Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
stinson108
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 11:30 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 1:54 pm

Has the airline industry considered changing the locking cockpit door so there is access from the outside if one of the pilots is locked out?

The locking door clearly needs to be revamped considering The security and safety problem is on both sides of the cockpit door now.
 
rj777
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:14 pm

Can we keep this thread from getting political so it doesn't get shut down?
 
randomdude83
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2019 5:52 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:29 pm

stinson108 wrote:
Has the airline industry considered changing the locking cockpit door so there is access from the outside if one of the pilots is locked out?

The locking door clearly needs to be revamped considering The security and safety problem is on both sides of the cockpit door now.


That would not be the best solution, lock from inside is proper protection. Mental health check up on all pilots would be the right solution if suicide rumors are true
 
Duke91
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 4:02 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:48 pm

rj777 wrote:
Can we keep this thread from getting political so it doesn't get shut down?


Then we should ban sources which are obviously politically motivated (which the Falun Gong is regarding China).
 
redflyer
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:57 pm

wjcandee wrote:
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.

Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)
 
redflyer
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:09 pm

randomdude83 wrote:
stinson108 wrote:
Has the airline industry considered changing the locking cockpit door so there is access from the outside if one of the pilots is locked out?

The locking door clearly needs to be revamped considering The security and safety problem is on both sides of the cockpit door now.


That would not be the best solution, lock from inside is proper protection. Mental health check up on all pilots would be the right solution if suicide rumors are true

I would respectfully disagree. There's already been enough crash-by-pilot-suicide instances to know that it's relatively easy for someone with mental health issues to slip through the cracks. And with the current pilot shortage, which is only going to become more acute, I'm afraid standards will be relaxed, or accelerations/shortcuts allowed, that will not help mitigate this issue.

I'm all for allowing dual-access capabilities on cockpit doors. Given the implementation of rigorous passenger screening techniques around the globe, along with terrorist "watch lists" by law enforcement authorities, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I'd be more concerned about a pilot going bonkers than some nut job with a political agenda in the cabin gaining access to the cockpit.
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3474
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:32 pm

redflyer wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
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.

Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)


Yes.

redflyer wrote:
I would respectfully disagree. There's already been enough crash-by-pilot-suicide instances to know that it's relatively easy for someone with mental health issues to slip through the cracks. And with the current pilot shortage, which is only going to become more acute, I'm afraid standards will be relaxed, or accelerations/shortcuts allowed, that will not help mitigate this issue.

I'm all for allowing dual-access capabilities on cockpit doors. Given the implementation of rigorous passenger screening techniques around the globe, along with terrorist "watch lists" by law enforcement authorities, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I'd be more concerned about a pilot going bonkers than some nut job with a political agenda in the cabin gaining access to the cockpit.


"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.

This talk of pilot suicide is going way off the rails into really baseless speculation.

As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 6259
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:39 pm

JBirdAV8r wrote:
redflyer wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
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.

Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)


Yes.

redflyer wrote:
I would respectfully disagree. There's already been enough crash-by-pilot-suicide instances to know that it's relatively easy for someone with mental health issues to slip through the cracks. And with the current pilot shortage, which is only going to become more acute, I'm afraid standards will be relaxed, or accelerations/shortcuts allowed, that will not help mitigate this issue.

I'm all for allowing dual-access capabilities on cockpit doors. Given the implementation of rigorous passenger screening techniques around the globe, along with terrorist "watch lists" by law enforcement authorities, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I'd be more concerned about a pilot going bonkers than some nut job with a political agenda in the cabin gaining access to the cockpit.


"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.

This talk of pilot suicide is going way off the rails into really baseless speculation.

As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.

It’s not that rare. You’ve had 2 just in the past couple years. Which is a lot compared to how rare full loss crashes are
 
JBirdAV8r
Posts: 3474
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:44 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 6:54 pm

32andBelow wrote:
JBirdAV8r wrote:
redflyer wrote:
Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)


Yes.

redflyer wrote:
I would respectfully disagree. There's already been enough crash-by-pilot-suicide instances to know that it's relatively easy for someone with mental health issues to slip through the cracks. And with the current pilot shortage, which is only going to become more acute, I'm afraid standards will be relaxed, or accelerations/shortcuts allowed, that will not help mitigate this issue.

I'm all for allowing dual-access capabilities on cockpit doors. Given the implementation of rigorous passenger screening techniques around the globe, along with terrorist "watch lists" by law enforcement authorities, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I'd be more concerned about a pilot going bonkers than some nut job with a political agenda in the cabin gaining access to the cockpit.


"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.

This talk of pilot suicide is going way off the rails into really baseless speculation.

As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.

It’s not that rare. You’ve had 2 just in the past couple years. Which is a lot compared to how rare full loss crashes are


Counting MH370 (likely, but unconfirmed) and Germanwings, that's 2 in the last 10 years. In the 20 years preceding that, there were three. And there are a lot more commercial airplanes flying now than there were back then.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 6259
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:33 pm

JBirdAV8r wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
JBirdAV8r wrote:

Yes.



"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.

This talk of pilot suicide is going way off the rails into really baseless speculation.

As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.

It’s not that rare. You’ve had 2 just in the past couple years. Which is a lot compared to how rare full loss crashes are


Counting MH370 (likely, but unconfirmed) and Germanwings, that's 2 in the last 10 years. In the 20 years preceding that, there were three. And there are a lot more commercial airplanes flying now than there were back then.

Ok but how many crashes have there been in the last 10 years on modern aircraft? That 2 is a significant percentage of the crashes.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3920
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:46 pm

JBirdAV8r wrote:
redflyer wrote:
I would respectfully disagree. There's already been enough crash-by-pilot-suicide instances to know that it's relatively easy for someone with mental health issues to slip through the cracks. And with the current pilot shortage, which is only going to become more acute, I'm afraid standards will be relaxed, or accelerations/shortcuts allowed, that will not help mitigate this issue.

I'm all for allowing dual-access capabilities on cockpit doors. Given the implementation of rigorous passenger screening techniques around the globe, along with terrorist "watch lists" by law enforcement authorities, I think the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I'd be more concerned about a pilot going bonkers than some nut job with a political agenda in the cabin gaining access to the cockpit.


"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.


Counting only crashes that occurred on airborne commercial flights because of pilot suicide, since 1980:

JAL 350
RAM 630
Silk Air 185
EgyptAir 990
LAM 470
MH 370
4U 9525

In that same period, crashes that occurred in flight because of someone breaking into the cockpit and deliberately crashing the plane (NOT counting hijackings where the plane landed afterwards and was destroyed and death resulted on the ground for other reasons), since 1980:

PSA 1771
AA 77 (9/11)
AA 11 (9/11)
UA 175 (9/11)
UA 93 (9/11)

In theory, you could lump the 9/11 hijackings into one, since they were essentially part of a single act. But even keeping them separate, compared to the pilot-suicides, it's obvious that pilot-suicide crashes in flight have happened more often than intrusion-suicide crashes in flight. Granted, the intrusion crashes caused death on a scale that was an order of magnitude greater (even incomprehensibly greater if you count the wars that they caused).

But my point is this: as infrequent as pilot-suicide induced crashes are, so are crashes resulting from someone forcing their way into the cockpit. Or, put another way, pilot-suicide crashes are as frequent, however infrequent they may be, as cockpit-intrusion crashes.

Personally, I'd feel more comfortable as a passenger knowing there's a work-around on the cockpit door from the passenger cabin. If nothing else, someone trying to break into the cockpit will have a cabin full of passengers behind him that are going to try everything to stop him, whereas a lone pilot intent on killing himself and everyone aboard, sitting in the cockpit alone and with an impenetrable door between him and everyone else, has no one to stop him.

JBirdAV8r wrote:
As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.


The co-pilot of 4U 9525 had no fear of job loss because of German law, and had ready and free access to mental health treatments. It didn't stop him from killing himself and 150 innocent human beings.
 
M564038
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:16 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:13 pm

I don’t know why you say MH 370 is likely. The Maalaysian government had incentive to blame the captain for political reason, but he doesn’t fit the profile otherwise.
It is totally unknown what caused and happened to MH370. Do not count it in your suicide statistics, you have no reason to. Suicidal pilots make up an» impressive» percentage without it .

Mental health and suicide prevention is not an exact science. There need to be robust fail safe mechanisms in place to prevent a suicidal pilot to be able to have unopposed control of an airliner. With all that goes into airliner operation, it is hard to see why a «daily code» given to the flight crew ahead of each flight couldn’t be part of it. Certainly better than the security-by-obscurity overrideable codes currently in service. It is too much of a false safety from an external threat, and too much of an oportunity for an internal.
JBirdAV8r wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
JBirdAV8r wrote:

Yes.



"Enough" instances? What in the world are you talking about? It's extraordinarily rare to have a pilot suicide on an airliner.

I won't discuss flight deck access. The "pendulum" of pilots versus terrorists causing deliberate crashes hasn't swung in any direction; it doesn't exist. Basic statistics will show that the threat to an airplane from a bad actor is almost exclusively from outside the flight deck. Any attempt to soften the security of a locked flight deck door would make the flight deck dramatically less safe. Full stop.

This talk of pilot suicide is going way off the rails into really baseless speculation.

As for "mental health checks" on pilots--well, allowing them to seek treatment for common conditions without fear of loss of job/license/income would be much better to research.

It’s not that rare. You’ve had 2 just in the past couple years. Which is a lot compared to how rare full loss crashes are


Counting MH370 (likely, but unconfirmed) and Germanwings, that's 2 in the last 10 years. In the 20 years preceding that, there were three. And there are a lot more commercial airplanes flying now than there were back then.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1321
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:18 pm

I would add the FedEx 705 (hammer attack), pilots locked out of cockpit (DL1651 and AC Jazz CRJ in 2006), and Helios 522 as cockpit security related incidents.
 
