Boeing 737 from Dubai crashes in southern Russia

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the update Zaphod58.

The duty/rest issues have always been a problem even in the US with its' super regulated environment. My former employer would short change crews on a regular basis. For example, on a Huntington,WV overnight we were expected to spend exactly 8 hours then fly to Cincinnati the following morning. The regs say 8 hours of rest but that's not as it appears. Your 8 hours start the minute that you leave the airport. This is how it actually happens...leave the front door of the airport and wait for the hotel van followed by a 45 minute ride to the hotel and 15 minutes to check in and get to your room. At this point you must choose between sleep or food. Most usually it was sleep. In the morning, you must arrive at the airport in your 8 hour turn around. So we had 1.5 hours in travel time, 30 minutes to shower/shave and 30 minutes check in and out. The 8 hours of rest is in reality only about 5.5 hours of rest. Also you haven't eaten 15 hours due to the tight schedule. When you arrive in Cincinnati you only have 30 minutes until your next departure with an airplane change in the process. During the remainder of the day you do 10 takeoff and landing cycles arriving back in Cincinnati at 8 pm before going home only to start this same schedule at 5 am the next morning. Do this 12 times a month and you body starts to deteriorate especially when you're older.

From the interim report:

As the crew were proceeding with another manual approach, they decided to go around again at a height of 220 meters (721 feet), 4,5 km before the runway. They initiated a climb with a vertical speed of up to 20 m/s (3937 ft/min) and setting the engines to maximum takeoff/go-around (TOGA) thrust.
One of the probable causes of the go-around decision could have been the 20-knot increase of indicated speed to as much as 176 knots within 3 seconds, which might have been an indication of a windshear.
In the course of the go-around the crew set the flaps to 15° and retracted the landing gear. At the height of 1900 ft (approx. 600 m) after reaching the pitch angle of 18° the pilot flying pushed on the control column, which led to a decrease in vertical acceleration of up to 0.5, increase in forward speed and, consequently, automatic retraction of flaps from 15° to 10° at a speed of over 200 knots.
The short-term decrease in engine thrust within 3 seconds resulted in decreasing speed and flaps extension to 15°, although the following crew inputs to regain maximum takeoff/go-around thrust led to speed increase and reiterated automatic flaps retraction to 10°. The flaps remained in the latter configuration until the impact.
The pilot flying, by pulling up the control column, continued climbing with a vertical speed of as much as 16 m/s (3150 ft/m).
At a height of 900 m there was a simultaneous control column nose down input and stabilizer nose down deflection from -2,5 deg (6,5 units) to +2,5 deg (1,5 units). The FDR recorded a nose down stabilizer input from the stabilizer trim switch of the control wheel lasting 12 seconds, while the CVR record contains a specific noise of rotation of the trim wheels located on both sides of the central pedestal. As a result the aircraft, having climbed to about 1000 m, turned into descent with a negative vertical acceleration of -1g. The following crew recovery actions did not allow to avoid an impact with the ground.
The aircraft hit the runway about 120 m from the threshold with a speed of over 600 km/h and over 50 degrees nose down pitch.

news.aviation-safety.net...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
From the interim report:

As the crew were proceeding with another manual approach, they decided to go around again at a height of 220 meters (721 feet), 4,5 km before the runway. They initiated a climb with a vertical speed of up to 20 m/s (3937 ft/min) and setting the engines to maximum takeoff/go-around (TOGA) thrust.
One of the probable causes of the go-around decision could have been the 20-knot increase of indicated speed to as much as 176 knots within 3 seconds, which might have been an indication of a windshear.
In the course of the go-around the crew set the flaps to 15° and retracted the landing gear. At the height of 1900 ft (approx. 600 m) after reaching the pitch angle of 18° the pilot flying pushed on the control column, which led to a decrease in vertical acceleration of up to 0.5, increase in forward speed and, consequently, automatic retraction of flaps from 15° to 10° at a speed of over 200 knots.
The short-term decrease in engine thrust within 3 seconds resulted in decreasing speed and flaps extension to 15°, although the following crew inputs to regain maximum takeoff/go-around thrust led to speed increase and reiterated automatic flaps retraction to 10°. The flaps remained in the latter configuration until the impact.
The pilot flying, by pulling up the control column, continued climbing with a vertical speed of as much as 16 m/s (3150 ft/m).
At a height of 900 m there was a simultaneous control column nose down input and stabilizer nose down deflection from -2,5 deg (6,5 units) to +2,5 deg (1,5 units). The FDR recorded a nose down stabilizer input from the stabilizer trim switch of the control wheel lasting 12 seconds, while the CVR record contains a specific noise of rotation of the trim wheels located on both sides of the central pedestal. As a result the aircraft, having climbed to about 1000 m, turned into descent with a negative vertical acceleration of -1g. The following crew recovery actions did not allow to avoid an impact with the ground.
The aircraft hit the runway about 120 m from the threshold with a speed of over 600 km/h and over 50 degrees nose down pitch.

news.aviation-safety.net...

That last sentence made my blood run cold. Thanks for the info. I knew windshear was dangerous, but i didnt know the figures (wind speeds that it can reach ) frightening.

I remember very clearly a Tristar (loved that plane) crashing in LA (?) in the mid 80s craahing on landing due to windshear. Since then, those words have stuck with me. If I recall correctly the plane got pretty much flipped over. But im going from a 30 year old memory so o could be wrong.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Delta 191 in Dallas. They hit short because of a microburst.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Delta 191 in Dallas. They hit short because of a microburst.

Dallas. That's it. I knew you would know. Is a microburst windshear?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

It's considered a type of windshear yes. It's a strong burst of wind that pushes straight down from the leading edge of a thunderstorm. It hits the ground and swirls up again. You either get hit with a rapid descent and acceleration, or rapid climb and speed drop off. Usually it shoves you down towards the ground though.

how did I miss the news?

a reply to: Zaphod58


where exactly is dubia at? I have heard of it before. is it a muslim country?

Investigators have completed transcribing 2:3:49 of the CVR.

Sounds like a wind shear induced stall to me.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Pilot error, possibly exasperated by windshear. The crew commanded nose down when the AoA seemed to get too high.

a reply to: Zaphod58


wow! when did this happen how many were on the plane?