Russian B737 Crash at Kazan.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference in attitude is alarming... From 25 degrees up to 75 degrees down is a pitch change of 100 degrees.. This would not have happened in the blink of an eye.
There is a lesser known equation that trades height for speed, and it is..
9 ft / kt / 100 kts.
ie at 100kts if you wish to gain or loose 10 knots you will need to trade 90ft.
So in this case if the pilot wished to increase speed by 25 knots he would have needed to just loose 280ft. From 2200ft this would easily be done by 1900ft... So why did he descend further? (And this totally ignores any positive effect that the engine thrust makes.)
There is a lesser known equation that trades height for speed, and it is..
9 ft / kt / 100 kts.
ie at 100kts if you wish to gain or loose 10 knots you will need to trade 90ft.
So in this case if the pilot wished to increase speed by 25 knots he would have needed to just loose 280ft. From 2200ft this would easily be done by 1900ft... So why did he descend further? (And this totally ignores any positive effect that the engine thrust makes.)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am saying is that at least Aeroflot is flying newer aircraft compared to these other operators. They are changing for the better.
As for being late.... Anyway why would you even bother to "sue" such big companies in RUSSIA?!? Ты че мужик? Нюх потерял?"
It's funny how this comment illustrates yet again the yawning gap between your reality & those lying, twisting corporate entities.
The fact is, a company is a company.
This nonsense from Medvedev (as per usual) blaming old aircraft for the high accident rates, was as we all know complete total b..llox.
In reality the old TU154 variants, are/were known for an excellent safety record, and only replaced for lack of space and high fuel costs, while the vast majority of fatal accidents, Red WingsFlight 9268, S7-Irkutsk, AFL, Utair-Tyumen, Sukhoi SSJ-100-95 etc, were invariably down to brand new modern aircraft, pilot error, CRM, a culture of poor safety or mixtures of all at once.
As for the laws,- You should be entitled to AT LEAST the minimum of what (weak) Russian law says is your rights.
The mere fact someone turns to sue AFL, is the start of what actually made consumer protection law in the rest of the world what it is today.
Using your attitude as an example the EU commission would never have lobbied for changes in the law for mobile phone roaming or penalties for lengthy delays for airlines throughout the EU. (for example).
EU - Air passenger rights - Your Europe
I have a problem with people who just sit back, do nothing and remain aloof and complacent.
The fact is just ONE woman attacked AFL for the loss of her daughter on SU821.
She got awarded 7.7m roubles.
The others represented by your post would have just sat around saying..."oh well we just accept the 2m offered" (which is not even enough to buy an average flat), and that is that.
It was in fact the same in France over the terrible Mont St Odile ordeal, EADS and AF.
The fact is, if people stuck up for their rights in Russia (and the EU even), sued those abusive companies EN MASSE, the sheer quantity of litigation would make those companies lose so much money they would be forced to change.
QED.
As for being late.... Anyway why would you even bother to "sue" such big companies in RUSSIA?!? Ты че мужик? Нюх потерял?"
It's funny how this comment illustrates yet again the yawning gap between your reality & those lying, twisting corporate entities.
The fact is, a company is a company.
This nonsense from Medvedev (as per usual) blaming old aircraft for the high accident rates, was as we all know complete total b..llox.
In reality the old TU154 variants, are/were known for an excellent safety record, and only replaced for lack of space and high fuel costs, while the vast majority of fatal accidents, Red WingsFlight 9268, S7-Irkutsk, AFL, Utair-Tyumen, Sukhoi SSJ-100-95 etc, were invariably down to brand new modern aircraft, pilot error, CRM, a culture of poor safety or mixtures of all at once.
As for the laws,- You should be entitled to AT LEAST the minimum of what (weak) Russian law says is your rights.
The mere fact someone turns to sue AFL, is the start of what actually made consumer protection law in the rest of the world what it is today.
Using your attitude as an example the EU commission would never have lobbied for changes in the law for mobile phone roaming or penalties for lengthy delays for airlines throughout the EU. (for example).
EU - Air passenger rights - Your Europe
I have a problem with people who just sit back, do nothing and remain aloof and complacent.
The fact is just ONE woman attacked AFL for the loss of her daughter on SU821.
She got awarded 7.7m roubles.
The others represented by your post would have just sat around saying..."oh well we just accept the 2m offered" (which is not even enough to buy an average flat), and that is that.
It was in fact the same in France over the terrible Mont St Odile ordeal, EADS and AF.
The fact is, if people stuck up for their rights in Russia (and the EU even), sued those abusive companies EN MASSE, the sheer quantity of litigation would make those companies lose so much money they would be forced to change.
QED.
Last edited by up_down_n_out; 20th Nov 2013 at 11:55.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I am saying is that at least Aeroflot is flying newer aircraft compared to these other operators.
N4790P
These crews where then trained for 8 sessions doing nothing but single engine approaches and go arounds. After said 8 sessions they were competent enough to carry out this manoeuvre to pass a skill test.
There where of course exceptions, mainly crew members whom had previous experience on western built jets but they where few and far between.
I raised my concerns about this with head of training and was given the option to "get with the program or resign" I resigned.
The training organisation I was with is one of the largest and most well respected in the world today.
There where of course exceptions, mainly crew members whom had previous experience on western built jets but they where few and far between.
I raised my concerns about this with head of training and was given the option to "get with the program or resign" I resigned.
The training organisation I was with is one of the largest and most well respected in the world today.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As said above the 737 can be a bit of a handful on a g/a, esp a 2 engine g/a mainly due to the speed at which things happen and the pitch-couple.
In the last 3 companies I've flown the 737 for it has been recognised that the most commonly cocked up "normal" procedure is the 2 engine g/a, even among experienced, well trained Eu crews.
Why? We hardly practice them. We do loads of s/e g/a's, lots and lots, but two engine? Plenty few. We have increased the frequency in the sim but even so it is not a common manoeuvre, and one that tends to catch you unawares.
With (if true, 3 yr experienced flight engineers at the controls) it is even more likely to end in tears.
Pitch to 25 deg and speed loss to 120Kts before any recovery action was taken speaks of a very large helping of paralysys followed by a slo-mo "Oh Christ, Oh S***, Oh dear!", the aircraft rapidly getting away from the pilot - something you MUST not let a 737 do in a g/a, followed by a boched scramble to recover an aircraft on the brink of - or in an incipient stall with a pilot 1000ft behind the aircraft in the vertical profile. That is simply a recipe for disaster.
Sequence goes a bit like this...
G/a, TOGA, a/c pitches up strongly. Pilot fails to push hard enough (its very physical with 2 engines and if you're out of practice it can easily run away with you) Pitch is increasing. Other pilot taken by surprise. Eventually flap 15 is called and achieved but the delay hasn't helped the acceleration, if any. Eventually someone remembers the gear. The crew now completely out of their comfort zone as its already completely pear-shaped and over-maxed mentally. Airspeed already approaching 120 with 25' pitch, P/F pushing as hard as he can now, thumb on fwd trim too, fixated on pitch, trim wheel spinning hard. (We'll hear "Go down you bastard!" through gritted teeth on the CVR here) Sees airspeed reducing further (I bet 120 was nowhere near the minimum) so keeps pushing and trimming. Pitch finally reducing at 700m - 2200ft. About where you'd expect in this scenario. Power stays on and nose lowered below horizon - perhaps a bit too much in the panic - in incipient stall recovery, height reducing, speed increasing fast, pitch trim still running because he's still pushing real hard. Thrust levers slammed closed as speed rockets so a/c pitches forcefully down as pitch-couple is removed. With plenty of fwd trim by now and no thrust-pitch couple you'd then get straight from max effort push to max effort pull in a second or two resulting in exactly what we saw in the video.
I think 737 sim instructors will recognise this scenario.
In the last 3 companies I've flown the 737 for it has been recognised that the most commonly cocked up "normal" procedure is the 2 engine g/a, even among experienced, well trained Eu crews.
Why? We hardly practice them. We do loads of s/e g/a's, lots and lots, but two engine? Plenty few. We have increased the frequency in the sim but even so it is not a common manoeuvre, and one that tends to catch you unawares.
With (if true, 3 yr experienced flight engineers at the controls) it is even more likely to end in tears.
Pitch to 25 deg and speed loss to 120Kts before any recovery action was taken speaks of a very large helping of paralysys followed by a slo-mo "Oh Christ, Oh S***, Oh dear!", the aircraft rapidly getting away from the pilot - something you MUST not let a 737 do in a g/a, followed by a boched scramble to recover an aircraft on the brink of - or in an incipient stall with a pilot 1000ft behind the aircraft in the vertical profile. That is simply a recipe for disaster.
Sequence goes a bit like this...
G/a, TOGA, a/c pitches up strongly. Pilot fails to push hard enough (its very physical with 2 engines and if you're out of practice it can easily run away with you) Pitch is increasing. Other pilot taken by surprise. Eventually flap 15 is called and achieved but the delay hasn't helped the acceleration, if any. Eventually someone remembers the gear. The crew now completely out of their comfort zone as its already completely pear-shaped and over-maxed mentally. Airspeed already approaching 120 with 25' pitch, P/F pushing as hard as he can now, thumb on fwd trim too, fixated on pitch, trim wheel spinning hard. (We'll hear "Go down you bastard!" through gritted teeth on the CVR here) Sees airspeed reducing further (I bet 120 was nowhere near the minimum) so keeps pushing and trimming. Pitch finally reducing at 700m - 2200ft. About where you'd expect in this scenario. Power stays on and nose lowered below horizon - perhaps a bit too much in the panic - in incipient stall recovery, height reducing, speed increasing fast, pitch trim still running because he's still pushing real hard. Thrust levers slammed closed as speed rockets so a/c pitches forcefully down as pitch-couple is removed. With plenty of fwd trim by now and no thrust-pitch couple you'd then get straight from max effort push to max effort pull in a second or two resulting in exactly what we saw in the video.
I think 737 sim instructors will recognise this scenario.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 133
From 700 m (2310 ft) to zero in 20 secs, means 6930 ft/min???
It means 126 Km/h and 70 Kts
Post 85
It seems to be hitting the ground at 0.08 in the RT video, first appearing about 5 aircraft lengths back at 0.04, assuming that the fainter trailing light is the lit fin, and the ground position comes from the location of the flash on impact. That's only covering about 150m in 4s, so it's not hitting very fast: about 80 knots
I agree with this theory. Since in the movie the aircraft takes about 1 second to travel its length.
Post 103 and 126
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20G-THOF.pdf
It takes time and patience, but worth reading
Pg 34:
It is recommended that Boeing clarify the wording of the Boeing 737 300-500 approach to stall recovery Quick Reference Handbook Non-normal Manoeuvres to ensure that pilots are aware that trimming forward may be required to enhance pitch control authority. (Safety Recommendation 2009-045)
A SPIN
Shown that the stabilizer was for sure, as per that phase of flight, toward the extreme ANU, when a GA was initiated, either due to the strong pitch up moment caused by the engines and the vertical upward component of traction or 'apparent lift', which decreases the stall speed, it was not easy, or even impossible, to stop the rapid attitude increase if not by trimming down or reducing engine thrust.
It’s very difficult to share the opinion that the pilot caused that shocking vertical dive by pushing the control column
From Post 133
The only maneuvers I can imagine for a plane to assume such an attitude are:
- A spin (to which would favor the low speed and the high rate of descent)
So with:
-High-pitch attitude
-Slow-speed, near or even below stall
It's just a little rotation (some rudder, some aileron, different thrust on the engines) on the yaw-axis to cause a spin.
Remember what's the difference between the spiral and the spin?
The airspeed is high and increasing in the first and very low in the other.
From 700 m (2310 ft) to zero in 20 secs, means 6930 ft/min???
It means 126 Km/h and 70 Kts
Post 85
It seems to be hitting the ground at 0.08 in the RT video, first appearing about 5 aircraft lengths back at 0.04, assuming that the fainter trailing light is the lit fin, and the ground position comes from the location of the flash on impact. That's only covering about 150m in 4s, so it's not hitting very fast: about 80 knots
I agree with this theory. Since in the movie the aircraft takes about 1 second to travel its length.
Post 103 and 126
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...9%20G-THOF.pdf
It takes time and patience, but worth reading
Pg 34:
It is recommended that Boeing clarify the wording of the Boeing 737 300-500 approach to stall recovery Quick Reference Handbook Non-normal Manoeuvres to ensure that pilots are aware that trimming forward may be required to enhance pitch control authority. (Safety Recommendation 2009-045)
A SPIN
Shown that the stabilizer was for sure, as per that phase of flight, toward the extreme ANU, when a GA was initiated, either due to the strong pitch up moment caused by the engines and the vertical upward component of traction or 'apparent lift', which decreases the stall speed, it was not easy, or even impossible, to stop the rapid attitude increase if not by trimming down or reducing engine thrust.
It’s very difficult to share the opinion that the pilot caused that shocking vertical dive by pushing the control column
From Post 133
The only maneuvers I can imagine for a plane to assume such an attitude are:
- A spin (to which would favor the low speed and the high rate of descent)
So with:
-High-pitch attitude
-Slow-speed, near or even below stall
It's just a little rotation (some rudder, some aileron, different thrust on the engines) on the yaw-axis to cause a spin.
Remember what's the difference between the spiral and the spin?
The airspeed is high and increasing in the first and very low in the other.
Last edited by DOVES; 20th Nov 2013 at 17:06.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just a thought...trying to discuss it with people in the know.... Could it be a case of Vestibular/somatogravic illusions? Pilots were probably visual, then decide to go-around, climbed and attained 25 degrees angle, entered clouds with loss of external reference points, airspeed decays, pilots push stick forward and became victim to 'inversion illusion' (from Wiki : An abrupt change from climb to straight-and-level flight can stimulate the otolith organs enough to create the illusion of tumbling backwards, or inversion illusion. The disoriented pilot may push the aircraft abruptly into a nose-low attitude, possibly intensifying this illusion.) Anybody wants to comment?....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: any town as retired.
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remember Russian Flight Directors are different to Western
I suspect that he followed the "flight Director" Russian style.....
so instead of 12 up he went 12 down...... and followed it down...and down...
Just thinking out loud....
so instead of 12 up he went 12 down...... and followed it down...and down...
Just thinking out loud....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if this has been covered already, but I keep seeing people talking about 'Russian instruments' and possible problems caused thereby. I would be very surprised if any airline went to the trouble to re-instrument their Boeings, so surely the instrumentation is 'standard'?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 39
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't the Aeroflot Nord 733 crash blamed on loss of SA due to misinterpreting the instruments? That flight ended up vertically too.
Last edited by fa2fi; 20th Nov 2013 at 16:51. Reason: Aeroflot Nord, not Don
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
The problem is the Russian instruments they were trained on before transitioning to western cockpits. See Prior thread
The problem is the Russian instruments they were trained on before transitioning to western cockpits. See Prior thread
Thanks, barit1.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC : I think that what they said was that both crew are reported to come from Tu154 where, on old types the typical Russian AI is inverted .
Of course it is "normal" on a B737 ADI , hence the possible "reversal to old habbits" during stress. (happening before in former East Block countries when converting from Mig to F16...)
Of course it is "normal" on a B737 ADI , hence the possible "reversal to old habbits" during stress. (happening before in former East Block countries when converting from Mig to F16...)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is the Russian instruments they were trained on before transitioning to western cockpits. See Prior thread
Whether this truth is enough in a specific situation for a pilot to misread the instruments is difficult to forecast. It depends on the strength on the underlying conditioning, the strength of the training, the passage of time, the level of stress etc. It is not the type of data that shows up on the FDR and it is improbable that any hint of it shows up on the CVR.
So is this type of concern a theoretical possibility? Yes. Is it probable? I have no idea. My own initial opinion is that an illusion is more probable. Perhaps the CVR, if found intact, will shed more light on the topic.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9gmax
While 9g is much too much for me your comments on the somatogravic illusion are interesting. As you probably know the illusion is caused by a long sustained longitudinal acceleration that causes someone sitting down to think the force on their back means they are laying on their back and so very nose up.
To suffer from it (as well as needing the sustained accel) one needs to reject all other cues to one's attitude to say nothing of not look at or believe the (probably) three attitude indicators.
Many problems with ones pink body, which are of little consequence when sitting watching the TV, can be quite off-putting - even serious - when flying especially if they are asymmetric. Blocked or sticky sinuses and Eustachian tubes, hard wax scraping at an ear drum and of course any infection of the inner ear balance organs, can lead to a remarkable level of confusion if at the same time you can't see out. Normally the messages from one's eyes are so powerful that they kill stone dead confusion (manifesting perhaps as a touch of dizziness) from these other sources.
