BOEING 767F crash near Houston in the bay Atlas cargo

I'm sure this is widely known, but why are the recorders transported and kept in water?
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I'm sure this is widely known, but why are the recorders transported and kept in water?
Click to expand...
Were they recovered in salt-water?

My guess is that they are kept in the state they are found so corrosion doesn't started. Then probably soaked in the clean water and eventually dried.
 
Matthew is correct. They want to dry them out in a controlled environment in order to prevent any further damage.
 
They will keep the recorders in the same environment they were found in until they get them to the lab. Could be mud, salt water, fresh water, etc.
 
Zeldman said:
I don't listen to the CVRs anymore. I listened to one and I knew the FO. You could hear both pilots talking through emergency procedures until they broke out of the clouds, then silence and a few moments before the sound of the impact someone said, "We are going to die now".
Click to expand...

Interesting.

So tell us how you got to listen to a CVR? Since these are highly controlled and very few people outside of the NTSB and FAA get access to the actual recording, it would be interesting to hear how you got access.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Wouldn't that fall under FOIA
Click to expand...
No. The CVR recordings and transcripts fall under several federal laws. There are paths to their release but zero path for direct public release.

Doc Holliday said:
very few people outside of the NTSB and FAA
Click to expand...
Depending on the time frame, the tapes and their transcripts can be reviewed by various people in addition to the NTSB/FAA: the operator, aircraft OEMs, union reps. Usually once the NTSB posts ths factual report/docket they release pertinant parts of the tapes if needed. I've listened to one tape and read a number of complete tape transcripts, but thankfully none of them were fatal accidents. There is also a path to release sensitive parts to the public, but it requires specific authorizations to include the family of those recorded.

But this is only for accidents under the jurisdiction of the US.

As a side note. While the ATC recordings on this accident are in the open they do not fall under the same requirements as the CVR as they were broadcast over public radio channels.
 
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/pages/cvr_fdr.aspx

>>>
The CVR recordings are treated differently than the other factual information obtained in an accident investigation. Due to the highly sensitive nature of the verbal communications inside the cockpit, Congress has required that the Safety Board not release any part of a CVR audio recording. Because of this sensitivity, a high degree of security is provided for the CVR audio and its transcript. The content and timing of release of the written transcript are strictly regulated: under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of cockpit voice recordings are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident or, if no hearing is held, when a majority of the factual reports are made public.
<<<
 
dreyna14 said:
It was definitely in a dive and looks like it was starting to level out. Another few hundred feet of ground clearance and they might have recovered? Or am I imagining things?
Click to expand...
The plane's attitude does appear to flatten, but that doesn't mean that it's trajectory was changing.
 
From that video and the weather evidence already mentioned, I wonder if they encountered significant enough windshear to stall the airplane and just didn't have time to recover.
 
I was thinking major windsheer and not enough altitude to recover.. the pitch did appear to flatten, suggesting some crew control
 
dreyna14 said:
It was definitely in a dive and looks like it was starting to level out. Another few hundred feet of ground clearance and they might have recovered? Or am I imagining things?
Click to expand...

Impossible to know without understanding the camera, the focal length of the lens, the distance to the flight trajectory, etc.
 
Hacker said:
Impossible to know without understanding the camera, the focal length of the lens, the distance to the flight trajectory, etc.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to know the magnitude but it appears to me that the rate it approaches the ground decreases the closer it gets to the ground. This would indicate possible attempts to recover but then again, it might be an illusion caused by the trees being in the way or a lens that isn't producing a flat field, or whatever.
 
dreyna14 said:
It's impossible to know the magnitude but it appears to me that the rate it approaches the ground decreases the closer it gets to the ground. This would indicate possible attempts to recover but then again, it might be an illusion caused by the trees being in the way or a lens that isn't producing a flat field, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Impossible to know.
 
NTSB Releases an Initial CVR Review of Atlas Air 3591
Crew communications consistent with a loss of control

Crew communications consistent with a loss control of the aircraft began approximately 18 seconds prior to the end of the recording although the overall quality of the audio is considered poor, except when using advanced audio filtering. The crew was being provided radar vectors for the runway 26L approach into George Bush Intercontinental Airport at the time of the accident.

