Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flydubai Flight 981 Crashes on Landing in Rostov-on-Don, Russia

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

  • #16
    Tatarstan 363 all over again? Too many lessons not being learned these days so I sincerely hope not. There's a lot of weather involved here, both wind shear and icing possibilities and apparently a rare low altitude jet stream. I think we need to definitely question the veracity of the wing-strike report. That doesn't seem at all logical here although the debris field resembles Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      ...Tatarstan 363...Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771...
      Can we use some plain language here...this is just like the relentless love of acronyms...

      You know, I see some similarities here to Ozark 809 AND Ozark 650.

      And let's not forget Pan Am 759, A 727 that fell out of the sky after encountering a windshear while climbing out. (See how the extra words help).
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Can we use some plain language here...this is just like the love of acronyms...

        You know, I see some similarities here to Ozark 809 AND Ozark 650.

        And let's not forget Pan Am 759, A 727 that fell out of the sky after encountering a windshear while climbing out. (See how the extra words help).
        Both Tatarstan 363 and Afriqiyah 771 were complex sequence events involving human factors, so a few extra words ain't gonna do it. Better to do the research yourself.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ultraflight View Post
          Edit: but so is the wreckage. I have never seen a plane reduced to such little bits. Even Lockerbie had bigger chunks.
          That was my first thought as well; from all the pictures I've seen, there is literally nothing left. One would think an impact on landing, with wings level and under control, would leave most of the aircraft intact to some degree, so that means it was definitely neither. It reminds me of the ValuJet 592 crash were all that was left was bits and pieces.



          It also appears from news reports that at least one of the data recorders has been recovered.

          There is now another video which is supposedly of the crash.



          I know there are always people who will claim every single plane that crashes was on fire, but in both videos, if they are indeed of this plane, that glow is extremely bright, even for landing lights. Just makes me wonder if the videos are legit, and if they are, what exactly are we seeing.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by B757300;I'm 696


            There is now another video which is supposedly of this crash.



            I know there are always people who will claim every single plane that crashes was on fire, but in both videos, if they are indeed of this plane, that glow is extremely bright, even for landing lights. Just makes me wonder if the videos are legit, and if they are, what exactly are we seeing.
            Watch the first couple of seconds of the video before the AC enters the frame. There are 2 bright lights on the ground (center frame and right center frame). Once it enters the frame, the light on the AC matches those 2 lights in size, shape, and intensity.

            It is very much consistent with a CCD sensor struggling with a high contrast scene. The pixels on the camera's sensor get saturated by the intensity of the lights and the energy bleeds to adjacent pixels (blooming). Combined with the auto-focus hunting to lock in the image, all 3 lights appear to breathe like fire.

            Based on this, I'm going with "it's not fire".

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by retox View Post
              Based on this, I'm going with "it's not fire".
              Yeah, and I never thought it was; but most of those with no knowledge of aviation automatically assume it is was a fire. That's why I was wondering what we were seeing, since it highly unlikely to be a fire.

              Comment


              • #22
                Tower gave QFE 988 they read back QFE 998 (!) anyone know the difference in feet/meters???
                moving quickly in air

                Comment


                • #23
                  How old is this airline and what is the incident/accident history?
                  I know they fly airplanes to places like Panama City, Panama, direct non-stop fly, with just one passenger aboard. And this is kind of weird. I wonder if this pilot has been flying across the world too? pilot fatigue ?
                  Another Colgan Air 3407 ??
                  A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                    How old is this airline and what is the incident/accident history?
                    I know they fly airplanes to places like Panama City, Panama, direct non-stop fly, with just one passenger aboard. And this is kind of weird. I wonder if this pilot has been flying across the world too? pilot fatigue ?
                    Another Colgan Air 3407 ??

                    FlyDubai flys to Panama city? I think not! Non-stop from where? Dubai in a 73? You crack me up!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                      Tower gave QFE 988 they read back QFE 998 (!) anyone know the difference in feet/meters???

                      Radar altimeter and GPWS would not be affected by a wrong altimeter setting. So.......

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Typical amount of shade on the facts here, but it seems like the crew called for a go-around because they were off centerline on the ILS and couldn't correct in time and then something went wrong during the go-around at around 4000ft. I'm not clear as to how low they got but some reports say they were down to the flare. Did they strike a wingtip after the last radio transmission and that caused damage leading to roll excursion or structural failure? But that makes no sense because the plane crashed near the threshold so the go around would have to have been initiated well before the runway, maybe at MDA. Or were they not set-up (or well-trained) for the go-around, executed it manually and got into somotagravic illusion when they leveled off, flying it into the ground? Or was it microburst? Or icing? So many possibilities here and I have a feeling the facts will shift around before we know anything.

                        I would like to know how much on-type experience the crew had.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                          That was my first thought as well; from all the pictures I've seen, there is literally nothing left. One would think an impact on landing, with wings level and under control, would leave most of the aircraft intact to some degree, so that means it was definitely neither. It reminds me of the ValuJet 592 crash were all that was left was bits and pieces.



                          It also appears from news reports that at least one of the data recorders has been recovered.

                          There is now another video which is supposedly of the crash.



                          I know there are always people who will claim every single plane that crashes was on fire, but in both videos, if they are indeed of this plane, that glow is extremely bright, even for landing lights. Just makes me wonder if the videos are legit, and if they are, what exactly are we seeing.
                          The airport emergency responders are possibly destroying evidence by driving trucks over debris (and body parts).

                          To get this type of debris pattern it looks like a high velocity, nose down, vertical impact.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            FlyDubai flys to Panama city? I think not! Non-stop from where? Dubai in a 73? You crack me up!
                            Typical Trump voter !!...offending people around
                            A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              But there seems to be a smoke trail? I suppose it could just be a trace from the bight light of the plane, but it looks like smoke.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                                Typical Trump voter !!...offending people around
                                "I know they fly airplanes to places like Panama City, Panama, direct non-stop"

                                Hey you are the one that posted it, not me. Might want to look at what you wrote before you hit that enter key next time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X