Cuban 737 Crash Video

that's weird, the time in the video jumps from 11:00 to 16:00. but holy smokes is right, that thing is going backwards just before impact.
 
This is going backwards and slow before impact. What the hell? Was this right after take off?
 
Weren't there even a few survivors of that? Wow!
 
Todd82 said:
Weren't there even a few survivors of that? Wow!
Click to expand...

I read somewhere there were 3 very seriously injured survivors. Incredible.

And it sure looks as if the plane is slowly almost flat spinning and going backwards.
 
Zeldman said:
I read somewhere there were 3 very seriously injured survivors. Incredible.

And it sure looks as if the plane is slowly almost flat spinning and going backwards.
Click to expand...
To my knowledge one of the three have succumbed to their injuries.
 
I have been doing this a long time, and I have seen some weird and horrible stuff, but that is pretty near the all-time worst situation I've seen.
I wish there was more/better video to analyze.
 
eman1200 said:
but holy smokes is right, that thing is going backwards just before impact.
Click to expand...

I think it just looks that way. The intended path of flight is probably from the left to the right in frame (from above the letter "V" towards the "e" or the "1"), so it's spinning/keeling in towards the right, but because it's now descending as well, it looks like it's going backwards.
 
It was an older 737....possibility of a rudder hardover or reversal? I know the older ones had issues with the rudder PCUs and a few crashes have been associated with it.
 
What's really odd about that video is it starts zooming in to the exact spot prior to when the aircraft appears. It may very well may be authentic but that sure seems like a big coincidence.
 
Turningfinal said:
It was an older 737....possibility of a rudder hardover or reversal? I know the older ones had issues with the rudder PCUs and a few crashes have been associated with it.
Click to expand...

The hardovers were a theory - never conclusively proven.
 
GRG55 said:
Then one would expect it should no longer be a factor as some are speculating.
Click to expand...

Did not the person above, suggesting this as a theory in this crash wonder if this 737 'escaped' the requirement to change the actuator(s) or [PCUs]? That's how I read his post.

Possibly there are 73's out there in remote countries that have been neglected in this way?
 
denverpilot said:
Honestly they were guessing at the valve too, from everything I read about it.

But they had to come up with something when the investigators had to use a backhoe to find the tail of the aircraft and it went in nose-first, straight down.
Click to expand...

Is it not the case that once all the actuators or (PCUs?) in the US fleet were changed, the problem stopped?
 
I know Cuba is Cuba, but would Boeing have any access to flight data?
 
denverpilot said:
It was a Mexican charter company anyway.
Click to expand...
Wondering about whatever jurisdiction the FDR might fall under, and if we'll ever find out what happened.

I've only seen behavior like that in movies with bad effects, or when that 747 went down in Bagram when the load shifted after takeoff. I can't remember seeing that before, other than when I watched a guy spin in.
 
denverpilot said:
Honestly they were guessing at the valve too, from everything I read about it.

But they had to come up with something when the investigators had to use a backhoe to find the tail of the aircraft and it went in nose-first, straight down.
Click to expand...
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0101.pdf

It’s a long read. Lab work demonstrated failure modes. Service records provided some support that the lab work was applicable to real world circumstances. I think it all came together several years after the accident.
 
Matthew said:
I know Cuba is Cuba, but would Boeing have any access to flight data?
Click to expand...

I believe both Cuba and Mexico are members of ICAO. I also believe that ICAO regulations stipulate that both the country of manufacture’s CAA (in this case FAA) and the manufacturer itself (in this case Boeing) are to be parties to the investigation. However the country where an accident happens is still basically in charge.
 
Stan Cooper said:
I just finished reading that and was about to post the link. :)
Click to expand...
I think the report did okay on describing the problem. I think an analysis of the servo design which included material specs and QC of servos in service would be quite educational for engineers.
 
Wasn't it happening when the airplane was cold-soaked? (I'm guessing Cuba, in May, on t-o was not too frigid)
 
Boeing never "admitted" anything, but the lab work managed to create a hypothetical failure mode that could have happened, and they did develop an updated PCU that was immune from the lab-assisted failure.
 
Turningfinal said:
It was an older 737....possibility of a rudder hardover or reversal? I know the older ones had issues with the rudder PCUs and a few crashes have been associated with it.
Click to expand...

Actually, two crashes, United 585 and USAir 427. One aircraft involved was a 737-200 delivered in 1982, and the other was a 737-300, delivered in 1987. Per ADs issued by the FAA, the rudder PCUs in all 737s were required to be replaced by November 2002 with a redesigned unit. It's highly unlikely this was the cause of the crash. Besides that, in both instances the aircraft rolled inverted and dove into the ground at an extreme pitch angle. The snippet of video does not support that scenario.
 
As noted, probably unrelated to the Cuba crash but while we are discussing the 737 hardover accidents/incident here is the video I recall where they coldsoaked the pcu then thermal shocked it with hot hydraulic fluid (and it seized)
Move forward to 35:10

 
Let'sgoflying! said:
As noted, probably unrelated to the Cuba crash but while we are discussing the 737 hardover accidents/incident here is the video I recall where they coldsoaked the pcu then thermal shocked it with hot hydraulic fluid (and it seized)
Move forward to 35:10

Click to expand...
A bit more than hypothetical...
 
Clark1961 said:
A bit more than hypothetical...
Click to expand...

Indeed; I did not mean that the failure produced was hypothetical. Rather, it was the attribution of the crash events to that forced-fail.

In any event, the updated PCU is better and safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top