B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Please stop saying bull...CAT IIIA Approaches must be Auto-Landed by Law. The only difference from CAT IIIB is that they have a decision hight and pilots must make visual contact to let the aircraft continue and make an auto-land. Only CAT II or CAT I Approaches may be landed by hand!
FZ does not do autoland approaches. They do Cat3A manual landings when required.
WTF. Why would anyone do that?
Because it's cheaper to fly Cat 3 with HGS rather than keeping the aircraft autoland system certified and maintained.
WTF. Why would anyone do that?
Because it's cheaper to fly Cat 3 with HGS rather than keeping the aircraft autoland system certified and maintained.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: in a hotspot on that planet
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did Cat IIIa approaches no Autothrottle and no Autopilot with HUD on CRJ for years.....
Aguadalte..... you are wrong....
Aguadalte..... you are wrong....
Last edited by flaphandlemover; 20th Mar 2016 at 07:59. Reason: spelling error
I've just listened again carefully to the audio recording from 5 APUs captain at post #57.
???????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? Boeing ? ???????????? - ????????? «??????»
(That link should take you there - if not, go to post #57)
I was struck by the calm normality of the crew voice at the end. He acknowledged the change of QNH to 997, then said "Going around." Tower responded with "contact approach 121.2". Crew said "121.2, bye bye".
After that there's some Russian speech, presumably with another aircraft, and we don't hear the change to approach frequency.
But if that was the last thing heard from 981, it sounded completely normal, with no apparent stress or sign of trouble.
Of course, we don't know how much editing there was in the recording.
airsound
???????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ???????????? Boeing ? ???????????? - ????????? «??????»
(That link should take you there - if not, go to post #57)
I was struck by the calm normality of the crew voice at the end. He acknowledged the change of QNH to 997, then said "Going around." Tower responded with "contact approach 121.2". Crew said "121.2, bye bye".
After that there's some Russian speech, presumably with another aircraft, and we don't hear the change to approach frequency.
But if that was the last thing heard from 981, it sounded completely normal, with no apparent stress or sign of trouble.
Of course, we don't know how much editing there was in the recording.
airsound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Please stop saying bull...CAT IIIA Approaches must be Auto-Landed by Law. The only difference from CAT IIIB is that they have a decision hight and pilots must make visual contact to let the aircraft continue and make an auto-land.
Go around is: turn left at 940 ft (QNH), then climb to 2250 ft (QNH).
But, on the ATC tape, the FZ981 crew advises the ATC that in event of a missed approach they will maintain FL 80 (QNE). ATC says 'roger'.
So, would they have 8000 feet set in the window for the miss on a B-738 shooting the ILS 22?
And, even after ATC said OK to FL 80, was there confusion over whether to level off at 600 meters QFE, i.e. 2260 QNH on the miss?
Did they think they had overshot the published level off and nosed the plane back down after the go around pitch change? Or, was the lower altitude inadvertently set in the window and a throttle rollback occurred when the autothrottles were reengaged (perhaps by a vertical mode change)?
Didn't Korean have an MD-11F crash in PVG where they were confused over meters and feet for the level off altitude and nosed the plane down into the ground on departure?
QFE, QNH, QNE, feet, meters, windshear, hours of holding, a long day at the office for sure...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all CATIII operations, autoland is and has always been mandatory. CATIIIa requires flare/touchdown capability and CATIIIb requires rollout.
It's illegal to hand fly to touchdown with a DH below 100ft, as well as pretty silly to even consider doing it.
It's illegal to hand fly to touchdown with a DH below 100ft, as well as pretty silly to even consider doing it.
FZ do manual Cat 3 with the use of HGS only.
It may be illegal in your area, but it's a big world out there.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a full TOGA climb for which we are trained for at windshear warning.
WS escape initial FD guidance is 15 degrees attitude. To achieve full power with A/T engaged you'd need to disconnect A/T or push TOGA twice. 15 degrees attitude does not give 3500-4000fpm.
If they were making a 2nd approach from FL 150 they would need certain weather. Other a/c had diverted. If ATC are giving severe turbulence & WS why make that 2nd approach? They had cancelled the 1st, but we don't know why. Perhaps they told ATC, but we don't know, yet. On the 2nd, WS warnings are not available until <1500'. If ATC advised of WS before then they might have decided to cancel, but then no panic or surprise, just imitate the 1st time.
No-one has yet answered if FZ use monitored approaches for this approach, but either way it seems the GA was made well above DA. ?'s are why, and why the mess up 2nd time.
Regarding the comment about sim GA's, "check GA thrust" and PM gives full power. IMHO that is lack of briefing or SOP. "In the event of a GA I will set approx 90% and ask you to check power." If TOGA was pressed once and PM pushes TL's towards full PWR they will reduce. He'd either have to push again or disconnect. If either happens that's weak MCC technique, or strange and unnecessary SOP's.
We don't yet know who was PF/PM, unless it was a monitored. But if ATC was still giving WS & turbulence, and IF that was the reason for the early GA No.1, they why not divert rather than enter the lion's den again? Henk my interest in the CVR. I think we will all learn more about crew dynamics from tat than from the FDR. The 'why' can be more educational than the 'what'. It will help better with prevention of repeats.
WS escape initial FD guidance is 15 degrees attitude. To achieve full power with A/T engaged you'd need to disconnect A/T or push TOGA twice. 15 degrees attitude does not give 3500-4000fpm.
If they were making a 2nd approach from FL 150 they would need certain weather. Other a/c had diverted. If ATC are giving severe turbulence & WS why make that 2nd approach? They had cancelled the 1st, but we don't know why. Perhaps they told ATC, but we don't know, yet. On the 2nd, WS warnings are not available until <1500'. If ATC advised of WS before then they might have decided to cancel, but then no panic or surprise, just imitate the 1st time.
No-one has yet answered if FZ use monitored approaches for this approach, but either way it seems the GA was made well above DA. ?'s are why, and why the mess up 2nd time.
Regarding the comment about sim GA's, "check GA thrust" and PM gives full power. IMHO that is lack of briefing or SOP. "In the event of a GA I will set approx 90% and ask you to check power." If TOGA was pressed once and PM pushes TL's towards full PWR they will reduce. He'd either have to push again or disconnect. If either happens that's weak MCC technique, or strange and unnecessary SOP's.
We don't yet know who was PF/PM, unless it was a monitored. But if ATC was still giving WS & turbulence, and IF that was the reason for the early GA No.1, they why not divert rather than enter the lion's den again? Henk my interest in the CVR. I think we will all learn more about crew dynamics from tat than from the FDR. The 'why' can be more educational than the 'what'. It will help better with prevention of repeats.
Gender Faculty Specialist
In fact my old company did the first ever CAT3 manual landing in Europe and I was trained to do so.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all CATIII operations, autoland is and has always been mandatory. CATIIIa requires flare/touchdown capability and CATIIIb requires rollout.
None of which, I would suggest, is likely to have any relevance to this crash.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightDetent,
the Windshear Escape is flown manually; no A/T and no A/P
assuming you have already been alerted via a Windshear Warning, the TO/GA is pressed, the reason being the TO/GA give you F/D guidance for the windshear escape
the Windshear Escape is flown manually; no A/T and no A/P
assuming you have already been alerted via a Windshear Warning, the TO/GA is pressed, the reason being the TO/GA give you F/D guidance for the windshear escape
Last edited by HighLow; 19th Mar 2016 at 18:24. Reason: Again for clarification to avoid (future corrections) - B737 specific,
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those wondering, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7orMIfJx-uw
a FZ low vis approach into BTS, from cockpit. As can be seen here, it's Single CH all the way until the AP disconnect. Also what's interesting is the VSD on both sides, Pm and Pf.
Also, as I read somewhere, Rostov is captain's airport only, so capt was PF i'd guess.
a FZ low vis approach into BTS, from cockpit. As can be seen here, it's Single CH all the way until the AP disconnect. Also what's interesting is the VSD on both sides, Pm and Pf.
Also, as I read somewhere, Rostov is captain's airport only, so capt was PF i'd guess.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Just looking quickly at Google Earth, and the point at which they seem to have initiated both go-arounds is about 400' amsl. Could they have descended to 630 FEET instead of 630 METRES, and encountered a GPWS alert? There is no mention on the ATC that we have available of being on the glideslope.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exact spot where the video is taken from
https://www.google.de/maps/@47.26925...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.de/maps/@47.26925...7i13312!8i6656
Still under construction in May 2013
https://www.google.de/maps/@47.26925...7i13312!8i6656
Still under construction in May 2013
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Someone else's acft
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the first push of either TO/GA switch:
• A/T (if armed) engages in GA and advances thrust toward the reduced go–around N1 to produce 1000 to 2000 fpm rate of climb. The A/T Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates GA
• autopilot (if engaged) disengages
• pitch mode engages in TO/GA and the Pitch Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates TO/GA
• F/D pitch commands 15 degrees nose up until reaching programmed rate of climb. F/D pitch then commands target airspeed for each flap setting based on maximum takeoff weight calculations
• F/D roll commands approach ground track at time of engagement. The Roll Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA is blank
• F/D roll commands hold current ground track at or below 50 feet AGL. Above 50 feet AGL, LNAV will engage. The Roll Mode annunciation will display LNAV engaged above 50 feet AGL.
