B-738 Crash in Russia Rostov-on-Don
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With ( only ) "a 1 hour 20 minute Hold", JFK sent us and other aircraft to do a "60 mile Hold at Nantucket" which was much more relaxed than a smaller holding orbit would have been. ( We had no Auto Hold facility on the A/P.)
Whether something rather like this could have been an option offered by ATC at Rostov...at the time, is a different matter.
( PS we had had prior indications of of possible delays at JFK and had taken additional fuel - amount now forgotten. After close down,we had 3900 kg. remaining. We would have needed 4052 kg. for a full 2 hour Island Holding.)
Whether something rather like this could have been an option offered by ATC at Rostov...at the time, is a different matter.
( PS we had had prior indications of of possible delays at JFK and had taken additional fuel - amount now forgotten. After close down,we had 3900 kg. remaining. We would have needed 4052 kg. for a full 2 hour Island Holding.)
Last edited by Linktrained; 12th May 2016 at 23:09. Reason: PS
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lengthened hold is something I've used many times and ATC were very helpful in allowing it. It proved useful one time when approaching destination with not a lot of extra, but a faint chance of getting in as the back log of traffic at destination dissipated. Our Altn was 80nm away. We arranged a hold at 30nm FL 100 from destination with 20nm legs towards Altn. Just before turning inbound we checked if we could expect an approach next time over the fix. No was the reply so we were well paced for an 'on-path' descent into Altn.
The reduced amount of turning makes the whole exercise more relaxing as well.
The reduced amount of turning makes the whole exercise more relaxing as well.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porter house : I wrote "some AOA indicators of poor design" and you understood "ALL AOA indicators" Sorry for you.
Framer : also at night over the ocean starting from 500 ft, if you want - aircraft used in the Falklands war.
Framer : also at night over the ocean starting from 500 ft, if you want - aircraft used in the Falklands war.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recce guy. It would be helpful it you just told us the type of aircraft you are referring to instead of making us guess. If you don't want to tell us then don't make the reference!
Half information is sometimes worse than no information.
Doves. Yes what chronus wrote is all perfect normal to anyone used to flying into Russia. at FZ we had 18 destinations in Russia and CIS so it was an every day business to be in metres and QFE and QNH none of this would have been confusing to a crew used to operating there.
Framer you frequently make comments that show you have only operated in certain climes. Ie in a another thread,
If you had ever flown in UK and much or Europe you would wonder if exact opposite was true.
Re this thread
.
In military flying hardly a surprising or unusual event (depending on ones definition of low level!)
When I started operating into the US I found some things so different from the rest of the world that I hit another point in my career of realising how much more there is to learn.
Surely the whole point of these forums is so that we help each other understand the environs and situations that we all fly in can be very very different. My first few flights into the US were like flying into alien territory. The whole language, meaning and interpretation is vastly different to anything I had encountered in years of flying in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia. So much so that it was the comprehensive briefing from the trg cast as we went transatlantic that prepared me for my first arrival into US airspace since the late 90s and it was staggeringly different.
The point is some of us like myself and Derfred fly on HUDs every day. Some don't and some fly B737 where there is only one HUD. Some guys fly polar, some transpacific and trans atlantic, some guys are flying BE1900 mail runs in UK. So each of us has a lot to learn from the other until we get to place where we have done it all!!
Can't we all stop scoffing at how ridiculous the former posters view is and ask questions.
Perhaps we could as professional pilots to each other say. Oooh I didn't realise that was standard in part of the world X can anyone who operates that type/region/piece of equipment clarify please?
Half information is sometimes worse than no information.
Doves. Yes what chronus wrote is all perfect normal to anyone used to flying into Russia. at FZ we had 18 destinations in Russia and CIS so it was an every day business to be in metres and QFE and QNH none of this would have been confusing to a crew used to operating there.
Framer you frequently make comments that show you have only operated in certain climes. Ie in a another thread,
"is it standard phraseology to say FL two hundred anywhere"
Re this thread
a barrel roll at low altitude in poor weather and horizon conditions
In military flying hardly a surprising or unusual event (depending on ones definition of low level!)
When I started operating into the US I found some things so different from the rest of the world that I hit another point in my career of realising how much more there is to learn.
Surely the whole point of these forums is so that we help each other understand the environs and situations that we all fly in can be very very different. My first few flights into the US were like flying into alien territory. The whole language, meaning and interpretation is vastly different to anything I had encountered in years of flying in Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia. So much so that it was the comprehensive briefing from the trg cast as we went transatlantic that prepared me for my first arrival into US airspace since the late 90s and it was staggeringly different.
