You answered my rhetorical question by posting that link - I wonder if this is a classic example of CFIT. Pilot's losing situational awareness and reacting in such way to create what we saw right there. Hopefully there's more to the story than illusions causing this fatality.Eric Janson wrote:http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/av ... c-illusionloopa wrote:How does a modern airliner come down at such a steep angle?
Not saying that this is what happened - but this could result in an extreme nose down attitude without stalling the aircraft.
FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
-
Eric Janson
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
CFIT = Controlled Flight Into Terrain.loopa wrote:I wonder if this is a classic example of CFIT.
Not the case here. Look at the video - that's not controlled flight - it's loss of control.
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
If they experienced the illusions posted in your link and controlled it by pitching down, that's CFIT - no? Loss of spatial and situational awareness/orientation that lead to a reaction which flew a perfectly airworthy aircraft into the ground.
I guess it can be argued that any CFIT accident will have a point of no return where the aircraft is no longer controllable to prevent said crash ...
The reports on this accident will be very interesting. Has it been confirmed yet whether they had any fuel remaining at the time of flying into the ground like that?
I guess it can be argued that any CFIT accident will have a point of no return where the aircraft is no longer controllable to prevent said crash ...
The reports on this accident will be very interesting. Has it been confirmed yet whether they had any fuel remaining at the time of flying into the ground like that?
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Can any 737 bubbas comment on the TOGA/ flight director relationship when using single channel autopilot?
I know a dude that left my former RJ company to fly as a captain over there. It was a shitty feeling waiting to hear back from him, to see if he was alright.
I know a dude that left my former RJ company to fly as a captain over there. It was a shitty feeling waiting to hear back from him, to see if he was alright.
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
Semper Fidelis
“De inimico non loquaris male, sed cogites"-
Do not wish death for your enemy, plan it.
-
Eric Janson
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
2 completely different things.loopa wrote:If they experienced the illusions posted in your link and controlled it by pitching down, that's CFIT - no? Loss of spatial and situational awareness/orientation that lead to a reaction which flew a perfectly airworthy aircraft into the ground.
I guess it can be argued that any CFIT accident will have a point of no return where the aircraft is no longer controllable to prevent said crash ...
CFIT - aircraft flies into the ground without exceeding normal operating parameters (under control).
Loss of Control - normal parameters exceeded (loss of control).
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Autopilot disconnects on a go around as soon as TOGA is pushed when using a single autopilot....Nark wrote:Can any 737 bubbas comment on the TOGA/ flight director relationship when using single channel autopilot?
I know a dude that left my former RJ company to fly as a captain over there. It was a shitty feeling waiting to hear back from him, to see if he was alright.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Nark, I don't know if go around was an issue in this approach, but I do have some concerns with go arounds in 737's.
Every company will have different procedures (and there are differences between Classics/NG's).
Simplest is dual AP Approach on an ILS (or LPV). Push TOGA once and AP/AT stays engaged. All you have to do is select F15, raise the gear, and select an appropriate roll mode (usually LNAV) above 400'. Push TOGA twice to get full pull, otherwise one push gives you between 1,000-2,000 rpm climb.
As long as you have missed approach altitude selected, you pretty much can't screw this one up.
You might think that this would be done every time, but of course there are issues. Dual AP approaches are supposed to terminate in an autolanding, which not all companies are approved for. So that means AP/AT need to be disengaged at some point. The issue is that for an autolanding, the 737 trims nose up significantly below 400' so when you disengage AP, the aircraft is very out of trim. This is not a good thing for doing a low vis landing when you click off the AP/AT at 100' so dual channel is not used often (in my company).
If somehow the AP becomes disengaged below 400' with significant nose up trim in IMC, there could be issues for an unprepared crew.
What we actually do is fly single channel approaches and when TOGA is pressed, it disengages AP and we manually fly the missed.
Go around, go around thrust, flaps 15
Positive rate, gear up.
LNAV
AT.
Then treat it like a take off.
Sounds easy. As an ACP and pilot for over 25 years I would say the two engine go around is the most f'd up maneuver, especially when unexpected. If the AT is still engaged for GA, then it's not too bad. Just follow the FD, make the calls, and Bob's your uncle. If AT is off it adds another step during this busy time. There is significant pitch coupling in 737 when GA thrust is added and it takes a fair amount of nose down trim. Especially if TOGA is pressed twice for full GA thrust.
