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.
because i think there are only 2 reasons that could cause the airplane nose dive straight to the ground.
1. major mechanical failure caused by airplane design fault or maintenance fault
2. pilot did a controlled dive
as someone said the 737-800 had already resumed normal flight. be able to do it in such a short time after the accident means there is no need to heavily review the airplane design or maintenance procedures, which eliminates the first possible cause.
i am no pilot or aviation expert like many people are in this forum, this is just what i thought. i may be wrong.
Also could have been a midair with something flying dark or a catastrophic engine failure that damaged the enpennage. Many possibilities remain until the data is released.
But consider that even many pilot error accidents are set in motion by a mechanical failure of some other cause of upset. These things tend to be multi-layered.
3. Trim runaway
4. Loss of control due to spatial disorientation
5. An asymmetry (like an engine at reduced thrust) went unnoticed and was being compensated by the autopilot until it reached its limit and disconnected itself, which caused the plane to suddenly roll inverted
6. A terrorist attack onboard the plane
7. Stabilizer jackscrew and acme nut damage.
8. A meteorite hit the plane.
9. Undetected unreliable airspeed, pilots thing they are going too slow when in fact they are super fast, but they extend the slats, one slat fails and they lose control.
10. Pilot overstressed the fin due to ruder reversals.
11. Rudder hardover due to actuator failure.
I am not proposing any of these hypothesis and I myself think that a murdercide is one of the top candidates. But to say that there are only 2 reasons... Airplanes have nose-dived into the ground for more than 2 reasons including all the ones I mentioned above which come from real accidents.
Keep in mind that the videos that are public, which show the plane falling at a ~70 degrees angle (yes, the most published one looks as it is 90 degrees, but there is another video from a different perspective that shows less than that) show the plane AFTER it broke up, so the motion/trajectory seen in the video is not necessarily an indication of how the problem started and evolved.
but the way that only very little human remains were found in the crash site(virtually all incinerated) makes me think that all passengers hit the ground within a very close range, which suggests the plane hit straight to the ground. otherwise bodies would be scattered around the hill and be found.
but the way that only very little human remains were found in the crash site(virtually all incinerated) makes me think that all passengers hit the ground at a very close range, which suggests the plane hit straight to the ground. otherwise bodies would be scattered around the hill and be found.
Yes, the plane hit almost vertically. But that was after it had already lost the empennage (apparently). And it lost the empennage at a relatively low altitude (not up there where all started) due to overspeed / overload. Losing the empennage is a consequence of the upset, not the cause of it.
--- 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 ---
Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation
On Apr 20th 2022 the CAAC released a statement indicating, the preliminary report has been submitted to ICAO. The data restoration of the data of CVR and FDR is still in progress. The aircraft left assigned cruise altitude of 8900 meters at 14:20:55L. At 14:21:40L radar recorded the last position at 3380 meters altitude, speed over ground at 1010 kph at a heading of 117 degrees, the radar signal was lost at that point. The main wreckage was found in a puddle of 45 square meters and a depth of 2.7 meters at position N23.3238 E111.1123 and included horizontal stabilizer, vertical tail, left and right engines, left and right wings, fuselage parts, cockpit parts as well as landing gear. Those recovered parts were transported to a warehouse for further analysis. Traces of fire were in the forest surrounding the crash site. The trailing edge of the right winglet was recovered about 12km from the main impact site. Flight and Cabin Crew qualification and certification was without flaw, the aircraft was airworthy with no deferred entries in the tech log, there was no hazardous cargo on board. Ground based navigation facilities all operated normally, no dangerous weather was forecast for the area when the aircraft departed its cruising altitude. Radio communication with the aircraft was normal until 14:16L (the last radio communication).
--- 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 trailing edge of the right winglet was recovered about 12km from the main impact site.
I don't even understand what that means.
To begin with, the trailing edge is not a part. It is a line, where the upper surface of the airfoil meet the lower surface of the airfoil at the back end of the airfoil.
But ok, let's not be so pedantic and think of a volumetric "thing" in the area of the trailing edge of the winglet. Well, that is still not a part. There is no "winglet trailing edge" in the bill of materials of the plane. The whole winglet is a single composite material part (except the heated leading edge for anti-ice). So what does it mean that the "trailing edge" was found somewhere?
