Aeroflot 777 hit by severe turbulence

[Bonzo777]

https://sputniknews.com/asia/201705011053161863-aeroflot-thailand-turbulence/

[OldLurker]

The press report, as usual, doesn't make clear exactly what happened. Maybe more information will emerge. Meanwhile, in view of other incidents, one does wonder whether another heavy - maybe an A380 - passed above them?

[hoss183]

There's aftermath video on BBC. And the usual expected comment that all injured were not wearing seatbelts....

[cappt]

The press report, as usual, doesn't make clear exactly what happened. Maybe more information will emerge. Meanwhile, in view of other incidents, one does wonder whether another heavy - maybe an A380 - passed above them?


What I gathered from the story. CAT one hour out from landing. The seatbelt sign was off, PAX who were injured did not have their seatbelt on.

[Nemrytter]

CAT one hour out from landing. More likely to be the CB that they flew through.:E

[cappt]

Anyone got the radar? Why keep the sign off if it looks ominous ahead?

[cats_five]

There's aftermath video on BBC. And the usual expected comment that all injured were not wearing seatbelts....

It's hard to go to the toilet with the seat belt on, and to serve drinks etc.

[Airbubba]

Here is the FR24 plot:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su270/#d3c81af

And the FlightAware plot:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL270/history/20170430/1620Z/UUEE/VTBS/tracklog

On the track logs from both sources an event is visible at about 2355Z. The plane is about to cross the coast of Burma at FL350.

A first glance at the FR24 data shows the altitude climb by about 700 feet and then return to FL350. Groundspeed drops to 492 knots and rises to 522 knots. Vertical speed fluctuates between 1300 fpm down and 2000 up. The event seems to last perhaps two minutes before things stabilize prior to starting down for landing. Usual disclaimers about hobbyist ADS-B data apply.

The closest A380 I see is EK374 DXB-BKK at FL 390. But it's about 150 miles ahead and its track to BKK is well to the west of SU270's position.

[sonicbum]

Sigwx did not show much of anything in terms of CAT or Cb in the area at the time.

[Paracab]

Reputable sources are concurring that they did indeed penetrate the very worst part of CB, which reached 14,000 feet above them while they were in it. Apparently they did attempt to deviate so why this occurred is known only by the crew.

[neila83]

Here is the FR24 plot:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su270/#d3c81af

And the FlightAware plot:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL270/history/20170430/1620Z/UUEE/VTBS/tracklog

On the track logs from both sources an event is visible at about 2355Z. The plane is about to cross the coast of Burma at FL350.

A first glance at the FR24 data shows the altitude climb by about 700 feet and then return to FL350. Groundspeed drops to 492 knots and rises to 522 knots. Vertical speed fluctuates between 1300 fpm down and 2000 up. The event seems to last perhaps two minutes before things stabilize prior to starting down for landing. Usual disclaimers about hobbyist ADS-B data apply.

The closest A380 I see is EK374 DXB-BKK at FL 390. But it's about 150 miles ahead and its track to BKK is well to the west of SU270's position.

Looking at the F24 replay, the two flights in front of it on the same track both took diversions in the exact area where it happened, so it seems fairly clear this was likely a CB. The aeroflot does seem to have begun a diversion, but obviously not by enough and they obviously hugely underestimated the ferocity of the weather they were flying through if they didn't put seatbelt signs on.

[Volume]

So the Russians obviously translate CAT into Cumulonimbus Air Turbulence...

[cappt]

Another passenger called Katya said: 'The sky was clear, no single cloud.... And all of a sudden - one blow. Then another. People were simply hurled out of their seats. Many were thrown into the aisle.'

'The pilot has more than 23 thousand flight hours, and the co-pilot has over 10,500 flight hours.

'However, the turbulence that hit the Boeing 777 was impossible to foresee.

'The incident was caused by what is known in aviation as 'clear-air turbulence'.

'Such turbulence occurs without any clouds, in clear skies with good visibility, and weather radar is unable to alert of its approach. In such situations, the crew is unable to warn passengers of the need to return to their seats.'

