Gonzalo wrote:

AR385 wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

Thank you dcajet and Apprentice for your inputs and additional information Re: An-148.

AR385, you seem to have a hunch about the root cause of this crash. Would you mind to share with the rest of us the information that allows your assertion about the flaps? I know the LAPA crash was a consequence precisely of a flapless take off attempt, but I don't see how you can see anything similar here except the aircraft type and the sad result of the take off.
Rgds.
G.

According to a professional witness, the plane left the ground but could not climb. Then the right wing dropped, and it slammed in the ground.

Hi AR385. Well the witness is certainly describing a scenario where the aircraft wasn’t configured for take off, but there are other situations where the behavior of the aircraft could be identical ( loss of one engine not managed properly by the crew, overweight, wind shear....the list isn’t short.
Didn’t hear anything about the FDR...did they find it?

A mismanaged engine failure will not be the cause, I think. The observers on the ground would have heard something, and it would have had to occur at V1 because the 737 could not climb. I don´t think windshear is a factor as the sky seems clear in the videos I see. Granted I have not seen the METARS. Overweight does make sense, and according to an ex-pilot from Global (who has a grudge) it was done regularly on their flights. But I find it hard for a 737 with a full pássenger load would have enough space below decks to take any cargo. but certainly, it´s apossibility. The fact that the right engine dropped first and the crew was unable to to correct it makes me think the right wing stalled first when they left the ground effect. While uncommon, in my lifetime I´ve seen three major crashes due to the flaps not being set for takeoff.

No. I haven´t heard about the FDR either. I hope they find it soon.

Have the numerous "eye witness" accounts of the crash been discounted? I have seen more than one description that said an engine was on fire before the crash occurred.

Such a pity that CU is unable to avail of even second hand SSJs...blemished record notwithstanding..... .....


http://aviationtribune.com/wp-content/u ... sukhoi.jpg


Perhaps a "russified" version would change their predicament when they could finally afford it..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pe-448567/

leghorn wrote:

Irrsepective of what the flight data records eventually show those people would have been in a more modern, more reliable, easier to fly, less prone to pilot error plane than the one in which they lost their lives.

Yeah, facts be damned, really no need to investigate at all.
Because - you already know that:

leghorn wrote:

This happened due to U.S. embargoes on Cuba.......
US policy has killed these people

Glad you know how to keep objective.

Hi:
“'m skeptical that there is much difficulty maintaining 732s these days for carriers - passenger or freight - who care to do the work. Several reputable carriers - DL and LA come to mind - flew 732s well into the 2000s. The JT8D remains in service, including extensive passenger service. And, the 737 family remains ubiquitous”

Planes, as everything else, when is becoming very old, lost his value.
If You want to contract DL in LA to provide Mx to a 737-200, most probably you will obtain an spot when no much company load, (at summer holydays or Year end), but it will be expensive, very expensive.

Point was and is that if You HAVE to flight a -200’ cause is cheaper than a less said- 700, You dont want to pay a top of the line mx, nor an Engine’s Overhaul in a renamed, expensive location.
A tip for collegues: Do You know where are most of JT8D repair Shops in America?
Answer: Very near to MIA airport, : HIALEAH city

Rgds

Hi: And Yes, it is very difficult to mantain a very old planes.
Beside normal checks’ task, as for instance engine’s filter replacement, You will have also typical problems of old planes:
-corrosion
- attachment elements like bolts/nuts, rivets, loose, need replacement
- fuel, hydraulic lines connections...
- wires and plugs and many others

After many years ago, Hawai’s B737 accident in which airplane lost part of upper revestement, NTSB-FAA introduced special mx added to aging a/c.

Big checks for old planes may give You many surprises, which is the reason why, vendeur try to sell it before the check, and the client, to buy it, before.

Rgds

ImperialEagle wrote:

Have the numerous "eye witness" accounts of the crash been discounted? I have seen more than one description that said an engine was on fire before the crash occurred.

That is why I pointed out that it is a PROFESSIONAL witness.

