Boeing 737 carrying 132 passengers crashes in China

[staboner 4955]

5 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

Lol just boarded one. Don't recommend watching the videos on the plane. 

[Davis Lane 5548]

8 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I’m literally staring at a 737-800 I’m about to board in 10 minutes. 

 

8 hours ago, ConferenceRoom said:

Hey, man, I always appreciated your posts. Can I have your stuff?

Who's in charge of clearing his browser history?

[McCroskey 1493]

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Something like that had to be a pilot suicide deal, right?  Those poor souls.  

???  How?

[Wulaw Horn 18963]

My brother, former airline pilot and instructor’s take  

Edited March 22, 2022 by Wulaw Horn

[Wulaw Horn 18963]

5 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Stupid? Yes. But I could see it in a panic situation. Our upset training shows just how easy it is to over stress the plane once you get it unloaded and right side up if you pull too hard. The different between a nice 2 G recovery and snapping something off isn’t much. I’m sure you’ve seen the same  

But I stated that before seeing the vertical speeds involved. I would lean toward suicide at the moment. 

You are an airline pilot, yes?  My brother had the same thought. He was commercial airline pilot. 

[lemonlime 5503]

Problem with the horizontal stabilizer?  Similar to AS 261?

[Bateshorn 9882]

8 hours ago, Borachio said:

I went to the Flight 93 memorial after the West Virginia game in November.  When that plane hit the ground it was like it vaporized, there was just a little debris and a crater left. 

The first responders on the scene were confused as there was really no evidence of an actual plane there.   Scary stuff.   

Great memorial by the way. 

My very pregnant wife and I where working on Capitol Hill that day. Those guys saved our lives.
 

Some day I’m going to go out there and cry my fucking eyes out. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Bateshorn

[McCroskey 1493]

52 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

My brother, former airline pilot and instructor’s take  

What about a maintenance related issue of some type?  Or environmental factor?  

[Borachio 416]

11 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

My very pregnant wife and I where working on Capitol Hill that day. Those guys saved our lives.
 

Some day I’m going to go out there and cry my fucking eyes out. 

It was a very moving experience. They had the recordings of the passenger's last phone calls to their families you could listen to.  Gut wrenching.  

When I got home I watched the movie again about Flight 93.  Those passengers are true heros.  I can't imagine. 

"Flight 93 struck the ground at a 40 degree angle almost upside down, hitting right wing and nose first, at a speed of between 563-580 miles per hour. It was carrying approximately 5,500 gallons of Jet A fuel at impact."

https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/sources-and-detailed-information.htm

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Borachio

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You are an airline pilot, yes?  My brother had the same thought. He was commercial airline pilot. 

Yes. Bus driver. 

[C-Man 26991]

What about a maintenance related issue of some type?  Or environmental factor?  

User name checks out on airplane thread

[Wulaw Horn 18963]

27 minutes ago, McCroskey said:

What about a maintenance related issue of some type?  Or environmental factor?  

He says no. I’m not saying he must be right, just that he’s had the training and experience to know way better than me what the deal would be. 

[bschoolprof 6232]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Problem with the horizontal stabilizer?  Similar to AS 261?

This is my guess, or something similar. 

[C-Man 26991]

4 hours ago, McCroskey said:

Shit, I didn't scroll up far enough on my phone! You beat me to it.

[ztejas 43244]

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

[TrashMaster G 17379]

15 hours ago, dcar00 said:

this is what is confusing.  from that altitude you should be able to glide.  the JetBlue fire was soon after takeoff.

i assume you are referring to the 1996 Valujet crash.  JetBlue has never lost an aircraft. 

 

12 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

We better not find out the 738 ALSO had an MCAS on it...

Nope.  The MCAS was developed for the Max.

[statsman 5406]

4 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

Remember- most of the airplane structure is aluminum, and very thin gauged (to save weight). There are some steel and titanium parts, typically around the engines, and they are small, too (because steel and titanium are more expensive to buy, form and machine than aluminum). 

[Thatguy 8478]

20 hours ago, crash_davis said:

where are the bodies in the trees?

Username

[DaysOff 7821]

Apparently a six year old airframe. There's really only one way to make a transport category airplane go vertical. You have to try really hard.

[Quagmire 2146]

There’s plenty of debris, but it’s under the dirt.

