Boeing China Eastern 737 Crash: What Caused the Unusual Cruise Phase Tragedy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    China Crash
Click For Summary
On March 21, a China Eastern Airlines 737-800 crashed during the cruise phase, a typically safe flight segment, killing all 132 on board. The aircraft reportedly entered a rapid descent, reaching speeds of 30,000 feet per minute, which raises questions about potential causes such as runaway trim or intentional actions. Speculation about pilot suicide or mechanical failure is prevalent, though many argue that a power loss at cruising altitude should not lead to such a drastic outcome. The intact fuselage seen in videos suggests that in-flight breakup is unlikely, but the investigation is ongoing to determine the exact cause. The recovery of flight recorders is crucial for uncovering the circumstances surrounding this tragic incident.
russ_watters
Mentor
Insights Author
Messages
23,734
Reaction score
11,177
TL;DR
Discussion of the China Eastern 737 crash on Monday, 3/21.
On Monday, 3/21 a China Eastern Airlines 737-800 crashed, killing 132 people.

What is unusual about this crash is that it happened from the cruise phase of flight. This is usually the safest phase, as the plane is flying straight and level most of the time and nothing is changing so there shouldn't be anything happening to trigger a problem, and there is more energy/time available to deal with problems that might occur. Contrast that with takeoff and landing, when time and energy are limited.

Video shows what appears to be an intact plane pointing straight down as it fell:
https://nypost.com/2022/03/21/the-moment-china-eastern-boeing-737-nosedives-before-fiery-crash/

This indicates it had a brief recovery but otherwise dropped rapidly, at up to 30,000 fpm (300 kts) and during its recovery reached maybe 575 kts (above its cruising speed):
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/china-eastern-airlines-flight-5735-crashes-en-route-to-guangzhou/

Note that the speeds are ground speeds not airspeeds, indicating it flew very fast but also not straight down for much of the descent.

There are only a few scenarios that we've seen for crashes from high altitude and this would seem to preclude most:
  • Riding a stall to the ground at low speed (Air France 447)
  • Explosive decompression, causing in-flight breakup (multiple)
I can only think of two scenarios that might look like this:
  • Runaway trim (though note, this was not a 737 Max)
  • Intentional (terrorism/suicide, such as United 93, Germanwings 9525)
 
  • Sad
Likes Astronuc and pinball1970
Physics news on Phys.org
I depart in 48 hours. Thanks Russ. 😬
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd, pinball1970 and russ_watters
The videos seem to eliminate the possibility of in-flight breakup.

Speculation without the final report won't expose an intentional act. The hope here is that the flight recorders are recovered intact enough to tell us what happened.

In past cases, speculation that the pilot (pilots?) committed suicide was highly traumatic to the pilot's family, but in some cases some other cause was the final conclusion. IMO, public speculation about deliberate acts without evidence is harmful and should be discouraged.
 
  • Like
Likes DaveE
anorlunda said:
IMO, public speculation about deliberate acts without evidence is harmful and should be discouraged.

Honorable. However, the B737 is a workhorse for decades. Mid-flight almost rules out a maintenance problem, an intact plane rules out a bomb or other causes for physical breaks. The fire rules out a fuel problem. The stall almost rules out a steering or trim problem.

There is not much left for reasonable causes.
 
fresh_42 said:
There is not much left for reasonable causes.
For the record without speculation concerning this flight, other factors affecting flight safety,
  • atmospheric conditions including shear, lightning, severe turbulence.
  • FOD foreign object damage, natural and human caused including weapons.
  • human factors not previously mentioned such as over/under reaction to emergencies.
  • catastrophic equipment failure including electrical, fuel system, engines, trim system...
This thread alerted me to this event. B-737 a stable reliable transport within envelope.
 
Klystron said:
For the record without speculation concerning this flight, other factors affecting flight safety,
  • human factors not previously mentioned such as over/under reaction to emergencies.
This made me think of another:
  • Crew incapacitation (several examples)
This has happened several times due to slow depressurization. It usually happens while in autopilot and the crash generally occurs after running out of fuel. It would be possible if the plane was being flown manually, as well as a brief attempt to regain control before the final crash.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron
fresh_42 said:
The stall almost rules out a steering or trim problem.
What stall? The data I saw gives no hint of a stall. The data shows a dive with almost zero change in heading. A stalled plane rotates like a falling leaf.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
anorlunda said:
What stall? The data I saw gives no hint of a stall. The data shows a dive with almost zero change in heading. A stalled plane rotates like a falling leaf.
That's what I meant. An airplane with things like shifted cargo, lost flight control, structural damage, or even stalled engines won't fall like a rock. They stagger.
 
fresh_42 said:
That's what I meant. An airplane with things like shifted cargo, lost flight control, structural damage, or even stalled engines won't fall like a rock. They stagger.
It also looks to me like you misspoke. Did you mean to say *lack of a* stall?
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
It also looks to me like you misspoke. Did you mean to say *lack of a* stall?
I thought "stall" would describe any case without an aerodynamic lift.
 
