FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

pdw wrote:In the 38-39 seconds of video prior to re-entering clouds the AC is 102-115kts-gs in right crab above the 250@17G25mps given at the airport, tracking 225T four miles east of 22 threshold.

The video camera is focused east ~50T nearly reciprocal of 22, located 'a mile or two' west of the airport (slightly north of extended runway 22/04 centerline).
Not disputing this, but what do you base this on?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

The steep exit from the clouds 30-35 sec later is 1/2 cm further to the right in the video. In real life that's 3 miles further ahead on the same heading it was on. Means the camera must be approximately focused on a reciprocal, but not quite; the camera-position slightly north of the runway centreline of 225T/45T is given away by that 1/2cm shift.

The given winds are changing quite a bit ... 250@15G20mps ... 12G18mps ... etc
Very difficult to pinpoint the exact winds applicable where the second GA is decided: "102kts-gs" then slope flattens out at around 2100 ft for two 6-second radar intervals; the increased performance shear is where-in groundspeed slows the most. Then comes a steep descent (drops below g-slope?) in next 6 sec down to 1975', the decreased performance shear, where groundspeed slowly begins to increase while ducking down out of the strong flow. GA power underway at 1875'/114kts with the GA announcement "bye bye", the change from tower frequency.
After GA declared there are 12 more 6-second radar intervals: .... 1750'/122kts ... 1575'/131kts .... 1550'(lowest point) ... 1625'/121kts ... 2275'/144kts...2700'/149kts .... 3225'/150kt(5000fpm climb) ...3475'/164kts....3825'/173kts (3500fpm) .... (~4100'/~180kts max-height/gs is likely here)--3975'/185kts ..... 2675'/185kts(13,000fpm descent) .... 975'(last radar)/197kts(17,500fpm descent) ... 2 second interval(695'/20,000fpm) ... 280'/airport elevation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pdw on Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

pdw wrote:The steep exit from the clouds 30-35 sec later is 1/2 cm further to the right in the video. In real life that's 3 miles further ahead on the same heading it was on. Means the camera must be approximately reciprocal but not quite ... favouring the position slightly north of runway centreline 225T/45T. The only thing inaccurate is the winds are changeable a fair bit ... 250@15G20mps ... 12G18mps ... etc

Very difficult to pinpoint the exact winds applicable when the second GA decided: Slope flattens out around 2100 ft for two 6-second radar intervals; that shows increased performance shear where-in groundspeed slows to "102kts" right there. Then fairly steep descent (below g-slope?) in next 6 sec down to 1975' means decreased performance shear while ducking down out of the strong flow above the "2100' scattered". There the GA power is applied by the time of the next radar hit of 1875'/114kts with the GA announcement "bye bye".
Then 12 more 6-second radar intervals: .... 1750'/122kts ... 1575'/131kts .... 1550'(lowest point) ... 1625'/121kts ... 2275'/144kts...2700'/149kts .... 3225'/150kt(5000fpm climb) ...3475'/164kts....3825'/173kts (3500fpm) .... (4050'-4100'max alt reached)3975'/185kts ..... 2675'/185kts(13,000fpm descent) .... 975'(last radar)/197kts(17,500fpm descent) ... 2 second interval(695'/20,000fpm) ... 280'/airport elevation
Oh my!

About 20 years ago, I wrote a business plan for a competitor to Ryanair in Dublin. It included a very detailed set of financial projections that took up many, many pages of printout. It went to one of the biggest stockbrokers in Ireland. The lead broker handling it put it to an analyst to go over the numbers. A week later, he got back to me and said he had the verdict from the analyst.

"The guy who wrote this was either a genius or completely fookin' insane."

Which was my thought when I read the post above.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

The last paragraph is the data as was presented in the link of first post of this thread. Once we see the flight recorder data it will show the actual airspeed going out-of and then back into the "windshear" in the second climbout. Doesn't look like it was near stall anytime in there. Something happen to one of the pilots ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Chaxterium
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:28 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by Chaxterium »

An article from the NY Times which indicates pilot error.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/world ... ussia.html

To any 737 folks out there, what do they mean when they refer to a fin? Are they referring to the horizontal stab? And what button are they referring to?
MOSCOW — An error by a crew member committed during adverse weather conditions may have been responsible for the crash of a passenger jet last week in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don that killed 62 people, a report broadcast by Russian state television said.

