Tweet
Originally posted by flashcrash
View Post
-
just like MH370, we will never know the cause of this accident. -
Mild disagreement: I think we have a decent amount of evidence and several hints as to the cause.Originally posted by thor View Post
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.Comment
-
Just like MH370, there may have been a faulty nut holding the control column.Originally posted by 3WE View PostComment
-
-
Unlawful intentional act with 100% certainty. Murdercide by the captain with 99% certainty.Originally posted by thor View Post
--- 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 ---Comment
-
if it was intentional, how can they not found it after two years of investigation. both black boxes retrieved should have provided enough information to determine this. but the latest report have ruled out human factors as the cause of the accident.Originally posted by Gabriel View PostComment
-
Oh you meant the China Eastern accident? I thought you were talking about MH370. Let me stand corrected.Originally posted by thor View Post
For China Eastern: Unlawful intentional act with 95% certainty. Murdercide by the First Officer with 94% certainty.
That's my speculation, of course, and it's based on rumors*. But who told you that they could not find out? Who told you that the black boxes did not provide enough information? Where did the last report rule out human factors? In fact, what latest report are you talking about? I have seen only a statement on the progress of the investigation.
* Rumors:
The first officer was a captain (mid 60's) that got axed during his sim check and put back the right seat. In this "accident" flight, the captain was the son of his instructor in the sim who had him axed.
We also have this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-e...ve-11652805097
That is behind a paywall, but you have a free version here:
Because, you know. Spreading "rumors" is a crime in China.Black box data recovered from a China Eastern flight that crashed in March suggests someone in the cockpit intentionally downed the plane, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing a preliminary assessment from United States officials.
Rumors about a copilot intentionally crashing the plane had circulated widely on China’s internet by early April, with some pointing to the CAAC’s remarks on the mental health of aviation staff following the crash.
At a meeting on aviation safety on April 6, CAAC director Feng Zhenglin urged Communist Party officials at all levels to “stabilize the thoughts of their teams, make utmost efforts to solve employees’ problems in their work, life and study, and ensure their physical and mental health.”
“In particular, officials should do their best in the ideological work of pilots to lay a solid foundation for the front line to operate safely,” Feng said.
The speculations about pilot suicide causing the crash have previously prompted the CAAC to issue a denial. “These rumors…have seriously misled the public and interfered with the investigation of the accident,” Wu Shijie, a CAAC official, told a press conference on April 11, adding that police were carrying out investigations to hold the rumor mongers responsible.
--- 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 ---Comment
-
I'm not sure that's correct. I've checked all the usual sources and so far I've not been able to locate any statement or report saying that human factors have been ruled out. That said, sometimes, even in semi-official Chinese newspapers like the South China Morning Post, "information" can be presented as if it's a summary of a report, when really it's just an opinion piece. So I'll remain open-minded on this. But I haven't found anything so far. Could I trouble you to post a link or a reference to the report that has ruled out human factors?Originally posted by thor View Post
Comment
-
I am referring to this update on march this year by the china aviation authority, which said no crew or plane issue were found before the crash. that literally means pilot intentional crash has been ruled out.Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
Oh you meant the China Eastern accident? I thought you were talking about MH370. Let me stand corrected.
For China Eastern: Unlawful intentional act with 95% certainty. Murdercide by the First Officer with 94% certainty.
That's my speculation, of course, and it's based on rumors*. But who told you that they could not find out? Who told you that the black boxes did not provide enough information? Where did the last report rule out human factors? In fact, what latest report are you talking about? I have seen only a statement on the progress of the investigation.
* Rumors:
The first officer was a captain (mid 60's) that got axed during his sim check and put back the right seat. In this "accident" flight, the captain was the son of his instructor in the sim who had him axed.
