PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   China Eastern 737-800 MU5735 accident March 2022 (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/645805-china-eastern-737-800-mu5735-accident-march-2022-a.html)

CodyBlade 24th Mar 2022 05:34

Mi 185 had the throttle fire walled.Asian report says it part of escape/recovery action.

Turkey Brain 24th Mar 2022 05:55


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 11204761)
@ Krautland :
That was a long time ago, they are civil now. The problem still is that the airspace around the civil routes is mostly military airspace and cannot be penetrated, even for weather.

A point on safety and weather avoidance, in any country.

The military have never stopped me deviating for weather in China. When ATC can’t approve your weather deviation request.

” Pan Pan, Pan Pan, Pan Pan, avoiding weather, will fly offset 30 nm miles right “

Incredibly my colleagues have said “ oh they won’t like that ! “

do I really care ?

My priority is the safety of my customers and colleagues, not the controller’s feelings who
maybe has their hands tied, with many rules.


esreverlluf 24th Mar 2022 06:10


Originally Posted by Vhammer (Post 11204914)
Fortunately the throttles and flight controls are not interlinked.. With over 10K hours on the 737 including the 8oo and Max, and some training in accident investigation, I'd like to offer a few observations. First off, I dont believe it is possible to reach the ground in two minutes without the throttles pushed up. No one keeps power in , in a dive. Its instinctive for anyone thats been flying for any period of time to reduce power to idle. Now with power at idle I dont think even vertical you can descend 29K feet in two minutes. Now to get vertical, you would have to have a condition where not only are the flight controls unresponsive but they have had to go into a full nose down position by themselves, and be resisting input to reduce the angle of descent. which without some kind of assistance would not normally occur on their own. OR you would have have to a failure of the flight control system as well. So we are talking two separate events, by systems not related. except by the person flying. I could be grossly mistaken, but I dont believe you will find much data coming out of China that isn't manufactured. The airplane has been in service 7 years, so bugs have been worked out. This leaves one of several possibilites. Crew action, maintenance or some external factor.

29000 feet in two minutes is only about 150kts - I would have thought that would be easily achievable in a vertical dive with power off . . .

Australopithecus 24th Mar 2022 06:55


Originally Posted by Vhammer (Post 11204914)
Fortunately the throttles and flight controls are not interlinked.. With over 10K hours on the 737 including the 8oo and Max, and some training in accident investigation, I'd like to offer a few observations. First off, I dont believe it is possible to reach the ground in two minutes without the throttles pushed up. No one keeps power in , in a dive. Its instinctive for anyone thats been flying for any period of time to reduce power to idle. Now with power at idle I dont think even vertical you can descend 29K feet in two minutes. Now to get vertical, you would have to have a condition where not only are the flight controls unresponsive but they have had to go into a full nose down position by themselves, and be resisting input to reduce the angle of descent. which without some kind of assistance would not normally occur on their own. OR you would have have to a failure of the flight control system as well. So we are talking two separate events, by systems not related. except by the person flying. I could be grossly mistaken, but I dont believe you will find much data coming out of China that isn't manufactured. The airplane has been in service 7 years, so bugs have been worked out. This leaves one of several possibilites. Crew action, maintenance or some external factor.

Seriously, you need to think about that. We can maintain 310 kts in a normal descent with engines at idle. With a vertical flight path the aircraft will keep accelerating at 9.8m2 until it reaches its terminal velocity, somewhere near Mach 1. Re-read FDR's post earlier. He's an actual test pilot, and he explains what happens when in the transonic regions just above the normal envelope

An aircraft seven years old isn’t one that has the bugs worked out. Its one, especially if barely used in two years, that will develop the
usual litany of defects and rectifications.

27 years all variants 737 on four continents.

common toad 24th Mar 2022 07:02


29000 feet in two minutes is only about 150kts - I would have thought that would be easily achievable in a vertical dive with power off . .
When was the last time you saw a ROD of 14,500 fpm?

