Shocking video: Boeings nosedive in Kazan captured, as cause of crash is debated.

Angelic Resurrection
Good God, making a second circle to land approach is a ghastly error.
But its previous flight fro Kazan to Moscow reports some vibration prior to
landing.

I was not aware that it was on a circle-to-land approach. Every carrier I have flown for since 121 was rewritten has forbidden CTL approaches for obvious reasons. You can't fly a coupled CTL and at a 136 knot approach speed (156 mph) in the -100, you can lose visual contact with the runway too quickly. The visibility minimums for either ILS at Kazan is 550 meters. At 136 knots you cover that in 7.5 seconds. The approach procedures for that airport don't even list minimums for a circling approach and with a full ILS for each end of UWKD's single runway, why would you need a circling approach?

I think someone made mention of it...

But don't think about shanksville.

Instead think of flight 427 in Pittsburgh. Again an older model 737. Had rudder issues. Nosed dived straight in.
Giving that this Russian 737 was probably as old and not updated with the new rudder parts. Seems to fit the scenario.

As I look at some old Polaroids and 35 mm photos from the 427 incident. Almost the same.


Edit: I know the plane was having issues and circling. But I don't believe the Russian pilot would just intentionally dive in. So its possible that the plane was developing rudder issues before the crash.

reply to post by smurfy


The flashes seen in the video were the strobe lights on the wingtips.

reply to post by Phoenix


An unstable approach means just that. They hadn't settled into the position they need at three right point. They could have been turning, or descending too fast, etc.

reply to post by Bigburgh


The rudder reversals all happened on the first use of the rudder after descending from cruising altitude. They were caused by hot hydraulic fluid hitting a frozen PCU.

reply to post by F4guy


haven't seen the approach charts in question.
But Heck read the bloody article b4 posting, will ya

How about a bump for our well thought out informative discussion! flags help!

I knew this somewhat reminded me of another crash,

Flight 585, Boeing 737-200 in 1991

Several minutes later ATC cleared the 737 to descend to 10,000 feet and 3 minutes later requested they descend to 8,500 feet. When the aircraft reported "airport in sight" they were instructed to maintain 8,500 feet until on base leg, then they were cleared for a visual approach to runway 35, and to contact the Tower on 119.9Mhz. On final the Captain was flying the aircraft, the first officer was handling communications, the runway was in sight, the aircraft was configured, and the checklist was complete. The aircraft was turning from its 45° intercept to the extended runway centerline, and the first officer called "we're at 1,000 feet."

On a Feb. 25, 1991, flight, N999UA's rudder deflected inexplicably to the right. The problem went away when the pilots switched off the yaw damper, a device that automatically commands small rudder adjustments during flight. Mechanics replaced a part called the yaw-damper coupler and returned the plane to service.

Two days later, a different flight crew reported N999UA's rudder again moving to the right. The new coupler evidently had made no difference. This time mechanics replaced a valve in the yaw damper and returned the plane to service.

Four days later, on the blustery morning of March 3, 1991, Captain Harold Green and First Officer Patricia Eidson were bringing N999UA down for a routine landing in Colorado Springs. At 1,000 feet, the jet suddenly flipped to the right and dived straight down, smashing into a city park and killing all 25 on board..

The NTSB, in early-2001, cited a rudder system malfunction, leading to a loss of rudder command by the crew, as the primary probable cause of this accident.

Air Disaster.com


Its interesting that flight profile for landing matched, altitudes were both low at loss of control, both had weather component - the account of 585's final plunge is eerily similar to what was reported in the OP video and accounts.

SPYvsSPY
How about a bump for our well thought out informative discussion! flags help!

OK - you got one.

Actually thought I flagged it earlier. You know what they say about forgetting your flags as you get older...

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bigburgh

 

The rudder reversals all happened on the first use of the rudder after descending from cruising altitude. They were caused by hot hydraulic fluid hitting a frozen PCU.

585 flight in 91' was only 11,000 when it descended for landing, any idea what altitude this flight originally descended from?

reply to post by F4guy


It's wasn't a circle to land approach, they were going around after recognizing an unstable approach.

reply to post by Phoenix


I'm not sure, I can't find anything on the flight path. With them calling an unstabilized approach, I'd be surprised if it was a PCU issue though.

reply to post by SPYvsSPY


I'm guessing the flashes of light you refer to are the beacons on the wings?

reply to post by denybedoomed


That's what it appears to be to me. The lights on the aircraft all match up with known lights on an intact 737 of any model.

Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

The flashes seen in the video were the strobe lights on the wingtips.

I wouldn't misdoubt that for a wingtip singular, but at the time I wrote I had seen the air controllers statement that in his conversation with one of the pilots, that pilot had said, "the plane wasn't fit to land" and not forgetting that the plane had vibration issues on an earlier landing. Given that, those flashes could have been any source. Since there is crash video unreleased as yet, it's early days. Speculating on the nightime video is just that speculation. The apparent nose down dive however, does look like a stall. Whether that was a speed loss, or loss of surface lift by something falling off, like a wing, or a major part of, at a critical altitude, I have no idea.
That the plane should have been written off in Brazil would be more to my liking.

reply to post by smurfy


The lights that can be seen in the video appear to match up perfectly to an intact, powered 737. If a wing, or a portion of the wing had come off, or any control surface for that matter, what was seen in the video would have looked differently. But based on my experience, even on a grainy video, that looks like an intact aircraft.

Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

The lights that can be seen in the video appear to match up perfectly to an intact, powered 737. If a wing, or a portion of the wing had come off, or any control surface for that matter, what was seen in the video would have looked differently. But based on my experience, even on a grainy video, that looks like an intact aircraft.

It's impossible to see man, be honest, even the video is not so much grainy but actually lacking lighting at that point. What does that say? no cabin lights visible, no navigation lights visible, so everything has failed except the strobes, and possibly a landing light. That is not an intact aircraft falling down. Wait until the unreleased video appears.

reply to post by smurfy


Navigation lights are almost always overridden by the white wingtip lights. You don't use them at altitude or on the ground so the navigation lights can be seen. There are what appear to be strobe lights (white flashes that time right for strobes on a 737), there is what appears to be a white light on the wingtip, and there appears to be the light that shines on the tail that illuminates the airline logo.

The lights are all powered by the same electrical system, so if some had failed, all would have failed and it would have been totally dark.

did anyone notice how calm the men in the r.t video sounded after witnessing a plane crash .

anyone factor in cheap russian vodka / tired pilots / hookers /etc into this equation .

bada boom big bada boom ..

i was going to ask zaphoid what was the last thing going through the pilots mind .

better not

should have gone to specksavers

reply to post by Zaphod58


There's no damn filled in mine where the plane supposedly went down in Shanksville. It was in a mining state. Easy way out of the ground eating airplane theme, just say it hit a filled in mine. You have got to be freaking kidding me. Was the Pentagon a filled in mine as well? Your so up on this plane crash stuff, can you tell how grass was growing on the slopes in the hole in Shanksville? What was that , filled in mine grass? Only difference here is VIDEO evidence that an actual airplane crashed in Russia. Video evidence, not a Government narrative.