No problem. I still maintain that most pilots are going to follow the old truism:

"Don't drop the airplane to fly the mic."

I'm only speculating like everyone else, but posters like Mouth are probably correct. Barring someone in the cockpit going crazy (FedEx 705), it sure feels like catastrophic equipment failure. Radio on, radio off, blindly following the regs, saying to hell with the rules....I'm not sure any of that mattered. And having Chuck Yeager in one seat, Captain Sully in the other, and Al Haynes '52 in the jump seat might not have saved the day, either.

Salt of the water said:

---

Wasn't there a different model Boeing that took an unexpected nosedive and crashed recently? Turns out there was some wonky auto trim programming that was making adjustments even when it shouldn't have.

---

Yes. The 737 'Max' 8 (Lion Air crash).

It was the MCAS system. I dont know avionics as well as others, but I think this was specific to the Max 8, and not training the pilots on how to over-ride that particular system.

Salt of the water said:

---

Wasn't there a different model Boeing that took an unexpected nosedive and crashed recently? Turns out there was some wonky auto trim programming that was making adjustments even when it shouldn't have.

---

Don't recall that, closest I remember is the Air France crash in the Atlantic. It was a combination of bad airspeed readings (probably due to ice on the pitot) bad flight software, and two pilots apparently giving opposite control inputs which the computer averaged out, leading to an aerodynamic stall and drop into the water.

80sGeorge said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

Was talking to one of our FW pilots today. The plane was on a totally normal approach at about 6500ft then made a nose down pitch. Hit the bay basically flying straight down. In a cargo aircraft my mind always jumps to unsecured payload or a cargo shift, but I don't think that could be so severe as to pitch straight down so suddenly.

---

If CG shift is out then it sounds like loss of elevator control somehow, right?

---

It's been mentioned on here before, but a CG shift would most likely take place and have the most detrimental effect on take-off, not during a standard descent. It sounds like whatever happened it was very sudden. I also don't really think it was intentional. If I was a pilot and wanted to commit suicide I would have crashed it into one of the large refineries nearby, not the bay.

dlance said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

80sGeorge said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

Was talking to one of our FW pilots today. The plane was on a totally normal approach at about 6500ft then made a nose down pitch. Hit the bay basically flying straight down. In a cargo aircraft my mind always jumps to unsecured payload or a cargo shift, but I don't think that could be so severe as to pitch straight down so suddenly.

---

If CG shift is out then it sounds like loss of elevator control somehow, right?

---

It's been mentioned on here before, but a CG shift would most likely take place and have the most detrimental effect on take-off, not during a standard descent. It sounds like whatever happened it was very sudden. I also don't really think it was intentional. If I was a pilot and wanted to commit suicide and a terrorist act I would have crashed it into one of the large refineries nearby, not the bay.

---

FIFY

---

Could it be possible that it was an attempted attack, and one of the others on board nose dived it into to bay to stop it?

Possible bird strike? There's a lot of them in that area. The initial altitude seems a bit high for one, but not out of the realm of possibility.

Or: There was some flight data linked on the GB thread that alluded to a possible climb/stall during the descent - perhaps an effort to avoid a strike during an emergency descent caused a stall?

Total speculation, but if they climbed and aerodynamically stalled during the steep descent, it implies to me they were fighting for control. Maybe were able to fight it and gain a little control, only to lose it again.

And bird strike seems unlikely. They could have lost engine power and still had a controlled descent. See Gimli Glider and Captain Sully. A bird strike in the cockpit would have been terrifying and confusing, but I don't see a total loss of control.

Sudden loss of a hydraulic system? Man these things have redundancy on top of redundancy. I know for example the Airbus has a 3 independent hydraulic systems on their twin engines. One powered by each engine and a third that can run off of electric power from batteries or the APU. That's even before the RAT drops from the belly and activates.

Engine failure? Again modern airliners do have an incredible ability to glide. It's something on the order of 20 to1.

Birdstrike to the cockpit windscreen? Former professor said he was in a SWA 737 that hit a bird at altitude. Suspect it got hauled up in summer thunderstorm. Cracked the windscreen and triggered the masks to drop when a pressure sensor between the double glass alarmed. Pilots dove for 10,000 and life was good.

I hate to say it, but I'm leaning toward system malfunction or software issue with pilots not knowing how to over-ride or handle.

