@ SuseJ772: ??? This Boeing never touched the ground before impact. I fail to under stand how you can compare it with the NRT-crash

@ Pilotaydin: thank you so much for your contribution.

Reported in the Cyprus Mail

Quote: Aristos Sokratous, 37, from Limassol used to work for the defunct Helios Airways, the airline which was shut down after its 737 Boeing crashed en route from Larnaca to Athens killing 121 people in August 2005 This was reportedly one of the last flights Sokratous was going to be flying for the airline as he had been hired by Ryanair and was going to return to the island within the next few weeks or even days. He leaves behind a pregnant wife, who was expecting their son. Sokratous had studied at Oxford Aviation Academy and had moved to Dubai after Helios closed down. Reports said this was the first time Sokratous was attempting to land at the airport in Rostov-on-Don.

In recent years we have seen a number of accidents during Go Arounds caused by loss of situational awareness. In many of those accidens Instrument Flying Skills were not up to standards. There is now a discussion in the industry to try and improve pilot skills in basic handling and instrument flying. From what I have seen so far this accident could have been caused by this. My guess is that pilots completely lost control during the go around. From what we see the plane could have been flown into the ground. There was a 737 accident in Tatarstan that comes to mind now, could there be similarities?

Quoting Redd (Reply 166): Especially if the reports of a tailstrike are true, that is clearly not seen in the video and must have happened before.

It was reported the tail strike was the First attempt at landing.

Quoting NoTime (Reply 196): I know the data points aren't always completely accurate, but FR24 shows the aircraft reached almost 4,000 ft during its last go-around attempt, before crashing.

Oh ok wow, I had no idea it already got up to 4,000 ft. I think he fact that the thing ended up on the runway gave me the impression that it was closer to the ground. Maybe they initiated the go around well above the ground and that along with a high power setting in a light aircraft and that thing just went up like a rocket.

On the 738, the autopilot stays engaged during a GA IF you have them both hooked up during the approach. This would be a CATIII approach scenario. Most likely not the case here.

Second, there is nothing unsafe about holding for 2 hours if you have gas to do it and can hold in airspace safe from the weather. From the ATC recording, I hear no mention of deviations during the hold, though it's possible that wasn't picked up. That would be a decision jointly made by the Captain and the dispatcher, with the Captain being the final authority. That's why you carry extra fuel, to be able to hold at destination if needed in order to try to get in to your destination during a weather event. Nothing unsafe about it at all.

The weather at the time of the event doesn't appear to have been such that it was "unsafe" to consider the approach a second time. Gusts in the 45 knot range are challenging, but doable. Did one in ORD a few weeks ago. Crosswind and wind shear are obvious considerations, and a go-around should be briefed and prepared for; both with and without wind shear indications.

The speculation they had a tail strike on the first approach makes no sense if the data is correct that shows them going around well above the runway.

Lastly, I won't speculate on the crash. It's WAY too early. But I don't particularly give AV Herald any credence here. It would be early to determine a wingtip strike without access to the recorders. And a wingtip strike followed by and immediate balling up of the airplane would make no sense based on the ATC recording where the PNF calmly says they are going around. The timing just wouldn't add up in that scenario. You aren't going to call ATC and tell them you are going around until you're going around. And if you've struck a wingtip on landing and immediately lost control of the airplane, you aren't going to calmly call the tower and inform them you're on the go.

[Edited 2016-03-19 08:07:48]

Quoting A346Dude (Reply 194):

Quoting dubaiamman243 (Reply 176): In the press conference held by Flydubai, CEO Ghaith Al Ghaith said that the Captain has more than 5700 flying hours and the F/O has more than 5500 flying hour. The aircraft, A6-EDN had its last C-check on 21 JAN.

RIP to all. Russia has had some tough tragedies on aviation. The PIC was a Greek Cypriot and the plane was clearly in good shape. It came in a steep angle and high speed. If they had more altitude, I don't see why they could not have recovered. The weather in the camera didn't look that bad.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 206): The speculation they had a tail strike on the first approach makes no sense if the data is correct that shows them going around well above the runway. Lastly, I won't speculate on the crash. It's WAY too early. But I don't particularly give AV Herald any credence here. It would be early to determine a wingtip strike without access to the recorders. And a wingtip strike followed by and immediate balling up of the airplane would make no sense based on the ATC recording where the PNF calmly says they are going around. The timing just wouldn't add up in that scenario. You aren't going to call ATC and tell them you are going around until you're going around. And if you've struck a wingtip on landing and immediately lost control of the airplane, you aren't going to calmly call the tower and inform them you're on the go.

I agree. There's always a temptation to speculate, but the speculation is being based on weak evidence if not rumor, and that speculation doesn't match the more solid evidence we have from ATC recordings and FR24. Thank you for an excellent post.

Thinking back on the National Air Cargo 747 that crashed on takeoff at Bagram...Even though that was due to a load that broke loose in the cargo bay, the end result was also a low-level stall/upset, albeit beginning much closer to the ground than what we may believe had occurred in this incident.

I imagine the flight profiles in the last seconds between the two were similar, as in the below video, the 747's nose continued to decrease in attitude just before it struck the ground. If it had a few thousand more feet of altitude, its nose may have continued even further below the horizon before impact, as with what appears to have happened in this incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIjO0sKBDDw

Quoting dubaiamman243 (Reply 198):

Something calls my attention. What happened between 02:27 and 03:28? It is not common to stay in a holdern pattern for 1h, specially in a very small airport at night.

The pilot of the SSJ of SU1166 should give his relate of events of what happened on his first approach, and why he decided to divert to KRR.
Today (saturday 19) 26 flights were scheduled at ROV (28 @ KRR).
FZ-981 was supposed to land from DXB at 01:20, but due to late departure from DXB (52 minutes late), it was scheduled for 02:00.

The two last flights to land safely in Rostov/Don were
S7-1159 from DME (A319 VP-BHK) which landed at 01:23
U6-2758 from LBD (A320 VP-BIE) which landed at 01:28
Then, we had SU1166 from SVO (SSJ RA-89056) which was expected to land at 02:15. First approach was at 01:54, second at 02:07 and third at 02:17. At 02:20 the captain decided to divert to KRR, and the landing occurred there at 03:06.
Similar faith was with OK-914 from PRG (A319 OK-NEN) scheduled to land at 03:15, which diverted and landed at KRR at 03:31.
We have another flight, TK293 (from IST, A319 TC-JLS) which apparently returned to IST, which was scheduled to land @ ROV at 03:55.
The following scheduled arrival was DP103 from VKO at 09:15 which gave the airport some silence for a few hours.

So, we can see that after 01:28, there were no more landings. SU1166, OK914 and TK293 all diverted. DP103 was cancelled as many other landings expected for today.

But, as of 17:00, it seems some flights have taken off today, and the airport is operating normally. Is it posible to reopen an airport so soon? I thought it could even take weeks to do the complete investigation, specially as we've seen photos of lots of parts of the unfortunate plane scattered in the only runway of the airport...

Mysteries to be solved at the given time. RIP to all of those who perished.
Eielef @MOW

There has been discussion about the high level of automation and other technology leading to a deterioration of airmanship skills. I am reminded of an incident in Ernest Gahn's great book "Fate is the Hunter." In this situation, Gahn is a new co-pilot on an AA DC-2 making an approach during a thunderstorm and the pilot is one of the legendary captains from the early days of airline service. The captain begins striking matches and holding them in front of his astonished co-pilot. When challenged by Gahn, the captain says "Lady Luck is a bitch."

This is the captain's way of telling his protege that he must be prepared for everything that might come his way. Obviously, such training methods would be too dangerous for today's environment, but certainly there needs to be a great deal of simulator training on unusual events, including stressful situations involving delays and bad weather.

