I always believed that a high speed pie was flung at the pentagon by the Amish.
767 crash in upper Trinity Bay
76,868 Views |
356 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by mts6175
Lots of interesting things to examine in this video. Notably, there is a glimpse of the jackscrew at the 4:28 mark. This is what controls the pitch of the horizontal stabilizer. Discussion on an airliners.net thread right now about what the position of the jackscrew seen in the video means in terms of commanded trim.
Can you link the discussion for us non-aviations....going over there and wading through the grief is worse than being on Texags after a decommit....
Thanks for the link. Holy cow, there are some obsessed folks on the internet....
aggolfer said:I drive that stretch of highway almost everyday. See planes flying right over and think about how crazy that scene must have been.91AggieLawyer said:danieljustin06 said:TxAg20 said:
Looking at the storm this plane was looking to avoid, it could have been dissipating or in "gust out phase" which can cause severe wind shear. This is the storm phase that caused the L-1011 crash going into DFW years ago.
This was my first thought. Possibly a microburst.
August 1985. Delivering pizza that day not far from the airport, keeping up with the news over the radio during my delivery runs. I almost got hit by a fire vehicle (not service engine; Suburban type) apparently headed out to the scene before I knew anything about it. However, the Delta plane in that crash was only a few hundred feet off the ground when it hit the microburst.
What I thought was amazing about that crash was the news interviewed a passenger who survived. He was being carted off to an ambulance and the news guy asked him what he thought happened. The guy said something like, "I think we had a wind shear..." I had never heard of that before. But then again, I was only 18 at the time.
I drive the highway often. Have driven it probably thousands of times since the crash. At least one car was taken out when a poor guy driving home from work was crushed by one of the plane's engines. So those planes you see over your head, imagine one of them being in your front seat! How that plane only hit one car during rush hour is beyond me.
2 or 3 years later, Delta had another crash at DFW on the south side of the airport, this time on takeoff. Thankfully, there were very few fatalities. One lady managed to get to the airport service road, hitch a ride back to the terminal and actually attempted to board another flight before the trauma or stress of the crash wore off and she realized she needed at least some medical attention.
Ah, the one where the pilots are talking with the flight attendants while waiting for wake turbulence to clear from the preceding flight's takeoff.
You can hear them on the CVR ask the attendants what they wanted to say into the recorder in case they crashed on takeoff (eerie). They didn't configure the slats and flaps for takeoff and the warning systems to alert them failed.
You can hear them on the CVR ask the attendants what they wanted to say into the recorder in case they crashed on takeoff (eerie). They didn't configure the slats and flaps for takeoff and the warning systems to alert them failed.
Damn
Damn
________________________________________________________
What happened here?
I worked for TI in Sherman at the time and my boss was on a return flight from a business trip. We all had no idea what flight he was on at the time and we were all freaked out when we heard the report of the Delta crash at DFW.
Turned our he was on another Delta flight that was purposely delayed due to the weather and his aircraft was circling on the other side of the airport when the crash occurred. Will never forget that occurrence.
Turned our he was on another Delta flight that was purposely delayed due to the weather and his aircraft was circling on the other side of the airport when the crash occurred. Will never forget that occurrence.
191 was also the flight number of an American flight that crashed on takeoff at O'Hare in Chicago in 1979. The engine cut loose from the pylon and went up and over the wing, ripping the hydraulic lines. The plane dipped sharply to the left and crashed about a quarter mile from the airport into a hanger next to a trailer park. All on board and 3 or 4 on the ground perished. Largest loss of life until the AA Queens accident. Initially, it was thought that there was no way the plane could survive the actual physical loss of an engine but it appears the real problem was the pilots didn't realize the plane was stalling because the stick shaker wasn't working (the ripped lines also took that out) and they focused on pulling up rather than increasing speed to get the plane out of the stall. In the simulator, WITH the shaker working, it was a near 100% success rate landing the plane under the same conditions; without it, a near 100% failure rate.
Needless to say, 191 is no longer used by any airline.
Boeing better be figuring this 737 thing out AND FAST.
Needless to say, 191 is no longer used by any airline.
Boeing better be figuring this 737 thing out AND FAST.
Thanks, Forklift Joe.
Not when I'm done with it.
I recall there have been two Delta crashes at DFW. About 2 years apart. Flights 191 & 1141.
