It should be really clear from the CVR if that's the case. They would know by now and I think they would have said something or leaked it. My buddy at FedEx said they just ordered an inspection of all of their 767's, which points to a failure if they have inside information.

Think it is Fedex being proactive or something from NTSB / FAA?

No idea, I just know that's what I've been told. It's likely too early for the NTSB/FAA to find a mechanical cause, but I also think they would end speculation if the CVR had something incriminating.

Several countries had grounded their aircraft, but we have not.

Any chance it's because we make the aircraft, and Boeing (and their politicians) would lose too much money if the FAA/NTSB said they were dangerous?

GAC06 said:

---

No idea, I just know that's what I've been told. It's likely too early for the NTSB/FAA to find a mechanical cause, but I also think they would end speculation if the CVR had something incriminating.

---

Along those lines, any chance they'd tip carriers off that they know there was a problem but just aren't sure what it was yet?

Naveronski said:

---

Several countries had grounded their aircraft, but we have not.

Any chance it's because we make the aircraft, and Boeing (and their politicians) would lose too much money if the FAA/NTSB said they were dangerous?

---

Completely different aircraft. In this instance the 767 rolled off production line in 1992. The recent 737 max that have been grounded by some countries didn't get FAA certification until 2 years ago. The first flight of a 767 was 1981 i believe. These are 2 completely different airframes. Crashes in the 2 recent 737s are likely unrelated as is this 767 likely unrelated to the 737 crashes

dlance said:

---

Naveronski said:

---

Several countries had grounded their aircraft, but we have not.

Any chance it's because we make the aircraft, and Boeing (and their politicians) would lose too much money if the FAA/NTSB said they were dangerous?

---

This is a whole other incident.

---

Sorry, I haven't been following the thread. Thought there may be some of that talk in here.

Not much in the line of answers, but does hint as to why this crash occurred

Good explanations overall, but the "column input" phrase has since been changed by the NTSB.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

Not much in the line of answers, but does hint as to why this crash occurred

---

This guy seems to be the be the best to follow, great analysis w/o any BS.

AquaAg1984 said:

---

Mr. Dubi said:

---

Not much in the line of answers, but does hint as to why this crash occurred

---

This guy seems to be the be the best to follow, great analysis w/o any BS.

---

Good find...I have been following him for about two years...

GAC06 said:

---

1990AG said:

---

The original wording was the plane went into a steep dive "because of column input". That's like saying "the car swerved because of steering wheel input", which implies it was initiated by the pilot.

They edited it and changed it to "as a result of nose down elevator deflection". That's like saying "the car swerved because the front wheels turned". It's more vague and leaves open other possibilities besides an intentional input, like mechanical or flight control failure.

---

---

This resonates with me somewhat.

Someone published this status report / update to get the information out there.

However, a close reading of what what was said, and the way it was said, certainly allows the reader to draw a conclusion.

At some point (soon after the report was published) the drafters probably got a ton of phone calls and emails asking them to confirm or deny what we've been speculating about since day 1. Did pilot action crash the plane or not? (Whether intentional or accidental)

In my mind, the secenario leads me to believe one of a few things,

1. It was just an oversight by the folks who drafted the report and unintentionally conclusory.

2. The oringinal report was accurate and they had evidence to support the idea that the crash was caused by the pilot, (whether intentional or accidental) but they were not in a position to absorb the ****-storm that would follow from that conclusion, or simply weren't ready to 'go there' for whatever reason.

If the black box tells us that the plane dived because the pilot manipulated the stick to put the plane into a dive, then what circumstances would have to exist for that not to have been the case?

That's where my completely uninformed and untrained mind is at at this point,

Just an observation. If a plane is headed toward an aerodynamic stall, increased power and nose down is a logical recovery.

Even if they determine that the dive was caused by column input, there are still a ton of scenarios that could apply, more than I care to speculate on. For example, an Air Force C-130 mishap recently occurred due to column input. In that case they determined that a night vision goggle case fell or was placed where it obstructed the control column movement and the pilots couldn't take out the nose up elevator input after rotation.

That makes sense.

If the dive was initiated by the pilot to come out of a stall situation, I suppose that would mean that something happened, mechanical or otherwise, to prevent the pilot from regaining control, pulling out of the dive.

