Russia grounds some B737s

[weasil]

Russia suspends Boeing 737 flights after crash
Pilots may need more training
Associated Press

Full article here (http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=237967&src=110)
Published: 9/25/2008 2:03 PM
MOSCOW -- Russia's aviation authority has suspended flights of Boeing 737s until their pilots receive additional training after a recent deadly crash.

All 88 people aboard a Boeing 737-500 died when the plane operated by the Russian Aeroflot-Nord crashed Sept. 14 while preparing to land in the city of Perm in the Ural Mountains area.

[Brenoch]

Hmm, the ADI on the -500 is no different from ADI's found on other 737's. However it's very different from ADI's found in various russian made airliners where the actual aeroplane symbol moves as opposed to the gyro itself.

Despite the sticky on top I would dare to say if this is the case, the crash (Perm) is most probably entitled to jet upset following a go-around. Furthermore, as an old Tu-154 pilot, and to further validate my point, the pilots of the ill-fated 737 where probably trained initially on older russian designs with tailmounted engines and not familiar/properly trained with the nose up momentum caused by underslung engines being firewalled in a go-around situation. With the stress of a go-around and unfamiliar handling caracteristics of the aeroplane and on top of that an instrument that doesn't look like/behave as you expect it to do, is a recipie for disaster.

Hardhat on

[Dan Winterland]

Speculation - but well informed speculation. A Flash Airlines 737 crashed off Sharm El Sheikh in 2004. The reasons were never properly determined but it was considered that it was a CFIT incident probably due to the captain misreading the ADI. He was an ex Egyptian Air Force Mig21 pilot and had been trained using Russian style AIs. Under stress, he may have reverted to type.

[airman13]

I will agree all pilots to be assessed in simulators by SFI/SFE coming from other airlines what do yo say?

[John Farley]

Brenoch

I agree entirely with you speculation about what probably happened.

However for the benefit of those pilots who may not have flown both types of attititude indication I am not sure about your description of the differences.

Gyros are gyros and have the same characteristics in both types of instrument.

What is different is that in the Russian type of display the aircraft symbol is mechanised to move in roll but is fixed in pitch with the pitch display moving behind it. As opposed to the 'western' totally fixed aircraft symbol where the roll and pitch indications are both arranged to move behind it.

A bit of a nit pick so no offence I hope

JF

[Brenoch]

None whatsoever, well worded description of the russian-style ADI.

Thanks

[FlightDetent]

Pictures are required: http://l-39.cz/_L-39/L-39_popis/L-39_SDU_indikace.jpg (this is actually from L-39 Albatros, Soviet bloc military jet trainer of choice)

Do not forget that Tu-154 would had been a 3 man cockpit (or even more). I disagree with the comment on crew's possible unfamiliarity to fly a go-around with adverse behaviour. It is not a mach tuck or dutch roll, irrespective of the way their training was conducted a manual go-around must had beencovered up to a proficient standard. The crew certainly knew how to perform a G/A, which of course does not explain why they did not (if that proves to be the case).

[Stubenfliege 2]

The transfer from eastern to western style ADI was a severe problem.

During the introduction of the Tu-154, there were a string of accidents of this type due to misreading of ADI. The problem at this time was, that the Tu-154 was the first (?) soviet aircraft with a western style ADI. In fact, the USSR want to export this a/c also, therefore they standardized the Cockpit to the west.

According to the swiss accident report of the Crossair Saab 340 near ZUR (where spatial disorentation of two former east block pilots in a western cockpit was also a contribution cause) in 2000, there were a dozen accidents.

I can just remember one, an Aeroflot Tu5 in the midst of the eighties in Uzbekistan (then part republic).

Regards,

Christian

[forget]

Good write up on the Flash accident - and possible attitude confusion HERE (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/993.html).

[threemiles]

As I read it, it was not a go around but a break-out from the approach pattern. As it appears radar vectors were used/commanded, wouldn't the approach pattern be flown in heading mode of the autopilot?

Why would that have been disengaged to break out? There may be more ground in the assumption that the power handling was not sufficient (autothrottle u/s) and the autopilot then disengaged itself.

[Carbon Bootprint]

Do not forget that Tu-154 would had been a 3 man cockpit (or even more).
Aye. Things might have changed, but the TU-154 I was on in the early 90s actually had a five man crew: captain, first officer, flight engineer, radioman and navigator. The cockpit was spacious enough to accommodate not only them, but a gallery of spectators at the back!