Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Boeing Crash in Russia

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

  • #46


    Authorities Investigating Deadly Russian Plane Crash
    The president of the Russian republic of Tatarstan declared Monday a day of mourning as crews continued to look for bodies in the wreckage of a Russian jetliner that crashed on landing a day earlier.

    All 50 people on board, including the son of Tatarstan regional President Rustam Minnikhanov, died in the crash in Tatarstan's capital, Kazan.

    Richard Quest, CNN International Business Correspondent and the host of “Quest Means Business”, is closely familiar with the Boeing 737 and weighs in on the known details of the crash.

    Closed-circuit video, aired on Russian media outlets, shows the plane vertical to the ground as it crashes in the darkness, creating a large fireball and a wide fire on the ground.

    The victims ranged in age from 13 to 87, according to a list of names the airline posted on its website. Among them was Lt. Gen. Alexander Antonov, the regional chief of Russia's Federal Security Service, and a British national.

    "Not all the bodies have been located," Deputy Emergency Situation Situations Minister Vladimir Stepanov told local media Monday morning. "The main work will be completed today."

    Officials do not know why Tatarstan Airlines flight 363 crashed. Authorities say they have confiscated documents and fuel samples from Tatarstan Airlines.

    Part of the answer may lie in the Boeing 737's flight and data recorders. Russian officials say they've found the flight recorders, the state-run RIA Novosti news agency said Monday.
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Myndee View Post
      The pilots of a Boeing 737 that plunged to earth at the Kazan airport, killing all 50 aboard, lost speed in a steep climb then overcompensated and sent the plane into a near-vertical dive, according to a preliminary report released Tuesday by Russian aviation experts.
      Bold is mine.

      I strongly suspect that this statement was made by someone who knows very little about basic aerodynamics (whomever you quoted)

      If for some reason, a control problem caused the elevator/h-stab to go to a full nose-up setting, the plane is going to go into a steep climb followed by a near vertical dive.

      Given that it's only a couple days after the crash, I don't think they've heard the CVR yet and heard words such as, Pull up really hard...oh, we've lost speed, nose over really hard.

      I also doubt they have the FDR data yet to show a hard pull up followed by a hard nose over...

      AND FINALLY...A perfectly competent, highly skilled pilot might also have pulled up hard and nosed over hard and done nothing wrong. The exact timing of those inputs mean all sorts of things- at the right times, the poor pilots are doing all the right things and still died.

      Do it at the wrong times...I generally think that's unlikely, except that we have seen it before.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Myndee View Post
        Can we then consider this a CFIT?
        Nope. Not unless the intention of the pilots was to descend like this but didn't note that the ground was in their path. Otherwise, this Flight Into Terrain had nothing of Controlled.

        Pilots, you will have to answer this for me...I am assuming you are not trained to trade altitude for airspeed at 2200ft because you are trained not to put the aircraft in a stall attitude???
        There's nothing wrong to trade altitude (in fact, vertical speed) for airspeed at 2200ft, especially if you are about to stall or have stalled, because the alternative is to trade altitude for nothing, not even for speed.

        There is a potential to gain 220kts in exchange of 2200ft, so it's not like you'll have to trade all of your feet. Typically, since the engines were already at max, you would not even need to trade 1 foot, you just have to reduce your climb rate. In a bad case, you'll need to trade a few hundred feet. It needs to be an extremely awful case for 2200ft to be not enough to recover from a stall, if the stall is properly managed, of course. AF 447 showed us that 38000ft are not enough if it's wrongly managed.

        --- 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 3WE View Post
          I strongly suspect that this statement was made by someone who knows very little about basic aerodynamics (whomever you quoted).

          If for some reason, a control problem caused the elevator/h-stab to go to a full nose-up setting, the plane is going to go into a steep climb followed by a near vertical dive.
          You know what? It's strange coming from me, an extremist of the stalls.

          But, after watching the video a few dozens of time, it looks to me that the airplane was not only at a very low AoA for the short period of time that it's vissible, but that it was reducing its AoA as it crashed. I even imagined that the AoA was a bit negative.

          It's hard to tell. The video is not precisely full HD, fully focused, and taken in good light conditions. But my first reaction when I saw it was, OMG, it is NOT stalled as I expected. And further views biased me even more away from the stall. Maybe, just maybe, it was a stall or near stall followed by a too hard nose-down input all the way to the ground. If so, either there was some problem (with the controls or with the artificial horizon for example) or the pilots were highly disoriented by the big magnitude of the accelerations (longitudinal and vertical) and pitch excursions.

          There is a know type of crash caused by disorientation when taking off in IMC where the pilots confuse longitudinal acceleration for climb attitude (both push you against your seat back), think that they are pitching up too much, correct, and find themselves crashing on the runway. Perhaps something similar can happen on a go-around on a dark cloudy night.

          --- 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


          • #50
            Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

            Bold is mine:
            On Nov 19th 2013 the MAK reported that first read outs of the flight data recorder revealed that the crew did not follow the standard approach profile, went around due to considering the approach as unstable (attitude not within stable approach parameters), the engine thrust levers were moved to TOGA and the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was under manual control for the remainder of the flight. While the engines accelerated to near takeoff thrust, the flaps were reduced from 30 to 15 degrees, the gear was retracted and the aircraft pitched up to about 25 degrees nose up, the indicated airspeed began to decay. Only after the airspeed had decreased from about 150 KIAS to 125 KIAS the crew began to issue control inputs to counter the nose up, the climb was stopped while the nose was lowered by control inputs. The aircraft reached a maximum height of 700 meters (2300 feet and began to rapidly descend until the aircraft impacted ground at a nose down attitude of 75 degrees at a speed of 450 kph (242 knots) about 20 seconds after reaching the maximum height of 700 meters. The engines were operating nominally until impact, the flight data recorders did not reveal any system malfunction. The cockpit voice recorder was not found inside its container, the assembly is missing and a search is under way.
            If the CVR was not found, I wonder how they figured the bolded part. Maybe the crew discusses the details of the reasons for the go-around with the tower? That would be very odd, and a possible causal factor in the chain of events since a go-around is an extremely high workload situation to discuss anything with the tower except "XYZ going around".

            And, this seems to confirm that it was not a stall. At least not all the way to the ground.

            I bet my ATP licence (that I don't have) that:
            • The stall speed of a 737 with config 15 and typical landing wight is less than 125kts.
            • 125 kts and 25° nose up can be corrected lowering the nose 10 or 15 degrees. You don't need even to stop climbing, just reduce the pitch and the climb rate.
            • At 240kts this airplane could not have been stalled, because if it was, it should have been making a lot of lift (yes, staled and all, at 240kts you have a lot of lift) which would have meant a high load factor which would have meant a high pitch-up rate, which was not present in the crash sequence captured in the video. (in fact, it looks like it was still pitching down, if anything)


            I'd love to see the FDR data (plot or table). Whatever happened in the last 20 seconds, it was very strange.

            --- 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


            • #51
              The debris field made me cringe.

              Here we are Monday-morning-quarterbacking, scarcely remembering the fifty people died a horrific death.

              Let's pause to remember the loss of life.
              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


              • #52
                "When Tatarstan’s pilots tried to make a second landing attempt, taking manual control of plane, the jet descended at a near-vertical angle, crashing 20 seconds later into a fireball, according to airport video footage of the accident."

                Nothing like the AP putting the trim to nose-down ....




                My INSIGHT only , of course I have the capability to read and have a skill of copy/paste .

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by TheKiecker View Post
                  Nothing like the AP putting the trim to nose-down ....
                  Interesting. We'd have a puzzle since apparently the pilots disconnected the AP and manually flew the GA, managing to reach 2300ft and 25deg nose up before nosing over and diving vertically.

                  Maybe, could be, that they didn't disconnect the AP and they were fighting it in some way and then when they disconnected it the plane was badly out of trim (due to the AP trimming opposite to the pilots' inputs). Still can't close the sequence, but there could something along this theory.

                  AP status, trim angle, control inputs and the like should all be there in the FDR.

                  --- 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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    http://avherald.com/h?article=46b9ecbc&opt=0
                    Bold is mine:

                    If the CVR was not found, I wonder how they figured the bolded part. Maybe the crew discusses the details of the reasons for the go-around with the tower? That would be very odd, and a possible causal factor in the chain of events since a go-around is an extremely high workload situation to discuss anything with the tower except "XYZ going around".

