B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: looking out of the window
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a daft observation/question but:
From the cctv video and the 3D flight path renderings I was expecting to see a large impact crater (for want of a better word). The ground/runway seems remarkably intact from the helicopter film. Is this normal and my expectation is wrong or does this suggest some breakup prior to impact (of the then smaller lower energy sections)
From the cctv video and the 3D flight path renderings I was expecting to see a large impact crater (for want of a better word). The ground/runway seems remarkably intact from the helicopter film. Is this normal and my expectation is wrong or does this suggest some breakup prior to impact (of the then smaller lower energy sections)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: in the middle
Age: 40
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Syntax Error
Repeated messages of Turbulence on approach, and Windshear, with plenty of fuel, there needs to be some digging into company culture, and not just a stupid discussion of how dangerous the 737 is in the Go Around!
Of course there could have been some catastrophic failure, but most likely the first part of the Swiss Cheese, is why did they attempt the approach at all?
Diversion could have been outside Russia too, Turkey, Georgia, Baku, there was enough fuel, head ache yes, but also alive to tell the story!
In the end this ends up with pilot given the blame, while it most likely was his training and company culture that coached them to encourage these actions, we had this with the Polish aircraft who attempted the NPA in Russia few years ago, pressure from the non flying forces.
How many here, would attempt this approach when reported Moderate Turbulene, Windshear on Runway If so maybe you should be fired straight away!
The OVC was my bad, sorry, tempo brain freeze, still the Turbulence and Windshear was the main points of never starting this approach in the first place!
Of course there could have been some catastrophic failure, but most likely the first part of the Swiss Cheese, is why did they attempt the approach at all?
Diversion could have been outside Russia too, Turkey, Georgia, Baku, there was enough fuel, head ache yes, but also alive to tell the story!
In the end this ends up with pilot given the blame, while it most likely was his training and company culture that coached them to encourage these actions, we had this with the Polish aircraft who attempted the NPA in Russia few years ago, pressure from the non flying forces.
How many here, would attempt this approach when reported Moderate Turbulene, Windshear on Runway If so maybe you should be fired straight away!
The OVC was my bad, sorry, tempo brain freeze, still the Turbulence and Windshear was the main points of never starting this approach in the first place!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 71
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ground/runway seems remarkably intact from the helicopter film. Is this normal and my expectation is wrong or does this suggest some breakup prior to impact (of the then smaller lower energy sections)
Just one question....having in mind someone said according FlyDubai this aerodrome/rwy is only a "captains landing" and the accent of the ATC clip speaking pilot is not spanish for sure, could we suggest PIC was doing both Flying and Comms?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 1,998
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until this incident, I had no idea that some ANSPs reported wind speeds in m/sec. Surely, if airspeeds are in knots, W/V should be reported in the same units?
Approaches that are 'thrown away' at 5-6+Km from touchdown would imply serious Wx conditions.
Approaches that are 'thrown away' at 5-6+Km from touchdown would imply serious Wx conditions.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the (my) usual manner of judging likelyhood by what seems to have happened this has all the hallmarks of the classic B737 dual coupled approach to manual g/a pitch trim gotcha. It's just such a good fit it's hard to imagine another scenario.
Walks, talks and sounds like a duck I'm afraid.
So my guess it's a duck but time will tell.
But why on earth hang around for 2 hours in the hold when there seems little chance of improvement and there are viable diversions not far away?
Surely 2 hrs in the hold tells you something....?
Walks, talks and sounds like a duck I'm afraid.
So my guess it's a duck but time will tell.
But why on earth hang around for 2 hours in the hold when there seems little chance of improvement and there are viable diversions not far away?
Surely 2 hrs in the hold tells you something....?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just such a good fit it's hard to imagine another scenario.
The question is why, after a successful 'practice' 2 hours earlier, would the 2nd one be a cock up? And when commenced from quote a height with no panic?
For interest was the captain ex-Helios? And the F/O ex-Fuetura?
The question is why, after a successful 'practice' 2 hours earlier, would the 2nd one be a cock up? And when commenced from quote a height with no panic?
