Arrow Air Flight 1285


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

do8.jpg Perhaps someone could explain to me how a t/o crash caused by icing results with that? It looks pretty clear to me the broken edges of all that have not been burned by any post crash fire... s

Please do us a favour as you pursue your flying career, especially in the cockpit. Have a much more open mind to alternatives, particularly when they are put forward by people who have more experience

There you go... As soon as someone invokes the term, "conspiracy theory", suddenly reasoned debate is stifled. Never mind the legitimate questions left unanswered... Never mind what actual evidence (w

The minority report hinges entirely on the following assumptions being true:

1.) The fact that nobody saw ice on the wings meant that there was no ice on the wings.

2.) The fact that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the accident meant they had a hand in its taking place.

3.) The fact that there was so much damage to the aircraft despite the plane having just taken off meant that the structural integrity of the aircraft was compromised before impact.

4.) The fact that several bodies had combustion products inside their bodies meant that they were exposed to fire before the plane hit the ground.

5.) The fact that witnesses saw the plane on fire before impact meant that something exploded on the plane before impact.

6.) The fact that there were outward indentations in the aircraft skin meant that something exploded on the plane before impact.

7.) The fact that so many people involved were highly experienced in their roles meant that they were 111% right in their judgments and perceptions.

Each of those arguments has its own problem, among other counterarguments:

1.) There is a such thing as clear ice, and that can only be detected by feel, not by sight. Unless someone were to actually physically stand on top of the wing and feel the wing for ice, they're not going to be able to cover all of the wing surface in search of clear ice. The crash of Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 demonstrates exactly that.

2.) The fact that somebody says something proves nothing if you don't prove it yourself. Tests for explosive chemicals showed no evidence of a bomb on board the plane.

3.) The minority report does pretty much nothing in the way of explaining how impact with the ground could not have caused the movement of flaps, reversers, or anything else on the plane. And many takeoff accidents before and after Arrow Air 1285 have left a severely fragmented airplane and no survivors (or almost no survivors). These include American Airlines Flight 191, KLM Flight 4805 (Tenerife), Northwest Airlines Flight 255, Air France Flight 4590 (Concorde), Air Midwest Express Flight 5481, and Comair Flight 5191. Crashes in wooded areas are bound to cause extreme damage to an aircraft, so it's to be expected that any takeoff accident in a wooded area will have a badly wrecked airplane with very few if any survivors.

4.) Bodies being ripped apart are just as susceptible to reception of combustion products as a living person breathing combustion products. On top of all that, the time between when the landing gear left the runway and the time the plane hit the ground wasn't even 30 seconds, nowhere near the time it'd take for even an explosive fire to generate the amount of smoke found in the toxicology tests.

5.) Witnesses are bound to have erroneous perceptions of an event and should only be relied on in the absence of hard evidence; the location of a fire by itself is not enough to explain where or how it started. The clipped trees spelled out the position of the plane, which was in a greatly stalled profile. The engines showed they were working when the plane struck the trees, but because of the stall, weren't getting enough air and suffered compressor stall, creating the fire seen by witnesses.

6.) The indentations have noticeable parts that would be missing if flattened out. If that damage had been caused by an in-flight explosion, something would've been thrown off the plane and landed somewhere between the runway and the point of impact. Nothing was found in that region, meaning nothing departed the plane before it hit the trees. The plane's impact with the ground would've easily driven anything through the aircraft structure to create those holes.

7.) Even the best of the best are vulnerable to mistakes, and there's a long list of accidents to show for it. Authority and/or expertise on its own has no bearing on the validity of any kind of information.

Let me go back and re-aquaint myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a quick reply to some of your points;

1. True, the fact that nobody saw ice on the wings does not prove there wasn't ice on the wings but just because other aircraft crashed from ice doesn't prove that was the cause here. You point at Scandinavian Airlines 751. In that case the aircraft spent all night in above zero temps collecting clear ice over cold-soaked fuel and furthermore the crash was caused by ice breaking off and entering the engines.

The fuelers testified that there was no ice on the aircraft.

