|
XCVR technology long implemented in China Eastern. This XCVR with certain software, can detects words that are sensitive to managements.
I do not think the CAAC will review the information on the CVR. Face reason they would rather damage it and sent it back to boeing for the analysis. They will come up with a story like unlawful interference rather what was speculated previously. Sorry for all. I know this is disappointing but this is how it works in china. |
Originally Posted by BuzzBox
(Post 11223249)
I think there are two major reasons. First, there simply isn't enough bandwidth available using 'traditional' systems such as VHF datalink and SATCOM. CVRs and FDRs generate a huge volume of data and when you multiply that by the large number of aircraft that might be airborne in the same area at the same time, the available bandwidth isn't sufficient to reliably support data streaming. Second, is cost. Data streaming is expensive and nobody's been able to justify the extra cost on safety grounds. That said, technology is constantly changing and there will no doubt come a time when streaming of CVR and FDR becomes feasible. Mind you, international regulatory change normally take years so it will no doubt be a long time before data streaming becomes the 'norm'.
|
Originally Posted by m0nkfish
(Post 11223769)
I'm not an expert on satellite communications but would be interested to hear from anyone that is. Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? If so, it is likely that any uplink is going to be terminated at the point where you are going to most want the data from the FDR/CVR when the aircraft departs from controlled flight (assuming there is such a departure).
Regarding the spying out on Pilots: I don't think, this data goes into the regular CVR/FDR, though more into a QAR type, which probably won't survive a crash like MU5735. Though useful, to "control" the political thinking of pilots, ehhhh, to enhance safety to correct pilot errors before these can become an issue. |
Originally Posted by m0nkfish
(Post 11223769)
I'm not an expert on satellite communications but would be interested to hear from anyone that is. Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? If so, it is likely that any uplink is going to be terminated at the point where you are going to most want the data from the FDR/CVR when the aircraft departs from controlled flight (assuming there is such a departure).
|
Slight detour: In-flight internet isn't done by satellite only. There are newer technologies available that connect an aircraft at cruise altitude to LTE networks on the ground using special upward pointing antennas that cover a radius of about 150km. That obviously works over land only, but delivers decent enough throughput. Aircraft antennas are being installed on the bottom of the fuselage. Much cheaper also for airlines. If you're interested in the details, google "Nokia A2G" for example. The system has been rolled out throughout most of Europe (European Aviation Network/EAN), I don't know about China. But Chinese companies are leading in mobile network tech, so I'd presume they have something like that.
|
Do the SATCOM packages installed on civilian aircraft require the antenna to be aligned with an appropriate satellite? Longer answer: and it isn't easy. I worked with a company that does the satellite internet connection for a major US operator, and saw the antenna system with the covers off. The antenna itself is about a metre long and 10cm square. It is attached to a serious dual-gymbal positioning system which can whizz it around at great speed - it is dangerous to be close to it when it is running. iirc it can pull up to about 100A in turbulence. There is however an assumption that it will be on the top surface of the aircraft, not the bottom or the side. |
I think recent aircraft use phased array solid state antennas with no moving parts. Its the long thin bulge on the top of the aircraft.
|
WSJ: China Eastern nosedive was intentional
Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident. The Boeing 737-800 was cruising at high altitude when it suddenly pitched into a near-vertical descent, plummeting into a mountain at extreme speed. Data from a black box recovered in the crash suggests inputs to the controls pushed the plane into the fatal dive, these people said. “The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder. Also underpinning the American officials’ assessment, this person said: Chinese authorities, who are leading the investigation, so far haven’t flagged any mechanical or flight-control problems with the plane involved in the March 21 crash in southern China. That model is a workhorse of the global aviation industry and is part of a family of Boeing aircraft that have one of the best safety records in commercial flying. |
https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/black-...tentional-act/
Black box on doomed China Eastern flight indicates crash was intentional: report |
The authorities will now be very concerned with the issue of pilot's mental health if this is true. After the Germanwings crash seven years ago, and a few before that which were suspected but not proven, something needs to be done.
