B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Realizing that the radar shows ground speed and not airspeed, it still brings up the possibility of a stall. Someone with some more time tonight can probably calculate the final decent 's VVI.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zanzi's Bar
Age: 59
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDP limitations a reason for not diverting?!
If these guys would have diverted, they might have had to layover... You cannot make it back to DXB in one FDP with 3 sectors.
For sure if you are carrying enough fuel to hold for 2 hours, it means you don't want to divert!
FZ and EK are known to push FDL to the limit!
Poor sods...
For sure if you are carrying enough fuel to hold for 2 hours, it means you don't want to divert!
FZ and EK are known to push FDL to the limit!
Poor sods...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
preliminary passenger list has been published
http://lifenews.ru/news/191188
google will translate
https://translate.google.com.au/tran...Fnews%2F191188
http://lifenews.ru/news/191188
google will translate
https://translate.google.com.au/tran...Fnews%2F191188
Careful with those allegations that the aircraft "may have been on fire" judging from those seconds shown on the video.
Aircraft are known to show landing lights during approach; those are a perfectly good explanation for the lights seen and according to Occams Razor much more probable than an inflight fire.
I suggest that respect for the colleagues and their passengers on board dictates a cautious approach to speculating.
Aircraft are known to show landing lights during approach; those are a perfectly good explanation for the lights seen and according to Occams Razor much more probable than an inflight fire.
I suggest that respect for the colleagues and their passengers on board dictates a cautious approach to speculating.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Costa Rica
Age: 55
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR24 Observations
16.29 Fairly close to airport at 11K ft.
16.42 On approach then began to climb and increase speed so did a missed approach from an altitude of 1750ft
16.50 climbed out to 8K ft. southwest and from there into a circle towards the northeast
17.15 After circling to the northeast of the airport, increased altitude to 15K ft to fly to holding pattern southeast of runway
17.27 Enter holding pattern southeast of airport at altitude of 15K ft.
18.24 On the 9th circuit of the hold, began decent and approach to airport
18.36 Turned into runway heading on approach at 2750ft
18.38 Began decent from 2750ft to airport
------Approached looks normal, speeds mirror first approach (105-115Kts) until seemingly almost the same point on the approach where they aborted the first time.
18.40 Speed increases and altitude increases from a low point of 1550ft so a second missed approach seems to be happening
18.41 Speed at 185Kts and altitude at 3975ft but next to last data point
18.42 Last data point. Speed up to 197Kts but altitude has fallen to 925ft
So from missed approach at ~16.42 until beginning second approach at ~18.24, pilots obviously troubleshooting or waiting for weather for about one hour and 42 minutes. Approach looks fine before it all went south with the time from the 2nd missed approach to the crash only being around 2 minutes. The final decent seems to be at high speed and high angle of decent (3K feet decent in less than a minute at almost 200Kts). Speeds don't decay low enough to indicate a stall...but that can depend on a lot of other things (AoA, configuration of the flaps, etc.) we don't have yet so could have happened. Fuel starvation (complete) is highly doubtful because they managed to increase speed and altitude which means they had power.
16.42 On approach then began to climb and increase speed so did a missed approach from an altitude of 1750ft
16.50 climbed out to 8K ft. southwest and from there into a circle towards the northeast
17.15 After circling to the northeast of the airport, increased altitude to 15K ft to fly to holding pattern southeast of runway
17.27 Enter holding pattern southeast of airport at altitude of 15K ft.
18.24 On the 9th circuit of the hold, began decent and approach to airport
18.36 Turned into runway heading on approach at 2750ft
18.38 Began decent from 2750ft to airport
------Approached looks normal, speeds mirror first approach (105-115Kts) until seemingly almost the same point on the approach where they aborted the first time.
18.40 Speed increases and altitude increases from a low point of 1550ft so a second missed approach seems to be happening
18.41 Speed at 185Kts and altitude at 3975ft but next to last data point
18.42 Last data point. Speed up to 197Kts but altitude has fallen to 925ft
So from missed approach at ~16.42 until beginning second approach at ~18.24, pilots obviously troubleshooting or waiting for weather for about one hour and 42 minutes. Approach looks fine before it all went south with the time from the 2nd missed approach to the crash only being around 2 minutes. The final decent seems to be at high speed and high angle of decent (3K feet decent in less than a minute at almost 200Kts). Speeds don't decay low enough to indicate a stall...but that can depend on a lot of other things (AoA, configuration of the flaps, etc.) we don't have yet so could have happened. Fuel starvation (complete) is highly doubtful because they managed to increase speed and altitude which means they had power.
