News Forum - Boeing aircraft carrying 133 passengers crashes in China, state media reports

[KaptainRob]

4 hours ago, bushav8r said:

Aren't the cowlings designed to contain all the parts in the event of a catastrophic engine failure?

Supposed to, but sometimes do not.  I recall 2 recent examples - both B777's, one I think killed a female passenger with shrapnel that speared through a window; another caused the engine to fall off IIRC.

This is an old photo from wiki > 

[Tim_Melb]

7 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

Military drones can fly at 29,000 ft, and though it's most unlikely to have been one, those drones also have avoidance systems.  It's possibility I'd rank well down the list.

Most fixed wing drones of the hobby type (not toys) can achieve altitudes up to 35,000 ft. As I said it's not legal and in most parts of the world but it being illegal doesn't stop some people. I didn't say it's likely but it's not impossible and although drones coming in contact with aircraft is extremely rare (because the operators generally are responsible and do the right thing) it's only a matter of time until it happens with tragic consequences. 

[Cathat]

A collision with another aircraft can not be ruled out at this stage either.

If a military aircraft had been involved have to wonder how transparent the authorities might be about it.

not sure of the rules of the air in chinese administered airspace but i suspect military aircraft may have no legal requirement for a functioning altitude reporting transponder or tcaas system.

just another possibility of the many things that could have occurred.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Cathat

[KaptainRob]

1 hour ago, Cathat said:

A collision with another aircraft can not be ruled out at this stage either.

If a military aircraft had been involved have to wonder how transparent the authorities might be about it.

not sure of the rules of the air in chinese administered airspace but i suspect military aircraft may have no legal requirement for a functioning altitude reporting transponder or tcaas system.

just another possibility of the many things that could have occurred.

I agree, nothing can be ruled out completely, however, a mid air collision should have produced a 2nd crash site unless a drone impaled the B737 and fell with it.    The long, torn strip of fuselage found quite a way from the main crash site could have peeled off after an external impact.   I feel certain crash investigators will ascertain a probable cause even without the Voice & Data Recorders which could be beyond salvage.

[oldschooler]

19 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

If you lose the engines, because of say a bird strike, or a mechanical issue with both of them at the same time, and you still have a tank full of fuel... You have a turbine in the tail of the plane called the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) that you can fire up and will provide electricity for all the systems in the plane including hydraulics, so you will have full control of the plane (or glider at this point). 

If you have run out of fuel, you obviously can not not fire up the APU, but you still have what's called the RAT (Ram Air Turbine), which will provide enough power to regain basic control of the plane as well as basic instruments.

A Boeing 737, like that one, which suffers a double engine flameout at cruise altitude, and everything else is mechanically sound with the airplane. Unless the crew is extremely negligent and incompetent, there is no chance the situation will develop into an uncontrolled nosedive like it happened this time. 

So again “ human error” seems most probable, either by Pilots or Maintenance, or both. I can’t recall any incidence of such an unrecovered high dive crash by any first rate airline. 

[Poolie]

5 hours ago, Cathat said:

A collision with another aircraft can not be ruled out at this stage either.

If a military aircraft had been involved have to wonder how transparent the authorities might be about it.

not sure of the rules of the air in chinese administered airspace but i suspect military aircraft may have no legal requirement for a functioning altitude reporting transponder or tcaas system.

just another possibility of the many things that could have occurred.

The Chinese close the airspace if there's military activity. Source is foreign pilots employed by Guangxi Beibu Airlines.

[Sparktrader]

49 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

So again “ human error” seems most probable, either by Pilots or Maintenance, or both. I can’t recall any incidence of such an unrecovered high dive crash by any first rate airline. 

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. While a double engine flameout is not at all likely to develop into an uncontrolled nose dive. Some other things can cause such an event: 

1. Mid air collision. 

2. Terrorism (a bomb going off). 

3. Being shot down by a missile. 

4. A jammed trimmed stabilizer (which is a fault that has happened before in the Boeing 737 series, as much as 3 or 4 737-200 and 737-300 crashed in the US in the early 90s due to their trim jamming).

5. Pilot suicide. 

6. Some part of the plane tearing off and causing explosive decompression. 

5. An uncontained engine failure (literally the engine exploding) and causing damage to control systems of the planes (maybe hydraulics, maybe even tearing a part of the wing, etc etc...).

 

The list goes on.... we shouldn't jump to conclusions this early and should instead wait for the official investigation.

[Cathat]

5 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

I agree, nothing can be ruled out completely, however, a mid air collision should have produced a 2nd crash site unless a drone impaled the B737 and fell with it.    The long, torn strip of fuselage found quite a way from the main crash site could have peeled off after an external impact.   I feel certain crash investigators will ascertain a probable cause even without the Voice & Data Recorders which could be beyond salvage.