Turkey Brain 24th Mar 2022 07:26

Unplanned descent speeds
 
There is a common misconception on this and other threads relating to max achievable rates of descent.

An excellent post by ‘ fdr’ explained in some detail about the aerodynamic effects of subsonic airliners exceeding their certified Mach No.

I think that post or a previous post also explained that flight simulators are not programmed to accurately simulate these situations outside the normal certified flight envelope.

If you inadvertently roll more than 90 degrees of bank in the cruise, and stay in trimmed flight there is no lift up, it’s sideways. If you manage to roll near to inverted, then all the lift of the wing will be towards the ground.

As the speed builds up rapidly, the lift also increases rapidly, accelerating you down.

If you happen to notice the unusual attitude you unload the wings and roll to the nearest horizon, and begin a smooth pullout.

If you’re still distracted, planes will normally enter a spiral descent, but if fully inverted (180 degrees of bank ) you basically start flying the second half of a loop. Without any pilot input, just from the trimmed state of the aircraft.

In these situations the engine thrust is almost irrelevant, full thrust is nowhere near the weight of the aircraft. In the cruise at altitude full thrust is maybe just above 1/20 of the aircraft weight. Airliners have a lift drag ratio of maybe 1/20. Maybe a bit better with more modern aircraft.

But you get the idea, the weight of the aircraft is significantly more than thrust from the engines.

As the plane approaches high transonic speeds , approaching Mach 1.0 you get a dramatic drag build up, Critical Mach drag rise, or whatever you wish to call it.

Airliners are bluff objects designed to fly subsonically, so this extreme drag makes going supersonic very difficult.
So generally the max rate of descent will be about Mach 1.0

As an aside, using the FlightRadar24 altitude readouts, the rate of descent corresponds to about a 1,000 ft a second. 5,000 ft lost in 5 seconds if I read the numbers correctly. Or 60,000 ft a min or 685 mph. Local speed of sound is 707 mph assuming a standard atmosphere and a temperature of -25 C.

So vertical speed M 0.97 , this is only the vertical speed using the data. As stated by previous posts the data from FR24 can be smoothed or assumed. When you allow for the horizontal ground speed to get the true airspeed and Mach No. the numbers are higher.

With previous Jet upsets when the data is pulled and all the circumstances are allowed for, the max speeds always seem to be subsonic, or mildly supersonic.

As ‘ fdr ‘ stated as you descend into thicker air it is also warmer, which means the local speed of sound increases too. So for a given speed, the aeroplanes Mach No will decrease. As you descend into warmer air you should get more control.

There are two big issues with these high speed descents.

1:you can rapidly exceed the aircrafts design max speed which can lead to structural failure.

2: you need a lot of sky to pull out of a high speed descent.

Lastly, I have read that most ‘ Jet upsets ‘ that occur in visual conditions are survived, but those in cloud or at night with a limited visual reference are not.

From my aged memory the CAL 747 that had a ‘ jet upset ‘ was only flown correctly when the crew got a visual horizon at about 20,000 ft. I note that for this unfortunate flight, the cloud base was much lower.

P.S. My credentials; I can’t spell but have flown commercially for far too long.

43Inches 24th Mar 2022 08:03


With over 10K hours on the 737 including the 8oo and Max, and some training in accident investigation, I'd like to offer a few observations. First off, I dont believe it is possible to reach the ground in two minutes without the throttles pushed up.
Amazing in 10k hours you managed to find throttles on the 737... Where are these people coming from that don't even know basic cockpit terminology yet claim to have vast experience on type. Most airliners will reach 3000-4000 fpm descent with no power with less than 10 deg nose down, put the thing into a 40 deg nose down flight path (which the radar plots indicate happened here ref post #52) with power (or not) and you will find that rate of descent gets pretty high. Agreed to achieve -40 deg net flight path the nose must have been lower than that again, unless bits had fallen off. Pretty sure in just about any aircraft you could push the nose down to 45 deg and it will keep accelerating past break up speeds unless you have dive brakes or a parachute. If breakup speed is past mach 1 then it will do that. Remembering that with these subsonic machines as the aircraft approaches mach 1 the tendency is for the aircraft to pitch down further, hence mach trimmers.

