PPRuNe Forums


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th Mar 2016, 07:59   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 715
I don't have a clear picture yet.

The video, compact shredded debris field (as seen thus far) and airport diagram are suggestive of Tatarstan 363. TOGA thrust on go-around without compensating control input, leading to pitch-up, stall and crash on the airport.

However, Av Herald discounts the video, so I'll mark that as (???) for the moment.

Another alternative is hard landing and disintegration along the runway - which should mean daylight will bring a picture of a debris field the length of the runway.

Or as some have suggested, something in between - a hard bounce or other ground contact that rendered the aircraft unflyable and brought it back to earth at the far runway end.

I expect things will become clearer very soon.
pattern_is_full is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:05   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 241
If there was a tailstrike, as some reports say, the aircraft may have lost pitch control, not good if they then went around. The tailplane may have got damaged if the airplane was not on the runway.
Same if they did a wingtip strike and an aileron or winglet was damaged.
At some point in the ATC recording "height" is mentioned - uncommon altimeter setting procedure?
FDR and CVR should give answers soon.
snowfalcon2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:15   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 309
Isn't everyone here conveniently forgetting that the a/c executed a go-around, climbing through 3900ft and accelerating, acknowledging a handoff to radar frequency? Not consistent with a tail/wingtip strike.
Guy D'ageradar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:19   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Snowfalcon - my interpretation of the ATC recording is that both QFE and QNH were being given to the crew. The transition level at URRR is FL050.

Therefore, when cleared to "600 meters" as a 'height' - the crew were effectively being cleared to descend to 600 metres on QFE. This should have been firstly converted to 2,000 ft and then adjusted to a QNH altitude of 2,000 ft plus the runway threshold elevation. The Jeppesen chart for URRR Rwy 22 ILS indicates that 600m QFE = 2250 ft QNH. Note: the Jeppesen URRR charts use the terminology height and altitude in regard to the altitude conversion information.

It is my experience at airports where ATC use metric QFE procedures; that aircraft using imperial QNH altimetry procedures can expect to use the term 'height' to indicate a QFE height as opposed to a QNH altitude or a QNE flight level.

I don't think this has any bearing on the accident. But, it explains the reason why ATC was giving both QFE and QNH and using the phrase 'height' in the altitude clearances.

Last edited by HIALS; 19th Mar 2016 at 11:01. Reason: Additional information
HIALS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:21   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,353
I see BBC News is still calling it a Russian airliner, the clue is in the name of the airline dozy sods.
compton3bravo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:31   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Wind gusting 22 - 42 kts, OVC at 100 ft, in those conditions it would be below Cat 1 minima. Yes I know cloud base is not a requirement, but if you think you can get in on a Cat 1 approach with OVC of 100 ft, you seriously should not be doing this job
??

Quote:
I think some of you need to take a course in reading METARs. The METAR indicates a high overcast at 10,000 ft not a ceiling of 100 feet.


Are there a lot of aviation journalists commenting here? The level of aviation "expertise" on here is really amazing....

Some of the Metars reported to be the accurate ones at the time of the accident are off by several hours if the time of the crash reported here, 18:42, is local time and correct.
CaptainProp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:34   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy D'ageradar View Post
Isn't everyone here conveniently forgetting that the a/c executed a go-around, climbing through 3900ft and accelerating, acknowledging a handoff to radar frequency? Not consistent with a tail/wingtip strike.
I feel the same, here is some raw data from Flightradar24, to me is matches with the video - final decent rate above 21,000 feet per minute


Also Flightradar24 have informed me that max altitude was 4050 feet after GA

Last edited by logansi; 19th Mar 2016 at 08:49.
logansi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:45   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,517
From the FR24 track recording it looks like the YEGORLYK 22 ALPHA Arrival procedure.

MAP for 22 is climb to 940' Turn left to 080 to KS NDB, climbing to 2250' then as directed. (May 2013 Jepp Plate)

I'm intrigued as to the detour around, before taking up the hold and going for a second attempt and the period in the hold (10 circuits?) before approach number 2.

Rostov approach plate: http://vatrus.info/sites/default/fil.../URRR-1317.pdf
stuckgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 08:56   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 309
Thanks Logansi - 11 seconds from beginning of final descent at 4050ft/182 kts to impact. If I'm not mistaken, that equates to 215kts in the VERTICAL plane!
Guy D'ageradar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:01   #50 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 1
Having listened to the ATC recording, it is clear that the controller descended the flight to height 600m on QFE, but the readback from the crew was 900m on QNH corrected by the controller to 600m, the crew then requested confirmation of the QNH which was given correctly by the controller, but if the the crew were using QNH instead of QFE, it was not picked up by either the crew or the controller, this, if I interpreted the RT calls correctly would lead to a descent to roughly 300' below the cleared height.

To me, this would suggest a high level of workload, either before the confusion in setting the altimeter, or resulting in possible confusion in verifying the correct altimeter setting and correcting the error.

