound a little ignorant, but do local Chinese cockpit crews communicate with Chinese ATC in Mandarin or in English?

Some of the radio comms are in Mandarin. Here's a clip of ATC asking other pilots to try to reach MU5735:

https://video.sina.cn/news/2022-03-23/d ... 531.d.html

NIKV69 wrote:

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

There is a process that investigations follow all over the world. I believe it is to try and get a interim report out within a month. Unless and until China seems to delay this, the skepticism that is in your post is unwarranted. There is no value for anyone if they are interested in safety to try and cover anything up. If it was an intentional act, the way to ensure it doesn't happen again is not to cover it up and hope for the best. It is to find out what happened and bring in measures to try and ensure it doesn't happen again.

NIKV69 wrote:

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

See the Reuters article dated April 02:

The U.S. safety board told Reuters it was helping the Civil Aviation Administration of China "with the download of the cockpit voice recorder from China Eastern Flight 5735 in our lab in Washington."

China's decision to send a key piece of evidence to Washington for assistance shows the urgency of the investigation at a time when two nations have been at odds at other issues.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-04-01/

But I have to admit that I was also a little bit concerned about how the Chinese authorities would handle these investigations. Even better to see that they are cooperating with the NTSB.

LTC8K6 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

NTSB has the CVR.

The NTSB is only downloading the data - and will pass it on, unanalyzed, to the Chinese - unless the Chinese specifically give permission to the NTSB to analyze the data as well as provide a copy to the Chinese investigation.

I note that it is my understanding that the NTSB has the best technical capability in the world to handle damaged crash recorder data cards and chips. China is asking the NTSB to do the download because they do not have the capability to do it themselves for the degree of damage to the memory board and chip case/legs.

That's the formal procedure per the international treaty on crash analysis.

2175301 wrote:

LTC8K6 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

NTSB has the CVR.

The NTSB is only downloading the data - and will pass it on, unanalyzed, to the Chinese - unless the Chinese specifically give permission to the NTSB to analyze the data as well as provide a copy to the Chinese investigation.

I note that it is my understanding that the NTSB has the best technical capability in the world to handle damaged crash recorder data cards and chips. China is asking the NTSB to do the download because they do not have the capability to do it themselves for the degree of damage to the memory board and chip case/legs.

That's the formal procedure per the international treaty on crash analysis.

...and the the NTSB wouldn't keep a copy of the data? That's hard to believe.

Do note, the NTSB is a party in this investigation, as they are in most investigations that involve US manufactured aircraft.

If they suspect "malarky", or disagree with the conclusions, they can -- and have in the past -- issue a dissenting opinion.

(frankly, if China does attempt a cover-up, I don't think there's a chance that cover-up will be 100% successful. Someone will leak it.)

Just sit tight and let the investigation continue. We'll know soon enough what the facts are.

litz wrote:

Do note, the NTSB is a party in this investigation, as they are in most investigations that involve US manufactured aircraft.

If they suspect "malarky", or disagree with the conclusions, they can -- and have in the past -- issue a dissenting opinion.

(frankly, if China does attempt a cover-up, I don't think there's a chance that cover-up will be 100% successful. Someone will leak it.)

Just sit tight and let the investigation continue. We'll know soon enough what the facts are.

Not exactly correct:

By international treaty the NTSB is a party to the investigation because they represent the nation of manufacture. Likewise Boeing is a party to the investigation as they represent the company of manufacture.

However, they only have observer status unless the country performing the investigation grants them more rights. Some counties do that, and some do not.

Neither the NTSB nor Boeing can say anything or issue any dissenting report unless the country doing the investigation allows them to do so.

While both the NTSB and Boeing my observe and might gain more data, they can only use that data in a general sense on how to make aircraft safer - and in a way that does not identify where they learned that lesson from - unless the country doing the investigation allows them. Again, some countries allow the Nation of Manufacture and the Company of Manufacture to more fully participate and even issue dissenting opinions.

I am quite certain that the Chinese investigation will identify the cause of the crash.

I am far less certain that the Chinese will actually produce an unbiased report that tells what they actually found, or allow the NTSB and Boeing more participation than observer status.

Note also that the International Treaty does not require a Root Cause report at all. China could just list what they feel are the potential causes with no conclusion (and might leave some out of that list). We've seen that done in the past as well.

China has a lot to gain by doing this right with a full Root Cause report and allowing the NTSB and Boeing full participation with the potential for a dissenting report.