For interest was the captain ex-Helios? And the F/O ex-Fuetura?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JanetFlight
Just one question....having in mind someone said according FlyDubai this aerodrome/rwy is only a "captains landing" and the accent of the ATC clip speaking pilot is not spanish for sure, could we suggest PIC was doing both Flying and Comms?
Also capt landing does not mean capt has to be PF for approach, could be monitored app.
All speculation and not really relevant.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Someone else's acft
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys: just one thing: I read somewhere that they went around like +3nm from the Runway Threshold, is that right ?
If it is true, then, at a 3 deg GP, 3nm give us something around 1000FT AAL...
At this altitude, no NOSE UP trim has been added in case of a Dual Channel Approach !
The Acft starts trimming around 400 ft RA.
I'm much more inclined to think that those guys ended up with a high nose up attitude during the Go Around (Low ALW, High Trust Setting, Maybe Somatogravic illusion), stalled and lost control of the aircraft.
If it is true, then, at a 3 deg GP, 3nm give us something around 1000FT AAL...
At this altitude, no NOSE UP trim has been added in case of a Dual Channel Approach !
The Acft starts trimming around 400 ft RA.
I'm much more inclined to think that those guys ended up with a high nose up attitude during the Go Around (Low ALW, High Trust Setting, Maybe Somatogravic illusion), stalled and lost control of the aircraft.
@ Mr. Optimistic: So far as the evidence thus far - strong and gusty winds, which likely made it impossible (or at least very difficult) to achieve a "Stabilized" approach (speed stable, guidance needles centered, etc.) at the required point(s) (500/1000 feet above ground).
Doing a go-around because the approach "goes wrong" is (or should be) a routine procedure. And indeed this crew did one with no problem. The question is, what caused the second GA to deteriorate into a crash?
Doing a go-around because the approach "goes wrong" is (or should be) a routine procedure. And indeed this crew did one with no problem. The question is, what caused the second GA to deteriorate into a crash?
The ILS glide slope for this runway is very flat at 2.67 degrees. The Jepp chart also has warnings about turbulence and windshear on final.
Cat 1 minima is 480(200)- 700m RVR
Cat 1 minima is 480(200)- 700m RVR
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 71
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is, what caused the second GA to deteriorate into a crash?
It is a known thing in aviation - a second attempt at landing at the same airport (due to marginal weather) has very poor odds at succeeding at least as far as General Aviation is concerned. Pilots are strongly encouraged to go somewhere else.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ATH
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by XLNL
I'm not from either country (Greece/Spain) and I think for anyone not from either country it would be difficult to distinguish between the accents especially from a low quality recording.
Also capt landing does not mean capt has to be PF for approach, could be monitored app.
All speculation and not really relevant.
Also capt landing does not mean capt has to be PF for approach, could be monitored app.
All speculation and not really relevant.
I am not sure though same person speaks at the end of the transcript. Probably not.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accents mean nothing. I'm a New Zealander who sounds like an American, due to a comprehensive American education in Japan. You can't judge a book by its cover, I'm afraid.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by negativeclimb
No, that accent seems typical of Spanish people speaking english
@log0008 - Basic aerodynamic question. Can a wing stall at any airspeed? Answer - Yes, a wing can stall at any airspeed. All that matters, for a stall, is angle of attack. We don't know that THIS aircraft stalled - but the recorded speed tells us nothing one way or the other on that subject.
@ olasek - I used "cause" in the exact same way the NTSB uses the word in "probable cause." In virtually every report they publish, except those where no cause can be determined. Sometimes "cause" means simply "what happened," which is how I used it in this case. But sometimes the NTSB has been very - emphatic - in discussing "why" something happened, if they feel it involves a serious systemic safety issue (CRM, faulty maintenance practices, VFR flight into IMC, etc.)
@ olasek - I used "cause" in the exact same way the NTSB uses the word in "probable cause." In virtually every report they publish, except those where no cause can be determined. Sometimes "cause" means simply "what happened," which is how I used it in this case. But sometimes the NTSB has been very - emphatic - in discussing "why" something happened, if they feel it involves a serious systemic safety issue (CRM, faulty maintenance practices, VFR flight into IMC, etc.)
