Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don

Old 19th Mar 2016, 18:40
  #181 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Someone else's acft
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not trying to correct anyone here guys...

Just posting this to clarify !

We all need to refresh our knowledge from time to time...

Where I'm flying nowadays, we're trained to always manually fly the bird when facing this kind of situation. I believe most of the operators adopt this kind of procedure... Probably the best way to not kill anyone ! But this is the kind of thing that can lead to a LOC-I situation caused by over controlling the aircraft.

Great discussion btw.
B737SFP is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 18:42
  #182 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yes and correction to my post,
on the 737 you can fly it automatically.
the brain is fried and informative discussion i agree

and to flightdetent
from memory, i believe when out of the WS, the flight directors will actually give u guidance above 20 Degs..... to keep the increasing speed in check
the danger is not to follow above 20 degrees ( talking about the manual case).

we will soon find out the cause, loss of control during GA or W/S escape , aircraft damage,
all speculation at this point ,
HighLow is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 18:48
  #183 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,324
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Uff, sorry, still not clear.

When TO/GA button is pressed (as per FCTM guidance), on an ILS approach with single-channel AP, will it be automated WSH escape or AP trip-off?
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 18:49
  #184 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flyer1015 - so you think an airline that doesn't nightstop needs looked at because they don't night stop? Where do they find people like you??? It no two bob outfit from the Middle East, it's a serious player, has had a great record until now. Let's keep things in perspective and not forget that there is no correlation between LCCs and legacy airlines (in the non Southeast Asian world) when it comes to safety. If you do have any information to the contrary please point us to it.

As we have learned from MH17, MH370 and many others 'officials' often make statements that they are not qualified to make. They good posts that they are not qualified for and believe that because they have a title that they know what they're talking about and are empowered to make comments on subjects that they know nothing about.

I had a filling yesterday. In some cultures that would qualify me to be a minister for health.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. And please sir, flyDubai is a brand new airline in the overall scheme of things. You know how these Middle Eastern airlines all are. Extremely reactionary and firing any pilot 'mistake.' Emirates Melbourne crew forced to resign after a weight and balance bungle-up and resulting tail strike takeoff. Qatar crew mistakes MIA runway intersection T1 as an intersection instead of a notam for something else. They're also fired.

flyDubai does out and backs predominantly. How do they really handle pilot issues? What if this pilot decided to hold for only hour and then divert? Does management support him? Or do they call him in for a meeting and say "hey, you still had 2 hours more fuel, you should have held more." It's crazy to think they had a 4 hour flight to Ros Dov, and then another similar 4 hr flight back to Dubai, and after one approach they held for nearly 2 hours. Holding that long for a place like Heathrow is one thing. But freakin Ros dov? One has to start questioning the ADM of the crew and you can't really do that until you look at and evaluate their safety culture.

I'm probably sounding from a high horse as an American, but these ME carriers have a very bad safety culture in terms of management relations with pilots, and especially their reaction to when a pilot/crew makes a mistake. They go into a "fire-them-all!" mode. That's not a safety culture. That is just dangerous.
Flyer1015 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:07
  #185 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
DM - Decison Making, besides all the dangers with High Energy GA, why even attempt to make the approach?

Windshear reported on the Runway! Given the amount of fuel the crew had, they had plenty of options. However this comes down to company culture in my opinion, pressure on crew to get in no matter what!
I was thinking the same thing when the controller seemingly reported severe turbulence and windshear in the weather sequence.

The approach plate for runway 22 has this note: 'Increased turbulence and windshear may be expected on final.'
Airbubba is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:16
  #186 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 625
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you're heading into Ros Dov in the middle of a wintery night, you know very well that diverting to any of the nearby airports will induce massive amounts of operational headache. It will basically be you and your crew, trying to sort out everything for yourself and your passengers. In the middle of very, very rural Russia, that is a daunting task which is bound to result in passenger complaints and, quite possibly, a social shyte storm when the inevitable happens, and you find yourself, your crew and passengers stranded onboard an increasingly frigid 737.

