NTSB listening for the CVR and FDR pingers.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1d58e98329.jpg

NTSB B-Roll video for the media to use for voice-overs in their newscasts.

Except for some russian models, most aircraft have single jacks with dual (concentric) spindles and dual drive.
Some have dual nuts in which the spindle (or balls) do run, but even those can wear at the same rate and fail together.

Alaska seems to ba a one off. The stabilizer trim actuator is understood by everybody as a very critical item, and obviously receiving appropriate attention.

However, every second time can happen for the first time... Stabilizer trim failure/runaway is a valid hypothesis for such a spontaneous dive.

This accident seems to prove again, that aditional floating data recorders are needed that are auto jettisoned before impact. Like some USB stick with some EPIRB bolted on.
Over and over again the recorders hold the key information and cannot be found. Who is blocking these addtional ones to be required by authorities?

Sorry, but it doesn't prove that at all.

Aside from the cost and feasibility considerations, discussed previously in these columns on a number of occasions, ejectable recorders in this instance could have ended up being buried as deep in the Trinity Bay mud as they appear to be anyway.

We have some known area, flat water and a professional, organized search going on but no recorder. That seems to be enough for you?

Here we go again.
That will be followed IF the CVR is found by groups of 'experts' trying to work out 'what that sound is'.

The entire area of system recording and safeguarding needs a reappraisal. Not starting from minor evolutionary changes to DFDR/CVR, but from a systems analysis of what information is required. ICAO should also look at the arrangements for assigning costs for recovery so an airline/air carrier is also hit for the costs of recovery if they only use the minimum legal system recording capabilities. Similarly misuse of system recordings by airline management and news organizations, should be a criminal offense when those recordings are intended for emergency/post crash analysis use, (it probably is already an offense under some data protection and privacy laws in any case).

At one point in the edited atc recording, I heard something about "primary contact only." From the edit, atc started asking other aircraft to look for debris very soon after, so it could be atc losing the ADS-B signal amongst ground clutter. Did the transponder stop broadcasting before impact, and what - if anything - would that mean?

DC-8 comes to mind.

767 ballscrew elevator
 

Will one motor drive the system if the other locks up? Mechanically separates (ie. broken shaft)? Loses hydraulic pressure?
How is a functioning system inspected?

We were told, not that long ago, that the Lion Air CVR wouldn't be found in the mud because the seabed conditions were so inhospitable. It was.

Ejectable recorders (in civil aircraft) aren't going to happen, no doubt much to Murphy's disappoinment.

What happened to the push for real-time telemetry ? This would require modest bandwidth for FDR data, CVR would be much more data, not sure how practical that would be today.

What happens to a satcom connection if you do not fly straight & level...
Such systems would produce zetabytes of data every day documenting fine flights, and fail exactly when it is needed.

Yes it will, if both motors run, the speed of the spindle is nominal, if one fails it is just half of it.
Works similar to the differential gearbox in your car, just the other way round (not one engine driving two wheels but two motors driving one spindle).

Concentric shafts should prevent this. Worst case you are stuck with your stabilizer position.

By a series of different tests/checks/inspections. Additionally it is regularly lubricated and from time to time overhauled.
Nevertheless, there can always be some unexpected failure, for example induced by overload in severe turbulence.
Although all attachments are dual loadpath, there can always be structural failure if you seriously overload the system. This also applies to the pivot fittings and the according bulkhead which had issues previously.

Additional to the black boxes, the debris will be very interesting to look at once it has all been retrieved any laid out in a hangar.
The tail section should be fairly intact, although nothing looking alike has been present in any of the pictures.

You are aware that they are optional equipment as we speak? IIRC Qatar Airways has some of their latest A350 fitted with them.

BRAVO... at last someone speaks up in order to STOP the crap !!!!!

Something like this:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...rs-for-it.html

That article is more than 18 months ago. It doesn't offer any evidence for your assertion that Qatar Airways, or indeed any operator, is actually taking delivery of aircraft with ejectable flight recorders.

Note that Airbus calls them "deployable", which doesn't sound quite so bad when they eject by accident in the hangar. :O

Interestingly (and perhaps confusingly) QR is the launch customer for Global Beacon, which provides Iridium satellite-based ADS-B tracking coverage worldwide, though it's not clear whether that is yet in operation.

ElAl B747 freighter, AMS

Trim again
 

The following was posted earlier:

"In January 2014, the US Federal Aviation Administration issued a directive that ordered inspections of the elevators on more than 400 767s beginning in March 2014; the focus is on fasteners and other parts that can fail and cause the elevators to jam. The issue was first identified in 2000 and has been the subject of several Boeing service bulletins. The inspections and repairs are required to be completed within six years."