FWRWATPLX2 24th Mar 2022 08:15

So, I served as a Captain flying Boeing 747-400, 747-300, 747-200, 737-800 and 737-700, a former lowly US Army helicopter pilot - No Cat Shots. I have landed on ships, but in helicopters (at night). Army-trained Aviation Maintenance Officer and Maintenance Test Pilot, Aircraft Mechanic License, published and paid international Aviation-safety writer, since 1983. At one time I held Airline Transport Pilot License from seven countries, including a Chinese ATPL. The day I sat the CAAC (Chinese ATPL) written examination, I was the only foreign captain in the room to pass and many Chinese pilots including former PLA failed the exam, too. It was still partially written in Chinese. Long retired after 36 years flying professionally.

I was a Contract Captain in China nearly five years. I was the first white boy contracted and the first foreign captain to sign a contract with the airline that merged with China Eastern Airlines. There was a long period of time, maybe as long as a year, I was the only foreign Captain at the airline. I actually flew China Eastern Airlines Boeing 737-800 aircraft, as a Captain. I feel damned upset that I may have known some of the flight and cabin crew. I have not asked. I would not. I almost prefer not knowing.

That said, to all of the above: Without the Flight Data Recorder recovered and analyzed, without the Cockpit Voice Recorder (now recovered and) analyzed, without ACARS QAR Data analyzed, by the CAAC and Boeing and hopefully NTSB, HOW THE HELL CAN ANY OF YOU ASSUME TO KNOW OR GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?!

If you are airline pilots or retired from the airline game, it is damned unprofessional to weigh in what you think might have happened. It contributes nothing to the Final Accident Report.

I will not be sharing anything on this forum, regarding the accident, other than the aforementioned and, rest assured Boeing manufactures great airplanes, designed to be flown well by very average pilots. I was one of them.





FullMetalJackass 24th Mar 2022 09:14


Originally Posted by FWRWATPLX2 (Post 11204969)
That said, to all of the above: Without the Flight Data Recorder recovered and analyzed, without the Cockpit Voice Recorder (now recovered and) analyzed, without ACARS QAR Data analyzed, by the CAAC and Boeing and hopefully NTSB, HOW THE HELL CAN ANY OF YOU ASSUME TO KNOW OR GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?!

Nice rant. Now, back on Planet Earth, what does the R in PPRuNe stand for?

Bonus point if you answered谣言

So why do people indulge in rumour and speculation? In my case it's because I want to learn from the mishaps of others, to hopefully avoid making those same mistakes. Who was it who said:

You must learn from the mistakes of others, because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself?

Flyhighfirst 24th Mar 2022 09:17


Originally Posted by Innaflap (Post 11204970)
I think you will find that gravity alone would take around 44 seconds

It will be very easy to tell if info released is being held back. As Boeing and the NTSB have a right to access the recorders as well. So either they are granted access and will have to be forthright in their reporting or they deny access and everyone knows it’s a whitewash.

I think there is a better than even chance they will play it by the book.

paxnerd 24th Mar 2022 11:13

"On Thursday, rescuers said they had found engine components, part of a wing and other “important debris” as they searched the mountainside in a rural part of the Guangxi region for a fourth day. A four-foot-long piece of debris suspected to be from the plane was found more than six miles from the main crash site, said Zheng Xi, the commander in chief of the Guangxi Fire Rescue Corps. As a result, search teams will widen the area they are combing, he added. At the main crash site, a state broadcaster showed the workers digging with shovels around a large piece of wreckage that the reporter described as a wing, which bore part of the China Eastern logo and was perched on a steep, barren slope fringed by dense thickets of now-flattened bamboo."
From the New York Times: debris recovered some distance from the main crash site.

sopwithnz 24th Mar 2022 11:17

Reuters just now : Debris from the jetliner including engine blades, horizontal tail stabilisers and other wing remnants was concentrated within 30 metres of the main impact point, which was 20 metres deep.