We also have this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-e...ve-11652805097
That is behind a paywall, but you have a free version here:
Because, you know. Spreading "rumors" is a crime in China.Attached FilesComment
-
-
That literally ruled out any known psychological issues with the pilots. That leaves open the possibility of unknown issues. I don’t see how that rules out an intentional act.Originally posted by thor View PostComment
-
Excuse me, have you read anything other than this?Originally posted by thor View Post
On March 21, 2022, China Eastern Airlines Yunnan Co., Ltd. Boeing 737-800 passenger aircraft (registration number B-1791) performed scheduled passenger flight MU5735 from Kunming Changshui Airport to Guangzhou Baiyun Airport. The plane took off from Kunming Changshui Airport at 13:16. 64 minutes later, it deviated from the cruising altitude of 8,900 meters and rapidly descended, crashing near Mochuo Village, Teng County, Teng County, Wuzhou City, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. All 123 passengers and 9 crew members on board were killed.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Technical Investigation Regulations for Civil Aircraft Incidents" (CCAR-395) of the Civil Aviation Regulations of China and the "Investigation of Aircraft Accidents and Incidents" in Annex 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, worked with relevant departments to conduct technical investigations on this accident. The main progress of the investigation work is as follows:
1. Wreck search, identification and analysis. Organize and carry out a search for wreckage evidence, identify the main wreckage, take photos and collect evidence, mark the location where it was found, and prepare a distribution map of the wreckage location; conduct a special technical investigation of the aircraft structure, flight control system, engine and other wreckage, and analyze the aircraft's attitude and key control components before it crashed to the ground. Possible working status; send important debris such as engine components and control system components to the laboratory for analysis to determine the cause of damage.
2. Flight operations and aircraft airworthiness. Investigate the crew members' technical status, health status, actual performance and other personal conditions; investigate the flight's release plan, load balance, performance calculation, operation monitoring, crew preparation and other operational conditions; investigate the company's safety management, training management, personnel qualifications Management, maintenance management and other organizational management conditions; investigate the implementation of aircraft airworthiness instructions, service bulletins, route and scheduled inspection maintenance, fault retention and other maintenance conditions; conduct investigation and analysis of the fuel filling and fuel quality of the flight in question; integrate monitoring data, Video recording, etc., to analyze the flight status of the aircraft in the final stage; repair the damaged recorder and analyze the acquired data.
3. Flight guarantee situation. Conduct an investigation into the qualifications of support personnel and the working conditions of facilities and equipment at the departure airport; conduct an investigation into the daily inspection and maintenance of runways, taxiways, taxi routes, and apron surfaces used by the flight where the incident occurred; conduct an investigation into the qualifications and communications of air traffic control personnel Conduct investigations on navigation monitoring equipment and air traffic control automation systems, air traffic control command processes, and route weather conditions; conduct investigations on basic information about passengers, baggage, cargo, and mail, security inspection conditions, and loading conditions; verify the dangerous goods carrying information and crew of the flight where the incident occurred and the dangerous goods training status of relevant security personnel.
After investigation, it was found that the flight crew and cabin crew of the incident flight held valid licenses and certificates, their flight, duty, and rest hours met the regulations, they passed the health examination before the flight that day, and the crew qualifications and configuration met the requirements; the aircraft's airworthiness certificate was valid and the relevant maintenance The personnel qualifications meet the requirements; no faults or abnormalities in the aircraft system, fuselage structure, engine, etc. were found before takeoff, and no faults are retained; the qualifications of the relevant operation support personnel at the departure airport on the day of departure meet the requirements, the facilities and equipment are working normally, and the operations and operations are in line with the work procedures; the qualifications of relevant air traffic control personnel met the requirements, the communication, navigation and monitoring equipment was working normally, there were no abnormalities in radio communications and control commands before the incident, and there were no hazardous weather reports in the airspace and route flight level where the aircraft was located at the time of the incident; the flight where the incident occurred was loaded Comply with the requirements, there is no cargo declared as dangerous goods, and there is no evidence that there are dangerous goods in the cargo and luggage.
In the future, the technical investigation team will continue to carry out experimental verification and cause analysis, and release relevant information in a timely manner based on the progress of the investigation.
That is the full statement by the CAAC, the Civil Aviation Authority of China, directly from their site.
It doesn't get any more first-hand than that. (the text I pasted is however a Google translation of the original in Chinese so it has some quirks)
Are you taking the highlighted part as meaning "no crew issue was found", and then from there jumping to "that literally means pilot intentional crash has been ruled out"? Really????
If yes, let me remind me of the following:- They don't mention that ANYTHING was ruled out
- The investigation is still in progress. There is no conclusion or final report yet. There is a reason for that (either they are still working on it or they already know but don't want to tell)
- If you take the blue part as "ruling out any issue with the crew", then you have to take the rest of that paragraph as them ruling out any issue with the airplane, with maintenance, with weight and balance, with weather, with ATC, with the navigation, with the cargo, with the engines, etc... They didn't find any issue with anything which, according to your logic, means that they ruled out everything. Great, the accident didn't happen then!!! Except it did.
--- 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 ---Comment
-
Not even that. They don't mention any psychological analysis whatsoever. Whether there was non or there was but they elected not to mention it.Originally posted by Evan View Post
--- 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 ---Comment
-
Comment