China Airlines goes down with 132 souls on board

Tantalum said:
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.
Click to expand...
What this video really shows is that it pays to be prepared for the unexpected, which will help with your (B) above.

The guy on the right and a couple of people in the back are (were) former co-workers. The right seater later died instructing in his Citabria, and if I recall correctly one of the guys in back was in the G-650 that went in in Roswell. Flight test is a small community and a serious business.

Nauga,
half empty
 
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...
Jeez I’ve seen this vid a bunch of times and always thought was just in a sim. Wow. How do they get their balls through the door.
 
So back to china air, I'm limited in engineering knowledge of 737's, but betting it's possible they screwed something up at altitude, got into a dive at near max speed, and recovered...but during the recovery they broke something. Like part of the tail. At that point they had an un-flyable aircraft and they lost it. Or...the airplane wasn't broken, but was damaged to the point that it didn't fly by the normal numbers, and the crew couldn't handle it. I'm basing all of this on the likelihood of a single failure causing a crew to over-fixate on the initial problem, and screw up the recovery/fix. That's happened here.
 
I think it's suicide/homicide on the part of the first officer.
 
Albany Tom said:
So back to china air, I'm limited in engineering knowledge of 737's, but betting it's possible they screwed something up at altitude, got into a dive at near max speed, and recovered...but during the recovery they broke something. Like part of the tail. At that point they had an un-flyable aircraft and they lost it. Or...the airplane wasn't broken, but was damaged to the point that it didn't fly by the normal numbers, and the crew couldn't handle it. I'm basing all of this on the likelihood of a single failure causing a crew to over-fixate on the initial problem, and screw up the recovery/fix. That's happened here.
Click to expand...

Such a gentle phase of flight, 3 in the cockpit, unless someone did a lav break. I know we had the SFO Asiana accident, not buying that here. They should of been smack dab in the middle of the performance envelope, margins on all sides.
 
nauga said:
Flight test is a small community and a serious business
Click to expand...
Takes a special kind of person that's for sure. Sorry to hear about the losses in the Citabria and 650
 
sourdough44 said:
Such a gentle phase of flight, 3 in the cockpit, unless someone did a lav break. I know we had the SFO Asiana accident, not buying that here. They should of been smack dab in the middle of the performance envelope, margins on all sides.
Click to expand...

Didn't someone have an engine out, and recover, and during the recovery bent the wings, brought it in OK, but came very close to tearing the wings off? I'll have to look it up...was somewhere over the Pacific, flying into California. There was a weather channel segment on it.
 
Albany Tom said:
Didn't someone have an engine out, and recover, and during the recovery bent the wings, brought it in OK, but came very close to tearing the wings off? I'll have to look it up...was somewhere over the Pacific, flying into California. There was a weather channel segment on it.
Click to expand...

But this flight clearly didn’t have an engine out. And if we are to believe the early reports shared thus far, the plane’s systems seemed completely nominal at the time of the dive.

Also, the flight being referenced above, if looked at from a flight path perspective, would show the AP and Captain fighting before the drop. MU5735 literally just “fell out of the sky”.
 
Last edited:
Trogdor said:
But this flight clearly didn’t have an engine out. And if we are to believe the early reports shared thus far, the plane’s systems seemed completely nominal at the time of the dive.

Also, the flight being referenced above, if looked at from a flight path perspective, would show the AP and Captain fighting before the drop. MU5735 literally just “fell out of the sky”.
Click to expand...

Right, different initial scenario, but there could be a number of things that could happen that would cause them to intentionally want to reduce altitude in a hurry. If they didn't do that right, went over speed, and broke something, to me could lead to that profile. I don't read it as fighting for control, to me that's an assumption. I read it as a 4 step process - in control, in a steep descent maybe in control, in an unknown state that appears to be in control, and an uncontrolled descent.

Having a "problem A" happen, and not getting the response to that right, which then leads to "problem B" taking down the plane, happens all the time. For US carriers, the A problem is sometimes a routine thing, and problem B is running out of fuel or flying into terrain, but I don't see why it could be aircraft damage from the result of a poor recovery rather than pilot inattention. Again, I'm just guessing here.
 
Because Tom, these pilots at least on paper seem exceptionally qualified as well as proficient. Furthermore, i can’t think of a single reason and/or checklist that would have the PIC descend the plane that fast that quickly even in an emergency situation.

My money right now is some kind of catastrophic structural failure or intention.
 
Trogdor said:
Because Tom, these pilots at least on paper seem exceptionally qualified as well as proficient. Furthermore, i can’t think of a single reason and/or checklist that would have the PIC descend the plane that fast that quickly even in an emergency situation.

