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 16th Apr 2016, 11:07
  #1261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,114
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Well obviously they won't intentionally roster illegally, but legal doesn't always mean safe, and when it comes to fatigue some pilots may have more trouble with a roster than others.

Take the example of a company that only does back of the clock night freight. You might find one pilot who can't sleep during the day after duties 1 and 2 but by duties 3 and 4 he's so knackered that he'll sleep through anything. Another pilot on the same roster may not be able to sleep during the day ever, being perpetually tired but not sleepy. A third pilot may not have a problem with any of it; gets home at 7am goes to bed, sleeps for 6-8 hours and gets up. The first pilot gets by and may have to call in "sick" once in a while when the sleep cycle just hasn't worked for him, the second pilot is in the wrong job, while the rules are written for the third pilot.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 11:18
  #1262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
what are "excessive" FTLs ? I submit they only exist in the minds of crews. nobody constructs a crew scheduling computer programme that allocates hours in excess of the
rules, which are well known to everyone and are pretty much the same the world over. When did you last hear of a prosecution of an airline for imposing illegal rosters? This F/O roster looks to be the usual computer-generated version the pilot would have received many days or perhaps weeks before the day in question and the chance of it being illegal is zero. Even if it turns out he had been called out at a days notice, due perhaps to the original pilot's absence for whatever reason, a scheduler would still make sure all the applicable rules were observed.

The FTL rules have been analysed/reviewed/modified/complained about for as long as I can remember, involving all interested parties including pilots and the medical profession. However things have changed more than slightly since the days of laying over on some sunny tropical island for a few days to await the arrival of the next aircraft. Its hard to think that FTLs designed then still fit todays world. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way and the hallowed (and hollowed) phrase of "Safety is our highest priority" should be taken out and dusted off...
Portmanteau,

Many an idiot can schedule 12 hours on, 12 hours off, until 7 day, 14 day, 28 day totals are achieved, what computer programmes cannot incorporate in to a roster, I believe, are 'a life' for the crew member(s).

Just playing by the FTL's one can make a crew member's life a misery, 12 hours on, 12 hours off, split duties etc. etc. etc.

Whenever I would work on a crew pattern, no matter how legal it was, I would question "would I like that roster for myself?" and if my answer was "no" then I would go back to the drawing board to try and try again until I may have found a pattern/roster that I was satisfied with.

Admittedly crew members may be the biggest bunch of complainers but, perhaps they have a point, one can enter the FTL's in to a computer programme but can one enter the human touch?
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 12:59
  #1263 (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
I once had a discussion with my CP. Firstly there was the earlies & lates issue. We'd all seen the videos about owls & larks etc. All that good stuff about not flying if over-stressed or fatigued. (plain over-tired didn't count) I suggested that to improve safety and morale why not let the larks volunteer for earlier & the owls the lates? Or anyone else who's family life suited one or the other. The answer was "there are no favours and you are all the same."
The next point was the roster. The Ops guys and other ground jobs e.g. engineers worked 12hrs on 12hrs off, 4 days on 4 days off, 2 earlies 2 lates. Why could pilots not do the same? We would achieve better sleep in the middle of changeover and still produce the hours. The answer, "you don't work shifts, and FTL's are your rules."
So my mixed bag of duties 24/7 didn't count as shifts, even though I was sleeping when I should be awake and vive versa. Hm!
So the guys on the ground, with their radios & TV's, coffee machines & canteens, plenty of mates to chat to, plenty of space to walk around and avoid broken backs, proper toilets to use; they could work 4/4. Meanwhile, we in our cramped little dehydrating box with no space to swing a cat, never mind exercise your back, and with all its other associated anti-social parameters that are well known, can work 6/2. "But safety and welfare of crews is our top priority." Never forget that. Twaddle.

Last edited by RAT 5; 16th Apr 2016 at 14:09.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 14:05
  #1264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,318
Received 780 Likes on 269 Posts
"But safety and welfare of crews is out top priority."

As SLF I would hope that was "passengers!"
langleybaston is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 14:10
  #1265 (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
If crews are safe it follows that pax will be too. I've not known a/c reverse into an accident. But you knew what I meant, I'm sure.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 15:57
  #1266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
Received 58 Likes on 25 Posts
Spot on-look after the crews and the pax are taken care of too.

A pilot friend of mine now retired said no one shares the results of a screw up with the 'victims' more than a flight crew.