Those thoughts are bound to enter the mind of a commander, and is very likely one of the reasons why he decided to press on with the landing - even after a two hour hold and reports of WHSR.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:16
  #187 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

my understanding of the system is as follows
Single Channel ILS - Pressing TO/GA will disconnect the A/P regardless of W/S Warning (TO/GA after W/S Warning gives Pilot F/D Escape Guidance)
Dual Channel ILS - Pressing TO/GA will keep the A/P engaged.

Following a Windshear Warning;
Single Channel ILS,: Follow The W/S Escape(manually)
Autopilot disengages after TOGA Selection

A Dual Channel ILS: The W/S Escape
TO/GA will drop A/P to single channel the A/P will remain engaged
Follow the Escape Maneuver (Automatic Flight)
If the pilots are not satisfied with the performance at any stage, follow the Manual Flight procedure as published above.

That is my take on it
(open to correction)

Last edited by HighLow; 19th Mar 2016 at 19:17. Reason: Typo
HighLow is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:23
  #188 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Excessive pitch during GA is a normal occurrence on 737.. it should be grounded.
If pilots can't fly a normal go-around in a 737, that doesn't mean the aircraft should be grounded. Its characteristics in a go-around are not to be unexpected in a high-performance jet aircraft with under-wing mounted engines and virtually zero flight control augmentation. But if people think you MUST pull hard during a go-around on a 737, then somebody should change their mind with training, not by grounding the aircraft.
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:42
  #189 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couple of questions from an SLF:

Question #1: Does accident craft have only a 2 hour CVR? If so, might lose everything said/done prior to and during first approach and GA, which potentially would have shed additional light on what thinking, etc.

Question # 2: After FZ981 reported were going around, Tower responded with "contact approach 121.2". Crew said "121.2, bye bye".

Any thoughts on when FZ981 (probably) would have made that frequency change?

I realize frequency changes are a routine task, but I ask that question partly because of this comment on the thread:

We were 4 or 5 seconds from being upside down at 2,000'. And I was heads down with a frequency change. (emphasis added)
Which makes me wonder if PM on FZ981 (who I presume is making frequency change) may briefly have been distracted by it about the same time as a possibly excessive pitchup on GA and/or a somatogravic illusion or whatever may have transpired there. When things suddenly go bad, might that have added a critical hole to the swiss cheese (or removed a critical slice, however one cares to view it)?
Passenger 389 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:43
  #190 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The one thing we do know is that it was a steep and fast impact into the ground, as the video evidence, and the highly fragmented relatively compact wreckage field, appears to confirm.

It may or may not be relevant here, but the accident report on the Bournemouth 737 loss of pitch control on GA is worth a read.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:48
  #191 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Flydubai flight FZ981 crash. According to different media sources:
The plane was Boeing 737 manufactured in 2011, operated by airline FlyDubai (United Arab Emirates) a budget low-cost airline.
The Cypriot Captain, Aristos Socratous with over 5,700 flight hours.
The Spanish Co-pilot Alejandro Álava Cruz, from Tenerife, had flown 5,769 hours

22:16 FZ981 commences descent from FL360
22:42 FZ981 aborts first approach at 1725 ft, 6.7 km short of the runway
23:20 SU1166 SSJ-100 (a Sukhoi Superjet 100-95B from Moscow-Sheremetyevo "Aeroflot-Russian Airlines") decided to proceed towards Krasnodar alternate airport.
00:40 FZ981 aborts second approach at 1550 ft, 5.6 km short of the runway
00:41 FZ981 impacts airport terrain after a steep descent from 3975 feet
Flightradar24 shows the aircraft descending to an altitude of 1550 feet when it began to climb again at 3 NM (5,6 km) short of the runway. It reached about 3975 feet until the airplane entered a steep descent before impacting airport terrain.

No distress message was stated by the crew.
The crash appears to have been caused by gale-force winds, poor visibility due to fog and torrential rain, and possible pilot error.

My personal supposition: The plane was not on fire, just with all onboard lights on as usually during landing. It happened due to Bad weather conditions plus B737 Auto Flight System particularities sometimes difficult to manage with during go-around procedure.
It looks identically to Kazan B737 crash.
Let's wait for official investigation result.
Sky1971 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:50
  #192 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by B737Pilot3
For those wondering, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7orMIfJx-uw
a FZ low vis approach into BTS, from cockpit. As can be seen here, it's Single CH all the way until the AP disconnect. Also what's interesting is the VSD on both sides, Pm and Pf.

Also, as I read somewhere, Rostov is captain's airport only, so capt was PF i'd guess.
Notice the good amount (close to 3 seconds) NU trim at 0:49, followed by a little bit ND trim at 0:59.

Then notice how much ND trim the captain gives after shut down (from 4:34).
LLuCCiFeR is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:56
  #193 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
crash site shot from helicopter


Last edited by Sunamer; 19th Mar 2016 at 19:57. Reason: messed up link
Sunamer is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 19:56
  #194 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Unna, Germany
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Syntax Error
How many here, would attempt this approach when reported Moderate Turbulene, Windshear on Runway and OVC 100 ft? If so maybe you should be fired straight away!
Why are you still harping on about OVC 100feet? The METAR was showing (amongst others) OVC100 = 10.000 feet overcast. OVC001 would be 100 feet overcast......
Steve6443 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 20:25
  #195 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: EHRD for now.
Age: 58
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With all regards, but if you cannot read a METAR, maybe you should restrain yourself a bit when commenting.

Horrible accident, hope there will be more clearance about what happened soon.
San Diego kid is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 20:30
  #196 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,322
Received 186 Likes on 93 Posts
Perhaps everyone can refrain from commenting, because no one knows why this happened.
Too many here just love the sound of their own keyboards!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 20:39
  #197 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
something must have pushed the column violently forward
Not necessarily "something". It could also be a pilot losing control of the aircraft, happened numerous times before, happened also 2 years ago in Russia in Kazan during another botched attempt to land 737 at night in marginal conditions. Aircraft hit ground at very steep angle in Kazan, overall very similar circumstances.
olasek is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 20:51
  #198 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North East, UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Syntax Error
Sorry my bad, you are right. Tempo brain freeze, still I personally would have never even tried this approach, and I don't think anybody I know would have given it a go either!

It will be so easy to give the pilot the blame, while I rather thing there is a deeper culture issue here.

Also another problem in this area of the world, there are not many Cat 2 or Cat 3 airports around, so that is a reason often you need to carry tons of extra fuel.
In my previous company we had often on late flights 3000 kg extra fuel just to be able to reach the nearest Cat 2 airport in the vicinity.

If one airport was fogged in or windy, they would normally all be that in the same region, and they would normally be max Cat 1 or NPA.

It's a bit lottery to wait for 2 hours over one airport making your options around less and less!
Really? Everyone has their own limits but from the METAR it's doesn't look any different to the type of weather we routinely operate in and around the British Isles when a storm rolls in. Gusting 30knots+ pretty much down the runway, possible windshear, bit of cloud is par for the course.

Nothing wrong with holding for 2 hours if you have the fuel. Just have an exit strategy and a defined time/fuel amount at which you head off to the suitable and agreed alternate.
Starfox64 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 20:56
  #199 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by HighLow
The A/P on the 737 will disconnect , once you press the TO/GA buttons
You fly the initial Missed Approach manually, and then re-engage at an appropriate time
True enough in the "old days" Not true on the latest--which have "TOGA to LNAV" mode that will keep aircraft coupled. Not saying that's what happened here (FDR will tell that story), just clarifying system.
Teakettle15USN is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 21:00
  #200 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Teakettle15USN about what version are you talking about? As far as I know on the 738 if you are on single AP as you push TOGA you get reduced go around thrust and the AP disconnects immediately.
S7EVIN is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.