I don't intend to be suggesting anything because I'm not an investigator. Is it possible they are they measuring and photographing the smallish dents on whatever surface that ends up being?
|
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK
(Post 10398870)
The accident site seems to be near the RDFSH waypoint which would be flown to in the event of runway 27 transition, |
Originally Posted by lpvapproach
(Post 10399730)
I am looking at the linkk1 star. What is the "runway 27 transition" - there is no such literally named transition on the plate. I also heard this mentioned listening to the ATC, .
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10399716)
I wouldn't consider 100m x 200m large at all - in fact for an aircraft the size of a 767 that's on the small side. It would also rule out any in-flight breakup (unless of course they find bits at another location).
I also would consider an uncontained engine failure to be rather unlikely since they'd have been at a relatively low engine power setting - most engine breakups at takeoff power sets, or at high altitudes where the physical rotor speeds tend to high. I suppose a major bird strike might cause enough damage and a large enough imbalance that perhaps the engine could start coming apart, but again the probability would be low at relatively low rotor speeds. But, one of more big birds through the forward bulkhead that took out some flight controls (remember, the 767 is basically a cable controlled aircraft)? Even if it didn't incapacitate the crew they'd have precious little time to react... |
For those of you who are talking about diversion fuel and don't have a good idea of airports in Texas, just an FYI post. There are a LOT alternates (runway length ~8000ft or longer) as close or closer than DFW. Three in Houston (Bush, Hobby and Ellington Field (NASA/military)), four airports in the DFW area (DFW, Love Field, Alliance and the Naval Air station in Ft Worth), San Antonio, Austin, Waco, New Orleans (La), Tyler, Longview, Shreveport (La), Corpus Christi, Victoria, and Laredo plus a LOT of others with shorter runways they could use in an emergency like the two in Conroe, College Station airport (Easterwood), Army airbase at Killeen, Stinson Municipal in San Antonio, Austin Executive, Beaumont, Baton Rouge (La) and Lufkin. This is also not a complete list just ones off the top of my head.
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10399711)
Those pieces do not look to me like parts of the engine nacelle - the honeycomb is too thick. Best guess is a moveable aerodynamic surface (e.g. flaps or part of the tail)
|
Originally Posted by JPJP
(Post 10399692)
Those photos are very interesting. The gentleman on the left is a GE Rep, but I don’t know if that indicates they we’re looking at a piece of engine or cowling. The damage to the material is quite idiosyncratic. Where’s an engineer when you finally need one ? David R ? :) can't think of any other item off-hand which is made from aluminium honeycomb and is that thick |
Not speculating on cause, more a question: would it be possible for a sudden negative-g load to break free a cargo pallet and force it upwards into elevator control cables (assuming that is where the cables are located on a 767)?
|
This brings back memories from my earlier days in my aviation career, remembering the Dan-Air 707 crash on approach to Lusaka in 1977 where the starboard horizontal stabiliser detached on approach.
Lost some good friends and colleagues in that one, and in more recent times I am ex Atlas! Not suggesting there is any link here, just an unpleasant similarity. R.I.P. brothers. |
Originally Posted by Air Profit
(Post 10399797)
Not speculating on cause, more a question: would it be possible for a sudden negative-g load to break free a cargo pallet and force it upwards into elevator control cables (assuming that is where the cables are located on a 767)?
|
Originally Posted by Agent1966
(Post 10399524)
I heard it....very faint.
2. Any perceived noises or sounds out of context don’t mean anything. Even if “pull” was said and picked up by any of the microphones it could be dozens of things. A comment about seat adjustment, seat belts, folding table tops, crew bags, door handles anything. ”Hey could you grab me the sunshade?” ”Go ahead just pull” Not trying to be facetious but if you’re trying to hear “Pull” then consider the Youtube videos of cats sounding like they say hello. |
NTSB Briefing - 24 Feb 2019
|
The crew members have been identified in today's Houston Chronicle. According to the paper, one was a Mesa captain and new father who was jumpseating to Houston to begin his "dream job" with United Airlines this week.
Very tragic all around. |
Thanks Tim Vasquez, very good information.