Things I have seen during unexpected GA:
Not pressing TOGA.
Excessive pitch up due to coupling.
GA thrust not being set with AT off.
AT not being re-engaged, then:
Flap overspeed (especially with low altitude level off/low gross weight).
You would think a GA should be easy. I believe that sometimes that is not the case.
I have gone full 6 months between recurrent sim without doing a single GA. Rusty? Yes!
In my opinion, a weak crew, at the end of a long duty day (or multiple long duty days), with relatively poor training or not much time on type, at night in IMC, doing an unexpected Non AP GA, would have a very good chance of excessive pitch up. Especially if they started with a dual channel, the AFCS had done its nose up trim at 400' then somehow the automatics became disconnected and full thrust was used.
I'm rambling though.
I think the technical answer to your question is:
The TO/GA pitch mode initially commands a go-around attitude and then transitions to speed as the rate of climb increases. Command speed automatically moves to a target airspeed for the existing flap position. The TO/GA roll mode maintains existing ground track. Above 400 feet AGL, verify that LNAV is engaged for airplanes equipped with the TO/GA to LNAV feature, or select a roll mode as appropriate.
If both A/Ps are not engaged, a manual F/D only go–around is available under the following conditions: • Inflight below 2000 feet RA
• Not in takeoff mode.
With the first push of either TO/GA switch:
• A/T (if armed) engages in GA and advances thrust toward the reduced go–around N1 to produce 1000 to 2000 fpm rate of climb. The A/T Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates GA
• Autopilot (if engaged) disengages
• Pitch mode engages in TO/GA and the Pitch Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates TO/GA • F/D pitch commands 15 degrees nose up until reaching programmed rate of climb. F/D pitch then commands maneuvering speed for each flap setting based on maximum weight calculations
• F/D roll commands approach ground track at time of engagement. The Roll Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA is blank
• The IAS/Mach display blanks
• The airspeed cursor displays maneuvering speed for existing flap setting based on maximum weight calculations.
With the second push of either TO/GA switch (if A/T engaged and after A/T reaches reduced go–around thrust:
• The A/T advances to the full go–around N1 limit TO/GA mode termination from F/D go–around:
• Below 400 feet RA, both F/D switches must be turned off.
• Above 400 feet RA, select a different pitch or roll mode.
• If the roll mode is changed first:
• F/D roll engages in the selected mode
• the F/D pitch mode remains in TO/GA.
• If the pitch mode is changed first:
• the F/D roll mode automatically changes to HDG SEL
• F/D pitch engages in the selected mode.
• The A/T GA mode (if engaged) is terminated when:
• another pitch mode is selected
• ALT ACQ annunciates engaged.
Note: Engaging an A/P in CMD automatically engages the A/P and F/Ds in LVL CHG for pitch and HDG SEL for roll
Every company will have different procedures (and there are differences between Classics/NG's).
Simplest is dual AP Approach on an ILS (or LPV). Push TOGA once and AP/AT stays engaged. All you have to do is select F15, raise the gear, and select an appropriate roll mode (usually LNAV) above 400'. Push TOGA twice to get full pull, otherwise one push gives you between 1,000-2,000 rpm climb.
As long as you have missed approach altitude selected, you pretty much can't screw this one up.
You might think that this would be done every time, but of course there are issues. Dual AP approaches are supposed to terminate in an autolanding, which not all companies are approved for. So that means AP/AT need to be disengaged at some point. The issue is that for an autolanding, the 737 trims nose up significantly below 400' so when you disengage AP, the aircraft is very out of trim. This is not a good thing for doing a low vis landing when you click off the AP/AT at 100' so dual channel is not used often (in my company).
If somehow the AP becomes disengaged below 400' with significant nose up trim in IMC, there could be issues for an unprepared crew.
What we actually do is fly single channel approaches and when TOGA is pressed, it disengages AP and we manually fly the missed.
Go around, go around thrust, flaps 15
Positive rate, gear up.
LNAV
AT.
Then treat it like a take off.