********One 1.3 metre-long fragment suspected to be from the plane was found about 10 km away, prompting a significant expansion of the search area, officials told a news briefing. ********************

Also reporting data accessible on CVR ... https://www.reuters.com/world/china/...et-2022-03-24/

B2N2 24th Mar 2022 11:19

The first CCTV video shows a vertical descent due to camera angle, the dashcam footage shows a steep descent but not vertical.
Its difficult to see if the aircraft is right side up or inverted.
One thing I want to emphasize here, it is entirely possible to regain control after an upset and still be in an unrecoverable situation due to lack of altitude.
As in the airplane is under positive pilot control and still crashes.
Simulator upset training will show you how little time you have before the situation becomes unrecoverable either because the airplane is so far out of the envelope that it will come apart during the recovery or insufficient altitude.
This is obviously a PC simulation freeze frame but it’s the best picture to illustrate a possible scenario. Airplane ends up inverted and nose down. “Pulling through” as if flying a part loop will over stress the airframe and take a tremendous amount of altitude. Rolling upright and pulling out of the dive will overstress the airplane and run out of altitude.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5118f039f.jpeg

The question that remains is what got them there?

45989 24th Mar 2022 12:19

Did this in the sim as an experiment (800) 15 sec Above 250kts unrecoverable

rigpiggy 24th Mar 2022 13:58


Originally Posted by henra (Post 11203573)
Past cases of such occurences tend to show otherwise. Neither the B-52 which lost 3/4 of its VS nor AA587 nosed over. Problem with lost VS is loss of directional control in Yaw.
Massive nose overs have occured in the past (in Military and General Aviation) as a consequence of losing Horizontal stabilizers. If the FR24 is valid this could potentially happen due to exceeding the structural limit in the first apparent recovery (if the FR24 traces are correct). That said in one of the videos the final trajectory rather looks like 50° ND and possibly with a slight recovery path. The other video on the other hand looks pretty vertical. Simply not possible to safely conclude from the few bits we have. First important information bit to obtain woould be the four corners. After that there is a first chance to get a somewhat clearer picture.

most times loss of horizontal stabilizer ends very quickly with wings breaking off due rapid rotation download (negative g)loading the wing.

Capn Bloggs 24th Mar 2022 14:00


Originally Posted by 45989
Did this in the sim as an experiment (800) 15 sec Above 250kts unrecoverable

Could you explain how you did this? What was the trim set at? Was it a trim runaway? Did you set full nose-down trim then try to manually wind it back? Did you deliberately hold the nose down?

fdr 24th Mar 2022 14:01


Originally Posted by rigpiggy (Post 11205132)
most times loss of horizontal stabilizer ends very quickly with wings breaking off due rapid rotation download (negative g)loading the wing.

as happened with Lauda 001

Daverave83 24th Mar 2022 14:10

If it's a case is was a runaway trim even at extreme you could still get control of the Aircraft. the problem arises that there are 2 ways to do this which is ease the throttle so there's less friction on the elevation controls which they call the "roller coaster" so that you can manually adjust the trim Or increase airspeed to it's maximum threshold this of course makes it more difficult and normally a 2 man job to adjust the trim.

I think this is reason we see them try and gain control at 8000 and a increase in airspeed. Didn't the flight bank to the left?

Recovery from a Severe Out of Trim

Accelerate or decelerate the airplane to an in-trim airspeed. If a recovery must be initiated from an extreme nose-down out-of-trim requiring a high pull force, an increase in airspeed may relieve enough of the elevator load and control displacement to permit manual trimming. Do not exceed speeed limitation. If a recovery must be initiated from an extreme nose-up out-of-trim requiring a high push force, a decrease in airspeed may relieve enough of the elevator load and control displacement to permit manual trimming. It should be noted that the relationship between airspeed change and trim change do not remain constant. As airspeed is increased, trim change requirements decrease.