Not necessarily, there have been quite a few cases where one aircraft falls out of the sky and the other makes an emergency landing at the nearest suitable airfield.

The biz jet that collided with an airliner over the Amazon jungle is a good example of this.

[KaptainRob]

44 minutes ago, Cathat said:

Not necessarily, there have been quite a few cases where one aircraft falls out of the sky and the other makes an emergency landing at the nearest suitable airfield.

The biz jet that collided with an airliner over the Amazon jungle is a good example of this.

A larger aircraft might survive mid-air 'clipping' unless its empennage was severely damaged, but yes stranger things have happened.  No reports of a 2nd plane having landed, damaged.

Another theory bandied about is pickle-fork failure having caused a wing to shear off.  737 NG's were plagued with pickle-fork cracking a few years back though one might expect total failure to occur during maximum thrust during take-off rather than @ cruise altitude.

[Faraday]

Just reported in SCMP 6 minutes ago.

 

"Chinese aviation investigators say they have recovered one of the black box flight recorders from the wreckage of a China Eastern Airlines plane that crashed in southern China on Monday.

The recorders, which capture critical flight data, may offer clues as to why the Boeing 737-800 plummeted from cruise altitude and crashed into a forested hillside near the city of Wuzhou in the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region.

Heavily fortified to survive high-impact crashes such as that of flight MU5735, black boxes capture information including plane performance, pilot input and cockpit audio."

 

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3171547/china-eastern-airlines-flight-mu5735-black-box-found-plane?module=lead_hero_story&pgtype=homepage

[Poolie]

5 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

A larger aircraft might survive mid-air 'clipping' unless its empennage was severely damaged, but yes stranger things have happened.  No reports of a 2nd plane having landed, damaged.

Another theory bandied about is pickle-fork failure having caused a wing to shear off.  737 NG's were plagued with pickle-fork cracking a few years back though one might expect total failure to occur during maximum thrust during take-off rather than @ cruise altitude.

Apparently one of the recorders has been found so light might be shed on events soon.

[Poolie]

Sorry, Faraday, I got it off the telly here and crossed with you.

[KaptainRob]

4 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Apparently one of the recorders has been found so light might be shed on events soon.

Let's hope it's the FDR which is located above the cabin toward the rear of the plane's fuselage.

The CVR is located in the aft cargo hold.

[Guest1]

2 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. While a double engine flameout is not at all likely to develop into an uncontrolled nose dive. Some other things can cause such an event: 

1. Mid air collision. 

2. Terrorism (a bomb going off). 

3. Being shot down by a missile. 

4. A jammed trimmed stabilizer (which is a fault that has happened before in the Boeing 737 series, as much as 3 or 4 737-200 and 737-300 crashed in the US in the early 90s due to their trim jamming).

5. Pilot suicide. 

6. Some part of the plane tearing off and causing explosive decompression. 

5. An uncontained engine failure (literally the engine exploding) and causing damage to control systems of the planes (maybe hydraulics, maybe even tearing a part of the wing, etc etc...).

The list goes on.... we shouldn't jump to conclusions this early and should instead wait for the official investigation.

I think, only point 5 would be able to explain the brief height gain on 2000m. Before it dove down to the ground again , with 600kph. What time usually is the first wee-round of the/a cockpit crew? That was it, what got the German plane to fly into the mountain, wasn't it?

But lets wait for results from the black box

[Cathat]

57 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

A larger aircraft might survive mid-air 'clipping' unless its empennage was severely damaged, but yes stranger things have happened.  No reports of a 2nd plane having landed, damaged.

Another theory bandied about is pickle-fork failure having caused a wing to shear off.  737 NG's were plagued with pickle-fork cracking a few years back though one might expect total failure to occur during maximum thrust during take-off rather than @ cruise altitude.

I'm aware of the crack issues in the pickle forks however that is very unlikely as the problem is well understood and is under control.

There have been a few airworthiness derectives on the subject for regular inspection and non destructive testing of them.

To date none have failed in a sudden and catastrophic manner and is very unlikely but it is a possibility.

There are a few pictures of a 737 in a dive with the whole empenage missing doing the rounds now.

Unsubstantiated but if a photo shop job they look very convincing.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Cathat

[Sparktrader]

Forget about pilot suicide. A piece of debris has been found 10km away from the crash site. Clearly a piece which is the winglet.

 

https://www.shine.cn/news/nation/2203243520/

 

 

 

I would say with this evidence proves pilot suicide very unlikely. Provided that the aircraft more or less started this rapid descent around 10km from the point of impact. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Tim_Melb]

On 3/23/2022 at 7:06 PM, Sparktrader said:

Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. While a double engine flameout is not at all likely to develop into an uncontrolled nose dive. Some other things can cause such an event: 

1. Mid air collision. 

2. Terrorism (a bomb going off). 

3. Being shot down by a missile. 

4. A jammed trimmed stabilizer (which is a fault that has happened before in the Boeing 737 series, as much as 3 or 4 737-200 and 737-300 crashed in the US in the early 90s due to their trim jamming).

