Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Atlas Air 767 down/Texas

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Atlas Air 767 down/Texas

Old 24th Feb 2019, 12:47
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 9,624
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek View Post
Very little evidence until we have FDR results but the sudden dive following a climb looks suspiciously like a possible stall.
I did warn that the previous plot was foreshortened ...

Here it is in profile:



Does that help ?


DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 12:53
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,792
I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be much fuel on the water in the vicinity of the crash site.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 13:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where The Widget Flies
Age: 31
Posts: 11
Of course exactly what is heard on that clip is up to interpretation, but I think what is clear to me is something happened right after he said ok, because the cockpit goes from quiet to cacophony right after he finishes the word. I anxiously await the CVR transcript. So sorry to all those involved, crappy day for aviation that's for sure.

Doesn't the 767 have a stick shaker? If I remember right, they are awfully loud, and sound similar to what I hear on the tape there.
alcan60283 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 14:11
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be much fuel on the water in the vicinity of the crash site.
Interesting - crossed my mind while looking at the news chopper video.

Comment from Chambers County Sheriff Brian Hawthorne"

"The environmental impact is extremely minimal as very little fuel, if any, spilled on the water, Hawthorne said."
b1lanc is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 14:25
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 463
Out of respect for those fine men/women deceased can those of you that have no clue what you are talking about please shut up.

Having flown the 767 for 11 yrs there was NEVER a speed restriction on the windows. That restriction belonged to the 757 and was 313 kts below 8000 ft.
That is negated by the FAA restriction of 250/10000' so anyone of you fly by night self appointed rocket scientists should know that....including you morons at CNN who couldn't tell the difference between the two.
As for WX, BS. I've been going into IAH for close on the last 12 years in the whale and that minor convective signature doesn't cause that ROD.
Why don't you muppets stop embarrassing yourselves and give the professionals a go....ie the NTSB ?

Last edited by T28B; 24th Feb 2019 at 16:36. Reason: fixed that for you
fire wall is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 14:28
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
I don't know if this has been mentioned earlier, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be much fuel on the water in the vicinity of the crash site.
With the weather in the area you would expect that were arriving with at least 16,000 lbs of fuel. That would put 8000 in each wing with the center empty. That’s only about 1200 gallons a side. Fuel actually dissipates pretty fast in salt water. Most slicks you see are when fuel is leaking from a small rupture. If the tanks were mangled and all the fuel released at once the fuel would be miles away in a hour and dissipate pretty quickly.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:04
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oran
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by fire wall View Post
Out of respect for those fine men/women deceased can those of you that have no clue what you are taling about please shut up.
Having flown the 767 for 11 yrs there was NEVER a speed restriction on the windows. That restriction belonged to the 757 and was 313 kts below 8000 ft.
That is negated by the FAA restriction of 250/10000' so anyone of you fly by night self appointed rocket scientists should know that....including you morons at CNN who couldn't tell the difference between the two.
As for WX, BS. I've been going into IAH for close on the last 12 years in the whale and that minor convective signiture doesnt cause that ROD.
Why dont you muppets stop embarrasing yourselves and give the professionals a go....ie the FAA ?
I flew B763 from 1995 till 2018 ( now 789 ) we had restriction on 763 below 8000 313kts ( European Aircraft ).
icemanalgeria is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:07
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 74
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by fire wall View Post
Sailvi, long time since I have flown the twin. 16 k is dfw plus 30 on the 6?
Plus 30 minutes? What regulatory fuel requirement are you referencing here?
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:09
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by fire wall View Post
Sailvi, long time since I have flown the twin. 16 k is dfw plus 30 on the 6?
Not quite sure what your saying. 16,000 was typical for a arrival with a alternate that was close and suitable. If convective activity in TX was widespread I would personally want a bit more.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:12
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 74
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by fire wall View Post
who said anything about regulatory requirements?
Amateur hr continues.
Please explain what you meant by ‘DFW plus 30’
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:18
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 41
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post


Please explain what you meant by ‘DFW plus 30’
It seems he means diversion to Dallas Fort Worth plus 30 minutes flight time.
Tetsuo is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:31
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 74
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Tetsuo View Post
It seems he means diversion to Dallas Fort Worth plus 30 minutes flight time.
Thanks. I’m just wondering where his 30-minute fuel supply -after alternate- fits in to this discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 15:58
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 41
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post