The Rossiya-1 television channel said late Friday that it had obtained a transcript of the pilot interactions a minute before the FlyDubai passenger jet nose-dived to the ground, killing all the passengers and crew members onboard. A source in the investigative commission with access to flight recorders provided the channel with the transcript.

The channel emphasized that its interpretation of the transcript could not be considered the official version of what had happened.

Flying from Dubai, the plane was not able to land on its first attempt because of heavy rain and wind, and it entered a holding pattern for two hours. On the second landing attempt, the crew decided to pull up and try again, but 40 seconds after beginning the ascent, one of the pilots switched off the autopilot, possibly in response to sudden turbulence, the report said. Seconds after the autopilot was turned off, the plane plunged to the ground.

“Don’t worry,” one of the pilots says, according to the transcript, which was translated into Russian, seconds before saying, “Don’t do that!” The last words recorded were repeated calls to “Pull up!” Only “inhuman screams” could be heard for the last six seconds.

The television channel cited experts who suggested that by turning off the autopilot, the pilots were trying to pull the plane back to a horizontal position. But at that moment a stabilizing fin at the jet’s tail was switched on.

With the fin activated, “the elevator is no longer working and the plane practically does not react to the pilot’s control panel,” the report said. The channel suggested that the pilot could have accidentally hit the button that activated the fin because of his reported “chronic fatigue.”

Russian investigators have opened a criminal inquiry into the crash. On Thursday, the investigative commission said that the flight recorders were in good condition and were being deciphered. The first preliminary reports of the commission could be made public within the next two weeks, they said.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by BTD »

The NY times article above seems to lack any credibility. Perhaps the author had good basic data to base their article off of, but he/she goes way off the deep end trying to explain it.

Because it makes no sense, at this point it must be disregarded. Maybe another author will be able to take the same information and put it into a coherent article we could understand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
arctic_slim
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by arctic_slim »

A fin that would not react to the pilots control panel caused by chronic fatigue. Wow, what an article. As is typical of the media, it's always "the pilot"..apparently there is only one pilot on all airliners.

Id rather wait until some form of report is released.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

"Don't worry" is for the turbulence and "button" (translated) is the AP switch ?
"Don't do that" is a bit strange CRM though; "fatigue" mentioned, maybe so, ... with the 2hours extra in holding patterns.

AP 'touch'ed in sync with engine-power reduction for "turbulence" during this accelerating climb-speed ?
AP disconnect has on occasion been known to transfer an unmanageable forward trim to a manual control column instantly. It depends how much nose-up trim already needed when 'touch'ing that "button" switches "unexpected" nose heavy controls over to a crew.

EDIT (twice):
See there I've misrepresented what was said there already: "Don't do that!" is quoting correct (changed my mistake .. first misquoted 'Don't touch that')
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pdw on Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by BTD »

pdw wrote:"Don't worry" is for the turbulence and "button" (translated) is the AP switch ?
"Don't touch that" is a bit strange CRM though; "fatigue" mentioned ...maybe so, with the 2hours extra in holding patterns.

AP 'touch'ed in sync with engine-power reduction for "turbulence" during this accelerating climb-speed ?
AP disconnect has on occasion been known to transfer an unmanageable forward trim to a manual control column instantly. It depends how much nose-up trim already needed when 'touch'ing that "button" switches "unexpected" nose heavy controls over to a crew.

I am unsure why you would take an article that is so obviously flawed and try to interpret it as if can be given any credibility. The author isn't even using terms that make sense. There may or may not be a basis for the explanation provided but until a time that more information becomes available this article must be discarded.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

The article doesn't baffle me at all. The next one won't get much better. The reporters get some info given to them to see what they do with it; if it sounds good or needs tweaking they'll get fed out some more in an effort to make it a little more pallatable to the public, sell a few more papers. In less than two weeks something official comes out that immediately sets in stone whatever is said. After that nothing anyone one else says will likely ever be heard anyway, and no need to discuss any more. Note the pilot error thing is already steered into position ... confirmation pending.

