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 24th Mar 2016, 10:29
  #581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,834
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
The only scenario that fits the information we currently have is flight control failure/malfunction, specifically the trim/horizontal stab. The go around profile and speeds are consistent with a normal go around - initial climb, then shallower climb to accelerate - the ground speed data is absolutely consistent on this. Then all of a sudden, at around a derived IAS of 220+ kts, a nose over and then an avg of 18500 fpm. Two pilots in a low authority gradient environment and neither one takes control? I can't see it. In my mind they were attempting to recover.
Given the data we have at the moment, I would have to agree.

Itís all normal until suddenly it isnít. In terms of acceleration, +2,500fpm to -18,500fpm in seconds is substantial. Thatís a change in velocity of >100m/s in the vertical plane in a very short time which would imply considerable negative Ďgí, most likely outside the aircraft limitations and possibly enough to cause structural failure...
FullWings is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:34
  #582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Shropshire
Age: 32
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
New article on BBC. Covering the fatigue reports from Fly Dubz crew.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35855678

I was just speaking to a member of EK's cabin crew yesterday.....utterly exhausted crew on a recent turn around.
bradyx10 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:35
  #583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EGKH
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That’s a change in velocity of >100m/s in the vertical plane in a very short time which would imply considerable negative ‘g’, most likely outside the aircraft limitations and possibly enough to cause structural failure...
... and possible GLOC (redout) explaining lack of obvious corrective action? it looks pretty abrupt, would it be enough to cause this, or injury to one or both pilots?

Last edited by Kolossi; 24th Mar 2016 at 10:52.
Kolossi is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:49
  #584 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It’s all normal until suddenly it isn’t. In terms of acceleration, +2,500fpm to -18,500fpm in seconds is substantial. That’s a change in velocity of >100m/s in the vertical plane in a very short time which would imply considerable negative ‘g’, most likely outside the aircraft limitations and possibly enough to cause structural failure...
The egg or the chicken?

What caused what?

Did a hard negative G manouver cause the elevator (Hor. Trim,...) to fail, or did it fail by unknown reasons and cause the plane to dive?

Today it has been 1 year exactly since the Germanwings accident.

Is something like that thinkable? I doubt it.

The most probable scenario to me is some kind of failure on the tail, that caused the nose over, and the inability to roll it back to wings level.
Maybe ice, or the combination of ice and an A/P disconnecting. I always hand fly in heavy ice...

Nic
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:51
  #585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Esher, Surrey
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FlyDubai crash pilot 'was due to leave job over fatigue'

FlyDubai crash pilot 'was due to leave job over fatigue' - BBC News
beamender99 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:55
  #586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 78
Posts: 109
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Two facts:
The pros agree on bashing airline management.
The pros disagree on how to perform the most basic evasive maneuvre in one of the most common aircraft of this world.

If I'd be airline manager, I would see to it that all the crews flying a given type agree on how to perform a GA with or without WS before they start ranting about rosters.
Of course, fatigue can impair performance. But this is true for many professions, not only flying. A pro should be able to find remedies or avoids.
The poor crew had enough time to brief their options and after a more than bumpy approach into a howling gale probably enough adrenalin to stay awake until either stopped or safely aloft.
clearedtocross is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 10:57
  #587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it is kind of funny that Russia Today is the outlet for the whistleblower over fatigue concerns. It is awesome that they highlight this, as it needs to be highlighted. At the same time.... it is Russia Today we are dealing with. Do they have a hidden agenda with this?

Then again. I think it is extremely important that they make fatigue the centre of attention and for that I applaud them.

(Just hoping MAK still will make a thorough investigation.)
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:10
  #588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,091
Received 469 Likes on 126 Posts
Clearedtocross; Your first post in 2007 starts with
I am no professional pilot.
and then today you tell us
If I'd be airline manager
So.....if you're not a pilot and you're not a manager......... why do you think you understand the issues we are discussing here as well as, or better than those of us who do it day in day out?
framer is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:32
  #589 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brussels
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bar none.

As a SLF and non aviator I find all the previous posts quite alarming.

There seems to be a discussion about what to do in a given set of circumstances. I would expect everybody to agree as to what the correct course of action should be. The fact that there are many differing opinions i find quite disconcerting.
You have reason to be slightly alarmed. And I will try to explain why this has come about.

The B737 was not designed. It was a B707, a B 727, a B737 Classic, and then a B737 NG, with hundreds of modern sticking-plasters patching up the system-gaps. And so the systems do not talk to each other, and nor is there any rhyme or reason to the systems and the cockpit ergonomics. It is a design by several committees, over three human generations of designers and engineers, all doing something different.

