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 19th Mar 2016, 13:19
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,035
sadly we are all talking about so thankfully we may all become safer. Watch that pitch up on the GA people, forward trim!!!
Pin Head is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 13:20
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,331
I vaguely remember that the 737 starts trimming a fair amount of nose up during an autoland.

I also remember that, when disconnecting the AP during a G/A, you had to quite significantly push the nose down and also aggressively apply nose down trim in order to compensate for the pitch up couple from the wing mounted engines.
I doubt they were trying to do an autoland on a cat 1 airport in Russia in gusty and WS conditions.
If they did a dual channel approach, there would be no reason to disconnect the autopilot as you then have auto go around capability.
Finally, they went around way above the altitude where the auto pilot will input trim during auto land. That happens at 400 (or is it 350) ft.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 13:43
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 356
Going around from higher altitudes brings in other startle factors, it becomes a non standard manoeuvre, (speed window open etc on coupled GA) , that combined with weather factors (icing) fatigue (long and stressful FDP), rear load CofG. This could really be one to learn from.
bluepilot is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 13:56
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 287
Usually, "piloting error" is the preferred cause by aircraft manufacturers and bean counters so you have to read between the lines unless the investigating authority is an honest one.

What strikes me here is that the airplane only climbs approx. by 2500' during G/A before starting to descend towards impact. I think that a readout from the FDR will reveal the cause pretty quickly. Does anyone have the published G/A procedure for the runway?
TypeIV is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 13:59
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 356
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...cation-393527/
bluepilot is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:10
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
I work for a LCC. Never once had a message encouraging us to do A or B. Perhaps 'what are your intentions if you can't get in.....' so they can have the ground staff on standby. But not once have they tried to influence the decision making. Ever.

Ive never once had a commander mention that they've had a fuel descision. And I've been on flights where we've landed 2/3 tonnes over CNR* and never been questioned. Not once. The flight plan has a box where we write why we take additional fuel. Not once has it ever been questioned.

Let's not tar every LCC with the same brush.

*NOTE this does NOT mean I've been on flights that have landed 2/3 tonnes over weight. Rather that they have landed with 2/3 tonnes of back up fuel. At no point was any other plane too heavy to land.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:12
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,331
What strikes me here is that the airplane only climbs approx. by 2500' during G/A before starting to descend towards impact. I think that a readout from the FDR will reveal the cause pretty quickly.
Yes, it's weird. The aircraft must have been under positive control to climb that much. Plenty of time to engage the auto pilot. What happened at that point that would send the aircraft straight down?
A stall would give them stick shaker first and plenty of air to recover.
A dual engine flamenout due fuel starvation? Not likely given no info about low fuel from the pilots, and no stress in the voice of the pilots.

I don't get it. It was not an unfamiliar procedure as they had done this one time already. Did they suddenly loose the plot completely? Why?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:14
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,022
Question: Will the recorders be given to Boeing for analysis or to FZ?
As of Country of Accident rule I think recorders will be analyzed at MAC in Russia. With Boeing and FZ reps presented for sure.
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:16
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
ManaAdaSystem:

I suggest you read up on Aeroflot 821 and Tartastan 363 and to a lesser extent Thomson Airways at BOH and Turkish at AMS. The first two on the face of it look eerily similar to this incident. The other two can help your understanding as to what can go wrong whilst low and slow.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:19
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,331
Bluepilot,

I don't think this FZ was deiced in DXB before departure, and I don't think the temperature in DXB was minus 17 degrees.
Nor was the temperaure in Rostov low.
Comparing this flight to the Norwegian one is just not possible.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:19
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Hearty Meatballs, I for one agree with every single word you posted on post 116. I was with "LoCos" for 14 years and I also NEVER had any pressure from above to do anything other than turn up to work on time, and when I was a manager, I never applied any either.

I know a lot of people working for this particular airline and they are very fine airmen indeed.

Accidents happen in every field of aviation. Statement of the obvious maybe, but Low cost does NOT automatically equal low standards.
UK019 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:21
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 61
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by chaz88z View Post
Can anyone retrieve and post the Weather radar ( Rain Radar / Satellite images) of the area around time of the accident ?
Available every 5 minutes, nothing especially high reaching. For sure no downbursts and such, just showers and wind.

Satellit Top Alarm-Bild vom 19.03.2016, 01:45 Uhr - Ukraine | Wetter von kachelmann.