5. Pilot suicide. 

6. Some part of the plane tearing off and causing explosive decompression. 

5. An uncontained engine failure (literally the engine exploding) and causing damage to control systems of the planes (maybe hydraulics, maybe even tearing a part of the wing, etc etc...).

The list goes on.... we shouldn't jump to conclusions this early and should instead wait for the official investigation.

Because according to oldschooler if you're not a white Anglo Saxon male you can't do anything properly. 

[Pinetree]

On 3/23/2022 at 8:34 AM, Cathat said:

not sure of the rules of the air in chinese administered airspace

They should be the ICAO, Worldwide standard, but as their ATC controllers rarely speak English, another ICAO standard that they don't follow, I guess that anything is possible.  

[Sparktrader]

20 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

but as their ATC controllers rarely speak English

Chinese is one of the five ICAO languages. So their ATCs have no need to speak English unless it is to a foreign aircraft whose pilots can't speak Chinese. And as you may guess, they obviously do, otherwise how would there be so many flights to/from China specially pre-COVID? 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Pinetree]

30 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Chinese is one of the five ICAO languages. So their ATCs have no need to speak English unless it is to a foreign aircraft whose pilots can't speak Chinese. And as you may guess, they obviously do, otherwise how would there be so many flights to/from China specially pre-COVID? 

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. None English ATC systems can only revert to their own language for single aircraft that are in some form of emergency, or to their own Military.  Otherwise, by Treaty, all ATCs should control in English.  Agreed many do not do so all the time, such as the French, Spanish and the Chinese,. but they should.  They have no idea of the first language of the Captain/ FO of any aircraft,  unless its volunteered by the crew.  This caused and still does  many bad issues with the Asian airline I flew with. 

[Sparktrader]

6 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Otherwise, by Treaty, all ATCs should control in English.

That's nonsense. 

All ATCs, specially those dealing with international flights, must have a "general proficiency in English language" and must provide service in English when any flight whatsoever requests it. 

 

However the Arabs, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian ATCs can legally speak their native languages to traffics. In accordance with ICAO. Nothing wrong with it.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Pinetree]

16 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

That's nonsense. 

All ATCs, specially those dealing with international flights, must have a "general proficiency in English language" and must provide service in English when any flight whatsoever requests it. 

However the Arabs, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian ATCs can legally speak their native languages to traffics. In accordance with ICAO. Nothing wrong with it.

Gosh I must have missed in all of my 8,000 hours  

[Sparktrader]

9 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Gosh I must have missed in all of my 8,000 hours  

Yes, this theory is part of the PPL. So if you are an ATPL and don't remember this.............

Furthermore, in Spain and China, that I know of, you can get a PPL license without demonstrating your ability to speak English. Many such private pilots can't even speak basic English, because they never intend to fly outside of the respective country. 

How can you claim then that it is against the rules, lol? If you are allowed to get a license without knowing English. You can hardly be expected to use English phraseology.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Cathat]

45 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

That's nonsense. 

All ATCs, specially those dealing with international flights, must have a "general proficiency in English language" and must provide service in English when any flight whatsoever requests it. 

However the Arabs, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian ATCs can legally speak their native languages to traffics. In accordance with ICAO. Nothing wrong with it.

 

26 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Yes, this theory is part of the PPL. So if you are an ATPL and don't remember this.............

Furthermore, in Spain and China, that I know of, you can get a PPL license without demonstrating your ability to speak English. Many such private pilots can't even speak basic English, because they never intend to fly outside of the respective country. 

How can you claim then that it is against the rules, lol? If you are allowed to get a license without knowing English. You can hardly be expected to use English phraseology.

The debates and complaints about this issue has been going on for decades.

In class A airspace i was under the impression english proficiency was required however i don't think there is a legal requirement for it to be used!

comparing what goes on in controlled airspace and a local ppl flying about in class G airspace is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

In many countries you don't even need a radio or to talk to anybody in any language if private flying in uncontrolled airspace.

If you are flying a glider in some countries you don't even need a license yet alone a radio and you can pretty much do as you please.

 

[Sparktrader]

3 minutes ago, Cathat said:

In class A airspace i was under the impression english proficiency was required however i don't think there is a legal requirement for it to be used!

 

Exactly! The ATC has the obligation to provide service in English shall a traffic request it. But he is free to use his own language with traffics that don't request English service (so long as his language is one of the ICAO languages). 

In Portugal for example, sometimes you will hear Portuguese on the waves, when Portuguese is NOT an ICAO language, therefore this is questionable, and shouldn't be allowed. But it as well happens all the time. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Sparktrader