So this Ethiopian airlines crash this weekend....same plane as this Amazon crash? This article also mentioned an Indonesian crash.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/asia_pacific/chinas-ban-on-the-boeing-737-max-inspires-others-and-ramps-up-pressure-on-the-faa/2019/03/12/4d4bf2b0-44a3-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/asia_pacific/chinas-ban-on-the-boeing-737-max-inspires-others-and-ramps-up-pressure-on-the-faa/2019/03/12/4d4bf2b0-44a3-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
No. One is a 767. The other is a 737
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
NTSB Update:
NTSB Update on Atlas 767 via Flightglobal.com
Excerpt:
"The aircraft levelled briefly at 6,200ft, then climbed to 6,300ft, with flight data indicating "small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence".
"Shortly after, when the airplane's indicated airspeed was steady about 230kt (426km/h), the engines increased to maximum thrust and the airplane pitch increased to about 4 nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49 in response to column input," says the NTSB.
"The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate," it adds.""
Edit: see GA06 post below for NTSB correction.
NTSB Update on Atlas 767 via Flightglobal.com
Excerpt:
"The aircraft levelled briefly at 6,200ft, then climbed to 6,300ft, with flight data indicating "small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence".
"Shortly after, when the airplane's indicated airspeed was steady about 230kt (426km/h), the engines increased to maximum thrust and the airplane pitch increased to about 4 nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49 in response to column input," says the NTSB.
"The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate," it adds.""
Edit: see GA06 post below for NTSB correction.
That site took that excerpt from today's NTSB report. They have since edited that paragraph. Here is the current version:
Changing "in response to column input" to "in response to nose-down elevator deflection" is obviously quite significant.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA19MA086.aspx
Quote:
Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane's indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4 nose up. The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49 in response to nose-down elevator deflection. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.
Changing "in response to column input" to "in response to nose-down elevator deflection" is obviously quite significant.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA19MA086.aspx
Pilot error while reacting to the turbulence?
Thanks for the edit. Yes, that's quite a difference.
I know **** about flying planes.
Plane hits turbulence.
Engines are put at max thrust.
Something bad happens ...
Elevators are manipulated in such a way that puts it into a dive.
Crashes nose down.
What does this tell us?
Why would you go to max thrust in this situation?
Are we still looking at pilot error or mechanical failure?
Was It some kind of flight control malfunction?
Plane hits turbulence.
Engines are put at max thrust.
Something bad happens ...
Elevators are manipulated in such a way that puts it into a dive.
Crashes nose down.
What does this tell us?
Why would you go to max thrust in this situation?
Are we still looking at pilot error or mechanical failure?
Was It some kind of flight control malfunction?
It's not impossible that 737 max 8 auto trim code got re-used... Coders often copy / modify instead of write from scratch. Also, didn't Boeing recently offshore much of their coding out of the states to save money?
Hahaha
GAC06 said:
Hahaha
I'm just saying if I'm a Boeing coder and get assigned the task of developing an auto trim on cargo jets (eek out a few more mpg or improve handling during uneven loading?) first thing I'm going to look for is existing auto trim code blocks in the company database. May not be remotely close to the issue here, but based on my experience with automation... Definitely possible.
That's not how it works for a ton of reasons
If you're willing to share some of those reasons I'm genuinely interested in learning.
Are you saying that Boeing outsourced their coding to the cheapest bidder in Bangalore and they've just been laying new code on top of old code for all their 767s?
I hope that wouldn't be the case.
I hope that wouldn't be the case.
Because commercial aviation is one of the most highly regulated industries in existence. They aren't just slapping new code in planes on a whim. The MCAS trim system in the 737 MAX is there because it was required as a bandaid to compensate for the fact that the 737 was never intended to have engines that big and heavy that far forward of the wing. But re-engine-ing the 737 was a hell of a lot cheaper than a clean sheet replacement. The 767 in question has been around a long time. The particular one that crashed was built in 1992. No one is going to spend the money to develop new software for it, especially not software from a narrowbody aircraft that only exists in the first place to correct for a design compromise specific to the 737.
And BeltonAg, no. That's not what happened, he just made that up.
And BeltonAg, no. That's not what happened, he just made that up.
GAC06 said:
That's not how it works for a ton of reasons
God I hope not!
________________________________________________________
They crowd source it. Password is Boeing123.
Maybe I shouldn't have messed with it in Github.
Could someone please put this in layman's terms and explain the difference for us novices? Am I wrong in reading that the pilot put this plane into a dive even though there was no stall? Or, is the idea that there may have been a software glitch?Quote:
"in response to nose-down elevator deflection"
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
13h ago
17k
42:45
21h ago
4.6k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop