FlyDubai 738 Crashes On Approach In Russia

D L X · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:20 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
Fuel starvation wouldn't explain the very steep descent shown in the video. Airliners glide remarkably well.

Sure, but don't they require a pilot to put it into a glide attitude to do so? I'm thinking BA038 (83?) which lost power on final due to fuel contamination. That plane may have fared better had the contamination problem happened earlier ass opposed to on final. Disagree?

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
Not to mention the big fireball which would have been tricky to generate without fuel...

Yeah, I had that thought too, but we do know that this flight was in the air 50% longer than scheduled. That alone, to this non-pilot author, suggests they must have been near the end of their fuel load. There is clearly SOME fuel because there was an explosion, but is it possible to have so little fuel that one engine cuts, while having enough fuel for a fire upon impact?

TWA772LR · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:22 am

Maybe a stall caused by fuel starvation? That angle was pretty steep so they may have been just below minimums, but enough to have some kind of forward momentum.

Beatyair · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:24 am

My respects to those who have left us and my heart goes out to there love ones.

barney captain · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 51):
but is it possible to have so little fuel that one engine cuts, while having enough fuel for a fire upon impact?

Absolutely - and an interesting theory.

I just can't imagine any crew holding to the point of fuel starvation (Avianca in JFK notwithstanding). There certainly doesn't appear to be a backlog of aircraft preventing them from getting in. So assumably, they were holding until the wx improved. At some point, you know you have to divert, and you do.

[Edited 2016-03-18 20:26:54]

ual777 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:26 am

Quoting sierrakilo44 (Reply 47):

Maybe not from the report but a lot of weather forecasts will only report predicted CB clouds, gusting winds and showers rather than pure thunderstorms so some airlines can use that as an excuse not to carry extra holding fuel. Not saying that's what happened here though.

not sure on FlyDubai's rules but a TAF showing that weather will absolutely require an alternate....but it didnt look bad enough for microbursts.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 52):
Maybe a stall caused by fuel starvation? That angle was pretty steep so they may have been just below minimums, but enough to have some kind of forward momentum.

Possible. Thats the part that has me scratching my head. Thats a steep angle. Could also be a loss of situational awareness that led to a stall....but we will see.

Web500sjc · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 52):

Or just a stall it can happen in boeing as easily as an Airbus.

It looks like how the AF A330 would have fallen, roughly straight down.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 55):
a TAF showing that weather will absolutely require an alternate....but it didnt look bad enough for microbursts.

That was the metar of the current conditions, not the TAF. The weather. Could have changed during the period between the issue time and aircraft arrival time. Also the TAF could or could have not have called for a altrenate to nbe planned for.

CNN reports wind to 60 mph. ( for those who don't want to do the Meter per a second oconversion. CNN also reports that the tail contacted the runway surface at Rostov on Don.

Edited to add reply to UAL777

[Edited 2016-03-18 20:34:06]

barney captain · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:28 am

It looks eerily like the 737-500 that crashed (I think in Russia) attempting a go-around.

Can somebody recall the flight or the security video?

nitepilot79 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:29 am

The "BR" (mist, for those who may not know) within the METAR would seem to corroborate any light amplification...

Quoting sierrakilo44 (Reply 17):
METAR: URRR 190130Z 24012G18MPS 4400 1700SW SHRA BKN013 BKN032CB OVC100 06/04 Q0997 R22/290046 TEMPO 25017G25MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE740/0987

adam42185 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:33 am

Looking at that footage again makes me believe spatial disorientation or lack of SA peas key, not necessarily a fuel issue.

flyenthu · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:34 am

CNN international just reported winds about 97kmph at time of crash.

sierrakilo44 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 am

Quoting ual777 (Reply 55):
not sure on FlyDubai's rules but a TAF showing that weather will absolutely require an alternate

For a first world safe, reputable airline, yes. For some less scrupulous operators who will cut corners at every opportunity, no. Not sure which category flydubai falls into.
Anyways too soon for any speculation, daylight is only just breaking over there. this could be the first loss for a gulf based carrier in recent memory? Or at least since the massive expansion of aviation in the region. May put a spotlight into how the expansion of the gulf is affecting safety?

RIP to those involved

mayor · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...crew-fireball-Russian-airport.html

Security cam footage of the aircraft striking the ground.