Vintage
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:23 pm

M564038 wrote:
I don’t know why you say MH 370 is likely. The Maalaysian government had incentive to blame the captain for political reason, but he doesn’t fit the profile otherwise.
It is totally unknown what caused and happened to MH370. Do not count it in your suicide statistics, you have no reason to. Suicidal pilots make up an» impressive» percentage without it .


It is only unknown what "happened" to MH-370 to people with a political agenda or their head in the sand.

BTW It wasn't the Malaysian Government who came up with the theory that Zaharie had hijacked his own plane. In the early days (months) they were selling misdirection and obfuscation, they had no theory.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 16190
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:51 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
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.


The Epoch Times has strong connections to pro-Taiwan, anti-PRC politics and their publication follows that. I would be very careful using them as a source of information.

I do hope the PRC government is open about this crash as to not do so will hurt trust by customers in the very good safety record of their airlines over the last 10+ years.
 
acomp
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:11 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:13 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
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.


The Epoch Times has strong connections to pro-Taiwan, anti-PRC politics and their publication follows that. I would be very careful using them as a source of information.

I do hope the PRC government is open about this crash as to not do so will hurt trust by customers in the very good safety record of their airlines over the last 10+ years.


This media is nothing to do with Taiwan. It's run by the Chinese, not a Taiwanese local media.
They are surely anti-CCP, not anti-PRC since the owner is Chinese.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 11502
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:25 pm

acomp wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
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.


The Epoch Times has strong connections to pro-Taiwan, anti-PRC politics and their publication follows that. I would be very careful using them as a source of information.

I do hope the PRC government is open about this crash as to not do so will hurt trust by customers in the very good safety record of their airlines over the last 10+ years.


This media is nothing to do with Taiwan. It's run by the Chinese, not a Taiwanese local media.
They are surely anti-CCP, not anti-PRC since the owner is Chinese.


And I really could give a hoot if some biased "fact check" organization says they're biased. Look, we can all read and evaluate facts on our own. That people always want these days to say, "Don't believe what that guy says, because he's One Of The Others" is a horrible thing. Besmirch the source rather than evaluate the claimed facts. Stupid.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 17927
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:38 pm

wjcandee wrote:
acomp wrote:
ltbewr wrote:

The Epoch Times has strong connections to pro-Taiwan, anti-PRC politics and their publication follows that. I would be very careful using them as a source of information.

I do hope the PRC government is open about this crash as to not do so will hurt trust by customers in the very good safety record of their airlines over the last 10+ years.


This media is nothing to do with Taiwan. It's run by the Chinese, not a Taiwanese local media.
They are surely anti-CCP, not anti-PRC since the owner is Chinese.


And I really could give a hoot if some biased "fact check" organization says they're biased. Look, we can all read and evaluate facts on our own. That people always want these days to say, "Don't believe what that guy says, because he's One Of The Others" is a horrible thing. Besmirch the source rather than evaluate the claimed facts. Stupid.


Nonpartisan evaluation organizations do an excellent and much-needed service. Vetting of sourcing is absolutely essential with so much misinformation and politicization accelerating in recent years.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Thu Apr 07, 2022 11:53 pm

redflyer wrote:
In that same period, crashes that occurred in flight because of someone breaking into the cockpit and deliberately crashing the plane (NOT counting hijackings where the plane landed afterwards and was destroyed and death resulted on the ground for other reasons), since 1980:

PSA 1771
AA 77 (9/11)
AA 11 (9/11)
UA 175 (9/11)
UA 93 (9/11)

I would add the other hijackings that resulted in crashes:
SU 109 in 1973 (hijacker detonated explosives after being shot by security officer)
MH 653 in 1977 (hijacker presumably shot both pilots, leaving the plane uncontrolled)
IA 163 in 1986 (hijackers detonated hand grenades, forcing a crash)
MF 8301 in 1990 (hijacker took over control moments before touch down, causing a crash)
ET 961 in 1996 (hijackers demanded to fly to destination out of range)

There's also NH 61, which could have easily ended in a crash if the crew hadn't been able to regain control from the hijacker (he planned to fly the 747 under a bridge).

The hijackings with victims on the ground should be included as well, since it's much more difficult to hijack a plane without access to the cockpit. The number of hijackings went down dramatically after 9/11. Aircraft used to be much easier targets.
It's not that suicides have increased but rather that all other causes have become so uncommon that the few remaining root causes get more attention.
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:38 pm

So much pointless arguing in this thread, I'd refer back to my original ask for the mods to have a thread on news aspects alone on this. Finally caught up and now, frankly, not even sure what was the most recent source-backed news posting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-east ... oeing-737/

Appears that China is saying they'll have a preliminary investigation report within 30 days of the crash. Would this be expected to be released publicly to some extent, or does this just mean an internal only report?

