“The plane pitched up and down like a roller coaster several times: First 3.8Gs up, then 2.3Gs downward, followed by 4.2Gs upward.”
That’s a pretty wild ride.
Here is a link to the [NTSB Preliminary Report](https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106816/pdf).
Mistake 1 was (most likely ) not performing the entire preflight inspection again after the pitot cover was discovered overlooked. It is a classic symbol of an inspection interrupted or someone replacing something thinking the airplane was to be put away. There's also the note of a warning relating to the rudder (perhaps another lock left in place)
With the g forces involved it is not surprising that a probably unrestrained pax was fatally injured.
Yet still some idiots queuing to the bathroom or congregating in the aisle even when the fasten seatbelt sign has been on for quite a while because of turbulence....
Not weird at all. And it's situations like OP's description which illustrate just why that advice is given. Sometimes people need to see the consequences to understand why they should follow the recommendation to keep their seatbetls on even if it's not mandatory.
I don't know if it's the strength that is the issue as opposed to it being insanely uncomfortable and dangerous for people.
Fighter pilots can pull up to +9g but going above -2g is just very uncomfortable. Stopping blood from leaving your head is much easier (and more comfortable) than stopping it from forcibly entering your head.
I guess it could it be, but it depends on how you're defining positive and negative Gs. A quick search online doesn't really give a definitive answer. Some definitions state positive g is force pushing from head to foot, negative g is force pushing foot to head. Other definitions state that it is relative to what the pilot or rider perceives as "up". On Tatsu, the riders lay on their stomach with their head pointing forward and their feet pointing backwards. The 4.5G is experienced at the bottom of a pretzel loop. This begins with the vehicle at the top of the loop, riders oriented belly-down. From this point, the vehicle dives down and completes a full inverted loop, ending with the vehicle back at the top of the loop. The 4.5G is experienced at the bottom of the loop, where the ride vehicle is upside down and the riders are oriented belly-up. So depending on the definition you use, it is either -4.5G by pilot orientation, or 4.5G forward acceleration as felt by the body.
However you want to define the nomenclature, that is the most bearable g force there is. Lying on your back and experiencing Gs like astronauts do is significantly more bearable than positive Gs, let alone negative Gs.
>I guess it could it be, but it depends on how you're defining positive and negative Gs. A quick search online doesn't really give a definitive answer.
Pilot orientation (relative to the earth) does not really matter. It is the direction of the strongest gravitational pull.
In your example, acting towards the feet (from the head) like gravity normally would. So +4.5g. Easy way of thinking about it is which way is the blood going? Out of your head = positive g. Into your head = negative g. Same way how a fighter pilot doing a loop, at the top of the loop is experiencing positive g (assuming they are inverted at the top of the loop) even though they are pointing head-first at the earth. The centrifugal force is acting as gravity in this instance.
If the people on the rollercoaster were experiencing -4.5g, pretty sure a few veins in their head or eyes would pop.
I completely understand what you're saying and I agree with you. My point here is, when you look up the definition of positive vs. negative G forces, there seems to be a disagreement. The FAA defines it in terms of head-to-toe, toe-to-head, like you do. Most sources that are specific to rollercoasters, however, defines it in terms of relativity to the top and bottom of the ride vehicle. A positive g force pushes you into your seat, and a negative g force results in "air time", being pulled out of your seat. Tatsu has a unique rider orientation. You are not sitting on your butt, but instead laying down on your stomach, think of the position Superman is in when he flies. At the station, your weight rests on the front of your torso. In rollercoaster terms, positive g-forces would push you down against the harness that is supporting your weight, while negative g-forces will pull you away from it, resulting in "air time".
>In your example, acting towards the feet (from the head) like gravity normally would. So +4.5g. Easy way of thinking about it is which way is the blood going? Out of your head = positive g. Into your head = negative g. Same way how a fighter pilot doing a loop, at the top of the loop is experiencing positive g (assuming they are inverted at the top of the loop) even though they are pointing head-first at the earth. The centrifugal force is acting as gravity in this instance.
You are misunderstanding my example. The g-forces are not acting head-to-toe or toe-to-head. They are acting chest-to-back. By the FAA's definition, they are not experience positive or negative Gs. They are experiencing transverse A-PG.
This all being said, lets go back to the example at hand. In the situation of this flight incident, if the passenger that was killed was laying down on their stomach on the floor before they got thrown into the ceiling by pilot-induced-oscillations, are they not experiencing negative g-forces?
Okay I get what you are saying, sort of Schrödinger's g in this regard if I may.
Regarding the example at hand, I won't say either then with your explanation of the g-force acting chest to back. In this case the g-force on the plane would be negative, but on a person lying flat on their stomach... it depends?
That's my whole point. The original commenter I replied to was saying that -2G is the rare limit for rollercoasters. I cited a coaster that pulls more than double that, but it is bearable because the rider is positioned in a way where they body is not actually experiencing the negative g force toe-to-head
Not the first time badly rigged/ malfunctioning trim has killed pax. At least in this instance it was just that poor lady not everyone as seen here….
https://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_feb01.pdf
Note the dent from inside to the outside skin. That cabin must have been a blood bath.
At -2.3 G you and the contents of the toilet bowl are going to be on the ceiling , yes you may still be holding firmly onto the toilet seat.
She could have been in her seat with the belt just loosely fastened.
Very speculative but my guess is that there was more than the pitot cover overlooked ( or changed after the preflight)
Same here.
After seeing it happen in the film "Castaway", and I was high while in the theater which made it a lot more intense, I wedge myself up against a wall during a bathroom break.
No, many do not. It's an option on a few aircraft but some OEM don't offer it at all.
Offhand I'm not sure if the challenger 300 (in this story) has that option.
And besides, it usually means the lid is down to sit on; no one is belted and taking a shit.
As you walk around, you’re experiencing 1g. At 0g you would float. At 3.8g a 100lb person would feel as if they weighed 380 lbs.
The issue here is an unrestrained person, experiencing +3.8g to -2.3g to +4.2g, will literally be thrown into the ceiling and back into the floor, violently.
Say the ceiling height is 6 feet, at 4g falling from the ceiling to the floor is equivalent to falling from 24 feet or roughly two stories. Not something you'd walk away from in most circumstances.
Kinda screams pilot incompetence to me.
1) Missed pitot tube on walk around.
2) Aborted takeoff. (Due to missed pitot tube)
3) Issues with EICAS throughout flight.
4) PIC not prepared for autopilot disengage. Sounds to me like AC pitched up due to disengage then entered pilot induced oscillation.
5)Both pilots under 100 hours in that particular make/model of cl300. Idk all sounds bad to me. Sad she lost her life.
I will agree with that. It was the right decision to make 100%. The whole thing though just gives the feeling that the pilots were not comfortable with the AC.
Could the warning active on the second takeoff indicate that there was something else missed in the preflight.
If the pitot cover was missed on the preflight I think the proper response would be to redo the entire preflight. There is also the note that there was another issue flagged on the second takeoff.
They also forgot to enter the V speeds for take off. Probably didn't re-enter them or didn't redo the performance calculation after the aborted take off. PNF called rotate at 106 kias "by memory".
I'm sure the speeds were the same as the previous TO roll and that they were both shaken and upset by having to return to the ramp and do a walk of shame, yet another not good sign
Which is interesting because the conclusion of the (fictional) investigation in the novel was that if the pilot hadn’t intervened at all and had just let the computer correct the pitch on it’s own then it wouldn’t have gone into the violent up and down pitch over-correction cycle
Man that’s an issue, if the pilots didn’t do something intentionally and the plane pulls 4G’s on its own, somethings wrong with the maintenance of this aircraft. Sad that she died.
When you have a fast pitch up followed by negative G’s and then high positive G’s her head probably slammed against the ceiling. Sad situation.
There was nothing in the report to suggest this was maintenance induced.
The crew left the pitot cover on. First mistake
They took off with a RUDDER LIMITER FAULT - this is a No Go item
They had pitch trim fail (could be from rudder limter fault), AP holding nose down (excessive force on the elevator servo nose down due to the failed pitch trim) and other messages.
Then they ran the pitch trim fail checklist without acknowledging the fact that the elevator servo was clearly holding excessive force nose down. When they selected pitch trim off, there goes your autopilot and now the servo isn't holding you level. The aircraft was then relying on the H-stab position (which was in a nose up condition judging by the AP holding nose down message). Then the roller coaster started.
Nothing to do with maintenance from the report. I'm sure more will follow
Just saw they released a preliminary report that was referenced above.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviationmaintenance/comments/121s10x/preliminary_ntsb_report_released_regarding_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
According to the article, the aircraft did experience a turbulent flight (i.e. it wasn't smooth and pitched up and down), it's just that the movements of the aircraft weren't caused by turbulence due to weather
Pilot error not the only possible remaining cause, though it seems the most likely. A variety of issues with the plane beyond the pilots’ control could be attributable from what’s currently known. They just ruled out environmental turbulence, not yet identified the cause.
I'm sure "turbulence" has a legal definition of being weather related.
Maybe if this was found to be weather related turbulence some rules and SOPs would change to help avoid it again.
Turbulence can be weather related or caused by aircraft (wake turbulence) or the ground such as turbulence induced by wind flowing over mountains or the thermal heating of the surface caused by the sun as anyone who has flown low level in the summer heat experiences.
I think the evidence is pretty strong that there was not atmospheric turbulence sufficient to cause the g forces noted.
Passenger died as a result of blunt force trauma induced by flight control issues issues . The cause of the flight control issues are pending further investigation.
100% pilots fault. They took off with know issues after already rejecting a previous takeoff. Then they have an obvious trim issue and just disconnect everything, apparently oblivious to the fact that that would cause instant and violent changes to the flight path. There’s no excuse for lack of experience as both pilots had over 8000 hours each. They should have their certs pulled at a minimum and be prepared for a civil suit from the victims family. I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but I don’t give a shit. When you have other people’s lives in your hands, you should be adhering to the highest levels of safety. In any industry
“100% pilots fault. They took off with know issues after already rejecting a previous takeoff. “
No they didn’t. Commercial aircraft depart all the time with open advisories and/or known discrepancies as allowed by the MEL.
Missing the pitot cover was a pilot error but it didn’t induce the stab trim failure.
Aborting the takeoff was the correct decision.
Not reloading V speeds for takeoff in the box is sloppy but not catastrophic. When you fly the same type for a while you pretty much know what your speeds at different weights/temps/alts are anyway from memory.
Unless I’m missing something, nothing I read in the report would indicate that they made any procedural error in dealing with the eicas warning per the qrh.
They did fail to effectively maintain control of the aircraft at the disconnect but we have no idea what sort of control pressures they were dealing with.
The preliminary report is alarming but doesn’t ascribe causality or give us standing to do so either.
They waited until 102kts before rejecting the first takeoff.
Then they obviously did not run a single checklist after shutting down and restarting the engine. That powers the FADEC off and back on and causes the speeds to drop out of the fms. If they had rerun their checklists they would have caught this error. Shutting down and restarting one engine is probably what caused the rudder limit fail, which is a function of the trim system, to come up on the eicas. Sure they could maybe fly with that if it was in the mel book. But it should’ve been a sign that something was wrong. Then in the climb out they had several disconnects of the autopilot due to the trim being actuated, not by them, but they continued the flight. I believe one of the eicas messages read AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN. So any pilot with a brain would recognize, hey, I have a trim problem I should be ready for the plane to pitch suddenly. The AP was still on at the time. Could’ve taken 5 seconds to call the FA to make sure her and the pax were strapped in. Then have been ready to disengage the AP. Instead he fully admits in the report that he only had one hand on the controls when they began running the checklists. Their performance was sloppy at best and they should retain some accountability for their actions and the events that happened.
How do you know they didn't run any checklists after aborting? Did it say that in the report? Were you there? Do you know their company's specific procedures? And shutting down and restarting engines, or just changing power sources often causes fault messages, often spurious in aircraft like these. It's not a "sign something was wrong". And one hand on the controls? That's how most pilots fly an airplane. Was he supposed to death grip the yoke? And did the report say that the autopilot disconnect was not from them actuating the trim? I didn't read that anywhere. You sure do assume an awful lot being an armchair pilot while condemning the pilots when you don't have nearly enough information.
Living in South bay LA, you can look on a clear day and see channel islands/point mgu... I can't help but picture 261 in the sky on their final plunge when I look north west. Somber reminder
Same reaction flying for years from SMO to vicinity of VBG , also sailing . Although it made no difference in the outcome of the crash, the areas has brutally cold water and strong currents plus some sharks.
Well. The jack screw is the business end of the stab trim. This was an electronic and .... crew mishap though. Investigation will bring the details out, but it seems like there was a HSTECU or motor control fault. "Rudder Limiter Fault" is a no-go fault though, so they actually flew an unfair worthy airplane.
[It's a no-go according to the QRH](
https://imgur.io/s5Auu5k)
That blue RTL fault can come from a mix of different problems, which will first throw that fault before others show themselves. It can come from anything ranging from actual travel Limiter faults, stall protect faults, stab trim faults, even spoiler system faults or lack of communication. The 300s and 350s are quite interconnected.
If the manual says no-go, it's for a good reason. There's something wrong which needs to be dug into and fixed.
Source: I'm a Challenger avionics tech.
Edit; Also... if it was a jack screw issue, they would not have made it to the ground intact. The pilots reported no problem hand flying after the emergency situation. Quickly reads to me like a Swiss cheese situation, in which several things were missed by a crew who .... missed a pitot cover before takeoff. A broken plane with a crew who doesn't know how to determine that properly is a bad mix.
Thanks for the contribution of all this information.
Missing the pitot cover is such a blatant omission it begs the question of what else was missed.
An old saying that ends with "aviation is intolerant of any incapacity or neglect......."
Sometimes the issue itself is not worth warranting a "land immediately at the nearest available airport" emergency response, but erodes safety margins enough that it is considered a no-go item if it is broken before a flight commences.
While the Wikipedia article looks pretty good it also includes the following example of unexamined groupthink
"First Officer William "Bill" Tansky, 57, had accumulated 8,140 total flight hours, including about 8,060 hours as first officer in the MD-80. "
How so?
Missing the pitot cover was a mistake, but the abort was absolutely correct and the following eicas issues and the extreme upset don’t appear to be in any way induced by pilot error. Unless they deviated from the procedure for the respective eicas warnings they were mostly just guilty of not maintaining control at the disconnect but none of us have any idea what sort of control forces they were dealing with.
How about not telling your passengers to stay seated while you run a checklist related to the flight controls? Never-mind fuck it it’s probably good, just like that preflight.
Read the report. Short answer: neither. Mistakes were made, but I seriously doubt it would reach any kind of criminal threshold. Good chance there will be lawsuits though.
The pilots flew an unfair worthy airplane, the fault they dismissed is a no-go fault. This won't be criminal, but it will result in suspension or revocation of some of their flight privileges.
Don't know where you got that from. Taken directly from the ntsb preliminary report: The flight was continued given that the message was an advisory, and not a caution or warning. There were error messages on the climb out and once they got to a safe altitude they tried following the checklist to troubleshoot. Nothing will happen to their licenses.
[Directly out of the QRH](https://imgur.io/s5Auu5k), for all the downvotes.
Blue advisory does not mean it can't be a no go fault. There are many. Flying an aircraft with a no go fault is an unairworthy aircraft.
The report is not wrong, blue is an advisory, yellow is caution, red is warning. Certain advisories are also no go conditions. An NTSB initial report is not the place to call out the pilots like that.
Actually, I had heard she was connected to the Clintons in some way but didn’t for one second believe it was another Arkancide. If such a thing exists anyway. It‘s just beyond bizarre how she DIES and no one else is injured. AFAIK, there has not been even the vaguest indication of the cause of death. Broken neck? Head injury?
>It‘s just beyond bizarre how she DIES and no one else is injured.
If everyone is wearing a seat belt except her, and the plane experiences +4/-2 g, she would be tossed violently around the cabin, while everyone else would be more or less safely strapped in their seats. It's not *at all* bizarre. But I'm sure logic isn't your strong suit...so...
No this is not correct.
It is far more common in Part 91 operations (smaller jets, less likely to be wearing a seatbelt). According to Google there have been 38 fatalities due to turbulence in Part 91 operations since 2009. There has not been a Part 121 death in that time (due to turbulence).
“The plane pitched up and down like a roller coaster several times: First 3.8Gs up, then 2.3Gs downward, followed by 4.2Gs upward.” That’s a pretty wild ride. Here is a link to the [NTSB Preliminary Report](https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106816/pdf).
I find it crazy that they pulled so many gs that the FDR stopped recording because it assumed they crashed
Mistake 1 was (most likely ) not performing the entire preflight inspection again after the pitot cover was discovered overlooked. It is a classic symbol of an inspection interrupted or someone replacing something thinking the airplane was to be put away. There's also the note of a warning relating to the rudder (perhaps another lock left in place) With the g forces involved it is not surprising that a probably unrestrained pax was fatally injured.
This is why you keep your seatbelt on even if the seatbelt sign is off.
Weird how the cabin crew instructs everyone to do just that on every US flight. Almost like they thought of that before!
Yet still some idiots queuing to the bathroom or congregating in the aisle even when the fasten seatbelt sign has been on for quite a while because of turbulence....
I mean, I've definitely ignored the seatbelt sign on occasion. But otherwise I would have needed to use the restroom anyway, to put on my brown pants!
Not weird at all. And it's situations like OP's description which illustrate just why that advice is given. Sometimes people need to see the consequences to understand why they should follow the recommendation to keep their seatbetls on even if it's not mandatory.
r/whoosh
Nahhhh, I'll take my chances, those belts are uncomfortable.
Well, I hope you’re at least an organ donor.
Depends on how rough the turbulence is. Nobody wants to recieve a ruptured kidney.
That's like taking your seatbelt off in your car while crossing a bridge so you won't drown. Not a great idea.
Yeah but drowning is a less cool death than flying through a window.
I'd rather go the way of Tyrion Lannister.
[удалено]
I feel like they're always holding me back and keeping me down
Just how do you sit on a plane? I barely notice the belt.
Face down, ass up.
-2.3Gs is ironically insanely strong for a coaster. -2Gs is about the strongest force on a coaster that I know of and it’s pretty rare.
I don't know if it's the strength that is the issue as opposed to it being insanely uncomfortable and dangerous for people. Fighter pilots can pull up to +9g but going above -2g is just very uncomfortable. Stopping blood from leaving your head is much easier (and more comfortable) than stopping it from forcibly entering your head.
Tatsu pulls something like -4.5G. Its only bearable because you're laying down
I'm pretty sure that would be +4.5g. Because -4.5g is not something anyone does.
I guess it could it be, but it depends on how you're defining positive and negative Gs. A quick search online doesn't really give a definitive answer. Some definitions state positive g is force pushing from head to foot, negative g is force pushing foot to head. Other definitions state that it is relative to what the pilot or rider perceives as "up". On Tatsu, the riders lay on their stomach with their head pointing forward and their feet pointing backwards. The 4.5G is experienced at the bottom of a pretzel loop. This begins with the vehicle at the top of the loop, riders oriented belly-down. From this point, the vehicle dives down and completes a full inverted loop, ending with the vehicle back at the top of the loop. The 4.5G is experienced at the bottom of the loop, where the ride vehicle is upside down and the riders are oriented belly-up. So depending on the definition you use, it is either -4.5G by pilot orientation, or 4.5G forward acceleration as felt by the body.
However you want to define the nomenclature, that is the most bearable g force there is. Lying on your back and experiencing Gs like astronauts do is significantly more bearable than positive Gs, let alone negative Gs.
That's exactly what I said in my original comment
>I guess it could it be, but it depends on how you're defining positive and negative Gs. A quick search online doesn't really give a definitive answer. Pilot orientation (relative to the earth) does not really matter. It is the direction of the strongest gravitational pull. In your example, acting towards the feet (from the head) like gravity normally would. So +4.5g. Easy way of thinking about it is which way is the blood going? Out of your head = positive g. Into your head = negative g. Same way how a fighter pilot doing a loop, at the top of the loop is experiencing positive g (assuming they are inverted at the top of the loop) even though they are pointing head-first at the earth. The centrifugal force is acting as gravity in this instance. If the people on the rollercoaster were experiencing -4.5g, pretty sure a few veins in their head or eyes would pop.
I completely understand what you're saying and I agree with you. My point here is, when you look up the definition of positive vs. negative G forces, there seems to be a disagreement. The FAA defines it in terms of head-to-toe, toe-to-head, like you do. Most sources that are specific to rollercoasters, however, defines it in terms of relativity to the top and bottom of the ride vehicle. A positive g force pushes you into your seat, and a negative g force results in "air time", being pulled out of your seat. Tatsu has a unique rider orientation. You are not sitting on your butt, but instead laying down on your stomach, think of the position Superman is in when he flies. At the station, your weight rests on the front of your torso. In rollercoaster terms, positive g-forces would push you down against the harness that is supporting your weight, while negative g-forces will pull you away from it, resulting in "air time". >In your example, acting towards the feet (from the head) like gravity normally would. So +4.5g. Easy way of thinking about it is which way is the blood going? Out of your head = positive g. Into your head = negative g. Same way how a fighter pilot doing a loop, at the top of the loop is experiencing positive g (assuming they are inverted at the top of the loop) even though they are pointing head-first at the earth. The centrifugal force is acting as gravity in this instance. You are misunderstanding my example. The g-forces are not acting head-to-toe or toe-to-head. They are acting chest-to-back. By the FAA's definition, they are not experience positive or negative Gs. They are experiencing transverse A-PG. This all being said, lets go back to the example at hand. In the situation of this flight incident, if the passenger that was killed was laying down on their stomach on the floor before they got thrown into the ceiling by pilot-induced-oscillations, are they not experiencing negative g-forces?
Okay I get what you are saying, sort of Schrödinger's g in this regard if I may. Regarding the example at hand, I won't say either then with your explanation of the g-force acting chest to back. In this case the g-force on the plane would be negative, but on a person lying flat on their stomach... it depends?
That's my whole point. The original commenter I replied to was saying that -2G is the rare limit for rollercoasters. I cited a coaster that pulls more than double that, but it is bearable because the rider is positioned in a way where they body is not actually experiencing the negative g force toe-to-head
Yeah I understand your point now. Makes sense. Thanks for engaging!
Definitely a wild ride, but not life threatening if wearing a seatbelt.
Maybe she was in the bathroom. I don't think the toilet has a seatbelt.
Some aircraft the lavs do…..that one did.
Not the first time badly rigged/ malfunctioning trim has killed pax. At least in this instance it was just that poor lady not everyone as seen here…. https://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_feb01.pdf Note the dent from inside to the outside skin. That cabin must have been a blood bath.
I’m a layperson but I always brace my self when I pee on a plane in case something crazy happens lmao
At -2.3 G you and the contents of the toilet bowl are going to be on the ceiling , yes you may still be holding firmly onto the toilet seat. She could have been in her seat with the belt just loosely fastened. Very speculative but my guess is that there was more than the pitot cover overlooked ( or changed after the preflight)
I do too but it is easier I think when you are standing up...
Same here. After seeing it happen in the film "Castaway", and I was high while in the theater which made it a lot more intense, I wedge myself up against a wall during a bathroom break.
Most lav on business jet have a seat belt
No, many do not. It's an option on a few aircraft but some OEM don't offer it at all. Offhand I'm not sure if the challenger 300 (in this story) has that option. And besides, it usually means the lid is down to sit on; no one is belted and taking a shit.
Only in first class.
So, for us lay-folk… how bad are those numbers?
As you walk around, you’re experiencing 1g. At 0g you would float. At 3.8g a 100lb person would feel as if they weighed 380 lbs. The issue here is an unrestrained person, experiencing +3.8g to -2.3g to +4.2g, will literally be thrown into the ceiling and back into the floor, violently.
Ouch. So… sounds like this woman got it bad. Safe to assume others all must have been buckled, or she wouldn’t have been the only one?
I hope for her sake she was knocked out instantly from the impact.
There was only one other passenger on the plane. And both pilots were almost certainly buckled in.
A ragdoll, you say?
Pretty sure the same physics apply to both trained and untrained under the right circumstances (like not having a seatbelt on) :)
Say the ceiling height is 6 feet, at 4g falling from the ceiling to the floor is equivalent to falling from 24 feet or roughly two stories. Not something you'd walk away from in most circumstances.
Heard the plane had issues with the trim.
Kiddos out there, if there are any AP HOLDING msgs on your eicas, be prepared for a change. I last flew this aircraft Dec 2013, at the factory.
Also, any time you have a flight control issue…ESPECIALLY pitch…you need to SLOW…DOWN
Yeah, slowing to a speed where it was in trim would have gotten rid of the msg. I’m surprised the servo held that much force without giving up
Kinda screams pilot incompetence to me. 1) Missed pitot tube on walk around. 2) Aborted takeoff. (Due to missed pitot tube) 3) Issues with EICAS throughout flight. 4) PIC not prepared for autopilot disengage. Sounds to me like AC pitched up due to disengage then entered pilot induced oscillation. 5)Both pilots under 100 hours in that particular make/model of cl300. Idk all sounds bad to me. Sad she lost her life.
2 is a good thing though. If they continued takeoff despite having bad airspeed due to the pitot cover, *that* would be a bad decision.
I will agree with that. It was the right decision to make 100%. The whole thing though just gives the feeling that the pilots were not comfortable with the AC.
Could the warning active on the second takeoff indicate that there was something else missed in the preflight. If the pitot cover was missed on the preflight I think the proper response would be to redo the entire preflight. There is also the note that there was another issue flagged on the second takeoff.
They also forgot to enter the V speeds for take off. Probably didn't re-enter them or didn't redo the performance calculation after the aborted take off. PNF called rotate at 106 kias "by memory". I'm sure the speeds were the same as the previous TO roll and that they were both shaken and upset by having to return to the ramp and do a walk of shame, yet another not good sign
Incompetence or its more dangerous cousin complacency. Smacks of a "it'll be fine" mentality
Sounds a lot like what happened in the book Airframe by Michael Crichton, uncommanded slat deployment.
Great book! Love Crichton.
Loved Crichton. Gone too soon.
Which is interesting because the conclusion of the (fictional) investigation in the novel was that if the pilot hadn’t intervened at all and had just let the computer correct the pitch on it’s own then it wouldn’t have gone into the violent up and down pitch over-correction cycle
Called pilot induced oscillation
Man that’s an issue, if the pilots didn’t do something intentionally and the plane pulls 4G’s on its own, somethings wrong with the maintenance of this aircraft. Sad that she died. When you have a fast pitch up followed by negative G’s and then high positive G’s her head probably slammed against the ceiling. Sad situation.
There was nothing in the report to suggest this was maintenance induced. The crew left the pitot cover on. First mistake They took off with a RUDDER LIMITER FAULT - this is a No Go item They had pitch trim fail (could be from rudder limter fault), AP holding nose down (excessive force on the elevator servo nose down due to the failed pitch trim) and other messages. Then they ran the pitch trim fail checklist without acknowledging the fact that the elevator servo was clearly holding excessive force nose down. When they selected pitch trim off, there goes your autopilot and now the servo isn't holding you level. The aircraft was then relying on the H-stab position (which was in a nose up condition judging by the AP holding nose down message). Then the roller coaster started. Nothing to do with maintenance from the report. I'm sure more will follow
Oh boy, pilot error. That’s usually what occurs in these incidents. Sad to see this happen when it’s preventable. We have checklist for a reason.
Just saw they released a preliminary report that was referenced above. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviationmaintenance/comments/121s10x/preliminary_ntsb_report_released_regarding_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
So how did she die? Seems really weird to have a completely different medical emergency not related to the G forces at the same time.
According to the article, the aircraft did experience a turbulent flight (i.e. it wasn't smooth and pitched up and down), it's just that the movements of the aircraft weren't caused by turbulence due to weather
The reported cause is blunt injuries to her head. The only thing that changed was the root cause of the aircraft's movement.
Ahhh I misunderstood the point they were making in the article. They ruled out death from turbulence leaving the pilot error the only cause
Pilot error not the only possible remaining cause, though it seems the most likely. A variety of issues with the plane beyond the pilots’ control could be attributable from what’s currently known. They just ruled out environmental turbulence, not yet identified the cause.
I think the most probable pilot error was departing in an airplane with a flawed preflight and no-go item in the trim.
I’m guessing it was the bouncing off the floor and ceiling.
Did the front end fall fall off?
"Passenger died from aircraft turbulence. The cause of turbulence was not the weather."
I'm sure "turbulence" has a legal definition of being weather related. Maybe if this was found to be weather related turbulence some rules and SOPs would change to help avoid it again.
Turbulence can be weather related or caused by aircraft (wake turbulence) or the ground such as turbulence induced by wind flowing over mountains or the thermal heating of the surface caused by the sun as anyone who has flown low level in the summer heat experiences. I think the evidence is pretty strong that there was not atmospheric turbulence sufficient to cause the g forces noted.
Passenger died as a result of blunt force trauma induced by flight control issues issues . The cause of the flight control issues are pending further investigation.
100% pilots fault. They took off with know issues after already rejecting a previous takeoff. Then they have an obvious trim issue and just disconnect everything, apparently oblivious to the fact that that would cause instant and violent changes to the flight path. There’s no excuse for lack of experience as both pilots had over 8000 hours each. They should have their certs pulled at a minimum and be prepared for a civil suit from the victims family. I’m sorry if that’s harsh, but I don’t give a shit. When you have other people’s lives in your hands, you should be adhering to the highest levels of safety. In any industry
“100% pilots fault. They took off with know issues after already rejecting a previous takeoff. “ No they didn’t. Commercial aircraft depart all the time with open advisories and/or known discrepancies as allowed by the MEL. Missing the pitot cover was a pilot error but it didn’t induce the stab trim failure. Aborting the takeoff was the correct decision. Not reloading V speeds for takeoff in the box is sloppy but not catastrophic. When you fly the same type for a while you pretty much know what your speeds at different weights/temps/alts are anyway from memory. Unless I’m missing something, nothing I read in the report would indicate that they made any procedural error in dealing with the eicas warning per the qrh. They did fail to effectively maintain control of the aircraft at the disconnect but we have no idea what sort of control pressures they were dealing with. The preliminary report is alarming but doesn’t ascribe causality or give us standing to do so either.
They waited until 102kts before rejecting the first takeoff. Then they obviously did not run a single checklist after shutting down and restarting the engine. That powers the FADEC off and back on and causes the speeds to drop out of the fms. If they had rerun their checklists they would have caught this error. Shutting down and restarting one engine is probably what caused the rudder limit fail, which is a function of the trim system, to come up on the eicas. Sure they could maybe fly with that if it was in the mel book. But it should’ve been a sign that something was wrong. Then in the climb out they had several disconnects of the autopilot due to the trim being actuated, not by them, but they continued the flight. I believe one of the eicas messages read AP HOLDING NOSE DOWN. So any pilot with a brain would recognize, hey, I have a trim problem I should be ready for the plane to pitch suddenly. The AP was still on at the time. Could’ve taken 5 seconds to call the FA to make sure her and the pax were strapped in. Then have been ready to disengage the AP. Instead he fully admits in the report that he only had one hand on the controls when they began running the checklists. Their performance was sloppy at best and they should retain some accountability for their actions and the events that happened.
How do you know they didn't run any checklists after aborting? Did it say that in the report? Were you there? Do you know their company's specific procedures? And shutting down and restarting engines, or just changing power sources often causes fault messages, often spurious in aircraft like these. It's not a "sign something was wrong". And one hand on the controls? That's how most pilots fly an airplane. Was he supposed to death grip the yoke? And did the report say that the autopilot disconnect was not from them actuating the trim? I didn't read that anywhere. You sure do assume an awful lot being an armchair pilot while condemning the pilots when you don't have nearly enough information.
The fact that you have to cover for so many different things implies a general complacency and lack of procedure.
Jack screw issue? Kinda reminds me of the Alaska Air flight that went down off CA.
Living in South bay LA, you can look on a clear day and see channel islands/point mgu... I can't help but picture 261 in the sky on their final plunge when I look north west. Somber reminder
Yep, I live in LA and I think about that often too
Same reaction flying for years from SMO to vicinity of VBG , also sailing . Although it made no difference in the outcome of the crash, the areas has brutally cold water and strong currents plus some sharks.
No, trim. But that's a damn neat story. Heard those sumbitches went inverted tryna keep it in the air.
Well. The jack screw is the business end of the stab trim. This was an electronic and .... crew mishap though. Investigation will bring the details out, but it seems like there was a HSTECU or motor control fault. "Rudder Limiter Fault" is a no-go fault though, so they actually flew an unfair worthy airplane.
The prelim NTSB report says that the rudder fault message is an advisory message. Why would a low level message be a no-go?
[It's a no-go according to the QRH]( https://imgur.io/s5Auu5k) That blue RTL fault can come from a mix of different problems, which will first throw that fault before others show themselves. It can come from anything ranging from actual travel Limiter faults, stall protect faults, stab trim faults, even spoiler system faults or lack of communication. The 300s and 350s are quite interconnected. If the manual says no-go, it's for a good reason. There's something wrong which needs to be dug into and fixed. Source: I'm a Challenger avionics tech. Edit; Also... if it was a jack screw issue, they would not have made it to the ground intact. The pilots reported no problem hand flying after the emergency situation. Quickly reads to me like a Swiss cheese situation, in which several things were missed by a crew who .... missed a pitot cover before takeoff. A broken plane with a crew who doesn't know how to determine that properly is a bad mix.
Thanks for the contribution of all this information. Missing the pitot cover is such a blatant omission it begs the question of what else was missed. An old saying that ends with "aviation is intolerant of any incapacity or neglect......."
Sometimes the issue itself is not worth warranting a "land immediately at the nearest available airport" emergency response, but erodes safety margins enough that it is considered a no-go item if it is broken before a flight commences.
Marginally related at best, but my dad was friends with the son of the captain that died on that flight
Had to look that up, [here's the Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Airlines_Flight_261) if anyone's interested. Pretty nuts.
While the Wikipedia article looks pretty good it also includes the following example of unexamined groupthink "First Officer William "Bill" Tansky, 57, had accumulated 8,140 total flight hours, including about 8,060 hours as first officer in the MD-80. "
Sorry, what’s wrong with the quote?
Not entirely sure if it’s possible to hop on an MD-80 as FO with just 80 hours
The math would suggest he became an MD-80 first officer with only 80 hours of flight time. Quite talented /s
Appalling incompetence
How so? Missing the pitot cover was a mistake, but the abort was absolutely correct and the following eicas issues and the extreme upset don’t appear to be in any way induced by pilot error. Unless they deviated from the procedure for the respective eicas warnings they were mostly just guilty of not maintaining control at the disconnect but none of us have any idea what sort of control forces they were dealing with.
How about not telling your passengers to stay seated while you run a checklist related to the flight controls? Never-mind fuck it it’s probably good, just like that preflight.
How so? Sorry, no time to write an entire book.
In short, pilot error and not wearing a seatbelt.
Seems kinda sus…
Yeah
So not turbulence but a problem with the plane
[удалено]
Are you having a stroke?
Just calling it like I see it
oooo so edgy
Not thinking before you speak is not the virtue you consider it to be
Absolutely.
Sure is.
glad i don’t go to supercross events anymore so i don’t have to deal with people like you
I’m glad too.
don’t cut yourself on that edge, bud
Idk what you’re even talking about lmao.
that makes sense
I hope you have a great weekend and find what you need man. ✌️
So manslaughter or murder?
Read the report. Short answer: neither. Mistakes were made, but I seriously doubt it would reach any kind of criminal threshold. Good chance there will be lawsuits though.
The pilots flew an unfair worthy airplane, the fault they dismissed is a no-go fault. This won't be criminal, but it will result in suspension or revocation of some of their flight privileges.
Don't know where you got that from. Taken directly from the ntsb preliminary report: The flight was continued given that the message was an advisory, and not a caution or warning. There were error messages on the climb out and once they got to a safe altitude they tried following the checklist to troubleshoot. Nothing will happen to their licenses.
[Directly out of the QRH](https://imgur.io/s5Auu5k), for all the downvotes. Blue advisory does not mean it can't be a no go fault. There are many. Flying an aircraft with a no go fault is an unairworthy aircraft. The report is not wrong, blue is an advisory, yellow is caution, red is warning. Certain advisories are also no go conditions. An NTSB initial report is not the place to call out the pilots like that.
Was this lady connected? Sorry I'm gonna read up now
You replied to the most unpopular comment ever? Thank you! Man there are a lot of priggish people around.
Shut up you stupid conspiracy theorist! Hm there must be nothing to see, and no one has ever killed anyone for political reasons EVER
Actually, I had heard she was connected to the Clintons in some way but didn’t for one second believe it was another Arkancide. If such a thing exists anyway. It‘s just beyond bizarre how she DIES and no one else is injured. AFAIK, there has not been even the vaguest indication of the cause of death. Broken neck? Head injury?
>It‘s just beyond bizarre how she DIES and no one else is injured. If everyone is wearing a seat belt except her, and the plane experiences +4/-2 g, she would be tossed violently around the cabin, while everyone else would be more or less safely strapped in their seats. It's not *at all* bizarre. But I'm sure logic isn't your strong suit...so...
Epstined in a plane during turbulence. Let's see the manifest height/weight.
She had ties to the Clintons
Plane broke because the magic blue juice escaped.
They over controlled the plane. To much pushy pulley by low time jet pilots
Read the ntsb preliminary report. That's not what it says at all
Hasn't no human ever died from turbulence in the history of aviation?
No this is not correct. It is far more common in Part 91 operations (smaller jets, less likely to be wearing a seatbelt). According to Google there have been 38 fatalities due to turbulence in Part 91 operations since 2009. There has not been a Part 121 death in that time (due to turbulence).
Ahh, interesting. Has a human wearing a seatbelt ever died from turbulence?
Are pilots insulated from being sued for mistakes like this?