I wonder if it is because pilots receive their simulator training when they are well rested and fresh, instead of tired at the end of a long, stressful day, that the skills are not automatic, when needed.

If you haven't read "Fate is the Hunter," I highly recommend that you try to find it and read it. It is a fascinating story of the early days of commercial aviation by a man who truly had "been there and done that." It will give you an insight into how early airmen acquired their skills and the difficulties they had to overcome.

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 211): I wonder if it is because pilots receive their simulator training when they are well rested and fresh, instead of tired at the end of a long, stressful day, that the skills are not automatic, when needed.

The skills are deteriorating partly because of very little manual flying and very little practice of demanding manual flying in nonprecision approaches.

Why Flightradar shows this flight as "landed"?

Quoting rbavfan (Reply 204): It was reported the tail strike was the First attempt at landing

I wonder if this is true, it caused some damage to the aircraft, especially in the tail area to the horizontal stabilizer or control hydraulic, mechanical or electrical /lines to it.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 202): Reports said this was the first time Sokratous was attempting to land at the airport in Rostov-on-Don.

First time for the PF at an airport + with difficult weather conditions + possible damage to the controls of the aircraft = should have diverted

Quoting eielef (Reply 210): But, as of 17:00, it seems some flights have taken off today, and the airport is operating normally. Is it posible to reopen an airport so soon? I thought it could even take weeks to do the complete investigation, specially as we've seen photos of lots of parts of the unfortunate plane scattered in the only runway of the airport...

No it seems that aeroflot (not sure about others) is flying the ROV flights for today into and out of KKR with the same flight numbers and ROV as the destination . It is probably just confusing the trackers.

With KKR you mean Krasnodar (KRR)? That sounds posible, although there are almost 400km between both airports (in a painful highway called M4.
I'd better used VOZ, which is the same distance, but in a new highway, much faster to get there).

Quoting D L X (Reply 26): this flight was over two hours longer than it normally is, with all the circling. (6 hours versus a normal 3:50.) I have to ask again, fuel starvation?

Certainly looks like a near free fall trajectory. Fuel starvation however does not explain the fireball on ground impact.

often with these accidents extreme or low probability items such as fuel starvation or tail strile damage resulting in break up are not the cause....unfortunately ive been correct too many times in the past years and years about accident causes....I still stand by my loss of control during go around which happens a lot on the 737 as far as high pitch goes...

Quoting aeronaftis (Reply 217): Certainly looks like a near free fall trajectory. Fuel starvation however does not explain the fireball on ground impact.

There is a certain amount of residual fuel that cannot be utilized in every plane. It is even included in the empty weight calculation along with oil and other necessary fluids. There would certainly be enough to support a fire in a crash.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 213):

It would be a bit Gruesome for a flight tracker to put something different like "missing" "past Due" or "crashed". Landed is probably the best way to put the flight status.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 214): First time for the PF at an airport + with difficult weather conditions + possible damage to the controls of the aircraft = should have diverted

Your putting too much on the fact that it was the pilots first time at this airport. If an airplane crashed at JFK, would we really speculate that a causual factor was the pilots unfamiliarity with the airport? At some point we need to realize that the pilot sees an approach as guided by the instruments to a strip Of pavement 150 feet wide and 10,000 feet long. Yes there are special cases, like ASE, but the vast majority of airports and approaches are not special, they are standard.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 206): Second, there is nothing unsafe about holding for 2 hours if you have gas to do it and can hold in airspace safe from the weather

there is nothing unsafe about holding, but I would say being in bubble wrap can lead to some bad choices, see the 2011 cirrus VFR-IMC accident in Chicago, I dont think that flight would have been made if the airplane didn't have a parachute. If the weather conditions were such that this approach was an attempt to land, with a go around being the stronger possibility, then the approach was the bad choice. In the US, airline regulations specifically bar Approaches where the airport reports less than minimums, because "looksy" approachs lead to more accidents.