But, China is China and they may chose to protect themselves and their airlines and crew from criticism.

All we can do is wait and see.

KDAL wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

G-forces in freefall are as low as they can be - essentially zero.

That's why astronauts orbiting the Earth feel zero-G. Because they are in freefall.

Once you hit terminal velocity, you will feel around one G again.

If you could explain terminal velocity, I’d appreciate it.

Terminal velocity is when the acceleration of gravity (-9.81m/s²) can no longer overcome the drag caused by air resistance. The velocity varies between different objects based on shape and surface area, but the effect is that acceleration stops. The object has then reached the maximum (terminal) velocity (speed) that it can achieve within the earth's atmosphere.

Think of a skydiver with a parachute. The parachute is there to reduce the terminal velocity of the skydiver to allow for a safe(ish) landing.

Thank you for explaining that so well. I appreciate it.

flybucky wrote:

vikkyvik wrote:

G-forces in freefall are as low as they can be - essentially zero.
That's why astronauts orbiting the Earth feel zero-G. Because they are in freefall.
Once you hit terminal velocity, you will feel around one G again.

CitizenJustin wrote:

If you could explain terminal velocity, I’d appreciate it.

Pretend you are in an elevator going down (and pretend this elevator can reach freefall speed).

Before it starts moving, you feel 1G (1x the regular force of gravity).

After it starts doing down, you feel 0G because you are in freefall (you will feel light, as if there was no gravity).

At some point, it will reach terminal velocity due to air resistance. That means the speed is constant (acceleration is 0). Then you will feel 1G again.

When the elevator gets to the bottom, it slows down. Now you might feel 2G (you feel very heavy).

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining it to me like I’m 5 lol.

2175301 wrote:

Not exactly correct:

{snip} Lots of woefully inaccurate statements about accident investigation

I’m amazed someone would post this when anyone can Google ICAO annexe 13 and get the facts. Lots of things objectively wrong in that post, but to follow up on @litz comments, not only can the other participants make dissenting comments, they can insist they are attached verbatim to the final report.

6.3 The State conducting the investigation shall send a copy of the draft Final Report to the State that instituted the investigation and to all States that participated in the investigation, inviting their significant and substantiated comments on the report as soon as possible. The draft Final Report of the investigation shall be sent for comments to:
a) the State of Registry;
b) the State of the Operator; c) the State of Design; and d) the State of Manufacture.
If the State conducting the investigation receives comments within sixty days of the date of the transmittal letter, it shall either amend the draft Final Report to include the substance of the comments received or, if desired by the State that provided comments, append the comments to the Final Report. If the State conducting the investigation receives no comments within sixty days of the date of the first transmittal letter, it shall issue the Final Report in accordance with 6.4, unless an extension of that period has been agreed by the States concerned.

2175301 wrote:

By international treaty the NTSB is a party to the investigation because they represent the nation of manufacture. Likewise Boeing is a party to the investigation as they represent the company of manufacture.

Boeing are not involved as an observer, the NTSB is. The NTSB is representing the state of design and manufacturing, they are the conduit. They can call upon Boeing.

2175301 wrote:

litz wrote:

Do note, the NTSB is a party in this investigation, as they are in most investigations that involve US manufactured aircraft.

If they suspect "malarky", or disagree with the conclusions, they can -- and have in the past -- issue a dissenting opinion.

(frankly, if China does attempt a cover-up, I don't think there's a chance that cover-up will be 100% successful. Someone will leak it.)

Just sit tight and let the investigation continue. We'll know soon enough what the facts are.

Not exactly correct:

By international treaty the NTSB is a party to the investigation because they represent the nation of manufacture. Likewise Boeing is a party to the investigation as they represent the company of manufacture.

However, they only have observer status unless the country performing the investigation grants them more rights. Some counties do that, and some do not.

Neither the NTSB nor Boeing can say anything or issue any dissenting report unless the country doing the investigation allows them to do so.

While both the NTSB and Boeing my observe and might gain more data, they can only use that data in a general sense on how to make aircraft safer - and in a way that does not identify where they learned that lesson from - unless the country doing the investigation allows them. Again, some countries allow the Nation of Manufacture and the Company of Manufacture to more fully participate and even issue dissenting opinions.

I am quite certain that the Chinese investigation will identify the cause of the crash.

I am far less certain that the Chinese will actually produce an unbiased report that tells what they actually found, or allow the NTSB and Boeing more participation than observer status.