Thanks. I’m just wondering where his 30-minute fuel supply -after alternate- fits in to this discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
If you follow the posts above, at post #65 or so it was brought to attention that there seems to be no (or very little) fuel spillage around the crash site. Following that conversation Sailvi767 mentioned that with that type and the weather around the time of the crash, he would expect the plane to carry about 16000 lbs of fuel at the time of the crash and went on to explain this might not cause a big spill. Fire wall asked whether 16000 lbs on 767 would be enough for a diversion plus 30 minutes. Sailvi767 replied that he would prefer a bit more in those conditions.

Sorry everyone for adding 0 value to discussion by this post.

Last edited by Tetsuo; 24th Feb 2019 at 16:25.
Tetsuo is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 16:01
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post
Thanks. I’m just wondering where his 30-minute fuel supply -after alternate- fits in to this discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

For a domestic Part 121 flight here are the fuel requirements:

§ 121.639 Fuel supply: All domestic operations.

No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel -

(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;

(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and

(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 16:02
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post


Thanks. I’m just wondering where his 30-minute fuel supply -after alternate- fits in to this discussion. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Refers to 30 minutes final reserve holding at 1500 above alternate (or destination if alternate not required). This must be intact on landing.

May be slightly different in FAA land (I have only flown reciprocating engine aircraft under FAA rules) but those are the ICAO requirements for jets.

Thoughts with the families and friends of the victims at this awful time.
Jeff05 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 16:45
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by tubby linton View Post

I am not aware of one.
The UK CAA put a restriction on maximum speeds at lower altitudes on the Boeing 757 aircraft due to a perceived weakness of the centre windshield pillar though. I do not believe it applied to the B767.
The windscreen and surrounding structure is common between the 757, 767, and 777, and I'm not aware of any windscreen penetrations on any of those types.
However there is still a risk with large birds - during the development of the 757-300 and 767-400ER, it was determined there was a vulnerability with the forward bulkhead - a large enough bird could penetrate into the flight deck. I don't know if the requirements changed after the initial 757/767 cert, or it was due to better analysis tools, but the bulkhead had to be beefed up in some areas. I'm reasonably sure it was never retrofit.
90,000 hours is not that old for a 767 - even before I retired I was aware of several passenger 767s that had more than 100,000 hours and were still going strong.
tdracer is online now  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 17:08
  #77 (permalink)  
49d
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: houston
Posts: 2
odd that the rate of descent increased but airspeed seems to have stayed at 240...
49d is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 17:24
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 74
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Jeff05 View Post


Refers to 30 minutes final reserve holding at 1500 above alternate (or destination if alternate not required). This must be intact on landing.

May be slightly different in FAA land (I have only flown reciprocating engine aircraft under FAA rules) but those are the ICAO requirements for jets.

Thoughts with the families and friends of the victims at this awful time.
This is a FAR121-Supplemental operating a flag (domestic) flight. So the 45-minute RSV applies, not 30min.

Why they leveled at ~6000’ for a time and tracked West toward a different transition waypoint than other arrivals is curious to me more than a critical fuel status, but stranger things have happened. That said, those wouldn’t have been causal, but perhaps a significant link. I stand by my ‘amateur-hour’ speculations and don’t feel they detract from the discussion.

RIP, fellas.
FIRESYSOK is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 17:25
  #79 (permalink)  
The Cooler King
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by 49d View Post
odd that the rate of descent increased but airspeed seems to have stayed at 240...
How do you know this?
Farrell is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2019, 17:36
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK View Post


This is a FAR121-Supplemental operating a flag (domestic) flight. So the 45-minute RSV applies, not 30min.

Why they leveled at ~6000’ for a time and tracked West toward a different transition waypoint than other arrivals is curious to me more than a critical fuel status, but stranger things have happened. That said, those wouldn’t have been causal, but perhaps a significant link. I stand by my ‘amateur-hour’ speculations and don’t feel they detract from the discussion.

RIP, fellas.
th

Thanks for the correction/clarification - good to know.
Jeff05 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.