China Airlines goes down with 132 souls on board

sourdough44 said:
Is the silence becoming deafening? Compare to the timeline of info from the Lion Air & Ethiopian Max crashes? I’m starting to get the feeling they’d rather meter out details sparingly, over a long timeline?
Click to expand...
Well considering its only been 14 days since the accident. The CVR and FDR memory modules were forwarded to the NTSB in DC 4 days ago. And the NTSB and Boeing teams just arrived in China 3 days ago. So as far as timelines are, I think the info presented so far is pretty much par given the severity of the crash and the host country's tendency to keep a lid on public statements. The CAAC has also committed to abide by ICAO guidelines and present a Preliminary Report by April 21.
 
TCABM said:
Transparency and the Chinese government are two mutually incompatible ideas according to the Chinese government, who closely monitors and controls what data is exported from the country.
Click to expand...
There's been a lot of that going around lately. Sometimes in places I would have never expected it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
o_O
Then why are you talking about it here?
:D
Click to expand...

I keep seeing updates and thinking "oh, an update on the China flight..."
Nope, joke's on me. Is that Lucy over there with a football...?
 
Released by the Chinese today. Note the last line.

China's aviation authority says it's still investigating the cause of last month's plane crash in Guangxi region. All 132 people onboard a China Eastern Airlines jetliner were killed when it plunged to the ground on March 21st. At a press briefing on Monday, the Civil Aviation Administration of China said it was investigating major risks and hidden hazards in the industry to prevent more air accidents. It said it was vital that more emphasis is placed on assessing the psychological status of air crews.
 
There’s a reason I get most of my news from Brother 7
 
Oldmanb777 said:
Looks like one of the pilots had lots of experience. Was he a check airman? Was he giving IOE? Lots of questions, and lots of speculation.
Click to expand...
Articles indicate he had over 20000 hours which seems almost impossible. It also states that he was demoted to from the Captain position and was flying copilot. A very embarrassing situation as he failed the sim. Lastly the Captain was the guy that failed him on the sim.
 
There is a rumor that the demoted copilot had lot his savings in the Evergrande collapse. At present, that has not been confirmed. I would imagine that suffering that demotion, and losing much of his life savings would have anyone feeling low, even in cultures that do not value saving face so much.
 
I don't buy suicide. My bet is still poor training, poor maintenance, or poor management.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't buy suicide. My bet is still poor training, poor maintenance, or poor management.
Click to expand...
You have to understand the Chinese mentality. The fact a 31,000 hour senior pilot who was a check Captain was downgraded to a 737 copilot yanking gear for a 32 year old would be a enormous loss of face. The fact that 32 year old was the son of one of the people who demoted him might be another factor.
 
Jeff767 said:
You have to understand the Chinese mentality. The fact a 31,000 hour senior pilot who was a check Captain was downgraded to a 737 copilot yanking gear for a 32 year old would be a enormous loss of face. The fact that 32 year old was the son of one of the people who demoted him might be another factor.
Click to expand...

I agree that in that culture, suicide may seem as a reasonable thing to do. Many people make that choice even here, in times of personal darkness. But that's not what this would be. This would be taking 131 or so other people with you. That's homicide. The number of people who commit suicide every year is way too high, sadly. But fortunately, the number of people who care so little about anyone else that they're willing to discount their right to exist is pretty small. I'm not saying it's impossible, just rare, and I think the people in those cases aren't depressed, they're incredibly angry, and completely anti-social. Anti-social is not part of that culture. And all of this just my armchair guessing.
 
Albany Tom said:
I agree that in that culture, suicide may seem as a reasonable thing to do. Many people make that choice even here, in times of personal darkness. But that's not what this would be. This would be taking 131 or so other people with you. That's homicide. The number of people who commit suicide every year is way too high, sadly. But fortunately, the number of people who care so little about anyone else that they're willing to discount their right to exist is pretty small. I'm not saying it's impossible, just rare, and I think the people in those cases aren't depressed, they're incredibly angry, and completely anti-social. Anti-social is not part of that culture. And all of this just my armchair guessing.
Click to expand...

Rare you say? Explain to me how what you wrote above is *any different* than a mass shooter? And that NEVER happens.

I’m not saying it’s suicide, but given some of the early data, it is certainly a real possibility.
 
It isn't, they're both rare. Something like 1,000,000:1 or so would be my estimate, and that's probably high. It just makes the news every week, because that's what they do. At best, they tell stories. At worst, they promote violence.

Suicide? It's more like 300 per million population per year for veterans, probably higher for teenagers, and a national average of about 160. We lose something like 50,000 people every year to suicide. More in one year than US combat deaths in any war except ww2 and the civil war.