Note also that the International Treaty does not require a Root Cause report at all. China could just list what they feel are the potential causes with no conclusion (and might leave some out of that list). We've seen that done in the past as well.

China has a lot to gain by doing this right with a full Root Cause report and allowing the NTSB and Boeing full participation with the potential for a dissenting report.

But, China is China and they may chose to protect themselves and their airlines and crew from criticism.

All we can do is wait and see.

Since I can only recall a few high profile crashes in Chinese happened during my younger life since 2000, including sabottage (CJ6136), pilot error (VD8387), failed ice removal (MU5210). All investiagtions seemed to be conclusive, also pointing to root causes attributed to Chinese, instead of pointing fingers to the instruments involved at all. Can you kindly share one or two examples per "China could just list what they feel are the potential causes with no conclusion (and might leave some out of that list). We've seen that done in the past as well."?

Many thanks

This story states that both recorders were sent to the NTSB.

The safety board has said it was assisting the Civil Aviation Administration of China with the download of the cockpit voice recorder at its lab in Washington, but wouldn’t be releasing any information about its contents. The NTSB also hasn’t commented on whether the download was successful.

The flight-data recorder, which captures hundreds of parameters monitoring an aircraft’s path and systems, was also brought to Washington by the Chinese, a person familiar with the process said last week.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/c ... ve-in-u-s/

I have been analyzing the flight path for the first 16 seconds of the event, times 06:20:43 to 06:29:59, using the limited FR24 data we have available. I haven't yet created a simulation that I feel confident showing, but here is my current thinking:

1) The aircraft made a hard left turn shortly after 06:20:43. This is the only way to get to the second data point at the stated time.
2) The ground track requires an "S" shape to support the FR24 "Track" value being ~100 degrees at the start and end
4) The aircraft experienced high g loading to support the "S" shape
3) The high descent rate at 06:29:59 means a sharp altitude drop that starts before that time

Lower Confidence
1) The aircraft experienced 2.5g+ loading during the turns in that interval

Assumptions
1) The FR24 data above is accurate (e.g. Times are mostly accurate, no stale ADS-B messages, no significant instrumentation error)
2) X-Plane flight model in this flight envelope gives useful insight

It would be useful to my efforts to have access to the ADS-B data that CAAC likely collected Here is the ADS-B 3300m coverage map that CAAC targeted for deployment by late 2017 (the most recent information I could find). .



Source: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_275_en.pdf
If you look in the doc, you will see that coverage at higher altitudes is even better.

NIKV69 wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

GSPSPOT wrote:

Is it just me or is this getting weird(er)?

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

This is a investigation being run by China not the NTSB they won't release info quickly if at all. They have both the FDR and CVR they know what happened.

Any sources for this claim?

airplanecrazy wrote:

I have been analyzing the flight path for the first 16 seconds of the event, times 06:20:43 to 06:29:59, using the limited FR24 data we have available. I haven't yet created a simulation that I feel confident showing, but here is my current thinking:

1) The aircraft made a hard left turn shortly after 06:20:43. This is the only way to get to the second data point at the stated time.
2) The ground track requires an "S" shape to support the FR24 "Track" value being ~100 degrees at the start and end
4) The aircraft experienced high g loading to support the "S" shape
3) The high descent rate at 06:29:59 means a sharp altitude drop that starts before that time

Thanks for your work on the analysis. I think those points will likely be confirmed by the FDR data when it is released. Of course, the million dollar question is what caused those sequence of events to happen?

MalevTU134 wrote:

2175301 wrote:

LTC8K6 wrote:

NTSB has the CVR.

The NTSB is only downloading the data - and will pass it on, unanalyzed, to the Chinese - unless the Chinese specifically give permission to the NTSB to analyze the data as well as provide a copy to the Chinese investigation.

I note that it is my understanding that the NTSB has the best technical capability in the world to handle damaged crash recorder data cards and chips. China is asking the NTSB to do the download because they do not have the capability to do it themselves for the degree of damage to the memory board and chip case/legs.

That's the formal procedure per the international treaty on crash analysis.

...and the the NTSB wouldn't keep a copy of the data? That's hard to believe.

Take a look at EgyptAir Flight 804, where BEA downloaded the recorders, and how the further investigation went on.

randomdude83 wrote:

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

When have you ever heard of a report coming out just days after investigators found the black boxes of a fallen plane????...