But when you can't see..............
While 9g is much too much for me your comments on the somatogravic illusion are interesting. As you probably know the illusion is caused by a long sustained longitudinal acceleration that causes someone sitting down to think the force on their back means they are laying on their back and so very nose up.
To suffer from it (as well as needing the sustained accel) one needs to reject all other cues to one's attitude to say nothing of not look at or believe the (probably) three attitude indicators.
Many problems with ones pink body, which are of little consequence when sitting watching the TV, can be quite off-putting - even serious - when flying especially if they are asymmetric. Blocked or sticky sinuses and Eustachian tubes, hard wax scraping at an ear drum and of course any infection of the inner ear balance organs, can lead to a remarkable level of confusion if at the same time you can't see out. Normally the messages from one's eyes are so powerful that they kill stone dead confusion (manifesting perhaps as a touch of dizziness) from these other sources.
But when you can't see..............
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 700 m (2310 ft) to zero in 20 secs, means 6930 ft/min???
It means 126 Km/h and 70 Kts
It means 126 Km/h and 70 Kts
hat's only covering about 150m in 4s, so it's not hitting very fast: about 80 knots
Excuse me guys, but which part of this:
...you don't understand?
Aeroplane pitched up on her own to 25°, no pitch input on yokes was recorded. Only when speed dropped to 125 kts someone in the cockpit pushed the nose downward to 75° just before impact which occurred at speed above 450 km/h. There was no stall, oh-so-severe-pitch-up-with-underslung-engines was not just contained but killed and Soviet AH are different from usual ones in roll, not pitch.
From the limited info we're so far given, quite probably.
Originally Posted by МАК
Под действием кабрирующего момента от тяги двигателей, самолёт перешёл в набор высоты и достиг угла тангажа около 25°. Приборная скорость начала уменьшаться. Экипаж произвёл уборку шасси. С момента начала ухода на второй круг до этого времени активных действий по штурвальному управлению самолётом экипаж не предпринимал. После уменьшении скорости со 150 до 125 уз экипаж начал управляющие действия колонкой штурвала по переводу самолёта в пикирование, которое привело к прекращению набора высоты, началу снижения самолёта и росту приборной скорости. Максимальные углы атаки в процессе полёта не превышали эксплуатационных ограничений.
Самолёт, достигнув высоты 700 м, начал интенсивное пикирование с углом тангажа, достигшим к концу полёта -75° (концу записи).
Самолёт столкнулся с землёй с большой скоростью (более 450 км/ч) и большим отрицательным углом тангажа.
Самолёт, достигнув высоты 700 м, начал интенсивное пикирование с углом тангажа, достигшим к концу полёта -75° (концу записи).
Самолёт столкнулся с землёй с большой скоростью (более 450 км/ч) и большим отрицательным углом тангажа.
Aeroplane pitched up on her own to 25°, no pitch input on yokes was recorded. Only when speed dropped to 125 kts someone in the cockpit pushed the nose downward to 75° just before impact which occurred at speed above 450 km/h. There was no stall, oh-so-severe-pitch-up-with-underslung-engines was not just contained but killed and Soviet AH are different from usual ones in roll, not pitch.
Originally Posted by 9gmax
Could it be a case of Vestibular/somatogravic illusions?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just Transaero S7 and Aeroflot?
The problem comes when you book with Aeroflot for connecting flights, you may get Donavia or other companies without much information or little opportunity to change flights.
S7 scares me badly as they really dont appear to have much of a safety culture at all. I have flown with them a few times and have been a bit worried about taking off with snow on the wings, and some very uncomfortable landings. Far worse landings than I have had with any other airline, I can accept a go around when it is required, but seeing the wing tip get only a couple of meters from striking the ground in a crosswind landing is frightening.
S7 scares me badly as they really dont appear to have much of a safety culture at all. I have flown with them a few times and have been a bit worried about taking off with snow on the wings, and some very uncomfortable landings. Far worse landings than I have had with any other airline, I can accept a go around when it is required, but seeing the wing tip get only a couple of meters from striking the ground in a crosswind landing is frightening.