r22captain wrote:please think before you post something like that......let TSB run it's course. There's lots of "possibles".
ettw wrote:"C" stands for controlled....Therefore your use of CFIT is conjecture.
I didn't mean any disrespect by my comment, and I wasn't conjecturing on the cause. I merely mentioned that it was a CFIT because the fact that the crew was still in control on three mile final, the engines were running, the aircraft is oriented parallel to the runway and level with the horizon, and the wreckage is strewn across a large area indicates that aircraft was still being flown by the pilots or autopilot at the time of impact. If it had stalled or a mechanical failure had caused it to rapidly descend it would leave a much smaller impact area. Controlled flight into terrain doesn't automatically imply pilot error as the cause; there could have been a nav aid or instrument failure that caused them to put the aircraft off course. I was merely trying to convey that the aircraft was in flight at the time of the accident and it doesn't seem likely to have been caused by a bomb or something like that. I have more first-hand info about this incident than almost anyone and I'm so baffled by the events surrounding it that I can't even begin to speculate on the actual cause.
nutbutter wrote:I checked the notams a little while after the accident FYI and didn't see it offline. I would suspect b/c the aircraft crashed while on the ILS approach, TC would have shut it down to perform accuracy tests on it just in case there was an equipment problem on the ground that caused the accident.
That's correct. The aircraft was on the ILS for 35, not the back course, and the system was NOTAMed U/S because of the possibility it was a factor. They'll be sending up an aircraft to test it once the weather improves.
Doc wrote:modi13, back to sensitivity training for you.
C'mon people, can't we just leave the "why's and how's" till another day.
'nuff said. I should think.
Didn't I just say that I'm not speculating on the cause? Why is it acceptable to post information from news sites but not a first-hand account? All I'm doing is relaying information, or is that not allowed either?
You know I hate to say it, but this is an anonymous internet forum, not the funeral. If you don't like it, you don't need to read it. We all come to this place to post stuff we can't talk about at work, its an outlet for some of us that don't like to get involved in workplace drama.
I wasn't there, I've never been to YRB, I've never flown a 737-200, and I've never worked for First Air, but I would like the opportunity to hear what may or may not have happened so I don't repeat it myself.
I'm a big boy and I realize the difference between uninformed posts and solid facts, I don't need someone else to point them out for me.
I completely agree that sensitivity in a tough crisis such as this demands a heavy touch of class and tact. I do want to ask however: Today I was sitting around the airport, having a casual discussion with the other pilots with regards to this tragic event. CFIT quickly entered the conversation. Does that make us all insensitive? If any of you that are objecting to the use of this four letter abbreviation of a 'type of incident/accident' which in itself does not at all suggest pilot error, were sitting in the room with us, would you have stood up as strong as you are now and bashed us all as if we are being blasphemous?
There almost always seems to be an unwritten memo regarding post crash internet forums. Someone will sooner or later begin with speculations, which will be followed by critics who insist speculating is insensitive. Then the speculators will return for more, perhaps armed with more info and a few more forumers backing them. Critics will come back stronger than ever and for the next few days almost nothing of substance will be discussed whilst the forum enters a spiral dive.
This is avcanada...an open online forum. Anything written here should be taken with a pinch of salt. Hopefully we can differentiate a little better between forumers who are genuinely being disrespectful and insensitive and those who simply come in to offer their two cents.
A Boeing 737-200...a beautiful aircraft with 15 people who mean so much to those who love them crashed yesterday. Miraculously 3 survived this horrific ordeal! Can we focus on that rather than who has the biggest online muscles (cause lets face it: non of us are this tough in real life)
If my hindisght and past experiences using forums serve me correctly, I will very soon also be called an insensitive a$$@*&. Feel free...but don't expect me to entertain your ideas.
PanEuropean wrote:The National Post is now quoting speculation posted here on AvCanada - maybe it might be wise if we were all a little more restrained in what we say:
PanEuropean wrote:The National Post is now quoting speculation posted here on AvCanada - maybe it might be wise if we were all a little more restrained in what we say:
That's kind of irresponsible of The National Post. Lets get real here, we're no more than a group of dudes pontificating over a few pints of beer! To quote us, as if we are aviation "experts" is ludicrous, at best! That's disgusting. The National Post is disgusting. They can quote me on that.
