Textron plane that crashed in Virginia
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/loud-boom-shakes-washington-dc-fire-department-reports-no-incidents-2023-06-04/
Possible f-16 shootdown in virginia
Textron plane that crashed in Virginia
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/loud-boom-shakes-washington-dc-fire-department-reports-no-incidents-2023-06-04/
U.S. officials scrambled jet fighters in a supersonic chase of a light aircraft that violated airspace in the Washington D.C. area and later crashed into mountainous terrain in southwest Virginia, officials said.
The jet fighters prompted a sonic boom over the U.S. capital, causing consternation among people in Washington area, in an attempt to catch up with the errant Cessna Citation, officials said.
According to the flight-tracking website Flight Aware, the plane appeared to reach the New York area and made nearly a 180-degree turn, with the flight ending in Virginia.
Air National Guard F-16s were deployed from Joint Base Andrews, ABC News reported, citing an unnamed U.S. official. At least one military pilot saw that the Cessna pilot had passed out, ABC reported.
Sounds like a pressurization problem.
Same thing killed the golfer Payne Stewart some years back.
> the plane appeared to reach the New York area, then made nearly a 180-degree
turn.
Why would it do that if it was on autopilot or if the pilot was incapacitated?
>Why would it do that if it was on autopilot or if the pilot was incapacitated?
He probably realized he was depressurizing, started trying to descend rapidly, but passed out anyways.
For "out and back" trips where a plane is dropping people off somewhere and then turning around and heading home, it's not uncommon for pilots to enter the destination as a way point, and the home airport as the final destination. The plane overflow the way point airport and turned around for home.
Hypoxia strikes again
>According to the flight-tracking website Flight Aware, the plane appeared to reach the New York area and made nearly a 180-degree turn, with the flight ending in Virginia.
>At least one military pilot saw that the Cessna pilot had passed out, ABC reported.
Yeah what the other anon said, pressurization problem, autopilot was off or was disengaged by the aircraft for some reason. Not much the fighter pilots can do in that case other than, maybe, nudge the plane off course or shoot it down if it's going to hit a populated area.
The Cypriot airline Helios had a famous incident where a 737 lost pressurization due to pilot error and flew on autopilot at cruise altitude until it ran out of fuel and crashed. F-16s performed an interception just like here and saw the pilots unconscious, just like here.
it must be both surreal and gutwrenching to form up close enough to see whether the pilot is conscious or not and know there's not anything you can do about it, and you're next to a plane full of people who, if they aren't dead already, are about to be - in a plane that looks like it's completely fine
It's 2023, I wonder when planes are going to be required to be able to have a remote pilot take over for situations like this and how you do so in a way that can't be used to hijack a plane. Maybe have it give a 300 second warning that someone in the plane can easily countermand? I know a remote pilot isn't going to be the safest to land purely on instrumentation and whatever cameras are onboard, but they should be able to get a gentle enough touchdown on a cleared runway that no one dies even if the plane might be in for a bad time.
Air Bus planes can land automatically. It's only Boeing that doesn't have the capacity built-in because spam in a can = bad mentality.
Can that be cue'd from outside the plane, though, or is it dependent on someone inside flipping a switch?
Not sure. I never bothered to look into it.
Seems like a good safety feature that the FAA should be mandating in new construction, even if they don't want to try and force everyone to add it to existing planes.
>Boeing doesn't have this mentality because spam in a can = bad
I feel like it probably has more to do with the negative PR associated with them previously sneaking automated controls into an airframe and killing several hundred people. Imagine the reaction of the general public if the people who brought them the 737 Max Casualties announced a shiny new system to take control of flights in air and forcibly land them.
Airbus, Boeing, and even fancy business jets all have autoland nowadays
Having a computer able to forcibly remove command from an aircraft sounds like an utterly terrible idea. Same mindset as having bio locks on a gun.
