Russian B737 Crash at Kazan.
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
ISTM that the envelope protection of an A320 could possibly have prevented this. Or possibly not ?
Originally Posted by Lonewolf50
I don't know enough about 737 to guess intelligently
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say It; Do it; See It.
Here's an aid memoir (for the PF) for the vital actions of a go-around in a B737:
Nb. If, prior to Altitude Acquire, you touch anything on the MCP (aside from a roll mode) you will then cause the TOGA mode to cancel (watch your FMA), and the MCP speed window will then open up (at the airspeed that you are doing at that precise moment, and the ASI bug will move to that same speed) and the ASI bug is then yours to set.
You'll note that I don't mention the landing gear because, on two engines, there's usually so much power available that - even leaving the gear down - it will not effect proceedings all that much... just so long as the PF remembers to do those basic items listed above!
And that's all there is to it - simple & safe - Say It; Do It; See It !
- Say It = "Go Around, Flap 15"
- Do It = Push thrust levers up, and pitch to the go-around attitude.
- See It = The FMA had better say 'TOGA' (which proves that you've pressed the TOGA button), the thrust mode says 'GA' (ditto) and the thrust position matches the demanded N1.
Nb. If, prior to Altitude Acquire, you touch anything on the MCP (aside from a roll mode) you will then cause the TOGA mode to cancel (watch your FMA), and the MCP speed window will then open up (at the airspeed that you are doing at that precise moment, and the ASI bug will move to that same speed) and the ASI bug is then yours to set.
You'll note that I don't mention the landing gear because, on two engines, there's usually so much power available that - even leaving the gear down - it will not effect proceedings all that much... just so long as the PF remembers to do those basic items listed above!
And that's all there is to it - simple & safe - Say It; Do It; See It !
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flash 8 brings up the question: what was the reason for the original go around?
The conversation presented in a previous post with graphic presentation of the ultimate dive, including all usual strong language, reminded me of the Polish President's crash into a Russian airfield. In that case the advice given by the tower was unfortunate; informing the Polish pilots that they were on track. Yes, perhaps, but trees got in the way.
Is it still the custom in Russia that the controller tells the pilot what to do?
Is it the practice in the US for the tower to order a pilot to go around?
The conversation presented in a previous post with graphic presentation of the ultimate dive, including all usual strong language, reminded me of the Polish President's crash into a Russian airfield. In that case the advice given by the tower was unfortunate; informing the Polish pilots that they were on track. Yes, perhaps, but trees got in the way.
Is it still the custom in Russia that the controller tells the pilot what to do?
Is it the practice in the US for the tower to order a pilot to go around?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it the practice in the US for the tower to order a pilot to go around?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very similar incident happened with Transaero B737 in April 2010 in Krasnoyarsk. Going around - pitch up to 45 degrees - speed dropping almost to 0 - banking 80 degrees right - rapid descent/fall from 4000 ft and stabilized at 400 ft after getting visual reference.
However, though this incident was discussed on public forums and most of B737 Russian pilots know about this incident, it has never been officially investigated and no official info ever appeared.
However, though this incident was discussed on public forums and most of B737 Russian pilots know about this incident, it has never been officially investigated and no official info ever appeared.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am really mystified here. What I'm hearing is that you punch a button that brings on sudden power that results in tricky pitch changes at low altitude.
So how did people do it in a 737-200 in the 1960s? I never remember reading about GA screw-ups until lately. Even the ones with a happy ending must be awful for the passengers.
I mean, what do you do? Level off, gear up, gradually put on power and reduce flaps - how hard can it be??
So how did people do it in a 737-200 in the 1960s? I never remember reading about GA screw-ups until lately. Even the ones with a happy ending must be awful for the passengers.
I mean, what do you do? Level off, gear up, gradually put on power and reduce flaps - how hard can it be??
Desitter, it's not a "sudden power" increase, it's quite smooth and the pitch trims changes are not "tricky" to a competent pilot.
Ref 737-200 which I also flew - pilots were used to doing a lot more manual flying then. These GA incidents are further evidence of pilots diminution in handling skills due increased use of automation.
To a competent and well practised pilot the GA should be a routine manoeuvre.
Ref 737-200 which I also flew - pilots were used to doing a lot more manual flying then. These GA incidents are further evidence of pilots diminution in handling skills due increased use of automation.
To a competent and well practised pilot the GA should be a routine manoeuvre.
Last edited by fireflybob; 22nd Nov 2013 at 10:18.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Old King Coal,
of course i was answering, and my reply must be read in regards to the original thing i commented on:
And of course, the 737 does exactly that if one wants it. Flying manually the issue is a moot point as thrust is used manually and one can easily use less than full GA thrust as long as obstacles are not an issue.
Of course i do have a certain mental bias from flying the 737 for around 13 years now using the ARM feature and flying every ILS dual channel until the automatics are switched off, both provide better go around control and make life in that particular case quite easy. Interestingly enough the outfit i fly for does both for the last 30 years now without any problem or incident.