Last edited by PuraVidaTransport; 19th Mar 2016 at 05:05.
Looked at another flight tracker. Looks like they got slow on second miss. About 40 knots GS below what their approach speed was on the second attempt. (Which was 129)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local (Rostov) people confirm that the weather was really bad that night: rain and strong wind. But the visibility was not that bad. It was reported on TV that shortly before that tragic crash two Russian planes (one from Moscow, another from St-Petersburg) decided not to land and diverted to Krasnodar, which is just 20 min to the south. Though their crews of course knew the Rostov airport quite well. One more Aeroflot plane managed to land after 2-3 attempts. Why the Dubai plane did not go to another airport???
Based on ATC comms above:
Their worry seamed defiantly to be wind/windshear not visibility.
Also noted a few issue with accent and also altitude in meters.
Also confirmation they were in a go around before the crash, sounded very normal and causal reporting of 'skydubai 981 going around' - no issue at that time.
Their worry seamed defiantly to be wind/windshear not visibility.
Also noted a few issue with accent and also altitude in meters.
Also confirmation they were in a go around before the crash, sounded very normal and causal reporting of 'skydubai 981 going around' - no issue at that time.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points:
1). That aircraft was fully capable of carrying out a coupled approach to Cat1 minima and continue for a manual landing.
2). It is possible that they were tankering fuel, (due cost), if not carrying round trip fuel. Quite possibly plenty of holding fuel and still enough for a diversion.
- does not matter if they was qualified for ALL WX, as the airport was only a Cat 1 airport
2). It is possible that they were tankering fuel, (due cost), if not carrying round trip fuel. Quite possibly plenty of holding fuel and still enough for a diversion.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: WMKK/KUL
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNN reported that the aircraft's tail "clipped the runway" ?
Flydubai airliner crashes in Russia; 62 dead - CNN.com
I heard the ATC recordings as well and unless they declared a go around (verbal comms) and then only went around (action), maybe they then had a tailstrike?
They did sound very calm and collected as well in the recordings, unlike a crew having a low fuel scenario. Inclined to believe they tankered anyway.
Flydubai airliner crashes in Russia; 62 dead - CNN.com
I heard the ATC recordings as well and unless they declared a go around (verbal comms) and then only went around (action), maybe they then had a tailstrike?
They did sound very calm and collected as well in the recordings, unlike a crew having a low fuel scenario. Inclined to believe they tankered anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: N/A - Nomad
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From avherald.com
The aircraft carried fuel for trip, contingency, alternate, final fuel reserve (30 minutes) and additional holding for about 2:30 hours, total fuel for an endurance of about 8.5 hours. The aircraft had been airborne until time of impact for 06:02 hours.
After about 2 hours of holding the aircraft commenced another approach to Rostov's runway 22, winds from 240 degrees at 27 knots (14 m/s) gusting 42 knots (22 m/s), but struck a wing onto the runway at about 3:43 (00:43Z), broke up, came to a rest near the end and to the right of the runway and burst into flames.
We are aware of the video but for now have dismissed this video (which appears to be in contradiction to available radar data and official announcements, e.g. by MAK)
Security video
Room for misreporting and poor translation, Ministry of Emergenciencies says that the "tail hit the ground".
Airliner crashes in Russia; 61 aboard reported dead http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html
Re the video:
Using the passing car as a reference, the security camera is sensitive to the IR emitting in Nav, landing lights and flame.
There appears to be two distinct targets (lights) descending that do not alter their relative position on descent.
The online video looks to have been recorded off a screen.
This would explain the curious framing for a security camera.
The original recording should have more detail.
Mickjoebill
Airliner crashes in Russia; 61 aboard reported dead http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/18/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html
Re the video:
Using the passing car as a reference, the security camera is sensitive to the IR emitting in Nav, landing lights and flame.
There appears to be two distinct targets (lights) descending that do not alter their relative position on descent.
The online video looks to have been recorded off a screen.
This would explain the curious framing for a security camera.
The original recording should have more detail.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 19th Mar 2016 at 06:42.
but struck a wing onto the runway at about 3:43 (00:43Z), broke up, came to a rest near the end and to the right of the runway and burst into flames.
but struck a wing onto the runway at about 3:43 (00:43Z), broke up, came to a rest near the end and to the right of the runway and burst into flames.
This point i feel doesn't make sence to me - all the wreckage (from life news) appears to be very small, more like a crash from altitude, where as this would suggest damage more like the Fedex crash in Toyko
Not saying that's the case, of course.
Holy smokes, watch the video again. Those are lights on the Aircraft, a bright Landing light a flashing strobe and maybe a Nav light.......it was a steep impact......