Also a plane attempting a landing on it's own with no communication with anybody is an accident waiting to happen, you NEED to have someone up there confirming what the situation on the ground is.
Good thing we don't already have autopilots that automatically countermand and take control of the plane if they detect a suicidal action being taken. Oh, wait, they already exist and are common place? Well, golly, I'd look foolish if I was terrified at the prospect of them being introduced, now wouldn't I? Also, you're further moronic because there would clearly be communication being made by whoever goes up to intercept and finds the pilots passed out, much less by whoever is initiating the remote take over unless you think they're just not gonna inform the ATC because... they want to cover up the emergency after a fighter was scrambled to intercept?
Not all autopilots are made the same friendo, many older models WILL physically lock the controls because they use servos attached to the wires that move the control surfaces.
Also, autopilots DO NOT countermand suicidal actions, they may attempt to, but the captain can easily over ride them since that would violate FAR 91.3, which would also be violated if ATC could override your plane, since ATC has no authority over a pilot.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/15/18267365/boeing-737-max-8-crash-autopilot-automation
>A preliminary report from Indonesian investigators indicates that Lion Air 610 crashed because a faulty sensor erroneously reported that the airplane was stalling. The false report triggered an automated system known as Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). This system tried to point the aircraft’s nose down so that it could gain enough speed to fly safely.
>Once in flight, the Lion Air crew was unprepared for the automated response set off by the faulty angle-of-attack data. The pilots fought the automated system, trying to pull the nose back up. They did not succeed.
Now, was this a training issue of them not knowing how to tell the computer to frick off, in addition to poor maintenance that lead to it occurring? Yes, but there are systems that can and will take automatic control of the flight systems when they detect something going wrong.
I said the systems may ATTEMPT to counteract. Some morons who haven't been trained right flying a shittily maintained plane does not mean that the plane has authority over the PIC to what it wants, that's just a safety feature killing someone because they didn't know what they were doing.
>the autopilot can take control and override the input of the pilot based on sensor readings
>but this totally isn't actually counteracting suicidal actions because the pilot might be able to tell it to frick off after it's engaged
I'm not defending MCAS, though I will blame the crew for not being able to tell it to frick off given enough time, but that's immaterial to the point that autpilot systems which can take full control of the plane already exist and see plenty of usage so arguing that introducing an emergency system that can be remotely triggered would be a completely novel and terrible idea for occasions where the pilot loses consciousness, especially if it gives the pilot plenty of warning before it occurs so he can countermand it if it's acting erroneously.
>I'm not defending MCAS, though I will blame the crew for not being able to tell it to frick off given enough time
No.
>other crews have had similar accidents and managed to recover
>third world airlines don't train heavily enough and kill 700 people in two similar accidents
>deys good bois, deys flyin dem planes
The other crews had warnings about what was going on because of the $80k light their airlines could afford
You don't understand what you're talking about
Are you being dense on purpose?
I said that the system may ATTEMPT it, its not taking controls away from the pilot and flying away, its a safety feature that the pilot can disengage at any time, its not taking the authority away from him, its augmenting him, and he may not use it if he pleases. But that's beyond the point, because were talking about giving ATC an autoland button, which actively takes the authority away from the PIC, which is not only moronic, but is also illegal.
> giving ATC an autoland button
At the same time though, giving ATC a button they can use to send pilots into timeout would be incredibly funny
Are you fricking moronic? It does, in fact, take authority away from him which is why it caused two accidents in a short time period because it was getting faulty readings because thirdies are too dumb to keep their instrumentation clean. It overwrites the pilot's control and attempts to pitch the nose down to prevent a stall, which doesn't work so well if it can't detect speed properly and keeps trying to build speed until it smacks into the ground. The pilot being able to disengage it is immaterial to the fact that it does take authority away from him until he turns the function off.