  • #11
fresh_42 said:
an intact plane rules out a bomb or other causes for physical breaks.
Do we know the whole plane is intact? Or do we only know the fuselage is intact from the photos?
What if a wing (or two) came off?
 
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #12
fresh_42 said:
I thought "stall" would describe any case without an aerodynamic lift.
No, it's a specific condition where you have a flow separation over the top surface due to too high of an angle of attack. Diving toward Earth and having the wing produce no lift because zero effective angle of attack is not a stall. A plan in a fully developed stall is falling like a leaf, relatively slowly.

A stall can still produce a situation where the plane dives to Earth though, since the nose will drop in the effort to build speed and recover. This happened for AF447 right before hitting the water, whereas most of the descent was in a fully developed stall.

Difference being that if you are in a dive you can just pull up out of it. If you are in a stall you have to nose down to build up speed first.
 
  • #13
anorlunda said:
What stall? The data I saw gives no hint of a stall.
Well (I know this is problematic without a reference), when I first heard the radio report of the crash, the commentator (CBS? NBC?) said that there was evidence that the plane pitched up before stalling and going into that nosedive. But I haven't seen anything about that since, so perhaps I misunderstood or the commentator was talking out their APU...
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and russ_watters
  • #14
berkeman said:
said that there was evidence that the plane pitched up before stalling and going into that nosedive.
Here's the data I saw at


1647983871047.png

Above, we see heading
1647983997234.png

yellow is ground speed (not airspeed) In a vertical dive, ground speed is zero.

blue is altitude

The commentary notes that the dive started very close to the point where the flight
plan would call for beginning descent to the airport.
 
  • Informative
Likes Klystron and berkeman
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
Do we know the whole plane is intact? Or do we only know the fuselage is intact from the photos?
What if a wing (or two) came off?
It's unlikely that a wing or two could come off without the entire plane breaking-up or even exploding. It's possible part of the tail could have come off without it being visible in the grainy video I linked.

There was one I vaguely remember where part came off but it mostly remained intact while it nosed-over into the ground. I can't remember if it was the nose or tail though...
 
  • #17
  • Wow
Likes DaveC426913
  • #18
Wait, you're flying to Cuba?

1647984712897.png
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
  • #19
Yes. Don't rob me.
 
  • #20
berkeman said:
I think they are all grounded in China now, no? Besides, what are the odds?!
Heh. Yeah. If this particular plane falls out of the sky and kills me, I'm going to start buying lottery tickets.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes atyy, Klystron, Oldman too and 1 other person
  • #21
berkeman said:
Wait, you're flying to Cuba?

View attachment 298779
Don't be jealous. We others are allowed to.
 
  • Haha
Likes atyy and DaveC426913
  • #22
From the NYPost article.

It is very likely that the aircraft lost power at cruising altitude, resulting in the pilot losing control of the aircraft,” Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge, told China’s Global Times. “This is a very serious technical failure in which the plane inevitably enters a high-speed descent.”
 
  • #23
Oldman too said:
From the NYPost article.

It is very likely that the aircraft lost power at cruising altitude, resulting in the pilot losing control of the aircraft,” Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge, told China’s Global Times. “This is a very serious technical failure in which the plane inevitably enters a high-speed descent.”
I call BS. As others have said, losing power at altitude is not that difficult to deal with. Something else happened.

Could you post the direct link to the story please? Thanks.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes russ_watters and Oldman too
  • #25
berkeman said:
As others have said, losing power at altitude is not that difficult to deal with.
A pilot once told me: There is no problem as long as you are high enough. There has been enough height, and those machines tend to stabilize themselves again. You don't even have to interfere if there is enough time. So even without fuel, which could hardly have been the case due to the fire we saw, the aircraft can still operate as a glider at lower altitudes.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, russ_watters and berkeman
  • #26
  • Like
Likes atyy and Oldman too
  • #27
fresh_42 said:
A pilot once told me: There is no problem as long as you are high enough. There has been enough height, and those machines tend to stabilize themselves again. You don't even have to interfere if there is enough time. So even without fuel, which could hardly have been the case due to the fire we saw, the aircraft can still operate as a glider at lower altitudes.
True, see; https://www.gimliglider.org/
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #28
I have to correct the quotation. He actually said: There is no problem as long as you are high enough except fire.
 
  • Like
Likes Oldman too
  • #29
berkeman said:
Thanks for the link. I still call BS (on him, not on you). This senior editor is obviously not a pilot. (of course, neither am I, but I know how my paper airplanes behave when they "lose power"...) :wink:
I've never seen or heard of an example where an aircraft flies straight down like the one in that image, what would it take to hold the aircraft in that attitude for an extended nose dive?
 
  • #30
Oldman too said:
I've never seen or heard of an example where an aircraft flies straight down like the one in that image, what would it take to hold the aircraft in that attitude for an extended nose dive?
That's a good question. A B-737 is not an aerobatic machine that can perform all kinds of maneuvers. E.g. the extended suicide mentioned above was done by programming the autopilot to a height below the height of surrounding mountains. The determined crash actually took a while, and stuff, as well as passengers, knew it. I assume that such a nosedive is extremely difficult to get in, especially as you can no longer sit and fly.
 
  • Informative
Likes Oldman too