Aeroflot flight video to Thailand shows extreme turbulence | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4464952/Terrifying-footage-emerges-flight-hit-turbulence.html)


"Caution" this rag is not known for the accuracy of it's reporting ;)

[Ian W]

Looking at the F24 replay, the two flights in front of it on the same track both took diversions in the exact area where it happened, so it seems fairly clear this was likely a CB. The aeroflot does seem to have begun a diversion, but obviously not by enough and they obviously hugely underestimated the ferocity of the weather they were flying through if they didn't put seatbelt signs on.

It is often not appreciated how there can be very severe turbulence between towering Cb well clear of actual cloud. Similarly, there can be significant threat from hail in the gaps between the storms. So do not be hasty in disparaging the flight crew in this case for flying into a Cb - just flying within 20 nm can be too close.

[neila83]

Possible, it'd be interesting to see a satellite of the area if it can be accessed anywhere?

I have some scepticism about passenger accounts that immediately describe the weather situation, seems a bit unusual to me. Especially after having spoken to Russian authorities...

Also rather disappointed to see the captain mentioning pax not wearing seatbelts being injured as if it was their fault. Highly unprofessional. Seems to be there's an effort to create a narrative here.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Article on Aviation Herald suggests Russian crews don't use the weather radar as they fear it will irradiate their man hoods

Accident: Aeroflot B773 near Bangkok on May 1st 2017, turbulence injures 25 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a861a24&opt=0)

[Nemrytter]

Possible, it'd be interesting to see a satellite of the area if it can be accessed anywhere?
http://i.imgur.com/CmaZA9Gl.jpg


Taken from this tweet (https://twitter.com/simon_rp84/status/859165364411879424). Quite clearly shows some attempt at deviation..apparently not successful.

[neila83]

Thanks! So they were in clear air...right up until the moment they weren't and they punched into the storm. It doesn't even look like there were a lot of cloud layers around to make seeing and avoiding difficult. All very strange.

[Mr Magnetic]

At which point on the plot of their path is the sat image from?

[neila83]

You mean at what time? The person who put it together says that it's the image from the exact time of the incident.

[Start Fore]

Not in the least bit surprised that this lot would plow straight into a CB. This type of buffoonery is also common place amongst certain SE Asian carriers. It's not unusual for the flight crew to have the windscreens covered in enroute charts to provide shade, and zero visibility outside. Clever.

[divinehover]

Cumulus castellanus. Very difficult to see on a weather radar unless you are on 40nm scale or less

[Nemrytter]

Cumulus castellanus. Very difficult to see on a weather radar unless you are on 40nm scale or lessCumulonimbus calvus, and matured into cumulonimbus incus a few minutes after they went past by the looks of things.

[Austrian Simon]

Article on Aviation Herald suggests Russian crews don't use the weather radar as they fear it will irradiate their man hoods

Accident: Aeroflot B773 near Bangkok on May 1st 2017, turbulence injures 25 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a861a24&opt=0)

To be exact, it is not an article, but a reader comment.

[Boeing 7E7]

Not in the least bit surprised that this lot would plow straight into a CB. This type of buffoonery is also common place amongst certain SE Asian carriers. It's not unusual for the flight crew to have the windscreens covered in enroute charts to provide shade, and zero visibility outside. Clever.

Just like flying at night... clever.

[DaveReidUK]

Accident: Aeroflot B773 near Bangkok on May 1st 2017, turbulence injures 25 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a861a24&opt=0)ICAO type designators save time in posts, it's even better if you use the right one.

Aeroflot don't have B773s, it was a B77W (-300ER).

[Airbubba]

Not in the least bit surprised that this lot would plow straight into a CB. This type of buffoonery is also common place amongst certain SE Asian carriers. It's not unusual for the flight crew to have the windscreens covered in enroute charts to provide shade, and zero visibility outside. Clever.

An Aeroflot crew famously tried to land with the windshields covered back in 1986. :eek: The results were what one would expect. :ugh:

Blind Landing on a Dare Killed Dozens, Paper Says : Soviets Disclose October Airliner Crash

June 05, 1987|From Reuters

MOSCOW — Dozens of passengers were killed when a Soviet plane crashed last October as the pilot tried a blind landing on a dare, the newspaper Soviet Russia said Thursday.

