B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don

[HighLow]

FlightDetent,

did I say it is similar to FZ incident? NOPE

I was simply pointing out the A/P logic during a Go Around, to clarify an earlier misconception, and to highlight the Missed Approach is flown initially manually by the pilots.

HighLow

[ManaAdaSystem]

Why am I saying this? How do you know they didn't hit TOGA a second time? Would make sense to me. If there are CBs about or WSHR it would make perfect sense. Notwithstanding the fact that pressing it once will give you a margin above buffet speed to account for any turbulence or shear surely it would make sense to use all power available. A windshear go around is an escape manoeuvre after all. I'd rather escape with a big margin than just what is required for certification. Wouldn't you?

Well, I don't know, that is why I told you what happens if you press TOGA a second time. It is not normal procedure as far as I know. You make it sound like a go around in a 737 is a near uncontrollable maneuvre if the aircraft is light. It is not.
The only reason you would need full go around thrust on a light 737 is if you are about to crash., or you need the performance for other reasons. Reactive WS happens below 1500 ft, so I don't think they entered that territory.
IF they pressed TOGA a second time, they could very well have made problems for themselves.

In a 737 you get what you ask for. If you don't know what you are doing, it will bite you.

[HeartyMeatballs]

FlightDetent. All we know is that during an approach somehow the aircraft ended up on the other end of the runway with a hight rate of descent and a high energy impact. We do not know what altitude or speed it was going at. The only data we have seen is ameature data and not from an official source. So to say it climbed and increased in speed is not necessarily true. And notwithstanding that fact, you can stall the aircraft at ANY airspeed. It's angle of attack that will spoil your day and not necessarily airspeed or 'speed' to which you refer.

ManaAdaSystems - like I said before, if windshear is reported then it could very well the reason why the did it. If there was a sign of windshear then I'd want to get the hell out as quickly as possible, not at a leisurely 1,000-2,000 FPM. That simply is not enough for an escape manoeuvre for my liking. And which one it is? It is 1000FPM or 2000FPM. They're both very different figures!

[CanadaKid]

A/T and RA issues

Could any B738 pilots comment whether their aircraft had A/T and Radio Altimeter issues similar to the larger wide body Boeings? i.e false RA readings in precipitation, with the false RA affecting, amongst other things, A/T logic
Thanks.

[RAT 5]

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

WTF. Why would anyone do that? And I still have no idea, nor heard one, why both GA's were executed at such a high height? Why hold 2 hours in hope of an improvement, then decide it's worth a 2nd shot, and then cancell it 4nm from the runway/ In that case the GA is not a 'surprise', nor it is a rushed manoeuvre; well no need to be. They would have had plenty of time to brief the 2nd attempt. They would have reviewed their 1st effort and decided if they would do the same or perhaps modify their techniques. There should have been no internal surprise factor. Hence my comment that the CVR will prove very interesting. I hope it has more than 30mins. More questions than answers at the moment.

[ManaAdaSystem]

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.

[Pin Head]

for those that do fly the ng and those that are interested I strongly recommend all to read the TOM incident report over Bournemouth, UK.

There is a lot to be learnt from that article.

Bed time for me now. RIP the victims.

[bluepilot]

a good read GO-AROUND RISKS | Flight Safety Foundation

[Airbubba]

And I still have no idea, nor heard one, why both GA's were executed at such a high height?

They encountered windshear indications early in the approach and decided to go missed perhaps? Continuing the approach to see if the windshear abates is not an option at the places I've worked.

[FlightDetent]

FR24 is non-professional, but the data source is aircraft's ADS-B direct from ADR1. The altitude is correct, FDRs will show no different.

Ground speed is exactly that, if it increases over straight path in climb, the IAS was not decreasing towards a stall point. That's all I say.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Airbus flyer here. I don't have any NG experience and therefore I asked. Instead of acting like a child, answer the question or don't bother. Or is that you just don't know the answer or flightsim doesn't quite replicate the real thing?

Thank you for those nice words.
I will not bother you with my credentials, but I will never try to tell you how your Airbus works, how you should fly it or how it performs. I just don't know anything about them.

