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 26th Mar 2016, 10:32
  #761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,258
Received 640 Likes on 231 Posts
QUOTE

I agree, framer. I'm not out, but it's a site for 'professional pilots'. There's some interesting stuff as the awful facts about another accident surface. Would be appreciated if those not flying planes for a living looked and didn't touch.

That is arrogant. The contributions by qualified meteorologists on this thread have been significant. I doubt if many of us fly planes for a living.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 10:54
  #762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 478 Likes on 129 Posts
Right....I'm in
Bring on the Met guys and anyone with relevant information.
TWT made a post ( and then deleted it) confidently stating that the trim switch is only on the Captains side. He didn't say " I think the trim switch is only on the Captains side" or " Maybe the trim switch is on the Captains side" , he confidently told all and sundry that this is the case.
Now.....nobody who has ever held a type rating on a 737 would ever say that or think that yet here he is skewing a conversation, holding zero responsibility, mis advising the Met guys , the Airbus guys, the ATCO's , the media, everyone ( except those 737 rated) because for a milli second he gets to feel like he is an expert. For every half decent post there are six posts that are complete rubbish/ ego trips/ lies.
The reason this is frustrating is because a few years ago this site was full of professionals who gave insightful opinions, now, it is not.
The money will dry up when good info can no longer be gained from this site.
PS I wasn't having a go at you Mr Snuggles, just the guy who fed you duff gen.
framer is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 10:58
  #763 (permalink)  
aox
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 227
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GBV
could flight level 80 be 800 meters? That would be around 3200ft-3500ft which is the altitude they reached during both go-arounds...
Unlikely, unless something is affecting mental arithmetic.

And 3281 feet is 1000 metres, not 800
aox is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:13
  #764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No lady yelling STABILIZER MOTION, STABILIZER MOTION, STABILIZER MOTION on the NG.
So how are we supposed to discover a runaway trim? After 6 hours flight time, at night, ****ty weather, tired and turbulence. Very easy to miss.
Unless the PM was trimming? That would be weird too.
The good old DC-8 Trim in motion "wrong answer" buzzer would have had a function in identifying such conditions . . . .
Green-dot is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:17
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PBY and others.
Oldkingcoal, votex et al have repeatedly said that Fly dubai do NOT do dual autopilot approaches, they would NOT have done a single autopilot approaches. In this case the captain (That's the guy who on this occasion was in the left seat) would have flown the approach manually using the HUD.
Therefore there was no autopilot go around. At the very least the initial part of the go around would therefore have been flown manually.
Please take this into consideration when putting forward your non type rated theories.

From the possible translation theories could this strange word refer to the VS thumbwheal. Which would match the description of the "thing on a computer mouse"?

KS
Could you expand on the statement refering to stall and wing drop by MAK?

Last edited by PT6Driver; 26th Mar 2016 at 11:19. Reason: typos
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:20
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LGW
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Strange. Just can’t get my head around it either. Cannot imagine them missing something so serious or not being able to pull out of the dive. Regardless of stabilizer position, the B737 still has manual reversion and enough force should have gotten them out of a dive.

As said above, the trick is to find out why they went from close to 15-20 deg nose up to nose down. All I can think of is that now that the Windshear warning was gone they were trying to get back to a clean configuration.

In context I guess when they departed they had the following:

APS 42.5T
Traffic Load 5.5T
Take-off Fuel: 20.0T
TOW 68.0T
Burn to 1st App 9.5T
First approach 58.5T
Further 2.5h hold 6.5T
2nd Approach 52.0T

Vref 30 at 52T is approx. 132 kts

Limit speeds:

F1: 250
F5: 250
F10: 210
F15: 200
F25: 190
F30: 175
F40: 162

So it looks like they would have still had a 40 margin for flap overspeed during the initial go around. When the windshear warning stopped they would have selected flaps 15 and gear up. Followed by flap retraction in accordance with the bug. Looks like it never got to that.
Util BUS is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:26
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Manual reversion?
They did not fly without hydraulics as far as I know.

Yes, the trick is to find out why they crashed.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:39
  #768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crash videos seem to be consistent with a lighting pattern indicating gear down. This may not have been a regular go around, but windshear escape, the altitude from which it started being consistent with system parameters. It could be possible to forget the gear however (been there, done that), especially IF fatigue is a factor, but I wouldn't expect to see that level of performance with gear down at standard GA thrust.

As for Colgan, that was a crash where the captain had repeatedly failed check rides and so therefore has to have been of suspect ability, and a relatively inexperienced FO, both of whom managed to grossly mishandle the situation. That flight crew profile does not appear to match this incident, but that does not mean any human is immune from making mistakes.
Otto Throttle is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:46
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Util BUS
In reference to some of the points mentioned above.

On the ATC recording at time 5:58 the crew advise in case of a go-around they will climb to FL80.

The B737-800 FCOM 2 Section 4.20.2 states that the auto pilot will disconnect automatically in case of:

Pushing TO/GA on a single channel approach:

- Below 2000 ft RA
- with flaps not up or
- G/S engaged

Also if they had a STAB Trim runaway it would have been obvious to the crew from the sound of the trim wheel and would be quickly discovered by the investigators given the associated sounds on the CVR.