In an extreme nose-up out-of-trim condition, requiring almost full forward column, decellerate, extend the flaps and/or reduce thrust to a minimum practical setting consistent with flight conditions until elevator control is established. Do not decrease airspeed below the minimum manouvring speed for the flap configuration. A bank of 30 degrees or more will relieve some force on the control column. This, combined with flap extension and reduced speed, should permit easier manual trimming.

Capn Bloggs 24th Mar 2022 14:23


Originally Posted by B2N2
Airplane ends up inverted and nose down. “Pulling through” as if flying a part loop will over stress the airframe and take a tremendous amount of altitude. Rolling upright and pulling out of the dive will overstress the airplane and run out of altitude.

Not if you don't pull too hard. And neither will, in every case, cause you to run out of altitude (as appears to be the case here, if indeed the leveloff was deliberate). Besides, why are you rolling upright if you're vertical?


Originally Posted by Iknowhighschoolmaths
This gives us a terminal velocity of 170 m/s or 330 knots.

Are you serious? A Cessna 172?

As for your comment You are exaggerating the 4-5 times, 43Inches gave you 5000fpm for an Emergency Descent (which in my experience is about right). You're stating the terminal velocity of a C172 is 330kts. That could be in no other condition except straight down. That's 33,000fpm (and would be much more in a 737). That is MORE than 43Inches "4-5 times".

I doubt your username. :suspect:

A0283 24th Mar 2022 14:28

Very preliminary impression ...

My impression was that Chinese officials declared that parts of the horizontal stabiliser where found at the main crash site. And suggest a 30m diameter main impact zone.

The CVR was found with the 'box' flattened and the memory 'can' scraped but apparently intact. Not indicated where this was found.

Video of the main crash site show a fragmented plane with fragments of metal and composite (with honeycomb) structure overloaded and tubing/lines bent.
One engine was visible in a pit next to a pool of water (the area is very muddy now and more rain is expected - tough job for SAR, my respects - looks they need bamboo matting to get around in some places). The heavy rain appears to have started after the impact.
A bit above the direct impact zone there is a single (right hand) winglet and the trees in that area show a scythe like cut.
Some trees there appear to be about 35cm thick others leg or arm thick.
In the vicinity of the winglet lies what seems part of the top panel of the center section of the aircraft, which sits above the 2nd and 3rd window in front of the forward escape hatch.
A wing panel of a few metres long lies to a side (not sure yet if it was a top or bot panel), with Z-type stringers on one side, which is split spanwise through the lettering and along the edge of the covers.

It looks like the impact was perpendicular to a kind of gulley which has a walking path to at least one side. If true this makes the SAR job even harder. And might explain the landslide risk the Chinese authorities were referring to.

Debris was found a few miles away, no confirmation yet if that belonged to the plane.

So, at max two corners have been found and it seems like the nose section must be dug out.

It seems that the impact was not vertical but under more of a final angle than would be expected from the videos. With the dashcam video looking more representative.

fdr 24th Mar 2022 14:53


Originally Posted by B2N2 (Post 11205045)
One thing I want to emphasize here, it is entirely possible to regain control after an upset and still be in an unrecoverable situation due to lack of altitude.
As in the airplane is under positive pilot control and still crashes.
Simulator upset training will show you how little time you have before the situation becomes unrecoverable either because the airplane is so far out of the envelope that it will come apart during the recovery or insufficient altitude.

The question that remains is what got them there?

Prior to doing Mdive testing I ran LED and DES simulations using STAR CCM+ of high-resolution 3-D BAC447 series of sections and variants, and found that the Cl collapses at extreme mach numbers, well above MMo. That was also associated with a very large shift in the Cm. The wing works fine within the design envelope. Any extended time in an extreme nose low atitude is going to compromise the ability to generate adequate aoa to get a good recovery pitch rate going. This isn't grandads pitch problems in his P-38 or Spitfire IX, its not even the P-80's discomfort at high speed, and it isn't reflected in the QTG if you go play in the B737 sim. This isn't specific to the B737, it is just one of those things, doing supersonic aerobatics is bad enough if you can pull 9 G if you start from M0.8 vertical downwards.