>was this a training issue of them not knowing how to tell the computer to frick off, in addition to poor maintenance that lead to it occurring
Yes
This is an indog airlines we're talking about
Famously one of the most dangerous regions in the world for air safety
At the time no one knew how to turn it off because Boeing completely hid it's existence from their customers
It gets turned off the exact same way it got turned off on every other version of the 737
Except the other 737s didn't have MCAS because MCAS was added to the Maxs to compensate for different flight characteristics caused by new engine placement.
Correct.
But the procedure for turning off the electric trim control is the exact same, and is the proper procedure for a runaway trim situation on all models of 737.
Frick off. Relying on the perfect execution of a relatively unrelated memory item without warning, without any appropriate indications of what is wrong, in the middle of takeoff is absolutely moronic. The problem was the introduction of MCAS in the first place. The second incident flight appropriately disabled electric trim and still crashed due to the fricked up situation MCAS erroneously activating put them in.
Seriously frick you morons who bought Boeing's excuses. If MCAS had activated in the middle of cruise and in the process warned them of its activation, frick if INFORMATION CONCERNING MCAS WAS EVEN AVAILABLE, they likely would have figured it out and resolved it, because, as you said, trim runaway is a memory item. Takeoff and landing are the two worst times for something like this to happen and Boeing made absolutely no effort to prevent it from happening.
You have no idea what you're talking about and are just regurgitating nonsense from the news, and it shows.
MCAS *can't activate* during takeoff and landing, as the system is disabled when the flaps are down. The Indonesian a/c took off with the stick shaker operating (which is not a part of the MCAS system at all) and the crew bumbling around trying to figure out what button to press on the magic box to make the plane correct itself. They left the throttles at climb power for the entire flight (again, not part of the MCAS system at all) and the CA successfully countered the runaway trim when it occurred, after the flaps were raised, for 10 minutes. The FO who was blatantly unfamiliar with the memory items did not counter the trim and the a/c went in seconds after he took the stick.
They flew a flyable a/c into the ground because they didn't understand things they were *required* to understand in piloting any 737, not just the MAX. The faults in the plane were due to undocumented maintenance that was never addressed by Indonesian accident investigators for political reasons. They decided from the start MCAS caused all the problems, and then did their best to prove it, which is exactly the opposite of how any competent and honest investigation goes.
You have no practical understanding of what you speak, and are only parroting nonsense you heard other talking-heads parrot before.
>it won't activate during takeoff!
t. Boeing sales rep
Very curious how a system that can't active during takeoff managed to activate two minutes after takeoff and crash an Ethiopian flight that never made it above 1k feet. If only they knew that the MCAS couldn't activate lawn dart mode below cruising altitude maybe they'd still be alive today.
As reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit, I'll reiterate what I just said.
MCAS can not operate during takeoff or landing, or at any other time when the aircraft's flaps are deployed. I'll repeat that because you're very obviously having a hard time. MCAS can not operate (that means "turn on") at any time when the aircraft has its flaps down. Flaps are the things on the wings that allow the plane to generate increased lift at slower speeds and are used in all takeoffs and landings. This means, the system did not activate on takeoff. This is both impossible and not even attested to by the CYA Indonesian accident report.
The aircraft was a sick bird, it flew the entirety of the previous flight with the stick shaker operating. That system is completely unrelated to and unconnected to the MCAS system. That means they aren't the same thing and don't control each other. The Indonesians covered up poor maintenance, undocumented maintenance, poor crew training, and very poor safety standards by blaming MCAS for the whole thing.
>CYA Indonesian Report
So out of curiosity what altitude to planes generally retract their flaps at?
The Ethiopian crash is the same thing but from a different angle of crew incompetence. When a birdstrike damage the AOA indicator and the a/c began to experience an uncommanded trim, the CA countered that trim successfully and deactivated the autopilot, taking manual control of the a/c. *At this point* the problem was solved and MCAS was no longer making *any* control inputs to the accident a/c. However, again because the crew had neglected to throttle the aircraft back (which has nothing to do with MCAS, again), they began to overspeed and could not manually trim the aircraft due to increasing aerodynamic loads on the a/c.
