Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10295603)
Also, is anyone else a little disturbed that a photo of the log book is available to read on the internet. Unless the log book has been discovered, dry and undamaged from the wreckage site that has to have been taken before the flight. Why? Who has released it? If that was my name on the log book I think I would be barricading the doors now. Relatives with pitchforks anyone?
|
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10295615)
Again, how do you know they were "doing" 300 knots. Airspeed versus groundspeed...
|
You can't stall a 737 at 300kts 300kts groundspeed can easily be 100kts EAS any day, which allows a 737 to be stalled. The second item of the log mentions a FEEL DIFF PRESS ? What is this? Artificial feel? Or am I misreading it? |
I'm absolutely astonsihed to see copies of the flight/maintenance log published here, this is company-confidential stuff at the best of times but when related to an accident it seems utterly beyond belief. Although it is illuminating to us it must be causing the company and particularly the engineer/s involved considerable anguish to have thos sort of info and identification published.
I hate to think what will happen to who dunnit if/when caught. Doubtless he had a motive and it may well be a valid one if his beef is about maintenance or operational standards but it's a pretty extreme action to take. Having gone this far he might do well to voice his beef here and at least remove any speculation about his motives or his take on the significance of these documents. |
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10295633)
300kts groundspeed can easily be 100kts EAS any day, which allows a 737 to be stalled.
|
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10295633)
You can stall a 737 at 300kts groundspeed, as this value ignores desity (temperature, altitude) and wind speed.
300kts groundspeed can easily be 100kts EAS any day, which allows a 737 to be stalled. In order to get a 300 knot groundspeed with an EAS of 100 knots you'd have to be somewhere around 40,000 ft with a 100 knot tailwind. Were you under the impression that this airplane in this accident that we're discussing here, today, in this thread, was at 40,000 ft, with a 100 knot tailwind? No? If not, what on earth is your point in even mentioning that? What relevance do you imagine that brings to this discussion? |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10295603)
If the defect was on the last flight, even the night before, surely the crew should be aware of all maintenance log entries before accepting the aircraft. Is it not SOP to review the log back to the previous flight? My own experience tells me this is so.
Also, is anyone else a little disturbed that a photo of the log book is available to read on the internet. Unless the log book has been discovered, dry and undamaged from the wreckage site that has to have been taken before the flight. Why? Who has released it? If that was my name on the log book I think I would be barricading the doors now. Relatives with pitchforks anyone? |
Originally Posted by Volume
(Post 10295633)
You can stall a 737 at 300kts groundspeed, as this value ignores desity (temperature, altitude) and wind speed.
300kts groundspeed can easily be 100kts EAS any day, which allows a 737 to be stalled. |
Well its all speculation but thats what we're here for so..lets start with what we know:
A/C had known UAS event day before but it was controlled by crew and they landed safely.It is written up and signed off as cleared. A/C takes off again next day and suffers another UAS event,this time proving unrecoverable. Conclusion: diagnosis and/or rectification work by maintenance failed to clear problem or worse still exacerbated problem. What else do we know? Flightradar uses ADS-B and we have the readout showing unusually high speed after takeoff well below 10000 feet(normal altitude for speed restriction).Its GPS derived and we can trust it. We also know(using logic) that this is not what the flightcrew saw.They saw something entirely different. What did they see?What would cause them to overspeed,climb erratically and eventually lose control? They must have seen the direct opposite....low airspeed,stall warning,spurious windshear warning,stuck altimeters maybe etc Now the flightcrew are aware of the previous UAS event and they have presumably briefed each other on what to do following UAS after takeoff.They will presumably be alert to the possibility of UAS and have reviewed the QRH and reiterated the importance of the 80knot call and the need to cross-check all 3 airspeeds.So which scenario would let them get airborne with no indication of a pitot static fault on the takeoff roll? Its not pitot but static...static vent blocked.Airspeed will indicate normally on takeoff but underread in climb.Altimeters will remain stuck after takeoff.Its a nasty little scenario and could easily lead to confusion.The subsequent loss of control could be explained by the high speeds with flaps still down(crew distraction and onset of panic). If it happens(altimeters dont show climb after liftoff,you get windshear warning(false) and.or stick shaker(false) you have to climb to 1500' on RADIO ALTIMETER, level off, set 60% N1,ignore the warnings and LAND immediately,either visually or on vectors. |
Who said anyone was pulling? There are plenty of examples... How else do you increase AofA? I am not for one minute suggesting that in this case just pointing out to the "it did not stall" brigade that, yes it could have and also that FR data is fraught with errors. i have watched it plot an aircraft landing as I saw the aircraft turn during a missed approach, it has predictive algorithms so the speed and direction you see is not always what the aircraft is doing. I am happy to wait for the FDR/CVR. If that data leaks as quickly as the tech log, I will not have to wait long. |
I note that in the tech log the answer to the question 'return to service?' had a tick in the 'no' box in all three sections. Does this mean that further action/investigation was required before signing off the aircraft as serviceable?