[quote=BoeingGuy,reply=90]
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. ******


I was going by flight characteristics and weather patterns more than the modern avionics and software packages. Even with all of the glass cockpits, satellite links, software, etc; Mother Earth will still throw us the inevitable curve-ball and we (this includes automation) will either be slow to react or go into a direct panic.

After reading pilotaydin's posts and looking up Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363, it seems to me that it does provide a plausible explanation for yesterday's crash. Without any desire to start an A vs. B fight, may I ask the experts if the Airbus alpha protection would prevent a stall in these circumstances?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 222):

Under normal law alpha max won't be exceeded even if a pilot applies full back stick

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 218): often with these accidents extreme or low probability items such as fuel starvation or tail strile damage resulting in break up are not the cause....unfortunately ive been correct too many times in the past years and years about accident causes....I still stand by my loss of control during go around which happens a lot on the 737 as far as high pitch goes...

Thank you for re-stating your theory as I have a feeling you are very correct. I'm kind of getting sick of hearing guys keep mentioning fuel starvation, or a fire, or breaking up after a botched landing attempt.

Pilottaydin,

Another question for you. DO you think the overspeed and stall warnings were triggered in the fz981? Does Boeing 737-800 have a separate high pitch warning or that's part of a stall warning?

Thank you much for your previous explanation.

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 169): If the aircraft is light the trim is positioned in such a way that the speed is low for the low weight, adding full thrust for a go around with a massive headwind can lead to enourmous pitch up attitude, especially in weather like this where the Autopilot is keen to disconnect...

Indeed. A good example of this possibility that occurred on a 737:

The Boeing 737-300 was on approach to Bournemouth Airport following a routine passenger flight from Faro, Portugal. Early in the ILS approach the auto-throttle disengaged with the thrust levers in the idle thrust position. The disengagement was neither commanded nor recognised by the crew and the thrust levers remained at idle throughout the approach. Because the aircraft was fully configured for landing, the air speed decayed rapidly to a value below that appropriate for the approach. The commander took control and initiated a go-around. During the go-around the aircraft pitched up excessively; flight crew attempts to reduce the aircraft’s pitch were largely ineffective. The aircraft reached a maximum pitch of 44º nose-up and the indicated airspeed reduced to 82 kt.

[i] The investigation identified the following causal factors:

(1) The aircraft decelerated during an instrument approach, to an airspeed significantly below the commanded speed, with the engines at idle thrust. Despite the application of full thrust, the aircraft stalled, after which the appropriate recovery actions were not followed.

(2) The trimmed position of the stabiliser, combined with the selection of maximum thrust, overwhelmed the available elevator authority.

http://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aar-3...g-737-3q8-g-thof-23-september-2007

RIP.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 8): Reporting no survivors.

The photos are scary...

Quoting JOYA380B747 (Reply 86): I am pretty sure whatever the real story would be, UAE and/or Russia will try to suppress the media

Sadly, I must agree. I'm doubtful those bright orange 'black boxes' survived.  

Lightsaber

Lightsaber, I respectfully disagree. This does not appear to be a 4-500 kias impact. I suspect that while the box may be well be destroyed, the cylinder containing the data chips will be recovered and and read just fine.

SLCPilot

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 227): Quoting JOYA380B747 (Reply 86): I am pretty sure whatever the real story would be, UAE and/or Russia will try to suppress the media Sadly, I must agree. I'm doubtful those bright orange 'black boxes' survived.

Reports are that the boxes have been found and it appears to me the media is not being suppressed:

Quote: ABU DHABI // Both of FlyDubai flight FZ981’s two “black box" data-recorders have been found. A statement from FlyDubai said the recorders had been found at the crash site “by the local accident investigation team and we continue to do all we can to assist their work". Alexander Efimov, the Russian ambassador to the UAE, had previously confirmed the discover of one of the black boxes. He said the discovery would help investigators determine what went wrong during the plane’s crash landing in the early hours of Saturday in Rostov-on-Don, Russia.