The crew became confused as to what the problem was and instead of realizing they were still screaming along at full throttle, pulling that back, and leaving the system off they actually turned the autopilot back on because of over-reliance on using the automation to fly the plane. When faced with a problem that was confusing them, their solution—and the solution we see a lot of African/Asian/South American/etc. airline pilots turn to—is just turn the aircraft over to the automation and hope it can fix the problem. In this case, turning the system back on allowed MCAS to erroneously trim the a/c nose down again and it entered into a power dive from which recovery was not possible.
MCAS was the initiating event in this crash, yes, but the neglect of the crew to watch their throttle setting and increasing airspeed as well as their over-reliance on the automation to fix the problem led them to put the plane in an irrecoverable power dive.
MCAS is a contributing factor in both these crashes, but is *NOT* the 100% cause, and is most assuredly not the "takes control of the plane and fights the pilots off from correcting it" demon that the idiot news media made it out to be and that so many other low information dullards continue to believe.
My fricking god are you people physically incapable of analyzing anything objectively? These two posts are basically just "they're third worlders who cares" and it's so obvious.
And you are willfully ignorant and willfully ignoring anything that doesn't match with what the magic box told you, and obviously can't counter someone who actually knows what they're talking about without moving the goalposts of your statements and trying to obfuscate your point with logical fallacies and bluster. So, fine. I accept your resignation from the discussion.
I do not give a frick about your opinion, or your patronizing attitude. I can not believe I managed to find someone so moronic as to defend MCAS in both incidents. Holy shit.
>MCAS was a problem
>the crews being incompetent turned this from a problem into a crash
>WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING MCAS?!?!?
You've spent multiple posts now blaming everything except MCAS, and when people point out that MCAS was the cause of both crashes you change the subject and begin making thinly veiled jabs at the dead pilots, insinuating them being from the third world means they can't fly. You also made a direct allegation that one of the incidents wasn't caused by MCAS at all and was covered up by the Indonesian government, which holy fricking shit if you actually believe that go to a proper aviation forum and state it with your name and employer in the signature.
You're a despicable piece of shit. I hope I never run into you IRL.
>everyone calling me a moron is a singular person
You know who I'm talking about, dumbass.
>everyone calling me a moron is a singular person
>again
homie, I'm calling you a moron because you are completely incapable of understanding that the crews actions did lead to the crash because they weren't properly trained, something that isn't even up for debate with the debate instead being about whether it was Boeing or the airline's fault back when it happened. You have no facts to refute the actual events that happened as retold by the previous anon, and instead are relying on a purely emotional response to "thirdies don't train as well as Western nations" being a statement that you find upsetting, which is especially ironic considering that there was two crashes in third world airlines despite the MAX also being operated by Western airlines at the time with zero incidents.
There were also two, I believe, uncommanded activations of the MCAS system on American airliners before the LionAir and Ethiopian crashes, and they were both handed without incident and without the planes entering into a power dive because the crews didn't know how to fly the plane outside of letting the flight director do all the work.
This is a persistent issue with a lot of crashes and incidents among airlines outside North America and Europe. The aircraft knowledge and pilot training of the crews has become very lax as the abilities of the autopilot and flight director have increased. The Asiana crash at SFO several years ago was directly attributed to this, as the CA (who had never landed at SFO before, a challenging airport) was using the autopilot systems to fly the plane (making minor course and speed changes) instead of the control yoke and throttle, nearly all the way to the runway. When they accidentally entered into another autopilot mode they didn't realize this until their airspeed had dropped too low to recover. Such actions would be unheard of on an American airline.
> The Asiana crash at SFO
I feel bad for the girl that survived getting thrown from the plane only to be squished by the ARFF vehicle.
