737 down in Russia

Word floating around other forums and news sites is that it was caused by a botched landing attempt that damaged the tail on go around.

If that's so then they must have been attempting to control the plane and finally lost the battle.
 
ARFlyer said:
Word floating around other forums and news sites is that it was caused by a botched landing attempt that damaged the tail on go around.

If that's so then they must have been attempting to control the plane and finally lost the battle.
Click to expand...

That is awful
 
It looks like FR24 captured the flight

857bdda801944db49c18f31b490f3d0c_18.jpg


xmr5sn.jpg
 
Why am I suspicious of that video?

Seems like the camera is moving but it's black and white like someone is attempting to make you think it's a fixed security camera?

Moving light pole the camera is mounted on perhaps? Weird.

If it's handheld, how would someone know to point the camera exactly that direction for a future fireball?

Perhaps I'm too skeptical after events like this one thinking someone is always trying to make a buck selling "eyewitness video" of dang near anything and scamming bucks from turning on ads on YT before someone notices and calls them on it being a fake?
 
denverpilot said:
Why am I suspicious of that video?

Seems like the camera is moving but it's black and white like someone is attempting to make you think it's a fixed security camera?
Click to expand...

They're reporting that it was quite windy. All the cameras around here that are looking at various parts of various towns...that are used during the morning weather...bounce around in the wind.
 
A Russian airliner tried 2 or 3 approaches before diverting before this incident, while other aircraft made it in. Might have been wind shear.
 

Audio of mishap flight. Not too much. Sounded normal with a go-around at the end. Winds down the runway 12G18 mps (24G36 kts). Windshear advisories.
 
Day time pictures support the video. The plane was found to be completely destroyed. It looks like the largest pieces are only a few feet in size in these photos.

Here is the link to the pics. You might have to scroll some as it's a Digg type site. Graphic images: http://m.vk.com/rostovnadonu

Rumor now on other news sites is that it struck it's wing on landing and subsequently went missed, climbed a few thousand feet, "maybe" stalled and nose dived. But no one will actually know until the boxes are retrieved.
 
timwinters said:
They're reporting that it was quite windy. All the cameras around here that are looking at various parts of various towns...that are used during the morning weather...bounce around in the wind.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
hurricane level winds - and they circled for 2 hours before landing, I don't understand why there was not a diversion to an alternate.
 
Looks like it is spinning (tumbling?) on the way in. Or possibly on fire?
The rate at which the light is pulsing seems faster than strobe speed.
 
I also wonder why circle for two hours hoping conditions of improve instead of diverting.

There were extreme windspeeds, but only in a smallish region, maybe 200 miles across, right where they wanted to land. I can see that in yesterday's chart at windyty.com.

If they just diverted to nearby Turkey or even Moscow, it surely would have been less fuel than circling two hours.
 
Last edited:
@Greg Bockelman

Don't airlines...at least domestic carriers...have flight ops departments that keep track of the flight and who will finally step in and say "hey Dumbazz, go somewhere else!"?
 
timwinters said:
Don't airlines...at least domestic carriers...have flight ops departments that keep track of the flight and who will finally step in and say "hey Dumbazz, go somewhere else!"?
Click to expand...
There are flight following requirements, which differ depending on which sub-section of part 121 the flight is operated under. I wouldn't characterize the flight follower or dispatcher's role quite the way you did but that's the general idea. It is a joint responsibility between the Captain and the dispatcher. Less so when it is a flight follower under 121 Supplemental.

I have no idea what the rules require for a UAE-based airline.
 
NoHeat said:
I also wonder why circle for two hours hoping conditions of improve instead of diverting.

There were extreme windspeeds, but only in a smallish region, maybe 200 miles across, right where they wanted to land. I can see that in yesterday's chart at windyty.com.

If they just diverted to nearby Turkey or even Moscow, it surely would have been less fuel than circling two hours.
Click to expand...