Ref: http://www.thenational.ae/uae/transp...covered-from-flydubai-flight-fz981

See also: http://www.emirates247.com/news/emir...ck-boxes-found-2016-03-19-1.624627

[Edited 2016-03-19 11:16:07]

Quoting UALWN (Reply 222): After reading pilotaydin's posts and looking up Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363

Hm, it does indeed seem like a deja vu, even the CCTV recordings are similar.

What really happened to Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363? Wikipedia article is very sparse with the information, it says the plane was never stalled, how come they couldn't recover then??

[Edited 2016-03-19 13:01:30]

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 218): .I still stand by my loss of control during go around which happens a lot on the 737 as far as high pitch goes...

It fortunately does not happen a lot... Thats an exaggeration. But it happened in Tatarstan and I think it happened here. Airworthy plane flown straight into the ground during Go Around.

In Russia at the moment and just have the local news running in the background this evening on tv.

Just as the photos show us the millions of pieces that were scattered everywhere from the wreck, they are saying that no bodies can be identified because of the same fate   DNA analysis will have to be used. So tragic for the families, I hope those pax and crew never had the opportunity to feel any fright or pain.

RIP to everyone who perished here, sad day.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 159): The decision must have come from flydubai HQ after radioing back to inform them of the weather. I doubt any pilot would want to hold for 2 hours, unless he was pressured into doing so by management.

You don't know the communications made so implying that it was a decision from management is ridiculous. Just because you may not fly a hold for 2 hours doesn't mean other people wouldn't. If I have the fuel, I would do it too.
Pat

Quoting Navigator (Reply 231): It fortunately does not happen a lot... Thats an exaggeration. But it happened in Tatarstan and I think it happened here. Airworthy plane flown straight into the ground during Go Around.

Must read more carefully, I said as far as PITCH goes...not the rate of loss of control accidents due to pitch..

I don't mean to offend you but I work on the Flight Safety Foundation European Advisory Committee and am also a member of ISASI. I have access to many statistics and incident information daily from many operators and friends...so my sentences on here are very carefully constructed. High pitch angles on the 737 aircraft are unfortunately very common during go arounds. The reason why you think I am exagerating this is because they mostly don't end up like this flight... and you don't hear about it because it's not on mainstream media...

[Edited 2016-03-19 13:32:17]

Quoting nikeherc (Reply 210): If you haven't read "Fate is the Hunter," I highly recommend that you try to find it and read it. It is a fascinating story of the early days of commercial aviation by a man who truly had "been there and done that." It will give you an insight into how early airmen acquired their skills and the difficulties they had to overcome.

Great book
        

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 229): Another question for you. DO you think the overspeed and stall warnings were triggered in the fz981? Does Boeing 737-800 have a separate high pitch warning or that's part of a stall warning?

I used to fly the 737 from 2005-2008 so a few things may have changed...the things you mention werent on my aircraft. But i'll tell you what is on your aircraft...a copilot! CALLOUTS!! the biggest problem we have no are low flight time kids that have flown cessnas with glass cockpits, and are used to automation. I wrote my master's thesis on automation failures, training and lack of pilot response. I unfortunately had predictions in there about future accidents...since then we've had Afriqua, Air Asia and now a variant which is this...

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 236):

Thanks for your valuable insights.

As an amateur my first thought was 'stall' having viewed the profile and video to be honest.

A little bit about the other theories....

1. Tail strike break up

If this aircraft had struck the tail and gone around, I highly would have expected the crew to have advised ATC as well as get the airplane down...I also don't think they would have climbed so high again even though they remained below 10,000 feet. I also don't know how an aircraft flying at 200+ knots doesnt break up, suddenly breaks up at lower energy....so there is no evidence in my aeronautical mind that would point towards a structural failure.

