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.

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.

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."

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 ?

It seems he means diversion to Dallas Fort Worth plus 30 minutes flight time.

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.

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

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.

odd that the rate of descent increased but airspeed seems to have stayed at 240...