I would be much more inclined to believe it was due to tailplane icing such as in the
October 1994 American Eagle ATR72 crash which was further investigated in NASA's Tailplane Icing program of March 2000.
I agree. Tailplane icing is the most obvious answer to the perplexing question as to why did the nose pitch down so rapidly even though the pilot was pulling back on the control column.
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 11:47
  #770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Util BUS
At 6:03 the controller responds to their intention to climb to FL80 with "Roger" although this is non-standard terminology I would have accepted it to me "Approved" in that part of the world.
Roger is very much so ICAO standard terminology and means, I acknowledge receipt of your transmission.

It is NEVER a clearance, in no part of the world.

The required clearance would read: In case of go around climb to and maintain FL80.

I hope your airborne appearance is limited to simulator skies, otherwise I suggest to revisit an ICAO phraseology RT lesson asap.
threemiles is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:05
  #771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Singapore
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spotted this on Channel News Asia..

"Pull up!": Russian TV airs final words of pilots in Flydubai jet crash - Channel NewsAsia
ITman is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:08
  #772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Threemiles,
Data are from Air Data Computer. No data are calculated outside the airframe. Most likely recorded FDR data will appear 100% the same, albeit at a higher sampling rate.
MSL altitiude is from GPS (height over ellipsoid) and transmitted as an offset to QNE baro altitude.
Open remains the source of VS. There are two options: GPS or Baro. Depends on the supplier of the avionics.
Thanks for that. Great explanation. BTW, have you noticed how on the TCAS display how the an aircraft ahead can jump around in azimuth and also how a level aircraft ahead can show alternating climbs and descents with changes of around 100ft?
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:11
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
73 only used baro and radalt inputs, nor GPS altimetry.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:17
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 3,779
Received 63 Likes on 39 Posts
Originally Posted by three miles
Originally Posted by Util BUS
At 6:03 the controller responds to their intention to climb to FL80 with "Roger" although this is non-standard terminology I would have accepted it to me "Approved" in that part of the world.
Roger is very much so ICAO standard terminology and means, I acknowledge receipt of your transmission.
It is NEVER a clearance, in no part of the world.

The required clearance would read: In case of go around climb to and maintain FL80.

I hope your airborne appearance is limited to simulator skies, otherwise I suggest to revisit an ICAO phraseology RT lesson asap.

I accept that, but therefore they acknowledged the intention to climb to FL80.

The fact they didn't deny a clearance to FL80 could have been interpreted as a clearance-by-omission.


I've never flown to Russia, but I know plenty of people who have, and their non-standardness extends beyond just units. Phraseology is not always from the ICAO textbook, and in this instance, whilst it should not be accepted as a clearance, it is very possible that the controller meant it as an approval.
LlamaFarmer is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:19
  #775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@pt6driver

"At an altitude of about 900 meters and a speed of more than 400 kilometers per hour, the plane banked left and hit the ground in the left edge of the runway almost vertically, at an angle of 60 degrees," Tass news agency quoted a source with Russia's air transport authorities as saying.

From MAK sources after reading FDR around March 20.
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:26
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
o how does the plane go from 0° to 45°-90° bank angle without lateral deviation ?
Forward motion provided, a passenger jet makes a turn when it banks, isn't it ?
OK it could have stalled, but at the speeds reported it appears unlikely. However, if there was a lot of nose down trim any lateral deviation due to the bank angle will be counteracted by the nose down pitch caused by the full nose down trim
Ian W is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 12:51
  #777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Accidently trimming by hitting the wrong switch?
A. The auto pilot will disconnect if you use stabilizer trim.
B. If you fly manually, you will feel this after a few turns of the trim wheel. It would be very weird if you continue to trim and fight the out of trim with the yoke at the same time.
Unless the PM was trimming? That would be weird too.
The little CVR data(if true) we have implies one pilot did something the other didnt exactly like.The PM makes a call to ATC(about diversion so probably more than momentary call) but he mistakes the transmit switch for the trim switch.If this mistake was made,he would be trimming down when he thought he was transmitting to ATC.Theyre opposite each other on the stick.
If the PF is flying manually there is no AP disconnect wailer to let the PM know the error of his ways.Environmental noises(wshear rain) may camouflage the trim wheel noise.PM isnt holding the stick so is unaware of the forces on the stick that he is unintentionally creating.Only PF.If this situation is not corrected almost instantly by PF( trim cutout switches/remove PM's hand from stick) then at this altitude,it could be fatal.
Icing is not the cause.99% sure of this.
All conjecture but this had to be catastrophic flt control problem.Whether pilot induced or not.Vmca encounter also possible.
Rananim is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 13:03
  #778 (permalink)  
PBY
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PT6driver quote:PBY and others.
Oldkingcoal, votex et al have repeatedly said that Fly dubai do NOT do dual autopilot approaches, they would NOT have done a single autopilot approaches. In this case the captain (That's t

PT6Driver, it has already been said on Russian TV that they DID USE the autopilot.
PBY is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 13:04
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rananim
Icing is not the cause.99% sure of this.
Why are you 99% sure the cause is not icing?
Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 13:09
  #780 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Green-dot:

The good old DC-8 Trim in motion "wrong answer" buzzer would have had a function in identifying such conditions . . . .
No one wore noise-cancelling headsets during my career. Now, most crews do. I have to wonder in some circumstances if that could create a possible safety problem because of greatly diminished ability to hear flight deck aural advisories or warnings? Or, other pertinent sounds?
aterpster 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.