Catastrophic failure of the rear stabilizer

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

I hate to say it, but I'm leaning toward system malfunction or software issue with pilots not knowing how to over-ride or handle.

---

Is there any way the elevator trim ran away to limits and stuck? I would assume there is some way to override this but wondering what in the heck would cause a sudden nose dive and a near 90 degree impact.

As mentioned, even both engines suddenly losing power would not cause that. Someone mentioned a control surface separating. That might cause it as well.

This looks like that National Guard C130 that nosedived in the Southeast US a year or so ago. That was a catastrophic propeller blade separation that caused the fuselage to split it two. I am not sure a turbofan blade would have enough energy to cause something like that compared to the energy (and physical size) of a propeller blade.

Control surface separation could do it. A Continental Express plane went down several years ago outside of Wharton. The plane had been in the shop the day before to perform routine maintenance. A supervisor decided to jump in and "help out" and removed a series of screws from a control surface on the horizontal stabilizer. The lead mechanic had been called away to handle something more critical that had come up. Nearing the end of the shift the lead mechanic finished the side of the plane he was working on and logged the work done as complete, planning to see the plane back to have the other half of the work completed at another time. The supervisor that "helped" didn't document his work, or make it known he'd "helped." Those screws were never replaced.

The plane made one flight that next morning and then the elevator came off on descent during it's second flight of the day. The plane straight nose dived into a Wharton pasture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Express_Flight_2574


The 737 had an issue with rudder hard over where a hydraulic cylinder was found to separate and the unit would command the rudder hard over. I believe it led to two crashes before the cause was determined and the part was redesigned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

A 747 has done it as well, but the plane survived due to incredible flying by the pilots and the fact that the 747 rudder is not a single rudder and only the lower unit went hardover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_85

I'm not doubting your analysis but that was almost 3 decades ago and surely industry practices (and insurance carrier demands) have pushed that sort of error out of commercial aircraft maintenance.

Certainly. Continental was drug through the mud by regulators. Just saying that it has happened in the past and even human error isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I'm just playing keyboard warrior and have little knowledge of the 767 and certainly nothing about this particular plane.

Gotcha.

And I'll be first to admit I know little about the 767 except for how old the program is and that there are a myriad of factors that could have contributed.

Info about this specific 767

The plane certainly wasn't new and has had a long service life.
Overall the 767 platform has been remarkably safe. According to this article only 2 have been lost due to true accidents, and only 1 of those was a mechanical failure. All other 767 crashes were due to acts of terrorism.

javajaws said:

---

Possible bird strike? There's a lot of them in that area. The initial altitude seems a bit high for one, but not out of the realm of possibility.

Or: There was some flight data linked on the GB thread that alluded to a possible climb/stall during the descent - perhaps an effort to avoid a strike during an emergency descent caused a stall?

---

As long as we're all speculating:

At 240 kts, even 140 kts, there's no trying avoid a bird strike. The time between seeing the bird and passing it or striking it is too quick to react. I've never had a bird strike, but I've passed plenty of them in close proximity.

The 767 has been around for along time as well as this particular plane, so I also doubt it was software malfunction. The crash in Indonesia was a nearly brand new plane with new software.

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.

The possibilities that come to my mind are loss of a control surface caused by wind shear or some wild pilot error I can't comprehend. Pilot error seems crazy with that kind of altitude, but Air France 447 stalled from 38,000 feet all the way to the ocean from pilot error.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

dlance said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

80sGeorge said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

Was talking to one of our FW pilots today. The plane was on a totally normal approach at about 6500ft then made a nose down pitch. Hit the bay basically flying straight down. In a cargo aircraft my mind always jumps to unsecured payload or a cargo shift, but I don't think that could be so severe as to pitch straight down so suddenly.

---

If CG shift is out then it sounds like loss of elevator control somehow, right?

---

It's been mentioned on here before, but a CG shift would most likely take place and have the most detrimental effect on take-off, not during a standard descent. It sounds like whatever happened it was very sudden. I also don't really think it was intentional. If I was a pilot and wanted to commit suicide and a terrorist act I would have crashed it into one of the large refineries nearby, not the bay.

---

Messages with tower don't support this.
FIFY

---

Could it be possible that it was an attempted attack, and one of the others on board nose dived it into to bay to stop it?