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again. A psychiatric evaluation could be added to our medicals alongside the usual ECG, audiogram etc. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11231751)
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again.
|
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11231751)
Possibly we're going back to the days of not being left alone in the flight deck again. A psychiatric evaluation could be added to our medicals alongside the usual ECG, audiogram etc.
|
For now, the description is still vague and does not trace 1:1 back to a deliberate pilot (or someone else's) action.
The description suggests, it was a nose-down happening, so a pitch issue and no aileron input or engine failure or so. The description doesn't say, whether this is a control column or trim happening. A deliberate pilot action would not so much match with a control regain, halfway down and subsequently again a nose-down movement. Nor would a deliberate action match with the obvious attempt to "keep the airplane on course". Strange thing is, we only do hear about the FDR results and not about the CVR, where the CVR might give the verbal pilot interaction, a more conclusive aspect around a deliberate action. So, for now, the whole is far from conclusive (despite the world press jumping on the "deliberate" description). |
The “authorities” were very concerned seven years ago and did pretty much nothing. All psychiatric evaluations will do is create a bunch of false positives; tell a bunch of psychiatrists/psychologists to find problem pilots and they will go and find them for you. Doesn’t matter if they are the risky ones; Something Will Have Been Done. And the at risk pilots will be wise enough to *gasp* hide their problems.
The problem is rare enough that the governments/regulators/airlines/management can afford the occasional worldwide suicide/hull loss versus the worldwide cost of doing something effective about it. Key word being effective. So anticipate some ineffective, not thought through responses that will be quietly dropped in the future at some point. |
WideScreen has it occurred to you that the other two pilots in the flight deck may have disagreed with the other pilot and perhaps attempted to take control?
|
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, |
Originally Posted by Jonty
(Post 11231808)
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, |
BBC News: China Eastern plane crash likely intentional, US reports say
|
If we look at the number of actual or suspected suicide crashes involving just commercial flights and excluding terrorist incidents, the numbers are quite disturbing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot A technical issue on a particular type which was causing a hull loss this frequently would be unacceptable and the fleet would be grounded until it was rectified. The authorities will need to be seen to be taking action, even if it's ineffective at least they tried something. Having a cabin crew come in when one pilot left the flight deck didn't really achieve anything. The next step could be psychiatric evaluations which enable the buck to be passed on to the psychiatrist if anything happens. |
Let's not forget there are cultures where Pilot Suicide is considered unacceptable as a cause for a crash hence the local authorities and the airline themselves will look for a face saving alternative - blaming the plane - even though in the case of (e.g.) EgyptAir 990 it was pretty clear that the relief pilot had caused the crash.....
|
If not even the cockpit colleagues sitting next to him get any warning right before I doubt that a psychiatrist can give guarantees. The 4U pilot back then deliberately split up his issues and met different doctors to hide the size of his only known to him problems.
Should all mental illnesses be blocked now, including pilots having suffered only for limited periods? Just to be on the safe side? On the other hand what does it mean for teamwork, trust and safety culture? Will this bring us the single pilot cockpit with remote surveillance and some AI-master check for "plausible" flight operations? |
The headlines don't match the quotes. The media have inferred that because it appears to not be a technical problem with the aircraft or engines, it must have been a deliberate act. That's a big leap. Hopefully the CVR can illuminate that..
My questions, if a pilot was standing, became incapacitated and fell forward, could they fall on the yoke such that it would put the aircraft into a near vertical attitude? If you had an aircraft in a near vertical attitude with an incapacitated person on the yoke, how difficult would it be for the other pilot(s) to remove the incapacitated person and regain control ? (SLF and Chartered Engineer working in aerospace) |
No. There is a control sear behind each yoke. A toppling person would fall forward onto the engine controls. I am sure that a pilot's deliberate sustained nose down control input would be impossible to counter in sufficient time to affect the outcome. That’s after 25 years on type, and I am a former University football linebacker.
|
Calling it suicide by pilot is not particularly good description of it as well you could argue... suicide is something you do to yourself and doesn't involve others...
|
^^^^^^^ Mass murder would be more appropriate.
|
There are assumptions being made here. The question, then, is ... who benefits from the options posed (both in terms of finance, and reputation)?