I also didn't realize it is the NTSB reviewing both data recorders... earlier posts said it may have just been the manufacturer assisting with repairing damage.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 12421
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:00 pm

Please discuss the topic and keep the conspiracy theories and off topic posts out of the discussion
 
Redd
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:40 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:29 pm

After Germanwings, wasn't there the idea that there always needs to be two people in the cockpit, like an FA if the captain or F/O needs to hit the lo?. Don't remember whether that was implemented or not?
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:00 pm

https://orientaldaily.on.cc/content/%E5 ... 5%E9%9B%B6

The Chinese Civil Aviation Authority reportedly want to reduce the aviation risk to "dynamic zero", as in the same word they used on the country's coronavirus policy.
 
Revo1059
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:28 pm

I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:08 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.

Or more simple: unlock the cockpit door in such a scenario. That would be enough to prevent one suicidal pilot from crashing a plane when one pilot is locked out.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:12 pm

redflyer wrote:

In that same period, crashes that occurred in flight because of someone breaking into the cockpit and deliberately crashing the plane (NOT counting hijackings where the plane landed afterwards and was destroyed and death resulted on the ground for other reasons), since 1980:

PSA 1771
AA 77 (9/11)
AA 11 (9/11)
UA 175 (9/11)
UA 93 (9/11)


I think, in fairness, you need to add attempted but failed cockpit break-ins to this list. That addition would, in addition to political actors, include all those mentally ill pax who cause a ruckus but inevitably get subued, and incidents like that JetBlue flight where the captain suffered a mental breakdown and was locked out of the cockpit by his first officer.

In fairness, attempted but failed suicides should also be added to the opposite side of ledger as well; but are there any? It seems to me that failed cockpit break-ins are much more likely to be the dog that didn't bark.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 16190
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:50 pm

I wonder how accurate information from non-China sources as to the flight of this airplane is. I recently saw a YouTube video discuss that due to very strict rules in China as to maps, geographical info for 'national security' and military needs, a lot of info is off by 100's of meters. Flights also have to take very specific routes also due to 'security' factors so may take not so direct routes.
 
4engines4short
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:07 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:32 pm

The co-pilot of 4U 9525 had no fear of job loss because of German law, and had ready and free access to mental health treatments. It didn't stop him from killing himself and 150 innocent human beings.


He had reserved a letter declaring hem unfit to fly and that was likely what ultimately pushed him over. His depression was manly fuled by his fear that he was going blind. It many not prevent every case but if pilots have a way of getting help, that is not carear ending, then thay are far more likely that they will seek help.

It is a open secret in the industry that pilots suffering alone, getting medication under the table, or self medicating, it's part of the reason alcohal is such a big problem. Because they are being put in a situation where they have to chose because getting help or being grounded permanently. If FAA regulations were not so draconian that UND student would still be alive. And pilots wouldn't have to chose.
 
Chemist
Posts: 1053
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:36 pm

Also don't forget JetBlue where the Captain went kooky and had to be restrained and the FO landed the plane by himself.
Noteworthy to me as the Captain had been my CFI when I was getting my PPL.
 
Revo1059
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:27 pm

Jetty wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.

Or more simple: unlock the cockpit door in such a scenario. That would be enough to prevent one suicidal pilot from crashing a plane when one pilot is locked out.


Yeah, but then it offers an avenue for unwanted access into the flight deck. I supposed it depends on which "risk" would be more acceptable, the risk of someone being able to get in or the risk of nobody being able to get in if needed. Am I correct in assuming as the doors are now once locked nobody is getting in if they don't unlock it from the inside?
 
4engines4short
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:07 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:57 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
Jetty wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.

Or more simple: unlock the cockpit door in such a scenario. That would be enough to prevent one suicidal pilot from crashing a plane when one pilot is locked out.


Yeah, but then it offers an avenue for unwanted access into the flight deck. I supposed it depends on which "risk" would be more acceptable, the risk of someone being able to get in or the risk of nobody being able to get in if needed. Am I correct in assuming as the doors are now once locked nobody is getting in if they don't unlock it from the inside?


I think the best solution is secondary barriers, when the pilot goes to the toilet the cockpit can still be secure and the door can be unlocked, you can still have a FA in for extra security. It also adds more security for times when the door is open, like relief crew switches and meals.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:16 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.


The problem with AI is that it cannot cope with "unknown unknowns". At best, it can make decisions within the data it has been trained with, or extrapolate based on rules that also have been provided explicitly. On the other hand, it can respond in unexpected ways to "known unknowns", i.e., it can misinterpret perfectly normal but unusual situations. I think it would be very difficult to certify.
 
Revo1059
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:52 pm

IADFCO wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.