The point is some of us like myself and Derfred fly on HUDs every day. Some don't and some fly B737 where there is only one HUD. Some guys fly polar, some transpacific and trans atlantic, some guys are flying BE1900 mail runs in UK. So each of us has a lot to learn from the other until we get to place where we have done it all!!
Can't we all stop scoffing at how ridiculous the former posters view is and ask questions.
Perhaps we could as professional pilots to each other say. Oooh I didn't realise that was standard in part of the world X can anyone who operates that type/region/piece of equipment clarify please?
Framer you frequently make comments that show you have only operated in certain climes. Ie in a another thread,
Quote:
"is it standard phraseology to say FL two hundred anywhere"
Quote:
"is it standard phraseology to say FL two hundred anywhere"
Perhaps we could as professional pilots to each other say. Oooh I didn't realise that was standard in part of the world X can anyone who operates that type/region/piece of equipment clarify please?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the CRM aspect and general decision making, which is speculation until the "allowed elements" of the CVR are released, the rest is simple physics and energy management. With the flaps out forward trim for 12 seconds takes the trim well beyond the green arc, couple this with a reduction in the pitch power couple as thrust is reduced, the aircraft is only going one way... down.. increasing power after the aircraft tips forward or pulling back, as they did only deepens the dive... try it in the sim.. we just did..trimming back to a neutral position and then correct thrust management allows a recovery, but not from the altitude these guys had remaining.. doesn't matter if you look through HUD, FD or ski goggles its just a mistake, and we are all human..
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UAE
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you get allocated seats on FZ. But on such a light flight everyone will have moved around so there would only be one or two people per row of three. Crew usually allow this after all pax onboard.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avenger
This point:
It's pretty obvious the aircraft will be uncontrollable if 12s of APND trim is applied, the question is why was the ND trim applied for so long?
I have suggested that somatogravic illusion, coupled with the visual cues of clouds, highlighted by the landing lights, seen through the HGS display may be the traps leading to the impression of a false pitch up, with tiredness or fatigue, leading to the confirmation bias that the aircraft was pitching up when in fact it wasn't.
The first go round was, I believe due to windshear and I'm assuming from the advice from derfred that the PFD would be the main source of guidance in windshear due to the FD being active for windshear escape, eliminating the distraction caused by the visual picture.
The second go round, from the MAK report, was not due to windshear, but due to stable approach criteria not being met and therefore the HGS would be the primary source of guidance, not the PFD.
With the flaps out forward trim for 12 seconds takes the trim well beyond the green arc,
I have suggested that somatogravic illusion, coupled with the visual cues of clouds, highlighted by the landing lights, seen through the HGS display may be the traps leading to the impression of a false pitch up, with tiredness or fatigue, leading to the confirmation bias that the aircraft was pitching up when in fact it wasn't.
The first go round was, I believe due to windshear and I'm assuming from the advice from derfred that the PFD would be the main source of guidance in windshear due to the FD being active for windshear escape, eliminating the distraction caused by the visual picture.
The second go round, from the MAK report, was not due to windshear, but due to stable approach criteria not being met and therefore the HGS would be the primary source of guidance, not the PFD.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Emirates Living - The Meadows
Age: 79
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer my point is how you said what you said. Not what you said. I willingly accept that you can read it in any way. However the problem with making statements that cannot be differentiated from questions is that someone (on this occasion me) will likely see it in a way that perhaps you intended perhaps you didn't.
i.e. It is the difference between:
Helping Uncle Jack off his horse.
and
Helping uncle jack off his horse!!
I read what you wrote as hands thrown up in air that something so spectacularly unusual could ever be normal. When it is abundantly clear that not only is it normal, it would actually make sense to make it the norm worldwide and then there would be far far less level busts.
If every controller and pilot only used one, two, three, four and five hundred in respect to levels just think how many less level busts there would be with 100,110,120, 200,210,220 etc. Not only that what other loss of seperation events would be avoided.
The one thing I have noticed since I started operating into the US is how often there are confusions about what someone is meant to do next. i.e Do I descend now or at pilots discretion? Any particular rate, oh well you haven't mentioned one I'll just do X or Y and then being told to descend faster or slower. This constantly seems to need clarification, reread backs and seems chaotic in comparison to approaches into airspace like London TMA for LHR or LGW where there seems very little chaos regardless of the weather or scenario on the ground.
I can't find where it says, "climbing out of four point oh for nine thousand". ICAO Doc 9432, it certainly isn't in CAP371 (understand this is a UK doc) I am sure it is likely in some FAA doc somewhere however only the US pilots seem to use it. I'm English and to me this is just gash RT. However for the poor pilots speaking English as a 2nd or 3rd language then you are asking for trouble in the form of loss of separation and/or level busts.