There was a discussion with the Capt about deicing and the Captain, "who was universally lauded for his professionalism and attention to detail" determined that deicing was not required.

I think it's safe to assume that the aircraft skin temp was below zero having just flown in, the surface temp was -4 C with snow grains so I don't think there are any valid comparisons with the Scandivanian Airlines crash due to clear icing, especially when that crash was specifically caused by ice entering the tailmounted engines which is obviously not possible with a DC-8.

A 737 that operated through YQX at the same time reported no icing and did not deice.

I'm not convinced that ice formed through some unknown process during the 1 hour and 11 minute turn that was both significant enough to cause the crash and yet still remain undetected to the aircraft crew and the fuelers and that it affected only the DC-8 and not the 737 that operated there at the same time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, a quick reply to some of your points;

1. True, the fact that nobody saw ice on the wings does not prove there wasn't ice on the wings but just because other aircraft crashed from ice doesn't prove that was the cause here. You point at Scandinavian Airlines 751. In that case the aircraft spent all night in above zero temps collecting clear ice over cold-soaked fuel and furthermore the crash was caused by ice breaking off and entering the engines.

The fuelers testified that there was no ice on the aircraft.

There was a discussion with the Capt about deicing and the Captain, "who was universally lauded for his professionalism and attention to detail" determined that deicing was not required.

I think it's safe to assume that the aircraft skin temp was below zero having just flown in, the surface temp was -4 C with snow grains so I don't think there are any valid comparisons with the Scandivanian Airlines crash due to clear icing, especially when that crash was specifically caused by ice entering the tailmounted engines which is obviously not possible with a DC-8.

A 737 that operated through YQX at the same time reported no icing and did not deice.

I'm not convinced that ice formed through some unknown process during the 1 hour and 11 minute turn that was both significant enough to cause the crash and yet still remain undetected to the aircraft crew and the fuelers and that it affected only the DC-8 and not the 737 that operated there at the same time.

In the case of Scandinavian 751, the engines were positioned right behind the wings, increasing the chances of ice being sucked off the wings, and there was a greater amount of ice on the wings (the plane was de-iced twice, so the layer of clear ice that was left was smooth on top), which caused it to shear off when the plane got airborne. With Arrow Air 1285, the ice came from freezing rain in the area, which would've only left a small amount of ice on the wings, which would've adhered to the wings even after takeoff.

Unless someone actually stood on top of the wings and felt around for ice, the ground crew would've certainly missed the ice buildup on the wings.

The point about the captain reflects on point #7.

Ice was not the only factor in the Arrow Air accident; the plane's takeoff weight was greater than the crew believed it was. Either one by itself was not enough to cause a crash, but both of them together would have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the takeoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Arrow Air 1285, the ice came from freezing rain in the area, which would've only left a small amount of ice on the wings, which would've adhered to the wings even after takeoff.

What freezing rain?

From the majority report: "Precipitation accumulation is measured over a six-hour period. The measurements pertinent to the accident were for the period 0601 to 1200Z, 12 December 1985. In that time, the measured precipitation was freezing drizzle - trace (less than 0.2 millimetres); snow grains 0.2 centimetres, water equivalent 0.2 millimetres."

I don't know if you're a pilot but I can tell you that, in my experience, a trace of freezing drizzle is perceptible only to the guy making the report and furthermore that's what's reported to have fallen, in total, over an entire six hour period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What freezing rain?

From the majority report: "Precipitation accumulation is measured over a six-hour period. The measurements pertinent to the accident were for the period 0601 to 1200Z, 12 December 1985. In that time, the measured precipitation was freezing drizzle - trace (less than 0.2 millimetres); snow grains 0.2 centimetres, water equivalent 0.2 millimetres."

I don't know if you're a pilot but I can tell you that, in my experience, a trace of freezing drizzle is perceptible only to the guy making the report and furthermore that's what's reported to have fallen, in total, over an entire six hour period.

