Loud engines still spinning...it must have been quite a terrifying sight/sound to witness in person.
Jet or prop?
Embraer?
RIP to the unfortunate victims.
Didn’t see the jet’s manufacturer. Boeing?
ATR-42 turboprop manufactured in France/Italy.
I’ve flown on one on a very bumpy flight to North Carolina.
Wasn’t filled with confidence.
Flat spin
Either lost an engine or stalled one wing, coming in too slow in the pattern. The inboard wing, in a turn, losing too much speed and no longer generating lift.
Very difficult to recover as it often happens at low altitudes and it would require dropping the nose to regain lift on both wings.
Low altitude and one engine out is a very bad situation in a stall.
Iced up wings. It was reported there were icing conditions between 12K and 20K feet of altitude. That aircraft was in the zone.
Failure to maintain altitude is my determination.
I’m speculating. But, based on the inflight data, I’d bet this will be related to ice accumulation inflight. ATR aircraft have had a troublesome history with ice.
Pilot didn’t try to miss anything. He was not in control of the aircraft in any way.
Flat spin. Not possible to recover from in that type of airplane.
Once the plane started the flat spin they were all doomed.
How can a twin with large engines get into a flat spin?
Ice building up on the wings destroys the lifting (airfoil) shape of the wings. If it builds up too fast, the aircraft cannot keep flying normally, even at full engine power. Airlines spend a huge amount of money deicing aircraft before takeoff and many planes have vibrating “boots” and heated sections to shed ice in the air.
With that said, who writes this stuff:
"Aimer said the most likely cause of the crash was that the aircraft suffered a low speed stall - when the airflow over the wings is too slow to provide enough lift. This happens when planes move too slowly. The three reasons this happens are either a technical fault, extreme turbulence, pilot error or something hitting the wing, like a bird.
"Three reasons," but the author lists four. Also, "either" as used in the sentence, refers to one of two choices, not multipole choices.
"One top aviation expert told MailOnline that the plane could have experience engine failure, flight control malfunction, or a critical part of the aircraft falling off."
Stupid headline.
Considering that over 100,000 airplanes fly every day and we only hear about a crash every once in a while, the safety record has got to be pretty spectacular.
It was in a flat spin, not a common or easy attitude to achieve. Usually associated with weight and balance issues. Recoverable by an experienced pilot.
Contrary to what the idiot who wrote this article stated, a stall IS NOT "...when the airflow over the wings is too slow to provide enough lift...." A stall occurs when the resultant relative airflow over a wing exceeds that airfoil's critical angle of attack. There's no end of stupid crap in this article, but that's probably the most ignorant of all.
Commercial aircraft have a stall prevention system called stick shaker/stick pusher. If a stall is imminent, the system induces a noticeable vibration ("shaking") into the steering yoke, not unlike the Botts dots they put on the shoulder of highways to waken sleepy motorists drifting out of their lane. If the pilot ignores the shaker's warning and enters a light stall, motors on the steering yoke physically push the stick forward with a force of (IIRC) 75 pounds in an effort to lower the nose, thereby reducing the angle of attack and restoring laminar airflow over the wing and ending the stall.
Once the stick pusher is activated, it takes a deliberate act by the flying pilot to continue or worsen the stall.
So if you spin a commercial aircraft, there's a very good chance that it was the result of encountering a circumstance that was never covered in any class you ever took.
Until the get the flight data recorder analyzed, I doubt anybody but the two pilots in that cockpit will have a clue what caused the crash.
From the Wikipedia page:
.../Meteorological reports at the time of the accident indicated that areas of turbulence, thunderstorms and icing were present in areas surrounding the accident. The Brazilian Air Force said in a statement that Flight 2283 did not declare an emergency.According to Flightradar24, the aircraft was cruising at 17,000 feet (5,200 m) when, at 13:21 local time, the aircraft experienced a brief loss of altitude followed by the aircraft briefly gaining in altitude. Shortly thereafter the aircraft entered into a steep and terminal descent, with the last data transmission occurring at 1:22 pm, before crashing. ADS-B data indicated that the aircraft reached a maximum vertical descent rate of 24,000 feet (7,300 m) per minute....
That is not a typical day in the office.
Since other pilots are weighing in, I’ll give my .02 cents. The trouble started at 17,000 feet. Not knowing anymore than watching the videos, it looks like a recoverable spin, which likely started with a stall. The ol’ power back, nose down, hard right turn, and right rudder to the floor should have worked. Serious icing could have played a part. But, he had 17,000 feet to recover.
The only ones who really know what happened are the pilots and the black box.
Did anyone see anything about a group of oncologists on board who were going to speak about the impact of the vax on some turbo cancer?
The preliminary accident report is out...the usual ATR icing issues combined with pilot inattention/incompetence:
https://youtu.be/ETq5IxmJYPM?si=8nQ1Pl4DWHJSdFku
https://dedalo.sti.fab.mil.br/en/85259