Russian B737 Crash at Kazan.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you know how to do a go around in a 737, yes the nose comes up with max /go around thrust.
then you push forward and TRIM forward (nose down), manipulating the trim either manually or with the yoke mounted switch (elec).
the sound that the rotating trim wheel is pretty famous in the boeing world. could anyone hear the trim wheel moving?
I guess I've never seen anything even near this in LINE operations and am befuddled.
I could understand a rudder hardover, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I could understand a failure of flight controls, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I could understand not reading the attitude gyro right as the russian gyros are not the same as US and someone might get confused
someone posted something about additional fuel...I am pretty darn sure that additional fuel would not have caused a problem unless for some reason the fuel was not balanced between wing tanks...that is, someone was crossfeeding fuel from one tank to both engines and finally passing the limit of difference between tanks.
I could even understand if everyone in the plane ran to the tail
but I would like to think that the worst pilot in the world wouldn't let this happen.
then you push forward and TRIM forward (nose down), manipulating the trim either manually or with the yoke mounted switch (elec).
the sound that the rotating trim wheel is pretty famous in the boeing world. could anyone hear the trim wheel moving?
I guess I've never seen anything even near this in LINE operations and am befuddled.
I could understand a rudder hardover, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I could understand a failure of flight controls, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.
I could understand not reading the attitude gyro right as the russian gyros are not the same as US and someone might get confused
someone posted something about additional fuel...I am pretty darn sure that additional fuel would not have caused a problem unless for some reason the fuel was not balanced between wing tanks...that is, someone was crossfeeding fuel from one tank to both engines and finally passing the limit of difference between tanks.
I could even understand if everyone in the plane ran to the tail
but I would like to think that the worst pilot in the world wouldn't let this happen.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
someone posted something about additional fuel...I am pretty darn sure that additional fuel would not have caused a problem unless for some reason the fuel was not balanced between wing tanks...that is, someone was crossfeeding fuel from one tank to both engines and finally passing the limit of difference between tanks.
That was the fuel I was referring to.
In case of tankering into this airport as only allowed to tank in Moscow (as suggested by this thread) would the crew have taken so much fuel to land with a remaining considerable amount of centre tank fuel?
This could cause a large shift in CG at high nose up attitudes, adding to inherent 737 design problem of its low engines.
Remember this practise is not recommended: landing with CTR fuel.
So my question was would they have considered it if the fuel limitation as described was in effect for their carrier? If so it could be a contributory factor
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The head of Russia civ aviation agency announced the airplane was performing a go around, during a steep climb it lost forward speed stalled and fell.
Last edited by vovachan; 19th Nov 2013 at 12:44.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel
normally, at least after initial takeoff climb(lets say above 3000') , center fuel is used first.
I really don't think fuel movement caused this crash
maybe rotten instrument flying skills, but not fuel movement.
normally, at least after initial takeoff climb(lets say above 3000') , center fuel is used first.
I really don't think fuel movement caused this crash
maybe rotten instrument flying skills, but not fuel movement.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In a deep pit
Age: 45
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW there is some pretty wild speculation here from guys/girls that have never flown a jet aircraft (especially the 737). To clear a few things up, several posters have suggested that the aircraft may have been flying at a speed around 80kts when it impacted. Well the 737 won't fly at 80kts or even 100kts. At these speeds it would have been stalled.
Secondly, to the posers who have suggested that an additional fuel load may have somehow contributed to the accident...this is also not correct (especially the part about carrying centre tank fuel). On the 737 the fuel is always used from the centre tank first (if carried). This is because the fuel pumps operate at a higher pressure.
I guess if you haven't flown the 737 it is impossible to understand the handling characteristics of the aircraft. Having many thousands hours on type I can honestly say that it is a beautiful aircraft that a trained crew following SOPs should have no problem handling during a go around.
I won't speculate, but instead wait for the report.
Secondly, to the posers who have suggested that an additional fuel load may have somehow contributed to the accident...this is also not correct (especially the part about carrying centre tank fuel). On the 737 the fuel is always used from the centre tank first (if carried). This is because the fuel pumps operate at a higher pressure.
I guess if you haven't flown the 737 it is impossible to understand the handling characteristics of the aircraft. Having many thousands hours on type I can honestly say that it is a beautiful aircraft that a trained crew following SOPs should have no problem handling during a go around.