His corollary to that was 'we are interested in our own safety, if we get there and walk down the steps at the end of the trip so do you' See how long ago that was, pre jettys but the point remains the same and if the crew are well rested and a proper assessment of human factors comes into rostering and trip assignment the pax will be just fine.

As for this thread well , tired, demotivated crew (they were both about to leave) flying to a bad weather, tricky (captains only landing ) two hours holding (how often does that happen ) and the prospect of a long back of the clock slog back to Dubai. It might all be legal and often doable but it doesn't really sound ideal does it
pax britanica is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 16:41
  #1267 (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
Ive been reflecting on the build up to this. There is now discussion about the atmosphere, mental attitude the crew and perhaps tiredness. People have mentioned they had lots of fuel hence the hold. There is also speculation about communications back to mission control about Plan B. People suggest that 2 hours gives lots of thinking time for Plan B & C. However, sending yourself dizzy for 2 hours is not a conducive to clear positive thinking. I can imagine it can be quite the opposite. It allows time for grave doubts, even fear, anger, frustration to subtly creep into your psyche. That is why I'd like a detailed listen into the CVR.
The longest I've held was 1 hour. During that time we worked out 3 options in order of chance of success. We set a time limit to decide and asked Ops what their priorities were if not landing at destination, having told them the alternative options which we had decided upon. (no point is asking them to decide in the comfort of their control room). Once that was decided we had clear thinking and executed the plan. The thought of dithering in never ending circles for 2 hours in the middle of the night would drive me mental. I'm not so sure they would have been in sharp condition on the 2nd approach. Given they made a GA so early it seems they might have been nervous and not confident they were going to succeed . Not a good mental state to be in. I wonder what led them to decide on that 2nd approach.
This does not explain the apparent mis-handling of the manoeuvre, but I feel the effect of 2 hour holding has been glossed over to glibly.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2016, 19:25
  #1268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"I wonder what led them to decide on that 2nd approach." Is the question posed by RAT 5.
Surely after hanging around for two hours they had to make an attempt to land. The early go around would suggest that they were not confident that they would be landing. I do not believe they would have been nervous or tense. They would have been anticipating a go around. But for me in such a scenario the puzzling question is for what reason(s) did they decide to do so on manual. Based on the given information that there was no mechanical or systems failures, it would be reasonable to suggest that had the go around been carried out on a/p the accident would not have occurred.
Chronus is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 08:46
  #1269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Москва/Ташкент
Age: 54
Posts: 926
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
However, sending yourself dizzy for 2 hours is not a conducive to clear positive thinking. I can imagine it can be quite the opposite. It allows time for grave doubts, even fear, anger, frustration to subtly creep into your psyche. That is why I'd like a detailed listen into the CVR.
Indeed so. Yes it is speculation however I strongly suspect that this will be seen as a contributory factor, were they in the hold out of 'choice'? All leads back to one place.
flash8 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 08:57
  #1270 (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
Chronus: If I understand all that has been written FZ's SOP is to fly these kind of approaches manually. Unless they engaged both A/P's (need to be below 1200'agl) then the GA would be GA anyway even if Single Channel was in CMD.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 09:19
  #1271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by flash8
Indeed so. Yes it is speculation however I strongly suspect that this will be seen as a contributory factor, were they in the hold out of 'choice'? All leads back to one place.
The genie has been let out of the bottle.
glad rag is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2016, 18:29
  #1272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RAT 5
Chronus: If I understand all that has been written FZ's SOP is to fly these kind of approaches manually. Unless they engaged both A/P's (need to be below 1200'agl) then the GA would be GA anyway even if Single Channel was in CMD.
Thank you RAT 5. Does the SOP mean that approaches be flown manually with both A/P and A/T off. With A/P off and A/T on I would have thought not recommended for risks, such as SA loss, potential speed excessive speed excursions caused by pitch changes,particularly in gusty conditions, potential pitch coupling and possible loss of thrust awareness.
I would have thought given the prevailing wx conditions there was every reason to carry out the approach with A/P and A/T.

Has anyone got the FZ SOP . It would be interesting to see what it says.
Chronus is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 06:58
  #1273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FZ do single channel ILS with manual landings/go arounds or manual approaches and manual go arounds.
It has been said this approach was a manual approach, which sound a bit weird to me. Could be the case, or just a confusion between manual landing and manual approach?

