Atlas Air 767 down/Texas
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got the same sequence of events from an old classmate. Only thing additional was that the FO apparently entered the weather and turbulence with the speed brakes fully deployed. I also got the extra stuff about the FO.
Only additional stuff I saw was that the airplane crashed with the autothrottles and A/P engaged and the elevators were split due to cross inputs on the control columns. It was only 18 seconds from...
Only additional stuff I saw was that the airplane crashed with the autothrottles and A/P engaged and the elevators were split due to cross inputs on the control columns. It was only 18 seconds from...
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: US
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried to respond a few times but for some unknown reason my responses are not being posted. The sequence of events I posted came from a non-Atlas pilot only forum from a US airline. I'm guessing, as well as one other poster here, someone has gotten a rough sequence of events from what happened from someone "in the know." I have been a long time lurker on the forum here and just wanted to contribute info that I hadn't yet seen on here. I am an Airbus 320 series CA for a US airline .
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Or at least, maybe the version given originates from the same source whether or not it is accurate.
There have been posts made on other forums about the FO's training history at Mesa and Atlas but they seem to be quickly removed.
There have been posts made on other forums about the FO's training history at Mesa and Atlas but they seem to be quickly removed.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have tried to respond a few times but for some unknown reason my responses are not being posted. The sequence of events I posted came from a non-Atlas pilot only forum from a US airline. I'm guessing, as well as one other poster here, someone has gotten a rough sequence of events from what happened from someone "in the know."
Regarding this GA button issue. From what I have read here, the button is only armed when flaps are not "0"
I assume that selection of flaps 1 causes the LED's to extend.
If that is so, surely they would have been blown off the airplane by the time it reached 425 knots going down.
However the NTSB said they found a very small debris field and there has neen no mention of parts and pieces being found elsewhere.
I assume that selection of flaps 1 causes the LED's to extend.
If that is so, surely they would have been blown off the airplane by the time it reached 425 knots going down.
However the NTSB said they found a very small debris field and there has neen no mention of parts and pieces being found elsewhere.
A -49 degree pushover
B -4g degree pushover
C -4g pushover
Im going with option A and calling it a typo.
The -49 degrees has been established by the NTSB.
A minus 4G has not.
B -4g degree pushover
C -4g pushover
Im going with option A and calling it a typo.
The -49 degrees has been established by the NTSB.
A minus 4G has not.
The aircraft would not have survived a -4G push. -1G is the normal airliner design goal for no damage and -1.5 for failure. In addition it’s doubtful to impossible that the airfoil on the 767 would be capable of producing -4 G’s at 210 knots. It’s not a symmetrical aerobatic airfoil and it CL would be very poor under negative G. It would exceed the stalling AOA well before 4 G’s.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft would not have survived a -4G push. -1G is the normal airliner design goal for no damage and -1.5 for failure. In addition it’s doubtful to impossible that the airfoil on the 767 would be capable of producing -4 G’s at 210 knots. It’s not a symmetrical aerobatic airfoil and it CL would be very poor under negative G. It would exceed the stalling AOA well before 4 G’s.
If there is physical damage to the aircraft in this scenario, would there be bits and pieces departing from it, and which ones?
So we can pretty safely rule out -4g on aerodynamic/physics reasons alone.
You can stall a aircraft in positive or negative G. I am referring to stalling the wing under negative G.
Aerobatic performances do not reach that amount of negative G-force nor does a fighter plane.
At -4G with a transport category aircraft the structure will fail.
This is NOT a legitimate 767 Vg diagram but borrowed from another thread on here for the purposes of explaining.
You can’t just pull or push unlimited.
You need to stay within the operating envelope both in positive and negative G.
Again this is NOT a 767 diagram so ignore the speeds it’s about the aerodynamic principles.
The “normal” stall speed is the speed at which the aircraft stalls under unaccelerated flight at 1G.
Above this speed we call it an “accelerated stall” as we our now stalling the aircraft at a higher speed and higher then 1G.
The limit for this is Va or maneuvering speed.
Above this speed we will overstress the airplane before it stalls. Could be temporary or permanent deformations of structure depending on the speed.
This requires inspections and possibly repairs.
We have something similar below the 1-G line although the area in the graph is much smaller.
Keep in mind that we float (weightless) at 0G and even -1G is a pretty radical maneuver let alone -2G.
Design and certification criteria mandate the aircraft is much stronger on the “+” side then on the “-“ side of the graph.
Just as an example, hard landings are “-” and even extreme turbulence may not go much past -1G if at all unless we fly into a massive thunderstorm.
Keep in mind again, 0 is weightless and -1 we’re being accelerated out of our seats.
Here is a rare example of extreme turbulence that sent a galley cart into the ceiling. That will already happen at -.01G during which it will float up and at -0.3 it will probably smack the ceiling.
With all respect but I think the ones that advocate the -4G theory have never experienced even -1G.
Have a look at the diagram again.
In short the airplane would have come apart at -4G or at the very least lost the tail.
It did not, the videos show it with all major components attached.
At -4G with a transport category aircraft the structure will fail.
This is NOT a legitimate 767 Vg diagram but borrowed from another thread on here for the purposes of explaining.
You can’t just pull or push unlimited.
You need to stay within the operating envelope both in positive and negative G.
Again this is NOT a 767 diagram so ignore the speeds it’s about the aerodynamic principles.
The “normal” stall speed is the speed at which the aircraft stalls under unaccelerated flight at 1G.