|
There was earlier talk of pitot covers not being removed. Then a suggestion that they would not have been fitted overnight. Then that the system may have been maintained over night.
But there are other possible problems are there not? Could there be water in the system? Has there been significant rainfall around these two flights? |
Static air intakes covered. That would explain the correct airspeed reading during take off roll.
As soon as you are airborn, all parameters will be wrong. |
Originally Posted by sdelarminat
(Post 10295718)
Static air intakes covered. That would explain the correct airspeed reading during take off roll.
As soon as you are airborn, all parameters will be wrong. |
Flightradar uses ADS-B and we have the readout showing unusually high speed after takeoff well below 10000 feet(normal altitude for speed restriction).Its GPS derived and we can trust it. And I agree that speed was higher than what you would normally expect, however taking into account the unreliable airspeed, it is still within the safe range, and if in doubt a bit more is better than not enough speed, so it would be understandible if the pilot selects pitch and power figures at the higher end of the speed range, and would round up a few memory numbers... A/C had known UAS event day before but it was controlled by crew and they landed safely.It is written up and signed off as cleared. A/C takes off again next day and suffers another UAS event,this time proving unrecoverable. Conclusion: diagnosis and/or rectification work by maintenance failed to clear problem or worse still exacerbated problem. You find a lot of "if the problem persists" wording in troubleshooting manuals, this is why it is not calles troublesolving manual... There should always be enough redundancy and safety margin to encounter any problem a second time. Flying the 737 Classic series solely on standby flight instruments is a most demanding exercise in instrument flying - especially in IMC. Is the 737 known for issues with water in the pneumatic instrument lines? Did the aircraft experience severe rain recently? Does the 737 Max pitot/static system differ significantly from the NG ("Smart probes" instead of pipes...)? |
Could be completely wrong but if the tech log image is real it would suggest it was a problem on just one side (probably the Captains side).
|
I’m not a supporter of the fake news crowd, but having just listened to a CNN guest state that “there must have been something wrong with the engines because the flight wasn’t as high as it would normally be”.... I’m in disbelief. If you’re reading this CNN, show us where your professionalism is. That was nothing short of a shocking sound bite from someone seeking air time. |
Salute!
Great point Volume. Besides the stab trim issue, which bothers me a lot, the air data "tubing" or lines are of interest. A combination of erroneous air data with trim operating backwards would be "interesting" to fly, huh? Are the sensors independent of any pneumatic connections to the cockpit, or do they measure at their location and transmit data via a mux bus or wires? Most of we old farts remember when we tapped on the gauges in front of us sometimes to determine if they were stuck!! Contamination in the lines is a real problem especially in the tropics. USAF lost a very expensive B-2 at Guam because moisture in the lines caused bad air data and the plane "dug in"/pitched up just as gear came up. Great videos of that crash. Turned out a better procedure for clearing the lines resulted. I tink there was also an incident whereby an insect had decided to make a home in a pitot tube. Too much talk about a stall at any speed and such. Good grief, I would hope most folks here know all about AoA, EAS/CAS/TAS versus ground speed at various altitudes, etc. I know there are aviation afficianoados here that have little or no experience in the "wild blue" or have never flown any "high performance" planes, but sheesh. Rant off..... And BTW, I have had my aileron-rudder-interconnect wired backwards one day, and have had pitot-static system failure. Gums sends... |
Originally Posted by Icarus2001
(Post 10295687)
. i have watched it plot an aircraft landing as I saw the aircraft turn during a missed approach, it has predictive algorithms so the speed and direction you see is not always what the aircraft is doing.
|
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
(Post 10295715)
There was earlier talk of pitot covers not being removed. Then a suggestion that they would not have been fitted overnight. Then that the system may have been maintained over night.
But there are other possible problems are there not? Could there be water in the system? Has there been significant rainfall around these two flights? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.