My money right now is some kind of catastrophic structural failure or intention.
Click to expand...

And the NTSB database isn't filled with reports of well qualified pilots who make mistakes? Taking off without flaps. Taking off from the wrong runway. Screwing around with a landing gear light and crashing into a swamp. "On paper" also doesn't mean much, to me, with respect to hand flying skills of large aircraft, or with how a crew handles an emergency. To me, it means they have the ability to program the flight computer, to at least marginally work the radios, and to do whatever the Chinese equivalent of bidding for routes is.
 
Out today in the WSJ:

Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident.

The Boeing 737-800 was cruising at high altitude when it suddenly pitched into a near-vertical descent, plummeting into a mountain at extreme speed. Data from a black box recovered in the crash suggests inputs to the controls pushed the plane into the fatal dive, these people said.

“The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder.

Also underpinning the American officials’ assessment, this person said: Chinese authorities, who are leading the investigation, so far haven’t flagged any mechanical or flight-control problems with the plane involved in the March 21 crash in southern China. That model is a workhorse of the global aviation industry and is part of a family of Boeing aircraft that have one of the best safety records in commercial flying.
 
Bell206 said:
Out today in the WSJ:

Flight data indicates someone in the cockpit intentionally crashed a China Eastern jet earlier this year, according to people familiar with U.S. officials’ preliminary assessment of what led to the accident. Shades of GermanWings.

The Boeing 737-800 was cruising at high altitude when it suddenly pitched into a near-vertical descent, plummeting into a mountain at extreme speed. Data from a black box recovered in the crash suggests inputs to the controls pushed the plane into the fatal dive, these people said.

“The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder.

Also underpinning the American officials’ assessment, this person said: Chinese authorities, who are leading the investigation, so far haven’t flagged any mechanical or flight-control problems with the plane involved in the March 21 crash in southern China. That model is a workhorse of the global aviation industry and is part of a family of Boeing aircraft that have one of the best safety records in commercial flying.
Click to expand...
I just saw that; apparently another case of somebody on the flight deck with mental problems committing suicide and taking a plane load of people with them.

Reports Suggest China Eastern Nose Dive May Have Been Intentional (simpleflying.com)
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Was the CVR ever recovered?
Click to expand...
Yes. Both the CVR and the FDR were recovered, but both were severely damaged. The news that the crash was caused intentionally by someone on the flight deck is based on data from the FDR indicating the controls were manipulated to put the airplane in a steep nosedown dive.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I just saw that; apparently another case of somebody on the flight deck with mental problems committing suicide and taking a plane load of people with them.

Reports Suggest China Eastern Nose Dive May Have Been Intentional (simpleflying.com)
Click to expand...

Very sad for the families involved and even the entire aviation community. After 911 we decided to prevent the crazies from getting into the cockpit (flight deck). Now that the doors are kept locked we sometimes find the crazies are already in the cockpit. What a world we live in. Thankful that this seems to be an extremely rare phenomena.
 
Albany Tom said:
And the NTSB database isn't filled with reports of well qualified pilots who make mistakes? Taking off without flaps. Taking off from the wrong runway. Screwing around with a landing gear light and crashing into a swamp. "On paper" also doesn't mean much, to me, with respect to hand flying skills of large aircraft, or with how a crew handles an emergency. To me, it means they have the ability to program the flight computer, to at least marginally work the radios, and to do whatever the Chinese equivalent of bidding for routes is.
Click to expand...

You still sticking to this story? For real. I think you are either biased against Chinese pilots (I can't believe what you said up there given the number of hours all three of them have in various types of aircraft) or just ignoring the facts. The guy in the right seat was a flight instructor for decades - I'm sure he knew how to hand fly the plane. In fact, and unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what he might have done.

The WSJ Article can be found here:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-eastern-black-box-points-to-intentional-nosedive-11652805097
 
Trogdor said:
You still sticking to this story? For real. I think you are either biased against Chinese pilots (I can't believe what you said up there given the number of hours all three of them have in various types of aircraft) or just ignoring the facts. The guy in the right seat was a flight instructor for decades - I'm sure he knew how to hand fly the plane. In fact, and unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what he might have done.
Click to expand...

Sticking to what story? That before the recorder data was analyzed it seemed likely that the pilots screwed up? Of course. If it was the Chinese authorities that did the analysis of the recorder, I think that's still a reasonable possibility. If NTSB or Boeing did the initial analysis of the recorder, then I'd believe a conclusion of murder if that's what they came up with. I don't understand a conclusion that would be drawn from a Chinese analysis.