[ before discounting the loss of g capability at high speed ask any phabulous phantom driver what the g available was supersonic, or how much real estate gets used up with a supersonic dive from 45K, due to the limited g available to pull out in such a case. And that is a wing that arguably was designed for high-speed flight and dogfighting. Some may unkindly argue that the Phantoms wings were only used to have a place to hang MERs and fuel tanks].

The speed buildup just from gravity is ~20 kts/sec at -90 FPA, at 45, is around. 15 knots/sec, without the engine thrust, which adds about another 4kts a sec in a vertical dive. Drag increase is a fair bit but is still low order, the B737 total drag at M0.8 at average weighs is around 5,000-7,000 lbs roughly, it isn't a large amount, compared to acceleration available from gravity. Most speed brakes reduce lift, and that increases the aoa that has to be set to get adequate g loading, and that increases buffet and shock effects. Now this is not what the FAA espouses on aerodynamics, but then the FAA still demands we teach Bernoulli's principle for lift which just ain't so. Move your hand across the sink full of water and soapy bubbles, and you will find that the circulation theory/ bound vortex is visible, including the start vortex, the bound vortex and a stop vortex. What you won't find is what we are supposed to teach pilots about how their plane actually flies, which while simple to explain is fundamentally wrong, and gets wrongerer the more that compressibility comes into play.

Mods; remove or not this post, it is your choice. It is factually correct, and the insistence of our industry to put it's head in the sand means we are bound to repeat the same mistakes needlessly.

What happened to this aircraft, 50/50 the CAAC will not find a cause, and won't agree with Boeing. There is a guy in Denver that worked on kinematic reconstruction of some flight paths by a different method to the one I used in the same accidents, both being variants of MLE to match the couple of data points that existed. In one case, the CVR was able to give the engine RPM from the broad band FFT, and the actual acceleration and deceleration was able to be found from the harmonic lines of the AC system which ran fans in the cockpit; The CSD has a lag function and the overspeed or underspeed of the CSD is traceable on the CVR. The CVR in this case may ahve survived, the EEC memories are most likely to have survived, the DFDR had a less than 50% chance of surviving for various reasons.

it is possible that the debris dispersion analysis with prevailing winds will prove or disprove that any component departed early in the event. It is unlikely, but it would be reavealing if ever found. Components of the stabiliser/elevator and tail will very likely be found from a failure point in the mid dive case, and would be evident as missing components from the local debris field. The military search radar from around Wuxu airbase may have tracked the debris from the aircraft, it is about the right range to have tracked targets.

B2N2 24th Mar 2022 16:41


Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs (Post 11205152)
Not if you don't pull too hard. And neither will, in every case, cause you to run out of altitude (as appears to be the case here, if indeed the leveloff was deliberate).

Civilian airliners are not rated for high G maneuvers, the 737 is +2.5 /-1 in clean configuration so your choice is to either overstress the airframe or run out of altitude or both if the initial loss of control was at even medium altitudes.
In the sim we do our upset recovery training starting at 20,000’ and I’ve frequently seen recovery as low as 4000’.
Vertical your choice is push or pull, negative or positive G. Anything less then vertical upright you pull, anything less then vertical but inverted would require rolling upright then pull.
I mean we’re talking aerobatic maneuvers here.

michael9000 24th Mar 2022 17:03

Standard procedure, thrust to idle, wings level, pull to nearest horizon.
With a -1 limit I would not being doing anything negative, it would be the last thing you do.

Noober 24th Mar 2022 17:19

Am I seeing this correctly that there are two crash sites? The plane looked fairly intact in the videos, at least you could see both wings. Would a single engine have enough force to create the crater in this picture?