To compound the issue many airlines (Fly Dubai?) lease aircraft that have come from many different previous operators, and so each aircraft will have a different system and do something different. Our fleet has a subsection in the flight manual for each aircraft and for each system, detailing the many differences between all the aircraft in the fleet. So you have no idea what each aircraft will do next.

The manuals are written by administrators, not engineers, and they do not always know what they are talking about. And they also simplify things for the pilots, which sometimes distorts the truth. An example is the Classic fuel schematic, which shows the center fuel pumps in the center tank, because that seems more logical. But they were not, they were in the wing tank, and that made a big difference. (The NG now has the pumps in the center tank, which is why it has all those fuel pump problems and fake solutions to the problem.)

And to nail my views to the door of the cathedral (as it were), nowhere does it say in my manual that WS system disables the altitude capture. And why should it? You are supposed to dial in the MA altitude, which should take MSA into account. And you don't want to fly up into an upper airway that might be very busy, so why bust that preset altitude? I have done this several times, and I am sure on each occasion altitude was captured.
silvertate is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:35
  #590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A plane stalls from high AoA, not from IAS.
Derived IAS from GS is not really relevant.
The very high initial ROC of 6000 fpm points to a high AoA imho.
Cleaning the config may contribute.
threemiles is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:35
  #591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Admiral346
The egg or the chicken?

What caused what?

Did a hard negative G manouver cause the elevator (Hor. Trim,...) to fail, or did it fail by unknown reasons and cause the plane to dive?

Today it has been 1 year exactly since the Germanwings accident.

Is something like that thinkable? I doubt it.

The most probable scenario to me is some kind of failure on the tail, that caused the nose over, and the inability to roll it back to wings level.
Maybe ice, or the combination of ice and an A/P disconnecting. I always hand fly in heavy ice...

Nic
Yes, Tail Plane Stall due to icing also fits this scenario. There is no anti-icing or de-icing on a 737 tail.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:42
  #592 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sunbird123

Yeah.... was thinking something like this although you made a more direct connection of everything. Thanks.

Still: Fatigue is important.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 11:48
  #593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yes, Tail Plane Stall due to icing also fits this scenario. There is no anti-icing or de-icing on a 737 tail.
Has this happened before on the B737?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 12:29
  #594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 74
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Threemiles

I think you are going in the right direction.

The 737 when it is light will really accelerate quickly.

Maybe flaps/slats were not retracted and failed?

Maybe they were retracted as the thrust levers were idled and they didn't catch it as they slowed?

The FDR and the CVR will tell us soon.
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 12:36
  #595 (permalink)  
 
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 is most disturbing to hear that even the glamorous gulf airlines are tarred with the fatigue brush. Their external image is for well paid and looked after crews and heavily pampered pax -business class the more so. Is the veil coming off, finally. However, the profits are achieved from the pax, and their perception is still of the flashy upmarket airline. That's what they are paying good for, a good value ticket with all its parameters. It will be difficult, without 'dispatches/panorama' type undercover investigation to reveal the truth. Whinging crews are always whinging crews in the publics' eyes. To them everyone in the working world has a gripe; why not pilots. If you shove safety in their faces, with related facts, you might get them to support you: the XAA's? Ah, they sit on a different fence and might be influenced by deep pockets.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 12:37
  #596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,167
Received 366 Likes on 223 Posts
Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon
There is no anti-icing or de-icing on a 737 tail.
That's chilling. How does one address tail icing in the 737? Is there a particular procedure or set of airspeed limits, pitch limits, etc? (Is there an ice detection circuit that alerts the pilot to tail ice being detected?)
Originally Posted by silvertate
To compound the issue many airlines (Fly Dubai?) lease aircraft that have come from many different previous operators, and so each aircraft will have a different system and do something different. Our fleet has a subsection in the flight manual for each aircraft and for each system, detailing the many differences between all the aircraft in the fleet. So you have no idea what each aircraft will do next.

===============

And to nail my views to the door of the cathedral (as it were), nowhere does it say in my manual that WS system disables the altitude capture. And why should it?
You are supposed to dial in the MA altitude, which should take MSA into account. And you don't want to fly up into an upper airway that might be very busy, so why bust that preset altitude? I have done this several times, and I am sure on each occasion altitude was captured.
Configuration differences; do they require separate sim checks/quals? Seems a place for a few holes to appear in the cheese.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 12:47
  #597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
That's chilling. How does one address tail icing in the 737? Is there a particular procedure or set of airspeed limits, pitch limits, etc? (Is there an ice detection circuit that alerts the pilot to tail ice being detected?)