Sounds easy. As an ACP and pilot for over 25 years I would say the two engine go around is the most f'd up maneuver, especially when unexpected. If the AT is still engaged for GA, then it's not too bad. Just follow the FD, make the calls, and Bob's your uncle. If AT is off it adds another step during this busy time. There is significant pitch coupling in 737 when GA thrust is added and it takes a fair amount of nose down trim. Especially if TOGA is pressed twice for full GA thrust.
Things I have seen during unexpected GA:
Not pressing TOGA.
Excessive pitch up due to coupling.
GA thrust not being set with AT off.
AT not being re-engaged, then:
Flap overspeed (especially with low altitude level off/low gross weight).
You would think a GA should be easy. I believe that sometimes that is not the case.
I have gone full 6 months between recurrent sim without doing a single GA. Rusty? Yes!
In my opinion, a weak crew, at the end of a long duty day (or multiple long duty days), with relatively poor training or not much time on type, at night in IMC, doing an unexpected Non AP GA, would have a very good chance of excessive pitch up. Especially if they started with a dual channel, the AFCS had done its nose up trim at 400' then somehow the automatics became disconnected and full thrust was used.
I'm rambling though.
I think the technical answer to your question is:
The TO/GA pitch mode initially commands a go-around attitude and then transitions to speed as the rate of climb increases. Command speed automatically moves to a target airspeed for the existing flap position. The TO/GA roll mode maintains existing ground track. Above 400 feet AGL, verify that LNAV is engaged for airplanes equipped with the TO/GA to LNAV feature, or select a roll mode as appropriate.
If both A/Ps are not engaged, a manual F/D only go–around is available under the following conditions: • Inflight below 2000 feet RA
• Not in takeoff mode.
With the first push of either TO/GA switch:
• A/T (if armed) engages in GA and advances thrust toward the reduced go–around N1 to produce 1000 to 2000 fpm rate of climb. The A/T Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates GA
• Autopilot (if engaged) disengages
• Pitch mode engages in TO/GA and the Pitch Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA indicates TO/GA • F/D pitch commands 15 degrees nose up until reaching programmed rate of climb. F/D pitch then commands maneuvering speed for each flap setting based on maximum weight calculations
• F/D roll commands approach ground track at time of engagement. The Roll Engaged Mode annunciation on the FMA is blank
• The IAS/Mach display blanks
• The airspeed cursor displays maneuvering speed for existing flap setting based on maximum weight calculations.
With the second push of either TO/GA switch (if A/T engaged and after A/T reaches reduced go–around thrust:
• The A/T advances to the full go–around N1 limit TO/GA mode termination from F/D go–around:
• Below 400 feet RA, both F/D switches must be turned off.
• Above 400 feet RA, select a different pitch or roll mode.
• If the roll mode is changed first:
• F/D roll engages in the selected mode
• the F/D pitch mode remains in TO/GA.
• If the pitch mode is changed first:
• the F/D roll mode automatically changes to HDG SEL
• F/D pitch engages in the selected mode.
• The A/T GA mode (if engaged) is terminated when:
• another pitch mode is selected
• ALT ACQ annunciates engaged.
Note: Engaging an A/P in CMD automatically engages the A/P and F/Ds in LVL CHG for pitch and HDG SEL for roll
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Both recorders have been successfully read. Hopefully some preliminary information can be released soon.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/flydubai-b ... -1.3501346
Somehow, I would have imagined a somewhat different array of tools associated with opening a damaged FDR/CVR:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/flydubai-b ... -1.3501346
Somehow, I would have imagined a somewhat different array of tools associated with opening a damaged FDR/CVR:
- s2.reutersmedia.net.jpg (34.34 KiB) Viewed 5295 times
-
ChrisEvans
- Rank 1
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:04 pm
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Another view of a CCTV video that captured the crash; YouTube .
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
It looks like they had a fair bit given the size of the explosion and fire, and the report that it took emergency responders an hour to put it out.loopa wrote:If they experienced the illusions posted in your link and controlled it by pitching down, that's CFIT - no? Loss of spatial and situational awareness/orientation that lead to a reaction which flew a perfectly airworthy aircraft into the ground.
I guess it can be argued that any CFIT accident will have a point of no return where the aircraft is no longer controllable to prevent said crash ...