What triggered GA ? The approaching AC in the video looks stable and in full view, and must have had the runway in sight; right after the call, the data shows it's on track and on slope.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

pdw wrote:The article doesn't baffle me at all. The next one won't get much better. The reporters get some info given to them to see what they do with it; if it sounds good or needs tweaking they'll get fed out some more in an effort to make it a little more pallatable to the public, sell a few more papers. In less than two weeks something official comes out that immediately sets in stone whatever is said. After that nothing anyone one else says will likely ever be heard anyway, and no need to discuss any more. Note the pilot error thing is already steered into position ... confirmation pending.

What triggered GA ? The approaching AC in the video looks stable and in full view, and must have had the runway in sight; right after the call, the data shows it's on track and on slope.
There has to be some basis for the newspaper report. It must be in early returns from the CVR.

I would think "Don't touch that" is likely accurate, but I doubt "that" is the AP disconnect. The voice must be the Captain's. If the copilot was going to push the AP disconnect, which I assume is on the yoke, how would the Captain have seen that?

I assume flaps up has already been called by that attitude.

The fin? The trim tab? If the autopilot disconnect in an out of trim condition is in play, what would you do in a 737 in a dive? Electric trim or spin the trim wheel.

I agree that it is important to know why a GA was initiated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by BTD »

My point is that the article has terms and phrases in it which don't make any sense. The only way they can make sense is if someone else (us) tries to interpret what the author means.

However, the fact the these terms and phrases, that don't make any sense, are in the article suggests that the author either got bad information, didn't interpret the information they were given correctly, or is making something up. Any of these things is not worth following up on. Even if your attempt to figure out what the author means is accurate, your basis for that interpretation is on shakey ground, at best.

"A stabilizing fin in the Jets tail was switched on? " Perhaps they meant trim, perhaps they meant cws, perhaps they meant etc. Too many perhaps they meant. The only rational thing to do is disregard this article.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

BTD wrote:The only rational thing to do is disregard this article.
No, that's actually quite an irrational thing to do. Because its "rational" to you, there is no point of trying to explain why it's irrational.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

It does help exclude some ideas of a cause when knowing the source for the content is authentic. After that it has little factual value, correct.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

I would be fairly confident there is a factual basis to the claim of a "Don't touch that" remark in the conversation.

That is a statement that can't be disregarded.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

60 seconds elapse between "established on localizer" and "going around":

The first 30seconds 350' descent (2750' - 2400') 114kt-gs average, gradual descent-rate (4kt gs-variation).

30-40: gs decreases 12kts to 102kts/2250' (metar being read out during this time : SDniner81/Qfe-niner88/hPa-niner niner8 ... continues into the next 5 seconds)


Decreased performance shear, groundspeed increasing with loss in altitude:
39-45: 175' descent, gs increasing 12kts to 114kts/2075' (981 acknowledges receipt of metar SDniner81)
At/above this altitude are 50 kt winds gusting higher.

Here the increase performance speeds-up AC possibly above glideslope:
44-50: leveloff/spike in IAS, gs 111kts/2075'(tower adresses "niner...81" for pressure correction ...)

Increased performance shear ceases:
48-55: gs at 108kts/2050'(...qfe..niner ... 8 ... 7 ..visibility 3500 metres... hPa .. niner .. niner ..7)
Below this altitude are 23kt winds gusting higher.

Here decreased performance shear starts to bleed IAS; sharp loss of alt:
52-58: 75' alt-loss, 1975'/112kts (niner niner7 copied; SD niner..8 ...1 .. and 1-2 second later GA)
Descending into slower surface wind; bleeds airspeed / steeper descent.

Decrease performance shear ends:
55-60sec: 100'loss 1875'/114kts, 998hPa to 997(30'lower setting adds to "loss") with drop in vis (...Going Around SD niner81) 5.6km to threshold
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
burhead1
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: kinda north
Contact:

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by burhead1 »

Russian officials have announced they may suspend the Boeing 737’s airworthiness certificates


http://www.bidnessetc.com/66192-russia- ... s-flyduba/
---------- ADS -----------
 
tbaylx
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by tbaylx »

Ah yes, that's clearly it. The most popular highly utilized aircraft on the planet is clearly unsafe and at fault. Better ground them worldwide.

