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

  • #76
    Originally posted by hongmng View Post
    New video, showing BOTH the Go around and the crash:



    seems like a normal go around and climb into the clouds at 0:40. 33sec later at 1:13, it breaks out of the clouds in a near nosedive. stall? or spatial disorientation like Kenya 407/Ethiopian 409?
    IF that is what it APPEARS to be, it's rather remarkable how things looked very OK for a long time, they disappear into the clouds for a full 30 seconds, and then come back down with very little apparent movement over the ground over those 30 seconds.

    Sure, some sort of air-show straight up climb out and stall could explain that, but a very strange maneuver for an airliner.

    Also, the classic, non-instrument pilot in IMC fits quite well too, but again, very strange for airline pilots (and aircraft equipped with super-duper autopilots).

    VERY STRANGE!

    I guess someone will soon argue that "an Air Bus wouldn't do such a thing" (at least not in Normal Law, I assume).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      The UN established the ICAO partly to standardize oversight of CAA's in international aviation (as required by the Chicago Convention). Under the International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA), countries must meet the ICAO standards or they will be categorized as 'Category 2' countries and thus prohibited from serving many popular destinations including the US. Thus the ICAO, by depriving them of a Category 1 status, has the power to effectively ban them ESPECIALLY in the US.

      The conditions of Category 1 could be expanded and more clearly defined and standardized to include things like duty roster restrictions. It would save countless lives. It's deplorable that we haven't done this in 2016 and that you can still board a five year old Boeing in a place like Dubai and be unknowingly in the hands of a very poor pilot culture. Aviation is no place for caveat emptor...
      sorry friend. read up: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiative...tives_IASA.pdf

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        What?
        Indirectly, through other agencies, but effectively. IF the ICAO chose to expand definitions of its safety standards and make certain recommendations into requirements, the IASA would have to be more exclusive on granting Category 1 status, and thus carriers from nations that do not move to comply with the tougher ICAO standards could be banned from flying to the US. I'm speaking theoretically about how a problem can be addressed. It would have to start with the UN via ICAO. Currently, it doesn't seem to be addressed at all. I'm pretty confident that the ICAO standards don't tolerate CAA's that allow pilots to fly intoxicated. Flying fatigued is effectively the same thing.

        Originally posted by FAA
        Under the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, the FAA determines whether another country’s oversight of its air carriers that operate, or seek to operate, into the U.S., or codeshare with a U.S. air carrier, complies with safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The IASA program is administered by the FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety (AVS), Flight Standards Service (AFS), International Programs and Policy Division (AFS-50).

        The IASA program focuses on a country's ability, not the ability of individual air carriers, to adhere to international aviation safety standards and recommended practices contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing), Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), and Annex 8 (Airworthiness of Aircraft) to the International Convention on Civil Aviation “Chicago Convention” (ICAO Document 7300).

        IASA assessments determine compliance with these international Standards by focusing on the eight critical elements of an effective aviation safety oversight authority specified in ICAO Document 9734, Safety Oversight Manual. Those eight critical elements include primary aviation legislation; specific operating regulations; State civil aviation system and safety oversight functions; technical personnel qualification and training; technical guidance, tools and the provision of safety critical information; licensing, certification, authorization, and approval obligations; surveillance obligations; and resolution of safety concerns.
        Originally posted by elaw
        Um... that's a wonderful explanation of how *all airlines from a specific country* could be excluded from the US, but doesn't cover how one particular airline could be banned.

        This is just my opinion but I suspect if the UAE were given category 2 status, the folks at Emirates (the airline, not the country) might be a little upset...
        Absolutely, that's why it would work. Under what I am proposing, the GCAA would be very vigilant on enforcing duty roster restrictions and pilot training standards for EVERY operator under their aegis. If they didn't, the UAE would suffer immense economic damage. Also, the big UAE operators would be sure that the GCAA was doing it's job in policing the smaller ones. That's how you get an industry to regulate itself. That's how you protect the flying public across sovereign borders and jurisdictions.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          I guess someone will soon argue that "an Air Bus wouldn't do such a thing" (at least not in Normal Law, I assume).
          Normal Law limits nose down pitch to 15°, so IF this was a case of disorientation and CFIT at something like 60°, no, the A320 wouldn't allow you to do that. It would still allow you to CFIT at a comfortable 15° though...

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Evan View Post

            Absolutely, that's why it would work. Under what I am proposing, the GCAA would be very vigilant on enforcing duty roster restrictions and pilot training standards for EVERY operator under their aegis...
            GCAA has instructed me to tell you that your proposal has been duly noted.