2. Fuel starvation....Any crew that had fuel issues would not hold for 2 hours and then attempt to land at an airport without final reserve for for 30 minutes nor would they wait that long to try again where there is a risk of going around again...aircraft that run out of fuel glide, like the Avianca 707 in New York, they don't nose dive into the earth

When I worked on the Amsterdam accident the 737 stalled below 500 feet, when power was added by the captain the pitch up and trim were so powerful he had to take his hand off the throttle and hold the plane down with two hands, which is when the throttles idled themselves again and the aircraft crashed...
In this case it's easy for the airplane to roll because the stall in these winds will almost always drop a wing and roll, or if one thrust lever is commanded at a different rate than the other it will also roll the aircraft to the position we see in the video...

I really hope the world of managers and departments of training start to realize the negative effects of automation and loss of flying skills after these accidents...

[Edited 2016-03-19 13:49:03]

Just had this stupid thought... How about a bomb(er) on board or a missile fired at the A/C? I know, stupid

Quoting SoJo (Reply 239): Just had this stupid thought... How about a bomb(er) on board or a missile fired at the A/C? I know, stup

Must have been a patient one ... waited the whole flight, 2 hours of cirling and 2 landing attempts ... I don't think so.

Quoting SoJo (Reply 239): Just had this stupid thought... How about a bomb(er) on board or a missile fired at the A/C? I know, stupid

I won't comment on the stupid part....but looking at the passenger list I doubt anyone would wait to detonate themselves after all that painful go around and holding....and also Dubai airport has good security as far as I know a bomb onboard would require all ops in DXB to stop and be reviewed...

As far as missile...i would congratulate anyone who can fire a missile from near an airport without getting caught and also able to find the 737-800 in gusting winds up to 36 knots and 3500m visibility...really I would congratulate that person who can do that...

Quoting SoJo (Reply 239): Just had this stupid thought... How about a bomb(er) on board or a missile fired at the A/C? I know, stupid

Please, just read Pilotaydin's theory and I am willing to pretty much guarantee you have the cause right there. no reason to bring up other extremely unlikely events.

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 241):

Is there any way it could have colided with another aircraft and came crashing down.
Im no expert but something doesnt add up here .

Quoting jumbojim747 (Reply 243): Is there any way it could have colided with another aircraft and came crashing down. Im no expert but something doesnt add up here .

1 aircraft + 1 aircraft = 1 crashed aircraft?

Does that add up better for you?

The 737 can be a bit "sporty" during a full power go-around. The low slung engines give a nose-up vector as thrust is increased (as is the case with most twins of this design). Some operators allow autopilot coupled go-arounds in the 737, some don't.

Listening to the ATC recordings, the crew sounds calm, professional and seemingly in control all through the hand-off to departure control. Whatever happened, it seemed to happen nearly instantaneously.

HOw about a drone strike combined with laser pen pointed at the cockpit? Who needs RPG's!

Quoting jumbojim747 (Reply 243): Is there any way it could have colided with another aircraft and came crashing down. Im no expert but something doesnt add up here .

OMG guys really? Who are you even asking this question to? You do know none of us were there right? At this point anything could have happened. Your idea is very unlikely though. Read Pilotaydin's responses he hit is as closely as possible at this point in time. No reason to keep coming up with anything our minds can possibly come up with.
It's likely pilot error played a very high factor here. Weather was also a huge factor, pilot confusion, disorientation, pressure to land...all things that likely played a role here.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 226): I'm doubtful those bright orange 'black boxes' survived

Let us hope for the best. They are very resistant indeed.

[Edited 2016-03-19 15:11:42]

Quoting pilotaydin (Reply 169): Hello after a year and a bit of not posting. I had worked on the Amsterdam accident a while back with TK. I do know that having flown both the Airbus and the Boeing aircraft, I can safely say that there are more upset attitudes during a go around for boeing aircraft than you may imagine. If the aircraft is light the trim is positioned in such a way that the speed is low for the low weight, adding full thrust for a go around with a massive headwind can lead to enourmous pitch up attitude, especially in weather like this where the Autopilot is keen to disconnect...

Is that a particular issue of the 737? And if yes what's different to other aircrafts?