Biased against Chinese pilots? Nope. Recognize that US majors have a better accident rate than just about any other country, and yet still have had trouble with emergency procedures? Yes. Re the hours and experience and how that translates either to skill or number of accidents? I'm not aware of any correlation for ATPs...and I'd be suspicious of it anyway. Multi-thousand hour pilots that can't hand fly well, even without an emergency? I'm confident they're out there.
 
It was pretty obvious that this would be the outcome. No intact airplane would have dove straight down and stable like the video showed. Curious if we will ever know if it was a crew member or a passenger.
 
Albany Tom said:
If it was the Chinese authorities that did the analysis of the recorder, I think that's still a reasonable possibility.
Click to expand...

Because the Chinese don't understand aviation and cannot read a FDR that says the FO pushed the nose into a dive?
 
Albany Tom said:
Sticking to what story? That before the recorder data was analyzed it seemed likely that the pilots screwed up? Of course. If it was the Chinese authorities that did the analysis of the recorder, I think that's still a reasonable possibility. If NTSB or Boeing did the initial analysis of the recorder, then I'd believe a conclusion of murder if that's what they came up with. I don't understand a conclusion that would be drawn from a Chinese analysis.

Biased against Chinese pilots? Nope. Recognize that US majors have a better accident rate than just about any other country, and yet still have had trouble with emergency procedures? Yes. Re the hours and experience and how that translates either to skill or number of accidents? I'm not aware of any correlation for ATPs...and I'd be suspicious of it anyway. Multi-thousand hour pilots that can't hand fly well, even without an emergency? I'm confident they're out there.
Click to expand...

One would think that the Chinese government would be more inclined to want to present to the world that their pilot made an error than intentionally murdered a plane load of people.
 
Albany Tom said:
… If it was the Chinese authorities that did the analysis of the recorder…
Click to expand...

It wasn’t.
7bacb5a7a109e4aff955429f39ee7958.png


““The plane did what it was told to do by someone in the cockpit,” said a person who is familiar with American officials’ preliminary assessment, which includes an analysis of information extracted from the plane’s damaged flight-data recorder.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-eastern-black-box-points-to-intentional-nosedive-11652805097
 
bflynn said:
Because the Chinese don't understand aviation and cannot read a FDR that says the FO pushed the nose into a dive?
Click to expand...

:) No. The Chinese government is smart, it's just not honest. I'm pretty comfortable with that. I don't know who did the initial analysis because I don't subscribe to the WSJ, and haven't put in any effort into tracking it down. I'm confident that the Chinese government could present raw data to make things appear any way they wish, and I don't know why anyone would expect them to present the data in anything other than the most favorable way for their country. Why wouldn't they?

As to the why, it's really simple. If the pilots made a mistake or a series of mistakes, it's an indication of a lack of training or review. If the aircraft had a problem, it's an indication of a lack of maintenance or supervision. Neither of those are favorable for the state run system. If, however, a pilot decided to murder x hundred people, that's excusable, because most people understand and accept that we only have a limited capability to predict human behavior. It's just "one of those things", the modern equivalent to an act of God.
 
Not sure why some are so convinced that it wasn't a murder/suicide. Wouldn't be the first person to decide that he wanted to take other people's lives, as he killed himself.
 
I'm not convinced it wasn't. For any given crash I think it's generally the least likely, though. I base that on my read of the statistics, and a general observation that people have issues with competence far more than being malicious. People make mistakes every single day, pretty much everyone. Most of the time it's harmless. Sometimes it isn't.

It's the same reason people jump to a medical issue or hypoxia or CO for an unknown crash, where it's statistically much more likely to be a mistake.
 
I think suicide makes perfect sense. He wanted to attack and humiliate the airline that demoted him. He had several times the number of hours that the captain had. The passengers didn't figure in the picture, except that the deaths of the passengers would be ascribed to the airline and their problem to compensate. This is a culture that values face above all else, and that airline had destroyed his. So, he was going to humiliate the airline in the most severe way he could imagine.
 
Albany Tom said:
I'm not convinced it wasn't. For any given crash I think it's generally the least likely, though. I base that on my read of the statistics, and a general observation that people have issues with competence far more than being malicious. People make mistakes every single day, pretty much everyone. Most of the time it's harmless. Sometimes it isn't.

It's the same reason people jump to a medical issue or hypoxia or CO for an unknown crash, where it's statistically much more likely to be a mistake.
Click to expand...


But this logic is ignoring the clear facts in front of you. You hand waved over the pilots vast time in type and the nature of the accident itself.