The problem with AI is that it cannot cope with "unknown unknowns". At best, it can make decisions within the data it has been trained with, or extrapolate based on rules that also have been provided explicitly. On the other hand, it can respond in unexpected ways to "known unknowns", i.e., it can misinterpret perfectly normal but unusual situations. I think it would be very difficult to certify.


Yeah, I wonder how close they could get it. If it couldn't figure it out then it wouldn't intervene and it would be no worse than it is now. IF....this is determined to be suicide I would think AI could determine that pointing the nose straight down is a bad idea and take over.
 
Jetty
Posts: 1412
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Fri Apr 08, 2022 10:01 pm

Revo1059 wrote:
Jetty wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.

Or more simple: unlock the cockpit door in such a scenario. That would be enough to prevent one suicidal pilot from crashing a plane when one pilot is locked out.


Yeah, but then it offers an avenue for unwanted access into the flight deck. I supposed it depends on which "risk" would be more acceptable, the risk of someone being able to get in or the risk of nobody being able to get in if needed. Am I correct in assuming as the doors are now once locked nobody is getting in if they don't unlock it from the inside?

Unwanted access would only be possible if the potential intruder times his attack at the same time as pilot inputs are detected that could cause a crash; very unlikely. And a risk free setup is impossible because with the cockpit door systems it's always a balance between the risk of a rogue pilot and a rogue passenger. If certain criteria are met such that a rogue pilot is plausible than that risk seems way higher than a passenger having perfect timing.
 
mzlin
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:18 am

Revo1059 wrote:
IADFCO wrote:
Revo1059 wrote:
I would think that with computers and AI what it is today that they could implement something that if the plane didn't detect any system failures that would cause a crash and the inputs were determined to cause a crash the plane itself could take over. I know it's very complex (more than 3 lines of code) but maybe it's an avenue that could be looked into. Maybe the plane locks out the controls and goes into level flight and a code provided from company or ATC would be required to unlock the system. Just a thought.


The problem with AI is that it cannot cope with "unknown unknowns". At best, it can make decisions within the data it has been trained with, or extrapolate based on rules that also have been provided explicitly. On the other hand, it can respond in unexpected ways to "known unknowns", i.e., it can misinterpret perfectly normal but unusual situations. I think it would be very difficult to certify.


Yeah, I wonder how close they could get it. If it couldn't figure it out then it wouldn't intervene and it would be no worse than it is now. IF....this is determined to be suicide I would think AI could determine that pointing the nose straight down is a bad idea and take over.


I've sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't let you do that.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17270
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 3:58 am

ALTF4 wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-eastern-plane-crash-us-ntsb-flight-mu5735-black-boxes-boeing-737/

Appears that China is saying they'll have a preliminary investigation report within 30 days of the crash. Would this be expected to be released publicly to some extent, or does this just mean an internal only report?

I also didn't realize it is the NTSB reviewing both data recorders... earlier posts said it may have just been the manufacturer assisting with repairing damage.


I keep having to repeat myself over and over aging, so many people post the same articles and ask the same questions, it is obvious people just dump information onto this thread.

The NTSB is looking at both recorders as both recorders were damaged. The damage is likely to be with the surface mount packages which are the actual memory chips detaching from the PCB.

The NTSB is not expected to release any information to the public, under international investigation protocols all information released has to be approved by the agency doing the investigation, the role of the NTSB in this accident is an observer, not as an investigator. The NTSB will provide the raw data plus a report from the software that can read from the raw data to the Chinese investigators.

Boeing does not have a direct role in this investigation, the NTSB represents the state of design and state of manufacturing. If there is technical questions, the Chinese authorizes pass this via the NTSB and they then coordinate with Boeing and/or CFM. The FAA has no role in the investigation, they may appear in the final report for corrective action being the regulator that certified the aircraft and oversees the production.

The Chinese investigators following the international investigation protocols will release a preliminary report, that report could be restricted to ICAO or it could also be made public. They are not obligated to release the report to the public, they are also not obligated to release the CVR/FDR data with preliminary report, they have the option of doing so.

The preliminary report is normally a short factual report, it does not need to include any analysis.
 
beachroad
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:26 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:27 am

zeke wrote:
ALTF4 wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-eastern-plane-crash-us-ntsb-flight-mu5735-black-boxes-boeing-737/

Appears that China is saying they'll have a preliminary investigation report within 30 days of the crash. Would this be expected to be released publicly to some extent, or does this just mean an internal only report?

I also didn't realize it is the NTSB reviewing both data recorders... earlier posts said it may have just been the manufacturer assisting with repairing damage.


I keep having to repeat myself over and over aging, so many people post the same articles and ask the same questions, it is obvious people just dump information onto this thread.

The NTSB is looking at both recorders as both recorders were damaged. The damage is likely to be with the surface mount packages which are the actual memory chips detaching from the PCB.

The NTSB is not expected to release any information to the public, under international investigation protocols all information released has to be approved by the agency doing the investigation, the role of the NTSB in this accident is an observer, not as an investigator. The NTSB will provide the raw data plus a report from the software that can read from the raw data to the Chinese investigators.

