B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don

[Alice025]

Originally Posted by FlyingOfficerKite

... just out of interest, what's that white 'stuff' on the external parts of the aircraft shown on the Wikipedia photographs? snow, ice, foam? It seems to be on the exterior parts but not on the (remains) on the internal components ...


FOK

Can be the snow that fell on Rostov in the morning, when first TV crews arrived there.

[Kulverstukas]

Media reports that CVR was successfully read tonight.

[Airbubba]

Media reports that CVR was successfully read tonight.

From the latest IAC posting looks like the recording is of good quality:

Скопирована вся зарегистрированная информация вплоть до столкновения самолёта с землёй. Качество записи хорошее.

Google Translate:

Copied all registered information up to the aircraft colliding with the ground. Good recording quality.

[parabellum]

Pilot's are their own worst enemies, I am not sure if some have been to long in the job that they can't even see the reality themselves.

Given that two thirds of the current pilot work force will have started their aviation career in the last twenty years or so it is far more likely that it is the 'youngsters', who have joined by whatever means, a proper cadetship, Pay2Fly etc. that are the major influence on current terms, working practices and conditions, not the 'oldies'.

[TwinJock]

Originally Posted by Vortex Thing

Chronos

I'm not boss bashing. I'm telling the facts as they are having flown that specific aircraft, having flown with some of the departed, having flown for the airline, having been subject to its "just culture" for many years, having had my family live in Dubai and having seen good men and women come and go.

Not only am I giving my opinion what I am saying is accompanied by rock solid irrefutable proof.

Now I am not saying the sole cause was two men but the devil is in the detail. Accountable Manager or post holder de facto has responsibilites.

The last 5 mins of the flight are indeed very important for many reasons but whatever those reasons be they act of god, mishandling, catastrophic failure they were made possible by the launch of the aircraft from base in weather in which they not only predicted not to be able to land ut was predicted for the entire duration of their fuel to be highly unlikely to allow them to do so.

I've been dispatched from Dubai in similar enough circumstance that their for the grace of god go I. FZ mgt make Enron look clean.

If you think that the whole company ethos and modus operandi has no bearing on why the plane was even airborne and not on the ground either at the ALTN or in DXB then I fear you misunderstand the swiss cheese model.

Why have any form of regulation if we never ever invoke it! This is why the resignation rate is where it is.

One of our pilots in his exit interview was asked why he was leaving. He told them I've been in the airline here for 3 years. You have not been remotely interested in anything I have to offer, anything I can bring to help or used any of my skills other than flying a plane. Now that I am leaving you want to know why! This is why!

This goes so deep it is so deeply engrained that it is rotten to the core. People have a right to know.

Well said C! The perils of working in this part of the world are numerous, and difficult to explain to the non-believer. Management will remain arrogant as long as there are applicants knocking on the door.

[B737SFP]

Hey guys...

Does this incident ring a bell?

https://flightglobal.com/news/articl...cation-393527/

2 hours holding in icing conditions... I'm starting to belive that it's possible they had some kind of flight control lock up caused by ice.

Thoughts?

[porterhouse]

Unlikely connection with the Norwegian incident.

[sets]

Concur with Porterhouse, no obvious link between incidents.

[B777Heavy]

Originally Posted by Aluminium shuffler

For those speculating about autoflight ILS approaches and go arounds on the 737, they are normally flown single channel autopilot for Cat I and most companies only allow dual channel for Cat II/III or practice autolands. On disconnection of the single channel on Cat I, the autothrottle is also disconnected - manual control, manual thrust; Boeing insist on an all or nothing method on the 737, unlike their other types.

Not true, even on Cat 1, you can arm BOTH autopilots on approach which in turn would give an autopilot go around if required.

[Cloud Cutter]

Not true, even on Cat 1, you can arm BOTH autopilots on approach

It is true. While you CAN arm both, Aluminium shuffler said that Cat 1 approaches are NORMALLY flown single channel, which is absolutely correct. Although, I don't agree regarding autothrottle being disconnected on the go-around - normally the go-around is executed by selecting TOGA, which disconnects a single channel A/P and sets reduced go-around thrust.