This is a Dubai based low cost carrier, owned by an investment vehicle controlled by that emirates Ruling Family. The flag carriers in the Persian Gulf are heavily subsidized; the low cost carriers like this one less so, with the primary subsidy being fuel cost. The economics of running an airline in that region are completely skewed compared to the norms that would apply to a European or North American airline (hence all the arguments over landing rights for those carriers in the west).

In this case my guess is the cost of putting up the passengers at a divert, or transporting them from there, exceeded the fuel cost of circling. Once that decision was made the pressure to get in and avoid a divert after circling for 2 hours probably increased.

When I lived in the region I tried to minimize my travel on any of the local carriers. If I could route using BA, Lufthansa, KLM or Cathay I did.
 
ARFlyer said:
It looks like FR24 captured the flight

857bdda801944db49c18f31b490f3d0c_18.jpg


xmr5sn.jpg
Click to expand...
Is that lower graph showing ground speed or air speed? Looks like it varies between 200 and 300 kts on a regular basis with no change in altitude. If he was circling a point with high winds aloft, his ground speed could have varied like that.
 
Matthew said:
Is that lower graph showing ground speed or air speed? Looks like it varies between 200 and 300 kts on a regular basis with no change in altitude. If he was circling a point with high winds aloft, his ground speed could have varied like that.
Click to expand...

I think it is based off of ground speed.
 
I'm just thinking they have a different way of doing things than a US based 121 carrier.
 
I don't know if these two videos have popped up here yet:


Looks like it came down in a "nose low attitude".
 
Stingray Don said:
Initial indications are pilot error

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/world/europe/flydubai-crash-russia.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

Maybe one of the commercial pilots on this forum can explain this, as the idea that the B737-800 has a function that "disables" the elevator makes no logical sense to me:


"...The television channel cited experts who suggested that by turning off the autopilot, the pilots were trying to pull the plane back to a horizontal position. But at that moment a stabilizing fin at the jet’s tail was switched on.

With the fin activated, “the elevator is no longer working and the plane practically does not react to the pilot’s control panel,” the report said. The channel suggested that the pilot could have accidentally hit the button that activated the fin because of his reported “chronic fatigue.”
 
I fly the 737. That text makes so sense at all.

Maybe they're talking about a dual-channel (autoland) approach? On a dual-channel approach the autopilot rolls in a considerable amount of nose-up trim as it descends through 500' in preparation for the flare. At that point you do not disconnect the autopilot prior to landing because the airplane is out of trim. If a go-around is needed you stay coupled to the A/P for the go-around. The A/P servos have plenty of 'strength' to manage the intentional out-of-trim condition. The only thing I can think of that they are trying to describe is a dual-channel approach, go-around, and then A/P disconnect. If you disconnect on the go-around before the A/P removes the pre-flare trim you'll have all that extra nose-up trim PLUS the significant nose-up pitching moment from the engines being at go-around power.

To give you an idea of the amount of nose-up pitching moment that you get (one any under-wing engine airplane) from applying go-around thrust, in a hand-flown go-around you'll have to add nose-DOWN trim even after transitioning from a ~2.5deg ANU (aircraft nose-up) attitude on final to a ~18deg ANU attitude on the initial climb.

Again, none of this makes any sense because you wouldn't be doing a dual-channel (autoland) approach in the wind conditions that were apparently present at the time of the accident. Autoland is for low-visibility (down to 500' forward visibility), not for high/gusty winds.
 
Larry in TN said:
I fly the 737. That text makes so sense at all.

Maybe they're talking about a dual-channel (autoland) approach? On a dual-channel approach the autopilot rolls in a considerable amount of nose-up trim as it descends through 500' in preparation for the flare. At that point you do not disconnect the autopilot prior to landing because the airplane is out of trim. If a go-around is needed you stay coupled to the A/P for the go-around. The A/P servos have plenty of 'strength' to manage the intentional out-of-trim condition. The only thing I can think of that they are trying to describe is a dual-channel approach, go-around, and then A/P disconnect. If you disconnect on the go-around before the A/P removes the pre-flare trim you'll have all that extra nose-up trim PLUS the significant nose-up pitching moment from the engines being at go-around power.