Yeah... from the ARFF tape she's curled up in a ball and not moving before they get her... and I imagine the truck did quite a number on her when they ran her over more than once, so it's hard to tell what her injuries were and if she'd have survived. She came out of the tail section when it broke off and likely was severely (and probably fatally) injured by being thrown so far from the plane.
Still... yeah, very unpleasant indeed.
Yea, it's going to be interesting to watch if the same lax behavior is going to trickle down to self driving cars as they become more and more prevalent and we'll have the Tesla XX getting it's autopilot locked for months to years whenever some dumb chink manages to kill themselves in it.
Very much so, and we're already seeing it. It will happen faster with cars as the massive safety culture that built up around aviation over the decades is taking a while to be slowly torn down by overreliance on automation and political concerns.
What primarily failed with LionAir and Ethiopian was that when Boeing (or Airbus or whomever, for that matter) designs and sells these aircraft there is the tacit understanding that the people who fly them will be properly and competently trained to do so. That's falling short in so many cases now, but the companies are forced to sit and eat shit over many of the problems that are beyond their control because if they don't it will severely damage future sales.
Had Boeing held Indonesia's feet to the fire, for example, and publicly challenged their very biased, incomplete, and self-censoring crash report that intentionally didn't cover many safety, crew, and maintenance issues of LionAir... well LionAir is Boeing's second biggest customer after Southwest Airlines. Do the math.
Conversely, the lack of overseeing body like the FAA and the fact that you don't have hundreds of lives being entrusted to a singular pilot, though you do have public transportation which isn't overly dissimilar down to the level of regulation, means that I don't think we'll see smart cars having their capabilities limited as a result of accidents, but commercial trucks and busses, with their much stricter level of regulation, might see long periods where they're not allowed to use the autopilot at all as a result of poor training by thirdies which will massively harm sales to the point that I wouldn't be overly surprised that unlike aircraft, it won't be cost effective to have a "first world version" that you nominally market on fuel efficiency and eco concerns, but the actual purpose is to have it be distinct enough from the third world version that they can kill themselves in without causing the FTA to ground your customer's fleet while they confirm that it was a training issue.
Normalization of deviance, you stupid frick.
Autopilot-coupled approaches at busy airports are very normal for airlines, almost standard even. Also that Asiana 214 crash was due to the pilot hand-flying the approach at flight idle, due to the auto throttle being inadvertently disengaged. The runway's glideslope was inop, so they couldn't do a fully-coupled approach.
> insinuating them being from the third world means they can't fly
No. I’m directly stating that they cannot fly, and their third world governments being either unable or unwilling to enforce standards directly contributes to it.
Hell, it wasn’t that that long ago that a shitload of Pakistani pilots were found to have forged their credentials, so it’s not just an Indonesia thing.
This guy is pretty clearly either a dedicated troll just happy to spew garbage, someone who *actually* believes the TV is 100% right, or a combination of both. You see how he tried to offer technical issues then when someone like myself comes in who *actually* knows the technical issues his rants become "You work for Boeing! You're just blaming third-worlders without evidence! You're just being patronizing when I intentionally ignore your points!" Personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks. No more facts from Mr. Shit Disturber, all vitriol and nonsense. He doesn't have a leg to stand on and he knows it, so he's going to sling mud. Oh well, as I said, he's admitted defeat and that's fine by me.
Depends on the a/c, depends on the weather, depends on the airport, depends on a lot of things. Generally, larger commercial airliners will have things retracted once they're firmly established in a positive climb and their airspeeds are coming up to where the flaps will be damaged if they're extended too far, so... say 1,250 to 2,500 ft, AGL.
And when the plane suddenly tries to nosedive during take off and the stabilizer is stuck in a position that you cannot manually recover it from due to your airspeed, what do you do? You figured out that it's a runaway trim issue, and you've turned off the electrical trim systems that the suicidal software you don't know about needs to operate, but you're still just as dead because the only way to recover is with motorized trim adjustment but if you turn the system back on MCAS reengages .
