If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Where? I look at the plot and I don't see it even when I actively try to.
You’re right. It wasn’t on Brancolirio but elsewhere. Anyway, as I said, it
can’t be possible. Forget about the erroneous climb thing. But the jack screw theory is separate from that.
According to the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), contact with the aircraft was lost over the city of Wuzhou.[6] At 14:22 (06:22 UTC), while approaching its top of descent into Guangzhou, the aircraft entered a sudden steep descent from 29,100 feet (8,900 m). It briefly levelled off and climbed up from 7,400 ft (2,300 m) 8,600 ft (2,600 m), but plunged downwards again, reaching a final recorded altitude of 3,225 ft (983 m) less than two minutes after the beginning of the descent, with a maximum descent rate of nearly 31,000 feet (9,400 m) per minute, according to flight data recorded by Flightradar24.[7]
Another thing that has to be taken in to consideration, and hasn’t been mentioned yet- What about a suicide attempt by either the pilot or the co-pilot? Sad to have to think about, but at this point a possibility non-the-less?
Another thing that has to be taken in to consideration, and hasn’t been mentioned yet- What about a suicide attempt by either the pilot or the co-pilot? Sad to have to think about, but at this point a possibility non-the-less?
It is not impossible, except it would not be just a suicide. It would be 131 homicides + 1 suicide. If the pilot wanted to just commit suicide he could have jumped from the terrace of his hotel the night before the flight.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
AvHerald: "the crash site, which has two parts, part of the aircraft fell onto one side of a hill and the other part onto the other side"
Also, one of the black boxes was found (no word on which one or its condition).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
So it changed it vertical speed from -30,000 ft/mit to +10,000 ft/min in 8 seconds. That's an average of 2.6Gs. That should not break the plane but hey, average.
Perhaps at that point they realized that they were in a dive and pulled up hard, perhaps 5 or 6 Gs, and broke the plane. Kind of like the Amazon Prime crash (except that they didn't pull up enough to break the plane).
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
The app was removed from Chinese app stores in early November. A few days prior, the Ministry of State Security confiscated a couple of hundred ADS-B receivers (many of which were provided by flightradar24) deeming their use to be an "illegal transfer of overseas data in violation of Chinese national security laws".
AvHerald: "the crash site, which has two parts, part of the aircraft fell onto one side of a hill and the other part onto the other side"
Also, one of the black boxes was found (no word on which one or its condition).
It's the CVR. I have my doubts that it will tell us anything useful.
The F/O had a whopping 31,769 hours. There was a second F/O in line-training with only 556 hours, observing in the jumpseat. One thing the CVR might tell us is whether those F/O's did some seat-swapping...
It's the CVR. I have my doubts that it will tell us anything useful.
The F/O had a whopping 31,769 hours. There was a second F/O in line-training with only 556 hours, observing in the jumpseat. One thing the CVR might tell us is whether those F/O's did some seat-swapping...
The CVR can be very revealing in many ways.
It can confirm or discard (or be inconclusive) regarding the murdercide hypothesis.
It can reveal alarm or other noises that happen at the time of the initial upset.
It can have the voice of the pilots talking about the problem.
Etc...
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
The CVR can be very revealing in many ways.
It can confirm or discard (or be inconclusive) regarding the murdercide hypothesis.
It can reveal alarm or other noises that happen at the time of the initial upset.
It can have the voice of the pilots talking about the problem.
Etc...
Maybe... but methinks whatever happened here was too sudden for any expressable situational awareness.
So, we have a sudden upset, a severe dive from FL29 to around 17,000ft, and THEN, over the next 50 seconds, a recovery, an arrested descent and even a climb of about 1000ft... and then ANOTHER sudden upset resulting in a fatal dive.
Definitely not like Atlas Air or the other somatogravic illusion pilot error crashes we have seen.
The second 'upset' could conceivably be structural failure, or a resumption/repeat of whatever caused the first one.
Another thing that has to be taken in to consideration, and that has been mentioned very widely, including post #4 on this thread: What about a suicide attempt by either the pilot or the co-pilot? Sad to have to think about, but at this point a possibility non-the-less?
Fixed.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
So, we have a sudden upset, a severe dive from FL29 to around 17,000ft, and THEN, over the next 50 seconds, a recovery, an arrested descent and even a climb of about 1000ft... and then ANOTHER sudden upset resulting in a fatal dive.
I think the initial dive ends at 8,000ft actually. What's the FL the PF would go to in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure?
I think the initial dive ends at 8,000ft actually. What's the FL the PF would go to in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure?
10,000 or the minimum safe enroute altitude for the area, whichever is greater.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment