BBJII
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:22 pm

Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 7:32 am

There's alot of speculation in the original thread, can we atleast honour those who perished and there loved ones, with a thread with ONLY the facts so far:
Original Thread:
Breaking: Armenian Airline Flight Off Radar (by Ammunition May 3 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Date of Crash: 03/05/2006
Time of Crash: unknown...vanished from Radar 0215Local
Place of Crash: Black Sea, Approx 6 miles short of Runway
Fatalities: 113 including crew (105 pax 8 crew)
Aircraft: Airbus A320
Registration: EK-32009
Weather: Poor


Please keep this to the FACTS only.....Thanks


BBJII
  

[Edited 2006-05-04 00:34:58]

[Edited 2006-05-04 00:36:00]
Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
 
timboflier215
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 7:54 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 7:58 am

A/C was flying from the Armenian capital, Yerevan, to Sochi, on Russia's Black Sea coast. A flight of around an hours duration. A/C initially refused permission to land due to poor weather, but permission was later granted. A/C crashed on its second landing attempt. According to the BBC website, A/C was manufactured in 1995 and had under gone "checks" last month. Terrorism ruled out as a possible cause.

RIP to all on board, all accidents are truly horrible. I sincerely hope this thread doesn't get hijacked by those with nothing better to do than pick a fight.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 8:20 am

As no one has noticed this, just a paste of my post.
Nothing else to add and I think it still stands :
What do we know so far :
1/-The aircraft attempted several approaches.
2/- at some time, the airport was closed for rain and weather.
3/- the METAR (see post 110 by Saturn )mentioned 4000 m visibility in rain shower and mist, a ceiling of 600 ft and temporarily a visibility of 1500 m and a vertical visibility of 500 ft and some gust (confirming the cbs around).
4/- Although we do not know of the type of approach they were shooting,

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 111):
this is an interesting approach....
ILS runway 2 CAT C/D aircraft : DH(A) : 774' (722)

not a typical approach at all, the missed approach point is halfway down the glideslope, instead of the last 200 feet, you go missed at 722 feet above the ground... the NDB approach minimums are the same.

ILS 6 DH(A) : 594 (558)

NDB Runway 6 - MDA 1000 feet msl..

so as you can see, the MAP is unconventional for this airport, reason : high terrain on departure end of both runways MSA north of airport is 11,900 feet!!!!!!!

south MSA is 1600 feet.....tricky tricky tricky...

, we can remark that all approaches have minimums that are above the tempo vertical visibility, and very close or above the prevailing conditions.
As a matter of fact, these conditions might well be looked at as an approach ban .
5/-There was no PAn, or Mayday call for a fuel situation.
6/- There was no apparent cabin preparation for an emergency.

The rest is pure speculation :
1/-Disorientation....quite possible. At least some conditions are present :night approach, low cloud break, difficult terrain with a coastline and mountains....and finally no definite horizon...
2/-System failure....unlikely on a modern jet with all the redundancy built into the design.
3/-Pilot error...Probably some discutable decision making from the captain as in my experience and opinion, the more attempts you make, the more dangerous you become...

That's my two euro cents' worth.

Regards
Contrail designer
 
chksix
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:16 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 8:41 am

I'm quoting "727forever"
"Just food for thought. Past accidents with the A320 on approach have involved the FPA mode for non-precision approaches. Many carriers do not use this mode because of safety issues with descending on a specified rate to an unlimited point, ie you do not have an altitude capture point at MDA. Airbus still promotes, strong arms, airlines into using this system. Throw this in with fatigue from trying an approach several times and you now have a potential situation. Just food for thought."

The most likely cause IMO....
The conveyor belt plane will fly
 
MaartenV
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 8:48 am

A/C was ex Ansett Australia VH-HYO and maintained by Sabena Technics.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cheburator
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Murray


According to Armavia, the captain was very experienced and they blame the weather for the accident.
Its all about supply and demand...
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 9:08 am

Chksix,
Feel free to ask any question on an aspect you do not understand.
The post you cite is so far off the mark that I can't see where to begin.
The use of the "TRK-FPA" (meaning Track with flight path angle, as opposed to the other choice of "HDG-VS" or heading + vertical speed ) mode is the only one possible on non precision approaches and I can vouch, after ten years on 'buses that it is a lot more accurate and easier to fly than the usual raw data cum stopwatch which you fly in a 727.
Secondly, close to the ground, any pilot worthy of the title would not start a descent - using whatever mode he chooses - without an identified start-of-descent point...
The TRK-FPA mode, coupled with the GPS is the basis for RNAV precision approaches.
You and your quote do not know what you're talking about.

That said, This is a site, though unofficial, that shows the different approaches on Sochi.
Take the list, go to Russia, click on Sochi and get the compressed file.
It shows how uncommon this airport is, especially the very high minimums.
Approach charts
Contrail designer
 
drexotica
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:44 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 9:29 am

In Google Earth, goto 43o26'47"N and 39o56'35"E to see a terrain representation of the airport. Tricky indeed.

Erik

(too lazy to figure out how to attach a proper KMZ)
N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
 
ABpositive
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:36 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 9:32 am

I was just reading from the BBC website, a victim's relative was being interviewed and said:
"Mum called 10 minutes before the expected landing time to say the plane was about to land - she already had a phone signal," Akop Akopian told the AFP news agency.

Would it be possible that the use of a mobile phone (possibly more than one) would have contributed to some instruments giving incorrect readings or malfunctioning (e.g. reading incorrect altitude)? I know that from the air and at such a distance from a nearest base station, mobile devices would need to emit quite a strong signal.

My sympathies to all victims, relatives and friends.
 
antskip
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 10:05 am

Disconcerting to hear local officials yet again blame the "weather" for a crash. That's rather like blaming God. Kenya was quick to blame the "weather' a few weeks ago for the Marsabit crash...until a few more details came out of the human factors...

Quote:
Armavia's deputy commercial director, Andrei Agadzhanov, said the weather conditions were "certainly" the cause because the crew was highly experienced and the airliner itself was in good condition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1766559,00.html.
 
CXA330300
Posts: 1257
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 5:51 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 10:54 am

RIP to all on board........

I would imagine that a human error caused the crash, planes land in that sort of weather every day.......
AC/AA/UA/DL/B6/WN/US*/CO*/FI/BA/IB/AF/SK/LX/Sabena*/TK/LY/SA/MN/SW/AM/CE*/CX/CA/MU/JL/SQ/TG/MH/KA/5J
 
BA
Posts: 10133
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:30 am

According to this source, when the flight crew were informed of the poor weather conditions in Sochi, they were going to land in Tbilisi, Georgia instead. Later, air traffic controllers told them that the weather had improved and the flight crew decided to continue to Sochi.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20060503/47145755.html
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
HS-LTA
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 1999 1:30 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:42 am

For runway 02 and 06
it is an ILS approach
RWY 02 CAT C/D aircraft ILS vis min is 3300m and 4100m(if ALS out)
RWY 06 CAT C/D airctaft ILS vis min is 3100m.
I am surprise the ILS min is so high.
And the METRA reported is Tempo 1500m,which is below the min for both runway.I am not sure why the pilot still continous the approach..
 
edelag
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:35 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 12:43 pm

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 6):
(too lazy to figure out how to attach a proper KMZ)

Saved you the trouble.

You can download the kmz here:
http://www.mascarita.com/otrascosas/sochi.kmz
It's not just the destination, it's the journey.
 
antskip
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 1:08 pm

Quoting Edelag (Reply 12):
Saved you the trouble

Thank you! Very helpful. Wow, what an incredible airport position! Makes WLG look OK!
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 1:24 pm

According to Armavia, the captain was very experienced and they blame the weather for the accident.
***

Isn't this an oxymoron. If he was experienced, then he should know better than to try and land in weather that is bad enough to cause a crash.
 
antskip
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 1:51 pm

Quote:
With high winds, rain, and thick cloud at 300ft, ground controllers told the pilot to put off the landing. Reports say that after the plane had circled, the airport tower told the pilot that he was cleared to land. What happened next is unclear. The jet flew out to sea and made a wide circle, lining up with the airport. Although the runway lights would have been invisible through the low cloud, the plane would have been guided along its flight path by radar systems. Possibly the plane, coming in to land, hit an area of low pressure, causing it to drop. The condition, called wind sheer, is not fatal at altitude because jets have time to recover, but close to the sea the plane may have lacked the room to manoeuvre. No distress call was made by the crew

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=664652006.
 
asv
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:30 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 1:51 pm

Quoting ABpositive (Reply 7):
Would it be possible that the use of a mobile phone (possibly more than one) would have contributed to some instruments giving incorrect readings or malfunctioning (e.g. reading incorrect altitude)? I

While anything is possible, I highly doubt mobile phones would have any affect of the instruments of a commercial airliner. Many general aviation pilots use cell phones in the cockpit regularly. The cell phone ban is more about controlling passengers and cabin environment, and less about interference.
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 2:08 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
The post you cite is so far off the mark that I can't see where to begin.
The use of the "TRK-FPA" (meaning Track with flight path angle, as opposed to the other choice of "HDG-VS" or heading + vertical speed ) mode is the only one possible on non precision approaches and I can vouch, after ten years on 'buses that it is a lot more accurate and easier to fly than the usual raw data cum stopwatch which you fly in a 727.
Secondly, close to the ground, any pilot worthy of the title would not start a descent - using whatever mode he chooses - without an identified start-of-descent point...
The TRK-FPA mode, coupled with the GPS is the basis for RNAV precision approaches.
You and your quote do not know what you're talking about.

Pihero,

I don't want to get into a finger pointing session here on a good thread, but you've forced me to speak up. When I made my initial post it was early on and we did not know what type of approach was being performed. At the time it was speculated that it was an NDB approach. I threw the TRK-FPA out as 'food for thought' only, something to rule out once more data came in. Now that we know that they were on the ILS 2 I don't see how TRK-FPA would have an affect. That being said, I stand behind my statement. Relax and don't get excited on me.

727forever

p.s. And previously A320 Captain
727forever
 
clumsy
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:14 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 2:47 pm

Greetings to everyone;
I do not know the 320 system (not even have a clue) but could it be possible that the system that called MCP in 737 got locked while attempting a second landing in that low altitude it would possibly push hard the crew may be.
We know that the plane was attempting a second approach.
Unable to land at the first one, climbing to its divert cruising level, returning back to execute an approach...
Also i do remember lots of false capture happenings in 737 NG's although they have two GPS...
Lets hope to get to a lesson at soon as possible that will lead us another safe path.
With my best regards,
 
antskip
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:12 pm

Wikipedia already has a page on the crash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armavia_Flight_967.
- it includes a reference to a pic of the plane on airliner.net: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1028365/L/.
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:18 pm

Quoting Artsyman (Reply 14):
According to Armavia, the captain was very experienced and they blame the weather for the accident.
***

Isn't this an oxymoron. If he was experienced, then he should know better than to try and land in weather that is bad enough to cause a crash.

Unfortunately, even the most experienced pilots can make mistakes. Remember that it was KLM's senior training captain who was in command of the 747 that attempted to take off from Los Rodeos but collided with a taxiing PanAm 747 resulting in possibly the worst air accident in terms of casualties.

There is an interesting article in today's Moscow Times that says "the plane crashed due to mistakes by the pilot". According to the article

Quote:
The plane made its first approach toward Adler airport around 3 a.m. local time but was unable to land due to poor visibility. The plane circled and made a second approach, during which visibility again dropped below minimum acceptable levels. Air traffic controllers advised the pilot to climb to 600 meters.

It was during the climb, at 3:15 a.m., that the plane made a sharp turn and dropped off Adler airport's radar, a member of the airport's technical staff said, Interfax reported.

"The A320's speed was about 250 kilometers per hour, which may not have been enough for it to gain altitude," the source said.

The plane hit the water at a steep angle, Beltsov said.

I am not a pilot but I have read that the A320's fly-by-wire systems and in-built safety measures would make a stall impossible. So perhaps we are looking at similarities to the AF A320 crash at Mulhouse in June 1988 (the low air show fly-past accident)?

[Edited 2006-05-04 10:19:39]
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
javibi
Posts: 1295
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:27 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
The use of the "TRK-FPA" (meaning Track with flight path angle, as opposed to the other choice of "HDG-VS" or heading + vertical speed ) mode is the only one possible on non precision approaches

Not true; it is the procedure recommended by AI, but not the only one possible, you can still fly non-precission approaches in HDG-V/S as in any other plane.

Regards

j
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:35 pm

I fly the same aircraft as Clumsy does, and have experienced false capture in aircraft of all sorts...that's why you should wait to be within an intercept heading of 90 degrees to press either the VOR/LOC button or the APP button. I am not familiar with the A320's approach system, i know they have LS or ILS buttons.

For those of you who don't know, false capture, here is a super basic explanation. Electronic signals or transmissions have some sort of mirror wave, that produce somewhat of a similar signal in different directions, im sure an avionics person can lay out the definition better. But anyways, your aircraft can pick up this signal and take you to the source, but it can take you at the wrong heading big time. In order to go to the Navigation aid on the proper course or heading, we are required to select the approach mode at a proper position, that is why we never touch the VOR/LOC or APP mode button on the downwind for a runway, it might ask you to turn RIGHT towards the localizer and dive....so we wait until we are on a safe intercept heading past the base position....

Many people diss the NDB approach and talk about NDBs being obsolete soon, but NDBs are one of the BEST ways of telling if you've false captured of not, that's why i always have 2 ndbs tuned and check to make sure they point in the same direction and cross check the RMI with the course selector.

I have talked to some pilots that have flown to Sochi, and other airports in the region, and they said that sometimes there are interrupted signals from navigation aids at airports around there, could be from weather, coastal effect or just the age of the aids...

hope this helps
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13069
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:44 pm

Quoting BCAL (Reply 20):
There is an interesting article in today's Moscow Times that says "the plane crashed due to mistakes by the pilot".

That's the same thing Focus Online said in their article. Perhaps they just translated the article from the Moscow Times.

Quoting BCAL (Reply 20):
I am not a pilot but I have read that the A320's fly-by-wire systems and in-built safety measures would make a stall impossible. So perhaps we are looking at similarities to the AF A320 crash at Mulhouse in June 1988 (the low air show fly-past accident)?

What you're suggesting is that the Alpha Floor protection, which I believe is the function used for keeping an FBW Airbus from stalling, failed or was perhaps turned off. But then again, this is just speculation.
 
wing
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 5:49 pm

Quoting Clumsy (Reply 18):
Also i do remember lots of false capture happenings in 737 NG's although they have two GPS...

Vay Kardeþim aramýza hoþgeldin.  Smile

The false capture as we experience on the 737 generally happens in either the APP mode selected out of the 8/18 capture criteria(approximetely 8 degrees/18NM's that generally gives a guaranteed Loc/GS capture)
,or a faulty(low nav aid coverage which used to happed a lot in african desert airports).A good airmanship is always crooscheck with the conventional instruments even to you have a good GS/LOC capture indication on the FMA.Good old ADF always points the airport direction  Smile


[
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
 
antskip
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 6:01 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 23):
Perhaps they just translated the article from the Moscow Times.

Two slightly different claims are made in the article in the on-line English edition of the Moscow Times.

Quote:
Pilot error may have contributed to the crash, Krasnodar Governor Alexander Tkachyov told journalists in London, where he was on a visit Wednesday. "According to preliminary information, the plane crashed due to mistakes by the pilot," Tkachyov aide Yevgeny Gavrilets told Interfax.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/05/04/001.html.

The Moscow times article also states:

Quote:
The plane made its first approach toward Adler airport around 3 a.m. local time but was unable to land due to poor visibility. The plane circled and made a second approach, during which visibility again dropped below minimum acceptable levels. Air traffic controllers advised the pilot to climb to 600 meters. It was during the climb, at 3:15 a.m., that the plane made a sharp turn and dropped off Adler airport's radar, a member of the airport's technical staff said, Interfax reported. "The A320's speed was about 250 kilometers per hour, which may not have been enough for it to gain altitude," the source said. The plane hit the water at a steep angle, Beltsov said.

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2006/05/04/001.html.
 
wing
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 6:10 pm

Quoting Chksix (Reply 3):
Many carriers do not use this mode because of safety issues with descending on a specified rate to an unlimited point, ie you do not have an altitude capture point at MDA.

I think you have been misleaded here.If you put an altitude lower on than your current altitude on the altitude window,the airplane certainly will stop descending on that point.That is the same on the other airplanes too.It has nothing to do with the TRK-FPA mode.



Quoting Javibi (Reply 21):
Not true; it is the procedure recommended by AI, but not the only one possible, you can still fly non-precission approaches in HDG-V/S as in any other plane.

Ofcourse you can fly the non precison approach with HDG/VS mode but this will put the wind correction to your shoulders and I can not see any advantage of it .
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
 
sevenair
Posts: 1486
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 6:39 pm

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
(confirming the cbs around)

I've not seen the METARS/TAFS but CBs aren't the only cause of gusts. If its hilly, there's a strong chance of katabatic winds flowing at night. If weather was a factor, then windshear caused by these winds couldhave been the cause. Some katabatic windscan reach up to 70kt, gustfronts much less. There is a large valley in the region, perhaps the aircraft 'lost' airspeed if the gust stopped. Or if the aircraft was pointed away from the valley, then a tailwind, combined with poor weather could have caused the accident.
 
User avatar
Navigator
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 7:17 pm

This crash follows a tragic trend showing accidents after multiple approach attempts. Many carriers forbid pilots to try a third approach except in an emergency.

If what is cited below is relevant it looks like a stall during climb. Lack of situational awareness, fatigue and confusion could the be a cause... But it seems strange in such a modern plane like the A320... Could inadequate training on this complicated plane and inexperienced pilots be a contributing cause.

"It was during the climb, at 3:15 a.m., that the plane made a sharp turn and dropped off Adler airport's radar, a member of the airport's technical staff said, Interfax reported. "The A320's speed was about 250 kilometers per hour, which may not have been enough for it to gain altitude," the source said. The plane hit the water at a steep angle, Beltsov said."
747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 7:38 pm

Quoting Navigator (Reply 28):
If what is cited below is relevant it looks like a stall during climb

But, as I said in my earlier reply, the A320 has safety features that prevent the aircraft from stalling. So this rules out a stall, unless the 'very experienced' pilot had overridden the Alpha Floor Protection (that prevents stalling as LTU932 mentioned in Reply 32) or turned it off.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 28):
Could inadequate training on this complicated plane and inexperienced pilots be a contributing cause.

It has already been reported several times that the pilots were 'very experienced'. But even the most experienced pilots do make errors.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
User avatar
Navigator
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2001 2:31 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 7:51 pm

I assume that the most relevant experience in this case is on this specific type. This is what I meant...

And I know about the Alphafloor protection. But it still looks like a stall from the report I cited. If this is indeed correct, there are numbers of possible causes. The protection system could be U/S or even turned off as you suggest.

But perhaps it is a bit early to draw those conclusions. The exact chain of events is probably not known yet...
747-400/747-200/L1011/DC-10/DC-9/DC-8/MD-80/MD90/A340/A330/A300/A310/A321/A320/A319/767/757/737/727/HS-121/CV990/CV440/S
 
singel09
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:32 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 8:17 pm

recently pictured by me, 5th of April 2006. At AMS. Sad.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/ek32009mteerds.jpg

Mause
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 10:53 pm

something needs to be cleared up here, more so for non pilots. Experience is an extremely relative thing...when someone talks about experience, they tend to talk about flight time. The amount of flight time you have doesn't always reflect your effectiveness in a non normal situation. In fact, the only times you ever see non normal situations are during simulator recurrent flights, so once every 6 months. I know some pilot's who have flown for over 9,000 hours but have had no emergencies whatsoever in their flying careers....on the other hand there is me who has about 1/9 of that person's flying experience, and i have had 3 engine fails, and 1 engine fire....that doesn't make me a better pilot, but it makes you more experienced in a very specific way. When you think about it, most of a flight is in cruise mode and that is what makes up most of your flight time, so i think it is false or misleading to think that the more flight time someone has, the more proficient they will be in dealing with bad weather or a non normal situation. A pilot's ability to respond is a combination of how well he is genetically at being calm and thinking, how well he knows the aircraft's systems, and flaws and also how many times he has been in certain situations...

in short, highly experienced should mean that this pilot, may he RIP has flown through bad weather for massive amounts of times, not that he has a high count of flight hours or career years.

I knew a Florida pilot who had 10,500 hours, but only during VFR and VMC....that would make him experienced in layman terms...but would it make him experienced in IFR? how do we split the airman into categories? you can't really...and this is what leads to misconception
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
BBJII
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:22 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 10:57 pm

HELLO,,

How many of you have actually Stated FACTS!!!!! about this accident?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
1/-The aircraft attempted several approaches.
2/- at some time, the airport was closed for rain and weather



Quoting Pihero (Reply 2):
The rest is pure speculation :
1/-Disorientation....quite possible. At least some conditions are present :night approach, low cloud break, difficult terrain with a coastline and mountains....and finally no definite horizon...
2/-System failure....unlikely on a modern jet with all the redundancy built into the design.
3/-Pilot error...Probably some discutable decision making from the captain as in my experience and opinion, the more attempts you make, the more dangerous you become



Quoting Chksix (Reply 3):
I'm quoting "727forever"
"Just food for thought. Past accidents with the A320 on approach have involved the FPA mode for non-precision approaches. Many carriers do not use this mode because of safety issues with descending on a specified rate to an unlimited point, ie you do not have an altitude capture point at MDA. Airbus still promotes, strong arms, airlines into using this system. Throw this in with fatigue from trying an approach several times and you now have a potential situation. Just food for thought."

The most likely cause IMO....



Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
Chksix,
Feel free to ask any question on an aspect you do not understand.
The post you cite is so far off the mark that I can't see where to begin.
The use of the "TRK-FPA" (meaning Track with flight path angle, as opposed to the other choice of "HDG-VS" or heading + vertical speed ) mode is the only one possible on non precision approaches and I can vouch, after ten years on 'buses that it is a lot more accurate and easier to fly than the usual raw data cum stopwatch which you fly in a 727.
Secondly, close to the ground, any pilot worthy of the title would not start a descent - using whatever mode he chooses - without an identified start-of-descent point...
The TRK-FPA mode, coupled with the GPS is the basis for RNAV precision approaches.
You and your quote do not know what you're talking about.

That said, This is a site, though unofficial, that shows the different approaches on Sochi.
Take the list, go to Russia, click on Sochi and get the compressed file.
It shows how uncommon this airport is, especially the very high minimums



Quoting ABpositive (Reply 7):
I was just reading from the BBC website, a victim's relative was being interviewed and said:
"Mum called 10 minutes before the expected landing time to say the plane was about to land - she already had a phone signal," Akop Akopian told the AFP news agency.

Would it be possible that the use of a mobile phone (possibly more than one) would have contributed to some instruments giving incorrect readings or malfunctioning (e.g. reading incorrect altitude)? I know that from the air and at such a distance from a nearest base station, mobile devices would need to emit quite a strong signal.

My sympathies to all victims, relatives and friends.



Quoting Antskip (Reply 8):
Disconcerting to hear local officials yet again blame the "weather" for a crash. That's rather like blaming God. Kenya was quick to blame the "weather' a few weeks ago for the Marsabit crash...until a few more details came out of the human factors...



Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
would imagine that a human error caused the crash, planes land in that sort of weather every day.......



Quoting BA (Reply 10):
According to this source, when the flight crew were informed of the poor weather conditions in Sochi, they were going to land in Tbilisi, Georgia instead. Later, air traffic controllers told them that the weather had improved and the flight crew decided to continue to Sochi.



Quoting Asv (Reply 16):
While anything is possible, I highly doubt mobile phones would have any affect of the instruments of a commercial airliner. Many general aviation pilots use cell phones in the cockpit regularly. The cell phone ban is more about controlling passengers and cabin environment, and less about interference.



Quoting Clumsy (Reply 18):
do not know the 320 system (not even have a clue) but could it be possible that the system that called MCP in 737 got locked while attempting a second landing in that low altitude it would possibly push hard the crew may be.
We know that the plane was attempting a second approach.
Unable to land at the first one, climbing to its divert cruising level, returning back to execute an approach...
Also i do remember lots of false capture happenings in 737 NG's although they have two GPS...
Lets hope to get to a lesson at soon as possible that will lead us another safe path.
With my best regards,



Quoting Javibi (Reply 21):
Not true; it is the procedure recommended by AI, but not the only one possible, you can still fly non-precission approaches in HDG-V/S as in any other plane.



Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 22):
I fly the same aircraft as Clumsy does, and have experienced false capture in aircraft of all sorts...that's why you should wait to be within an intercept heading of 90 degrees to press either the VOR/LOC button or the APP button. I am not familiar with the A320's approach system, i know they have LS or ILS buttons.

For those of you who don't know, false capture, here is a super basic explanation. Electronic signals or transmissions have some sort of mirror wave, that produce somewhat of a similar signal in different directions, im sure an avionics person can lay out the definition better. But anyways, your aircraft can pick up this signal and take you to the source, but it can take you at the wrong heading big time. In order to go to the Navigation aid on the proper course or heading, we are required to select the approach mode at a proper position, that is why we never touch the VOR/LOC or APP mode button on the downwind for a runway, it might ask you to turn RIGHT towards the localizer and dive....so we wait until we are on a safe intercept heading past the base position....

Many people diss the NDB approach and talk about NDBs being obsolete soon, but NDBs are one of the BEST ways of telling if you've false captured of not, that's why i always have 2 ndbs tuned and check to make sure they point in the same direction and cross check the RMI with the course selector.

I have talked to some pilots that have flown to Sochi, and other airports in the region, and they said that sometimes there are interrupted signals from navigation aids at airports around there, could be from weather, coastal effect or just the age of the aids...

hope this helps

Just a few of the NON FACT posts....

I am trying to uncover the FACTS.

We seem to be launching a thread AGAIN stating our theories...

Please keep this FACTUAL only about THIS sad accident.


Thanks
Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:09 pm

what is this? a NAZI thread?

people say certain things which leads to dicsussions about other things, this is perfectly normal. Clumsy talked about false capture, and I backed him up by explaining it a little more. Nothing we said was a lie, and none of the people you have quoted up there have stated that these are the facts....

I mean think about it...what is the point of starting a thread when

Quoting BBJII (Thread starter):
Date of Crash: 03/05/2006
Time of Crash: unknown...vanished from Radar 0215Local
Place of Crash: Black Sea, Approx 6 miles short of Runway
Fatalities: 113 including crew (105 pax 8 crew)
Aircraft: Airbus A320
Registration: EK-32009
Weather: Poor

IS ALL we know...so you started this thread, and basically it ended where you started...because we don't know anything else...so people tried to offer their own insights and I should add everyone was positive and educational...but if it's the facts you wanted, you answered the call of your own thread before it started....

you know, when accident investigation takes place, the investigators do exactly what we do, they round up ideas and discuss so they can go to a specific item or event to start all this off....

so what exactly was the point of the thread? the facts can be easily obtained on any website, we are on this forum to discuss not just read what someone else has written
The only time there is too much fuel onboard, is when you're on fire!
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:18 pm

This seems to be a pretty good summary of everything that's been published.

Salient points are that the pilot appears to have tried one approach and decided to divert (actually, return to base) due to bad conditions. He was advised that conditions had improved and returned for another approach. He was then told that conditions had deteriorated again and was apparently executing a 'Go-Around' when the crash occurred.

One new thing:-

"A criminal case has been opened for violation of air traffic procedures leading to loss of life, the prosecutor general's office announced."

That may just be routine in Russia, though - I believe that it is in some other countries which have an 'examining magistrate' system. ; It may actually mean little more than our police saying they are 'conducting enquiries'.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1926237,00.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Scorpio
Posts: 4767
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:20 pm

Quoting BBJII (Reply 33):
How many of you have actually Stated FACTS!!!!! about this accident?

So, for the first time in a long time we are seeing a civilised discussion in which people in-the-know (pilots in this case) contribute heavily, you start nagging about them not sticking to the 'only facts' order? I say let's cherish threads like these, they don't come along that much on here...
 
BCAL
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:31 pm

Quoting BBJII (Reply 33):
How many of you have actually Stated FACTS!!!!! about this accident?

Well I encountered many wannabe airline CEOs and pilots on this site, but a self-appointed judge/prosecutor demanding facts only is a first!
 bigthumbsup 

The relatives of the victims, the crash investigators, the airline regulatory boards, Airbus and its operators, the whole of a.net, you, me, and possibly millions of others want the facts. However, it will be a long while before all the facts will be known, and if they can be established beyond any reasonable doubt. I heard there was a possibility that the FDR and CVR could not be recovered due to the depth of the sea (although a naval officer has since contradicted this). Until the facts are known, people will discuss possible theories and causes. Any why not? After all, this is a benefit of a.net membership - to discuss matters regarding aviation with like-minded people.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:36 pm

Nevertheless, Scorpio, surely there are no grounds for intensive discussion on whether the pilot was inadequately trained, inexperienced, fatigued, disoriented etc.?

On the face of it, he just made two approaches and two 'Go-Arounds'. That shouldn't have taxed the abilities of any qualified pilot?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
treeny
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:30 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:48 pm

Quoting Scorpio (Reply 36):
So, for the first time in a long time we are seeing a civilised discussion in which people in-the-know (pilots in this case) contribute heavily, you start nagging about them not sticking to the 'only facts' order? I say let's cherish threads like these, they don't come along that much on here...

Couldnt agree more. I dont mean to sound like some kind of sicko but its reading threads like these that actually help people like us who have a passion for aviation to learn and read about things that otherwise we may never see - its just such a great shame that great threads like these can only appear (generally) after a tragic accident because it gives people in the know to give theories and explanation.

RIP all the people who passed away in this terrible accident whether it was caused by human error, system failure, ATC whatever - the most important thing is that we recognise that it was tragic none the less.

Personal thanks to all the contributors for their time in taking the trouble to share their knowledge with us.
 
BBJII
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:22 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 pm

CAL & NAV20 Thanks

The point is, so much is being said, it's creating false impression's in people's minds, and false speculation has ammounted:

If WE as a collective insightful number of aviation followers can list only the facts we have, maybe we can create a clearer picture in our minds.

One such issue:
The airport was closed due to weather has been said alot...but was it??? NO...

Metars show the weather was less than great, Russian media have reported the aircraft was making a Second Emergency Approach.

In the event of an Emergency, ALL airports are available, so why was it closed?

It's reports such as this that are causing me concern...lack of factual information.

So lets keep it civil and list only what we know...

So pull up a chair open a beer and relax.... Big grin

 wave 

Another FACT.

The flight is normally operated 2 weekly as a daytime flight.

Sunday and Thursday...Sunday A320 Thursday TU154.
Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
 
tu204
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 12:06 am

Actually, there were 111 people on board, two passengers were denied boarding during pre-boarding security in Yerevan.
As far as I know, the aircraft was on it's FIRST landing attempt when Adler once again went below minimums (the first time was when the flight was over Georgia and he was preparing to return to Yerevan, but Adler was reopened as visibility improved) and the ATC instructed Armavia to abort landing. After this, the aircraft started making a right turn and disappeared off radar without making any distress signal.
As far as the passengers go, 26 were Russian citizens, 25 of them were Armenians that immigrated to Russia and one was a Senior Liutenant Border guard returning home to Kransodar after serving on the Armenian-Turkish border (as part of a Russian contingency). Thats all I know as far as that goes.

One problem that they have encountered in the salvage process is that Adler is located at the spot where the Caucus mountain range meets the Black Sea - there are "underwater mountains" there that hamper the salvage operation and there are also several 2km deep trenches.  Confused
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
 
kaniksu
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:54 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting BBJII (Reply 33):
Just a few of the NON FACT posts....

I am trying to uncover the FACTS.

We seem to be launching a thread AGAIN stating our theories...

Please keep this FACTUAL only about THIS sad accident.

Who are you? Do you have all of the facts? Does anyone? None of us were on the flight and none of us know what happened. All we have is speculation and theories.
 
BBJII
Topic Author
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:22 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 12:47 am

I do have extra information, posted in the original thread.

I know people at Georgian ATC and Armenian ATC.

All of whom are somewhat distraught.

However, there are things I can't post.
Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 12:53 am

Its a sad event, and of course a lot of speculation will come up in this thread, since no one I know in A net is in the area investigating FACTS, so lower your guns and try to procure good and factual probabilities on this tragedy...that said:

I think that when they recover the cockpit of this A320 they will check if TOGA power was selected, if that is the case, they will conclude that windshear or some other weather related anomaly caused this accident.

I am not ruling out pilot error, but always in the back if the mind of a pilot is the knwledge that if they screw up badly they will probably die, this addds pressure and carefulness...

I have been twice in pretty bad landings in A320 due to weather once in LAX and once in ORD due to very strong winds and its not pretty, I guess the pressure in the cockpit must be high, and that leaves no margin for a mistake, hope they find the CVR and CDR and put this speculation to rest, but I d put my money on wind shear firts and pilot error in second...

Hope this tragedy has a good investigation that prevents this from happening again.

Best Regards TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
wing
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 1:32 am

Quoting BBJII (Reply 33):
Just a few of the NON FACT posts....

I am trying to uncover the FACTS.

There is only one fact here that you can not come to any conclusion about the cause of any airplane accident in the next day.If you want to learn the real facts you are in the wrong place fella,this is A.Net not an accident investigation board.

You asked for the facts,and you get it.Have a nice day.WING
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
 
727forever
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:50 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 1:55 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 23):
What you're suggesting is that the Alpha Floor protection, which I believe is the function used for keeping an FBW Airbus from stalling, failed or was perhaps turned off. But then again, this is just speculation.

Alpha floor is always armed, unless perhaps autothrust is deferred. Once Alpha floor activates you can cancel it but it re-arms for the next low speed event right away. This is what happened in the 1988 incident in Paris.

Quoting Wing (Reply 26):
I think you have been misleaded here.If you put an altitude lower on than your current altitude on the altitude window,the airplane certainly will stop descending on that point.That is the same on the other airplanes too.It has nothing to do with the TRK-FPA mode.

The airline that I flew the A320 for did not use TRK-FPA though I was trained on it from AI. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you all will, but I remember on a non-precision approaches using TRK-FPA you would have to push the vertical rate selector knob to stop the descent at MDA because it would not level off at the altitude selected. This is the whole reason why we did not use TRK-FPA in our airline specific procedures. When I get home from this trip I will get my FCOM out and re-read it for clarity. If I'm wrong, please correct me. It has been several years since I flew this airplane.

727forever

if we stick only to the facts of the accident as we know them so far this thread would have been dead yesterday afternoon with only 2 posts.
727forever
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 2:01 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
The use of the "TRK-FPA" (meaning Track with flight path angle, as opposed to the other choice of "HDG-VS" or heading + vertical speed ) mode is the only one possible on non precision approaches and I can vouch, after ten years on 'buses that it is a lot more accurate and easier to fly than the usual raw data cum stopwatch which you fly in a 727.

Can fly TRK-FPA in any stage of flight (including an ILS) except takeoff and TOGA with the current pip version, been that way for some time.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 5):
That said, This is a site, though unofficial, that shows the different approaches on Sochi.
Take the list, go to Russia, click on Sochi and get the compressed file.
It shows how uncommon this airport is, especially the very high minimums.
Approach charts


I had a look at the charts on that site. I could not work out what type of approach 5.jpg and 7.jpg are, no corresponding Jepp chart for them, which would mean they would not be available in the FMGC database.

The Jepp charts have a caution not to deviate right of track, however I notice the missed approach procedure consists of a right hand turn.

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 22):
I have talked to some pilots that have flown to Sochi, and other airports in the region, and they said that sometimes there are interrupted signals from navigation aids at airports around there, could be from weather, coastal effect or just the age of the aids...

Unfortunately at a lot of airports, they go offline when you need them, when its wet. Had the ILS go offline on me at MNL and CGK before in wet weather.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 23):
What you're suggesting is that the Alpha Floor protection, which I believe is the function used for keeping an FBW Airbus from stalling, failed or was perhaps turned off. But then again, this is just speculation.

Know of no way to turn alfafloor off except to turn off autothrust, which would not be normal for this type of flight.

Just do not know how much ice was on this aircraft at the time, and if the cold soaked wings flying about in the 100% humidity air contributed to the accident.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 28):
Interfax reported. "The A320's speed was about 250 kilometers per hour, which may not have been enough for it to gain altitude," the source said. The plane hit the water at a steep angle, Beltsov said."

250 kmph, be about 135 kt, which according to the Jepp missed approach procedure would be the correct speed to be flying.

Quoting Theredbaron (Reply 44):
I think that when they recover the cockpit of this A320 they will check if TOGA power was selected, if that is the case, they will conclude that windshear or some other weather related anomaly caused this accident.

Just hope they recover as much as they can before the water destroys it.



[Edited 2006-05-04 19:05:08]
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9757
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 2:27 am

Quoting 727forever (Reply 46):
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you all will, but I remember on a non-precision approaches using TRK-FPA you would have to push the vertical rate selector knob to stop the descent at MDA because it would not level off at the altitude selected. This is the whole reason why we did not use TRK-FPA in our airline specific procedures. When I get home from this trip I will get my FCOM out and re-read it for clarity. If I'm wrong, please correct me. It has been several years since I flew this airplane.

That is incorrect, you would have set the go-around altitude at the FAF, FCOM 3.03.19 Pg 9. Autopilot disconnects at MDA -50 ft.

I enjoy flying a raw data ILS on TRK-FPA, setthe bird at 3 deg nose down, with the FD off, also very good for the visual circuit or circling approach, sit the bird on the horizon to maintain level.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Glareskin
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:35 pm

RE: Armavia Crash - The Facts

Fri May 05, 2006 2:41 am

I'm not sure if this is mentioned before but the newsradio reported about a warning for some specific sort of serious turbulence close to the airport. Any news on that?
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 787fan8, Baidu [Spider], Boeing74741R, haynflyer, jbs2886, mstx44, PacificBeach88, piedmont762, qf789, RL777, StTim, usairways85, VirginFlyer, xaapb and 350 guests