Boeing sold 737 Max Casualties as something that requires couple hours of fricking around with tablet computer as conversion training from existing 737's. Technically both MCAS grounding incidents are crews fault, but due to insufficient training caused by Boeing frickery, both are entirely fault of Boeing.
Remote pilot that needs to have type ratings for everything.
Yeah it must be, but to be honest these are fighter pilots. They should be mentally prepared for, in the worst possible scenario, having to shoot down a plane full of civilians before it can do 9/11 2.0.
Looked like a pretty steep descent, might have been one of the engines cutting out due to fuel starvation with the autopilot then cutting out. It's predicted a similar thing happened to MH370.
Some new passenger planes have a feature that sets up autoland at the nearest suitable airport anon. You just smack a button and wait, I'm not sure if it's going to be on 737s anytime soon but for a Piper or something it's a great feature as the people flying them tend to be older and tend to have only one other (untrained) passenger onboard.
>Good thing we don't already have autopilots that automatically countermand and take control of the plane if they detect a suicidal action being taken.
That's not a thing though anon. Even Airbuses let you disable all the fancy electronics and get as close to direct flying as possible. The plane not liking it when you bank excessively or put the nose down too hard is not the same thing as the plane NOT ALLOWING YOU to do so.
>Some new passenger planes have a feature that sets up autoland at the nearest suitable airport
I know, thats why I said FORCIBLY. As per FAA regulation, the pilot in command has the final authority (and responsibility) for ALL aspects of the flight, including the operation of the autopilot.
> for a Piper or something it's a great feature
Problem with that is that it would be expensive as frick to retrofit it, and boomers don’t want to spend money. Which dovetails nicely with the fact that the average age of a GA aircraft is approximately Fricking Old
Oh yeah it is expensive. But we've had planes with fricking parachutes in them for years now, something being expensive doesn't mean people won't buy it.
>runaway trim is apparently "forcibly taking control"
>he's impling MCAS wasn't entirely Boeing's fault
>he's implying it's the fricking CREW'S FAULT
It's interesting that you're not citing the other MCAS related crash, where the crew took appropriate action and were still unable to recover the aircraft due to the low altitude MCAS activated at and task saturation.
It's almost like MCAS was a completely broken system that never should have made it to flight testing, let alone aircraft in service.
The thing is, a parachute is a fairly self-contained system. But autoland would have to interface directly with aircraft controls, which would be a hell of a thing when a not insignificant amount of them are still controlled by wires.
And it’s not like cars where you can just require all new cars to have the system installed, which means that half of cars on the road will have it in ten years, and ninety percent in twenty. There’s just not enough aircraft turnover for that to happen
> he's implying it's the fricking CREW'S FAULT
It is. Identifying and combatting runaway trim is a memory item. They SHOULD have been able to solve it.
Except the F-16s on 9/11 weren’t armed. The pilots were going to have to kamikaze into the tail to take Flight 93 out.
Decades of hijackings for ransom meant the US never considered that a plane is a very big guided missile if you really want it to be, but now they fly intercepts with missiles for a reason.