Rowdy wrote:... do you know the area? the approach? the weather patterns in res? the company policies and SOPs? The crew themselves and their respective experience? That particular airframe and its history?...
I can answer "yes" to all of those questions, but I'll leave determination of cause to the professionals.
Thoughts to the families and my former co-workers at 7F.
BBB
---------- ADS -----------
"Almost anywhere, almost anytime...worldwide(ish)"
I like how the National Post really did their research. First the fact of having no choice but to land because all other airports are to far for the fuel they carry. I guess they have not heard of an alternate? Then the idea of not having the amenities in the north as they have in the south? What more than an ILS can one ask for? Lots of airports in the south don't even have that. Anyhow I don't want to get too concerned over a poorly researched newspaper article in the paper but they really swung and missed on that one.
Respectfully, I understand that you were "there", but unless you have been privy to the CVR or FDR, how can you know that there wasn't some other reason why this might have happened?
Both engines might have been operating, but that hardly indicates CFIT.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Canoehead on Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lol quite the source that idiot news writer has got, an anonymous internet forum lol, maybe he should site wikipedia or something for the definition of CFIT.
That's just classless, poor reporting.
Doc wrote:
That's kind of irresponsible of The National Post. Lets get real here, we're no more than a group of dudes pontificating over a few pints of beer! To quote us, as if we are aviation "experts" is ludicrous, at best! That's disgusting. The National Post is disgusting. They can quote me on that.
Agreed, and the reporter is probably from the same small town lol. Just water cooler banter is all.
My brother used to be a journalist. He told me about a meeting he was in. The previous day there was a story about a plane crash- approach and landing accident. Witnesses however reported hearing the engine sputter and the plane spinning. It was an RJ or something. My brother brought it up and the editor shrugged his shoulders and said, "no one will notice- it's a good story".
Hey Tristin: Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!! Maybe if you tabloid journalists took your reporting professionally, instead of writing trash like this, you'd find pilots who would actually go on the record and help you.
Gino Under wrote:Ax n' Rowdy
Just a question for you, since you're implying that you're professionals above reproach..
A 737 spread all over the ground at 8 miles final suggests someone 'might' have been at an inappropriate altitude. Yes?
Of the souls on board, regardless of aircraft type, whom do you suggest might be able to account for the positioning of that aircraft's turn onto final?
Or is that a big secret some non-pilot types aren't able to figure out or even able to speculate over?
I believed pilot forums are for discussion and debate. Your freedom to speculate, if that's what you choose to do with an opportunity like this, is up to you. Granted, many would be well advised to be a bit more sensitive especially in these early hours but I think speculation over what happened is just a matter of dialogue amongst aviation enthusiasts alike and nothing more. Most of us can recognize speculation for what it is. How the aircraft made contact with terra firma is what needs to be determined.
It certainly looks like CFIT. But, like so many accidents, there is usually a "chain of events". So, I agree, best wait and see what lead to what.
This was posted on a previous page. The yellow is the impact trail. I can't say if it's accurate or not. But it will probably be on the front page of The National Post tomorrow.
I do think the location of the debris trail is accurate. The aircraft did not go down eight kilometers from the airport. I based the location on comparing the photo on page 1 of this thread to a flat overhead of the area on Google earth. You can see the south wind in the smoke trail, the people are standing to the side of the runway, with runway lights visible, and the debris trail area is flat and seems to be on a plateau. That all makes it to the east of the runway. Google Earth says a mile, photos look closer, but could be telephoto.
The key locator is the gully with the bit of a wash at the bottom. That area is the only flat area leading to that gully. The elevation in that area is just over 500 feet ASL.
I think the similarity in the two red circles is purely coincidental. A crew flying an ILS to a lighted runway isn't going to mistakenly fly a long straight in approach to an unlighted road. Other things like the cloud structure don't support that idea either.
The answer will be in the CVR. From 3 back on the ILS to impact on that hill a mile east of the runway is about 90 seconds.
---------- ADS -----------
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Also, I love it when people don't expect theories to be discussed in these threads. Grow up.
I edited your I'll-considered post.
Good advise that you may wish to consider. Try and read a thread and get a sense of the underlying tone before pontificating.
JC
Thanks for the lecture. Only a four-year-old would read an accident thread and not expect to encounter speculation.
If speculation is not permitted, that should be stated in the forum rules, shouldn't it?
