FZ 981 crashes in Rostov on Don Russia
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: FL380
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Words from the F.O to the Captain? Something to do with the trim wheel and he certainly wasn't focused if that was the case, too tired after that 2 hour hold... possible, Or I have been catching up with RT allot #flydubaigate
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the Cockpit
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the RT article:
"Anonymous experts Kommersant talked to believe the pilot did not manage the diving rudder and horizontal stabilizer, which steer the plane in opposite directions – down and up, respectively.
When the pilot pulled up, he put both the rudder and stabilizer in a sharp climb mode, somewhat fighter-jet style, plus enacted the TOGA regime’s retracted flaps, decreasing ascending force. As a result, the aircraft lost speed and got into the beyond-stall angle of approach. All this led to an uncontrollable dive, the experts believe."
Anyone still think it's accurate, credible and objective? The second paragraph is not the issue - that is just down to translation. It is the first paragraph that makes me think the research is limited to reading the ill-informed comments by the wannabees on the R&N forum.
"Anonymous experts Kommersant talked to believe the pilot did not manage the diving rudder and horizontal stabilizer, which steer the plane in opposite directions – down and up, respectively.
When the pilot pulled up, he put both the rudder and stabilizer in a sharp climb mode, somewhat fighter-jet style, plus enacted the TOGA regime’s retracted flaps, decreasing ascending force. As a result, the aircraft lost speed and got into the beyond-stall angle of approach. All this led to an uncontrollable dive, the experts believe."
Anyone still think it's accurate, credible and objective? The second paragraph is not the issue - that is just down to translation. It is the first paragraph that makes me think the research is limited to reading the ill-informed comments by the wannabees on the R&N forum.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worse than Quest trying to explain in perfect English which most of us normal folks cannot understand.
BTW, I haven't seen Quest on CNN rendering lengthy technical twaddle since he said "tosh" to something Miles O'Brain and Les Abend said. I think CNN changed the contract terms and he can only talk about "business" part of aviation ie., fares/service.
For that matter no media outlet is covering a major accident with 62 fatalities. If this was a some other airliner they will be all over it about safety.
Or did media outlets get verbal warning e-mail letters???
BTW, I haven't seen Quest on CNN rendering lengthy technical twaddle since he said "tosh" to something Miles O'Brain and Les Abend said. I think CNN changed the contract terms and he can only talk about "business" part of aviation ie., fares/service.
For that matter no media outlet is covering a major accident with 62 fatalities. If this was a some other airliner they will be all over it about safety.
Or did media outlets get verbal warning e-mail letters???
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austria
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notapilot, I disagree. You need to read carefully. The article is very factual but not ruling out fatigue. They write that pilot error is likely from what we know now. They then go on to quote the GCAA that the GCAA are ruling out fatigue already. They finish off with a clear hint at conflict of interest at the GCAA since the Sheikh sits on their board and at the same time he is the Chairman of EK and FZ.
For such a heavyweight and serious publication that is their way of saying that you should read between the lines.
For such a heavyweight and serious publication that is their way of saying that you should read between the lines.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in freedom, that makes them a total lightweight. If they want to be trusted they have to be clear, not to expect readers to read between lines. This accident got less coverage than a rodent on Air India. Very suspicious.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fliion,
WSJ hack.......google the title of the article and follow the top link.
IE paste this into google "possible-pilot-errors-emerge-in-probe-of-flydubai-crash-1459193950"
Enjoy
WSJ hack.......google the title of the article and follow the top link.
IE paste this into google "possible-pilot-errors-emerge-in-probe-of-flydubai-crash-1459193950"
Enjoy
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Todays Australian Newspaper
Without certain fixes our “air safety privilege” as passengers will forever sit uneasily with our insatiable demand for lower airfares. And, for the crew and passengers of the doomed FZ981 flight from Dubai to Rostov-on-Don, those occasionally incompatible demands can and do sometimes manifest as failures in the safety systems and compensation regimes designed to protect us all.
The Flydubai crash in Russia on March 19 regrettably typifies air disasters in many respects, and inevitably will lead to an official report that makes many in the aviation industry and regulators admit “we should have heeded the warnings”.
It also exemplifies why all states must ratify the Montreal Convention of 1999 or the patchwork of liability laws that exist will continue to guarantee that those who need appropriate compensation most won’t get it.
Let’s consider one well known safety risk (or “warning”) within the aviation world, cumulative fatigue — the convergence of several realities for international aviators: shiftwork, night work, irregular work schedules, unpredictable work schedules, and time zone changes.
Fatigue management, or rather how it was addressed in rostering, was raised by Russian media as a potential contributing cause of the Flydubai crash.
There is little escape for pilots who genuinely feel unable to perform because of tiredness.
Employment ramifications for pilots who “go sick” together with continuing uncertainty over impending regulations, which some argue prefer air operators’ ability to roster pilots to the edge of the law, resonate with Australia’s pilots.
This includes concerns that commercial imperatives will outweigh safety once new Australian fatigue management rules come into force next year.
The upshot of this is that we know, and have known for years, that fatigue management is a topic that has major safety implications if handled improperly by regulators and airlines.
If the allegations are right that Flydubai has mismanaged safety to its own detriment (knowing the risks), then the legal retribution from passengers’ and crew members’ families should fairly reflect that knowledge.
And that brings us to why universal ratification of the Montreal Convention of 1999 is necessary.
This international law places a strict liability system at the heart of providing compensation to air disaster victims.
It is a system that uses a passenger’s contract of carriage to determine the available choices of jurisdiction of a legal case against an airline for injury or death, including where you live permanently, where the airline calls home, or where you were ticketed to start or conclude your journey.
Thus, the system works to ensure justice as intended only if every country accedes to it — and at last count, out of 191 sky-faring nations, only 119 had ratified Montreal.
The significance of this is in the composition of the 119 nations.
Many populous and far-reaching aviation states such as the Russian Federation and, closer to home, Indonesia do not protect their citizens with Montreal in the way Australia does.
This is important because it means that for most people on flight FZ981, and likewise on AirAsia flight QZ8501, which crashed in late 2014, the law (and courts) of Russia or Indonesia will apply for the purposes of assessing compensation for death, rather than the more forward-thinking Montreal Convention choices.
The lack of choice of jurisdiction is significant for affected families and represents the loss of a pragmatic way to ensure that those responsible for the organisational, regulatory, mechanical and human factors causing the crash face justice at a time and place that suits the surviving family members, rather than just the airline and its insurers.
Joseph Wheeler is aviation special counsel to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.
Without certain fixes our “air safety privilege” as passengers will forever sit uneasily with our insatiable demand for lower airfares. And, for the crew and passengers of the doomed FZ981 flight from Dubai to Rostov-on-Don, those occasionally incompatible demands can and do sometimes manifest as failures in the safety systems and compensation regimes designed to protect us all.
The Flydubai crash in Russia on March 19 regrettably typifies air disasters in many respects, and inevitably will lead to an official report that makes many in the aviation industry and regulators admit “we should have heeded the warnings”.
It also exemplifies why all states must ratify the Montreal Convention of 1999 or the patchwork of liability laws that exist will continue to guarantee that those who need appropriate compensation most won’t get it.
Let’s consider one well known safety risk (or “warning”) within the aviation world, cumulative fatigue — the convergence of several realities for international aviators: shiftwork, night work, irregular work schedules, unpredictable work schedules, and time zone changes.
Fatigue management, or rather how it was addressed in rostering, was raised by Russian media as a potential contributing cause of the Flydubai crash.
There is little escape for pilots who genuinely feel unable to perform because of tiredness.
Employment ramifications for pilots who “go sick” together with continuing uncertainty over impending regulations, which some argue prefer air operators’ ability to roster pilots to the edge of the law, resonate with Australia’s pilots.
This includes concerns that commercial imperatives will outweigh safety once new Australian fatigue management rules come into force next year.
The upshot of this is that we know, and have known for years, that fatigue management is a topic that has major safety implications if handled improperly by regulators and airlines.
If the allegations are right that Flydubai has mismanaged safety to its own detriment (knowing the risks), then the legal retribution from passengers’ and crew members’ families should fairly reflect that knowledge.
And that brings us to why universal ratification of the Montreal Convention of 1999 is necessary.
This international law places a strict liability system at the heart of providing compensation to air disaster victims.
It is a system that uses a passenger’s contract of carriage to determine the available choices of jurisdiction of a legal case against an airline for injury or death, including where you live permanently, where the airline calls home, or where you were ticketed to start or conclude your journey.
Thus, the system works to ensure justice as intended only if every country accedes to it — and at last count, out of 191 sky-faring nations, only 119 had ratified Montreal.
The significance of this is in the composition of the 119 nations.
Many populous and far-reaching aviation states such as the Russian Federation and, closer to home, Indonesia do not protect their citizens with Montreal in the way Australia does.
This is important because it means that for most people on flight FZ981, and likewise on AirAsia flight QZ8501, which crashed in late 2014, the law (and courts) of Russia or Indonesia will apply for the purposes of assessing compensation for death, rather than the more forward-thinking Montreal Convention choices.
The lack of choice of jurisdiction is significant for affected families and represents the loss of a pragmatic way to ensure that those responsible for the organisational, regulatory, mechanical and human factors causing the crash face justice at a time and place that suits the surviving family members, rather than just the airline and its insurers.
Joseph Wheeler is aviation special counsel to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone elaborate on the GCAA ruling out fatigue?
Is that based on anything other than the roster as legal.....doesn't mean no fatigue tho
Is that based on anything other than the roster as legal.....doesn't mean no fatigue tho
More likely sleepiness - the need for sleep.
There is a massive difference between fatigue and sleepiness - i just wish well educated Pilots would get to understand the difference and stop using the F word.