With mouseover you'll get the Cloud Top Temperature over the site.
weatherdude is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:27
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,331
suggest you read up on Aeroflot 821 and Tartastan 363 and to a lesser extent Thomson Airways at BOH and Turkish at AMS. The first two on the face of it look eerily similar to this incident. The other two can help your understanding as to what can go wrong whilst low and slow.
This flight was not low. Slow, yes, at some point that must have happened, but you don't climb 2500 ft if you are slow.
That takes time.
Normally, pilots screw up at low altitude, or when they are in transit from one flight phase to another.
It's weird to loose it after climbing 2500 ft, but this looks like the most likely scenario just now.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:29
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zanzi's Bar
Age: 55
Posts: 233
regulator versus company FDL

I can tell for sure, that more accidents like this will follow if LCC do not introduce reduced FDLs.
Regulator limits are exactly THAT - LIMITS!
You cannot do 500 block hours in 5 months "because the airline business is becoming more seasonal"!
The kind of medium haul return trips that do not allow for any leeway in case of diversion is a very bad practice!
Wizz Air flies from Eastern Europe to DWC and back in one go - same like this poor sods had to fly to Rostov.
In case of diversion the s--t hits the fan.
On top of the FDL that grounds the crew, there are issues with handlers, refueling, pax convenience, to name a few...
So SURPRISE, SURPRISE - some guys diverted, some poor sods didn't!
I believe the so called slogan that LCC/UCC wave at us - 'NOW ANYBODY CAN FLY" is wrong!!! It puts unbelievable pressure on crews and presents unacceptable risks for happily unaware pax...
IMHO!
swish266 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:47
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: out of this world...
Posts: 216
Just to clarify some speculation made so far..

FZ does not do autoland approaches. They do Cat3A manual landings when required.

This airfield is a captain only take off and landing for FZ, and HUD use is compulsory for all stages of flight.
transport jock is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:48
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 356
ManaAdaSystem, i do not think you are giving this any real thought, the purpose of posting the Nor incident report was more about the 737 characteristics on GA, the startle factor for them was a frozen stabiliser, the temp on the ground on this FZ accident was +6, that means at 3000' it would be zero, there was heavy cloud cover with precipitation, worst icing build up is between +5 and -5 with moisture present, as I said in an earlier post the conditions were perfect for heavy airframe icing to accumulate. Couple that with all the other factors could lead to a sudden pitch up on GA with resulting stall, believe me it happens very very quickly on the 737 and you have to be on your game to recognise and deal with it. This one was another close shave https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-...september-2007 , have a good read then add in other unknown factors that have been discussed here.

The 737 can bite you in the ass very hard in the GA, it has happened many times before.
bluepilot is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 14:52
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
ManaAdaSystem - with respect with TOGA selected the slower you are the quicker you'll climb. With just 35% load factor, what I assume to be not a huge amount of fuel, relatively few bags, it would likely have been a light plane. On selection of TOGA the nose is going to come up at you FAST, you're going to climb like a homesick angle. Even if the go around was initiated during the flare it would take no time at all to get to 2500'. You'd be there before you know it.

Ericsson16 - the other incidents I mentioned started off with planes in the approach config at an approach speed, only to find themselves obliterated in or around the airfield perimeter. I don't know what rodent you're smelling, but I don't think there's anything untoward.
HeartyMeatballs is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 15:02
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Where there's money
Posts: 29
Dark? No visual reference? Fatigue?
Followed by a very rapid descent.
Somatogravic Illusion on the Go Around could be a possibility.

Somatogravic Illusion - AviationKnowledge
Swear_in_GIN is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 15:06
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 49
Posts: 784
suggest you read up on Aeroflot 821 and Tartastan 363 and to a lesser extent Thomson Airways at BOH and Turkish at AMS. The first two on the face of it look eerily similar to this incident.
Have you ever read the 821 report? If so how you can say there is any possible relation is beyond me, and I am extremely familiar with that accident. As for 363, whilst the scenario may fit a more probable explanation is a weather related issue.
flash8 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2016, 15:11
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,404
This is an interesting accident as they had already performed a G/A from a similar position earlier which seemed to go OK, so why the LoC after the second one? From the initial reports, it seems they climbed away to a decent altitude but then descended rapidly to crash within the airfield perimeter.

If the fuel load and flight timings are to be believed, after substantial holding they appear not to have been under time pressure, even keeping an alternate.

A windshear issue seems less likely as they had plenty of energy (height & speed combined) plus the climb potential at their weight and density altitude would have been very good. No pan, mayday or even a hint of a problem, so logically it was sudden/startling. Even a dual flameout in rain/hail wouldn't lead to the RoD we see on the flight traces and video - that was really “falling out of the sky” material.
FullWings is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.