I'm inclined to slant towards Dan Gryder's suggestion (more than a suggestion in fact) in his video, already linked by Travaz on the previous page of this topic.

As soon as I saw the news footage (one CCTV and the other dashcam) of the final seconds of the flight, and also the basic data indicating the short time elapsed from cruise to impact, my mind went exactly in the same direction as Dan's did. He also put a different video on Youtube (to the one Travaz has linked) 2 days after the crash where he states his difficulty coming up with an 'accident' scenario which would achieve the MU5735 flight profile from cruise until impact in the time space, besides a pair of hands being on the yoke. I take it I've freedom here to state my personal opinion? I personally see here a significant possibility of a repeat of Silk Air 185.

I found it interesting in the video linked by Travaz that Dan Gryder (whom I do follow for some serious talking and excellent 'hit home' safety content as I fly light aircraft) released a couple of days ago, he provides a motive, and quite a shocking, but not to me surprising one at that.

It's also very possible that the perpetrator here took a cue from German Wings 9525, by locking at least one of the three cockpit members out of the fight deck, ie toilet visit before descent, leaving only one other member to contend with.

The big intrigue for me moving ahead here will not so much be what the investigation will find, its how China will report same. If it is clear cut suicide, will they bury that possibility in a list of 'possible' causes to ensure there is plenty of doubt left in peoples minds? This is what most countries have actually done in final reports of pilot suicide crashes in the past.

If Dan Gryder's motive is true, or even a half truth, can we really see China stating same in a report in such clear terms. I doubt it very very much! So we may be left to speculate as is the case with MH370, despite the fact there, that to most observers, the cause was very obvious. I hope readers don't too much mind me saying 'kindly', that those who refuse to accept that obvious cause, I put in the same category as flat earthers.

awthompson wrote:

I'm inclined to slant towards Dan Gryder's suggestion (more than a suggestion in fact) in his video, already linked by Travaz on the previous page of this topic.

As soon as I saw the news footage (one CCTV and the other dashcam) of the final seconds of the flight, and also the basic data indicating the short time elapsed from cruise to impact, my mind went exactly in the same direction as Dan's did. He also put a different video on Youtube (to the one Travaz has linked) 2 days after the crash where he states his difficulty coming up with an 'accident' scenario which would achieve the MU5735 flight profile from cruise until impact in the time space, besides a pair of hands being on the yoke. I take it I've freedom here to state my personal opinion? I personally see here a significant possibility of a repeat of Silk Air 185.

I found it interesting in the video linked by Travaz that Dan Gryder (whom I do follow for some serious talking and excellent 'hit home' safety content as I fly light aircraft) released a couple of days ago, he provides a motive, and quite a shocking, but not to me surprising one at that.

It's also very possible that the perpetrator here took a cue from German Wings 9525, by locking at least one of the three cockpit members out of the fight deck, ie toilet visit before descent, leaving only one other member to contend with.

The big intrigue for me moving ahead here will not so much be what the investigation will find, its how China will report same. If it is clear cut suicide, will they bury that possibility in a list of 'possible' causes to ensure there is plenty of doubt left in peoples minds? This is what most countries have actually done in final reports of pilot suicide crashes in the past.

If Dan Gryder's motive is true, or even a half truth, can we really see China stating same in a report in such clear terms. I doubt it very very much! So we may be left to speculate as is the case with MH370, despite the fact there, that to most observers, the cause was very obvious. I hope readers don't too much mind me saying 'kindly', that those who refuse to accept that obvious cause, I put in the same category as flat earthers.

Hope your post stays up. Mine basically saying the same things was removed. It seems there is only one correct opinion to have about the Chinese govt. Those of us who have lived there have our eyes open much wider as we know how these things will go.

WASHINGTON, April 5 (Reuters) - The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed on Tuesday it is assisting Chinese investigators with the review of the flight data recorder in a China Eastern Airlines Boeing 737-800 that crashed March 21 killing all 132 onboard.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-u-ntsb ... 40422.html

It looks like the NTSB will help with the review, not only the download of the data.

trad01 wrote:

awthompson wrote:

I'm inclined to slant towards Dan Gryder's suggestion (more than a suggestion in fact) in his video, already linked by Travaz on the previous page of this topic.

As soon as I saw the news footage (one CCTV and the other dashcam) of the final seconds of the flight, and also the basic data indicating the short time elapsed from cruise to impact, my mind went exactly in the same direction as Dan's did. He also put a different video on Youtube (to the one Travaz has linked) 2 days after the crash where he states his difficulty coming up with an 'accident' scenario which would achieve the MU5735 flight profile from cruise until impact in the time space, besides a pair of hands being on the yoke. I take it I've freedom here to state my personal opinion? I personally see here a significant possibility of a repeat of Silk Air 185.

I found it interesting in the video linked by Travaz that Dan Gryder (whom I do follow for some serious talking and excellent 'hit home' safety content as I fly light aircraft) released a couple of days ago, he provides a motive, and quite a shocking, but not to me surprising one at that.

It's also very possible that the perpetrator here took a cue from German Wings 9525, by locking at least one of the three cockpit members out of the fight deck, ie toilet visit before descent, leaving only one other member to contend with.

The big intrigue for me moving ahead here will not so much be what the investigation will find, its how China will report same. If it is clear cut suicide, will they bury that possibility in a list of 'possible' causes to ensure there is plenty of doubt left in peoples minds? This is what most countries have actually done in final reports of pilot suicide crashes in the past.

If Dan Gryder's motive is true, or even a half truth, can we really see China stating same in a report in such clear terms. I doubt it very very much! So we may be left to speculate as is the case with MH370, despite the fact there, that to most observers, the cause was very obvious. I hope readers don't too much mind me saying 'kindly', that those who refuse to accept that obvious cause, I put in the same category as flat earthers.

Hope your post stays up. Mine basically saying the same things was removed. It seems there is only one correct opinion to have about the Chinese govt. Those of us who have lived there have our eyes open much wider as we know how these things will go.

Just for the record, this is the source Dan Gryder used to make the suggestions in his video. This person also claims MH370 had a QACVR and video camera in its cockpit, but that the info was covered up. While it is possible that MU5735 was an intentional crash, I'm not taking this guys word for it.
https://youtu.be/0hxMxIn90DA

OMP777X wrote:

Just for the record, this is the source Dan Gryder used to make the suggestions in his video. This person also claims MH370 had a QACVR and video camera in its cockpit, but that the info was covered up. While it is possible that MU5735 was an intentional crash, I'm not taking this guys word for it.
https://youtu.be/0hxMxIn90DA

Thanks for this post. This guy is an obvious huckster. Clearly he is one of the many that have tried to spin nonsense about MH 370.

Planes4you wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

My only worry is that the boxes have been found for a few days now and we have nothing so far.

That’s raising serious suspicions in my mind.

When have you ever heard of a report coming out just days after investigators found the black boxes of a fallen plane????...

I don't think he's expecting an official report. But information is usually disseminated (carefully) and/or leaked. That is what's missing here. I recall the Germanwings suicide crash having information disseminated or leaked shortly after the FDR remains were recovered. No one said it was definitely pilot suicide at the time, but what was revealed within a few days was that the police had conducted a search of the co-pilot's home where they found evidence of his severe depression (doctor's letter). Then there came news that the captain had exited the cockpit to use the toilet and then shortly afterwards there were repeated poundings on the cockpit door and voices could be heard begging/demanding to be let in. Those were facts that got out into the public domain, whether by accident or deliberately shortly after the data was recovered from the remains of the box's circuit boards.

But let's look at this from another angle. It's in an entity's interests - most important of all a government's interest - to disseminate information as quickly as possible lest it risks losing credibility and the public's trust. There's always going to be a small group that will claim the government (any government) is hiding information. But the longer the silence, the more that group will grow in numbers until eventually, if the silence is long enough, there will always be doubt in the public's mind that will be indelible.

OMP777X wrote:

trad01 wrote:

awthompson wrote:

I'm inclined to slant towards Dan Gryder's suggestion (more than a suggestion in fact) in his video, already linked by Travaz on the previous page of this topic.

As soon as I saw the news footage (one CCTV and the other dashcam) of the final seconds of the flight, and also the basic data indicating the short time elapsed from cruise to impact, my mind went exactly in the same direction as Dan's did. He also put a different video on Youtube (to the one Travaz has linked) 2 days after the crash where he states his difficulty coming up with an 'accident' scenario which would achieve the MU5735 flight profile from cruise until impact in the time space, besides a pair of hands being on the yoke. I take it I've freedom here to state my personal opinion? I personally see here a significant possibility of a repeat of Silk Air 185.