Quoting MayaviaERJ190 (Reply 19):

I'm no expert, but the video seems to show the plane falling as, at least the glare that you can see, that just can't be an approach glide.

I'm not expert, either, but if they were on "approach", that certainly seems too steep to be that.

nitepilot79 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:37 am

barneycaptain, here's a video of the 737-500 crash you mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpzv9KVsdMU

[Edited 2016-03-18 20:38:31]

Web500sjc · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:38 am

https://www.rt.com/news/336185-boeing-crash-dubai-rostov/

Russia Today reports the tail contacted the ground on the second landing attempt.

"According to a LifeNews source, the plane failed to land at the first approach and was forced to make a reentry. However, at this point the aircraft's tail allegedly hit the ground. The Boeing then crashed and caught fire."

barney captain · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:40 am

Quoting nitepilot79 (Reply 63):
barneycaptain, here's a video of the 737-500 crash in you mentioned:

Thanks, yep that's it.

Tatarstan 363 -

D L X · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:47 am

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 64):
Russia Today reports the tail contacted the ground on the second landing attempt.

"According to a LifeNews source, the plane failed to land at the first approach and was forced to make a reentry. However, at this point the aircraft's tail allegedly hit the ground. The Boeing then crashed and caught fire."

Does that story align with the video linked on this thread? Did the plane have a tail strike on landing, then attempt to get airborne again? THat video shows a plane having some altitude coming down hard. Doesn't at least initially add up for me.

idlewild · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:48 am

Judging by those lights in the video; the aircraft stalled out. Windshear? I know it's all speculation but it almost sounds like a repeat of EAL FLT# 66, back in '[email protected] JFK.

F9Animal · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:55 am

It appears the plane was almost upside down, and diving at a steep angle. Judging by the explosion and how high the flaming wreckage went, it doesn't look like the tail hit the ground first. I am suspecting spatial disorientation. As for winds being at 97kmph? The trees in the CCTV don't look all that bad.

timpdx · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:55 am

Just observing, the burning does not last long at all. If its fuel starvation, then you would expect a big initial fireball (lots of fuel-laden vapor in the tanks) followed by a quick burn then smoke, like the video shows. Just speculation based on somewhat crummy security video, but that camera was sure aimed in the right direction.

nitepilot79 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:56 am

Quoting barney captain (Reply 66):

You got it.

ual777 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:58 am

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 56):

That was the metar of the current conditions, not the TAF. The weather. Could have changed during the period between the issue time and aircraft arrival time. Also the TAF could or could have not have called for a altrenate to nbe planned for.

Irrelevant, with weather/wind like that, a TAF will show it (unless poor weather forecasting is a a Russiaism). Any reputable airline is going to give you an alternate if winds are gusting upto 60mph with low vis and weather in the area.

Not sure how accurate flightradar is, but it appears they made a second approach and executed another go around right before the crash which leads me to believe thats where the problem is. shows them climbing to 2800 feet then plunging to the ground. Stall on the go around?

After looking at the CCTV footage again, I'm more and more thinking a go around leading to a stall.

[Edited 2016-03-18 21:02:04]

B747forever · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:59 am

Just heard about the crash. Really saddened about the news

May they rest in peace.

Starlionblue · Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:59 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 51):

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 43):
Fuel starvation wouldn't explain the very steep descent shown in the video. Airliners glide remarkably well.

Sure, but don't they require a pilot to put it into a glide attitude to do so? I'm thinking BA038 (83?) which lost power on final due to fuel contamination. That plane may have fared better had the contamination problem happened earlier ass opposed to on final. Disagree?

Sure, but glide attitude wouldn't be that different from approach. You'd want to keep the same speed so you'd pitch the nose down a bit.

Thing is, it takes a quite a few seconds for the speed to come down even with flaps and gear out. You'd easily have time to react if both engines cut out from fuel starvation since they would spool down slowly.

The problem comes when you're close to the ground like the BA38. The natural instinct is not to push but if you don't you can stall.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 52):

Maybe a stall caused by fuel starvation? That angle was pretty steep so they may have been just below minimums, but enough to have some kind of forward momentum.

Fuel starvation per se won't cause a stall. You'd have to completely ignore the speed trend. As mentioned above it's a rather gradual process. Plenty of time to react.