Boeing does not have a direct role in this investigation, the NTSB represents the state of design and state of manufacturing. If there is technical questions, the Chinese authorizes pass this via the NTSB and they then coordinate with Boeing and/or CFM. The FAA has no role in the investigation, they may appear in the final report for corrective action being the regulator that certified the aircraft and oversees the production.

The Chinese investigators following the international investigation protocols will release a preliminary report, that report could be restricted to ICAO or it could also be made public. They are not obligated to release the report to the public, they are also not obligated to release the CVR/FDR data with preliminary report, they have the option of doing so.

The preliminary report is normally a short factual report, it does not need to include any analysis.


Thank you for the sense check! Indeed, I expect the preliminary report to state nothing but the very basic known facts, simply confirming little if anything more than the aircraft, routing, souls, trajectory and level of destruction. That's simply because nothing much else can be reliably confirmed.
 
zuckie13
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 12:56 pm

redflyer wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
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.

Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)


So my understanding is typically when a captain needs a check-ride, the check airman (a captain themself) sits in the right hand seat and performs the FO duties.
 
filejw
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 2:58 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 1:38 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
redflyer wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
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.

Question: If someone is performing a check ride, would they also be allowed to perform, at the same time, critical flight functions by acting as co-pilot? (FYI, I don't know the answer to that question; I'm genuinely curious to know.)


So my understanding is typically when a captain needs a check-ride, the check airman (a captain themself) sits in the right hand seat and performs the FO duties.

In the US only for IOE would the check pilot sit in the right seat. For a normal Line Check they would use the jump seat.
 
awthompson
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:45 pm

Definitely an interesting discussion!

But note, Dan Gryder's mantra is 'Probable Cause'. Also note that many air accident investigations only come up with a 'probable cause or causes', and not a definitive cause in every case, especially the more difficult investigations.

Also I would point out that Mr Gryder only suggested the supposed flight deck crew 'mismatch' and the alleged history of his suggested perpetrator as a 'fitting' possible motive. But, not what sent his mind in the deliberate action direction in the first place. Such a motive will be hard to definitively prove, unless a suicide note or statement of intent was actually made.

But leaving the 'motive' aside, I'd be interested in a discussion on the following point:

Mr. Gryder put out a different video a couple of days after the crash, stating that from the outset he had great difficulty thinking of any scenario that would put a B738 in such a dive profile and bring it down in such a short space of time, besides pilot deliberate action. I'm also having difficulty coming up with another scenario. A serious mechanical problem, an explosion, or a major component coming off the aircraft at the start of the event, would mean it would be very unlikely for the jet to finish in an almost vertical high speed dive, and largely still intact (apart from the tip of the starboard wing separating in this case). Any major component loss or other event that would have caused the aircraft to depart cruise flight so violently, would surely not have concluded with the aircraft still in a vertical dive 29,100ft later. The aircraft would have likely started to oscillate / spin / tumble with G-forces that would have caused break up of the aircraft long before reaching the ground. Thinking here somewhat of the Gol B738 after losing the outer portion of the port wing in a collision at altitude.

It would be interesting to make a comparison of the dive profiles and time lapses from cruise to impact of West Caribbean Airways 708, Alaska 261, Air Asia 8501, West Air Sweden 294 etc, being some of the few crashes that may appear similar at a first glance. I don't think there was any major breakup in the case of Alaska 261, but the time lapse from cruise to impact was much longer than MU5735. Regarding the other examples, I don't recall any significant breakup either before impact. Are there any other crash profiles that appear similar, or that brought aircraft from cruise to terrain in such a short space of time with the aircraft staying in one piece all the way down?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17270
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sat Apr 09, 2022 11:24 pm

awthompson wrote:
Also I would point out that Mr Gryder only suggested the supposed flight deck crew 'mismatch' and the alleged history of his suggested perpetrator as a 'fitting' possible motive.


There is only a mismatch if you are looking for a mismatch. Fact is the FO was almost 60, he cannot be the PIC under ICAO rules.

awthompson wrote:
Mr. Gryder put out a different video a couple of days after the crash, stating that from the outset he had great difficulty thinking of any scenario that would put a B738 in such a dive profile and bring it down in such a short space of time, besides pilot deliberate action.


Lots of outcomes could have resulted in this.

awthompson wrote:
in an almost vertical high speed dive, and largely still intact (apart from the tip of the starboard wing separating in this case).


The descent was not vertical, they covered around 90,000 ft across the ground while descending around 29000 ft.
 
ALTF4
Posts: 1256
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:01 am

zeke wrote:
ALTF4 wrote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-eastern-plane-crash-us-ntsb-flight-mu5735-black-boxes-boeing-737/

Appears that China is saying they'll have a preliminary investigation report within 30 days of the crash. Would this be expected to be released publicly to some extent, or does this just mean an internal only report?