---

Sure that's possible, like a meteor is possible as was suggested, but there's no evidence to support either at this time.

Quote:

---

The possibilities that come to my mind are loss of a control surface caused by wind shear or some wild pilot error I can't comprehend. Pilot error seems crazy with that kind of altitude, but Air France 447 stalled from 38,000 feet all the way to the ocean from pilot error.

---

Wasn't there a crash a few years back caused by the pilot flying over reacting and commanding the rudder hard one way then hard back the other, resulting in the rudder shearing off?

Found it...
American Airlines 587... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

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.

As a layman, that's the theory that makes the most sense to me at this stage.

Apologies for the emoji, was not intended

My opinion is that wind shear/microburst is only a problem when the aircraft is too low to recover. At their cruising altitude, they would have had time to recover from a turbulence problem like that IMO

The DFW crash was a microburst at low speed and a few hundred feet of altitude. Not to mention throttled back, and flaps, slats, and gear out for landing (lots of drag)

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Apologies for the emoji, was not intended

My opinion is that wind shear/microburst is only a problem when the aircraft is too low to recover. At their cruising altitude, they would have had time to recover from a turbulence problem like that IMO

The DFW crash was a microburst at low speed and a few hundred feet of altitude. Not to mention throttled back, and flaps, slats, and gear out for landing (lots of drag)

---

....and prior to all the mandatory microburst training in effect now.

TxAg20 said:

---

Agreed, but 38,000 feet should be enough altitude for an experienced pilot to recognize and recover from a stall as well.

Last year I was completing a new jet type rating. I flew with an instructor who teaches the same type rating every day. Type rating training is pretty much simulated emergency after simulated emergency. While I was flying with said instructor, on 2 occasions we had minor, real emergencies. I might even call them abnormalities. This guy, that does nothing but simulated emergencies every day, panicked and froze in both situations. Both were handled without issue by me by simply following the protocol (memory items then abnormal/emergency checklists). I'm fortunate that I get hyper-focused when my adrenaline kicks in. My instructor was great at emergency situations as long as they were simulated. When the adrenaline of a true emergency kicked in, he was worthless. If the cockpit is filled with pilot(s) that freeze or panic in true emergencies, you get unthinkable pilot errors, often by experienced pilots.

---

is that hyper focus something youve always had, or something you've been able to attain through some type of training?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Now you're definitely veering into territory where people are going to say I'm a condescending anal orifice.

First, realize I am saying NOTHING about the recent crash. My opinion is related more to your experiences and other crashes on record.

I feel like there are two types of pilots. Technicans and aviators. A technician knows what buttons to push, and what inputs to use.

An aviator knows how a plane flies. He/she has a feel for things. They not only know what buttons to push, but what the buttons do and what the control inputs do.

A technician is like the Air France crash where the computer crapped out, and the technicians at the controls held it in an aerodynamic stall all the way into the ocean.

An aviator is Chesty Sullinberger, who, when all the buttons crapped out, he flew the aircraft to the safest possible outcome.

---

I can see that. I instruct race car drivers. Many of the worst students, some hopelessly bad race car guys, are pilots or engineers by profession. I expect they are the 'checklists and settings' guys you label as technicians.

I will agree with you... With all of the fly by wire systems, backups, sub-systems, etc., these pilots have to know a lot about a lot. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate then know every nuance and interrelation within this massive system. What engines power what, what's backed up by what, what runs through what part of a wheel well or wing, what's near something else that could point two seemingly unrelated or opposing failures to a single different cause, etc. They've got to know how not just to read and respond to the computers but understand why the computers are telling them something or why they're doing something to the plane.

Auto pilot is great, but I think the fact that it's engaged for 99.5% of a flight is putting too many "technicians" in the cockpit and not enough "aviators."

Speaking generally here, as I (like everyone here) have no real knowledge of what happened to this plane.


Similarly... One of the guys on my team is a Petroleum Engineer. Poor guy gets absolutely lost when everything doesn't follow the checklist or procedure. He just gets lost looking at the bark on 1 tree and can't even see the whole tree, much less the forest.

It's either something I've always had or acquired through elementary school fights. I'm not sure which.

TxAg20 said:

---

It's either something I've always had or acquired through elementary school fights. I'm not sure which.

---

jack reacher, is that you?