Whether or not this had any bearing on the outcome is speculative, but it may have been one of the factors combining to produce the top event leading to the loss of control.
Alycidon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:11   #51 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Barcelona
Age: 37
Posts: 2
IF the A/P was engaged to DA, there would also be a significant amount of nose up trim upon go around (and AP disconnect), coupled with the pitch up moment from GA thrust. Can be quite disconcerting on a normal night, let alone in sketchy conditions like these.
KLMGringo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:12   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: slovakia
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alycidon View Post
Having listened to the ATC recording, it is clear that the controller descended the flight to height 600m on QFE, but the readback from the crew was 900m on QNH corrected by the controller to 600m, the crew then requested confirmation of the QNH which was given correctly by the controller, but if the the crew were using QNH instead of QFE, it was not picked up by either the crew or the controller, this, if I interpreted the RT calls correctly would lead to a descent to roughly 300' below the cleared height.

To me, this would suggest a high level of workload, either before the confusion in setting the altimeter, or resulting in possible confusion in verifying the correct altimeter setting and correcting the error.

Whether or not this had any bearing on the outcome is speculative, but it may have been one of the factors combining to produce the top event leading to the loss of control.
It is quite normal in Russia to mix up the cleared height due to poor radio and inappropriate phraseology (giving cleared height, QFE and frequency for the next sector, all in the same clearance is normal in Russia). However, in this case, the crew asked for height confirmation.

Yesterday, it was very windy in SVO as well, WS on final with a few go-arounds. Poor guys had the crappy weather during the night after a four hour flight.
limahotel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:21   #53 (permalink)

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Looking for a job ...
Age: 40
Posts: 1,756
Alyc: on an "western" equipment such as this 737, the most robust way to operate in height-metric-QFE scenarios is to convert them to altitude-feet-QNH.

Some western operators require their crews to confirm the QNH from ATC, whilst calculated.

Once you learn how to do it, it is very good procedure. The conversion tables are provided on an approach chart.



vlky: My understanding is that FR24 shows ADS-B data from XPDR, that being QNE based altitude. With QNH = 988 the difference from FR24 readout to cockpit indicated altitude is 700 ft. Hence 950 ft on FR24 = 250 on ALT = ground.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 19th Mar 2016 at 10:32.
FlightDetent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:22   #54 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 1
LimaHotel

Quote:
Originally Posted by limahotel View Post
It is quite normal in Russia to mix up the cleared height due to poor radio and inappropriate phraseology (giving cleared height, QFE and frequency for the next sector, all in the same clearance is normal in Russia). However, in this case, the crew asked for height confirmation.

Yesterday, it was very windy in SVO as well, WS on final with a few go-arounds. Poor guys had the crappy weather during the night after a four hour flight.
Er, height is referenced to QFE, altitude to QNH.

They were cleared to 600m on QFE, listen to the tape, but only read back the QNH, they certainly did not pick up the error from what can be heard on the ATC recordings.

Last edited by Alycidon; 19th Mar 2016 at 20:59. Reason: Above post correct, please ignore my post
Alycidon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:28   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lost in EU
Posts: 88
Full radio communication http://tvzvezda.ru/news/vstrane_i_mire/content/201603190833-he0x.htm
5 APUs captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:36   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: slovakia
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alycidon View Post
Er, height is referenced to QFE, altitude to QNH.

They were cleared to 600m on QFE, listen to the tape, but only read back the QNH, they certainly did not pick up the error from what can be heard on the ATC recordings.
Er, that's the way it should be. The ATC descends you to a HEIGHT (QFE), you ask for a QNH, set it, check the converted ALTITUDE and set it in the MCP. 600 m height equates to 2250 ft altitude (check the LIDO plate, posted by FlightDetent).
limahotel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:38   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bird Land
Posts: 450
Reading PPRuNe, it's just like watching any of the big TV news channels, loads of people who speculate about something they know little or nothing about.

In due course the crash report will be published, hopefully this will be an accurate description of what happened and we may be then able to learn lessons from this incident.
Council Van is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:42   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Around T7
Posts: 55
Guys, are you really relying on FR24 data for speed and altitude? And find conclusions based on that? Marginal CatI conditions? No wonder I don't thrust the informations posted here anymore...

limahotel, thank you for the first reasonable post: "Poor guys had the crappy weather during the night after a four hour flight."
seventhreedriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 09:56   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stairways to heaven
Posts: 346
“Pilot error in deteriorating weather conditions or a technical failure”

https://www.rt.com/news/336185-boein...-dubai-rostov/

Crash: Flydubai B738 at Rostov on Don on Mar 19th 2016, struck wing onto runway after holding for 2 hours
jackx123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2016, 10:10   #60 (permalink)
PBY
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 172
I found out in the simulators that I was teaching that may be 80 % of the airline pilots have they raw data flying skill so deteriorated that they cannot fly a go around where pitch and bank is involved close to the ground. It usually took a 45 minutes of hard manual flying before they would get the skill back at least within private pilot limits. These days we are so dependent on automation that the logical outcome is loss of basic flying skills. There has been many accidents in the past in this type of go arounds, that require a hard turn at low altitude.
In no way I am saying this to draw any conclusions of what happened. I am just saying that under hard workload this could be a factor. Many airlines do not even allow their pilots to manually fly, not even on a nice sunny day. And they think that once in six months is enough to keep the skill.
PBY is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1