Let's be more flexible. Perhaps the trailing edge zone of the winglet broke off the rest of the winglet. Again, what does it mean? A winglet is quite tall, quite taller than me, and I am TALL. It's like 8 ft long. So what? A piece of 10 inches x 100 inches broke off the rest of the winglet? How is that even possible?
I'd love to see a picture of that winglet trailing edge recovered.
--- 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 ---
A winglet is quite tall, quite taller than me, and I am TALL. It's like 8 ft long. So what? A piece of 10 inches x 100 inches broke off the rest of the winglet? How is that even possible?
I'd love to see a picture of that winglet trailing edge recovered.
The piece in question is described as being 1.3m long and 10cm wide, white in color and, according to the farmer who discovered it, "surprisingly light and flexible". China papers are describing it, rightly or wrongly, as the leading edge of the winglet, not the trailing edge. However, no pictures seem to have emerged into the public domain. So far anyway. I imagine something that small would have been carried a considerable horizontal distance by the wind before it impacted the ground.
To begin with, the trailing edge is not a part. It is a line, where the upper surface of the airfoil meet the lower surface of the airfoil at the back end of the airfoil.
But ok, let's not be so pedantic and think of a volumetric "thing" in the area of the trailing edge of the winglet. Well, that is still not a part. There is no "winglet trailing edge" in the bill of materials of the plane. The whole winglet is a single composite material part (except the heated leading edge for anti-ice). So what does it mean that the "trailing edge" was found somewhere?
Let's be more flexible. Perhaps the trailing edge zone of the winglet broke off the rest of the winglet. Again, what does it mean? A winglet is quite tall, quite taller than me, and I am TALL. It's like 8 ft long. So what? A piece of 10 inches x 100 inches broke off the rest of the winglet? How is that even possible?
I'd love to see a picture of that winglet trailing edge recovered.
Well, for one thing, they don’t describe it as the entire trailing edge, it could just be a fragment of the winglet. And that, plus the distance from the rest, is why it seems evidential of a [something]-strike. Another aircraft… an uncontained engine fragment… even, quite seriously, without blue font, a meteorite…
Well, for one thing, they don’t describe it as the entire trailing edge, it could just be a fragment of the winglet. And that, plus the distance from the rest, is why it seems evidential of a [something]-strike. Another aircraft… an uncontained engine fragment… even, quite seriously, without blue font, a meteorite…
plane crash caused by a meteorite hit? did it happen before?
***videos […]show the plane falling at a ~70 degrees angle (yes, the most published one looks as it is 90 degrees, but there is another video from a different perspective that shows less than that)***
Not significant.
What is significant is:
1. Extremely steep.
2. Without obvious roll, pitch, yaw or tumble.
If you think about it, it's a very special situation (and/or) a little extra effort to hit vertical/near vertical.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Ever built anything?... Airfoils tend to have an outer THIN sheet metal (or composite) skin and an inner frame and at the very back, they insert a more solid, sharp triangular piece of metal (or composite), so it doesn't bend if you crash your forehead into it...I'd call that "a piece of the trailing edge."
And Evan made the point it might be a PIECE off the back end of the winglet...thus the trailing edge.
Perhaps in Espanol, edge is a more absolute term. In Engles, we stand at the edge of the Grand Canyon and admire it (to most folks, that's ~3 feet back). Technically, pedantically...yeah, but practically...
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
You seem to be a newbie. We are a little bit analytical and notice if someone says, "there's two possible causes", folks are going to disagree. That's because the old folks here have been proven wrong before. Don't be discouraged when Gabriel spews 11 additional possibilities to this crash.
There's no foul in your thinking that 1) Something broke at altitude sending the plane into a death dive or 2) A pilot deliberately dove it into the ground. We probably agree with you on that...
...but then again...did a control break and sent the plane diving, or did it incapacitate the pilots, or did a hijacker blow it up, or shoot the pilots, or did the plane itself break, or did they hit a bird, OR a meteorite.
PS: "Meteorite" is an inside joke around here. Plane crashes are EXTREMELY rare, and Meteors hitting planes is EXTREMELY rare. We can argue that it's dang near impossible for a meteor to hit a plane...but, you never know. And until a crash is fully investigated, it is a possibility. If you want to have some fun, make a wager with Gabriel where he gives you something very nice if it isn't a meteor, and you give him something nice if it is...
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
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.
Tweet
Comment