                    And, this seems to confirm that it was not a stall. At least not all the way to the ground.

                    I bet my ATP licence (that I don't have) that:
                    • The stall speed of a 737 with config 15 and typical landing wight is less than 125kts.
                    • 125 kts and 25° nose up can be corrected lowering the nose 10 or 15 degrees. You don't need even to stop climbing, just reduce the pitch and the climb rate.
                    • At 240kts this airplane could not have been stalled, because if it was, it should have been making a lot of lift (yes, staled and all, at 240kts you have a lot of lift) which would have meant a high load factor which would have meant a high pitch-up rate, which was not present in the crash sequence captured in the video. (in fact, it looks like it was still pitching down, if anything)


                    I'd love to see the FDR data (plot or table). Whatever happened in the last 20 seconds, it was very strange.
                    I am not familiar with the 737, but in the Boeing 727 if you retract the Krueger flaps too early, you crash. Plain and simple.
                    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      I bet my ATP licence (that I don't have) that:
                      • The stall speed of a 737 with config 15 and typical landing wight is less than 125kts.
                      • 125 kts and 25° nose up can be corrected lowering the nose 10 or 15 degrees. You don't need even to stop climbing, just reduce the pitch and the climb rate.
                      • At 240kts this airplane could not have been stalled, because if it was, it should have been making a lot of lift (yes, staled and all, at 240kts you have a lot of lift) which would have meant a high load factor which would have meant a high pitch-up rate, which was not present in the crash sequence captured in the video. (in fact, it looks like it was still pitching down, if anything)
                      Let's pretend they did stall and then handled things very wrong.

                      I'm thinking that gets you wallowing porpising trip down to the groud- not the steep descent that was shown.

                      It also seems wrong to be at 2200 feet and then able to crash near the TDZE unless you go around early for a mechanical / control problem.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        • 125 kts and 25° nose up can be corrected lowering the nose 10 or 15 degrees. You don't need even to stop climbing, just reduce the pitch and the climb rate.
                        You are not Gabriel (or you have been threatened by Russian Authorities).
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                          I am not familiar with the 737, but in the Boeing 727 if you retract the Krueger flaps too early, you crash. Plain and simple.
                          Yes, but the flaps were reportedly retracted from 30 to 15. With flaps 15 the slats will be extended in the second (most extended) position: (First position: sealed, second position: gapped (not sealed). There is not a too big difference in the stall speed or AoA with flaps 30 and 15. Otherwise the GA procedure would not be "TOGA + flaps 15" without a flaps retraction schedule.

                          --- 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


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            [/LIST]Let's pretend they did stall and then handled things very wrong.

                            I'm thinking that gets you wallowing porpising trip down to the ground- not the steep descent that was shown.
                            Exactly, and neither 75° nose down nor 240kts. Especially not both things simultaneously.

                            It also seems wrong to be at 2200 feet and then able to crash near the TDZE unless you go around early for a mechanical / control problem.
                            The report does't say at what altitude or position they started the GA. They could have been at 1800ft on the MM (just inventing). They shouldn't, but since they reportedly went around because the approach was unstabillized... anything is possible.

                            --- 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 3WE View Post
                              [/LIST]You are not Gabriel (or you have been threatened by Russian Authorities).
                              I'm not sure that I understand your joke, but for the record, I've never said that you have to shove the nose down to recover from a stall or approach to stall. My position always was and still is that you have to reduce the AoA and, oddly enough, sometimes this can be achieved while simultaneously increasing the nose-up pitch angle, the climb slope, and the vertical speed. Please refer to the "stall" thread if any doubt.

                              --- 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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                http://avherald.com/h?article=46b9ecbc&opt=0
                                Bold is mine:

                                If the CVR was not found, I wonder how they figured the bolded part. Maybe the crew discusses the details of the reasons for the go-around with the tower? That would be very odd, and a possible causal factor in the chain of events since a go-around is an extremely high workload situation to discuss anything with the tower except "XYZ going around".
                                I read somewhere (don't ask for a source, I've already wasted too much time reading about this crash and have no intention of re-reading dozens of bits and pieces to identify the exact source) that they simply said to the Tower "going around, approach unstable".

                                So not much time wasted there but as usual anything reported at this stage means absolutely nothing (other than the Fatality Count which should at least be accurate).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X