Any amount of ice can have a notable effect on an airplane, especially when other factors including (but not limited to) weight are involved. The lack of perception of ice by anyone other than the forecaster would further augment the argument that the lack of sightings of ice does not prove the absence of ice on the airplane.

In case you were wondering, I am pursuing a career as an airline pilot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any amount of ice can have a notable effect on an airplane, especially when other factors including (but not limited to) weight are involved. The lack of perception of ice by anyone other than the forecaster would further augment the argument that the lack of sightings of ice does not prove the absence of ice on the airplane.

In case you were wondering, I am pursuing a career as an airline pilot.

I am quite aware that any amount of ice will will have an effect but whether it's "notable" or significant is the question. The splattered remains of a single dead bug on the leading edge will have an effect and a dozen raindrops on a runway will affect braking but at what point does it become insignificant? I think that having a total accumulation of a trace over a period of 6 hours qualifies as insignificant especially when coupled with the fuelers' and pilots' determination of deicing not required and the transitting of a 737 during the same time period with no deicing. I'm not convinced that ground icing was an issue, or more correctly, I am convinced that ground icing was not a significant factor.

Now, the way I say that: ground icing was not a significant factor gives you an opening, do you see it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am quite aware that any amount of ice will will have an effect but whether it's "notable" or significant is the question. The splattered remains of a single dead bug on the leading edge will have an effect and a dozen raindrops on a runway will affect braking but at what point does it become insignificant? I think that having a total accumulation of a trace over a period of 6 hours qualifies as insignificant especially when coupled with the fuelers' and pilots' determination of deicing not required and the transitting of a 737 during the same time period with no deicing. I'm not convinced that ground icing was an issue, or more correctly, I am convinced that ground icing was not a significant factor.

Now, the way I say that: ground icing was not a significant factor gives you an opening, do you see it?

Just because the pilot determined that deicing wasn't needed doesn't mean that the fact of the matter was that deicing wasn't needed. This was one of the first accidents to investigate just how much ice would be necessary to disturb an airplane, so the pilot didn't really have any measurable gates for determining definitively whether deicing would be needed, especially when he was under the impression that the plane was lighter than it was in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority report has more holes in it than a 1000 lb block of Swiss cheese. To dismiss an alternate theory as to the cause based solely on that document is ill advised, especially when a highly respected engineer is so adamantly opposed to the guesswork that led to the majority conclusions. One who wishes to have a career in this business had best learn that the most illogical and improbable things have caused many deaths and that it's foolish to dismiss them just because they don't jump off the page.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority report has more holes in it than a 1000 lb block of Swiss cheese. To dismiss an alternate theory as to the cause based solely on that document is ill advised, especially when a highly respected engineer is so adamantly opposed to the guesswork that led to the majority conclusions. One who wishes to have a career in this business had best learn that the most illogical and improbable things have caused many deaths and that it's foolish to dismiss them just because they don't jump off the page.

I've made a list of pitfalls to the minority report, and I would encourage you to look at those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

E1craZ4life, I'm still waiting for a link or reference to the chemical tests for explosive residue.

Look, the crew of the 737 that operated through YQX at the same time said there was no ground icing and they didn't deice. The fuelers said there was no ice on the aircraft and did not recommend deicing even though deicing would have been a financial benefit to them. The Environment Canada weather guy reported an accumulation of a trace of freezing drizzle over six hours so it's a safe assumption that the hour the DC-8 spent on the ground would not have been enough time for any significant accumulation and the 3-man crew with an experienced, respected and details-orientated Captain inspected the aircraft and didn't deice.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that no ice accumulated during the station stop. In any case this doesn't really matter because the majority report relies mostly on the theory that ice accumulated during the descent through cloud and that the crew wasn't using the deicing equipment and that this residual leading edge ice which remained on the aircraft was the cause (or main cause).

So, let's separate the two and work from there. Simply considering ground icing - do you accept that there was no ground icing or still believe that this was causal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

E1craZ4life, I'm still waiting for a link or reference to the chemical tests for explosive residue.