Back on Thread
However as you suggested, now we both know what we meant the point of the thread is the accident. Re the FWD CG. At FZ we did zone pax but it was very very rarely used for boarding as to be honest organising FZ pax is like hearding cats.
If everyone did what they were supposed to then every pax should be sitting in the seat on their boarding pass and the CG on the LIR and load sheet would reconcile. If we got LMCs we would normally ask where the pax/s was/were sitting to make sure we did not need a new loadsheet for that very reason.
However this was crew dependant. As no one really cared about standardisation and things like this were a rarely checked and b) if checked online or even in the sim were done by TRE/TRI/LTCs who were working to their own agenda (because they never got the chance to standardise as no time or direction was ever made available N.B. not blaming the instructors for this)
SO it would depend on how diligent the crew were. I always blocked off seats/ asked for changes in rows or moved pax to make the CG work if they weren't where they meant to be or on the occasions when we had free seating (certain routes and charters)
To this end if we assume they followed the procedures as they are written. The FWD CG on departure would likely have been as they had full wings AND full ctr tank. They would have expected to burn the ctr tank enroute and in the hold given that they knew they were unlikely to land on arrival and this would have of course led to progressively rearwards moving CG as the flight continued.
Not particularly relevant in this case but it is in FZ ops, business class has very few seats and if it is not full and economy is because we didn't really distribute loads to each flight (more a set plan out of Dubai) it meant that the rear hold would be full and the front empty of vice versa i.e it was never something that was done as sensibly in some airlines where they would try and achieve a certain MAC% as that was the most efficient for route X. We weren't even allowed to enter the cruise MAC in the FMC!
Also what you said in post 9362192 was spot on. The culture is that punitive that you simply didn't divert until you HAD to fuel wise to save nugatory discussions with the chief pilot or his cronies who couldn't give a stuff about anything other than getting the plane back for the next sector!
Alycidon
I think you are misinterpreting what Derf said and/or meant. From my perspective (I leave derf to concur or not) using the HGS is more natural than anything else. Whatever is happening outside does not confuse you you just say with the guidance. You will be surprised how intuitive it is. After flying with it for a bit I now would hate to be without it there is no situation where I glance down at the PFD unless the guidance fails. You don't get distracted by the outside picture you just focus your eyes on the display and the outside picture disappears. Coming into land you frequently have to keep turning down the brightness to see the outside world and runway.
Granted there could have been a problem of a newish skipper on the HUD not trusting it and likely not having seen the UA or W/S symbology as it changed to non conformal other than in the sim but I do not think illusions were the issue here, somatogravic or otherwise. I think the whole thing put together with fatigue put on top simply led to a mistake which wasn't noticed until it was too late to do anything about it for the poor souls. I'm sure something else didn't help them but chances are it was all of the things in combination (isn't it always).
i.e. It is the difference between:
Helping Uncle Jack off his horse.
and
Helping uncle jack off his horse!!
I read what you wrote as hands thrown up in air that something so spectacularly unusual could ever be normal. When it is abundantly clear that not only is it normal, it would actually make sense to make it the norm worldwide and then there would be far far less level busts.
If every controller and pilot only used one, two, three, four and five hundred in respect to levels just think how many less level busts there would be with 100,110,120, 200,210,220 etc. Not only that what other loss of seperation events would be avoided.
The one thing I have noticed since I started operating into the US is how often there are confusions about what someone is meant to do next. i.e Do I descend now or at pilots discretion? Any particular rate, oh well you haven't mentioned one I'll just do X or Y and then being told to descend faster or slower. This constantly seems to need clarification, reread backs and seems chaotic in comparison to approaches into airspace like London TMA for LHR or LGW where there seems very little chaos regardless of the weather or scenario on the ground.
I can't find where it says, "climbing out of four point oh for nine thousand". ICAO Doc 9432, it certainly isn't in CAP371 (understand this is a UK doc) I am sure it is likely in some FAA doc somewhere however only the US pilots seem to use it. I'm English and to me this is just gash RT. However for the poor pilots speaking English as a 2nd or 3rd language then you are asking for trouble in the form of loss of separation and/or level busts.
Back on Thread
However as you suggested, now we both know what we meant the point of the thread is the accident. Re the FWD CG. At FZ we did zone pax but it was very very rarely used for boarding as to be honest organising FZ pax is like hearding cats.
If everyone did what they were supposed to then every pax should be sitting in the seat on their boarding pass and the CG on the LIR and load sheet would reconcile. If we got LMCs we would normally ask where the pax/s was/were sitting to make sure we did not need a new loadsheet for that very reason.