Having closely followed the Colorado Springs event, I am unconvinced. |
Originally Posted by BoeingDriver99
(Post 11231803)
WideScreen has it occurred to you that the other two pilots in the flight deck may have disagreed with the other pilot and perhaps attempted to take control?
And the whole is even stranger, given it is clear, the pilots do attempt to keep the aircraft somewhat on the original course (deviates roughly +/- 30 degrees), which would be very strange, when fighting with the yokes would happen. Let us wait and see, what the control inputs were: Yoke or trim. My bet is on trim. And that might not have been through any of the trim switches in the cockpit........ |
Just to redeem my fellow journalists: The leap from
“The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder. |
Originally Posted by Jonty
(Post 11231808)
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAM_Mo...nes_Flight_470 |
Originally Posted by txl
(Post 11231959)
Just to redeem my fellow journalists: The leap from
“The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder. to those headlines is not as big as some here like to make us believe. That is a very specific statement in regard to action and effect made by someone who's seen inside information. “The plane did what we read back from what the sensors of the cockpit flight controls registered on the FDR." |
The yoke forces are on the FDR - so it would be trivial to differentiate between pilot yoke inputs and a trim failure.
I know people who were directly involved in the Egypt Air investigation. The Egyptians never agreed with a pilot deliberate act, but among the investigators on this side of the pond, there was zero doubt.
Originally Posted by Clop_Clop
(Post 11231907)
Calling it suicide by pilot is not particularly good description of it as well you could argue... suicide is something you do to yourself and doesn't involve others...
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 11232107)
The yoke forces are on the FDR - so it would be trivial to differentiate between pilot yoke inputs and a trim failure.
..... Still, why word the "pilot input" so cryptic, when it was "just" yoke input: “The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” |
Scenario 2/20.
If I was senior (and bitter) enough, maybe I could just request everyone else out of the cockpit, apart from the one at the controls. From there it’s my field of play… |
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
(Post 11232245)
Scenario 2/20.
If I was senior (and bitter) enough, maybe I could just request everyone else out of the cockpit, apart from the one at the controls. From there it’s my field of play… ... and the cadet would not take the vacant chair but stay on the jump seat out of courtesy. |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11232242)
Good to hear about the yoke forces being registered.
Still, why word the "pilot input" so cryptic, when it was "just" yoke input: I have an open mind on this event. What we currently have is a leak from some party which in my mind has no credibility guarantee. Until we get something on formal lines I'd say there are many possible scenarios. The sooner this can be put to bed the better in my opinion. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11231846)
If we look at the number of actual or suspected suicide crashes involving just commercial flights and excluding terrorist incidents, the numbers are quite disturbing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot A technical issue on a particular type which was causing a hull loss this frequently would be unacceptable and the fleet would be grounded until it was rectified. The authorities will need to be seen to be taking action, even if it's ineffective at least they tried something. Having a cabin crew come in when one pilot left the flight deck didn't really achieve anything. The next step could be psychiatric evaluations which enable the buck to be passed on to the psychiatrist if anything happens. |
I am slightly shocked by the rush to conclusion here. As I am by the premature disclosure of FDR data. The question that now needs an answer is, "What were the pilots seeing on their displays" .
|
Originally Posted by phylosocopter
(Post 11232576)
"What were the pilots seeing on their displays" .
|
Originally Posted by EDLB
(Post 11232591)
Simple answer. Only brown color on the PFD.
|
Originally Posted by Jonty
(Post 11231808)
I’m not buying it.
These Boeings have a history of “deliberately” crashing. The only suicide I know of that’s been confirmed was the German Wings one. The rest are conjecture to save the manufacturer, Expect a final report a long time from now with extensive analysis of many possible scenarios that can't be proven(unless there is obvious CVR statements). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.