Atlas 767, Houston

[monchavo]

Curious feature that's come out today: very little fuel with the wreckage. Strange, because fuel exhaustion alone shouldn't cause this kind of event.

Maybe an uncontained engine failure ripped open the tank and it all vented a few thousand feet up? But you'd need to be phenomenally unlucky for it to get both wings, and I doubt the crossfeed plumbing (even if open) would be anything like sufficient to drain the other tank in the time available before impact.

The pictures appear to show very little fuel indeed. Alarming. Curious.

[KPryor]

Here's a link to the surveillance cam video that recorded the plane as it headed for the ground.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/vide ... rinity-bay

[Not_Karl]

And I don't think we have ANY eyewitness accounts of a "smoke trail/flaming engine"....no mayday call.

wrong
(From KPryorie's linky's related news)

[3WE]

And I don't think we have ANY eyewitness accounts of a "smoke trail/flaming engine"....no mayday call.

wrong
(From KPryorie's linky's related news)

Noted.

I did briefly see ‘something’ in terms of a flash or trail.

I cannot tell if this is “an airplane simply diving with airfoils working well” or “something that was formerly an airplane that is tumbling” (or some other variation).

And- seems like the debris is a bit big for such a steep dive...

/worthless babbling.

[elaw]

I did briefly see ‘something’ in terms of a flash or trail.

I cannot tell if this is “an airplane simply diving with airfoils working well” or “something that was formerly an airplane that is tumbling” (or some other variation).

Or... a meteor?

[3WE]

Recorders recovered.../copy-paraphrase.

[3WE]

Official media CVR paraphrase: 18 seconds of comments consistent with a loss of control. Transcript coming.

Logical interpretation: "Not_a bad-guy-in-the-cockpit" deal.

[3WE]

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GeQycmuco4

(Copied from 737, there)

A very stable dive.

Strange. I would expect it to steepen or shallow out due to the “P” word or some of pitch hard over.

It doesn’t look stalled (or wallowing).

I assume it is THE crash and not something else.

[Gabriel]

Official media CVR paraphrase: 18 seconds of comments consistent with a loss of control. Transcript coming.

Logical interpretation: "Not_a bad-guy-in-the-cockpit" deal.

The comment can be "What's going on? Help me pull, help me pull, I can't pull, it's jammed" only to discover in the FDR that the OTHER guy was not pulling but pushing with 200 lb of force. Do I think that that something like that happened? No. Would I discard it? No, not yet. Did something similar ever happen before? Yes.

[3WE]

Official media CVR paraphrase: 18 seconds of comments consistent with a loss of control. Transcript coming.

Logical interpretation: "Not_a bad-guy-in-the-cockpit" deal.

The comment can be "What's going on? Help me pull, help me pull, I can't pull, it's jammed" only to discover in the FDR that the OTHER guy was not pulling but pushing with 200 lb of force. Do I think that that something like that happened? No. Would I discard it? No, not yet. Did something similar ever happen before? Yes.

If there was an input struggle, I'd THINK it would be noticed and something would be spoken, but it's possible there was no time to notice and/or speak of it.

Conversely, the consistent-looking dive is consistent with a bad-guy push-over.

Quite the web of likely vs not likely vs possible...

My opinion: It's PROBABLY something other than a bad guy BUT am most curious as to FDR indications on control inputs.

[Gabriel]

NTSB update:

Radar data indicated the airplane continued the descent through 12,000 ft with a ground speed of 290 knots, consistent with the arrival procedure. The pilots responded that they wanted to go to the west of the area of precipitation. The controller advised that to do so, they would need to descend to 3,000 ft expeditiously.

About 12:37, the controller instructed the pilots to turn to a heading of 270°. Radar data indicated the airplane turned, and the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data indicated a selected heading of 270°. The airplane was descending through 8,500 ft at this time.

About 12:38, the controller informed the pilots that they would be past the area of weather in about 18 miles, that they could expect a turn to the north for a base leg to the approach to runway 26L, and that weather was clear west of the precipitation area. The pilots responded, “sounds good” and “ok.” At this time, radar and ADS-B returns indicated the airplane levelled briefly at 6,200 ft and then began a slight climb to 6,300 ft.