Then again you'd probably be rather distracted by the master warning screaming at you.

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 56):

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 52):

Or just a stall it can happen in boeing as easily as an Airbus

It is easier to stall a Boeing than an Airbus. But that's another discussion.

[Edited 2016-03-18 21:00:58]

trnswrld · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:01 am

Geez, all the speculation here is just unbelievable. Seriously, someone here made a comment stating that based on the video, it's likely fuel starvation?!? Wtf unreal. Based on that video actually fuel starvation is the last thing that comes to my mind.
RIP and as terrible as 50 some deaths is, there could have been a lot more people on that plane.

D L X · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:01 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 69):
97kmph

Quoting flyenthu (Reply 60):
97kmph

What's a kmph? Kilometer miles per hour?

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 69):
The trees in the CCTV don't look all that bad.

I dunno. The security camera is shaking from the wind. That's probably some pretty big wind there. Also, it's still winter, and those trees don't have leaves to catch the wind. That the trees are shaking at all is indicative of a fair amount of wind.

TWA772LR · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:03 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 74):
Fuel starvation per se won't cause a stall. You'd have to completely ignore the speed trend. As mentioned above it's a rather gradual process. Plenty of time to react.

Of course but it no doubt would be a huge factor contributing to the crash. A crash isn't neessarily caused by one factor alone, but a combination of them. This also as a strong stench of human error.

B2468 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:04 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
What's a kmph? Kilometer miles per hour?

km/h, also sometimes known as kph or kmph...kilometers per hour.

KBUF · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:07 am

Quoting fraspotter (Reply 6):
According to FR24 OK914 PRG-ROV was circling around ROV before diverting toward KRR

SU1166 SVO-ROV also diverted to KRR at roughly the same time (also according to FR24). Definitely seems like weather was a factor.

[Edited 2016-03-18 21:08:02]

PDXflyer31 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:13 am

Hard to imagine this being anything other than crew error. RIP to all on board.

The video did look eerily similar to Tatarstan 363, as a couple people mentioned here. Incidentally the final report on that crash was just released in December after a 25 month investigation, and not surprisingly it was pilot error in that crash as well. Crew had not been properly trained on TOGA procedures and were forced into one at night under a low ceiling. A sequence of mistakes followed, culminating in the captain apparently misinterpreting a GPWS warning as a stall warning and overreacting.

Who knows what happened here, but the expectation whenever a modern Boeing or Airbus crashes is that its not the plane's fault.

Again, RIP to all those involved in this tragedy.

Hywel · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:16 am

Does flydubai have many expat pilots like Emirates? It will be interesting to find out their nationalities.

wxmeddler · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:22 am

The final moments looking at speed and altitude given the weather conditions looks eerily like a microburst signature. Note that the METAR gives BKN020CB - CB is cumulonimbus and thus a microburst seems like a logical solution given the ADS-B pings.

Flaps · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:23 am

I saw unsubstantiated comments elsewhere indicating a tail strike on the second approach. Whether that referred to a tailstrike and go-around, the tail struck first on impact or if these statements are even true is open to debate. In any case the recorders should be recovered fairly quickly and if of decent quality the authorities should have some idea of what occurred in fairly short order. Now whether that information is released quickly or not is another story.

D L X · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:24 am

Per FR24, SU1166 made three landing attempts between the two FlyDubai attempts, and after the third attempt, diverted.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/su1166/#923206c

Flaps · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:27 am

Quoting wxmeddler (Reply 82):
The final moments looking at speed and altitude given the weather conditions looks eerily like a microburst signature. Note that the METAR gives BKN020CB - CB is cumulonimbus and thus a microburst seems like a logical solution given the ADS-B pings.

These were my initial thoughts as well. Some form of windshear anyway. At least as a contributing factor.

A332DTW · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:39 am

Terrible, just terrible. My heart sinks every time I see a title like this.

Hard to believe it was fuel starvation, considering the rapid descent and post-crash fire. I haven't read any reports of convective activity, so hard to say it would be a microburst. Puzzling, really.

YULWinterSkies · Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:59 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 69):
As for winds being at 97kmph? The trees in the CCTV don't look all that bad.