Drone footage shows they are a few hundred yards apart. Sorry can't post a damn picture for some reason. Google image search "mu5735 aerial", Pictures 1+2 are a few hundred yards from 3+4

Lonewolf_50 24th Mar 2022 18:53

This looks like the set of pictures that Noober was referring to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mu57...&bih=923&dpr=1
@Noober,: Was that right?
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e0decbfa2.jpeg
Pictures 1 & 2
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ee2e4a8ede.jpg
Pictures 3 & 4

Noober 24th Mar 2022 19:05

Yep that's correct. There's drone footage floating around on twitter that shows these two locations are about 300-400 yards apart. Seemed a little odd for a plane hitting at that angle.

Bottom picture I believe in the main fuselage.

silverelise 24th Mar 2022 20:29


Originally Posted by Noober (Post 11205226)
Am I seeing this correctly that there are two crash sites? The plane looked fairly intact in the videos, at least you could see both wings. Would a single engine have enough force to create the crater in this picture?

Drone footage shows they are a few hundred yards apart. Sorry can't post a damn picture for some reason. Google image search "mu5735 aerial", Pictures 1+2 are a few hundred yards from 3+4

The press conferences yesterday were reporting two main impact sites both sides of a hill, within 1sq km. They also reported some debris had been found 6 miles away and they were extending their search area as a result.

tdracer 24th Mar 2022 22:02

Good Grief :ugh::ugh::ugh:
I spent nearly my entire career working jet turbine engines. While the technically correct term is "Thrust Lever", even I use the terms "Thrust Lever", "Throttle Lever", and "Throttle" pretty much interchangeably when talking the subject (I'm rather more careful when writing). Even Boeing people call the automatic thrust control feature "Auto-Throttle" even though those levers it moves are correctly referred to as "Thrust Levers" (and the group that was responsible for the function was always called the "Auto-Throttle Group"). Seriously, is there anyone on this forum who doesn't know what we're talking about when some writes "Throttles" or "Throttle Levers"? Sheese.
Can we possible quit the semantics discussions and get back to the topic of what may have caused this aircraft to crash?

43Inches 24th Mar 2022 22:09


Originally Posted by tdracer (Post 11205374)
Good Grief :ugh::ugh::ugh:
I spent nearly my entire career working jet turbine engines. While the technically correct term is "Thrust Lever", even I use the terms "Thrust Lever", "Throttle Lever", and "Throttle" pretty much interchangeably when talking the subject (I'm rather more careful when writing). Even Boeing people call the automatic thrust control feature "Auto-Throttle" even though those levers it moves are correctly referred to as "Thrust Levers" (and the group that was responsible for the function was always called the "Auto-Throttle Group"). Seriously, is there anyone on this forum who doesn't know what we're talking about when some writes "Throttles" or "Throttle Levers"? Sheese.
Can we possible quit the semantics discussions and get back to the topic of what may have caused this aircraft to crash?

It's actually very relevant to this thread, as non english speaking crew can be bamboozled by calling the same thing several names. It's very important when teaching ESL crews that the terminology is spot on. Airbus knows this as parts of the group come from non english speaking nations, hence why a lot of thought is in it's terminology. Boeing, well they just do things and put names that makes it sound different to the competition.

DaveReidUK 25th Mar 2022 00:36

Fixed links from previous post:

Rescue underway after China air crash
Rescue work continues at plane crash site in mountain forests
Recovered black box believed to be cockpit voice recorder: official
Experts investigate plane crash site as rain hinders rescue work
Black box of MU5375 recovered at crashed site

A0283 25th Mar 2022 00:42

Very preliminary impression part2

Photos are not good enough yet, but, Lonewolf_50 's two photo's.

The top photo has a gulley shape, it is not littered with fragments like the bottom photo. The top photo has blackened area's, which may refer to the initial fire. Some parts of the treeline in the bottom photo also appear to have some fire damage.
Based on this my first impression is that the top photo is land erosion and the bottom photo the impact area of the aircraft. So, still one main impact area. And based on official reports also possible but not yet confirmed items shedded earlier, but much further away.