[win_faa]

Although the visibility on the surface looks clear on the CCTV, youtube link by alientali shows at 04:45:04 that FZ 981 seems to have emerge out from a low level cloud as shown by the scattering of landing lights from the aircraft

[B777Heavy]

Originally Posted by Cloud Cutter

It is true. While you CAN arm both, Aluminium shuffler said that Cat 1 approaches are NORMALLY flown single channel, which is absolutely correct. Although, I don't agree regarding autothrottle being disconnected on the go-around - normally the go-around is executed by selecting TOGA, which disconnects a single channel A/P and sets reduced go-around thrust.

Right, i guess its a company variable. We encourage arming both APs on all ILSs we are a Cat 1 airline. Yeah saw the AT disconnect later on, I agree with u on that.

[Ngineer]

Hard to tell 100%, but the aircraft looks well lit up as it descends in both videos I have seen. This would also rule out fuel exhaustion and subsequent engine/idg failure. Looks like a definitive stall for whatever reasons.

[Cloud Cutter]

Right, i guess its a company variable. We encourage arming both APs on all ILSs we are a Cat 1 airline. Yeah saw the AT disconnect later on, I agree with u on that.

Yip, there will always be different ways of doing it.

[Denti]

Yip, there will always be different ways of doing it.

Indeed, in the 15 years i was on the 737 i had to fly every CAT I approach dual channel if i still used the autoflight system at that point (manual raw data approaches were encouraged and very often flown). We knew we could do it single channel in case that one AP was u/s, but SOP in the airlines i flew was always use dual channel.

Now, from what i have read in this thread it is different at flydubai and they only use one AP during CAT I approaches, which of course leaves an automatic go around out of the question, but if above 400ft AGL it is simple enough to just re-engage the autopilot right away if one wishes to do so.

[Judd]

Yip, there will always be different ways of doing it.

Judging by the various comments in this thread, it makes me wonder if airlines permit their crews to fly an ILS manually, anymore? Is it that dangerous to do so? Or is that for CAVOK approaches only?

[Aluminium shuffler]

B777 and Cloud,

My post was unclear. What I was saying is that it is Boeing policy on disconnecting the AP on a single channel app to also disconnect the autothrottle, so when the pilot disengages one, he will also disengage the other, so full autoflight or full manual. The exception to that policy is when conducting a GA from a single channel app, where TOGA applies TOGA thrust through the autothrottle but disengaged the AP (AP remains engaged only on dual channel app). So, in a missed app, the pilots now have the unusual cicumstances of manual flight with autothrottles, which then sets them up for the trap with the AT mode problem on Alt Aqu. I did not say the AT disengaged on pressing TOGA.

For what it's worth, some companies do things contrary to Boeing guidance, as B777 said. Excel used to do dual channel for every ILS, though that brings in trim issues for low disconnects for manual landing, and would deselect speed of the MCP AT when flying manually. Seemed a smarter way of doing thins, IMO.

[porkflyer]

When I heard of a 737 falling out of the sky in Russia immediately Turkish came to my mind...why? If FZ pilots are worked to death.. give try a THY 737 roster..and than you tell me if you would fly as passenger. Done that..never again.

https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydu...fatigue-crash/

[Chesty Morgan]

AS, whilst you're technically correct I'd argue that it isn't all that unusual - 99.99% of take offs are manually flown with the AT engaged.

[Cloud Cutter]

My post was unclear. What I was saying is that it is Boeing policy on disconnecting the AP on a single channel app to also disconnect the autothrottle, so when the pilot disengages one, he will also disengage the other, so full autoflight or full manual. The exception to that policy is when conducting a GA from a single channel app, where TOGA applies TOGA thrust through the autothrottle but disengaged the AP (AP remains engaged only on dual channel app). So, in a missed app, the pilots now have the unusual cicumstances of manual flight with autothrottles, which then sets them up for the trap with the AT mode problem on Alt Aqu. I did not say the AT disengaged on pressing TOGA.

Yip, if you are landing or going manual prior to executing a missed approach. Some operators choose to deselect the active AT mode (i.e. 'MCP speed') rather than disconnecting the AT - this retains TOGA functionality and low speed protection.

Judging by the various comments in this thread, it makes me wonder if airlines permit their crews to fly an ILS manually, anymore? Is it that dangerous to do so? Or is that for CAVOK approaches only?

I don't think it's dangerous as such, but it is definitely more risky (generally speaking). Most operators these days seem to be of the opinion that crew should use autoflight where possible as a risk management tool, and not 'practice' with an aircraft full of punters. Of course, the problem with this is that skills are less polished on the rare occasion they are actually needed.