Intentionally crashing an aircraft filled with passengers isn't suicide, and most suicidal people have no desire to harm anyone but themselves.
 
Yes, statistically speaking, they are rare events. But a few things:

1) Just because they are rare, doesn’t make them less newsworthy (invading another country these days is a pretty “rare” event yet it makes news, i could give tons more examples both good and bad. With your logic if aliens invaded, the media should really ignore it.)

2) When these rare events happen, they are deadly and hurt a lot of innocent people.

3) If you actually have read about shooters who survive these incidents (e.g. VTech for instance), they were not thinking about the ramifications of suicide vs. homicide or any of the finer nuisances of the law - they were in pain and saw a way out.

If you look at the facts of the MU5735 crash thus far, you have three pilots, two of which have thousands of hours in type in a relatively low hour plane in good weather that was in AP for over an hour with zero events and then suddenly (literally) has a descent profile that is basically impossible to have unless someone is pushing on the stick OR there is some kind of catastrophic structural failure. The plane suddenly and literally *fell out of the sky*.

We can all agree that human factors are the leading cause of aviation accidents - not structural failure.

Let’s wait for the report but if I was a betting man, based on the facts that have been released so for, I think human factors can not be ruled out or dismissed so easily as you did a few posts above.
 
The preliminary report was sent to ICAO. It doesn't state much else than what is already known except they did identify part found away from the impact site as part of a winglet. Will need to translate it but pasted one English version summary below.

"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 stabilier, 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 hazardeous 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)."

http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/TZTG/202204/t20220420_212895.html
 
I suspect if the aircraft was pushed over in a dive from altitude it would quickly exceed the flutter margins for the winglets and would shed one or likely both. Flutter is a real issue with winglets and the reason most retrofit installations come with speed restrictions.
 
Hengelo said:
The United States has three times the per capita homicide rate of China and double the per capita suicide rate.
Click to expand...

Well considering they have about four and a half times as many people it might just indicate that there are only so many murderers and suicidal persons to go around.
 
Jeff767 said:
I suspect if the aircraft was pushed over in a dive from altitude it would quickly exceed the flutter margins for the winglets and would shed one or likely both. Flutter is a real issue with winglets and the reason most retrofit installations come with speed restrictions.
Click to expand...
Are those speeds that could be reached in normal operations? Maybe normal isn't the right word. But speeds that could be reached in cruise? In a steep, but under control descent?
 
I read where one/both/somebody reset the MCP altitude without any ATC clearance? That’s ‘mode control panel’, kinda a biggie, always left where you’re flying, or with a further clearance to descend.

If that’s true, seems a bit suspect. I haven’t seen an English report yet, even when clicking on English conversion.
 
luvflyin said:
Are those speeds that could be reached in normal operations? Maybe normal isn't the right word. But speeds that could be reached in cruise? In a steep, but under control descent?
Click to expand...

Flutter is generally a true airspeed issue. It would be extremely easy to exceed the flutter margins even 10 degrees nose down from altitude. A 737-800 with winglets is near VNE at cruise in normal ops.
 
Larry in TN said:
That comparison relies on the two countries using the same methodology, standards, and transparentness in collecting and distributing the data.
Click to expand...

You are being sarcastic I presume!…Given China’s lack of transparency we could just come up with a number ourselves and it would be more accurate.
 
Flying Doc said:
Larry in TN said:
That comparison relies on the two countries using the same methodology, standards, and transparentness in collecting and distributing the data.
Click to expand...
You are being sarcastic I presume!…Given China’s lack of transparency we could just come up with a number ourselves and it would be more accurate.
Click to expand...
I didn't see Larry's posting as being sarcastic as much as realistically pointing out the folly of comparing statistics generated by two entirely different systems.

Ron Wanttaja
 
luvflyin said:
Are those speeds that could be reached in normal operations? Maybe normal isn't the right word. But speeds that could be reached in cruise? In a steep, but under control descent?
Click to expand...
Jets don't have VNE. We have VMO/MMO which is 340KIAS/M0.82 and is indicated by the "Barber Pole" on the airspeed tape which moves to indicate the currently most-limiting limit.

"MO" is Max Operating. V is for velocity in indicated airspeed. M is for Mach number.

We transition between KIAS and Mach somewhere around FL280 to FL310, depending on our speed schedule. Cruise speed at FL290 (FL291 for them) will depend on the Cost Index entered into the FMS and could be anywhere from M0.72 to M0.80. They would be very near transition altitude so, if at a high-speed cruise, would be near both VMO and MMO.

Flutter isn't going to happy anywhere close to barber pole. The designs are good enough that the potential for flutter is delayed well above limiting speeds. So much so that it's not even a limitation that we're given. Even if it were, losing a winglet isn't going to cause any significant problems. They are designed to break off when damaged without causing damage to the wing.
 