Also, about this time, the FDR data indicated that some small vertical accelerations consistent with the airplane entering turbulence. Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

FDR, radar, and ADS-B data indicated that the airplane entered a rapid descent on a heading of 270°, reaching an airspeed of about 430 knots. A security camera video captured the airplane in a steep, generally wings-level attitude until impact with the swamp. FDR data indicated that the airplane gradually pitched up to about 20 degrees nose down during the descent.

[KPryor]

Forgive me if I'm totally misunderstanding, but does this possibly imply deliberate act on someone's part (suicide, etc)?

[elaw]

Or maybe a gross overreaction to a perceived stall?

[KPryor]

It will be good to get CVR info to clear this up. If the deliberate act or the overreaction to perceived stall is correct, I would think the CVR would be the biggest help in figuring things out.

[Gabriel]

Forgive me if I'm totally misunderstanding, but does this possibly imply deliberate act on someone's part (suicide, etc)?

I don't know but I have to admit that that was the 1st thing that crossed my mind when I read that.

[Gabriel]

Or maybe a gross overreaction to a perceived stall?

Yes, but

The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

[elaw]

Well, we've discussed a number of cases where pilots pulled back relentlessly in the face of multiple indications the plane was stalling... is it so hard to believe the opposite could happen?

Although I guess if I'm being honest, based on all the current info, a deliberate act does seem more likely. And not to be too morbid, but if one were to try and kill oneself by crashing an aircraft carrying other crew members, this does seem like a good way to do it... during final approach when workload is high, and at low altitude so there's not much time for others to intervene.

[Gabriel]

Well, we've discussed a number of cases where pilots pulled back relentlessly in the face of multiple indications the plane was stalling... is it so hard to believe the opposite could happen?

No, it has happened (not in the same context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral_L ... light_2553

[KPryor]

<snip>
Although I guess if I'm being honest, based on all the current info, a deliberate act does seem more likely. And not to be too morbid, but if one were to try and kill oneself by crashing an aircraft carrying other crew members, this does seem like a good way to do it... during final approach when workload is high, and at low altitude so there's not much time for others to intervene.

That was my thought exactly. Little time for others to react. I've read where some believe it looks like the plane is attempting to nose back up just prior to impact and to me it appears possible that is the case. So I've wondered if perhaps one of the following happened:

1. Deliberate act by one of the crew and the others got control just before impact and started attempting to climb again, but too late to save it.

2. Spatial disorientation, where they thought as mentioned above that they were stalling or perhaps even thought they were climbing out of control and shoved the nose over. Them thinking it was an uncontrolled climb doesn't make as much sense since they firewalled the throttles apparently. No stick shaker or other warnings that should have made them think stall, as far as I know.

I mentioned early on that I had seen a graph that seemed to show a short period of climb before the sudden nose down. This new info does seem to support that, at least to some degree since it apparently did nose up 4° prior to taking the plunge. The info I talked about before may not be supported by this, depending on other factors.

[KPryor]

Just saw this. The wording in the earlier NTSB release said this:

Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up and then rapidly pitched nose down to about 49° in response to column input. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

The part in bold above has been reworded on the NTSB site and now says this:

Shortly after, when the airplane’s indicated airspeed was steady about 230 knots, the engines increased to maximum thrust, and the airplane pitch increased to about 4° nose up. The airplane then pitched nose down over the next 18 seconds to about 49° in response to nose-down elevator deflection. The stall warning (stick shaker) did not activate.

[elaw]

Wow, that's an important distinction.

[3WE]

I would add to this that the paraphrasing of the CVR seems deliberately intended to be extra vague.

A. "Conversations consistent with a loss of control"

as opposed to

B. "No indications of malicious activities"

They said A.

I speculate that IF B were true there'd be no reason not_to say B and that they WOULD say B...(or both A and B).

Concuerdo?

[3WE]

Bu the way...

There are indications of a "pull up"...

However, let's not forget Phugoid behavior as another contributing mechanism.

[3WE]

"the elevators deflected, but we're not_saying what the control column did"

Wow, that's an important distinction.

YIKES...so which one was it??? (I am THINKING the FDR captures both- and I'm thinking that the NTSB would know both by now PLUS the CVR).

I know, chill out...it's just protocol...wait for the final report...

[3WE]

***The part in bold above has been reworded on the NTSB site***

I'm sorry, the NTSB botching their "press releases" has taken me back to when they confirmed that the Asiana pilots were named Hui Thieu Lo, Ho Leigh Phouc and Sum Ting Wong...

As much as I bash PR word mincing, there is a certain amount that's important.