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

[Pinetree]

Just now, oldschooler said:

A “total engine failure” might be bird strike of improper Maintenance but pilot should recover to a glide mode….human error for sure 99% then …. 

Not many birds at 29,000 feet mate. As for just throwing out 'human error', without a scrap of evidence, that  is just ignorance. 

[Guest1]

46 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Nobody cares about your “ trust” . All that matters is aircraft model & airline safety records. extremely high proportion of aircraft accidents are human error. so basically flying with air crapola is significantly less safe than flying with air 1stworld.

O.o.t:

Human error, yep, that was it, what Boing wanted the 2 max  crashes to be seen.

<video reference to another model type removed>

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by KaptainRob
Please stay on topic - B737-800

[oldschooler]

48 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Not many birds at 29,000 feet mate. As for just throwing out 'human error', without a scrap of evidence, that  is just ignorance. 

How many western airline pilots get into an unpowered vertical dive that high and fail to recover…. right, thought so ….

[KaptainRob]

41 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Not many birds at 29,000 feet mate. As for just throwing out 'human error', without a scrap of evidence, that  is just ignorance. 

I heard a so called "aviation expert" on Australian 9 News this morning refer to a possible mid air collision with another plane or a drone.  Would have to be a special kind of drone!

Given the flight was likely on auto-pilot when disaster struck, and ~2mins elapsed before cratering the ground, it would appear the crew attempted manual correction at 2,000m alt.  If it were a severe engine failure/decompression it's likely controls and or control surfaces were badly damaged and the dive too fast, too steep to correct. 

I agree, pilot error would be low on my probability list.

[Pinetree]

7 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

How many western airline pilots get into an unpowered vertical dive that high and fail to recover…. right, thought so ….

If there was an idiot emoji I would use it 

[Guest1]

3 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

If there was an idiot emoji I would use it 

Just check in the gifs!

[oldschooler]

9 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

If there was an idiot emoji I would use it 

Just stick to explaining facts ….if you can

[oldschooler]

18 minutes ago, KaptainRob said:

I heard a so called "aviation expert" on Australian 9 News this morning refer to a possible mid air collision with another plane or a drone.  Would have to be a special kind of drone!

Given the flight was likely on auto-pilot when disaster struck, and ~2mins elapsed before cratering the ground, it would appear the crew attempted manual correction at 2,000m alt.  If it were a severe engine failure/decompression it's likely controls and or control surfaces were badly damaged and the dive too fast, too steep to correct. 

I agree, pilot error would be low on my probability list.

Too many inconsistencies here to unpick ….

[KaptainRob]

12 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Too many inconsistencies here to unpick ….

Which comments do you not understand.

[Fanta]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

A “total engine failure” might be bird strike of improper Maintenance but pilot should recover to a glide mode….human error for sure 99% then …. 

Not without hydraulics… I’m no pilot but I watched that Denzel Washington movie TWICE where he flies the plane upside down so I’m an official armchair expert now.

[Poolie]

19 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Not without hydraulics… I’m no pilot but I watched that Denzel Washington movie TWICE where he flies the plane upside down so I’m an official armchair expert now.

Sadly you aren't on your own here.

[Sparktrader]

26 minutes ago, Fanta said:

Not without hydraulics…

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. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Sparktrader

[Cabra]

In a matter of less than 3 minutes the plane went from completely horizontal at 29,000 feet to a vertical missile headed directly into the ground. As if the pilot intentionally nosed it into the ground. That's my initial thought. 

[Guest1]

35 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Sadly you aren't on your own here.

Sadly?

Isn't that called "Wisdom of crowds"?

[bushav8r]

16 hours ago, alex12345 said:

I recently watched that netflix downfall documentary about those two boeing crashes and the problems at boeing, and the 737 Max then I read airframe by Micheal crichton again, bear in mind it was written in the 70's just goes to show how timeless his writing is.  I won't spoil the ending but the pilot is chinese in that book as well and its about an unexplained air crash

A plane is a complex thing with millions of parts in it, thats for sure, I think this looks like a total engine failure the way it just fell out of the sky, but im not an investigator/

Lets wait and see how many black boxes they can recover.

