Iregretnothing

Except it wasn’t built in the 90’s. It was 6 years old. C’mon guys. Jeezus effing Christ. Literally, the first two parts of information that came out about this crash (except that it happened in China) were that it wasn’t a MAX and it was only 6 years old.

BFMthisA10

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin...12%2C500%20m).

Not completely out of the realm of possibility. Loss of thrust in one engine while in cruise near max altitude, while both pilots are engrossed in the cause, PF reluctant to depart cleared cruise alt, airspeed decay, add in a helping of insufficient rudder as the stall warning goes off…

GogglesPisano

The 737 has a history of rudder hardovers. But those ended with the NG's. Still, the probability is greater than zero.

Red Forman

So when I had to have an airline email to join, that was just my imagination?

OpieTaylor

My WAG is they hung Chinese parts on it from their Chinese 737 factory that opened, and quality control is a culture problem.

JohnBurke

Speculation and guesswork is always impressive.

ZapBrannigan

Somebody on another forum was wondering if it might have something to do with this.

http://www.b737.org.uk/picklefork.htm

CBreezy

The affected aircraft had 30,000 cycles. I don't think a 6 year old aircraft would have that many, right?

ZapBrannigan

Depends on the airline I guess.

JohnBurke

Well, not really. Not according to the Reuters article. It states that the aircraft was in cruise at 29,100' (Chinese cruise altitude 8900 meters), and descended to 7,425' in 1:12; a descent rate of 18,062 fpm. The aircraft then climbed to 8,600', before descending to 3,225', where further altitude information ceased to be available.

The initial linked CNN article at the outset of this thread stated that the Chinese News Service, citing Variflight, stated that the descent to 7,425' took three minutes. That would put the descent rate at 7225 fpm. Clearly very different information, all questionable.

30,000 cycles in 6 years, if those numbers are correct, would be 5,000 cycles a year, averaging over 13 cycles per day, without a break. Not even Southwest will manage 13 cycles a day, uninterrupted, for six years. Southwest states that their average trip length is 749 miles, with an average trip duration of 2:04 (https://www.swamedia.com/pages/corporate-fact-sheet). Do the math.

Where is the link showing 30,000 cycles on the subject aircraft?

The US Sun article linked in post 4 of this thread, yellow journalism at its finest, belies other reports that there was no fire at impact, and shows a wildfire. Further, it states the impact speed was 350 knots, which would be impressively slow if the reported descent rates are accurate, or remotely so. Further, it identifies "two minutes of terror," not one minute twelve seconds, or three minutes). Clearly, all speculation, all sensationalization, all dubious information when in reality, there is none, and all interspersed with dramatic adjectives and adverbs designed to evoke emotion. Unfortunately, that's closer to useful information than the wild speculation and guesswork here in this thread, which is less reflective of anything remotely professional (or intelligent) and more reflective of grade school kids guessing at 20 questions.

The US Sun article, incidentally, shows pictures of an active wildfire at the crash site, then shows the crash site, unburned, and includes photos reportedly from the wreckage, which are clearly not the same aircraft. Truthful reporting, it is not.