Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing Crash in Russia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Thanks 3we for preventing a Gabriellian post. Now it's enough with a...

    As 3we said.
    Thanks boss.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Thanks boss.
      You are welcome and promoted to CFO and COO.
      As a CFO, your bouns will be directly lined to the resoundingness of the bankruptcy.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Fixed.
        ...and if you go nose down....the flight director still shows that perfect nose up attitude.
        Well yes, I understand the nature of the flight directors. I'm not so up on the 737 and it is confusing to sort out what applies to the 735 since Boeing just keeps stuffing new hardware into the same can, but...

        Is there something about the FD wanting to get you back on the ILS in this situation if you HAVE NOT pressed the TO/GA button? Even if that puts you into a steep attitude? I can imagine a disoriented pilot ignoring the primary instruments and just following the FD (I still think the FD might have caused the initial, sustained pull up on AF447).

        Or.. maybe it is just overcontrol. I swiped this scenario from a 737 pilot on Pprune:
        Originally posted by http://www.pprune.org/members/11154-agaricus-bisporus"
        G/a, TOGA, a/c pitches up strongly. Pilot fails to push hard enough (its very physical with 2 engines and if you're out of practice it can easily run away with you) Pitch is increasing. Other pilot taken by surprise. Eventually flap 15 is called and achieved but the delay hasn't helped the acceleration, if any. Eventually someone remembers the gear. The crew now completely out of their comfort zone as its already completely pear-shaped and over-maxed mentally. Airspeed already approaching 120 with 25' pitch, P/F pushing as hard as he can now, thumb on fwd trim too, fixated on pitch, trim wheel spinning hard. (We'll hear "Go down you bastard!" through gritted teeth on the CVR here) Sees airspeed reducing further (I bet 120 was nowhere near the minimum) so keeps pushing and trimming. Pitch finally reducing at 700m - 2200ft. About where you'd expect in this scenario. Power stays on and nose lowered below horizon - perhaps a bit too much in the panic - in incipient stall recovery, height reducing, speed increasing fast, pitch trim still running because he's still pushing real hard. Thrust levers slammed closed as speed rockets so a/c pitches forcefully down as pitch-couple is removed. With plenty of fwd trim by now and no thrust-pitch couple you'd then get straight from max effort push to max effort pull in a second or two resulting in exactly what we saw in the video.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Well yes, I understand the nature of the flight directors. I'm not so up on the 737 and it is confusing to sort out what applies to the 735 since Boeing just keeps stuffing new hardware into the same can, but...

          Is there something about the FD wanting to get you back on the ILS in this situation if you HAVE NOT pressed the TO/GA button? Even if that puts you into a steep attitude? I can imagine a disoriented pilot ignoring the primary instruments and just following the FD (I still think the FD might have caused the initial, sustained pull up on AF447).

          Or.. maybe it is just overcontrol. I swiped this scenario from a 737 pilot on Pprune:
          If you are in approach mode, disconnect the AP and start to climb but still in app mode, no doubt that the FD will want you down. But it will not command increasingly nose-down inputs. It will look for a target vertical speed to get back to the GS (which will not be anything too crazy even if you are way above the glide slope) and it also has a max pitch limit. When you reach the target vertical speed or the pitch limit (whichever comes first), it will command "maintain attitude". And believe me that the target vertical speed will not be 240kts (whatever it is in ft/min) and the pitch limit is not 75 degrees nose down. As soon as the vertical speed went below the target value or the pitch attitude went below the lower limit, the FD will start to command nose-up inputs. And this should have happened very early into the descent. I have no idea what are those target and limit values, but based on common sense alone they should not be more than -2000fpm and -5°.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #80
            From the comments in AvHerald:

            The artificial horizon have a different principal (inside out vs. outside in).
            This was discussed as an contributing factor in the crash of Crossair flight CRX 498 at Nassenwil (10/1/2000) in Switzerland.
            This difference in attitude indicators has been cited as one of the main reasons for the crash of the AEROFLOT flight 821 (also B735). Very similar accident to this one.
            Anybody can clearly explain what they are talking about?

            If it's what I fear, then wrongly thinking that the nose keeps going up despite your efforts to bring it down (which it's actually doing) looks like a reasonable way to go from 25° nose up to 75° nose down in 20 seconds, an also would explain what I previously described as a "increasingly negative AoA" that I thought to see in the video.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #81
              Everyone is talking about the pilots' error already, but a mechanical malfunction is equally possible here. The airline was in debt, they could not even buy fuel in Kazan. They had to refuel in Moscow for both legs of the trip, to Kazan and back, that's why they still had 9 tons of fuel in the tanks. I wonder how the maintenance record looks like.

              The FDR was severely damaged, the CVR box was found damaged and empty. There might not be enough data to determine what really happened. Boeing requested participation in the investigation but no word yet if they are going to join.