Look, the crew of the 737 that operated through YQX at the same time said there was no ground icing and they didn't deice. The fuelers said there was no ice on the aircraft and did not recommend deicing even though deicing would have been a financial benefit to them. The Environment Canada weather guy reported an accumulation of a trace of freezing drizzle over six hours so it's a safe assumption that the hour the DC-8 spent on the ground would not have been enough time for any significant accumulation and the 3-man crew with an experienced, respected and details-orientated Captain inspected the aircraft and didn't deice.

It seems perfectly obvious to me that no ice accumulated during the station stop. In any case this doesn't really matter because the majority report relies mostly on the theory that ice accumulated during the descent through cloud and that the crew wasn't using the deicing equipment and that this residual leading edge ice which remained on the aircraft was the cause (or main cause).

So, let's separate the two and work from there. Simply considering ground icing - do you accept that there was no ground icing or still believe that this was causal?

Unless someone reports that they actually got on top of the DC-8's wings and felt the surface for ice, I can't be assured that the lack of sightings of ice by the ground crews and/or flight engineer are enough to show that there was no ice on the airplane, since a visual check would miss traces of clear ice on the wings.

I've already pointed out that ice was not the only factor in this accident; there was the issue of excess weight brought about by inaccurate weight tables used by the crew.

The experience and expertise of the flight crew is not an ultimate barrier from the ability to make mistakes, and there's perfect proof of that in Tenerife and Santa Bárbara Airlines Flight 518.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do us a favour as you pursue your flying career, especially in the cockpit. Have a much more open mind to alternatives, particularly when they are put forward by people who have more experience in their pinkie finger than you have in total. It will serve you well. There are just as many holes in the majority report as you claim there to be in the minority one. The big difference is those holes were put forward by well respected experts in their field, not by a relative rookie hiding behind a pseudonym on a web forum.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

E1craZ4life, thanks for the discussion. Your comments have made me go back and re-read both the majority and dissenting reports. A good reminder for me that we live in a dangerous world with malevolent forces at work. My belief that an explosion was the cause of the crash remains. The coverup is likely due, in my opinion, to the desire to hide unmanifested cargo. Some may say that this opinion is tainted by my worldview but it's all I've got (along with almost 4 decades as a pilot.)

Anyway, good luck with your career.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Take a look at the holes I've pointed out in the minority opinion and tell me that isn't a sound argument."

While your argument may be compelling to some, it isn't unique and without any new evidence to support it, your opinion can only be added to the existing list of 'theories'.

If I recall, this topic was beat to death here several years ago; side were taken, positions advanced and when the dust settled, nothing had changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do us a favour as you pursue your flying career, especially in the cockpit. Have a much more open mind to alternatives, particularly when they are put forward by people who have more experience in their pinkie finger than you have in total. It will serve you well. There are just as many holes in the majority report as you claim there to be in the minority one. The big difference is those holes were put forward by well respected experts in their field, not by a relative rookie hiding behind a pseudonym on a web forum.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

E1craZ4life, thanks for the discussion. Your comments have made me go back and re-read both the majority and dissenting reports. A good reminder for me that we live in a dangerous world with malevolent forces at work. My belief that an explosion was the cause of the crash remains. The coverup is likely due, in my opinion, to the desire to hide unmanifested cargo. Some may say that this opinion is tainted by my worldview but it's all I've got (along with almost 4 decades as a pilot.)

Anyway, good luck with your career.

And what reason exists for Canada to cover up an attack on an American-operated aircraft with American soldiers on board? They have nothing at stake for unanimously blowing the whistle on an attack on the flight. A cover-up by the Canadian government of an attack against the US makes about as much sense as a lemon tree growing pomegranates.

"Take a look at the holes I've pointed out in the minority opinion and tell me that isn't a sound argument."

While your argument may be compelling to some, it isn't unique and without any new evidence to support it, your opinion can only be added to the existing list of 'theories'.

If I recall, this topic was beat to death here several years ago; side were taken, positions advanced and when the dust settled, nothing had changed.

If there are problems with those points, someone (anyone) should have a sound argument for each and every one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.