|
Challenger missing in Mexico
|
|
|
That’s a lot of people and potentially a lot of luggage. What appears to be the pickup flight with presumably the same load two days before was flown at FL300 according to FlightAware and the return flight at FL370 then 390 and a brief climb when in the vicinity of a late afternoon thunderstorm. High altitude upset of an airplane that may or may not have been outside of its envelope to begin with. https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-f...ons?specid=112 |
Think you are correct
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 10465003)
That’s a lot of people and potentially a lot of luggage. What appears to be the pickup flight with presumably the same load two days before was flown at FL300 according to FlightAware and the return flight at FL370 then 390 and a brief climb when in the vicinity of a late afternoon thunderstorm. High altitude upset of an airplane that may or may not have been outside of its envelope to begin with. Not sure how close they were to the weather, but it looked like they had none to the south. On the other hand, they would have had a lot of altitude to recover. |
Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver
(Post 10465394)
Good info about the previous flights. I looked at the last flight track and noted they had just reached FL430 and then started descending. I would think that even at light weights it would be a struggle to be at FL430 in that airplane. The least amount of turbulence might cause an upset.
Not sure how close they were to the weather, but it looked like they had none to the south. On the other hand, they would have had a lot of altitude to recover. |
Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver
(Post 10465394)
Good info about the previous flights. I looked at the last flight track and noted they had just reached FL430 and then started descending. I would think that even at light weights it would be a struggle to be at FL430 in that airplane. The least amount of turbulence might cause an upset.
Not sure how close they were to the weather, but it looked like they had none to the south. On the other hand, they would have had a lot of altitude to recover. |
The tight wreckage pattern is consistent with a belly-flop or stall. All 4 corners are present, so no breakup in flight.
Of course, it remains an open question whether they stalled high and just rode it down (AF447) or stalled down low in a pull-out attempt. And just a side note that certified ceiling is often based on pressurization differential, not just aerodynamics. |
Originally Posted by RAWLAW;10465431...
Remember the CJ, Pinnacle Airlines I believe, that was being ferried and the crew decided to see how high they could push it. It also came straight down.
That aircraft did not "come straight down". The crew recovered control but were unable to restart either engine, and came down in houses some distance short of the airport they were trying to glide to. A rather different set of circumstances to what the images so far seem to suggest here. |
[QUOTE based on pressurization differential ][/QUOTE]
I believe that is the case with the CL60. |
Originally Posted by RAWLAW
(Post 10465431)
The CL60 (Challenger 601-3A) Remember the CJ, Pinnacle Airlines I believe, that was being ferried and the crew decided to see how high they could push it. It also came straight down.
|
Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist
(Post 10465438)
I assume you mean "CRJ" there.
That aircraft did not "come straight down". The crew recovered control but were unable to restart either engine, and came down in houses some distance short of the airport they were trying to glide to. A rather different set of circumstances to what the images so far seem to suggest here. |
Correction
I misread the ADS-B data. They never made it to FL430. Sorry
Here are the last 5 ADS-B plots. time: 2019-05-05 23:36:53 altitude: 40025 time: 2019-05-05 23:36:54 altitude: 40075 time: 2019-05-05 23:37:27 altitude: 42325 time: 2019-05-05 23:37:42 altitude: 39975 time: 2019-05-05 23:37:43 altitude: 40250 |
Follow up
Look at these last 2 ADS-B plots.
callsign: N601VH sqk: 7315 registration: N601VH altitude: 39975 speed: 132 lat: 28.366379 long: -103.29631 time: 2019-05-05 23:37:42 llsign: N601VH sqk: 7315 registration: N601VH altitude: 40250 speed: 170 lat: 28.367352 long: -103.29696 time: 2019-05-05 23:37:43 |
A 38 knot speed increase and 16,500 ft/min ROC???
|
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
(Post 10465436)
The tight wreckage pattern is consistent with a belly-flop or stall. All 4 corners are present, so no breakup in flight.
|
Originally Posted by Mad (Flt) Scientist
(Post 10465438)
I assume you mean "CRJ" there.
That aircraft did not "come straight down". The crew recovered control but were unable to restart either engine, and came down in houses some distance short of the airport they were trying to glide to. A rather different set of circumstances to what the images so far seem to suggest here. |
Originally Posted by RAWLAW
(Post 10466135)
Yes I do mean CRJ. Yes the circumstances are both dissimilar and similar. Either way the aircraft was out of the envelope. The outcome was the same weather they glided, almost restarted an engine or could not restart. The CRJ may have been able to get the AOA back to a flying angle, the 601 looks like they didn't. Neither had a mid-air, loss of pressurization (initially and root cause) or in-flight fire. Both had if you will "controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) which technically means there was nothing "wrong" with the aircraft. Your point is valid but really the cause and effect are the same at this very early view.
I found a definition of CFIT as “In-flight collision with terrain, water, or obstacle without indication of loss of control.” |
A flat spin is not CFIT either. With a CFIT event somebody is ‘at the wheel’ and loss of situational awareness leads to impact with terrain. The Sukoi Superjet in Indonesia was a CFIT event. |
Originally Posted by hawk76
(Post 10466214)
I understand what you are trying to say, but the Pinnacle CRJ accident was not CFIT. Due to crew error, neither engine was operating, thus it did not constitute controlled flight. Given the apparent flat attitude of this Challenger accident, I doubt it was CFIT, either. More likely Loss of Control Inflight. I found a definition of CFIT as “In-flight collision with terrain, water, or obstacle without indication of loss of control.” Its a tragedy and in our profession we especially do not tolerate self-made tragedies thru ignorance or non-compliance with the rules. It should have never happened. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.