Sure appears to be a single channel ILS into a full thrust (double toga click) G/A and a loss of pitch control shortly thereafter. It can be a handful but shouldn't cause a loss of control in any circumstances. The factors that allowed it to get that way will be interesting to hear once the report comes out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4151
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by CpnCrunch »

The report from that previous crash makes interesting reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan ... Flight_363

I'm not sure how any sane person could speculate that it might have been caused by a mechanical fault in the elevators when the crew didn't even touch the control column until they were well into the stall.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by BTD »

cncpc wrote:
BTD wrote:The only rational thing to do is disregard this article.
No, that's actually quite an irrational thing to do. Because its "rational" to you, there is no point of trying to explain why it's irrational.

If you agree that the article uses questionable terminology and descriptions of systems, and if you agree that there is no time pressure for us outsiders to figure out what happened, then it is quite rational to disregard the article.

The information presented may be correct, it may not be, and given how out in left field the descriptions of what happened are, it would be best to set this article aside and reserve judgment until corroborating evidence is presented.

Trying to interpret what the author means is a waste of time if the information is not correct.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tbaylx
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by tbaylx »

CpnCrunch wrote:The report from that previous crash makes interesting reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatarstan ... Flight_363

I'm not sure how any sane person could speculate that it might have been caused by a mechanical fault in the elevators when the crew didn't even touch the control column until they were well into the stall.
Wouldn't be surprised if its the same issue here, identical flight paths almost.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1686
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by cncpc »

BTD wrote:
cncpc wrote:
BTD wrote:The only rational thing to do is disregard this article.
No, that's actually quite an irrational thing to do. Because its "rational" to you, there is no point of trying to explain why it's irrational.

If you agree that the article uses questionable terminology and descriptions of systems, and if you agree that there is no time pressure for us outsiders to figure out what happened, then it is quite rational to disregard the article.

The information presented may be correct, it may not be, and given how out in left field the descriptions of what happened are, it would be best to set this article aside and reserve judgment until corroborating evidence is presented.

Trying to interpret what the author means is a waste of time if the information is not correct.
I'm concluding that you're one of the "Wait till the official report" guys, which is perfectly fine.

News media reporting on aviation accidents is almost entirely uninformed by anyone who knows much about aviation. Certainly this bit by the NY Times was, and it was of a poor standard for the Times. However, having been a daily paper journalist in my younger days, I do know that the pressure is to get out anything new ASAP. So what is new, and I think will turn out to be sort of true, is that there is a remark like "Don't do that" on the CVR. For those who don't want to wait for the report, which is also a perfectly valid position, that is an important bit of information. Some people, particularly those flying the 737, don't want to wait to find out why a 737 would abandon what seemed to be a normal approach, climb into the clag, and then dive out and straight into the ground.

If the Times says "Somebody on board the aircraft said "Don't do that" to somebody else. We don't know what "that" was, but at least we got the story first", that wouldn't make it to print, although it should. So the other stuff which you rightly question gets tossed in and all of us on here are thinking WTF is the "fin", while knowing that part doesn't make sense.

My brother Rooster, RIP, used to be one for telling some tales. When he was questioned about the BS content, he would say "Loosely based on a partially true story." That's what this is. If the CVR has a bit about "Don't touch that", never mind the rest. That alone is reason to not disregard everything in the article.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by cncpc on Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by pdw »

tbaylx wrote:
CpnCrunch wrote:The report from that previous crash makes interesting reading:
Wouldn't be surprised if its the same issue here, identical flight paths almost.
It was ineveitable that a comparison would be looked at eventually more closely between these two tragedies. In the previous, Tartarsan 363 on Nov 17/2013 ~7:40pm, the co pilot was still out of the seat 25sec before impact, the aircraft stalled, not as high, lots of differences .... although the one main obvious similarity.

If there's a translation for that report it might be possible to explore that one main point of comparison, and that involves their W&Bs; rapid ascents and failed leveloff into similarly steep crash trajectories at the airport ...

With these aircraft both so light on fuel and pax almost equally (it looks like) does it get easier to trim, for AP or manual ?