A plane is not quite so complex as a helicopter though.  All those million parts are constantly trying to fling themselves apart in a helicopter.

[bushav8r]

6 hours ago, Pinetree said:

If there was an idiot emoji I would use it 

There must be something that will suffice.

[bushav8r]

6 hours ago, Fanta said:

Not without hydraulics… I’m no pilot but I watched that Denzel Washington movie TWICE where he flies the plane upside down so I’m an official armchair expert now.

You are not mentioning the best part.   His performance and incredible skill were  enhanced by alcohol!  I don't like to fly upside down...my drink will spill.  Not many Bob Hoovers out there.

[bushav8r]

17 hours ago, Tim_Melb said:

A quote from the article you linked "Video has emerged on social media purportedly showing wreckage from the plane." it's obvious from that statement they have doubts too. The article posted in this forum credits a YouTube channel that posts viral videos as the source and they have not posted a video in over two months. Just because the news feed decides to run with footage that was published by someone else does not make it true or accurate. We have already seen so many fake stories run on the Ukraine conflict recently to automatically believe footage from a dodgy source. 

I like dodgy sources.  

[bushav8r]

6 hours ago, Guest1 said:

Sadly?

Isn't that called "Wisdom of crowds"?

Wisdom by consensus?

[bushav8r]

8 hours ago, oldschooler said:

Nobody cares about your “ trust” . All that matters is aircraft model & airline safety records. extremely high proportion of aircraft accidents are human error. so basically flying with air crapola is significantly less safe than flying with air 1stworld.

I care.

[bushav8r]

16 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

The long strip of fuselage which landed well clear of the impact crater appears to be from the left hand side of the aircraft, immediately adjacent the left engine.  Possible cause, an uncontained engine failure wherein the compressor lades explode out of the cowlings and rupture the fuselage?

       

Not sure why the debris photos indicate the lettering is black whereas this file photo shows the aircraft having red letters.  Note the bottom of the last 2 characters the curls and upside down T.

https://i2-prod.dailystar.co.uk/incoming/article26516116.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/2_Screenshot-52.png

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

[bushav8r]

7 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. 

I feel much safer now.  

[Tim_Melb]

12 hours ago, oldschooler said:

How many western airline pilots get into an unpowered vertical dive that high and fail to recover…. right, thought so ….

So if you're a Western pilot then you're ok but if your not you hopeless is that it mate? 

[Tim_Melb]

12 hours ago, KaptainRob said:

Would have to be a special kind of drone!

Keep in mind that the term drone refers to an unmanned aircraft not just the quadcopters that we are seeing a lot of these days. A remote controlled aircraft type of drone can easily achieve those sort of altitudes and they are quite common in hobbyists groups and also commercial use. Although flying them at high altitudes is illegal in most of the world that doesn't stop idiots from doing it. I remember seeing an idiot trying to fly a drone in a car park at the end of the main runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine a few years ago. When the police arrived (several of us called them) the guy said he wanted to get close up footage of the aircraft coming in to land. Amazing levels of stupidity out there. 

[KaptainRob]

22 minutes ago, Tim_Melb said:

Keep in mind that the term drone refers to an unmanned aircraft not just the quadcopters that we are seeing a lot of these days. A remote controlled aircraft type of drone can easily achieve those sort of altitudes and they are quite common in hobbyists groups and also commercial use. Although flying them at high altitudes is illegal in most of the world that doesn't stop idiots from doing it. I remember seeing an idiot trying to fly a drone in a car park at the end of the main runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine a few years ago. When the police arrived (several of us called them) the guy said he wanted to get close up footage of the aircraft coming in to land. Amazing levels of stupidity out there. 

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.