I also didn't realize it is the NTSB reviewing both data recorders... earlier posts said it may have just been the manufacturer assisting with repairing damage.


I keep having to repeat myself over and over aging, so many people post the same articles and ask the same questions, it is obvious people just dump information onto this thread.

The NTSB is looking at both recorders as both recorders were damaged. The damage is likely to be with the surface mount packages which are the actual memory chips detaching from the PCB.

The NTSB is not expected to release any information to the public, under international investigation protocols all information released has to be approved by the agency doing the investigation, the role of the NTSB in this accident is an observer, not as an investigator. The NTSB will provide the raw data plus a report from the software that can read from the raw data to the Chinese investigators.

Boeing does not have a direct role in this investigation, the NTSB represents the state of design and state of manufacturing. If there is technical questions, the Chinese authorizes pass this via the NTSB and they then coordinate with Boeing and/or CFM. The FAA has no role in the investigation, they may appear in the final report for corrective action being the regulator that certified the aircraft and oversees the production.

The Chinese investigators following the international investigation protocols will release a preliminary report, that report could be restricted to ICAO or it could also be made public. They are not obligated to release the report to the public, they are also not obligated to release the CVR/FDR data with preliminary report, they have the option of doing so.

The preliminary report is normally a short factual report, it does not need to include any analysis.


Right - I said that China said a preliminary investigation report would be completed. I didn't say that the NTSB would be releasing - not sure where you got that from.

As for the NTSB - so because they are damaged, the NTSB automatically reviews? Yes, it's been widely reported the chips had to be repaired, but previously it was said that the manufacturer was repairing - nothing about the NTSB then.

Sorry you feel like you're repeating yourself. But the two points I put above were, as far as I know, net-new to this discussion - and as you can see I was specifically referring to those two points and those two points alone.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 17270
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:46 am

ALTF4 wrote:
As for the NTSB - so because they are damaged, the NTSB automatically reviews? Yes, it's been widely reported the chips had to be repaired, but previously it was said that the manufacturer was repairing - nothing about the NTSB then.


The NTSB is the conduit, everything that involves a product certified/made in the US should go via them, they in turn engage the manufacturer for technical assistance if required. The first step is a visual inspection of the CVR/FDR PCB boards before connecting power to them, if the NTSB need to involve the CVR/FDR manufacturer based upon their inspection they will do so. NTSB review means they will get the recorders to a state to download the raw data, download the data with software, and provide that to the Chinese investigators.

These formal processes are in place to ensure the chain of custody of this very valuable evidence, otherwise the tin foil hat people claim interference.
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:24 pm

awthompson wrote:
Mr. Gryder put out a different video a couple of days after the crash, stating that from the outset he had great difficulty thinking of any scenario that would put a B738 in such a dive profile and bring it down in such a short space of time, besides pilot deliberate action. I'm also having difficulty coming up with another scenario.
...
Any major component loss or other event that would have caused the aircraft to depart cruise flight so violently, would surely not have concluded with the aircraft still in a vertical dive 29,100ft later.

IMHO, the thing that separates this incident from other known or suggested intentionally caused mishaps is that whatever happened at FL291 was not fully structural or there could not have been a "partial recovery" as the ADS-B data shows at a lower altitude. While the initial departure from level flight is, indeed, highly unusual, there was an apparent attempt at recovery, implying both structural ability to do so and very likely intentionality on behalf of someone at the controls.

From my perspective, the near vertical nature of the final flight path is easily explained as a major structural failure during the "attempted recovery", evidenced by the close proximity of various aircraft parts - namely wing sections and wing panels - and their deformation/damage patterns.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 6:55 pm

OldB747Driver wrote:
awthompson wrote:
Mr. Gryder put out a different video a couple of days after the crash, stating that from the outset he had great difficulty thinking of any scenario that would put a B738 in such a dive profile and bring it down in such a short space of time, besides pilot deliberate action. I'm also having difficulty coming up with another scenario.
...
Any major component loss or other event that would have caused the aircraft to depart cruise flight so violently, would surely not have concluded with the aircraft still in a vertical dive 29,100ft later.

IMHO, the thing that separates this incident from other known or suggested intentionally caused mishaps is that whatever happened at FL291 was not fully structural or there could not have been a "partial recovery" as the ADS-B data shows at a lower altitude. While the initial departure from level flight is, indeed, highly unusual, there was an apparent attempt at recovery, implying both structural ability to do so and very likely intentionality on behalf of someone at the controls.

From my perspective, the near vertical nature of the final flight path is easily explained as a major structural failure during the "attempted recovery", evidenced by the close proximity of various aircraft parts - namely wing sections and wing panels - and their deformation/damage patterns.


In other words, if the first part of the dive was intentional, then the other guys try to take over control from the "perpetrator", but end up overstressing certain control surfaces, which in turn causes the rest of the dive? That seems pretty plausible but I'm sure someone else will interpret it in a different way.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 6499
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:43 pm

http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/1/202204/t ... 8_wap.html

On April 6, CAAC organized a safety conference, emphasized importance of safety culture, and push for eliminating risks.