I found it interesting in the video linked by Travaz that Dan Gryder (whom I do follow for some serious talking and excellent 'hit home' safety content as I fly light aircraft) released a couple of days ago, he provides a motive, and quite a shocking, but not to me surprising one at that.

It's also very possible that the perpetrator here took a cue from German Wings 9525, by locking at least one of the three cockpit members out of the fight deck, ie toilet visit before descent, leaving only one other member to contend with.

The big intrigue for me moving ahead here will not so much be what the investigation will find, its how China will report same. If it is clear cut suicide, will they bury that possibility in a list of 'possible' causes to ensure there is plenty of doubt left in peoples minds? This is what most countries have actually done in final reports of pilot suicide crashes in the past.

If Dan Gryder's motive is true, or even a half truth, can we really see China stating same in a report in such clear terms. I doubt it very very much! So we may be left to speculate as is the case with MH370, despite the fact there, that to most observers, the cause was very obvious. I hope readers don't too much mind me saying 'kindly', that those who refuse to accept that obvious cause, I put in the same category as flat earthers.

Hope your post stays up. Mine basically saying the same things was removed. It seems there is only one correct opinion to have about the Chinese govt. Those of us who have lived there have our eyes open much wider as we know how these things will go.

Just for the record, this is the source Dan Gryder used to make the suggestions in his video. This person also claims MH370 had a QACVR and video camera in its cockpit, but that the info was covered up. While it is possible that MU5735 was an intentional crash, I'm not taking this guys word for it.
https://youtu.be/0hxMxIn90DA

I wouldn't take Miles Guo's word for everything, but about the QACVR I will. What is unknown is whether the QACVR system is reliable. The behavior of the Chinese govt makes me suspicious that the system was not working properly, or it was disabled.

Miles Guo is a well known Chinese billionaire dissident with contacts at the highest levels of the Chinese govt.. He escaped from the Chinese govt who want to bring him back to China so they can shut him up. Read the book Red Roulette if you want to learn how it ends up for someone who doesn't escape in time. (The two Michaels from Canada who were kidnapped by the Chinese govt for leverage in the Meng Wanzhou Huawei CFO affair were kept in black jails for 2 years. They came out never having heard of Covid.)

Regarding MH370, I have no comment.

trad01 wrote:

Hope your post stays up. Mine basically saying the same things was removed. It seems there is only one correct opinion to have about the Chinese govt. Those of us who have lived there have our eyes open much wider as we know how these things will go.

I think you can stop it now, pretty much all of your conspiracy theories about cover-ups have been debunked, especially your claim of recorders being hidden, like literally minutes before they were handed to the NTSB. One word of advise, you don't have to kept on repeating that you've lived in China because from your post we all know you haven't, you're just pasting standard lines from your handbook.

You've made a good enough effort manipulating the conversation, it's time to collect your pay from you handler and call it a day.

redflyer wrote:

I recall the Germanwings suicide crash having information disseminated or leaked shortly after the FDR remains were recovered.

The transponder data includes the setting for autopilot altitude- and for Germanwings it was set below ground level.

https://www.ibtimes.com/how-flightradar ... sh-1866218

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain. Make of the video what you will but it certainly does add more suspicions. I couldn't find out any information on the quoted Chinese American pilot Gao Fei but that is most likely not his real name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2PctB2Rtk

SuperGee wrote:

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain. Make of the video what you will but it certainly does add more suspicions. I couldn't find out any information on the quoted Chinese American pilot Gao Fei but that is most likely not his real name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2PctB2Rtk

Wow, it‘s hard to believe that this set-up in the cockpit had NO influence on what has happened…

As regards to the concerns that China might cover up the real root cause: President Xi himself instructed the relevant authorities to find out what happened and „to learning from it“. Well, IF true, one simple lesson learnt would be that you shall not let the sacked pilot fly with the pilot who sacked him…

Secondly, IF TRUE, wouldn’t that mean that the majority of crashes are due to suicide? That would be shocking…

awthompson wrote:

I personally see here a significant possibility of a repeat of Silk Air 185. It's also very possible that the perpetrator here took a cue from German Wings 9525, by locking at least one of the three cockpit members out of the fight deck, ie toilet visit before descent, leaving only one other member to contend with.

While pilot suicide can't be eliminated yet, I think the timing of the descent makes it a less likely scenario (given the information that is currently available). In other pilot suicide incidents, the dive began shortly (5-20 minutes) after reaching cruise. With MU5735, it had been at cruise for almost an hour. More importantly, the descent began at the same time/place as previous flights.