Configuration differences; do they require separate sim checks/quals? Seems a place for a few holes to appear in the cheese.
None of the Boeing aircraft have tail anti-icing. Boeing designs the tail to be large enough to be immune from icing. It's never been a problem, but then how many times has an aircraft actually held for 2 hours in icing conditions?

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/qu...ail-anti-icing

"Some airplanes don't need the horizontal stabilizer to have anti-ice because it was shown during flight testing that there were no adverse effects from having ice on the tail.

This is mainly because the horizontal stabilizer/elevator has been designed so that even with a degradation of lift due to the ice, it still produces a sufficient tail down force to maintain control, even when approaching the stall speed.

The airplanes that do have anti-ice usually either have smaller horizontal stabilizers or (on some older designs) couldn't get the FAA to sign off on a design without it. Some designs are also more prone to collecting ice (based mainly on the radius of the leading edge) so must demonstrate sufficient handling qualities with even more ice, which may not be possible."
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 12:54
  #598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There is no anti-icing or de-icing on a 737 tail.
Not unique to B737 ... nor in a B747, A320 etc etc etc.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 13:46
  #599 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A plane stalls from high AoA, not from IAS.
Derived IAS from GS is not really relevant.
The very high initial ROC of 6000 fpm points to a high AoA imho.
Cleaning the config may contribute.
The afore mentioned data shows a steady shallow climb and acceleration consistent with the phase of flight and the previous go around. There is no evidence of anything other than an adequately conducted manoeuvre. If they were in a relatively steady state flight path, which the data shows, and increasing airspeed, which the data shows, and maintaining the track, which the data shows, then they cannot have stalled. The sample rate of the FR24 data would be sufficient to show evidence of a stall, if it were to exist.

It's never been a problem, but then how many times has an aircraft actually held for 2 hours in icing conditions?
Actually they were vectored for an hour and held for an hour. They requested FL80 after a missed approach. The obvious inference is at FL80 they would be in VMC and hence not in icing conditions. Vectoring was at FL80 and holding at FL150. So it would seem they were not in icing conditions for anything other than the approach and missed approach phases. I think the chances of icing being a factor as extremely unlikely.

But the video shows they were almost diving vertically at that point
With a bit of trig, the descent angle was approximately 45 degrees and the avg speed in the descent around about 320kts. That would be consistent with the videos.

So I would say there is no evidence of uncommanded reverser, stall, uncommanded roll, mishandling upto the descent, significant icing nor bad judgement. The current FR24 data indicates only a very sudden pitch down with no other changes in parameters or their trend. What is most likely to be an uncommanded pitch down.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2016, 13:48
  #600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And to nail my views to the door of the cathedral (as it were), nowhere does it say in my manual that WS system disables the altitude capture. And why should it? You are supposed to dial in the MA altitude, which should take MSA into account. And you don't want to fly up into an upper airway that might be very busy, so why bust that preset altitude? I have done this several times, and I am sure on each occasion altitude was captured.
Silverstate,
Quite a good post,however,the view that acquiring an altitude for ATC while in an active windshear is more important due to traffic than climbing away from the windshear is worrying to say the least.
The same philosophy when pilots brief they will follow the sid instead od eosid due to dense traffic.
In both cases,one option is vital,safely climbing out of windshear and the other staying within a demonstrated track clear of obstacles.
You advise ATC in both cases,,part of basic CRM and airmanship.
Now,having flown more than 10000 as PIC in the 737NG,i have yet to fly myself into an actual windshear...not a predictive one,,,an actual
one,(TS induced).GPWS warning,not PWS alert.
You have flown into 3 already?maybe one should better use of its radar...
Going around, out of light windshear (gusty,terrain induced) isnt the same as in a downdraft/updraft...one you go out nearly instantaniously out if it...the other in which i hope you have never been to,is a whole different story....
I have contacted boeing about the subject,as their FCOM/Tech docs do not specify the fd in that exact scenario.
I believe that such fd guidance during a GPWS windshear warning would be a major flaw and should be addressed.
Again,traffic in a situation like is would be the last of my worries....aircraft around do have Tcas for traffic issue as yours would be inhibited by the system anyways,clever no?
I will ,even if told otherwise,post for all to know the answer provided by Boeing,in the meanwhile however,using sim reaction to make a system truth is light to say the least.
I believe PPRuners have discussed in lengh simulators fidelity issues in the past,they are as accurate as the software used...

Last edited by de facto; 24th Mar 2016 at 14:12.
de facto 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.