AR385 wrote:

It looks more and more like a flaps problem. Either not set correctly for T/O or not set at all.

Or overweight or incorrect engine settings (blocked pitot tube?) or premature rotation -- there are a fair number of possibilities.

There was that farm lady who said the engine was on fire -- but that's a common misperception for some reason of witnesses to airplane accidents. But can't discount compressor stall, etc.

Gun to my head, most likely scenario given their history is overweight. Fits what we know from observations of the aircraft's behavior. But those others are right behind.

And of course, a million other possibilities -- but when you hear hooves beating, first think horses not zebras. However, these things are still rare enough that you should at least look to see if the thing has stripes.

And of course, what holes in the cheese are there? Corporate Express years ago -- elevator was misrigged in maintenance, but he a/c made multiple flights before the accident flight with no problem, because most were lightly-loaded. But when they rotated on the first full flight since maintenance, the elevator didn't have enough authority to overcome the propensity to nose-up, and the thing went nearly vertical before coming straight down. So you had one issue that didn't materialize until the not-overloaded-but-max-loaded flight.

Devilfish wrote:

Such a pity that CU is unable to avail of even second hand SSJs...blemished record notwithstanding..... .....


http://aviationtribune.com/wp-content/u ... sukhoi.jpg


Perhaps a "russified" version would change their predicament when they could finally afford it..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pe-448567/

Why would they take on SSJ's when they have An-148s

Melbourne wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Such a pity that CU is unable to avail of even second hand SSJs...blemished record notwithstanding..... .....


http://aviationtribune.com/wp-content/u ... sukhoi.jpg


Perhaps a "russified" version would change their predicament when they could finally afford it..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pe-448567/

Why would they take on SSJ's when they have An-148s

Read upthread. An-148 grounded due to “mistakes in the design and manufacturing process”. It’s enough for me!

Rgds.
G.

Gonzalo wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

Devilfish wrote:

Such a pity that CU is unable to avail of even second hand SSJs...blemished record notwithstanding..... .....


http://aviationtribune.com/wp-content/u ... sukhoi.jpg


Perhaps a "russified" version would change their predicament when they could finally afford it..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pe-448567/

Why would they take on SSJ's when they have An-148s

Read upthread. An-148 grounded due to “mistakes in the design and manufacturing process”. It’s enough for me!

Rgds.
G.

More like mistakes in sourcing parts.

FlyHappy wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Irrsepective of what the flight data records eventually show those people would have been in a more modern, more reliable, easier to fly, less prone to pilot error plane than the one in which they lost their lives.

Yeah, facts be damned, really no need to investigate at all.
Because - you already know that:

leghorn wrote:

This happened due to U.S. embargoes on Cuba.......
US policy has killed these people

Glad you know how to keep objective.

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

Melbourne wrote:

More like mistakes in sourcing parts.

Take the time to read thru (or put it thru Google Translate) the IACC (Cuba's Civilian Aviation Insitute) findings with the AN-158. Parts are just the beginning.

Throughout the years and born out of need, Cuban air mechanics and engineers have had to become masters in the art of making do with pretty much nothing. If their indictment on the An-158 is that damning, and being Cubana's only available short haul equipment, we can pretty much assume the plane is a death trap.

leghorn wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Irrsepective of what the flight data records eventually show those people would have been in a more modern, more reliable, easier to fly, less prone to pilot error plane than the one in which they lost their lives.

Yeah, facts be damned, really no need to investigate at all.
Because - you already know that:

leghorn wrote:

This happened due to U.S. embargoes on Cuba.......
US policy has killed these people

Glad you know how to keep objective.

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

No, you've not cited any facts.
Fact: AF447, a 6 year old A330 "fell out of the sky", all pax lost
Fact: AF4590, a Concorde with only 4873 cycles, crashed on take off, all pax lost

Those are facts, and they really don't fit your narrative.

Your conjecture that this aircrafts cycles are crash-related have no (current) support.
Maybe you should just wait for the professionals to determine the actual cause, before you decide you know?

***
We all can speculate, so here's my speculation, fully acknowledging this is nothing more than that. This operator ("Global") has a recent documented history of unsafely overloading its aircraft. Its maintenance practices have been seriously called into question.This sounds like a failing of the operator/aircrew, and the Mexican regulators.
The real reason why Cuba is wet-leasing from outfits like this is the need to keep costs low, nothing else. The market won't bear Hi-Fly widebody leasing.

My guess is just as good as yours.
***

AR385 wrote:

It looks more and more like a flaps problem. Either not set correctly for T/O or not set at all.

I’m surprised no one has brought this up before. It should be obvious if the flaps we set in the wreckage.
Anyone know?

FlyHappy wrote:

Fact: AF447, a 6 year old A330 "fell out of the sky", all pax lost
Fact: AF4590, a Concorde with only 4873 cycles, crashed on take off, all pax lost

AF447 was pilot error and AF4590 was a 25-year-old aircraft that crashed due to damage caused by debris on the runway. What do they have to do with any of this?

OB1504 wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Fact: AF447, a 6 year old A330 "fell out of the sky", all pax lost
Fact: AF4590, a Concorde with only 4873 cycles, crashed on take off, all pax lost

AF447 was pilot error and AF4590 was a 25-year-old aircraft that crashed due to damage caused by debris on the runway. What do they have to do with any of this?

Precisely nothing.
that's my point to Leghorn, who has already concluded, sans investigation, that old planes, high cycle planes just fall out of the sky and worse, and its the fault of a particular, large nearby government.

Point: let the facts be revealed first.

TWA302 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Mexico authorities have temporarily suspended Aerolineas Damojh DBA Global Airlines AOC while its operations are audited.

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/201 ... b4808.html

Another story here about safety violations. From the article:
"The plane that crashed, a Boeing 737, was barred from Guyanese airspace last year after authorities discovered that its crew had been allowing dangerous overloading of luggage on flights to Cuba, Guyanese Civil Aviation Director Capt. Egbert Field told The Associated Press on Saturday."

Makes me wonder if besides PAX and their belongings, if they were carrying a large cargo load as well.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/19/officials-say-the-mexican-company-whose-plane-crashed-in-havana-received-major-safety-complaints.html

It’s been years since I’ve been in the industry and my memeoty is starting to age slightly. I worked for an airline that ran mostly 732 back in 98-99. If memory serves me correct these were loaded front heavy with cargo/baggage as opposed the 733/734/735 classics. I believe the ratio was 60/40.
So I can see this making sense. Especially given the lack of familiarity with CU ground crew and 732 (Boeing aircraft for that matter) and a possibly easy flight crew. Your assertiion Makes sense if that were a contributor. Maybe a very aft overweight aircraft?

dcajet wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

More like mistakes in sourcing parts.

Take the time to read thru (or put it thru Google Translate) the IACC (Cuba's Civilian Aviation Insitute) findings with the AN-158. Parts are just the beginning.

Throughout the years and born out of need, Cuban air mechanics and engineers have had to become masters in the art of making do with pretty much nothing. If their indictment on the An-158 is that damning, and being Cubana's only available short haul equipment, we can pretty much assume the plane is a death trap.

I find it hard to understand how Cubana has found the major faults in the design of an aircraft they accepted and have been operating, when the aircraft operated across eastern Europe and Asia as well with none of the same issues.

Melbourne wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

More like mistakes in sourcing parts.

Take the time to read thru (or put it thru Google Translate) the IACC (Cuba's Civilian Aviation Insitute) findings with the AN-158. Parts are just the beginning.

Throughout the years and born out of need, Cuban air mechanics and engineers have had to become masters in the art of making do with pretty much nothing. If their indictment on the An-158 is that damning, and being Cubana's only available short haul equipment, we can pretty much assume the plane is a death trap.

I find it hard to understand how Cubana has found the major faults in the design of an aircraft they accepted and have been operating, when the aircraft operated across eastern Europe and Asia as well with none of the same issues.

A. Cubana does not function as an airline in a "normal country". Politics and allegiance to the regime rule each and every one of its decisions. Think Air Koryo.

B. The AN-148/58 is only operated by 4 airlines in the world, the rest are operated by Russian official entities such as the FSB. One Russian airline, Rossiya, part of Aeroflot, unloaded them only a couple of months after entry in service in 2010. According to Rossiya. to fly 1,725 hours the fleet required 2,000 hours of repair-work to fix 235 issues. One aircraft spent 89 out of 92 days in the hangar. Rossiya also said the incidence of technical failure in its fleet occurred once every 344h in the An-148, every 5,355h in its Airbus. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-347983/

The issues with this piece of junk had been known for long now; unfortunately for Cubana, Antonovs, Tupolevs and Illyushins are the only thing they can get their hands on if they want a brand new plane.

dcajet wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Take the time to read thru (or put it thru Google Translate) the IACC (Cuba's Civilian Aviation Insitute) findings with the AN-158. Parts are just the beginning.

Throughout the years and born out of need, Cuban air mechanics and engineers have had to become masters in the art of making do with pretty much nothing. If their indictment on the An-158 is that damning, and being Cubana's only available short haul equipment, we can pretty much assume the plane is a death trap.

I find it hard to understand how Cubana has found the major faults in the design of an aircraft they accepted and have been operating, when the aircraft operated across eastern Europe and Asia as well with none of the same issues.

A. Cubana does not function as an airline in a "normal country". Politics and allegiance to the regime rule each and every one of its decisions. Think Air Koryo.

B. The AN-148/58 is only operated by 4 airlines in the world, the rest are operated by Russian official entities such as the FSB. One Russian airline, Rossiya, part of Aeroflot, unloaded them only a couple of months after entry in service in 2010. According to Rossiya. to fly 1,725 hours the fleet required 2,000 hours of repair-work to fix 235 issues. One aircraft spent 89 out of 92 days in the hangar. Rossiya also said the incidence of technical failure in its fleet occurred once every 344h in the An-148, every 5,355h in its Airbus. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-347983/

The issues with this piece of junk had been known for long now; unfortunately for Cubana, Antonovs, Tupolevs and Illyushins are the only thing they can get their hands on if they want a brand new plane.

Like you mentioned Air Koryo, they actually operate the an-148 themselves with what seems like little issue as they operate it over their small network.

To be fair Cubana have been operating the said types of manufacturers for the last 50 years.

I just got back from Havana. Spoke to several airport employees about the crash. One witness the airplane take off bank right and the aircraft took the nose dive. The airplane just missed a school by 500 meters. 2 of the 4 survivors passed away in the hospital and the other 2 are still in ICU. That day many at the airport where in a state of shock and disbelief.

Did anyone mention an engine fire before the crash?

nine4nine wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Mexico authorities have temporarily suspended Aerolineas Damojh DBA Global Airlines AOC while its operations are audited.

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/201 ... b4808.html

Another story here about safety violations. From the article:
"The plane that crashed, a Boeing 737, was barred from Guyanese airspace last year after authorities discovered that its crew had been allowing dangerous overloading of luggage on flights to Cuba, Guyanese Civil Aviation Director Capt. Egbert Field told The Associated Press on Saturday."

Makes me wonder if besides PAX and their belongings, if they were carrying a large cargo load as well.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/05/19/officials-say-the-mexican-company-whose-plane-crashed-in-havana-received-major-safety-complaints.html

It’s been years since I’ve been in the industry and my memeoty is starting to age slightly. I worked for an airline that ran mostly 732 back in 98-99. If memory serves me correct these were loaded front heavy with cargo/baggage as opposed the 733/734/735 classics. I believe the ratio was 60/40.
So I can see this making sense. Especially given the lack of familiarity with CU ground crew and 732 (Boeing aircraft for that matter) and a possibly easy flight crew. Your assertiion Makes sense if that were a contributor. Maybe a very aft overweight aircraft?

Global has been operating for Cubana since 2010 at least. I think the CU ground crew are more than familiar with the airline/aircraft/crew. Boeings/Airbus/ATR aircraft are common at Havana. Cubana have only 2 IL96, 2 TU204 & 2 ATRs in service, they lease in aircraft/crews from quite a few reputable companies to operate domestic and international services.
No doubt that there will be more than one contributing factor to this disaster.
Regards

gunnerman wrote:

Did anyone mention an engine fire before the crash?

One ground witness. But the two most comment witness statements in aviation accident investigations are: (1) that the engine or aircraft was engulfed in flames as it was coming down and (2) that the witness could see the faces of passengers in the window -- even witnesses a mile away. Most of these reports are imagined, presumably in good faith.

[
Glad you know how to keep objective.[/quote]
Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.[/quote]


You have the wrong facts sir. Do some research. It's very simple: a well maintained aircraft does not fall out of the sky as far as age of airframe. Reckless statement

leghorn wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Irrsepective of what the flight data records eventually show those people would have been in a more modern, more reliable, easier to fly, less prone to pilot error plane than the one in which they lost their lives.

Yeah, facts be damned, really no need to investigate at all.
Because - you already know that:

leghorn wrote:

This happened due to U.S. embargoes on Cuba.......
US policy has killed these people

Glad you know how to keep objective.

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

You have zero facts to back up this claim. You can't be a member on this site without reading that properly maintained airframes have quite the life ahead of them. Older planes don't fall out of the sky because of their age.

As for US killing these people? What a reckless and myopic opinion. No one stopped Cubana from wetleasing a different frame from Mexico (or anywhere else). They chose to go with this operator and aircraft. As for your embargo: they can source fleet aircraft from Russia.

Melbourne wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

I find it hard to understand how Cubana has found the major faults in the design of an aircraft they accepted and have been operating, when the aircraft operated across eastern Europe and Asia as well with none of the same issues.

A. Cubana does not function as an airline in a "normal country". Politics and allegiance to the regime rule each and every one of its decisions. Think Air Koryo.

B. The AN-148/58 is only operated by 4 airlines in the world, the rest are operated by Russian official entities such as the FSB. One Russian airline, Rossiya, part of Aeroflot, unloaded them only a couple of months after entry in service in 2010. According to Rossiya. to fly 1,725 hours the fleet required 2,000 hours of repair-work to fix 235 issues. One aircraft spent 89 out of 92 days in the hangar. Rossiya also said the incidence of technical failure in its fleet occurred once every 344h in the An-148, every 5,355h in its Airbus. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-347983/

The issues with this piece of junk had been known for long now; unfortunately for Cubana, Antonovs, Tupolevs and Illyushins are the only thing they can get their hands on if they want a brand new plane.

Like you mentioned Air Koryo, they actually operate the an-148 themselves with what seems like little issue as they operate it over their small network.

To be fair Cubana have been operating the said types of manufacturers for the last 50 years.

An often overlooked issue with support of An-158, as far as Cubana is concerned, is that these airframes were built in Ukraine, and delivered to Cubana by Russia's Ilyushin Finance Corp.
It's not a standalone transaction, it's a part of larger financial package between Russia and Cuba.
Until Russia invaded Ukraine, the spare part/support/training business was (would be) done with Antonov of Ukraine invoicing all of the above to IFC for cold hard cash, and IFC would later settle with Cuba in whatever items/currencies/debt instruments these two saw fit.
After 2014, Russia is under Ukrainian sanctions for aerospace and military equipment and components (no point in arming an invader).
Cubana can procure spare parts/support/training from Antonov direct (no sanctions on Cuba from Ukraine), but apparently does not want to spend cash to do so (and there's no government-established credit line). Of course, an unloved type, without OEM support, will draw more fire from support personnel and the regulator, than it could otherwise, all things considered.

[*]

Planejoe wrote:

AR385 wrote:

It looks more and more like a flaps problem. Either not set correctly for T/O or not set at all.

I’m surprised no one has brought this up before. It should be obvious if the flaps we set in the wreckage.
Anyone know?

This is also a strong possibility. I haven't seen any good pictures of the wings. Improper configuration for takeoff could play a role. But, most of the crashes caused by improper takeoff configuration usually dont get altitude like this one did. I will be very curious to hear the results of the crash investigation.

I have to ask, mainly due to my ignorance regarding Cuba. Do they have a program like the NTSB? Have they held any news conferences since the crash? Black boxes recovered? Also, does anyone know if Boeing will send someone to help the crash investigation?

I just saw someone posted another passenger passed away. That leaves only 2 survivors at this point? Thankful the plane missed the school!

BobbyPSP wrote:

leghorn wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

Yeah, facts be damned, really no need to investigate at all.
Because - you already know that:



Glad you know how to keep objective.

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

You have zero facts to back up this claim. You can't be a member on this site without reading that properly maintained airframes have quite the life ahead of them. Older planes don't fall out of the sky because of their age.

As for US killing these people? What a reckless and myopic opinion. No one stopped Cubana from wetleasing a different frame from Mexico (or anywhere else). They chose to go with this operator and aircraft. As for your embargo: they can source fleet aircraft from Russia.

You are not going to see anyone in the industry highlighting this issue as they don't want to talk down the value of their old planes as they need them to be as valuable as possible to make their balance sheets look good and to provide a deposit on new or younger frames but when a major maintenance activity comes up for a plane entering its third decade you won't find many western airlines eager to spend the money on keeping the plane airworthy and then they filter in to secondary markets where the players aren't able to play at the big boys' table for one reason or another.
You'd think that if there was a surplus of planes there would be a surplus of pilots. We know there isn't a surplus of pilots.
Old planes beyond the end of their economic life fall out of the sky and they are the mechanically recovered meat of the Industry that affluent Westerners can afford not to consume.

Trigger's Broom:
https://www.facebook.com/djalexkiddmusi ... 504349615/

F9Animal wrote:

[*]

Planejoe wrote:

AR385 wrote:

It looks more and more like a flaps problem. Either not set correctly for T/O or not set at all.

I’m surprised no one has brought this up before. It should be obvious if the flaps we set in the wreckage.
Anyone know?

This is also a strong possibility. I haven't seen any good pictures of the wings. Improper configuration for takeoff could play a role. But, most of the crashes caused by improper takeoff configuration usually dont get altitude like this one did. I will be very curious to hear the results of the crash investigation.

I have to ask, mainly due to my ignorance regarding Cuba. Do they have a program like the NTSB? Have they held any news conferences since the crash? Black boxes recovered? Also, does anyone know if Boeing will send someone to help the crash investigation?

I just saw someone posted another passenger passed away. That leaves only 2 survivors at this point? Thankful the plane missed the school!

Actually the aircraft never climbed. They reached a climb attitude, but It just left the ground and "flew" for 10 seconds. In my opinion, that is the classical behavior of a bad take-off configuration when the groud effect dissipates. It happens more than one would think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLF0ox27_k

AR385 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

[*]

Planejoe wrote:

I’m surprised no one has brought this up before. It should be obvious if the flaps we set in the wreckage.
Anyone know?

This is also a strong possibility. I haven't seen any good pictures of the wings. Improper configuration for takeoff could play a role. But, most of the crashes caused by improper takeoff configuration usually dont get altitude like this one did. I will be very curious to hear the results of the crash investigation.

I have to ask, mainly due to my ignorance regarding Cuba. Do they have a program like the NTSB? Have they held any news conferences since the crash? Black boxes recovered? Also, does anyone know if Boeing will send someone to help the crash investigation?

I just saw someone posted another passenger passed away. That leaves only 2 survivors at this point? Thankful the plane missed the school!

Actually the aircraft never climbed. They reached a climb attitude, but It just left the ground and "flew" for 10 seconds. In my opinion, that is the classical behavior of a bad take-off configuration when the groud effect dissipates. It happens more than one would think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLF0ox27_k

When simulators were scarce in 2003 how do you think they are now:
https://www.pprune.org/questions/91476- ... lator.html

and the plane certainly wouldn't have the oomph of a modern 737.

A 39 year old plane is an outlier. In statistics one would typically cut out the statistical outliers and concentrate on the planes in the middle of the bell curve. In 1979 they would have been cutting the 1940 year of manufacture old vintage plane.

You don't like the message. Burn me at the stake.

leghorn wrote:

BobbyPSP wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

You have zero facts to back up this claim. You can't be a member on this site without reading that properly maintained airframes have quite the life ahead of them. Older planes don't fall out of the sky because of their age.

As for US killing these people? What a reckless and myopic opinion. No one stopped Cubana from wetleasing a different frame from Mexico (or anywhere else). They chose to go with this operator and aircraft. As for your embargo: they can source fleet aircraft from Russia.

You are not going to see anyone in the industry highlighting this issue as they don't want to talk down the value of their old planes as they need them to be as valuable as possible to make their balance sheets look good and to provide a deposit on new or younger frames but when a major maintenance activity comes up for a plane entering its third decade you won't find many western airlines eager to spend the money on keeping the plane airworthy and then they filter in to secondary markets where the players aren't able to play at the big boys' table for one reason or another.
You'd think that if there was a surplus of planes there would be a surplus of pilots. We know there isn't a surplus of pilots.
Old planes beyond the end of their economic life fall out of the sky and they are the mechanically recovered meat of the Industry that affluent Westerners can afford not to consume.

Trigger's Broom:
https://www.facebook.com/djalexkiddmusi ... 504349615/

Delusional

Melbourne wrote:

Like you mentioned Air Koryo, they actually operate the an-148 themselves with what seems like little issue as they operate it over their small network.

And you know that Air Koryo does not have issues with the AN-148 how, exactly? They are the most hermit-like airline in the world.

Melbourne wrote:

To be fair Cubana have been operating the said types of manufacturers for the last 50 years.

Precisely. So they know exactly what they are talking about and are up against when they grounded the AN-158 fleet

dcajet wrote:

Melbourne wrote:

Like you mentioned Air Koryo, they actually operate the an-148 themselves with what seems like little issue as they operate it over their small network.

And you know that Air Koryo does not have issues with the AN-148 how, exactly? They are the most hermit-like airline in the world.

Melbourne wrote:

To be fair Cubana have been operating the said types of manufacturers for the last 50 years.

Precisely. So they know exactly what they are talking about and are up against when they grounded the AN-158 fleet

Well maybe because they were sourced the exact same way for Cubana frames were from the Kiev factory via IFC, it's virtually an identical transaction. It was noted by Cubana that it was a parts issue from a year or two ago and that they had come to an agreement with Russia for the sourcing of parts and for the eventual return to service of all An-158 aircraft (part of the deal with the il-96 fleet which made its say to Russia for major overhaul etc and hence why there is an active il-96 fleet currently and it is being used on services that CU had used wet-leased frames on ie YUL, YYZ)

And in reality we are talking about a Communist state here, quite a closed doors state that wouldn't admit fault of its own account just to save face as all communist states have done and do.

leghorn wrote:

BobbyPSP wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Facts are that an older plane will eventually fall out of the sky and maintaining them in airworthy condition is so onerous that it is practically impossible.
The older planes mentioned in many examples are low cycle planes not a hack like this.
MTBF applies to everything unless you are talking about Trigger's magical Broom.
As I am not allowed to discuss Politics on this thread that answer will have to suffice.

You have zero facts to back up this claim. You can't be a member on this site without reading that properly maintained airframes have quite the life ahead of them. Older planes don't fall out of the sky because of their age.

As for US killing these people? What a reckless and myopic opinion. No one stopped Cubana from wetleasing a different frame from Mexico (or anywhere else). They chose to go with this operator and aircraft. As for your embargo: they can source fleet aircraft from Russia.

You are not going to see anyone in the industry highlighting this issue as they don't want to talk down the value of their old planes as they need them to be as valuable as possible to make their balance sheets look good and to provide a deposit on new or younger frames but when a major maintenance activity comes up for a plane entering its third decade you won't find many western airlines eager to spend the money on keeping the plane airworthy and then they filter in to secondary markets where the players aren't able to play at the big boys' table for one reason or another.
You'd think that if there was a surplus of planes there would be a surplus of pilots. We know there isn't a surplus of pilots.
Old planes beyond the end of their economic life fall out of the sky and they are the mechanically recovered meat of the Industry that affluent Westerners can afford not to consume.

Trigger's Broom:
https://www.facebook.com/djalexkiddmusi ... 504349615/

What are you talking about????? Bad, old frames will filter down to perhaps less than vigilant owners. That’s no reflection on the airframe. Simple matter of maintenance.

Again, this isn’t chicken little with the sky falling.

Second "black box" (the FDR) was found today in Havana.

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/201 ... b4612.html

Q: Who drinks cholera infected water or eats tainted food? Who runs ancient planes of questionable provenance?
A: Those with no alternative.

The attitude on this thread from the majority is "let them eat cake" and they deserve what they get for being guilty of the "original sin" of misfortunately being born in a communist state.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xBUKWtTJcaY

Security camera caught the last seconds. Horrifying

Accelerated stallVMC roll.

Looks like there was no thrust at all at this point.
https://youtu.be/xBUKWtTJcaY

That video looks like a stall. Aircraft just dropped.

TWA302 wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xBUKWtTJcaY

Security camera caught the last seconds. Horrifying

No engine fire. And looks like the right wing is stalled. Or am I wrong on this?

MalevTU134 wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=xBUKWtTJcaY

Security camera caught the last seconds. Horrifying

No engine fire. And looks like the right wing is stalled. Or am I wrong on this?

Nope. No engine fire at all. Looks very similar to the National Cargo crash from 2013. The list of reasons is long for this one long though.... Just makes my heart sink to watch.

AR385 wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

[*]

Planejoe wrote:

I’m surprised no one has brought this up before. It should be obvious if the flaps we set in the wreckage.
Anyone know?

This is also a strong possibility. I haven't seen any good pictures of the wings. Improper configuration for takeoff could play a role. But, most of the crashes caused by improper takeoff configuration usually dont get altitude like this one did. I will be very curious to hear the results of the crash investigation.

I have to ask, mainly due to my ignorance regarding Cuba. Do they have a program like the NTSB? Have they held any news conferences since the crash? Black boxes recovered? Also, does anyone know if Boeing will send someone to help the crash investigation?

I just saw someone posted another passenger passed away. That leaves only 2 survivors at this point? Thankful the plane missed the school!

Actually the aircraft never climbed. They reached a climb attitude, but It just left the ground and "flew" for 10 seconds. In my opinion, that is the classical behavior of a bad take-off configuration when the groud effect dissipates. It happens more than one would think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFLF0ox27_k

That looks like a normal takeoff, although they set the flaps late...

Another survivor (40) succumbed to her injuries last night... The official death toll is now 112 and there is just one survivor left... Absolutely awful

Blankbarcode wrote:

Another survivor (40) succumbed to her injuries last night... The official death toll is now 112 and there is just one survivor left... Absolutely awful

Now, after seeing the video, it’s amazing that there were survivors at all. Very sad...

N14AZ wrote:

Blankbarcode wrote:

Another survivor (40) succumbed to her injuries last night... The official death toll is now 112 and there is just one survivor left... Absolutely awful

Now, after seeing the video, it’s amazing that there were survivors at all. Very sad...

Makes me think the opposite. It seems to be a low speed low-energy crash. Of course, the smoke and fire is probably what killed most people onboard. But compare to TK at AMS, which had a lot more forward momentum, and "only" 6 deaths (if memory serves me right). No resulting fire in that crash, though.