Jeff767 said:
Flutter is generally a true airspeed issue. It would be extremely easy to exceed the flutter margins even 10 degrees nose down from altitude. A 737-800 with winglets is near VNE at cruise in normal ops.
Click to expand...
I know it’s a speed thing regardless of how thin or thick the air is. It seems wrong they wouldn’t ‘design out’ any flutter that would occur anywhere near the normal ‘envelope.’
 
Larry in TN said:
Jets don't have VNE. We have VMO/MMO which is 340KIAS/M0.82 and is indicated by the "Barber Pole" on the airspeed tape which moves to indicate the currently most-limiting limit.

"MO" is Max Operating. V is for velocity in indicated airspeed. M is for Mach number.

We transition between KIAS and Mach somewhere around FL280 to FL310, depending on our speed schedule. Cruise speed at FL290 (FL291 for them) will depend on the Cost Index entered into the FMS and could be anywhere from M0.72 to M0.80. They would be very near transition altitude so, if at a high-speed cruise, would be near both VMO and MMO.

Flutter isn't going to happy anywhere close to barber pole. The designs are good enough that the potential for flutter is delayed well above limiting speeds. So much so that it's not even a limitation that we're given. Even if it were, losing a winglet isn't going to cause any significant problems. They are designed to break off when damaged without causing damage to the wing.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That’s what I figured.
 
luvflyin said:
I know it’s a speed thing regardless of how thin or thick the air is. It seems wrong they wouldn’t ‘design out’ any flutter that would occur anywhere near the normal ‘envelope.’
Click to expand...

Push the nose over 20 degrees at altitude and you will quickly be far outside the normal envelope. Push it over 45degrees and you will blow through all the margins in 20 seconds.
 
Jeff767 said:
Push the nose over 20 degrees at altitude and you will quickly be far outside the normal envelope. Push it over 45degrees and you will blow through all the margins in 20 seconds.
Click to expand...
So does the plane fall apart?

It seems these guys went well outside those margins and it didn't come from together. No winglets, but a fair bit of abuse can be held. There've been cases of commercial transport jets going supersonic following inflight upsets

 
Jeff767 said:
Released by the Chinese today. Note the last line.

At a press briefing on Monday, the Civil Aviation Administration of China said it was investigating major risks and hidden hazards in the industry to prevent more air accidents. It said it was vital that more emphasis is placed on assessing the psychological status of air crews.
Click to expand...

Yes, I find that last line somewhat telling, not everything though. A few winglets departing during a high-speed dive isn’t exactly an inflight ‘break-up’, rendering the plane unflyable. Remember, the weather was fine, no mention of adverse WX.
 
Tantalum said:
So does the plane fall apart?

It seems these guys went well outside those margins and it didn't come from together. No winglets, but a fair bit of abuse can be held. There've been cases of commercial transport jets going supersonic following inflight upsets

Click to expand...

The plane doesn’t fall apart but if it has winglets I can assure you they are gone and you will start shedding doors and fairings. Older jet airliners also had higher Mach, IAS and TAS limits than modern aircraft. We regularly ran the 727 at 385 knots IAS at 16,000 feet and .85 Mach at high altitudes. The L1011 loved .88 Mach.
The winglets would have been the first thing to go in a pilot induced dive.
 
Jeff767 said:
The plane doesn’t fall apart but if it has winglets I can assure you they are gone and you will start shedding doors and fairings. Older jet airliners also had higher Mach, IAS and TAS limits than modern aircraft. We regularly ran the 727 at 385 knots IAS at 16,000 feet and .85 Mach at high altitudes. The L1011 loved .88 Mach.
The winglets would have been the first thing to go in a pilot induced dive.
Click to expand...
The 707 (well, KC-135 at least) had a MMO of just above 0.9 Mach. We'd routinely fly home from deployments at VMM (Max Morale speed which was coincidentally just about 0.9 Mach).
 
Those test pilots in the above video have COURAGE! I, for one, would rather be on the ground than in a DC-9 headed straight for the ground.
 
Tantalum said:
So does the plane fall apart?

It seems these guys went well outside those margins and it didn't come from together. No winglets, but a fair bit of abuse can be held. There've been cases of commercial transport jets going supersonic following inflight upsets

Click to expand...

This is known as the Big Clackers video.
 
Yeah they seemed relieved to have it behind them! Goes to show that (A) these planes are tough but more importantly (B) how important it is to remain calm and professional.

You could see the right seat guy was careful to not let the left seater get too much back pressure on the stick as they came out of the dive. Really a well done job all around.

I did appreciate the "woops" when they stalled!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top