Guest Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 3 hours ago, conehead said: Malcolm..... what was the point of that? I just wasted 13 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back! wrong cockpit, post corrected. Re wasting 13mins of your life, you must be much older than I thought if that was a major concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Here’s a UPS version. Looks like an original freighter and not a conversion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 18 hours ago, Super 80 said: I don't think the guy on the way to ground school for his dream job was a likely to do that. Agree; I don't think this is a suicide. Possibly a seat-switch gone wrong just as the aircraft entered the gust front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 16, 2019 Share Posted March 16, 2019 On 3/14/2019 at 12:49 PM, Don Hudson said: Agree; I don't think this is a suicide. Possibly a seat-switch gone wrong just as the aircraft entered the gust front? There has been a clarification re control column input. Atlas 767 crash probe strives to comprehend pitch upset 16 March, 2019 SOURCE: Flight Dashboard BY: David Kaminski-Morrow US investigators probing the Atlas Air Boeing 767-300 freighter crash have yet to explain fully the initiating circumstances behind the elevator deflection which pushed the aircraft into a fatal dive on approach to Houston. Crucially the National Transportation Safety Board has shifted its immediate emphasis, through the unusual decision to amend its phrasing while detailing preliminary findings. While the NTSB had initially stated that the aircraft had pitched down “in response to column input”, it subsequently revised this, saying the downward pitch was the result of “nose-down elevator deflection” – an amendment designed to avoid premature conclusions being drawn over the relation, if any, between actions in the cockpit and the unusual attitude of the aircraft.Although the initial use of the term “column inpu” might suggest there was a nose-down command of some degree, the NTSB has not clarified the extent of any pressure placed on the yoke – or the reason – nor whether the elevator deflection was in line with the command. Weather radar images indicate that the 767 would have encountered the edges of a band of precipitation as the jet headed west over the north-eastern shore of Trinity Bay. The inquiry says the aircraft, which was being vectored to avoid the heaviest of the weather, appeared to enter a region of turbulence as it briefly levelled at around 6,200ft. Investigators then found that the aircraft, for reasons still unclear, then experienced an increase in engine power to maximum thrust, even though the airspeed was steady at 230kt. The jet pitched upwards, to around 4°, although the NTSB has not specified whether this was a natural consequence of the increased power. There is no evidence of a stall – the stick-shaker was not activated – and the NTSB has not explained whether the subsequent nose-down manoeuvre was a reaction to the pitch-up attitude, an input to continue an expedited descent to 3,000ft previously advised by air traffic control, or attributable to other factors. But the extraordinary transition to a 49° nose-down pitch, which took place over 18s, is central to the inquiry. The NTSB has not specified whether the aircraft was in cloud at the time of the transition, but it had clearly emerged from the cloud base into good visibility during the last few seconds of its descent. With investigators yet to establish conclusively whether there is a connection between control column movements and the aircraft’s excessive nose-down attitude, the possibility of a mechanical reason for the elevator deflection is yet to be ruled out. The 767 has previously been the subject of airworthiness directives including measures to prevent corrosion of ballscrew components in the drive mechanism for the horizontal stabiliser, which could potentially lead to loss of stabiliser control. Elevator power control actuators have also been a previous focus of 767 directives; a 2014 bulletin ordered checks to ensure aircraft were not operating with failed shear rivets in the actuator mechanism and to prevent jamming and a possible elevator hardover – which could result in a significant pitch upset. The NTSB has not disclosed any information on the position of the horizontal stabiliser or the condition of the drive mechanism and the elevators’ mechanical linkages. But it does indicate that the severity of the dive had lessened as the aircraft descended towards Trinity Bay, with the pitch reducing by some 30°, to around 20° nose-down, before impact. The inquiry has not stated, however, whether this was the result of recovery actions – including column input – in the cockpit, movements of the elevator or stabiliser, or other aerodynamic effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 An interesting read. A suggestion of overcontrolling while in cloud? Still no comments from the NTSB about the cargo being carried or how it was loaded. Not mentioned before in other reports but this crew were operating two legs: ONT-MIA-IAH. A possible fatigue issue? https://www.google.ca/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/03/atlas-air-the-boeing-crash-no-one-is-talking-about.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Apparently there is some unofficial talk about this strange crash. According to my US sources it may have been an accidental G/A switch nudge as the CA selected Flap 1 for the FO. TOGA thrust followed by a pitch up and then overcorrected down with so much opposite control column pressure between the CA and FO that it broke the shear pin separating the elevator control inputs for each pilot. The CVR has sounds of things hitting the ceiling including a loud thud which might have been the 3rd pilot. Scary but perhaps the most reasonable explanation of the events so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, blues deville said: Apparently there is some unofficial talk about this strange crash. According to my US sources it may have been an accidental G/A switch nudge as the CA selected Flap 1 for the FO. TOGA thrust followed by a pitch up and then overcorrected down with so much opposite control column pressure between the CA and FO that it broke the shear pin separating the elevator control inputs for each pilot. The CVR has sounds of things hitting the ceiling including a loud thud which might have been the 3rd pilot. Scary but perhaps the most reasonable explanation of the events so far. does the 767-300 not have a breakout between the two control columns? I cannot remember for the life of me if it does or not. Many aircraft have a breakout device that seperates the columns in the even of a jam. push hard enough and you get the control for your side of the plane. Let it go and they link back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 25, 2019 Share Posted March 25, 2019 Looking at my 767 manual for the -200 it has a split system in the event of a Jam. 25 pounds is all thats required to split the columns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.