To give you an idea of the amount of nose-up pitching moment that you get (one any under-wing engine airplane) from applying go-around thrust, in a hand-flown go-around you'll have to add nose-DOWN trim even after transitioning from a ~2.5deg ANU (aircraft nose-up) attitude on final to a ~18deg ANU attitude on the initial climb.

Again, none of this makes any sense because you wouldn't be doing a dual-channel (autoland) approach in the wind conditions that were apparently present at the time of the accident. Autoland is for low-visibility (down to 500' forward visibility), not for high/gusty winds.
Click to expand...

Purely speculation, but if they were (incorrectly) doing a dual channel approach with the autopilot having dialed in a lot of nose-up trim, maybe they pitched up on disconnecting the autopilot and stalled the airplane on the go around?

Not directly related, but wasn't it inattention to the autothrottles after a radio altimeter inconsistency that contributed to the Turkish Air 737-800 accident at Schiphol?
 
NoHeat said:
If they just diverted to nearby Turkey or even Moscow, it surely would have been less fuel than circling two hours.
Click to expand...
A 737 of a domestic carrier diverted to Krasnodar while the Greek dude was holding and landed without accident. I don't recall if he attempted an approach or knew he could not make it from METARs. Pax were peeved until they heard the reports of the crash :)
 
Last edited:
Larry, I'm not a 737 guy, but I don't understand this:
Larry in TN said:
On a dual-channel approach the autopilot rolls in a considerable amount of nose-up trim as it descends through 500' in preparation for the flare. At that point you do not disconnect the autopilot prior to landing because the airplane is out of trim.
Click to expand...
So you're telling me that in a 737, I can't do a Cat I ILS to minimums (200'), see the runway, disconnect the autopilot and hand-fly to land because at 500' the airplane put in a bunch of nose-up trim.
 
Sluggo63 said:
So you're telling me that in a 737, I can't do a Cat I ILS to minimums (200'), see the runway, disconnect the autopilot and hand-fly to land because at 500' the airplane put in a bunch of nose-up trim.
Click to expand...
Sure you can, you just do it as a single-channel approach. A dual-channel approach is only used for an autoland and is the only time the pre-flare trim is added.

A single-channel approach is a hand-flown landing (disconnect no lower than 50'). Only one autopilot is used (either A or B).
A dual-channel approach is an autoland. Both autopilots are used (A & B).

The big(ger) Boeings have three autopilots (Left, Center, and Right). Their autolands are a triple-channel approach and, since you have three completely separate autoflight, ILS, hydraulic, electrical, etc. systems you are fail-operational--if any one system fails the two remaining systems take over and continue. They have no need to pre-trim for the flare. The 737 system is fail-passive.
 
Larry in TN said:
Sure you can, you just do it as a single-channel approach. A dual-channel approach is only used for an autoland and is the only time the pre-flare trim is added.

A single-channel approach is a hand-flown landing (disconnect no lower than 50'). Only one autopilot is used (either A or B).
A dual-channel approach is an autoland. Both autopilots are used (A & B).

The big(ger) Boeings have three autopilots (Left, Center, and Right). Their autolands are a triple-channel approach and, since you have three completely separate autoflight, ILS, hydraulic, electrical, etc. systems you are fail-operational--if any one system fails the two remaining systems take over and continue. They have no need to pre-trim for the flare. The 737 system is fail-passive.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask if that was something pilot selectable. Yeah, the 777 and MD-11 have no need for pre-flare trimming, and both are fail-operational. My curiosity came from the fact that about 1/3 of our 727s were Cat III capable, and obviously they used older technology than the 737, and there was no pre-flare trim put in. They were fail-passive, too. Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top