I won't speculate, but instead wait for the report.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
javadreaming is quite right
even when practicing stalls in simulator (incipient ) and one goes to firewall power/thrust on the engines, the nose up tendency is easily overcome by the control yoke
I cannot see this crash happening for any competent crew, even if the capt had become incapacitated.
did he go around and misjudge his pitch attitude leading to low airspeed and then a stall?
was there any stick shaker sounds on the tape?
did one of the pilots retract all flaps/leading edge devices without the knowledge of the other pilot?
crazy
even when practicing stalls in simulator (incipient ) and one goes to firewall power/thrust on the engines, the nose up tendency is easily overcome by the control yoke
I cannot see this crash happening for any competent crew, even if the capt had become incapacitated.
did he go around and misjudge his pitch attitude leading to low airspeed and then a stall?
was there any stick shaker sounds on the tape?
did one of the pilots retract all flaps/leading edge devices without the knowledge of the other pilot?
crazy
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 737 the fuel is always used from the centre tank first (if carried)
I think we all expect the aircraft to have stalled...
Problem is, how did it get into that scenario, and what contributory factors were there.
The BBC's current take on the matter....
Russian aviation experts say the pilots of a Boeing 737 jet which crashed in Kazan on Sunday carried out a manoeuvre that put the plane into a dive.
During a second attempt to land, the pilots switched to manual control and made a correction when the plane lost speed, the investigators said.
But the jet then nose-dived and crashed on to the tarmac, killing all 50 people on board.
According to the initial findings, the jet did not have any technical faults.
Presume the last sentence means that no faults were reported: can't see much information coming from that debris field just yet.
Russian aviation experts say the pilots of a Boeing 737 jet which crashed in Kazan on Sunday carried out a manoeuvre that put the plane into a dive.
During a second attempt to land, the pilots switched to manual control and made a correction when the plane lost speed, the investigators said.
But the jet then nose-dived and crashed on to the tarmac, killing all 50 people on board.
According to the initial findings, the jet did not have any technical faults.
Presume the last sentence means that no faults were reported: can't see much information coming from that debris field just yet.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News from the Seattle Times
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In a deep pit
Age: 45
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyjob, It is a structural limitation. Just the same as why the main tanks have to be full if centre tank fuel is uplifted (although there is a small amount of centre tank fuel that is allowed to be carried provided that the weight of this fuel when combined with the ZFW does not exceed the Maximum ZFW).... It call all be found in the Fcom
Last edited by Javadreaming; 19th Nov 2013 at 13:48. Reason: Poor spelling
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is an update from MAK
During approach, the crew didn't achieve proper parameters of standard approach that was specified in the documentation. Had assessed AC's position as non-landing in relation to the runway, the crew reported this and initiated GA using TOGA mode. During this phase, one of autopilots that had been used during approach, was disconnected and from this moment piloting was done in manual mode.
Engines reached thrust mode that was close to TO. The crew changed flaps setting from 30 to 15 degrees. Because of the engine thrust, pitch started to increase and AC started to climb. Pitch angle reached 25 degrees.
IAS started to decrease, then the crew retracted the gear.
From the moment of initiating GA, to this moment the crew had not attempted to actively control the AC with a yoke input.
After IAS decreased from 150 to 125 kt, the crew started to use control column in order to obtain nose down attitude. That led to the arrest of climb, and subsequent descend with increase of IAS. Maximum AoA didn't exceed operational limits.
AC, after reaching alt of 700m, started to descend with negative pitch angle, that reached -75 degrees at the end of the recording. AC came into contact with the ground at high speed (more than 450 kmh ) and with large negative pitch angle.
From the moment of GA to the end of recording 45 sec had passed and the descend took 20 secs.
Engines performed as expected until the moment of impact, and there was no indication of any failures or abnormal operations in any of the AC systems
The analysis and interpretation of DFR continues.
MAK notes that upon finding and opening the container with CVR, the inner container as well as the tape mechanism of CVR was not found inside of the casing. Search for CVR is continued.
During approach, the crew didn't achieve proper parameters of standard approach that was specified in the documentation. Had assessed AC's position as non-landing in relation to the runway, the crew reported this and initiated GA using TOGA mode. During this phase, one of autopilots that had been used during approach, was disconnected and from this moment piloting was done in manual mode.
Engines reached thrust mode that was close to TO. The crew changed flaps setting from 30 to 15 degrees. Because of the engine thrust, pitch started to increase and AC started to climb. Pitch angle reached 25 degrees.
IAS started to decrease, then the crew retracted the gear.
From the moment of initiating GA, to this moment the crew had not attempted to actively control the AC with a yoke input.
After IAS decreased from 150 to 125 kt, the crew started to use control column in order to obtain nose down attitude. That led to the arrest of climb, and subsequent descend with increase of IAS. Maximum AoA didn't exceed operational limits.
AC, after reaching alt of 700m, started to descend with negative pitch angle, that reached -75 degrees at the end of the recording. AC came into contact with the ground at high speed (more than 450 kmh ) and with large negative pitch angle.
From the moment of GA to the end of recording 45 sec had passed and the descend took 20 secs.
Engines performed as expected until the moment of impact, and there was no indication of any failures or abnormal operations in any of the AC systems
The analysis and interpretation of DFR continues.
MAK notes that upon finding and opening the container with CVR, the inner container as well as the tape mechanism of CVR was not found inside of the casing. Search for CVR is continued.
Last edited by Sunamer; 19th Nov 2013 at 14:09.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that link to the Seattle Times has the basic truth. I have just heard that the investigators said the time between initiating go-around and impact is 45sec. That's a long time. More thoughts here: Not an ordinary crash - Learmount
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sydney
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from MAK website (loose translation from Russian):
Due to unstabilised approach, missed approach has been initiated. TOGA -> autopilot off -> manual flight. Engines have achieved thrust close to take off thrust. The crew retracted flaps from 30 deg to 15 deg. The aircraft began climb due to pitching up moment and reached pitch attitude about 25 deg. Airspeed began to fall. The crew retracted gear. This was the first time the crew made manual inputs since the start of missed approach procedure. After the airspeed decayed from 150kt to 120kt the crew began transition to dive with the yoke inputs. This stopped the climb, and caused the aircraft to dive and the airspeed to increase. The angle of attack was within limitations. Upon reaching 700m the aircraft began a rapid dive with the pitch attitude reaching -75 deg towards the end of the flight (the end of recording). The aircraft collided with the ground with high speed (more than 450 km/h) and large negative pitch attitude. It took 45 sec from the start of missed approach till the end of recording and descent took about 20 seconds. Engines worked fine, no faults registered on the data recorder. CVR has the tape/recording unit
missing (details are a bit unclear from the text).
Due to unstabilised approach, missed approach has been initiated. TOGA -> autopilot off -> manual flight. Engines have achieved thrust close to take off thrust. The crew retracted flaps from 30 deg to 15 deg. The aircraft began climb due to pitching up moment and reached pitch attitude about 25 deg. Airspeed began to fall. The crew retracted gear. This was the first time the crew made manual inputs since the start of missed approach procedure. After the airspeed decayed from 150kt to 120kt the crew began transition to dive with the yoke inputs. This stopped the climb, and caused the aircraft to dive and the airspeed to increase. The angle of attack was within limitations. Upon reaching 700m the aircraft began a rapid dive with the pitch attitude reaching -75 deg towards the end of the flight (the end of recording). The aircraft collided with the ground with high speed (more than 450 km/h) and large negative pitch attitude. It took 45 sec from the start of missed approach till the end of recording and descent took about 20 seconds. Engines worked fine, no faults registered on the data recorder. CVR has the tape/recording unit
missing (details are a bit unclear from the text).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KMCO
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian crash probe blames faulty pilot maneuvers
Link.
Seems awful quick to get a preliminary cause.
The pilots of a Boeing 737 that plunged to earth at the Kazan airport, killing all 50 aboard, lost speed in a steep climb then overcompensated and sent the plane into a near-vertical dive, according to a preliminary report released Tuesday by Russian aviation experts.
The Moscow-based Interstate Aviation Committee, which oversees civil flights in much of the former Soviet Union, said the plane's engines and other systems were working fine until the moment the plane hit the ground Sunday night.
It said the plane's two pilots had failed to make a proper landing approach on the first attempt and then began a second run.
They put the plane's engines on maximum power, raising the plane's nose up at a sharp angle, causing a quick loss of speed.
At an altitude of about 700 meters (2,200 feet), the crew then tried to gain speed by taking the plane into a dive but it hit the ground at a near-vertical angle in a spectacular crash.