You got X-ray vision or something

[closetohumping 17380]

20 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Damn. That was a tough read. I'll just walk from now on.

Tornados.  And gangsters 

[Bigbend1812 12877]

Man fuck this thread.  Already hated flying.

 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

6 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

I don’t think there’s really even a huge explosion. Fire? Yes. But pretty much everything is obliterated at impact. Like the difference in a head on collision with your car and running it into an embankment at the speed of sound. 

[Captainant 27309]

7 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

Take all the potential and kinetic energy that was in the plane at altitude and speed, and now put it into the frame and seams and rivets that held it together. Fuel or not, that's much energy is gonna throw itself apart into teeny pieces

Edited March 22, 2022 by Captainant

[Ag with kids 581]

6 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

i assume you are referring to the 1996 Valujet crash.  JetBlue has never lost an aircraft. 

 

Nope.  The MCAS was developed for the Max.

I know that.  It was a tongue in cheek comment because when the MAX had the accidents Boeing went OHHHHHH YEAHHHHH!!!!  There's this MCAS thing on the aircraft.  Maybe we shoulda told ya.  Oops!

[dcar00 14023]

6 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

i assume you are referring to the 1996 Valujet crash.  JetBlue has never lost an aircraft. 

 

 

sorry yeah valujet

[DaysOff 7821]

Definitely looks like part of the stabilizer is missing.

Which came first? High speed dive that ripped it off or Bobby's scenario of a high altitude upset and over g during the correction. The world may never know.


Disregard. Twitter photo is disinformation bullshit.

[ConferenceRoom 6123]

2 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Definitely looks like part of the stabilizer is missing.

Which came first? High speed dive that ripped it off or Bobby's scenario of a high altitude upset and over g during the correction. The world may never know.

Maybe an American 587-type situation? Contributing factors were wake turbulence after take off and poorly trained first officer, but could something like that happen at 30,000 feet? Would the flight dynamics look different?

[DalTxHornFan 3084]

17 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Definitely looks like part of the stabilizer is missing.

Which came first? High speed dive that ripped it off or Bobby's scenario of a high altitude upset and over g during the correction. The world may never know.

That's good info.  How soon before impact is this frame? 

That first video posted up thread looks like there was some sort of separation at 13-14 seconds.  It looks like a plume (debris?) following the plane prior to impact. 

[Bevo 13493]

8 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

Imagine stepping on an aluminum can.

[gsoda3 3234]

8 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

Like - if there was minimal fuel on board - would the crash site look different?

i read in one article the crash site was basically a thin layer of dirt over solid rock which explains the lack of a large impact crater.  can't find the article now though.

[Chad Fuck 17503]

19 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I have a specific recollection of seeing this scene in the theater and asking my Dad why everyone was laughing.

/csb

[DDD Dad 14167]

22 hours ago, Helobious said:

Are there seriously adult humans that don’t know a plane can glide without engine power? Even huge planes?

There are adult humans who believe the world is flat and others who think you can travel simply by hovering in the air whilst the world rotates.

[DaysOff 7821]

Fuckers

[Ghost of LL 15348]

45 minutes ago, ConferenceRoom said:

Maybe an American 587-type situation? Contributing factors were wake turbulence after take off and poorly trained first officer, but could something like that happen at 30,000 feet? Would the flight dynamics look different?

I don't think that could happen on a 738.  The idiosyncratic thing about the A300's fly-by-wire system that allowed a pilot to push the rudder hard over at high airspeed with little resistance was pretty critical in that outcome.  

[Your Mom 4789]

24 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's good info.  How soon before impact is this frame? 

That first video posted up thread looks like there was some sort of separation at 13-14 seconds.  It looks like a plume (debris?) following the plane prior to impact. 

It reminds me a little of the Atlas/Prime Air crash in Trinity Bay a few years ago.  That one was two pilots fighting for the controls when the FO overcorrected an inadvertent go-around.  Once you get that steep and the airspeed gets so high the control forces have to just be overwhelming.  Not saying this was caused by the same thing, but once you go vertical for more than a few seconds mach tuck takes over and simply pulling up isn't going to be an option.  Speeds that fast become a self-compounding problem.

The suicide angle makes sense but damn... you could just as easily accomplish that from 300' without all that time to think about it and without giving the other guy the chance to save it.    