I am not saying it is the case here, but those of us who have been around the block once or twice know there are a lot of substandard pilots out there.
It was reported that the first officer in this crash was coaching the captain throughout the approach.
Am I the only one who thinks this is strange?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 07:55
  #1274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,116
Received 497 Likes on 135 Posts
If it's true that the f/o was coaching him through then that is obviously a big issue, but I am not convinced this is definitely the case. The media doesn't understand how a flight deck works and it could be as simple as the f/o making appropriate support calls regarding changes in wind, levels passing etc
framer is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 08:35
  #1275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That could be the case.
This is from kulverstukas post a few pages back. It was translated from a Russian source, but how factual it is, is anyones guess:

5. During the whole approach FO, apparently, was more in the contour than PF. He constantly helped Capt., prompted about actions etc. In general, seems FO was in leading role. PF was tense, he lacked focus, for example, asking questions, if the height set to 8000 at which FO answered - look, here it is.

6. During the GA the Tower transferred them to Area frequency. At this point, FO was trying to suggest something to PF, but apparently the need for communication with the Area distracted him completely.

7. After that, the situation is unfolding rapidly, FO does nothing but tries to convey information to the PF about his incorrect actions, but the time and height was not enough
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 12:35
  #1276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chronus, if you're going to criticize decisions from your armchair, which is pretty despicable behaviour given none of us were there and so don't have many of the facts, then at least get the basics right. It has been repeatedly stated in this thread that FZ fly single channel approaches even in Cat III. It has also been repeatedly stated that the 737 autopilot only remains engaged on pressing TOGA if both were engaged, ie a dual channel approach contrary to FZ SOPs.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 15:24
  #1277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has anyone got the FZ SOP
FZ is standard Boeing SOP. For reasons obvious to any 737 pilot, A/T off with A/P off except for takeoff and climbout.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 16:49
  #1278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On SBY next to my phone
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You don't want a mistrimmed aircraft in already challenging wind conditions on short final.

The 737 AFDS flies the approach like sh*te and will happilly go into the red speed areas and exceed stabilized approach criteria when the winds starts to get a little gusty, I know this by experience, hence the need to fly it manually if you don't want to divert or be summoned up to the office for tea and biscuits explaining the the nice exerpts.
TypeIV is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 08:55
  #1279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tampa
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tentative report on FlyDubai plane crash due today (April 19)

A tentative report on the inquiry into the FlyDubai Boeing crash in Rostov-on-Don may be published on April 19, an Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) spokesman told Interfax on April 18.

"The IAC plans to publish a preliminary report on this inquiry on April 19," he said.

The Interstate Aviation Committee said earlier that the catastrophic stall of the Boeing passenger jetliner at Rostov airport on March 19 resulted from the pilot's shift of the stabilizer into the 'nose dive' position.

While the pilots pushed the control column at the altitude of 900 meters, the plane's stabilizer was moved five degrees to a nose-dive regime, the IAC said. As a result, the plane dived, with up to -1 plunge acceleration.
https://rbth.com/news/2016/04/18/iac...pril-19_585779
maDJam is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 10:04
  #1280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Having worked 'Operations' for a number of carriers, both scheduled and charter, there are a number of commercial factors that simply don't make sense and please excuse that I don't dredge back thru some 67 pages regarding which buttons to press etc:

1. The outbound load, on a B737-800, was a mere 55, what was the return booked load like because I've worked for many a scheduled carrier where we'd just be looking for an excuse to cancel a flight with just a 30% booked load and something like 70mph winds at the destination would provide us with that excuse, so:

a. Are flydubai a professionally run organisation with trained Operation/Dispatch staff capable of making a judgement call or are they an organisation of tee-shirted muppets calling everybody "sir" whilst serving about as much purpose as a chocolate teapot?, and

b. Upon report did the Captain question the destination weather, was he permitted to question the destination weather proposing cancelling the flight or was he not permitted to propose this and/or he already knew what the answer would be?

And then, having departed and arrived to his destination and conducted one missed approached he went in to the hold, I appreciate that one doesn't enter a hold planning to stay there for 2 hours or longer, but:

a. After 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes etc. in the hold "who is calling the shots?". Was a significant weather improvement forecast, or:

b. Why didn't they PDQ divert to, perhaps, Krasnodar, to sit it out there (it is acknowledged that an additional sector reduces allowable FDP by 45 minutes), or:

c. Simply divert to, perhaps, Krasnodar, dump the pax there for road transportation to Rostov, put some fuel on and return PDQ to DXB empty?

As I say there are commercial factors here that don't make sense, who was in charge, managing, this operation or might I already have guessed that it was someone wearing a tee-shirt in charge of this operation?
Phileas Fogg 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.