B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall on Go Around
Everything here points to a stall on the last go-around.
I have no idea why the media is still talking about a "wing strike" or a "tail strike". The videos clearly show this aircraft was stalled and impacted in a steep vertical dive. Totally disintegrated.
I am leaning towards the Somatogravic Illusion issue here, especially with what was probably an exhausted crew and rough weather. I'm not sure exactly what the 737-800 does in this go-around scenario in terms of automation but it does look like they stalled it from altitude.
Tragic.
I have no idea why the media is still talking about a "wing strike" or a "tail strike". The videos clearly show this aircraft was stalled and impacted in a steep vertical dive. Totally disintegrated.
I am leaning towards the Somatogravic Illusion issue here, especially with what was probably an exhausted crew and rough weather. I'm not sure exactly what the 737-800 does in this go-around scenario in terms of automation but it does look like they stalled it from altitude.
Tragic.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media reported that FDR was read today. It was operative up to impact. Latest information is that a/c staled and dived over left wing, falling from 900m at 400 kmh speed. Bad weather and wind shear was not confirmed.
The videos clearly show this aircraft was stalled...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do they show that? All I see is an aircraft in an unusual attitude impacting the ground violently. This could have come about for many reasons: disorientation, flight control failure (rudder hardover, etc.), improper inputs plus anything else you can think of...
Latest information is that a/c staled and dived over left wing, falling from 900m at 400 kmh speed.
EternalNY1
I lean toward the stall scenario. The news media rarely have their information correct.
The Somatogravic Illusion may be a factor, but that has been around for years in various terms.
I flew the 737(200 through the BBJ) and the automation in the later models, I thought, was very good.
However, a few missed switch pushes, or settings could ruin your day.
Sadly, there seems to be less emphasis on simply flying the airplane instead of using the automation most of the time.
Peace to the families and those involved.
The Somatogravic Illusion may be a factor, but that has been around for years in various terms.
I flew the 737(200 through the BBJ) and the automation in the later models, I thought, was very good.
However, a few missed switch pushes, or settings could ruin your day.
Sadly, there seems to be less emphasis on simply flying the airplane instead of using the automation most of the time.
Peace to the families and those involved.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
falling from 900m at 400 kmh speed.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Wuppertal
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this is my first post in this forum, let me please begin with stating that I am not a pilot but coming from the medical sector, and having some skills in TRM/CRM course systems as a coach for clinical teams.
Having said that, the question I'd like to ask you as the experts: Could the earlier GA have indeed have had a negative impact on the outcome of this tragic event?
I am thinking in a way that the behaviour of the Aircraft might not have fitted the pilots "mental model " here.
I guess that after being in the holding for 2+ hrs, it must have been significantly lighter than before. Could it therefore play a role that the pilots expexted a similar response to control inputs like in the first GA, but the now lighter aircraft reacted differently?
Humans tend to interprete situations under stress following their previous experiences, and this might have prevented the crew from judging the current situation approbately?
Having said that, the question I'd like to ask you as the experts: Could the earlier GA have indeed have had a negative impact on the outcome of this tragic event?
I am thinking in a way that the behaviour of the Aircraft might not have fitted the pilots "mental model " here.
I guess that after being in the holding for 2+ hrs, it must have been significantly lighter than before. Could it therefore play a role that the pilots expexted a similar response to control inputs like in the first GA, but the now lighter aircraft reacted differently?
Humans tend to interprete situations under stress following their previous experiences, and this might have prevented the crew from judging the current situation approbately?
Gender Faculty Specialist
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 34
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Sad day. For such a major event I am shocked at how little news coverage in the UK. I fear this is another handling issue. Automation dependency is the biggest threat we face in the modern world and what we are witnessing is more and more loss of control of large Aircraft. Let's follow the FAA - world leading and respected throughout the world, let's get back to how Europe was 20 years ago. No Airline would touch Pilots unless they had bags of experience - Thousands of hand flying hours in most cases. We need to get back to basics.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from the TASS news agency.
TASS: World - Causes of plane crash in Rostov-on-Don yet unclear - sources
MOSCOW, March 20. /TASS/. Experts and specialists from the Interstate Aviation Committee so far have no clear understanding of what might have caused the crash of a passenger plane in Russia’s southern city of Rostov-on-Don, sources close to Russia’ air transport authorities and the Interstate Aviation Committee told TASS on Sunday.
More news on
Boeing crash in southern Russia
© IAC Press Service
Flight recorder from crashed FlyDubai jet opened, records quality good - IAC
Chief Investigator took the Boeing crash investigation under his personal control
Rostov-on-Don airport may be opened morning March 21
Earth Hour in Moscow devoted to Rostov-on-Don crash victims
"So far, they have only theories neither of which is definitely proved," the sources said, adding that specialists have only reconstructed a preliminary picture of the crash.
"According to preliminary data, the Boeing carried out go-around after it failed to land on the first try. The pilots cut short the second go-round to execute a third one. 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," the sources said.