            Comment


            • #81
              Hongmng's video: https//:www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2MJQbc5Zg

              I just got this horrible image of some guys with their heads down at the keyboard, punching in the next fix to the FMS and failing to realize that Otto was off or something.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                GCAA has instructed me to tell you that your proposal has been duly noted.
                Because it's all a big joke, right? And we should ridicule anyone who suggests a solution to a very OBVIOUS and RECURRENT problem behind so many disasters, a problem that continues to be overlooked by the so-called oversight agencies while allowing the industry to squeeze more profit out of their pilots? Okay. Your indifference has been duly noted as well.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Because it's all a big joke, right? And we should ridicule anyone who suggests a solution to a very OBVIOUS and RECURRENT problem behind so many disasters, a problem that continues to be overlooked by the so-called oversight agencies while allowing the industry to squeeze more profit out of their pilots?
                  Not quite. We should ridicule anyone who thinks the way to fix "obvious and recurrent problems" is by making "proposals" on an anonymous internet forum. If you truly believe some of the things you say, you should do whatever it takes to get into the industry and bust your ass to make a difference. Things get fixed by actions, not by keyboard blabber.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    Not quite. We should ridicule anyone who thinks the way to fix "obvious and recurrent problems" is by making "proposals" on an anonymous internet forum. If you truly believe some of the things you say, you should do whatever it takes to get into the industry and bust your ass to make a difference. Things get fixed by actions, not by keyboard blabber.
                    Whoa there, this IS just a small-time discussion forum. Sometimes a solution begins with an intelligent dialog. It definitely doesn't begin without one. Activism often begins with a conversation.
                    I moved it here http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthre...-Pilot-Fatigue so it gets off this thread (for now). If you don't have any interest in a discussion on the issue, just don't go there.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Hongmng's video: https//:www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2MJQbc5Zg

                      I just got this horrible image of some guys with their heads down at the keyboard, punching in the next fix to the FMS and failing to realize that Otto was off or something.
                      Well, if otto goes off, so does the warning. That's hard to ignore.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        Well, if otto goes off, so does the warning. That's hard to ignore.
                        What if they were hand flying the approach and thought they punched the "on" button or forgot to punch it?

                        Or PNF was buried in the keyboard and not SA that PF was also buried in the keyboard while hand flying?

                        For clarification: I'm not trying to discount fatigue as an important contributing factor...it would likely help such an oversight.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          Not quite. We should ridicule anyone who thinks the way to fix "obvious and recurrent problems" is by making "proposals" on an anonymous internet forum. If you truly believe some of the things you say, you should do whatever it takes to get into the industry and bust your ass to make a difference. Things get fixed by actions, not by keyboard blabber.
                          ...regional pilot pay......I know you appreciate my extremely hollow support.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            What if they were hand flying the approach and thought they punched the "on" button or forgot to punch it?

                            Or PNF was buried in the keyboard and not SA that PF was also buried in the keyboard while hand flying?

                            For clarification: I'm not trying to discount fatigue as an important contributing factor...it would likely help such an oversight.
                            They might not have used the TO/GA buttons at all. That would be a procedural no-no but there seems to be no shortage of cowboys out there who are above procedure. In manual flight, TO/GA pitch mode is still there to give you the proper flight director guidance the correct autothrottle mode. Maybe they cancelled the AT for some reason too, who knows. I think once you throw procedure out, you can do just about anything, including anything on the iPad instead of flying the plane. Procedure prevents this from happening. Or, if you don't have the practice or the systems knowledge down, attempting an automatic go-around with a single autopilot can get you into a loss of SA pretty quick. Anyway, apparently the FDR has been read out so I assume they know what happened by now....

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              there seems to be no shortage of cowboys out there who are above procedure.
                              Hey out of curiosity... when an airplane is first flown, before there are any procedures written, by the guys (& girls) who *write* the procedures... are those people being "cowboys"?

                              I'm just trying to distinguish when using one's flying skills is irresponsible and when it's not.
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by elaw View Post
                                Hey out of curiosity... when an airplane is first flown, before there are any procedures written, by the guys (& girls) who *write* the procedures... are those people being "cowboys"?

                                I'm just trying to distinguish when using one's flying skills is irresponsible and when it's not.
                                When there are a whole lot of people in back paying for the ride, you follow procedures.

                                By the way, using one's flying skills is perfectly fine if you respect procedure while you are doing it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X