• the IAS/Mach display blanks
• the command airspeed cursor automatically moves to a target airspeed
for the existing flap position based on maximum takeoff weight calculations.
With the second push of either TO/GA switch (if A/T engaged and after A/T reaches reduced go–around thrust):
• the A/T advances to the full go–around N1 limit
TO/GA mode termination from F/D go–around:
• below 400 feet RA, both F/D switches must be turned off.
• above 400 feet RA, select a different pitch or roll mode.
• if the roll mode is changed first:
• F/D roll engages in the selected mode
• F/D pitch mode remains in TO/GA.
• if the pitch mode is changed first:
• F/D pitch engages in the selected mode.
• F/D roll mode automatically changes to HDG SEL
• the A/T GA mode (if engaged) is terminated when:
• another pitch mode is selected
• ALT ACQ annunciates engaged
• A/T (if armed) engages in GA and advances thrust toward the reduced go–around N1 to produce 1000 to 2000 fpm rate of climb. The A/T Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates GA
• autopilot (if engaged) disengages
• pitch mode engages in TO/GA and the Pitch Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates TO/GA
• F/D pitch commands 15 degrees nose up until reaching programmed rate of climb. F/D pitch then commands target airspeed for each flap setting based on maximum takeoff weight calculations
• F/D roll commands approach ground track at time of engagement. The Roll Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA is blank
• F/D roll commands hold current ground track at or below 50 feet AGL. Above 50 feet AGL, LNAV will engage. The Roll Mode annunciation will display LNAV engaged above 50 feet AGL.
• the IAS/Mach display blanks
• the command airspeed cursor automatically moves to a target airspeed
for the existing flap position based on maximum takeoff weight calculations.
With the second push of either TO/GA switch (if A/T engaged and after A/T reaches reduced go–around thrust):
• the A/T advances to the full go–around N1 limit
TO/GA mode termination from F/D go–around:
• below 400 feet RA, both F/D switches must be turned off.
• above 400 feet RA, select a different pitch or roll mode.
• if the roll mode is changed first:
• F/D roll engages in the selected mode
• F/D pitch mode remains in TO/GA.
• if the pitch mode is changed first:
• F/D pitch engages in the selected mode.
• F/D roll mode automatically changes to HDG SEL
• the A/T GA mode (if engaged) is terminated when:
• another pitch mode is selected
• ALT ACQ annunciates engaged
Only half a speed-brake
to HIGHlow: To me it wasn't exactly clear from the FCTM page I posted. PF: press TOGA and verify GA thrust
Thank you for clarifying. I assume then that WSH escape as trained includes use of TO/GA FD's limited to 20° NU and full available thrust. Thus, in stable airmass, yielding climb rate consistent with the recorded data 3500-4500 fpm. Quite possibly modest speed increase too.
[speculation]Then full power level-off in IMC or worse: preceived level bust (imagine: after handover to APCH they're told of having busted the altitude), nice stomagravic illusion of climbing due acceleration, speed-tape confusion with some flaps still out, GPWS yelling do not sink! And the strobe lights reflecting in IMC and snow too.. [/speculation] ... and all this at nice 04:00 morning of your body clock.
Thank you for clarifying. I assume then that WSH escape as trained includes use of TO/GA FD's limited to 20° NU and full available thrust. Thus, in stable airmass, yielding climb rate consistent with the recorded data 3500-4500 fpm. Quite possibly modest speed increase too.
[speculation]Then full power level-off in IMC or worse: preceived level bust (imagine: after handover to APCH they're told of having busted the altitude), nice stomagravic illusion of climbing due acceleration, speed-tape confusion with some flaps still out, GPWS yelling do not sink! And the strobe lights reflecting in IMC and snow too.. [/speculation] ... and all this at nice 04:00 morning of your body clock.