Weather conditions in Rostov-on-Don were unfavorable at the moment but there was no sidewind. "Wind gusts reached 11-17 meters per second but there was no sidewind," the sources said.
Having hit the ground, the plane exploded and caught fire. Its fragments were scattered on both sides of the runway.
According to the sources, the pilots reported no technical malfunctions during the flight and the landing. "The flight was carried out in a routine mode," the sources said.
They found it difficult to say how long the investigation might take. "It may take a lot of time, so far it is difficult to be more exact. It will depend on the results of deciphering of the flight recorders," the sources said. "So far, it is not absolutely clear how many go-rounds the plane carried out trying to land. As for the radar information, it is only taken into consideration."
A FlyDubai’s Boeing 737-800 crashed at Rostov-on-Don’s airport in the small hours on March 19 during a second attempt to land in complicated weather conditions of strong side wind and rain. The plane served regular Flight FZ 981 from Dubai. The passenger jet capable of carrying 189 passengers had 62 people aboard, including the crew. None has survived.
The investigation looks into several leads: a pilot error, a technical malfunction, bad weather conditions, and others.
More:
TASS: World - Causes of plane crash in Rostov-on-Don yet unclear - sources
MOSCOW, March 20. /TASS/. Experts and specialists from the Interstate Aviation Committee so far have no clear understanding of what might have caused the crash of a passenger plane in Russia’s southern city of Rostov-on-Don, sources close to Russia’ air transport authorities and the Interstate Aviation Committee told TASS on Sunday.
More news on
Boeing crash in southern Russia
© IAC Press Service
Flight recorder from crashed FlyDubai jet opened, records quality good - IAC
Chief Investigator took the Boeing crash investigation under his personal control
Rostov-on-Don airport may be opened morning March 21
Earth Hour in Moscow devoted to Rostov-on-Don crash victims
"So far, they have only theories neither of which is definitely proved," the sources said, adding that specialists have only reconstructed a preliminary picture of the crash.
"According to preliminary data, the Boeing carried out go-around after it failed to land on the first try. The pilots cut short the second go-round to execute a third one. 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," the sources said.
Weather conditions in Rostov-on-Don were unfavorable at the moment but there was no sidewind. "Wind gusts reached 11-17 meters per second but there was no sidewind," the sources said.
Having hit the ground, the plane exploded and caught fire. Its fragments were scattered on both sides of the runway.
According to the sources, the pilots reported no technical malfunctions during the flight and the landing. "The flight was carried out in a routine mode," the sources said.
They found it difficult to say how long the investigation might take. "It may take a lot of time, so far it is difficult to be more exact. It will depend on the results of deciphering of the flight recorders," the sources said. "So far, it is not absolutely clear how many go-rounds the plane carried out trying to land. As for the radar information, it is only taken into consideration."
A FlyDubai’s Boeing 737-800 crashed at Rostov-on-Don’s airport in the small hours on March 19 during a second attempt to land in complicated weather conditions of strong side wind and rain. The plane served regular Flight FZ 981 from Dubai. The passenger jet capable of carrying 189 passengers had 62 people aboard, including the crew. None has survived.
The investigation looks into several leads: a pilot error, a technical malfunction, bad weather conditions, and others.
More:
TASS: World - Causes of plane crash in Rostov-on-Don yet unclear - sources
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat-like reflexes.
Flight instruction still builds hours and life-saving reflexes when students do the most unexpected things. I want my captains to have lots of those hours.
Nice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All Over
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty much every single short/medium hall UK based pilot has done this sort of duty multiple times in a week at some point. 5 canary return flights in a row from the UK is around a 4:30-5:00 block each time round. Wake up 4am, land at 5pm straight into rush hour traffic on the way home, freshened up and ready for dinner by 6:30. Bed straight after that and attempt to get some decent sleep before the alarm goes again around 8 hours later at 4am. Thats if your neighbours or young kids play ball. Repeat this 4 times over. Done on multiple occasions myself and whilst all within limits absolutely draining.
If it is found that fatigue did play a part then remember these guys were on their first sector! Consider the crew that is up at 4am, 5 hours down to Tenerife and picks up a 2 hours slot and goes into discretion. 5 hours after that approaching home base where the weather is gusting 50 knots, you're both tired and theres a distinct possibility of diversion. This happens and it happens all the time.
If it is found that fatigue did play a part then remember these guys were on their first sector! Consider the crew that is up at 4am, 5 hours down to Tenerife and picks up a 2 hours slot and goes into discretion. 5 hours after that approaching home base where the weather is gusting 50 knots, you're both tired and theres a distinct possibility of diversion. This happens and it happens all the time.
Concurs with a chat I had on the ground in Dalaman last year with a pleasant Captain who shared a few minutes of his very limited turn around time with me and my lad (who is hoping to join the RAF as an officer A level results pending) who'd never seen a flight deck up until then. This chap said he couldn't wait to retire, was fed up with automation and most of all was absolutely knackered all the time, that crew were all up at 0400 that particular day. Interestingly he'd made his money elsewhere, had a flying lesson and the rest is history but still desperately wanted out.
