It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boeing 737 from Dubai crashes in southern Russia

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

Yeah that's what I was reading. Those are the recommended limits by Boeing but each airline will set their own it seems.




posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charolais

Makes me wonder if they got unstable on the approach and then got hit more as they climbed and lost it.


could be a microburst.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

That's what my gut says.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charolais

Makes me wonder if they got unstable on the approach and then got hit more as they climbed and lost it.


could be a microburst.

Microburst are associated with thunderstorms/cumulus clouds. When the cumulus cloud has no more lift it collapses by the weight of the moisture it contains. This causes downdrafts and the higher the cumulus cloud the greater speed of the downdraft. Some thunderstorms are so tall (40-50K feet) the weight of water moisture will get to a very high downdraft speed. These down drafts are so fast they are no long contained in the cloud that generated them and these are microbursts. They continue downward until they strike the ground. If an airplane are caught in one it can be catastrophic especially when low to the ground.

From what I read, the airport has low overcast with high winds. Overcast is the result of stratus clouds not cumulus needed for microbursts. The one clue is the high winds of 67 MPH. The weather feature that is caused by high winds is windshear. Windshear is as dangerous to airplanes as microbursts. Windshear can force an airplane's speed under stall speed instantaneously. If you are low on approach this will result in a crash. The direction of the windshear is critical as well. A 67 MPH headwind then a 30 MPH tailwind would be ugly as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

So being in love with a baby brain makes a conspiracy now ? lol. I remember having doozies leading up to each birth of my 3 squids, but i cant imagine crashing a plane over it.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

According to his friends, at least part of that article was wrong anyway. They all said that he took the job with Ryan because it would allow him to be home in Cyprus more, not Ireland.

And the fact that other aircraft, and the ATC recordings don't talk about "deadly turbulence" means more of it is wrong.
edit on 3/20/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Now they're saying that the recorders are badly damaged, but can still be downloaded. They're going to take longer, and the equipment is being set up now to read them.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Winds at 1,640 feet, at the time of the crash, were 67 mph. An Aeroflot flight prior to the accident flight attempted to land three times before diverting to another airport, due to the weather. They were attempting to go around on this landing attempt, but suddenly nosed over with a descent rate of up to 21,000 feet per minute.



Ouch!
22,000 FPM?
I only fly virtually with FSX but wouldn't they feel that kind of descent rate?
Well, the passengers would not have suffered.
Even with the 747 or MD 80 that I fly,II keep my descent rate below 3500 FPM at high altitudes with slight speed brakes applied if I need to get down in a hurry.

21000 under FL100 sounds extreme
You would think they would feel some extreme G forces with a change from a typical descent rate to 21,000 FPM
edit on 20-3-2016 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Even if they did, at that altitude there isn't a damn thing you can do except swear for posterity.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
According to his friends, at least part of that article was wrong anyway. They all said that he took the job with Ryan because it would allow him to be home in Cyprus more, not Ireland.

That's what the article says, Cyprus, although the caption of one of the photos says Ireland.
Typical Daily Mail.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: charolais

Makes me wonder if they got unstable on the approach and then got hit more as they climbed and lost it.


could be a microburst.



From what I read, the airport has low overcast with high winds. Overcast is the result of stratus clouds not cumulus needed for microbursts. The one clue is the high winds of 67 MPH. The weather feature that is caused by high winds is windshear. Windshear is as dangerous to airplanes as microbursts. Windshear can force an airplane's speed under stall speed instantaneously. If you are low on approach this will result in a crash. The direction of the windshear is critical as well. A 67 MPH headwind then a 30 MPH tailwind would be ugly as well.


I suppose there are no international guidelines on when an airport should halt take-offs and landings, due to extreme weather? Ohare airport (which is near me) often calls for a "ground stop" during really bad winds, snowstorms, etc.. The planes are diverted to other airports, I think.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It's usually up to the PIC when exactly the wind is too much to land.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

There are certain conditions when airports make the call. A 50 mph crosswind for example, or whiteout with icing. But if the winds are close to the recommended limits, then it's up to the crew to make the call.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: research100

So being in love with a baby brain makes a conspiracy now ? lol. I remember having doozies leading up to each birth of my 3 squids, but i cant imagine crashing a plane over it.


I didn't say it was a conspiracy...he has a baby due in 2 weeks, you would think he would have been a tad more cautious and gone to another airport and not taken such a risky chance



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

I agree, he should have known with all his flying hours. He should have diverted to another airport that did not have weather issues. If I was a pilot I would not circle the airport for 2 hours. 1/2 hour at the most!
edit on 3 20 2016 by Quantum12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: research100

Other aircraft were able to get in before them. In hindsight it was a poor decision, at the time it probably didn't seem to be.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Breaking news! Another plane landed in Russia. This time because of engine failure. One of the engines failed, and the plane is the same as the one who crashed.


Conspiracy? This model has fatal flaws??
edit on 21-3-2016 by ZeroFurrbone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

The 737 is by far the most common commercial aircraft ever built. Counting early retired aircraft there have been almost 9,000 built. If they had a fatal flaw it would have been found long before now.

When you have as many aircraft flying as the 737 has, in as many different areas as it flies, then odds are you can find more mechanical failures than other types, just due to sheer numbers.
edit on 3/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Sorry not 737.

I meant the model that crashed. 2 times now.

All in Russia. Just a week appart
Same model too...
edit on 21-3-2016 by ZeroFurrbone because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

It was a 737-800, occasionally listed as a 738, shorthand for 737-800. The same as the one that crashed. I saw it earlier in the day.
edit on 3/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join