All in all a go around is quite a benign thing in the 737 if flown right, but apparently training in many companies is only done to the bare regulatory minimum and that can be a bad thing if the last two engine go around was flown years back during initial type rating.
of course i was answering, and my reply must be read in regards to the original thing i commented on:
Given the increasing number of incidents/accidents occurring during a go-around with all engines operative , as we perform derated TO, why do we use max thrust, and the weight is certainly lighter, and we are not provided a reduced thrust for GA?
Of course i do have a certain mental bias from flying the 737 for around 13 years now using the ARM feature and flying every ILS dual channel until the automatics are switched off, both provide better go around control and make life in that particular case quite easy. Interestingly enough the outfit i fly for does both for the last 30 years now without any problem or incident.
All in all a go around is quite a benign thing in the 737 if flown right, but apparently training in many companies is only done to the bare regulatory minimum and that can be a bad thing if the last two engine go around was flown years back during initial type rating.
Perhaps pilots have too many options these days.
Harking back to the B737-200 we knew that ALL Go Arounds had to be manually flown also with no autothrottle (well on all the ones I flew) and a very basic flight director. Flying a manual Go Around was all part and parcel of the job.
Now we have the option for Auto Go Around (a la Cat 2/3 and both autopilots engaged), manually flown Go Around but with Autothrottle (with variation in one click/two click etc), manually flown Go Around with manual throttle or even auto go around with manual throttle - all with a more "sophisticated" Flight Director.
So maybe pilots are faced with choice overload?
A totally manual Go Around with no Flight Director (raw data) is from a handling point of view quite simple - power up to circa 90% (but don't look at N1 guages since a) correct thrust lever movement should be known and b) PNF should set accurately, simultaneously selecting 15 deg NU and trimming as we go - obviously we need to configure etc but fundamentally this is all we need to do to get the a/c climbing away from the ground safely.
Am assuming all engines operative of course.
Harking back to the B737-200 we knew that ALL Go Arounds had to be manually flown also with no autothrottle (well on all the ones I flew) and a very basic flight director. Flying a manual Go Around was all part and parcel of the job.
Now we have the option for Auto Go Around (a la Cat 2/3 and both autopilots engaged), manually flown Go Around but with Autothrottle (with variation in one click/two click etc), manually flown Go Around with manual throttle or even auto go around with manual throttle - all with a more "sophisticated" Flight Director.
So maybe pilots are faced with choice overload?
A totally manual Go Around with no Flight Director (raw data) is from a handling point of view quite simple - power up to circa 90% (but don't look at N1 guages since a) correct thrust lever movement should be known and b) PNF should set accurately, simultaneously selecting 15 deg NU and trimming as we go - obviously we need to configure etc but fundamentally this is all we need to do to get the a/c climbing away from the ground safely.
Am assuming all engines operative of course.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scary for us passengers to think that pilots may not be able to do a Go Around in a perfectly working airplane or land visually with competence in good weather. That it could even be a problem.
Due to man/machine interface, fatigue and other factors.
Incidents are still few in view of how many flights were landed visually and how many Go Arounds are done. But one likes to think that Go Arounds and landing visually are as easy as getting the milk out of the fridge and pouring it into a bowl for pilots.
I think , as mentioned previously by others, that new complexities and choices of arming this, dis-arming that. Proceeding on half auto or full manual or full auto makes things unnecessarily complex at critical times and leads to mistakes being made.
Complexity kills. Keeping it Simple should be the rule, because it works.
Due to man/machine interface, fatigue and other factors.
Incidents are still few in view of how many flights were landed visually and how many Go Arounds are done. But one likes to think that Go Arounds and landing visually are as easy as getting the milk out of the fridge and pouring it into a bowl for pilots.
I think , as mentioned previously by others, that new complexities and choices of arming this, dis-arming that. Proceeding on half auto or full manual or full auto makes things unnecessarily complex at critical times and leads to mistakes being made.
Complexity kills. Keeping it Simple should be the rule, because it works.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: FNC/LPMA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. TO/GA pitch up tendency is counteracted by the "fbw" system on an A320.
Last edited by MountainSnake; 22nd Nov 2013 at 17:02.
Here's one which pitched up 44 degrees with IAS reducing to 82 knots as the pitch reduced to 33 degrees. How close did that come to the Kazan accident?
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/875.pdf
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/875.pdf
Here's one which pitched up 44 degrees with IAS reducing to 82 knots as the pitch reduced to 33 degrees. How close did that come to the Kazan accident?
Old King Coal, thank you for your very good advice 
...there is always pilot to override whatever FCS does and pitch down until contact with Black Sea, Persian Gulf or Libyan Desert.
Already answered on this very thread.
Eight degrees but the causes and mechanism of the occurrences are fairly different.
Originally Posted by MountainSnake
Absolutely. TO/GA pitch up tendency is counteracted by the "fbw" system on an A320.
Originally Posted by Doves
And as far as I know she has an automatic pitch trim too...
But...
But...
Originally Posted by fireflybob
have they found the CVR yet?
Originally Posted by pulse1
How close did that come to the Kazan accident?