The reports on this accident will be very interesting. Has it been confirmed yet whether they had any fuel remaining at the time of flying into the ground like that?
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Looks similar to the last 737 crash in Kazan, Russia... mishandled go-around that led to excessive nose pitch up followed an inability to recover from the aircraft being put into a excessive nose down attitude. Or they may have aborted the go-around and pushed it over to get it on the runway. Tragic!ChrisEvans wrote:Another view of a CCTV video that captured the crash; YouTube .
-
Anticyclone
- Rank 3
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 3:50 am
- Location: Nothern Hemisphere
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
One theory among others is that on the second attempt they encounter WS due to microburst decide to go around they then enter the tailwind portion of the MB the speed bleeds off drastically as happened before ( NTSB reported a loss of 50 KT in one of the accidents )
thinking they are high enough they attempt to regain that lost speed + in addition to the powerful downdraft.
thinking they are high enough they attempt to regain that lost speed + in addition to the powerful downdraft.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydubai ... gue-crash/
All pax care about are cheap tickets... LCCs and ULCCs only care about getting maximum hours out of their crews for the lowest cost. More of this to come sadly.
All pax care about are cheap tickets... LCCs and ULCCs only care about getting maximum hours out of their crews for the lowest cost. More of this to come sadly.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
has anyone considered that fuel may have been an issue?
6 hour flight then a missed and 2 hours of flying in circles....
that's at least 8 and a bit not to mention taxi and take off...
I don't remember the max time an 800 can fly but I would say
that's getting up there...not to mention would they have ever
fueled for max range? I wonder if that second attempt was not
a choice but forced. Hard to believe those guys would have flown
themselves into that position before going somewhere else.
6 hour flight then a missed and 2 hours of flying in circles....
that's at least 8 and a bit not to mention taxi and take off...
I don't remember the max time an 800 can fly but I would say
that's getting up there...not to mention would they have ever
fueled for max range? I wonder if that second attempt was not
a choice but forced. Hard to believe those guys would have flown
themselves into that position before going somewhere else.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
The aircraft carried fuel for trip, contingency, alternate, final fuel reserve (30 minutes) and additional holding for about 2:30 hours, total fuel for an endurance of about 8.5 hours. The aircraft had been airborne until time of impact for 06:02 hours.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
thats alot of gas
I thought I had read it flew for 6 hours then held for 2 the media never makes mistakes when it comes to aviation
thanks for clearing that up
I thought I had read it flew for 6 hours then held for 2 the media never makes mistakes when it comes to aviation
thanks for clearing that up
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Thanks for posting the link FICU. Sadly this will continue until the rules change.FICU wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydubai ... gue-crash/
All pax care about are cheap tickets... LCCs and ULCCs only care about getting maximum hours out of their crews for the lowest cost. More of this to come sadly.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
A little disconcerting in how it all looks so normal going up into the clouds, compared to 30 seconds later when they reappear.
-
Eric Janson
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
How much of this will make it into the final report on this crash? I have my doubts anything relating to fatigue will make it into the report.FICU wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydubai ... gue-crash/
All pax care about are cheap tickets... LCCs and ULCCs only care about getting maximum hours out of their crews for the lowest cost. More of this to come sadly.
A friend in the ME said this could very easily have happened at her Airline (one of the big ME Airlines).
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
Assuming the plane is coming toward the camera, it seems to have impacted farther back on its flight path after the climb. Those trees behind the building are showing quite a bit of wind.GyvAir wrote:A little disconcerting in how it all looks so normal going up into the clouds, compared to 30 seconds later when they reappear.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
I took the camera to be situated somewhere to the north or north east of the airport, behind the aircraft.cncpc wrote:Assuming the plane is coming toward the camera, it seems to have impacted farther back on its flight path after the climb. Those trees behind the building are showing quite a bit of wind.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
I think we're seeing the landing light coming toward the camera.
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
The lights seem to be reflecting off the rain quite well in all directions in all of the videos.
Version of the ATC recording leaving just the FZ981 related parts, synched to the FlightRadar fliight path mapping:
Version of the ATC recording leaving just the FZ981 related parts, synched to the FlightRadar fliight path mapping:
Re: FlyDubai 737 (Rostov-on-Don, RU)
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).
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).