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-atla...rnal&utm_medium=email&cid=51964&mid=456756968
 
BrianNC said:
NTSB Releases an Initial CVR Review of Atlas Air 3591
Crew communications consistent with a loss of control

Crew communications consistent with a loss control of the aircraft began approximately 18 seconds prior to the end of the recording although the overall quality of the audio is considered poor, except when using advanced audio filtering. The crew was being provided radar vectors for the runway 26L approach into George Bush Intercontinental Airport at the time of the accident.

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-atla...rnal&utm_medium=email&cid=51964&mid=456756968
Click to expand...

Looks like this is just Flying Magazine's reporting on the link from post #210 from yesterday. Sounds like it'll be at least next week before we hear another update from the NTSB.
 
Wow... A classy move by United, all the more so because they seem to be doing it for the right reasons (haven't publicized it at all that I've seen - this is from someone's blog):

United Airlines Presents Flight 3591 Widow with Wings and Epaulets, Leaves Indoc Seat Vacant

TL;DR: The jumpseater on this flight, Sean Archuleta, was a Mesa pilot who was recently hired by United and was due to start training soon. His wife was heading home to Colombia where she's from, and United put her in first class and had the pilot deliver her husband's wings and epaulets to her.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Wow... A classy move by United, all the more so because they seem to be doing it for the right reasons (haven't publicized it at all that I've seen - this is from someone's blog):

United Airlines Presents Flight 3591 Widow with Wings and Epaulets, Leaves Indoc Seat Vacant

TL;DR: The jumpseater on this flight, Sean Archuleta, was a Mesa pilot who was recently hired by United and was due to start training soon. His wife was heading home to Colombia where she's from, and United put her in first class and had the pilot deliver her husband's wings and epaulets to her.
Click to expand...
Wow! Awesome article. Thanks for sharing it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
March 12 NTSB update:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA19MA086.aspx

"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 (figure 4) 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."
 
Bell206 said:
March 12 NTSB update:
"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.
Click to expand...
When engines accelerate an airplane forward, it feels as if its attitude is nose up.

Now check out this collection of wonderful replies to my previous post in this thread, where I suggested that disorientation was the most likely reason for this crash (not certain, just most likely!):

jesse said:
Hell of an acquisition to be making about a crew and situation you know nothing about...
Click to expand...

3393RP said:
"Most" likely? That's a rather odious accusation to make, considering it has no basis in known facts.
Click to expand...

Fearless Tower said:
STFU
Click to expand...

Think these people are going to be ashamed and apologize for their behavior online now? The best part is, they would still be in the wrong if the Atlas crash was not caused by disorientation, but other reason, such as a mechanical failure. Disorientation is still the most likely reason. But as it happens, it now shows the hazards of knee-jerk reactions.
 
zaitcev said:
When engines accelerate an airplane forward, it feels as if its attitude is nose up.
Click to expand...
In an airplane with under-wing engines, adding power causes the nose to go up.

Greg Feith, former NTSB, says that they were on autopilot. Not sure where he got that from but he should certainly know the process.
 
Well, to be fair to the POA weekend warriors, the folks at APC are equally stumped in light of both Greg's comments about automation, and the FDR data released. At this point the limited data we have publicly available is not enough to paint a logical picture, as these data points are all over the place.

Some people have suggested a botched recovery to an accidental TOGA actuation could put this aircraft in such a weird chronology of loss of control with engines at max. Then of course is the insinuation in a lot of people's minds, that of suicide by one of the crew. That one would be easy to decipher by the CVR. The aircraft does show data points of a reduction in pitch from the initial -49 degree pitch change, to about -29 by the time of impact. So either by crew input, trimmed flight control position or misc aerodynamics, the aircraft was pitching back during that nose dive. We just don't have the full spectrum of ADC data to be able to complete the picture, but the NTSB does.

I don't know anything about the -76 pitch control system so I defer to those who fly it. Folks on APC seem skeptical the autopilot could command the pitch servos to a -49 nose condition so quickly in any circumstance, ditto for a AP disconnect with such an unrecognized out of trim condition that it could cause that kind of pitch down on disengagement, but never say never I guess. I'm still curious about the possibility of flight control mechanical malfunction back there, creating a hardover situation they wrestled with all the way to the ground.

Spatial disorientation?.... in VMC? Yikes, that would really take the cake. Honestly, that'd be just as bad for the profession as a suicide imo.

