Originally Posted by INSCRINIUM
(Post 11213727)
That last bullet with the suicide claim seems weirdly disconnected from the rest of the article ?
Lookup the original Leeham article in March and you'll see, they did just copy the last (bullet) line from that article. The other bullets in that article refer to other options also passed on PP. |
Originally Posted by Teddy Robinson
(Post 11213639)
An intermediate report will be forthcoming within 30 days.
This has already been stated, and is the industry norm. TR |
Originally Posted by Fonsini
(Post 11213784)
If it was the Captain I’m sure that he could have found a reason to get them both out of the cockpit.
|
I know that it's happened before, but any pilot who deliberately crashes his plane is also that very rare bird, a mass murderer.
|
Originally Posted by Willstone
(Post 11212011)
Squares, by cracked silicone do you mean the case or the die itself ?
If the case is cracked you can " decap " the dies from the case an transplant it if it's cracked thru the die, then yes, game over. |
Originally Posted by Fonsini
(Post 11213784)
If it was the Captain I’m sure that he could have found a reason to get them both out of the cockpit.
|
Originally Posted by PJ2
(Post 11213847)
...and there are no directives requiring early attention or urgent action on the part of B737 operators
|
Originally Posted by procede
(Post 11213702)
Suicide with two other (much younger and fitter) pilots in the cockpit seems a bit unlikely to me.
|
Originally Posted by vilas
(Post 11213040)
Airbus cannot be put in attitude beyond -15° pitch. So no question of vertical dive. It was just a planned descent.
|
From Chinese TV channel CGTN on twitter today: (can't post link yet)
China denied rumors the MU5735 flight co-pilot is to blame for the crash, an official with the Civil Aviation Administration of China said at a news conference on Monday, adding those who spread rumors would be held accountable. |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11213965)
For a directive, it would need an understanding of what happened and why it happened. For something happening on automation, that might need some time to figure out.
|
Originally Posted by PJ2
(Post 11214023)
Yes, understand that, thanks. Likely you know this, but sometimes in the course of early investigation, the DFDR may reveal something that could be of an immediate airworthiness concern. If readable or partially-so, I suspect by this time they may have an inkling of what happened and that it is, again likely, that it is not a type or fleet-wide matter. Also, I am taking into account who is in charge of the investigation in terms of the relative silence but the Chinese have indicated a 30-day report will be issued. That nothing by way of implementable procedure or technical change has been issued may be construed as a positive sign. Just grasping at straws like everyone else, believing that, "no news is 'good' news", I suppose.
For now, we do have the situation the MU B737 fleet is still not returned to service. Suggesting, IF the CVR is indeed read out, the cause of this tragedy is not a deliberate human aspect, but more technical (weather and all kinds of other fantasies can be ruled out, I think). TBH, I don't expect China to release anything from the CVR. China does have stringent privacy regulations (effectively, though, unless when the state itself is involved). So, yeah, for now, we need to wait a couple of days. If no further notices are released, either the FDR can not be read, or this incident is not a copy cat of earlier incidents with a recognizable cause. |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11214133)
For now, we do have the situation the MU B737 fleet is still not returned to service. |
Originally Posted by silverelise
(Post 11214141)
Is that confirmed? FR appears to show MU 737s operating flights today.
Checking for MU B737-700, you can see, these do fly (regularly), so I assume, this is what you saw. |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11213962)
With only one person in the Cockpit, a suicide mission would not have had a successful (!) recovery halfway down to the ground.
My thoughts are it was plummeting, and the FR data shows a drop in pressure rather than a physical climb. It's a long time since I did any altimetry but isn't the data fed by a static vent? Orient the aircraft body so that vent is in a low pressure air-flow (rolling and falling) and you get the apparent increase in altitude. ??? |
Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
(Post 11214314)
Partial recovery or a glitch in pressure data implying a temporary climb?
My thoughts are it was plummeting, and the FR data shows a drop in pressure rather than a physical climb. It's a long time since I did any altimetry but isn't the data fed by a static vent? Orient the aircraft body so that vent is in a low pressure air-flow (rolling and falling) and you get the apparent increase in altitude. ??? Oh, and at those speeds, don't wobble the nose around to much, otherwise you may loose your tail-end, if not, even shred the aircraft. |
Thanks Widescreen. I take your point about the no catch up; just musing that a 1200ft gain is roughly a 40millibar drop in pressure.
Guess we'll just have to see what the end report has to say. |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11213965)
For a directive, it would need an understanding of what happened and why it happened. For something happening on automation, that might need some time to figure out.
Cheers! |
Originally Posted by WideScreen
(Post 11214339)
Just make a altitude graph yourself and you'll see, it's all pretty smooth. I think, theory busted.
Oh, and at those speeds, don't wobble the nose around to much, otherwise you may loose your tail-end, if not, even shred the aircraft. |
Originally Posted by AAKEE
(Post 11214424)
Yes. Even better than plotting a 2D graph is to use google earth or similar to make a 3D graph from the granular data. It is very informative.
For example: Data points like the Long/Lat give a nice straight line (especially for the first half of the down to earth trajectory) with just one small "S-curve" in it. Practically suggesting, the chance, there are 360's involved is pretty low. And, these data points being subject to aliasing with a max cycle of 30 seconds based on a 50+ ton passenger aircraft movements, is also quite unlikely. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.