What exactly that 'something' was is where the rubber meets the road I guess.

Damn those last 18 seconds...

Would the data points on the flight data recorder tell us conclusively from a mathmatical / engineering standpoint whether or not the aircraft was in a stall or even at at risk of a stall?

GAC06 said:

---

Even if they determine that the dive was caused by column input, there are still a ton of scenarios that could apply, more than I care to speculate on. For example, an Air Force C-130 mishap recently occurred due to column input. In that case they determined that a night vision goggle case fell or was placed where it obstructed the control column movement and the pilots couldn't take out the nose up elevator input after rotation.

---

As in, goggles fell and physically jammed the controls long enough to cause an incident?

Ie a coke under the brake pedal sort of thing?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Would the data points on the flight data recorder tell us conclusively from a mathmatical / engineering standpoint whether or not the aircraft was in a stall or even at at risk of a stall?

---

Yes it should. The FDR records a crapload of different data points such as airspeed, angle of attack, power settings, etc etc

I guess i have a question. 'Unrecoverable dive angle'

Is this more than just running out of altitude? Is there some combination of angle and speed that the plane simply cant pull out of?

Just curious.

I know there are also windows in which nothing can be done. I watched an aggie colonel one time pull out of an inverted maneuver at about 2k feet or less, and try to buzz the runway at an airshow.

But unfortunately, his altitude and arc wasnt sufficient, and presumably his g load too high decrease his arc or to eject, even if he wanted to.

Or possibly he rode it in to prevent civilian casualties

Either way, it was clear his fate was sealed the instant he rolled over into his dive. There were no options in that window. And that was an f16

I also lost a great uncle in a b29. He was on one of those fully loaded bombing runs off a small runway island in ww2. They could barely get off the ground and there was just rocks and ocean off the runway.

From just after they throttle up, until they find enough altitude to circle the base, if anything at all goes wrong or any engine fails to maintain full power, they die. In that window There were no options.

It wasnt his day.

Anyway, just tryijng to figure this one out just like the rest of us.

Pilots have to hold the elevators out of the way to load cargo in the 130, instead of holding the stick for a long time a case of NVGs was used and wasn't removed prior to flight.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2016/04/24/c-130j-accident-report-propping-up-yoke-to-unload-cargo-not-uncommon-expert-says/

NTSB is not afraid of pilot suicide as a cause but they're nowhere near a conclusion at this point even if they have a good guess, I'd guess the draft was an oversight.

cbr said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Even if they determine that the dive was caused by column input, there are still a ton of scenarios that could apply, more than I care to speculate on. For example, an Air Force C-130 mishap recently occurred due to column input. In that case they determined that a night vision goggle case fell or was placed where it obstructed the control column movement and the pilots couldn't take out the nose up elevator input after rotation.

---

As in, goggles fell and physically jammed the controls long enough to cause an incident?

Ie a coke under the brake pedal sort of thing?

---

Yes. The controls were jammed so that they couldn't lower the nose until they stalled and died.

cbr said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Even if they determine that the dive was caused by column input, there are still a ton of scenarios that could apply, more than I care to speculate on. For example, an Air Force C-130 mishap recently occurred due to column input. In that case they determined that a night vision goggle case fell or was placed where it obstructed the control column movement and the pilots couldn't take out the nose up elevator input after rotation.

---

As in, goggles fell and physically jammed the controls long enough to cause an incident?

Ie a coke under the brake pedal sort of thing?

---

I can see something crazy like that happening.

Somebody's phone gets dislodged in turbulence and wedged against the controls in such a way that no one realizes what's happening until it's too late.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, just that there are a lot of scenarios even if it was a commanded input

Not to make light of it, but sort of the airplane version of someone accidentally kicked the plug out of the socket?

GAC06 said:

---

I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, just that there are a lot of scenarios even if it was a commanded input

---

What do you do if you don't mind me asking? Always curious about the wealth of knowledge on this board.

Buck Compton said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

I'm not suggesting that's what happened here, just that there are a lot of scenarios even if it was a commanded input

---

What do you do if you don't mind me asking? Always curious about the wealth of knowledge on this board.

---

Pretty sure he's a pilot...of the other plane with a thread.