Mike, 30,000 hrs B-737 |
Assuming it's factual doesn't, a steep dive into the ground with a tight debris pattern have to fit an aerodynamic principle of flight ?
|
So Fly Dubai, Lion Air and now Atlas all share:
- Boeing airplane - Nosedive Lion Air is probably an outlier, but then again, what if all 3 have trim management in common? Because at least Lion and FlyDubai do. In Addition Fly Dubai and Atlas both share low visibility and approach/final, right? And somebody mentioned constant speed. It seems Atlas air was actually slowing down and FlyDubai was just slightly accelerating, both despite nose down, if FR data is to be trusted (can't post links, sorry). Seems like some kind of a pattern, doesn't it? |
Originally Posted by derjodel
(Post 10400094)
So Fly Dubai, Lion Air and now Atlas all share:
- Boeing airplane - Nosedive Lion Air is probably an outlier, but then again, what if all 3 have trim management in common? Because at least Lion and FlyDubai do. In Addition Fly Dubai and Atlas both share low visibility and approach/final, right? And somebody mentioned constant speed. It seems Atlas air was actually slowing down and FlyDubai was just slightly accelerating, both despite nose down, if FR data is to be trusted (can't post links, sorry). Seems like some kind of a pattern, doesn't it? |
Originally Posted by derjodel
(Post 10400094)
So Fly Dubai, Lion Air and now Atlas all share:
- Boeing airplane - Nosedive Lion Air is probably an outlier, but then again, what if all 3 have trim management in common? Because at least Lion and FlyDubai do. In Addition Fly Dubai and Atlas both share low visibility and approach/final, right? And somebody mentioned constant speed. It seems Atlas air was actually slowing down and FlyDubai was just slightly accelerating, both despite nose down, if FR data is to be trusted (can't post links, sorry). Seems like some kind of a pattern, doesn't it? |
It looks like the airplane followed a parabola, maintaining forward velocity while building up vertical velocity, as evidenced by the near constant GPS (=ground) speed in the FR24 data. As Sumwalt stated in the briefing, the aircraft flew wings level but in a steep nose down attitude. Lack of elevator effectiveness springs to mind. In the presumed absence of intent (i.e. suicide) it remains to be seen whether that's a runaway trim, complete loss of elevator control, or loss of elevator/tail surfaces. In level flight, the tail surface provides a net down force, lose some of that surface, and an up moment of the tail ensues resulting in a nose down moment on the pitch axis.
|
I know, and indeed LionAir FDR data indicates acceleration. For the other two there's only ADS-B data available at the moment I believe? FlyDubai did accelerate in the last moments, but only from about 180-230 while it was in steep dive.
|
Originally Posted by SeenItAll
(Post 10400125)
Not at all. Statistics is about accepting or rejecting hypotheses that are made in advance of knowing the data. Claimed confirmation of a hypothesis that was generated after seeing the data is just cherry-picking. Given there are so many parameters to cherry-pick from, it is sure that you can find some that will all align between the incidents -- but this has no probative value as statistical inference. Indeed, each of these crashes is so different from one another in terms of the stage of flight, that I doubt any similarity will be found. And note that trim problems generally don't cause an immediate nosedive into the ground. You generally see the flight crew struggling with the imbalances for some minutes (or at least multiple seconds) before control is finally lost. That doesn't seem to be the case with the altitude profile shown here.
Now given that the flight data sample is huge (say, all flights in the past 3 years), the probability of false positive is actually small anyway. So is there a statistically significant difference between # of flights that did/didn't crash in the group of flights which are Boeing in low visibility on final/approach? And btw, picking a hypothesis up front makes no difference. Imagine 20 different statisticians would decide to test a hypothesis over flight data, each unbeknown and independent of each other. Each would choose a different parameter, but p of only 0.05. Those results would not be different, but there would indeed likely be at least 1 false positive due to stupidly large p value (0.05 is really astronomical when you think about it). |
ADS-B data from FR24 gives GPS derived speed, which is the ground speed, i.e. the speed of the aircraft in the horizontal plane only as seen from straight above. If you're tossing a stone off a tower by throwing it away from the tower, it will retain most of the forward velocity but vertical velocity will continue to increase until it hits the ground, thus creating parabolic flight path. An aircraft without (sufficient) elevator authority will do the same. The impact velocity is far greater than the horizontal velocity would indicate, it's the vector product of both the horizontal and vertical speed components.
Lion Air was a very different case. Fly Dubai and this Atlas crash look a lot more similar in the end phase - which bears absolutely no meaning on the root cause. All it says is: elevator authority was impaired. Period. |
Going to be lots of human factors focus here. Interactions between pilots, between controllers, between pilots and controllers.