In a thunderstorm, winds are most likely going to be very heterogeneous in terms of both direction and speed. Maybe 97 km/h is a peak speed measured at the airport's weather station, and the actual wind near the camera at the time of the crash was weaker.
However, both would be a ground wind speed, telling us little of possible wind gusts at higher altitude.
In my uneducated opinion, downburst is going to be considered seriously in the ongoing investigation. Time will tell...

JOYA380B747 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:01 am

I am pretty sure whatever the real story would be, UAE and/or Russia will try to suppress the media and sources from speaking out. There may or may not be more to this story than what has already been suggested here in this thread, but all I can see a plane literally nose driving. From the Weather data, a lot of things seem as probable explanations. But all we'd want now is an honest revelation of what exactly happened, after the black box is found and ATC communications are scrutinized.

May all those who passed away in this horrific tragedy rest in peace.

Hywel · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:09 am

From avherald.com -

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.

That's a lot of fuel for what is normally a 4 hour flight!

k83713 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:11 am

https://youtu.be/-4m0FcsLnEg

ATC exchange with the crew

Prost · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:16 am

The tail strike (if true) seems to be key here. I think about the JAL 747 that had its rear pressure bulkhead blowout, taking its hydraulics with it. No idea if the 738 architecture would enable a similar scenario.

BoeingGuy · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:17 am

Quoting Idlewild (Reply 68):
Judging by those lights in the video; the aircraft stalled out. Windshear? I know it's all speculation but it almost sounds like a repeat of EAL FLT# 66, back in '[email protected] JFK.

EA66 didn't have windshear detection systems. The 737 (and all Boeing models, and I assume all other manufacturers also) has two windshear detection systems - WXR based Predictive Windshear and GPWS based Reactive Windshear. There are also windshear escape procedures that didn't exist when EA66 crashed.

Hywel · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:19 am

Holding for 2 hours is ridiculous, if company policy was dictating that then I'll never fly with flydubai. They should have diverted after maximum 30 mins holding. Safety comes first.

nitepilot79 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:22 am

Clickable recording of ATC and pilots. From reply 92:

http://youtu.be/-4m0FcsLnEg

Hywel · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:24 am

Quoting k83713 (Reply 92):
https://youtu.be/-4m0FcsLnEg

ATC exchange with the crew

It seems that it crashed on its second go around (2 hours after first approach). Perhaps it stalled when climbing due to weather, pilot error, etc. It still had enough fuel for 2 more hours flight so we can rule out fuel exhaustion.

Ty134A · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:31 am

So acc to atc he was going around again...

And acc to fr24 climbed to about 3000ft after crashing!

[Edited 2016-03-18 22:36:45]

CXfirst · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:31 am

Quoting Hywel (Reply 95):

Holding for 2 hours is ridiculous, if company policy was dictating that then I'll never fly with flydubai. They should have diverted after maximum 30 mins holding. Safety comes first.

By the sounds of it, they had fuel for an alternate and over 2 hours of holding. Seems like it is above and beyond what most would uplift, allowing them to hold for a landing at passenger destination, rather than be forced to divert early due to not enough fuel to continue holding.

-CXfirst

Web500sjc · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:33 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 74):
It is easier to stall a Boeing than an Airbus. But that's another discussion

Of course.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 95):
Holding for 2 hours is ridiculous, if company policy was dictating that then I'll never fly with flydubai. They should have diverted after maximum 30 mins holding. Safety comes first.

The visibility and clouds sounds passable from the atc transmission, with a worsening trend. It sounds like the wind was the issue, especially the windshear. I think that the extra fuel gave the decision makers too many opportunities to wait out the bad weather and try again, rather than make the decision to divert. similar to the confidence an airframe parachute can do for some GA aircraft.

[Edited 2016-03-18 22:35:46]

PlanesNTrains · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:34 am

In the audio it sounds like they are usually saying "SKYDubai" rather than "FLYDubai". Is it just my misunderstanding their verbiage? Just curious - it's not really important in the scheme of things.

-Dave

Mir · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:37 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 101):
In the audio it sounds like they are usually saying "SKYDubai" rather than "FLYDubai". Is it just my misunderstanding their verbiage?

Sky Dubai is their ATC callsign.

-Mir

BAeRJ100 · Sat Mar 19, 2016 5:37 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 101):
the audio it sounds like they are usually saying "SKYDubai" rather than "FLYDubai

Sky Dubai is their callsign so thats completely normal.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net