Above this speed we call it an “accelerated stall” as we our now stalling the aircraft at a higher speed and higher then 1G.
The limit for this is Va or maneuvering speed.
Above this speed we will overstress the airplane before it stalls. Could be temporary or permanent deformations of structure depending on the speed.
This requires inspections and possibly repairs.
We have something similar below the 1-G line although the area in the graph is much smaller.
Keep in mind that we float (weightless) at 0G and even -1G is a pretty radical maneuver let alone -2G.
Design and certification criteria mandate the aircraft is much stronger on the “+” side then on the “-“ side of the graph.
Just as an example, hard landings are “-” and even extreme turbulence may not go much past -1G if at all unless we fly into a massive thunderstorm.
Keep in mind again, 0 is weightless and -1 we’re being accelerated out of our seats.
Here is a rare example of extreme turbulence that sent a galley cart into the ceiling. That will already happen at -.01G during which it will float up and at -0.3 it will probably smack the ceiling.
With all respect but I think the ones that advocate the -4G theory have never experienced even -1G.
Have a look at the diagram again.
In short the airplane would have come apart at -4G or at the very least lost the tail.
It did not, the videos show it with all major components attached.
Last edited by B2N2; 25th Mar 2019 at 12:44.
Aerobatic performances do not reach that amount of negative G-force nor does a fighter plane.
At -4G with a transport category aircraft the structure will fail.
This is NOT a legitimate 767 Vg diagram but borrowed from another thread on here for the purposes of explaining.
You can’t just pull or push unlimited.
You need to stay within the operating envelope both in positive and negative G.
Again this is NOT a 767 diagram so ignore the speeds it’s about the aerodynamic principles.
The “normal” stall speed is the speed at which the aircraft stalls under unaccelerated flight at 1G.
Above this speed we call it an “accelerated stall” as we our now stalling the aircraft at a higher speed and higher then 1G.
The limit for this is Va or maneuvering speed.
Above this speed we will overstress the airplane before it stalls. Could be temporary or permanent deformations of structure depending on the speed.
This requires inspections and possibly repairs.
We have something similar below the 1-G line although the area in the graph is much smaller.
Keep in mind that we float (weightless) at 0G and even -1G is a pretty radical maneuver let alone -2G.
Design and certification criteria mandate the aircraft is much stronger on the “+” side then on the “-“ side of the graph.
Just as an example, hard landings are “+” and even extreme turbulence may not go much past -1G if at all unless we fly into a massive thunderstorm.
Keep in mind again, 0 is weightless and -1 we’re being accelerated out of our seats.
Here is a rare example of extreme turbulence that sent a galley cart into the ceiling. That will already happen at -.01G during which it will float up and at -0.3 it will probably smack the ceiling.
With all respect but I think the ones that advocate the -4G theory have never experienced even -1G.
Have a look at the diagram again.
In short the airplane would have come apart at -4G or at the very least lost the tail.
It did not, the videos show it with all major components attached.
At -4G with a transport category aircraft the structure will fail.
This is NOT a legitimate 767 Vg diagram but borrowed from another thread on here for the purposes of explaining.
You can’t just pull or push unlimited.
You need to stay within the operating envelope both in positive and negative G.
Again this is NOT a 767 diagram so ignore the speeds it’s about the aerodynamic principles.
The “normal” stall speed is the speed at which the aircraft stalls under unaccelerated flight at 1G.
Above this speed we call it an “accelerated stall” as we our now stalling the aircraft at a higher speed and higher then 1G.
The limit for this is Va or maneuvering speed.
Above this speed we will overstress the airplane before it stalls. Could be temporary or permanent deformations of structure depending on the speed.
This requires inspections and possibly repairs.
We have something similar below the 1-G line although the area in the graph is much smaller.
Keep in mind that we float (weightless) at 0G and even -1G is a pretty radical maneuver let alone -2G.
Design and certification criteria mandate the aircraft is much stronger on the “+” side then on the “-“ side of the graph.
Just as an example, hard landings are “+” and even extreme turbulence may not go much past -1G if at all unless we fly into a massive thunderstorm.
Keep in mind again, 0 is weightless and -1 we’re being accelerated out of our seats.
Here is a rare example of extreme turbulence that sent a galley cart into the ceiling. That will already happen at -.01G during which it will float up and at -0.3 it will probably smack the ceiling.
With all respect but I think the ones that advocate the -4G theory have never experienced even -1G.
Have a look at the diagram again.
In short the airplane would have come apart at -4G or at the very least lost the tail.
It did not, the videos show it with all major components attached.
Pitch -49 must have been misquoted somewhere as Pitch -4g which then took a life of its own.
Its not possible.
Hard landings are actually “-“ as far as the structure is concerned. Previous post corrected.
Its not possible.
Hard landings are actually “-“ as far as the structure is concerned. Previous post corrected.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding this GA button issue. From what I have read here, the button is only armed when flaps are not "0"
I assume that selection of flaps 1 causes the LED's to extend.
If that is so, surely they would have been blown off the airplane by the time it reached 425 knots going down.
However the NTSB said they found a very small debris field and there has neen no mention of parts and pieces being found elsewhere.
I assume that selection of flaps 1 causes the LED's to extend.
If that is so, surely they would have been blown off the airplane by the time it reached 425 knots going down.
However the NTSB said they found a very small debris field and there has neen no mention of parts and pieces being found elsewhere.
Flaps out of "up"
Glide slope capture.