Why the CA/PF was on the radio descending through 17,800' when Approach cleared them for the 26L transition (they were actually told that they "can" fly the 26L, pilot appeared to say "91" but did not read back the transition change). What was the FO/PM working on. Why they were approaching RDFSH at 6000' and not GARRR at 7000' (sure, Approach thought 3591 was deviating for weather, although they hadn't cleared them for it, and Approach didn't ding them for being at 6000' instead of 7000' for GARRR). Why the constant 240KTS in the descent with the parabolic drop-off at the end, were they in speed mode, what altitude was set. Did they have a high rate of descent result from pulling power while trying to decelerate, did the 30,000 FPM final rate of descent result from a departure from controlled flight-- maybe with parts coming off-- in the effort required ("PULL!") to bring the nose up from 18,000 FPM through 11,000 FPM, which is where the bottom fell out. Not throwing stones here. I live in a glass house of my own making. Just looking for the most obvious/likely causal factors. Occam's Razor. Whatever you do, don't ask how I can envision this scenario happening. I've worked through it a number of times and have a more lengthy write-up, that is, if you want some more conjecture as to what happened. Guys just out trying to make an honest living, and the whole thing went to hell on them. Whole thing makes me want to puke. |
The 240 ground speed would roughly equal 210 KCAS at 6000’, which is the published speed and altitude at RDFSH point (if in fact that was being navigated to and autothrottle managing speed). At that speed, clean wing in light to moderate chop (as reported by another arrival), that could be approaching a critical AOA. Of course nothing is known here- conditions, config, etc.; nothing. |
Originally Posted by physicus
(Post 10400158)
ADS-B data from FR24 gives GPS derived speed, which is the ground speed, i.e. the speed of the aircraft in the horizontal plane only as seen from straight above. If you're tossing a stone off a tower by throwing it away from the tower, it will retain most of the forward velocity but vertical velocity will continue to increase until it hits the ground, thus creating parabolic flight path.
The last few points of the ADS-B data would suggest a flightpath angle approaching -50° and a resolved velocity approaching 400 kts at the last recorded point. That's consistent with the relatively small debris field. |
Originally Posted by physicus
(Post 10400158)
ADS-B data from FR24 gives GPS derived speed, which is the ground speed
|
Originally Posted by derjodel
(Post 10400145)
Not at all. Indeed the p value (if one is to use the dreaded p value in order to accept hypothesis) should be adjusted and fairly small. In essence, we could go in blind over all data available, but adjust the p value according to degrees of freedom available to avoid false positives.
Now given that the flight data sample is huge (say, all flights in the past 3 years), the probability of false positive is actually small anyway. So is there a statistically significant difference between # of flights that did/didn't crash in the group of flights which are Boeing in low visibility on final/approach? And btw, picking a hypothesis up front makes no difference. Imagine 20 different statisticians would decide to test a hypothesis over flight data, each unbeknown and independent of each other. Each would choose a different parameter, but p of only 0.05. Those results would not be different, but there would indeed likely be at least 1 false positive due to stupidly large p value (0.05 is really astronomical when you think about it). |
Why the CA/PF was on the radio descending through 17,800' |
Originally Posted by Livesinafield
(Post 10400290)
There a loads of reasons for this, PM could have been on the other radio talking to Ground services/company or updating the new weather, or anything, how many times in a flight do you end up saying "can you just take "one" a second while i do XXXX"
|
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
(Post 10399597)
And from the NTSB the debris field is about 200x100 yards. See his comments at 4:46 in the NTSB media conference video: Here's cellphone video of the debris field on the Chambers County Sheriff's Office Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2305590612836823 |
I’ve flown into IAH many times, but as a Night Cargo Pilot, it’s much less busy and relatively easy. My Son, however, absolutely hates IAH. He flies for a passenger airline and he says the controllers constantly change the arrivals and runways on them during the arrival phase of flight. He’s come close to being violated there a few times and tries to avoid IAH if possible. Perhaps this is why some posters mentioned the crew at an incorrect altitude. I know my airline has just issued a bulletin about changing STARS and Runways while on an arrival. |
I know nothing about the 767 stabilizer and elevator system, and I realize this is a completely different type of airplane, but does anyone remember what happened with Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and the jack screw assembly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska...nes_Flight_261 |
Airbubba the link to the facebook page led to a rather meaningless video. |
Originally Posted by derjodel
(Post 10400094)
So Fly Dubai, Lion Air and now Atlas all share:
- Boeing airplane - Nosedive Lion Air is probably an outlier, but then again, what if all 3 have trim management in common? Because at least Lion and FlyDubai do. In Addition Fly Dubai and Atlas both share low visibility and approach/final, right? And somebody mentioned constant speed. It seems Atlas air was actually slowing down and FlyDubai was just slightly accelerating, both despite nose down, if FR data is to be trusted (can't post links, sorry). Seems like some kind of a pattern, doesn't it? your examples also share other characteristics: 1. built after Dec 17, 1903 2. had paint on the outside 3. had people and stuff on the inside 4. took off 5. had wings 6. had engines yep, theres a definite pattern there. FZ981 was a disorientation event following a GA in wind shear. Lion Air 610 has indications of sensor failure leading to loss of control for unknown reasons at this time. FZ approach was not low viz, with an GA due wind shear according to the interim report. Fedex was at 6000', starting the approach, and the weather at the field itself was clear, the line of weather on the approach that the aircraft entered was well away from the airport. |
I wasn't "trying" to hear it....