>due to pilot erro
engineer error that didnt moved the valve pushback on armed and let it on ON position
here is the hud footage
>At 11:05, two F-16 fighter aircraft from the Hellenic Air Force 111th Combat Wing were scrambled from Nea Anchialos Air Base to establish visual contact.[8] They intercepted the passenger jet at 11:24, and observed that the first officer was slumped motionless at the controls, and the captain's seat was empty.[9] They also reported that oxygen masks were dangling in the passenger cabin
>At 11:49, flight attendant Andreas Prodromou entered the wienerpit and sat down in the captain's seat, having remained conscious by using a portable oxygen supply.[4]:139[6] His girlfriend and fellow flight attendant, Haris Charalambous, was also seen in the wienerpit helping Prodromou try to control the aircraft.[10] Prodromou held a UK Commercial Pilot Licence,[4]:27 but was not qualified to fly the Boeing 737. Prodromou waved at the F-16s very briefly, but almost as soon as he entered the wienerpit, the left engine flamed out due to fuel exhaustion,[4]:19 and the plane left the holding pattern and started to descend.[4]:19 Crash investigators concluded that Prodromou's experience was insufficient for him to be able to gain control of the aircraft under the circumstances.[4]:139 However, Prodromou succeeded in banking the plane away from Athens and towards a rural area as the engines flamed out, with his actions meaning that there were no ground casualties.[11] Ten minutes after the loss of power from the left engine, the right engine also flamed out,[4]:19 and just before 12:04, the aircraft crashed into hills near Grammatiko, 40 km (25 mi; 22 nmi) from Athens, killing all 121 passengers and crew on board
You made my poop cry 🙁
>Oxygen goes out
>engine flames out due to fuel exhaustion
>lost fuel but Right engine still running for 10 mins but loses power to what lose of fuel or failed.
Im really fricking confused did it just run out of fuel or some other system failed that both engines and also oxygen rely on?
Helios crashed from fuel starvation
>nudge the plane off course
What does that mean in the air?
IF the plane isn't on autopilot, and IF the plane has specific characteristics, you MIGHT be able to come up to the tail, place your wing against the plane, and force its nose down. It MIGHT then go into a gentle descent, later getting low enough that the pilot MIGHT regain consciousness IF he hasn't already died or gotten brain damage from hypoxia.
If it's an Airbus or something set to hold altitude, heading and speed then it's just going to dislike you nudging it and go back to what it was doing.
Sorry was moronic and just woke up, you could also do the same thing to force it into a descending bank. So if it were hypothetically heading roughly for Manhattan you could force it into a descending bank and make it crash into the water.
Pretty much any bizjet is going to be on autopilot during cruise. I work as a flight planner for a charter airline, and an autopilot failure is a massive pain in the ass because it heavily limits what altitudes we can fly at and increases pilot fatigue.
In any case, trying to nudge another plane off course with your own isn't feasible, it would be a massive risk. You'd honestly have better chances of shooting out an engine and seeing what happens.
Some planes can couple TCAS to the autopilot, so if the F-16 has Mode S-out and approaches the other plane from below, it can trigger an automatic climb from the resulting RA
>Be American
>Fly plane
>Get shot down
not a shootdown. people would have literally seen and likely heard the missile impacts, this was just a crash - and very likely a depressurization one.
depends entirely on what the autopilot was set to do. my hunch is the turn was probably initiated when the LOC event happened. the autopilot may have actually been what stopped the turn from becoming a spiral
Why are phaggots trying to hype this up into something big?
It is a tragic accident until proven otherwise.
MCAS would've worked fine if Boeing engineers weren't apes and hadn't decided to run the entire system off of a single AoA sensor. Any sort of redundancy would've stopped the plane from trying to kill itself and everyone aboard
>/k/ - Air Krash Investigation
Well we've looked at various kinds of crashes that were more /k/ related for the past year or so.
This is only slightly related because a sort of intercept, though I guess they just got a visual confirmation the pilot was incapacitated, and apparently tried to get their attention with flares.
Mildly curious about radio channels for flights, do they have to find the one each specific plane is on or is that information already transmitted to them?
>Mildly curious about radio channels for flights, do they have to find the one each specific plane is on or is that information already transmitted to them?