However this was crew dependant. As no one really cared about standardisation and things like this were a rarely checked and b) if checked online or even in the sim were done by TRE/TRI/LTCs who were working to their own agenda (because they never got the chance to standardise as no time or direction was ever made available N.B. not blaming the instructors for this)
SO it would depend on how diligent the crew were. I always blocked off seats/ asked for changes in rows or moved pax to make the CG work if they weren't where they meant to be or on the occasions when we had free seating (certain routes and charters)
To this end if we assume they followed the procedures as they are written. The FWD CG on departure would likely have been as they had full wings AND full ctr tank. They would have expected to burn the ctr tank enroute and in the hold given that they knew they were unlikely to land on arrival and this would have of course led to progressively rearwards moving CG as the flight continued.
Not particularly relevant in this case but it is in FZ ops, business class has very few seats and if it is not full and economy is because we didn't really distribute loads to each flight (more a set plan out of Dubai) it meant that the rear hold would be full and the front empty of vice versa i.e it was never something that was done as sensibly in some airlines where they would try and achieve a certain MAC% as that was the most efficient for route X. We weren't even allowed to enter the cruise MAC in the FMC!
Also what you said in post 9362192 was spot on. The culture is that punitive that you simply didn't divert until you HAD to fuel wise to save nugatory discussions with the chief pilot or his cronies who couldn't give a stuff about anything other than getting the plane back for the next sector!
Alycidon
I think you are misinterpreting what Derf said and/or meant. From my perspective (I leave derf to concur or not) using the HGS is more natural than anything else. Whatever is happening outside does not confuse you you just say with the guidance. You will be surprised how intuitive it is. After flying with it for a bit I now would hate to be without it there is no situation where I glance down at the PFD unless the guidance fails. You don't get distracted by the outside picture you just focus your eyes on the display and the outside picture disappears. Coming into land you frequently have to keep turning down the brightness to see the outside world and runway.
Granted there could have been a problem of a newish skipper on the HUD not trusting it and likely not having seen the UA or W/S symbology as it changed to non conformal other than in the sim but I do not think illusions were the issue here, somatogravic or otherwise. I think the whole thing put together with fatigue put on top simply led to a mistake which wasn't noticed until it was too late to do anything about it for the poor souls. I'm sure something else didn't help them but chances are it was all of the things in combination (isn't it always).
Last edited by Vortex Thing; 20th May 2016 at 10:46.
and likely not having seen the UA or W/S symbology as it changed to non conformal other than in the sim
When the actual flight path is below the HUD FOV, i.e. performance decrease W/S situation, with pitch attitudes within the conformal range (normal non UA display), the FPV remains visible at the very bottom of the HUD FOV and is 'ghosted', i.e. a dashed line symbol. The 'solid' HUD W/S steering ball still provides W/S guidance relative to the ghosted FPV.
I have observed various levels of confusion in this situation even with reasonably experienced HUD drivers. These transitions out of and back into the normal day-to-day conformal display require some degree of practice. PFD is the fallback.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finsbury Park
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cheers vortex, I don't use the HUD so am naturally suspicious, the 12 s ND trim is unfathomable but I just feel that somehow the PFD leaves you more in touch with the aircraft and less fixated on the guidance and outside picture.
Using the PFD, your attention would be drawn toward the inside, including the position of the flight controls and you would probably see the trim wheel in motion, whereas using the HUD your attention is drawn towards the visual picture, surely that's the point of it.
Using the PFD, your attention would be drawn toward the inside, including the position of the flight controls and you would probably see the trim wheel in motion, whereas using the HUD your attention is drawn towards the visual picture, surely that's the point of it.
That depends on the individual, some people love it and use it all the time, others use it in some circumstances and I even know a couple who never fold it down.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which is easier IMC/night, PFD HUD?
I use the HUD from the start of the take-off roll until about 20,000ft. I then fold it away but sometimes bring it down again in the cruise approaching weather. Most of the time it is away until about FL150 on descent then I bring it out again regardless of IMC/night/ day etc.
I find it good for finessing but use the PFD for 'gross' changes. I do about one landing a month without it normally due to turbulence ( personally I don't like it when it's rough). That's just me though, everyone I speak to uses it in a different way , it's just another tool to be used. Personally I'd be surprised if the HUD had any impact on the outcome of this flight and personally I'm on the PFD for the GA until levelling out.
All of the above is to show that different pilots use it in different ways.
I find it good for finessing but use the PFD for 'gross' changes. I do about one landing a month without it normally due to turbulence ( personally I don't like it when it's rough). That's just me though, everyone I speak to uses it in a different way , it's just another tool to be used. Personally I'd be surprised if the HUD had any impact on the outcome of this flight and personally I'm on the PFD for the GA until levelling out.
All of the above is to show that different pilots use it in different ways.