              One extra info that showed up in Russian news. Originally Bombardier CRJ was scheduled for the flight, but in the last minute switched to Boeing. The reason, the authorities explained, was that the Bombardier did not have enough seats for 44 passengers.

              Comment


              • #82
                Apparently 10-15 seconds before the crash, during the second approach, the pilot reported to the ATC that the aircraft "is not configured for landing" and they are going to execute TOGA.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Yes, it could have been a technical failure. We don't know yet.

                  Small comment:
                  Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                  The FDR was severely damaged, the CVR box was found damaged and empty.
                  The FDR was already read-out and the recording unit of the CVR was finally found in the wreckage.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                    Apparently 10-15 seconds before the crash, during the second approach, the pilot reported to the ATC that the aircraft "is not configured for landing" and they are going to execute TOGA.
                    Source?
                    I can't judge the reliability of this one (comment in AvHerlad), but for what it's worth:

                    Just called to Kazan tower controller: said that aicraft has diviation 4 KM left of track on STAR. Radar called pilots about that twice. Then tower observe and called to pilots same diviation on final. Pilots said that would like to continue approach. Last their repor: "Unstabilized. Going Around."

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Interesting news bits:

                      "While the Russian investigative committee gives two possible reasons that might have led to the plane crash in Kazan – pilot error or technical defects of the aircraft – passengers that flew on the same plane a few hours earlier questioned the reliability of Russian planes. They talk about the 10 terrible minutes they all experienced during a heavy landing in Moscow; the plane was madly vibrating, shaking from right to left, from up to down as if the wind was controlling the jet. The lights were off and some chairs were non-functioning, they say. Nevertheless, a few hours later pilots took the plane off to Kazan."

                      "The Boeing 737-500 that served Tatarstan Airlines was supposed to be off service some time ago. It flew for 23 years. It made its first flight in 1990, and since then changed many hands and logos. It belonged to French Euralair Horizons, Air France, Uganda Airlines, Brazilian Rio Sul, Romanian Blue Air and Bulgaria Air. Tatarstan Airlines bought it in 2008, after 18 years of service. In 2012 Tatarstan Airlines Director General Aksan Tiniyatullin promised to withdraw the plane from operation in an interview given to ITAR-TASS. It was not done despite the terrible accidents that had already happened."

                      "As to Tatarstan Airlines, it is reported that the company has serious financial problems. In 2012 Kazan, airport started a law suit against the company for the 266 million rubles (more than $8 million), service debt accumulated in the previous three years, according to the Business Online. Financial troubles were behind the fact that explosion was so massive as the fuel tanks of the plane were almost full since Kazan airport refused to credit Tatarstan Airlines any longer, and the plane had to fill up its tanks in Moscow.
                      In 2007, European Union banned Tatarstan Airlines single and charter flights from entering EU zone. In 2011 Russian Federal Agency of Air Transport, Rosaviation, banned all the flights of the company to the EU countries due to a big number of accidents connected with this company’s air craft. "

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Source?
                        It was mentioned in some of Polish press as coming from "sources close to the investigation".

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          This is a strange comment:
                          "Aksan Giniyatullin, the CEO of Tatarstan airlines which operated the jet, told a news conference: "The lead pilot had never made a second landing attempt under real flight conditions.""

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Northwester, please go away, at least for a little while. At this time (bolded for a reason) we are not interested in all the inconsistencies you can find with statements.

                            There's the tounge-in-cheek comment to "wait for the final report". Then, please, hijack this thread with your conspiracy theories and tell us who said what.

                            For now, we would agree with you that there's all sorts of garbage and inconsistent statements out there. There always are in the first days following a crash.

                            But we don't need the compendium started just yet and you can save your tin foil hat for a while becuase most of these comments are folks spewing bologna as opposed to cover up comments.

                            At this time, we need to focus on key, relevant comments. Oh sure, we should all wait for the final report, but there's usually some relevance in the parlour talk on forums like this (Evan's PPRUNE snip).

                            But "Tom said this" and "Dick said that" and "The CVR is missing"...most of that is irrelevant.

                            Thanks for your understanding.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Did ya'll watch that documentary?
                              I do work for a domestic US airline, and it should be noted that I do not represent such airline, or any airline. My opinions are mine alone, and aren't reflective of anything but my own knowledge, or what I am trying to learn. At no time will I discuss my specific airline, internal policies, or any such info.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Gabriel,

                                The Russian instrument moves a little differently.

                                On a western AH the "ball" rotates so that the horizon line on the AH matches the actual horizon, and the wings symbol representing the wings stays fixed to the plane of the aircraft.

                                On the Russian set up it is the opposite, in that the "ball" remains fixed so that horizontal (in roll) is horizontal relative to the aircraft. The aircraft symbol then moves to represent the bank angle relative to that image. As always pictures are easiest...



                                It is very easy to see how you could get it very, very wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X