This one will be interesting. It really could go all three ways (botching a recovery self-induced by automation misunderstanding/lack of perception, mechanical failure of any of the major components of the pitch control system, or morting via suicide or spatial D). My bet is on mechanical malfunction of the flight control system or automation betrayal. But that's me being wishful it isn't suicide, or pilot-induced error via misunderstanding of the automation or over-reliance on it (the former pointing back at a Colgan type eff up) during a component failure. I'm also torn on that, because if it was indeed mechanical failure of the system, then that means that the people still alive and flying those Atlas 76s today might be in peril, with the NTSB sitting idly on what would be a now-known maintenance-related malfunction (whether by physical process or lack of oversight). I wouldn't be cool with that at all, as an Atlas 76 driver. We'll see.
 
Bell206 said:
March 12 NTSB update:
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA19MA086.aspx

"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 (figure 4) 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."
Click to expand...

The NTSB link you posted doesn't say column input. Here's what it actually says:

"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."

Wonder if they edited it after initial publication? The original(?) wording makes it seem like a suicide, the latest wording indicates a control malfunction is probable.
 
Turningfinal said:
The NTSB link you posted doesn't say column input. Here's what it actually says:

Wonder if they edited it after initial publication?.
Click to expand...

The NTSB page has been edited in the last two or so hours. When first released, column input was, in fact, the text.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
The quote I pasted above was a direct copy from the NTSB page. They edited it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they edited it directly after a Twitter user basically stated that the obvious implication was a deliberate pilot action.
 
One scenario that hasn't got much traction, what if they allowed their jumpseat buddy top fly the leg in the right seat? What if they were swapping back for the landing and someone fell into the controls? Would explain the full throttle/forward column input.
 
Bell206 said:
One scenario that hasn't got much traction, what if they allowed their jumpseat buddy top fly the leg in the right seat? What if they were swapping back for the landing and someone fell into the controls? Would explain the full throttle/forward column input.
Click to expand...
That would be a time where no decent pilot would consider a seat swap. Highly unlikely, and highly incompetent if so.
 
Hopefully it was not a "nose-down elevator deflection" without "column input". And hopefully it wasn't a "nose-down elevator deflection" with "column input".
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Hopefully it was not a "nose-down elevator deflection" without "column input". And hopefully it wasn't a "nose-down elevator deflection" with "column input".
Click to expand...
What if someone has actually figured out a way to hack into and cause this kind of thing and it wasn’t the pilots’ fault at all? And yeah, I hate where my mind is going with that.
 
RyanShort1 said:
What if someone has actually figured out a way to hack into and cause this kind of thing and it wasn’t the pilots’ fault at all? And yeah, I hate where my mind is going with that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, crossed my mind too. Like the smart cars that can be taken over from outside the vehicle.
 
Bell206 said:
One scenario that hasn't got much traction, what if they allowed their jumpseat buddy top fly the leg in the right seat? What if they were swapping back for the landing and someone fell into the controls? Would explain the full throttle/forward column input.
Click to expand...

RyanShort1 said:
What if someone has actually figured out a way to hack into and cause this kind of thing and it wasn’t the pilots’ fault at all? And yeah, I hate where my mind is going with that.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Your minds are just running wild trying to speculate.
 
Bell206 said:
One scenario that hasn't got much traction, what if they allowed their jumpseat buddy top fly the leg in the right seat? What if they were swapping back for the landing and someone fell into the controls? Would explain the full throttle/forward column input.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you that thought crossed my mind. I believe I saw some where that the two Atlas crew were former Mesa and the jump seater was Mesa as well. Just a possible scenario, the NTSB would be able to determine that fairly easily with the CVR data.

The NTSB really shouldn't feed all this partial data to the media. I realize it's expected these days, but all it does is fuel baseless speculation.
 
Ryanb said:
Wow.

Your minds are just running wild trying to speculate.
Click to expand...
The whole Occam's razor thing is probably that MCAS system in the 737Max deal, but it is odd to have three planes allegedly nose-dive in this short of a time period.
Also, all these news outlets are saying that there are several pilot complaints in the ASRS system, but to me it looks like two uses of the NASA form to complain, and potentially two legit occurrences.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766398-ASRS-Reports-for-737-max8.html#document/p10/a486269

Has anyone searched the ASRS system for any other unexplained dives in 767s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top