It will give you between 1000 and 2000 ft/m. That is from the FCOM.
My take on those numbers? 1000 ft/m on a heavy -8 or -900, 2000 ft/m on a light NG, the rest somewhere in between.

[rudolf]

I'm not sure about FZ, but on some older NG the AP will disconnect at TOGA press on a dual channel approach unless the self test is complete, this starts at 1500RA and usually completes at about 1200RA.

They were flying a Cat 1 approach which would almost certainly have been single channel so the go-around would be manually flown. Because of the weight the N1's would have driven to around 80% N1 (or maybe less) on TOGA press to give a sensible rate-of-climb; what I have seen quite regularly in the sim is when 'check GA thrust' is called the PM increases thrust to full GA N1 which increases workload and required scan rate significantly. Couple this second pitch up effect with the awful conditions then I think there is a good chance as already mentioned of some sort of somatogravic illusions occurring.

Lots of speculation here including mine; sufficed to say that the 737 (all variants) can be a handful in a go-around and it's about time this became a mandatory item on a proficiency check.

[iraatc777]

Having listened to an ATC record via the given link there s one thing that caught my ear -1min 38 sec spot .an ATC gives them SEVERE turbulence and moderate wind shear on landing ...it's all speculating now and of course we could all do better but maybe a bit more of an attention should be been given to that ,wacha all think ?

[HighLow]

rudolf,

I agree with your last statement.

An A/C flying a missed approach with all engines operative is not part of any proficiency check, and if indeed, it is incorporated in some regions around the world, these examples would be, in my opinion very few and far between.

I second that, that whatever the results of the upcoming investigation, one recommendation should be that this maneuver(flown manually) should become a mandatory check item in any future proficiency checks.

[rudolf]

Like i said earlier fyi... FZ dont do autoland/dual channel approaches. rwy 22 only has a Cat1 approach.

Thanks, I was scan reading the thread and just giving my general opinion. There is nothing to stop you flying a dual channel approach on a Cat 1 runway as long as you prepare for the trim change if you disconnect below 400RA. It's not as big a deal as you may think, unless it's blowing a storm obviously.

I'm not suggesting for one second that flying dual channel here would have been appropriate because I don't think it would have been, just giving general info.

[autobrake3]

Heartymeatballs...... There is tacit bullying pressure in the low cost airline in which you work. It may not dictate such decisions as fuel and your choice of diversion but the rediculous abuse of FTL's the bullying of cadet f/o's with no meaningful experience, the "wellbeing chats" and a host of other little stabs have increased the operational pressure many fold. Consider where you got your Heartymeatball moniker from......commercial pressure and planes don't mix well.

[NOT ORANGE]

I would be interested to know how much sleep the crew had had.Was this a series of night flights and were they flying in ****ty weather in their circadian low?I know from experience that flying at 5a.m. with probably an hour or two sleep I would be 50% switched on at best.

[fantom]

An A/C flying a missed approach with all engines operative is not part of any proficiency check, and if indeed, it is incorporated in some regions around the world, these examples would be, in my opinion very few and far between.

Rubbish. It is part of every low-vis check.

[OrganisedDesk]

Preferential Bidding System

This airline has a Preferential bidding system were flights are allocated based on crew bids differentiated on the basis of seniority / date of joining the airline.

This has the effect that popular flights go to the airlines seasoned and experienced crews and unpopular flights get given to the new hires.

So if its a deep night flight, with a long duty period into a place with limited alternates with poor weather and over the weekend which in Dubai is Friday Saturday then chances are both the Captain and first Officer will be new (ish) to the company.

PBS can result in inexperienced Captains and First Officers either new to the company new to the type or new to Command being crewed together for sectors that those with more experience choose not to do if they can be avoided.

Deep night Russia in winter at the weekend how many old hands bid for that?

[HighLow]

fantom,

rubbish? no

a low vis go-around is automatic, yes that is correct,
but again, following the logic of my previous posts, I was referring to a manual go-around being part of any future checks.

Standby, I will clarify my earlier post (since it seems to be required),