Six years would be 2020, so the time isn't up yet. Would this apply to the aircraft in question, and if so, is there any way to know if the inspections and repairs were completed?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....561c1703f9.jpg

What are them marks by the Stab?? like dents? im sure its nothing but i don't see it on other pictures

Atlas took delivery from CIT Leasing in Jan 2016
The freighter conversion was done in April 2017. Presumably, the AD would have been done then.
7 Jan. 2016 N258CT Atlas Air
5 April 2016 N631GT Atlas Air
8 Dec 2016 N1217A Atlas Air
April 2017 N1217A Atlas AirBCF (cargo) conversion
30 Apr 2017 N1217A Amazon Prime Air operated by Atlas

re propwash re AD yes !-detailed records are SOP !

One would hope - but, technically, the date wasn't up. And there's always the chance something could be missed in an inspection. Could a failure have resulted in this sort of crash?

• Engine team
• Airframe/Flight control team
• MX team
• Human factors/ Crew team

Engine team will include reps from GE
Airframe team will include reps from Boeing
MX team will include reps from Boeing
Human factors/ Crew team will be looking for training records, rest/duty times and interview colleagues, friends and family.
The Union will have several representatives from the pilot group on scene to monitor and assist.
These union reps have received special training.

Multi prong approach is the strategy.
I may have the phraseology wrong but that’s basically what’s going to happen.

Based on the accident site a basic working theory will be formed and any evidence discovered by the various teams will be used to either support or discredit the initial theory.

Up to that point we can only guess.

While I'm not familiar with the AD in question, it's pretty common for the AD compliance times in question to be staggered based on risk (for structural issues it's typically age related - hours and/or cycles). So you might have something where aircraft with more than xxxxx cycles must comply within 3 years, those with less have 6 years.

That being said, it would extraordinarily sloppy for an aircraft to come out of a major structural mod with an outstanding AD not complied with.
I was in this business long enough to know you 'never say never', but I think the likelihood is quite small that whatever happened is related to that AD.

Atlas has split their conversion orders between Boeing and Iai.
N1217A was converted to freighter by Boeing in Singapore.

Asiana Cargo 747 near Jeju in 2011. Major parts of the wreckage were found and recovered, but not the flight recorders, apparently due to strong currents over a muddy seabed. https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/in-flight-inferno/

But I have no doubt that these recorders will be found, within a week or two.

I agree. The NTSB has already acknowledged they will dredge the bay if they can't find them by divers, pingers, or mud sloggers.

Have no doubt these will be found and agree in principle.

However here's a list for you:

SAA 295 B747 (FDR not found)
Iran Air 655 A300 (neither found)
El Al 1862 B747 (CVR not found)
American 11 B767 (obvious reasons not found)
United 175 B767 (obvious reasons not found)
Asiana 991 B747 (neither found)
Malaysia 370 B777 (neither found)

So, seems a few missing CVR/FDR from wide bodies in the last three decades and quite a lot more from narrow body jets.

[QUOTE=noske;10401664]



I also agree that the recorders will be found eventually. It looks like most of the wreckage array is in a marshy area with varying water depths. This is a most difficult type of terrain in which to work: too deep to walk (slog through the mud), too shallow to swim. The Atlas Air B-767 crash site looks very similar to the ValuJet 592 crash site, which was in the Florida Everglades, west of Miami.

I've not previously posted on this Forum because I'm neither a currently rated pilot nor much of an expert on anything that really matters; however, I was extensively involved in the recovery efforts and investigation of the ValuJet Flt. 592 crash (May 11, 1996). The two major difficulties that were encountered were having to slog through the mud, crud and debris and the unsuitability of a standard airboat to support such an operation. It may be different now, but back then, the average airboat could only transport three people and was relatively unstable, making it difficult to get on and off the boat. We were lucky in one major respect, because an airboat tour operator (Everglades Holiday Park as I recall) volunteered the use of one of their 40 passenger airboats and operator. This really helped out a lot, since we could transport the guys from the levee to the site safely, and the boat was stable when folks were going into the water and getting back onto the boat. It was also extremely important that no other airboats operate in the recovery area, since their propwash would blow heavily contaminated (mostly biological) water onto other boats and onto the guys in the water.

As I recall (after the first day, things seemed to all run together in my memory), the first data recorder was not recovered until almost a week after the crash. I also recall that no pinging from the recorders was ever detected. Anyway, I have a great deal of respect for the job that the NTSB does and understand that while they seem to slow in issuing their findings, they are extremely effective in finding the causes of accidents. The unsung "heroes" in aircraft crash investigations are the folks (both law enforcement and civilian) who are actively involved in recovery efforts, and who, depending on circumstances, are totally unprepared (both physically and psychologically) for what they must do. Insofar as the ValuJet crash was concerned, it started the day of the crash with our MIA Terminal Operations folks who counseled bereaved relatives friends etc. all the way to the guys on the levee decontaminating recovered debris, to the Medical Examiner's Staff who did a remarkable job of identifying remains (so that loved ones could have closure).

I apologize for this somewhat rambling account, and I could go on and on, but I won't.

Cheers,
Grog

A Houston TV channel has released security camera video from a school in Anahuac which shows a brief glimpse of 5Y 3591 descending. It was taken from quite a distance away and it's not particularly good quality video, but enough to show the speed and angle with which it came down.