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 10399832)
1. I don’t hear anything on that tape 2. Any perceived noises or sounds out of context don’t mean anything. Even if “pull” was said and picked up by any of the microphones it could be dozens of things. A comment about seat adjustment, seat belts, folding table tops, crew bags, door handles anything. ”Hey could you grab me the sunshade?” ”Go ahead just pull” Not trying to be facetious but if you’re trying to hear “Pull” then consider the Youtube videos of cats sounding like they say hello. I did hear it. You are right about the possible context......but given the timing of the crash relative to that word heard, I'd be comfortable making a $20 bet, it wasn't anything to do with a seat belt. |
Originally Posted by Old Boeing Driver
(Post 10400355)
I know nothing about the 767 stabilizer and elevator system, and I realize this is a completely different type of airplane, but does anyone remember what happened with Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and the jack screw assembly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska...nes_Flight_261 |
@ FDR Thanks for your response.
Here is the "proposed AD " ....in 2000"On January 31, 2000, there was an accident involving a McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplane. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of this accident was a loss of airplane pitch control resulting from the in-flight failure of the acme nut threads of the jackscrew assembly of the horizontal stabilizer trim system. The NTSB concluded that the thread failure was caused by excessive wear, resulting from insufficient lubrication of the jackscrew assembly.Start Printed Page 58621The drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-83 (MD-83) airplanes has a jackscrew assembly with an acme screw. The drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on Boeing Model 767 airplanes uses a ballscrew. Acme screws and ballscrews have some differences in design, but perform similar functions and have the same airplane level effect following failure. The manufacturer's safety analysis of the 767 drive mechanism found no safety problems with the configuration of the drive mechanism, but showed that changes to the maintenance procedures and maintenance intervals are required to keep the drive mechanism properly maintained and operating as designed. We have received a report indicating that the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing Model 757 series airplane showed extensive corrosion, which could lead to excessive wear. The ballscrew on Boeing Model 757 airplanes is similar to that on Boeing Model 767 airplanes that are the subject of this proposed AD. Therefore, both of these airplane models could have the same unsafe condition. We are considering separate action for the Boeing Model 757 series airplanes and other similar Boeing airplanes.Extensive corrosion of the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer, if not corrected, could cause an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the airplane." |
Originally Posted by fdr
(Post 10400380)
AZ261 MD80 aircraft had a single screw jack, the B767 has dual jacks which are independent, except that they share structure at the fuselage attachment, which was the subject of AD's in the past related to cracking.
|
Originally Posted by Zlinguy
(Post 10400441)
Are you positive about the 767 having dual jacks? I'm pretty sure there's only one screwjack ( although there might be concentric load path redundancy in the event of a failure) with dual hydraulic motors/brakes. It's been a few years since I've flown it, though...
Correct. The 767 only has one ballscrew. However, it does use two hydraulic motors which drive the single ballscrew through a differential gearbox. |
Even if you personally don’t feel the need to contribute please forward the link. It has been verified as legitimate. https://www.gofundme.com/f/atlas-air...ms-family-fund Thank you |
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.