rickair7777

If you had reported it, we might have cleaned it up sooner.

Airframe manufacturers or airlines have in the past apparently engaged in character assassination campaigns to shift suspicion of fault away from themselves (UA585, MH370). The posted document smelled like that sort of thing. Not saying the mfg was behind it in this case, other interested parties might have a similar motive.

For those who missed it, someone posted a pdf of an analysis claiming the co-pilot committed suicide. Can't absolutely rule anything out at this point but there's no evidence of that, and apparently some part of the plane did break off early in the event sequence.

If you dig through someone's life, you can always find hardships and issues... doesn't mean we're all suicidal.

AirBear

https://apnews.com/article/china-hon...e0ffa475e1c141

The FDR was found 130' from the impact site and 5' underground. So they now have both "black boxes".

JohnBurke

MH370 was pronounced solved within three days, but not by airframe manufacturers or airlines: the Malaysian government quickly moved to determine that it was suicide, and presented as evidence, the pilot's personal home computer with "flight simulation" gear.

While manufacturers have pointed to pilot error in recent high profile cases, turned out that despite all the media circus and politics that swirled around the events, it really was pilot error. The case of the Ethiopian and Lion Air max cases spring to mind. Say what one will about MCAS, in both cases the crews had flyable airplanes with a minor pitch problem that each flew out of the envelope in examples of such poor, egregious airmanship as to leave little room for anything but pointing to pilot error. In the case of the Ethiopian crash, the captain correctly identified each problem (MCAS, failed AoA, pitch trim issue), verbally reiterated the recent memos and procedures, took corrective action for each, then undid those actions and aggravated the situation beyond rescue, all while never touching the thrust levers and flying the airplane so far out of the envelope (on a clear, VMC morning) as to ensure destruction of the flight. The airplane remained a perfectly flyable aircraft, until the captain re-engaged the autopilot repeatedly, re-engaged the stab trim, and flew it far outside the aircraft limitations and approved flight envelope, beyond Vmo/Mmo, until impact. When a Boeing executive commented that the mishaps wouldn't have occurred in the US, he was right. Experienced pilot, but the same hour flown 5,000 times, mostly on autopilot and smack-dab in the center of that thin, magenta line. Some have commented here previously, rightly so, that Boeings error wasn't MCAS, but the entities to which the aircraft was sold. I digress.

The since-removed "document" was a grainy re-post of a conspiracy-seeded social media post, inferring without evidence, and anonymously, that the China Eastern mishap was pre-planned months in advance, and alleges layers of conspiracy at all levels, ranging from the check airman himself (suicidal) to the investigation to the highest levels of the Chinese government, and invoked multiple strands of other conspiracy clap-trap. Very typical of the "fake news" posts injected by various state and private actors, in an attempt to stir people up, and counting on re-posts for circulation in the hopes that legitimacy is gained by enough retelling of the same fabrication and lies. Yes, it was also a "hit-job," and like all conspiracy bunk, provided anonymously, without a shred of substantiation, links, references, or supporting evidence or documentation. Throw it up, see what sticks.

Secret insider-knowledge, nearly always passed around in the shadows, is the bread and butter of the conspiracy world. It's invariably attributed to anonymous sources, or sometimes to sources that don't exist, and relies on repeating enough times to take traction, and enough people repeating it who are quick to believe anything carried on the wind, and who don't care much for fact, science, or checking the sources. Ask yourself: what legitimate source carries this information? Is it only found in murky places, only given by anonymous sources, and not provided on any legitimate media that has fact-checked it?

A child's game on long trips is twenty questions, using information gleaned from each well thought-out, intelligent, probing question. It's a game of deductive reasoning. The lazy child, or the one that hasn't picked up on the game yet, simply guesses, from the outset. Is it that tree? Is it the sky? 20 such guesses until the questions are exhausted, or by luck, he or she gets it right. Children who understand the game began to have fun with logic. Is it made of metal? It it outside the car? Is it in the sky? Soon they begin to learn that with a little effort and thought, they can determine the object with much less than 20 questions. Adults play, too.

When we see pages of posts of pure guesswork, every single one a wild, speculative venture with no more forethought than the child picking objects outside his window, it's not a developmental process for children. It's not professional. It's not anything but laziness and ignorance, except in the case of crash investigations, the lessons learned in the field and for each of us, save lives. There's a lot of valuable discussion to be had: what might we have done differently, how to break the error chain, how can we predict and prevent, and so on. Smearing crew, nationalities, airlines, manufacturers, particularly with unsubstantiated lies and accusations, makes no contribution, and can only detract, injecting rumor and perpetuating the lies. We need not be quick to read it, or believe it.

Wreckage discovered miles from the impact site is discussion worthy. Cockpit and data recorders are notable, as will be information gained therefrom. Substantiated information about crew experience, routing, weather, mechanical history, airline practices, cockpit culture, and other details are also fair game and appropriate. Injecting rumor, speculation and guesswork, not really. We're all crew here, or should be. Perhaps some are prospective crew, but the commonality we should all share, when it comes to rumor, conspiracy, speculation, and guesswork, is that we're better than that.

AirBear

Part was ID'd as the trailing edge of a winglet.

Crew info:

Captain: Yang Hongda, 6709 flight hours;
First Officer/Flight Instructor: Zhang Zhengping, 31,769 hours
Second Officer: Ni Gongtao, 556 hours flying as Observer

Texasbound

Well, they have had both boxes for a while now and have not said anything.

That says a lot.

JohnBurke

No, it doesn't.

The flight data recorder was located Sunday. Two days ago.

rickair7777

Yes. PRC may ship it to another country, whoever has the facilities to recover that data from a likely damaged unit. Might take a week, assuming they're in a big hurry (probably are). Even then they'll need more time to analyze the data before releasing anything... they don't just download the file and email it straight to the Daily Mail.

Nantonaku

You seem to have some mighty strong opinions. Too bad every major aviation agency in the whole entire world disagrees with you. This report doesn't say a single thing about the CA trying to re-engage the A/P when they were battling the airplane, just after takeoff before their airplane was trying to kill them.

https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/up...MAX-ET-AVJ.pdf

Texasbound

Really, that is exactly what they did in the second MAX crash.

JohnBurke

Wrong again.

The Chinese had nothing to do with the Ethiopian mishap, and the CVR and flight data recorders were removed and sent to France, for analysis. The mishap occured on March 10. BEA didn't get the CVR and FDR in France until the 14th. On the 17th, the Ethiopian aviation authority (a term to be used loosely) jumped the gun and made an announcement that the FDR showed similarity to the Lion Air mishap. In the interim, on the 13th of March, the FAA announced ,based not on CVR or FDR data, but initial observation of wreckage, that the stabilizer jackscrew appeared to be fulll down. The Ethiopians released a preliminary report on April 4, over three weeks later, and didn't mention MCAS, and did note that the captain didn't touch the throttles, correctly identified and verbalized the correct procedure, executed it...and later reports verified that the captain undid this action and ultimately caused the loss of control.

You HAVE read the reports and not just wikipedia, haven't you?

The Ethiopians announced, one year after the mishap that the final report was coming. A day prior they released an interim report.

When you stated that "they have had both black boxes for a while now," knowing that it had been two days at the time of your statement, what did you mean, exactly? Two days is "a while," suggesting that the data should be available within two days? When you stated that it was available with the Ethiopian crash, knowing this wasn't true either, what did you mean there? You know these things aren't true: why are you saying them?

You've linked the preliminary report, not the interim (https://web.archive.org/web/20200310...209%202020.pdf), published a year later, and are clearly not very familiar with it. Two points for your ability to use google.

As for the Ethiopian crash, read the damn report. Educate yourself. You have no idea what you're talking about, and so far as "every major aviation authority in the world" disagreeing, again, do your research. You'll find that the opposite was true, and that most were reluctant to ground the aircraft. The initial grounding wasn't by the Indonesians or the Ethiopians; it was the Chinese and it was very much a political move in the face of a political trade war with the US. The last agency to respond? The FAA. Go figure. The events were largely political, and even Sullenberger noted the pilot inexperience and actions, particularly a 200 hour copilot (the 25 year old copilot had 360 hours, with 200 in type...all of it in the prior 90 days. His entire flight experience outside of primary training, less than 3 months total).

Go read the report and familiarize yourself with the events, before you spout off again. You're embarrassing yourself. If you read the Lion Air report, you'll find that the flight crew wound up with a flight control force of 103 lbs; that force isn't just dependent on flght control positioning, but on airspeed; in both cases, the flight crews flew the airplane right out of the envelope by accelerating and ultimately causing the loss of control. If airspeed had been kept at the time the crew became aware, both aircraft were fully controllable. When faced with a potential flight control problem, airmanship 101: don't change anything, including airspeed. The stab trim procedure, regardless of the cause, is the same in every 737, and has been since inception; also the same in every other Boeing. Stab trim cutout switches to cutout. The cause of any unscheduled trim, at that point, is irrelevant. Again, airmanship 101, basic procedures, and in the case of the Ethiopian flight, read the report and you'll learn that the captain verbally identified the problem, stated it, reiterated the memo, applied the correct procedure so far as stab trim cut out (after trying repeatedly to solve his problem by resorting to autopilot). Even the prelim report notes that stab trim stopped moving, coincident with application of the stab trim cutout switches. The captain didn't touch the power again, let the airplane keep accelerating, then changed the stab trim cutout switches, violating the procedure and even his own verbally stated identification of the problem. The captain caused that crash. Read the report.