Radio frequencies are generally set for a region. So to radio the A/C you'd use the area frequency. If they haven't changed frequency you'd have to know when they lost consciousness, so you could tune to THAT areas frequency. But at that point it's a moot issue
.t pilot
Hypoxia is the one thing scarier than delta P
RIP
?t=354
see
>cabin depressurization
Shit like this is why I'm terrified of flying, so many tiny things can go wrong and you're just fricking dead and theres nothing you could've done to prevent it
(And by 52" I obviously meant 52' rofl)
NHTSA issuing a order that would keep millions of Americans from using their fancy feature is going to get much more pushback from the average voter then if the FTA targets public transportation or the NHTSA targets commercial drivers, especially since I'd be willing to bet they'd require them to keep running. Of course, something I had forgot about is that the government is likely to require those drivers seats to have asses in them even if they are relying solely on the autopilot for the forseeable future, so it might not cost the locals anything except the increased accident rate that comes from putting humans behind the wheel again, especially since I'm sure they'll be paid a pittance normally and the wages won't increase once they have to actually start driving again, which means that you're gonna have the dregs driving your now manual vehicles even moreso then they do now.
The bigger issue with airlines is less diversity and more hiring people in general, because nobody wants to spend fifteen hundred hours dicking around towing banners of being an instructor only to end up at a shitty, low-paying regional with broke dick airplanes. AND I WONDER WHOS FAULT THAT IS
>diversity
>women
>minorities
>women
>browns
Problems all.
Commercial air travel will shrivel and die over the next 100 years as societies "change".
It will become unsafe enough to repel passengers, which impairs economies of scale, which makes flying more expensive for the dwindling pool of people who are prepared to take the risk. The Indian Air Force loses 1.25% of its aircraft annually due to various incidents in the air or on the ground, but at least these are equipped with ejector seats.
How fricking moronic are you?
Flight gets cheaper, safer and more widespread every day.
Or is this a "muh browns" thing also?
Cannot understand how you people even get dressed without help
Surprised they didn't let it hit 432 park avenue, claim on insurance and blame it on russian to print more money for the MIC.
Fool me once etc
>all these redditors
it was shot down
actually, it colided with an alien spacecraft, every insider knows this
Some NRA spokesman’s family was on board
It is because they have problems recruiting truck drivers moron. It is seen as blue-collar, redneck career (despite being highly paid for a no-degree job) and younger people just do not want to do it. Blame over-emphasis on STEM education and under-emphasis on trades, blame wrong cultural beliefs about honest work, but
>MUH DIVERSITY
>MUH MINORITIES
>MUH WOMEN
is just 70-IQ hand-wringing every single time.
Worse, it distracts us from fixing the problem, because all race-bait shitflinging accomplishes is arguing about culture wars/ID pol and not fixing anything.
You are just feeding into weapons of mass distraction.
Every safety autist I have ever met at every single job I have ever had has been a white dude with glasses. And I live in pretty brown Maryland/DMV area lmao
i was on my roof in my house here in DC and the sonic boom from the f-16's scared both my cats. sounded like thunder.
Reminds me of that one episode of The Unit where a glowie in a Cessna gets "crashed"
man should not take to the skies. we are meddling with the primal forces of nature
There's no way to hide shoot-downs. Aviation-illiterates should not have opinions.
Sure there is. You aren’t qualified to make that statement
Weird how there was no response like this on 9/11.
Almost like 9/11 massively reshaped how we deal with unresponsive passenger aircraft.
Anon, you have to remember that 2001 was 22 years ago. A big chunk of posters weren't alive when it happened, let alone watched it. They never lived in a world before GWOT, so their view on what should or shouldn't have been done is skewed. They're still wrong, but cut them a little slack. 1988 here.
You've got to admit
was incredibly stupid.
Didn't this type of plane crash near Denmark or something last summer?
Seems citations have pressurisation issues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Baltic_Sea_Cessna_Citation_crash
>Early in the flight, after takeoff, the aircraft's pilot notified air traffic control about a cabin pressure malfunction. After the aircraft passed the Iberian Peninsula, no further contact could be established
You have like a minute of useful consciousness when you lose pressurization at cruising attitude
Nope everyone would have seen it
was it on autopilot?
Tin foil hat morons.
It was not shot down.
Tin foil hats are deaf from not wearing ear pro.