The paper reported that the Supreme Court in the Russian Federation sentenced the pilot, A. Klyuyev, to 15 years in prison for the crash at Kuibishev, 500 miles east of Moscow.

The report in Soviet Russia was the first known mention of the crash in the Soviet media.

It said the Tupolev 134A airliner was on a flight from Sverdlovsk in the Urals to Kuibishev on the Volga River on Oct. 20 when Klyuyev decided to try a blind landing as agreed on a dare with his co-pilot, G. Zhirnov.

Misjudged Altitude
At 3:48 p.m., two minutes before landing and at a height of 1,300 feet, he ordered the flight engineer to pull blinds over the windscreen and tried to bring the Aeroflot plane down using only instruments.

Klyuyev misjudged the altitude and speed of the plane's descent, the report said.

When the blinds were released less than a second before landing, Klyuyev tried to abort the landing but it was too late, it added.

"At 3:50 p.m. The plane crashed on the landing strip, made a gigantic jump, overturned and caught fire," it said. "Dozens of passengers died."
It said that three of the dead were flight attendants trapped in the passenger cabin but did not give an exact death toll.

Wanted to Test Abilities
Western commercial aviation sources said the twin-engine plane can carry about 88 people.

Soviet Russia said the co-pilot died of heart failure while trying to rescue passengers. It said Klyuyev, who appeared composed at the trial in Kuibishev, made the blind landing to test his flying abilities. It blamed the crash on his exaggerated sense of self-assurance.

The report said Klyuyev broke every rule on blind landings, which are allowed only on training flights and only if an experienced instructor is sitting in the co-pilot's seat.

Western airline sources said such landings were phased out by Western companies long ago for safety and economy reasons.

Blind Landing on a Dare Killed Dozens, Paper Says : Soviets Disclose October Airliner Crash - latimes (http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-05/news/mn-3086_1_blind-landing)

[neila83]

Just like flying at night... clever.

You don't see a difference between the unavoidable fact of reduced visibility at night, and deliberately reducing your visibility, and therefore safety margins, during the day?

Of course, I imagine many crews compensate for reduced margins at night/in cloud layers by being more focussed on operating their radar and tweaking it, playing with gain, tilt, range etc. to get the best picture they can. And some don't...

[Phantom Driver]

Not in the least bit surprised that this lot would plow straight into a CB. This type of buffoonery is also common place amongst certain SE Asian carriers. It's not unusual for the flight crew to have the windscreens covered in enroute charts to provide shade, and zero visibility .en route charts? how about pillows , blankets ? Recall coming back from crew rest once; approaching GT (Gilgit- "Hump Territory- i.e crossing the Southern Himalayas -(Grid Mora 29000ft or thereabouts ) on the China route for those readers who don't know .

Anyway, saw some weather deviation going on . Captain was busy doing stuff using the radar . However, the wise F/O was looking out of his (uncluttered) window ; (daylight flight) and giving good advice as to clear track through the CB line ; blue sky gaps in between the nasty stuff;

The captain insisted on following his radar track ( not bothering to look out of windscreen;( obstructed anyway) . Smooth ride through the weather , as it happened , but could have made life a lot easier for all by looking out the window . (remember the old saying ? " one peep is worth a thousand sweeps " .

But have to admit , no accurate warnings for CAT ( yes I know, you will quote CFP shear ratio numbers , but we have all seen high numbers forecast , and a smooth as silk ride ; and low numbers that have your teeth fillings suffering . The truth is , no one really knows ) .

More to the point in these days of RVSM is hitting wake turbulence from a heavy ( 380 , 747 or whatever) on the same track . Now , that can make your eyes water , even if you are in another heavy .

[Start Fore]

Exactly neila83. Boeing 7E7 must be an armchair pilot.

Also, the bright flashes of CBs out the window at night are usually a give away. Not to mention extra attention paid to your weather radar AND its correct use of scale/tilt etc.