------

Then, I saw a questionable information recently. The information appeared in form of screenshit without any credits. It claimed that, while quoting this teleconference, there will now be strict mental test for crews before every flights, and airlines must regularly have the information of staffs daily job allocation, marriage and emotional status, as well as financial investment situation.

Anyone know where such information come from, and can anyone confirm or debunk such clains?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20894
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 7:54 pm

c933103 wrote:
http://www.caacnews.com.cn/1/1/202204/t20220407_1342338_wap.html

On April 6, CAAC organized a safety conference, emphasized importance of safety culture, and push for eliminating risks.

------

Then, I saw a questionable information recently. The information appeared in form of screenshit without any credits. It claimed that, while quoting this teleconference, there will now be strict mental test for crews before every flights, and airlines must regularly have the information of staffs daily job allocation, marriage and emotional status, as well as financial investment situation.

Anyone know where such information come from, and can anyone confirm or debunk such clains?


I can only imagine how tough a "screenshit" must be!
 
OMP777X
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:10 am

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:05 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
OldB747Driver wrote:
awthompson wrote:
Mr. Gryder put out a different video a couple of days after the crash, stating that from the outset he had great difficulty thinking of any scenario that would put a B738 in such a dive profile and bring it down in such a short space of time, besides pilot deliberate action. I'm also having difficulty coming up with another scenario.
...
Any major component loss or other event that would have caused the aircraft to depart cruise flight so violently, would surely not have concluded with the aircraft still in a vertical dive 29,100ft later.

IMHO, the thing that separates this incident from other known or suggested intentionally caused mishaps is that whatever happened at FL291 was not fully structural or there could not have been a "partial recovery" as the ADS-B data shows at a lower altitude. While the initial departure from level flight is, indeed, highly unusual, there was an apparent attempt at recovery, implying both structural ability to do so and very likely intentionality on behalf of someone at the controls.

From my perspective, the near vertical nature of the final flight path is easily explained as a major structural failure during the "attempted recovery", evidenced by the close proximity of various aircraft parts - namely wing sections and wing panels - and their deformation/damage patterns.


In other words, if the first part of the dive was intentional, then the other guys try to take over control from the "perpetrator", but end up overstressing certain control surfaces, which in turn causes the rest of the dive? That seems pretty plausible but I'm sure someone else will interpret it in a different way.

That could be plausible, but in my humble opinion the same thing could play out due to some sort of catastrophic failure. I personally think Dan Gryder is leaning towards this rogue pilot theory after his own personal experience with going rogue. After all that was why he was asked to leave Delta based on the news reports. I suppose he feels it takes one to know one?
 
awthompson
Posts: 533
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:46 pm

Zeke: I am using the term 'vertical' in a loose sense. In the two videos of the final moments, the profile appears to me to have been at least 70°, maybe more. I know from the analysis of available data that the flight covered some ground during the rapid descent, it's clearly not possible to come down absolutely vertical, but 90,000ft (less than 15 nautical miles) is not a lot of ground considering that there was what appears to have been an attempted pull out from the dive.

OldB747Driver: Yes, I am thinking similarly to what you have said regarding the apparent attempted pull out. I would imagine the starboard winglet and a portion of the wing tip along with it, separated during the pull out and that until such point the aircraft had to have been largely intact. These matters do still concur with deliberate action on the part of one pilot and a possible struggle. I'm not saying this is what happened, I must keep my mind open until more definitive clues are known, but it is the scenario that, to me, most fits the facts thus far.
 
OldB747Driver
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Re: China Eastern 737-800 crashes in Guangxi, southern China

Sun Apr 10, 2022 11:49 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
In other words, if the first part of the dive was intentional, then the other guys try to take over control from the "perpetrator", but end up overstressing certain control surfaces, which in turn causes the rest of the dive? That seems pretty plausible but I'm sure someone else will interpret it in a different way.

awthompson wrote:
These matters do still concur with deliberate action on the part of one pilot and a possible struggle. I'm not saying this is what happened, I must keep my mind open until more definitive clues are known, but it is the scenario that, to me, most fits the facts thus far.

I've spent 25 years dedicated to the safe & comfortable transport of passengers by aircraft, and during that time flew with many, many different personalities, both as FO as well as CA. I've also witnessed the uninformed, unfounded accusations of passengers about issues from bag handling to turbulence, crosswind landings, etc. so my presumption when ANYTHING happens in this industry is to first, find the plausible, unsensationalized explanation. As a result I only tend to blame a crewmember if and when the facts cannot sustain otherwise. My bias, but justified by experience.

I suppose there is not any accident/incident out there that someone couldn't blame (at least initially) on the crew, but KNOWING first hand about the virtually infinite number of "odd things" that can sneak up and surprise a flight crew, I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos