It’s too early to know if the black boxes survived, but this is a good time to suggest that uploading critical data to elsewhere on real-time (the cloud, non-local storage) is a VERY good idea. It’s an idea whose time has come.
Even if the black boxes are eventually fully recovered, such data storage would be available sooner and as a backup.
You know everyone here has been getting some details wrong: from Google’s AI overview we now know it was an Airbus–not a Boeing:
The black boxes must certainly have survived - the tail section of the airplane (where the FDR usually is located) was even pretty much intact in the wreckage, and black boxes have survived far worse impacts.
That plane lost altitude pretty quickly so bird-strike breaking the routine of flaps and retracting the landing gear is very likely the cause.
ETA: Besides any obvious video, what would be notable on the black boxes? Major loss of thrust?
<< Deleted by poster >> Too much guessing on my part.
Moderating:
Reminder that this is a breaking news thread, and political jabs aren’t appropriate.
Speculating about the legitimacy of the sole survivor is okay, but should stick to factual info, not generalizations.
The voice recording, although we already know the pilot called in a mayday.
That man was thrown from the wreckage AND WALKED AWAY!
Over the decades, there have been a number of single-survivor commercial plane crashes, and all of them had serious survivor’s guilt, even if they weren’t old enough or were too severely injured to remember the crash itself.
I recently saw an interview on YouTube with Juliane Koepcke, whose survival when her plane exploded over the Peruvian jungle in the early 1970s made worldwide headlines. She’s probably retired by now, but she did continue the research her parents, who were biologists, had done in that region. The voice-over said that at least 14 other passengers survived the fall to the ground, although how long they stayed alive after “landing” or if any of them might have recovered had they been found in time was not stated.
I also remember this remarkable story. She was raised by an aunt and uncle, who were very careful to preserve her privacy, and has only gone public in recent years.
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2013/05/lone_survivor_of_1987_plane_cr.html/
When this happened, the First Responders and TV crews couldn’t believe anyone had survived, until they went to the runway to retrieve the bodies and saw a group of about 20 people standing by the runway. They asked, “Where did YOU come from?” and they said, “We came from that plane that just crashed! There are lot of injured people, and you need to help them.” The firemen, etc. radioed that there were survivors and everyone else made a mad rush to the scene.
I lived briefly in Sioux City a few years later, and heard even more stories, like the one about the woman who wasn’t even dirty who mentioned within earshot of a nurse that her fingertips went numb whenever she turned her head to the side. She was bumped to the front of the line, and sure enough had a broken neck. She walked out of the hospital a few days later and made a full recovery. This link has a chart explaining where uninjured, injured, or deceased people were.
The commercial pilots can chime in about the nose up attitude. Isn’t that going to slow the plane and hurt lift over the wing? Clearly they managed to get hundreds of feet in the air. I can’t tell by the video but it looks like they pull the nose up as they descend.
Boeing stock has taken what I’d reckon an undeserved 10% drop. I know little about the 787 and less about the Airbus 800 other than it’s ugly looking.
By far most of my air mileage has been on Aer Lingus and Qantas, which “The Rain Man” had some phrase I won’t repeat so not to jinx. I believe Qantas still flies 747’s between LAX and SYD, and it’s not only a beautiful plane, it has four engines. I’m not sure if that matters with bird-strikes.
While I was following the Indian story earlier, I also saw, on Flightradar24.com, that a plane that had just taken off from Albuquerque, headed to Chicago, was headed back to the airport. A post I saw on Instagram implied that the cabin hadn’t properly pressurized; they weren’t very far away when it turned around and landed safely.
Failure to pressurize is an irritant, not a crisis. You’re not getting to the destination, but the hazard is negligible. At least assuming prompt detection.
And having flown jets without pressurization, 100% of everybody on board knew something was wrong from liftoff. Subtle it ain’t.
Another Sioux City survival story: One of the people who wasn’t even dirty walked into the airport bar and told the bartender, “Pour me a double, and keep 'em coming.” He was later admitted to the hospital with alcohol poisoning!
On a happier note, to nobody’s surprise, people offered their extra bedrooms to anyone involved with the crash, and the blood bank decided to stay open until they ran out of donors, or equipment. You guessed it - they ran out of donation bags while people were still in line, late at night.
From liftoff? You’re one of the posters I know knows airplanes. Yet do they even pressurize below 10,000 feet? That’s what they do (drop to 10,000) if pressure is lost and pretty much means you’re not getting to your destination.
I went to an airline enthusiast convention (yes, there are such people!) where the key speaker at the banquet on the final night was none other than Al Haynes, who was the captain of UA 232. The stories he told of the harrowing situation he, his crew and passengers went through were amazing. and riveting. Unfortunately Captain Haynes passed away in 2019. May he rest in peace.
So the not putting up the flaps seems like a bit of a “smoking gun” to me (as someone who knows nothing about flying planes, speaking a few hours after the crash)
The videos we have are super low res, but the flaps should (according to random YouTube dudes) be super obvious even on those if they were down ,
(They should have obscured the engines)
The weird thing is the 787 will (again according to random YouTube dudes) literally scream at you if you try and take off with the flaps in the incorrect position for take off
Sure. One engine is a loss of 25% power. On a twin engine one engine loss is 50% power (not to mention asymmetric thrust problems…one side pushing harder than the other induces a yaw/roll). Pilots are trained to deal with this and it is certainly manageable but things just got a lot more difficult.
Redundancy helps. But, it is also more expensive usually and money wins in the final analysis.
The flaps are super obvious when at their maximum extension, but that’s used when landing. When taking off, they’re only partially extended.
I haven’t watched any of the video yet. The folks saying that the flaps were up may just be leaping to a conclusion because the flaps weren’t in the super obvious, fully extended position.