Boeing 737 nose dives into ground, Air crash in China

Just speculating, but that looks similar to the Alaska 261 crash. That was caused by mechanical elivator control failure which was caused by lack of grease. Different plain but the way it crashed is very similar.

This explains what happened with the Alaska 261 flight.

Here is an article on that crash. en.m.wikipedia.org...

Not saying that same thing went wrong but it looks like the same control failure happened. I am not surprised there there was no communication from the pilots as unless they were strapped in, they would be thrown up to the top of the cockpit when the nose suddenly pointed downward.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Communicating with the ground is about step 241 out of 243 in an emergency like this. The other 240 are Fly the plane, and land the plane.

a reply to: Zaphod58

First thing would be get back in the seats in possible free fall if still conscious. I only brought that up because no communication was mentioned above.

a reply to: sapien82

Are you talking about the police helicopter that crashed onto the pub?

. . . pilot made 'conscious decision' to ignore fuel warnings

www.independent.co.uk...

Each time it gave an audible warning he turned off the alarm but didn't switch on the fuel.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

When seated, pilots are strapped in, just in case they do hit turbulence. They may only wear their lap belts, depending on policy at the airline, but they have at least one set of belts on. And they were definitely fighting what was going on. The aircraft climbed at one point, before the fatal dive.

At the point of the initial dive, they were descending into their destination, so the pilots would have been belted in.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have watched too many Air Disaster episodes to believe all pilots follow all procedures at all times.

I agree they would be trying to regain control but it may have seen an unrecoverable failure.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

They don’t, but being belted in is common sense. They follow the same suggestions they give passengers when they say to always wear your seatbelt when sitting down. They will belt in when they start their descent though, as they were before the accident.

a reply to: sapien82

Poor plane went down like a bleeding dart in to the ground.

Can only imagine the horror the poor passengers and crew experienced.

RIP all onboard.

Could it of been cyber warfare its been proven possible

cyberguy.com...

a reply to: Kester

Aye thats the one

I thought it was a gear failure that crash , but it was fuel eh
I think that type of helicopter is the same type that has had crashed before due to the engine parts being dodgy though

a reply to: markovian

If it was a suicide attack maybe. They’d have to be on board and access the systems from on the aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: markovian

If it was a suicide attack maybe. They’d have to be on board and access the systems from on the aircraft.

Planes now have internet a arduino board with wifi could be used to do it remotely

If there's acsess to the internet on a plane even if you isolate the 2 systems all someone has to do is be on the plane once and install a arduino board to acsess whatever they hook it up to

If there not separate it would be even easier

a reply to: markovian

It’s FAR more likely this was either mechanical or pilot error than a cyberattack.

A zoomed in screenshot of the video of the aircraft diving appears to show that the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizers separated from the fuselage at some point. It's not clear if it happened before they lost control, or at some point during the dive at this point.

originally posted by: Tulpa

originally posted by: tamusan
a reply to: Tulpa

The ones from a few years ago were the max, yeah.

Wasn't it something to do with the autopilot and over compensation?
Memory a bit hazy but weren't the pilots doing the opposite corrective measures to the ones they should have tried because of that problem?

Hoping one the the aircraft brains on here chimes in because haven't seen much news today.

i thought they grounded them all and fixed the problem??

maybe if the tail got blown off, missile or luggage bomb?

i might have heard it if i wasn't in the shower.
btw it was a nice day.
that sucks. from 30,000 ft straight down, it must have been hell! rip.

a reply to: sarahvital

More than likely it was from the aircraft exceeding its limits. They pulled up pretty hard, before diving back down. That puts a lot of strain on the airframe.

Wow, that was pretty brutal, I can't even begin to imagine. R.I.P.

Looking at the raw ADS-B data, it's understandable why the aircraft suffered structural failure. At 06:20:59 the aircraft entered a descent from 27,025 feet, with a -21,696 foot per minute rate. It reached a maximum of -30, 976 feet per minute at 06:21:09. There were fluctuations, as it decreased to -16,832 fpm, before increasing back to -21,888 fpm. At 06:21:45, the aircraft was at a descent rate of -15,744 fpm. At 06:21:55, the aircraft went from -15,744 fpm to a climb at 3,520 fpm. This reached a peak of 8,448 fpm at 06:22:05 when the aircraft reached 8600 feet. At 06:22:21, the aircraft was at 8,175 feet, with a descent rate of -13,248 fpm.

I used to be a single engine licensed pilot that was in CAP (civil air patrol)
qualified search/rescue pilot and cadet orientation pilot.

along with passed a class (didnt go any farther, it was the first of many classes to be certified but was a good experience) for 727 flight engineer.

the problem with most of todays commercial passenger aircraft is they are mostly computer controlled instruments and systems. Or in an older term "fly by wire".

while (unless changed, been a few decades since i last was certified) under law at least three gauges had to be analog (no computer allowed) as backup most planes EVERY OTHER SYSTEM is computer controlled/ran.

as we all know with our own computers, laptops, cell phones ect they are hardly bug free at the best of times.

now take aircraft that should (key word SHOULD) be held to a higher standard they still our vulnerable to errors (be man made, sloppy quality control or sabotage) .

A pilot today must rely on what his instruments are saying in increasingly more complex aircraft

but the sad truth is they are dependent on what the computer is saying and does to the controls

they must be able to catch when the computer may be wrong and manually correct it

but sadly if the error is small (like a small leak) the damage may go unnoticed for a long time where suddenly you have a massive problem

then compound it by the very safety systems designed to catch this are run on the same system.
a error / flaw checking itself.
then add that the companies deliberately (as in the earlier incidents of the 737) KNOW THERES A PROBLEM but it "falls within THEIR CHOOSEN safety margins" so dont fix it because "too expensive" , "delays the project longer" or both.

then throw in that since all is COMPUTER CONTROLLED (aka fly by wire) that very system can
"lock out" pilot manual control.

so this keeps happening and the powers that are supposed to regulate it (FAA) and ORDER , ENFORCE AND (if needed) PUNSH THOSE WHO BREAK THE RULES/LAWS.

But they dont do they.

scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger
so this keeps happening and the powers that are supposed to regulate it (FAA) and ORDER , ENFORCE AND (if needed) PUNSH THOSE WHO BREAK THE RULES/LAWS.

But they dont do they.

scrounger

This happened in China so the FAA has no jurisdiction. They have the CAAC. That said, accidents like this are rare. Each and everyone is diagnosed to find the root cause. I just hope that China lets Boeing participate in this case.