Among those larger impromptu swings of pitch and thrust ... maybe not .. despite both being half empty or less.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Aluminium Tube
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 4:28 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by Aluminium Tube »

This is a "Fly Dubai" pilot's interview.
Note: My collegue, with who we worked for the same airline, now is working for Fly Dubai and says that that guy exaggerates the bad moments and actually everything is much better than he describes. From my own experience. I've been to Rostov a couple of times and among Russian pilots it's famous for it's bunchy RW and often strong winds (as many other airports), but nothing as terrible as that pilot says.

For the love of god!!! The 2 hours holding is standard FDB operations. We are routinely sent to somewhere we knew we couldn't get into with little prospect of being able to get into it with boatloads of fuel and told give it a go. If you didn't then you came under the scrutiny of the chief pilot who had a penchant for bullying crew and making careers untenable.
9/10 times we would do just that fly 3/4/5hrs get their hold have a look try again if necessary and more times that not we would divert.
The route they were flying was not one that more senior pilots would ever pick as it is known for crap weather, is captain only landing and its dark o'clock. It was just one of those places that you hoped to not get on your roster and if you did and if you couldn't swap it then you hoped you had one of those nights where there was a break in the crap weather and you could get in. If not you rocked up with extra stuff as you knew you could easily end up in a hotel.
FDB heap commercial pressure on crews way past the normal anyone else but if you have your family stuck in the middle east you have a choice do what they ask be it carry lithium batteries, operate outside of FTLs, ignore assaults on crew etc or loose your job and possibly your career.
It wasn't that we didn't know that but most of us just took the money and hoped to not be the crew of FZ981 before we got either enough money/hours/experience in LHS, etc to move to somewhere else.
The chief pilots favourite saying is "if you don't like it leave!" it was his solution to every problem given and the culture of fear has eroded the culture of safety to such an extent that most pilots were unlikely torpor anything but the most serious incidents as they knew they were simply raising their heads above the parapet.
Re the numerous posts from experts on here who have not operated in the Middle east, who have not flown in Russian airspace and who do not know anything about HGS/HUD ops suggest you use the two ears more than the one mouth and though of course you are interested but your conjecture does nothing to help do anything other than muddy the waters.
FDB never ever do coupled approaches. All CAT3a, CAT2 and CAT1 are manually flown to the ground. All low vis is hand flown. All low vis is hand flown on the HGS. All approaches in Russia are flown on QNH we have LIDO tables with a conversion table on EVRY Plate.
If you find a pilot in FZ unfamiliar with flying in metres and getting wind in metres per second then they are very very new indeed. There would have been little to no confusion in the crews mind about altimeter settings, when to set or change and wind in mps as it is an almost every day occurrence in Russia and we have/had 18 routes to Russia which is pretty significant.
What happened, I have a guess the same as any other pilot and more so with other 737 pilots and even more so with 737NG pilots. The factors are facts and everything else at this stage is clearly conjecture. Did they make and error in the GA, was their catastrophic failure of something or other, was it an act of god? That will all come out pretty soon.
What isn't conjecture however is that colleagues are dead and the weather was crap on departure, estimated to be crap at ETA, estimated to be crap until way past the point of full tanks and they left with the FDB standard cunning plan of well maybe it will be okay. If you want a fact it is that not many airlines would consider that normal they would simply wait at base until it was at least predicted to be likely and then leave.
FZ don't do that why? ask the Chief Pilot. He as an uber pilot and uber human knows better than everyone else he evens knows that black is in fact white and can prove it when called upon to do so and is above the law as demonstrated on innumerous occasions.
So yes whilst of course factors such as starting a new job etc would have been a factor the reality is FDB take 7 days minimum to sort your visa out when you leave and frequently take longer because we the crew do not matter, were not humans are simply slaves to be abused at their whim so why would looking after us or our families matter. So yes these factors exist but lets be honest we have all heard the tape. They called the GA and did it so the why were they there and why wait so long is simple, that is what NCC demanded they do. Why because the Chief Pilot lets them do whatever they please and refuses to exert any control over what is directly his area of responsibility because nothing is important except his pay check.
I hope the money is worth it and I hope the families of the departed get to see him face to face, look him in the eye in the full knowledge of how he runs his ship.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingmach_1
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:54 pm

Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)

Post by goingmach_1 »

For the 737 types out there, would a hard over rudder at 180kts bring you out of the sky?

Don't know the 737 at all, just curious.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”