[DalTxHornFan 3084]

10 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

It reminds me a little of the Atlas/Prime Air crash in Trinity Bay a few years ago.  That one was two pilots fighting for the controls when the FO overcorrected an inadvertent go-around.  Once you get that steep and the airspeed gets so high the control forces have to just be overwhelming.  Not saying this was caused by the same thing, but once you go vertical for more than a few seconds mach tuck takes over and simply pulling up isn't going to be an option.  Speeds that fast become a self-compounding problem.

The suicide angle makes sense but damn... you could just as easily accomplish that from 300' without all that time to think about it and without giving the other guy the chance to save it.    

I've been thinking about that flight in looking at this incident.  They lost elevator control.  But that plane didn't auger in at a 180 like a missile.

There is something odd about this incident.   

Edited March 22, 2022 by DalTxHornFan

[Your Mom 4789]

Also, I'm not ready to crack jokes about this yet, but there's a Beastie Boys album cover reference out there waiting for somebody.

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

53 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

I have a specific recollection of seeing this scene in the theater and asking my Dad why everyone was laughing.

/csb

And that innocent little boy? Well, he became Chad Fuck. 

[clapclapclap 9000]

In 4 years investigators will conclude that it was a central fuel tank explosion due to the presence of pee pee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by clapclapclap
So accidental military shoot down it is

[Gatorubet 30064]

9 hours ago, ztejas said:

Can someone explain to me how a plane just disintegrates like that without leaving a bunch of wreckage or much of an impact crater? It sounds like it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. Is it basically a perfect storm of a high speed impact and a huge explosion?

 

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

1 hour ago, DaysOff said:

Fuckers

Who is posting this?

[DaysOff 7821]

The internet!

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

I don't think that could happen on a 738.  The idiosyncratic thing about the A300's fly-by-wire system that allowed a pilot to push the rudder hard over at high airspeed with little resistance was pretty critical in that outcome.  

Sorta. The Airbus, and I suspect Boeings as well, is certified for one full control movement below maneuvering speed (speed below which such a movement can be made without causing structural damage). In other words, you can stomp the rudder to the limit of its travel, and it’s travel limited based on speed on the bus, without anything breaking. It is not certified to withstand several such control inputs which is what happened to that A300 after the wake encounter.

That was a common misconception instilled in pilots in primary flight training. It is now explicitly stated in the limitations that its not certified for that.

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

Midair fire drill?

[Chad Fuck 17503]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Midair fire drill?

I see what you did there.

[shakahorn 1625]

On 3/21/2022 at 8:16 AM, Royalfan5 said:

Me too. Being on an ag trade type trip, we all noted we were being loaded on the prop plane like you would a flatbed, and the airport was basically a ok farm shop. That being said they had the best ham salad sandwiches I've ever had. 

That wasn't ham.

[Ghost of LL 15348]

1 hour ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Sorta. The Airbus, and I suspect Boeings as well, is certified for one full control movement below maneuvering speed (speed below which such a movement can be made without causing structural damage). In other words, you can stomp the rudder to the limit of its travel, and it’s travel limited based on speed on the bus, without anything breaking. It is not certified to withstand several such control inputs which is what happened to that A300 after the wake encounter.

That was a common misconception instilled in pilots in primary flight training. It is now explicitly stated in the limitations that its not certified for that.

My understanding is that on the 738 (and pretty much all planes presently in operation), when you step on the rudder, you're going to feel resistance commensurate with your airspeed.  So it's going to be a lot harder to push the rudder pedals at 450 knots than it will be at 150 knots.

That's not necessary, because it's all fly-by-wire.  But the computer makes it harder to push the pedals at higher airspeed to signal to the pilot that less input is needed/proper at higher airspeed (which is the input the pilot would receive naturally if it were still manual control).

In those first-generation fly-by-wire planes like the A300, it didn't have that feature.  So it was just as easy to push the rudder pedals all the way over at 450 knots as it was at 150 knots.

But I'm going off my memory of what I was told years ago by SWA pilots who were very pro-Boeing and anti-"French-pieces-of-shit," to use a phrase I heard once or twice.  So I'll defer to your knowledge of the subject.

[Wally Pryor 5240]

11 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

i assume you are referring to the 1996 Valujet crash.  

Always thought that was the worse possible name for an airline. Discount Carwash? Fine with that. Valujet?  Nope.