Dives like that don’t happen unless there was either catastrophic structural damage or someone simply just pushed the stick and overrode the numerous fail safety systems to prevent exactly this kind of trajectory the plane took. I agree with you Tom that statistically the latter is far more less likely than the former. However, again, given the early facts reported thus far, it is very, very, VERY hard to believe the plane just fell apart (even the small video released shows a plane mostly intact given its rate of fall.
 
What facts? I haven't paid a lot of attention to this, but my understanding is that the facts are: A Chinese 737 went in, pretty much straight down. Initial adsb or radar reports were along the lines of a very rapid descent, followed by a cruise at relatively low altitude for a while, then another rapid descent into the ground. The Chinese government has reported that flight record data shows that the descents were intentional. I didn't know there was any more to it than that, in terms of actual data.

So to me, sure, could be that they intentionally flew it in. But also seems like they could have some problem at altitude, needed to do an emergency descent as a result, let the plane go over speed, damaged something, flew it under control for a while, then for whatever reason lost it. Similar to the event where someone bent the wings of an airliner on the way to California, but instead of over-g damage to the wing, they tore something loose because of overspeed, and that caused enough damage to the aircraft to make it not quite stable enough for them to fly. Or in other words - damage probably do to maintenance, problem, recovery, damage from recovery, stall/spin or other loss of control.

With the limited data I have, seems either is possible. I'm more likely to be believe screw up. I don't why that belief would bother anyone.
 
Last edited:
Do you consider the ample information on the flight crew, especially the FO, to be "facts"?
 
DavidWhite said:
No, they don’t fit his narrative therefore they are not facts.
Click to expand...

It’s not the crew I’m actually referring too (except time in type). It’s the speed and trajectory of the nose dive and the “fact” that no catastrophic structural damage has yet to be found in the initial analysis of the FDR or in the nature of the crash (i.e critical parts weren’t found miles away from the crash that could cause that kind of nose dive).

Both point to someone pushing on the stick.

Could it be something else? Always. But Occum’s Razor does apply at some point. Maybe it was pushed but due to pilot disorientation or a terrorist or aliens. Whatever.

Note: Confirmation bias works both ways. “Of course, a professional pilot wouldn’t do that…” and so it goes.

Like you @Albany Tom, I’m mystified by the circumstances around this crash. But just the shear trajectory of the crash and speed in which it happened coupled with the lack of radio contact makes it look like intentional pilot action to me. I hope I’m wrong.
 
Trogdor said:
. But just the shear trajectory of the crash and speed in which it happened coupled with the lack of radio contact makes it look like intentional pilot action to me. I hope I’m wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do you hope it’s not a bad pilot?

Better than a design/mechanical problem with 100s of planes that could cause them to become lawn darts. Don’t need another Max problem.
 
Yeah, I don't have a narrative. I don't have bets on the outcome. I'm simply stating I believe it could go either way. Facts about flight crew? All I know is that they have a lot of hours. I've read reference to FO having a bad time with his company. To me that might be suspicious, but that's about it.

I don't see the value in parroting what the media is saying. Maybe they're right...blind squirrel finds the nut once in a while and all. And I'm not suggesting some new unknown 737 problem. 737's have been around for a long time, and a well maintained one doesn't just dive for no reason. But again, there are things that require an emergency descent, and experienced crews have bent aircraft over that.

I'm happy and content not knowing what the cause is, not being wound up about it either way. To say "that must be it" at this stage sounds like it should be accompanied by banjo music, and while I do actually like some bluegrass, that's not my source for info.
 
China Insights is reporting that the copilot left a suicide note. At the end of the note, he said that if China Eastern does not give him justice, he will give China Eastern justice.
 
LesGawlik said:
China Insights is reporting that the copilot left a suicide note. At the end of the note, he said that if China Eastern does not give him justice, he will give China Eastern justice.
Click to expand...

in the immortal words if Viper: "Well, that’ll just about cover the flybys." :D

Occam's on a hot streak this summer!
 
LesGawlik said:
China Insights is reporting that the copilot left a suicide note. At the end of the note, he said that if China Eastern does not give him justice, he will give China Eastern justice.
Click to expand...

Here’s that report


The part about a suicide note looks like 3rd hand info from a “Chinese legal scholar now living in Australia.”

Grain of salt:

That sounds pretty much unverified. Interesting, but not much to rely on yet.

I had never heard of this outlet, China Insights. A quick glance at their YouTube channel gives the impression that it’s an anti-Chinese-government outfit that focuses on bad news about China. No idea how reliable they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top