Silkair 185: 15:37 takeoff. Reached cruise at 15:53. Dive began at 16:12.
Germanwings 9525: 10:01 takeoff. ~10:26 cruise reached. 10:31 dive began.
EgyptAir 990: 1:20 takeoff. 1:44 reached cruise. 1:49 dive began.

China Eastern 5735: 5:16 takeoff. Reached cruise 5:27. Dive began at 6:20 (same time/place as previous flights).

Now, it is possible that having 3 people in the cockpit made the timing more complicated. Hopefully, the CVR will reveal what happened.

ADent wrote:

The transponder data includes the setting for autopilot altitude- and for Germanwings it was set below ground level.

If I recall the MCP was set to 100 ft, they were flying towards rising terrain. The descent was made with the autopilot on with fairly normal descent rates.

SuperGee wrote:

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain.

I had seen that video, I would tend to err on the simpler answer, that being he was reaching 60 and he could no longer be a captain in international operations.

“2.1.10 Limitation of privileges of pilots who have attained their 60th birthday
and curtailment of privileges of pilots who have attained their 65th birthday

A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, their 65th birthday.

from https://www.icao.int/safety/aviation-me ... n.aspx#age

SuperGee wrote:

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain. Make of the video what you will but it certainly does add more suspicions. I couldn't find out any information on the quoted Chinese American pilot Gao Fei but that is most likely not his real name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2PctB2Rtk

Video cites an article in Epoch Times - a fascist right wing political communications channel masquerading itself as news. Once I heard that I stopped watching.

N14AZ wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

....one simple lesson learnt would be that you shall not let the sacked pilot fly with the pilot who sacked him…

so if you are a check captain you have to have a "special" roster because you can not fly with a lot of other pilots?

not

hmmwv wrote:

trad01 wrote:

Hope your post stays up. Mine basically saying the same things was removed. It seems there is only one correct opinion to have about the Chinese govt. Those of us who have lived there have our eyes open much wider as we know how these things will go.

I think you can stop it now, pretty much all of your conspiracy theories about cover-ups have been debunked, especially your claim of recorders being hidden, like literally minutes before they were handed to the NTSB. One word of advise, you don't have to kept on repeating that you've lived in China because from your post we all know you haven't, you're just pasting standard lines from your handbook.

You've made a good enough effort manipulating the conversation, it's time to collect your pay from you handler and call it a day.

During my years living in China, I flew on China Eastern many times. I am not a pilot and so will defer to others in technical flight details. I never suggested that MU5735 had a cloud based flight recorder operational, however I know that this was being worked on with other aircraft in China. This capability was recommended by CAAC but it is uncertain how far this implementation has progressed, and how well it works.

I hope that NTSB will have full access and will give the final report more credibility. I know that politically sensitive things in China are completely managed by the govt and normal expectations about how things work, can be thrown out the window. We will have an accident investigation with Chinese characteristics.

redflyer wrote:

But let's look at this from another angle. It's in an entity's interests - most important of all a government's interest - to disseminate information as quickly as possible lest it risks losing credibility and the public's trust. There's always going to be a small group that will claim the government (any government) is hiding information. But the longer the silence, the more that group will grow in numbers until eventually, if the silence is long enough, there will always be doubt in the public's mind that will be indelible.

The ADS-B data does not provide any clear hints. The US NTSB has stated they are assisting with the flight recorder download and review, and that news is barely 24 hours old. In the Seattle Times article linked above, the inputs of a retired accident investigator and an investigation consultant were that it would be 1-2 weeks before investigators will have a detailed enough review of the information to have meaningful information to share.

There are no conclusions to leak, and leaks are not a sign of either honesty or credibility. They're a sign that individuals are not respecting the importance for such a serious matter as a fatal accident of providing clear information that has been appropriately reviewed before release.

While the speculators in this thread are fretting about agendas and appearances, the individuals mentioned above with actual experience have not indicated any surprise or concern about the process so far.

N14AZ wrote:

Wow, it‘s hard to believe that this set-up in the cockpit had NO influence on what has happened…

It's not hard to believe at all. Major setbacks in life a very common experience - demotions, firings, loss of loved ones, crimes, fatal disease prognoses, etc. Different people handle it differently, but the overwhelming majority of people handle the stress and emotions without committing murder.

It is a possibility that has to be considered, but there is no benefit from jumping to conclusions.