The Moscow-based Interstate Aviation Committee, which oversees civil flights in much of the former Soviet Union, said the plane's engines and other systems were working fine until the moment the plane hit the ground Sunday night.
It said the plane's two pilots had failed to make a proper landing approach on the first attempt and then began a second run.
They put the plane's engines on maximum power, raising the plane's nose up at a sharp angle, causing a quick loss of speed.
At an altitude of about 700 meters (2,200 feet), the crew then tried to gain speed by taking the plane into a dive but it hit the ground at a near-vertical angle in a spectacular crash.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR has the tape/recording unit missing
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: italy
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low speed on approach, go-around initiated, rather than speed recovery. Pitch up uncontrollable, 737, basically run out of elevator. Like this one:-
Report: Thomsonfly B733 at Bournemouth on Sep 23rd 2007, disconnected autothrottle on approach results in 44 degrees pitch up
Another option is blocked pitot, as you descend speed appears to drop, so you push forward to increase speed. Alternatively instrument failure of PFD, like this in 1999:-
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-2B5F (SCD) HL7451 Great Hallingbury
Report: Thomsonfly B733 at Bournemouth on Sep 23rd 2007, disconnected autothrottle on approach results in 44 degrees pitch up
Another option is blocked pitot, as you descend speed appears to drop, so you push forward to increase speed. Alternatively instrument failure of PFD, like this in 1999:-
ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 747-2B5F (SCD) HL7451 Great Hallingbury
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 63
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a google translate
"During the approach the crew failed to make the approach in accordance with the established regulatory documentation scheme. Assessed the position of the aircraft relative to the runway as" neposadochnoe ", the crew reported to the dispatcher and started a go-around mode TOGA (Take Off / Go Around. Takeoff / missed approach). At the same time involved in the process of approach autopilot was disconnected and a further flight took place in manual mode ", - told the press service .
"Motors took to the regime close to the take-off. Crew moved the flaps from position position 30 ° to 15 °. Under the influence of pitching moment of the thrust, the plane went into the climb and reached a pitch angle of about 25 °. Airspeed began to decrease. Crew retracted the chassis. Since the start of the missed approach until then the crew took no active actions with the control column"- added to the department.
After reducing the speed from 150 to 125 knots crew began a column wheel control actions to transfer the aircraft into a dive, which led to the termination of the climb, beginning of descent and the growth speed of the instrument. Maximum angle of attack during the flight does not exceed the operating limits.
The plane, reaching a height of 700 m, has started intensive dive with the angle of pitch, reached the end of the flight to -75 ° (end of recording). The aircraft collided with the ground at high speed (over 450 km / h) and a large negative pitch angle, - the MAC.
"From the start of a go-around to finish the recording took about 45 seconds, descent took about 20 seconds. Propulsion worked until the collision with the ground. Single commands describing the failures of systems and engines the results of the preliminary analysis did not reveal" - said the press service.
"Motors took to the regime close to the take-off. Crew moved the flaps from position position 30 ° to 15 °. Under the influence of pitching moment of the thrust, the plane went into the climb and reached a pitch angle of about 25 °. Airspeed began to decrease. Crew retracted the chassis. Since the start of the missed approach until then the crew took no active actions with the control column"- added to the department.
After reducing the speed from 150 to 125 knots crew began a column wheel control actions to transfer the aircraft into a dive, which led to the termination of the climb, beginning of descent and the growth speed of the instrument. Maximum angle of attack during the flight does not exceed the operating limits.
The plane, reaching a height of 700 m, has started intensive dive with the angle of pitch, reached the end of the flight to -75 ° (end of recording). The aircraft collided with the ground at high speed (over 450 km / h) and a large negative pitch angle, - the MAC.
"From the start of a go-around to finish the recording took about 45 seconds, descent took about 20 seconds. Propulsion worked until the collision with the ground. Single commands describing the failures of systems and engines the results of the preliminary analysis did not reveal" - said the press service.
very tricky as a low weight -400/-500 run out of elevator at low speed during landing, this is pretty well known unlike the -300 (and -200), don't know about any other later variants.
what MAK states is pretty much what I expected, and the final report I reckon will mirror exactly this.
still, that was pretty damned fast.
what MAK states is pretty much what I expected, and the final report I reckon will mirror exactly this.
still, that was pretty damned fast.