Sad and terrifying at the same time.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jack1111:
I had lots of light airplane time when I went with my airline. That included a lot of actual instrument flying, including approaches to minimums. And, none of those airplanes had auto-pilots. Almost all was single pilot. And, I was an instrument instructor. In my case it wasn't being instructor that prepared me nearly as much as all the hand-flown en route and approaches to minimums.
Flight instruction still builds hours and life-saving reflexes when students do the most unexpected things. I want my captains to have lots of those hours.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: California
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aeromech3:
Obviously had nothing to do with this tragedy but a good read nonetheless. Thanks. http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_dec02.pdf
Echo of the GF A320 go-around and subsequent crash off Muharraq Bahrain!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LGW
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answers and Questions?
I think I might have some answers to some of the questions being raised, but then also some questions that need answering.
Everyone is asking why they held for 2 hours. From past experience flying similar routes, fuel if much more expensive in Russia and the Ex-Soviet Republics. Therefore we used to always tanker round trip fuel when we had such light passenger loads. Combine this with a fairly restrictive max duty period based on CAP-371 given the start of duty and the impact of a 3rd sector diversion would have had on the max duty time, might have meant night stopping. Therefore if the fuel was available it seemed rather sensible to just wait out the weather.
There is quite a lot of information online with detailed timelines on Avsafety net and even atc recordings on Avherald. Looking at that those bits of information, everything seemed to be flowing smoothly. This included the first go around. Why then would someone mess up a go around when you have just successfully completed it a short time previously.
My question would be why did they go-around? Windshear again? If so they would have followed a windshear escape maneuver instead of a standard go-around.
With only 55 passengers on board, where were they seated? Did the plane have an empty business class with most people and bags towards the rear of the aircraft?
Was there a flyaway kit onboard? If so was it in the forward cargo hold and properly lashed down?
Also what changed between the first approach and the second? Were they holding in icing conditions? If so what would have been the effect of heavy ice accumulation on the stabilizer?
I think I might have some answers to some of the questions being raised, but then also some questions that need answering.
Everyone is asking why they held for 2 hours. From past experience flying similar routes, fuel if much more expensive in Russia and the Ex-Soviet Republics. Therefore we used to always tanker round trip fuel when we had such light passenger loads. Combine this with a fairly restrictive max duty period based on CAP-371 given the start of duty and the impact of a 3rd sector diversion would have had on the max duty time, might have meant night stopping. Therefore if the fuel was available it seemed rather sensible to just wait out the weather.
There is quite a lot of information online with detailed timelines on Avsafety net and even atc recordings on Avherald. Looking at that those bits of information, everything seemed to be flowing smoothly. This included the first go around. Why then would someone mess up a go around when you have just successfully completed it a short time previously.
My question would be why did they go-around? Windshear again? If so they would have followed a windshear escape maneuver instead of a standard go-around.
With only 55 passengers on board, where were they seated? Did the plane have an empty business class with most people and bags towards the rear of the aircraft?
Was there a flyaway kit onboard? If so was it in the forward cargo hold and properly lashed down?
Also what changed between the first approach and the second? Were they holding in icing conditions? If so what would have been the effect of heavy ice accumulation on the stabilizer?
The hour was unsociable, but a 4-hour return is more or less a 'Home to Southern Spain/Greece and back' from where I'm based. That's not big, that's actually a rather relaxed day out and done by the thousands every single day.
If you are 28, no kids, a girlfriend lives down the road, have the option of getting into bed and dozing off when you finish work without all the hustle and bustle of a normal family household, then it is tiring but safely achievable. If on the other hand you are 42, have two kids under five, a wife that has to work around your alarm clock settings and random absence during public holidays and weekends etc etc, then it is a case of family v's health v's work and something has to give. There is no free lunch with this type of rostering.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer.
I quite agree.
I've also worked some utterly exhausting rotas, and the exhaustion certainly built up as the days went by- but it was manageable most of the time. Add in filthy weather, first time to a new (Captains only landing) destination and in my own case anyway, an attempt to also have a life outside work....and it can get a little much.
In the case of this crew, they must have known as they shot this approach that they were looking at use of discretion to complete the trip, and that they would be flying for around ten hours. Not to mention their other duty time.
We all know that flight crew are an expensive resource, and that maxing out their FDPs makes good business sense......but knackered crews make mistakes.
And those are expensive too....
I quite agree.
I've also worked some utterly exhausting rotas, and the exhaustion certainly built up as the days went by- but it was manageable most of the time. Add in filthy weather, first time to a new (Captains only landing) destination and in my own case anyway, an attempt to also have a life outside work....and it can get a little much.
In the case of this crew, they must have known as they shot this approach that they were looking at use of discretion to complete the trip, and that they would be flying for around ten hours. Not to mention their other duty time.
We all know that flight crew are an expensive resource, and that maxing out their FDPs makes good business sense......but knackered crews make mistakes.
And those are expensive too....