N14AZ wrote:

Secondly, IF TRUE, wouldn’t that mean that the majority of crashes are due to suicide? That would be shocking…

I don't follow your logic at all on this suggestion.

iamlucky13 wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Secondly, IF TRUE, wouldn’t that mean that the majority of crashes are due to suicide? That would be shocking…

I don't follow your logic at all on this suggestion.

I knew I hadn’t expressed myself properly. And I am not sure if it’s correct, I would have to investigate a little bit: if I think back of the recent aircraft crashes- and I am not talking about runway overruns etc. - I mean real serious crashes, then it seems as if there are more crashes due to suicide (Germanwings, MH370 (I know it’s not yet proven), the DHC 8 crash in Moçambique) or due to accidental shooting down during military conflicts (MH17, the 737-crash near Teheran) than crashes due to mechanical failure or pilot mistakes. That’s what I tried to say.

However, we don’t know the reason for this crash, not yet.

SuperGee wrote:

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain. Make of the video what you will but it certainly does add more suspicions. I couldn't find out any information on the quoted Chinese American pilot Gao Fei but that is most likely not his real name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2PctB2Rtk

That's clearly all made up BS probably as an elaborate joke. Gao Fei translates to "fly high". Yeah... I chuckled at that one.

Murdoughnut wrote:

SuperGee wrote:

Here is more background on and information about the FO who had been busted back from Captain. Make of the video what you will but it certainly does add more suspicions. I couldn't find out any information on the quoted Chinese American pilot Gao Fei but that is most likely not his real name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2PctB2Rtk

Video cites an article in Epoch Times - a fascist right wing political communications channel masquerading itself as news. Once I heard that I stopped watching.

Examples?

The Epoch Times, despite the Falung Gong connection, actually writes about a lot of stuff in a balanced, just-the-facts-maam way that I often find interesting to read.

One is allowed to read stuff from people one disagrees with. That's why I read the New York Times.

The video is based on the premise that Zhang was "demoted". There's no actual confirmation of that. He could have been doing a check ride or something else. Everybody has called him an "FO" because he was in the right seat. That's also an assumption, not a fact. I will wait for the government reports to lay it out.

wjcandee wrote:

The Epoch Times, despite the Falung Gong connection, actually writes about a lot of stuff in a balanced, just-the-facts-maam way that I often find interesting to read.

One is allowed to read stuff from people one disagrees with. That's why I read the New York Times.

The video is based on the premise that Zhang was "demoted". There's no actual confirmation of that. He could have been doing a check ride or something else. Everybody has called him an "FO" because he was in the right seat. That's also an assumption, not a fact. I will wait for the government reports to lay it out.

This is getting crazier and crazier by the minute. There now have been reports (of very suspect credibiity) floating around apparently that Zhang left a suicide note (apparently in the form of an online message which was the last one he left) . Zhang shouted the last sentence of that supposed last message before the crash: “I’m going down, I don’t know if it’s hell or heaven".

Another point made in the article is that the control tower could apparently hear what was transpiring in the cockpit at the last moments. Again, a highly suspect claim which is yet to be substantiated. If either of those two points are confirmed however (i.e. the existence of the suicide "note" and that the tower could hear what was transpiring in the cockpit), they would have a pretty significant impact on the core of the investigation.

https://www.archyde.com/china-eastern-a ... -airliner/

SuperGee wrote:

Another point made in the article is that the control tower could apparently hear what was transpiring in the cockpit at the last moments. Again, a highly suspect claim which is yet to be substantiated.

Any transmission between aircraft and tower is broadcast to all receivers in the area. Other pilots on the frequency would have heard it too, perhaps even some listeners on the ground. Very unlikely that this happened, or else it would've been reported immediately after the crash.

wjcandee wrote:

The Epoch Times, despite the Falung Gong connection, actually writes about a lot of stuff in a balanced, just-the-facts-maam way that I often find interesting to read.

One is allowed to read stuff from people one disagrees with. That's why I read the New York Times.

The video is based on the premise that Zhang was "demoted". There's no actual confirmation of that. He could have been doing a check ride or something else. Everybody has called him an "FO" because he was in the right seat. That's also an assumption, not a fact. I will wait for the government reports to lay it out.

Epoch Times is rated a questionable source due to numerous failed fact checks - according to MBFC:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/

The list of failed fact checks indicates spectacular willingness to produce farcical clickbait.