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

  • #46
    Somatogravic illusion:
    http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com...ravic-illusion

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Gabriel, that's just not possible. The wreckage is still in the 22 TDZ. If this had involved a wing strike it would have had to occur well short of the runway for the plane to climb and then come down there.
      So you first said why this is impossible and then how it could be possible.
      Also, the last radar position is beyond the piano keys, so they had to be high enough to be seen on radar at that point.
      Why? Remember this is SSR, not a primary radar return. SSR give clear blips for planes on the ground that are in line of sight with the radar.
      Heck, most likely the info Av Herald has it is not even SSR but ADS-B.

      I think the wing-strike report is a myth.
      It very well might be and I am not supporting it. I am just not ruling it out since it is not incompatible (yet) with the info we have.

      --- 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


      • #48
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        If a wingstrike did occur, it would have had to occur a very significant distance short of the threshold for the plane to climb, upset and plummet to the crash locaction.
        Not necessarily. I offer this video as an EXAMPLE of a loss of control where a plane takes off climbs steeply and plummets to the ground crashing fairly close to the lift-off point.
        UNDER NO WAY I AM SAYING THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS HAPPENED HERE. Just to show how extreme out of control maneuvers can be.
        Results Of A Poor (or no) Preflight: Two test pilots on board, and no one checked the controls free and clear before starting t/o roll. It hurts to watch thi...

        --- 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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          ...It very well might be and I am not supporting it. I am just not ruling it out since it is not incompatible (yet) with the info we have...
          And was apparently reported by someone, somewhere, possibly for a reason...thus, I will dismiss it when there is evidence to do so.

          Anyway: The Thought for the Day:

          The visibility and ceiling seen in the weather reports and in the videos seems 'fairly good' to result in old fashioned spatial disorientation. The 300 ft cloud layer was scattered at one point, visibility 1/2 to 1 mile, and [ass-hat-speculation] runway and taxiway lighting should have been pretty visible- yeah it's genuine IMC and would require a well-executed ILS, but it seems like they may have had OK visual contact with the ground for a bit- and would hopefully not do the private-pilot-no-instrument-rating-John-Kennedy-Jr. thing.

          Like everything else (My comments, your comments, Evan's comments, Av-Herlad comments) - I can tell you why this comment is total speculation and why it could indeed be wrong, but it is worth chewing over.

          I will refrain from adjectives like "utterly impossible" and "just not possible". Reminder: An airliner crashing is kind of "utterly impossible" to start with, except that it does happen.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            And was apparently reported by someone, somewhere, possibly for a reason...thus, I will dismiss it when there is evidence to do so.

            Anyway: The Thought for the Day:

            The visibility and ceiling seen in the weather reports and in the videos seems 'fairly good' to result in old fashioned spatial disorientation. The 300 ft cloud layer was scattered at one point, visibility 1/2 to 1 mile, and [ass-hat-speculation] runway and taxiway lighting should have been pretty visible- yeah it's genuine IMC and would require a well-executed ILS, but it seems like they may have had OK visual contact with the ground for a bit- and would hopefully not do the private-pilot-no-instrument-rating-John-Kennedy-Jr. thing.

            Like everything else (My comments, your comments, Evan's comments, Av-Herlad comments) - I can tell you why this comment is total speculation and why it could indeed be wrong, but it is worth chewing over.

            I will refrain from adjectives like "utterly impossible" and "just not possible". Reminder: An airliner crashing is kind of "utterly impossible" to start with, except that it does happen.

            Just a thought but this was an 800 series 73. Why not just auto land?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              Just a thought but this was an 800 series 73. Why not just auto land?
              Are there wind and gust limitations regarding what Autoland can handle?

              Originally posted by AvHerald
              After about 2 hours of holding the aircraft commenced another approach to Rostov's runway 22, winds from 240 degrees at 27 knots gusting 42 knots, the crew announced a go around, the aircraft however impacted ground just off the runway, broke up and burst into flames.

              --- 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                ...winds from 240 degrees at 27 knots gusting 42 knots...
                Not that impressive of a crosswind.

                But, would be fun to see you try it in the Tommy...I'm seeing the potential for a near-zero-groundspeed touchdown.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  Just a thought but this was an 800 series 73. Why not just auto land?
                  That's no fun!

                  C'mon old man, there's nothing funner than landing a plane in a good gusty wind!

                  (And it's a skill we, as outsider-parlour talkers, think you should be practicing from time to time)
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                    Just a thought but this was an 800 series 73. Why not just auto land?
                    I think autoland is irrelevant here. The crew saw the need to go around for some reason (I don't believe they were anywhere near touching down). It's been reported that they were deviating too far from the LOC on final and maybe this is why they abandoned the approach. My guess is that they did this around 1000ft (stabilization height).

                    Also, Boeing prohibits autoland on the 73NG when crosswind exceeds 20kts.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      ...Boeing prohibits autoland on the 73NG when crosswind exceeds 20kts.
                      Crosswind here was at most 15 knots.

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

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Crosswind here was at most 15 knots.

                        Thanks for playing.
                        Because 3WE was monitoring his Rostov-on-Don anemometer the entire time? What I read was 'gusting'. What was that you said about black and white statements...

                        FYI, Autoland limits are 20kts crosswind, 25 kts headwind, 15kts tailwind. And then there is stabilization criteria... They wen't around for a reason, and I don't think the reason was wing-strike.

                        Furthermore, if reports on the weather conditions are more or less accurate, what would be the point of autoland? Autoland is intended for low visibility landings in relatively stable wind conditions, not for challenging wind conditions in relatively good visibility.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Although the tree strike on go-around causing structural damage is still a possibility, due to a severely mistuned altimeter, causing FR24 transponder data to be way off as well, I think it might be wise to rethink severe icing as well. Although the 737 was still fully controllable the ice could have made the controls feel weird (sluggish or jerky perhaps), coupled with a rare, hand-flown maneuver in turbulent imc, that felt different to 2 hours before, add fatigue, confusion......
                          moving quickly in air

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                            Although the 737 was still fully controllable the ice could have made the controls feel weird (sluggish or jerky perhaps)
                            The controls can not feel wired in the traditional understanding of "feel wired" (like sluggish or jerky).

                            Planes with hydraulic controls (except Airbus) have an artificial fell system. There is no direct feel in the force or displacement of the yoke that is directly related to the actual force or displacement of the control surface. At speed X you need X force to displace the yoke Z inches, even if the whole tail was torn from the plane and there is nothing moving out there. The feedback force X mentioned before is artificial, like in a force-feedback steering-wheel for the Play Station.

                            What can happen is that the reaction of the plane to the control inputs is not normal.

                            --- 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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                              Although the tree strike on go-around causing structural damage is still a possibility, due to a severely mistuned altimeter...
                              Radio altimeters are going to trigger the GPWS long before you meet treetops, regardless of the barometer setting. Again, facts are very cloudy right now, but reports indicate this was a precision approach, making it highly unlikely that they dropped far enough below the glideslope to strike anything far enough ahead of the runway to climb out, upset and then impact the runway threshold at a steep (but not vertical) angle. But if something like this did happen (for example, due to excessive vertical speed while trying to capture the glideslope and dropping through) then it happened after they calmly called for go-around. It just doesn't add up.

                              Icing is a more plausible scenario, especially if they left some flaps out during that extended holding pattern...

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                This on our Company website this morning. https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydu...fatigue-crash/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X