PoppaJo 25th Mar 2022 00:43


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11205378)
It's actually very relevant to this thread, as non english speaking crew can be bamboozled by calling the same thing several names. It's very important when teaching ESL crews that the terminology is spot on. Airbus knows this as parts of the group come from non english speaking nations, hence why a lot of thought is in it's terminology. Boeing, well they just do things and put names that makes it sound different to the competition.

Agree. QZ8501 is another example, with the aircraft out of control heading towards the ocean, one told the other to ‘pull down’ on the sidestick, amongst numerous other non standard terms. Hardly helped the situation, in fact most certainly contributed to the end result.

grizzled 25th Mar 2022 01:25


Originally Posted by PoppaJo (Post 11205437)
Agree. QZ8501 is another example, with the aircraft out of control heading towards the ocean, one told the other to ‘pull down’ on the sidestick, amongst numerous other non standard terms. Hardly helped the situation, in fact most certainly contributed to the end result.

Hi PoppaJo,

This same sentiment has been expressed by others (re "non-standard" terms) with regard to the accident you mention. I have posted previously on pprune about the problems with judging -- or even trying to understand -- words, phrases and conversations from CVR playbacks. It is something I have experience with, especially in the context of analysing CVR conversations between flight crew with different native languages (as was the case with QZ8501). In the case of QZ8501, the phrase "pull down" is not / was not uttered the way you and others seem to think it was. I was involved in that investigation and I can tell you that specific phrase, in that instance, uttered by that Captain, could easily be the entire subject of a PhD dissertation on multi-language crews in stressful situations. Feel free to PM me if you want to chat about this issue and that particular accident, as discussing it here would quite correctly be considered by the Mods as thread drift.

Cheers,
Grizz .

FlightDetent 25th Mar 2022 01:27


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11205378)
It's actually very relevant to this thread, as non english speaking

No it is not, not to this thread. Also not everything is about Airbus doing it better.
​​​​​​Chinese crew couldn't care less about 'rooners having a fit because the hair is too thick.

Most likely, outside of the USA, CEAir is one of the worlds top 5 operators of 737 per total accumulated sectors. This won't be a crisis of misunderstanding.
​​​​

tdracer 25th Mar 2022 01:57


Originally Posted by 43Inches (Post 11205378)
Airbus knows this as parts of the group come from non english speaking nations, hence why a lot of thought is in it's terminology. Boeing, well they just do things and put names that makes it sound different to the competition.

Now you're just being silly. Much of Boeing's terminology pre-dates the very existence of Airbus (heck, some of it probably dates back to WWII if not before). More specifically, the Boeing use of the term "Auto-Throttle' dates back to the 1960's - the early 747s had a system called "FFRATS" - Full Flight Regime Auto Throttle System.
Find me a pilot that doesn't know what "pull back the throttle" means, and I'll show you a pilot that has no business in the pointy end of an aircraft.

sopwithnz 25th Mar 2022 03:27

bloomberg reporting ..
 
"CCTV reported that some parts of the aircraft have been found 255 meters away from the main crash site."
More info here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d=premium-asia

camel 25th Mar 2022 04:42

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/seco...-media-2842001

FDR not found .Official statement.

camel 25th Mar 2022 06:37

Live stream

notmanyflyinghours 25th Mar 2022 06:53

China Eastern Airlines ground 223 738s
 
According to CNN (sorry can't post URLs but its front page...)

"The airline and its subsidiaries have temporarily grounded 223 Boeing 737-800 aircraft, airline spokesperson Liu Xiaodong said in a press conference on Thursday. The same type of plane was involved in the crash.".

bsieker 25th Mar 2022 09:33

Officials at the press conference (in the CGTN live stream linked above) just stated that they were going to release the report(s) in English, as well as Chinese. Chinese is an ICAO working language, so they are not obliged to, but I guess they realise the international importance of this accident.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.