Boeing 737 from Dubai crashes in southern Russia

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

No, they simply reported there was one. No one has claimed they were on fire. It was just a data point.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well it certainly flckers steadily like a fireball in the sky and in the reflection of the wet pavement and I do not see any flashing lights.

Also the car lights and headlight much closer to the camera are not overly bright in exposure as a comparison.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Sometimes the aircraft lights look like fire in these cameras. There's currently no indication of fire prior to impact.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

thats one crazy flightpath

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sad news, though at least no conspiracy with this one.

The thing came down out of the sky in flames!

High winds and rain didn't set it on fire.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well it certainly flckers steadily like a fireball in the sky and in the reflection of the wet pavement and I do not see any flashing lights.

Also the car lights and headlight much closer to the camera are not overly bright in exposure as a comparison.

A lo light camera (for nighttime recording) will magnify light sources, flaring at times brighter than what we would see with our naked eye.

To the thread, an eyewitness report has the wind so strong on the ground he felt his car 'buffeting' , then saw a plane in the landing pattern and wondered why they hadn't closed the airport.

Witness was driving nearby the airport at the time and realized later the plane he saw was probably the one attempting to land and later crashed.

They circled in a holding pattern 10 times? Why didn't they divert like another plane did? If the weather isn't clearing you have to be one stubborn pilot to insist landing at an airport where the conditions are extreme, and other nearby options exist.

The trajectory in the CCTV shows the plane isn't attempting to land, it is out of control. What, did they circle so long they ran out of fuel?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

There is no evidence at this point of a fire prior to landing.

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.

The Captain was Aristos Socratous, who had over 5,700 hours. The aircraft was manufactured in 2011, and passed a maintenance check on Jan 21st of this year. There were 44 Russians, 8 Ukrainians, 2 Indians, and 1 Uzbekistani among the passengers. The Crew were from Cyprus, Columbia, Kirgizia, Russia, 2 from Spain, and the Seychelles.

Conversation between the Captain and tower:



Debris field:

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: carewemust

The camera isn't that far from the impact site. The fact that we can see it isn't proof that the weather wasn't that bad.

Agreed. I took off in light snow once... visibility on the ground looked like ~5SM, but as soon as I got to pattern altitude the visibility went to near zero.

It is possible that this was some form of terrorist attack...
The thing with Russia is they would not admit it unless they had to because some truth was known...
Even then they would do thier best to cause doubt...
Bevause they wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction...
If this is the case...
Watch Russia punish them with greater severity...

that plane was burning.

i saw the slo-mo several times.

I have watched the video several times and to me it suggests a fire in the #2 engine. The angle of approach was very steep which suggests an aircraft not in control.

It is my guess, that the initial mistake was not going to an alternate airport earlier in the flight. Holding for two hours, if true, ate into his fuel reserves needed to divert to a more suitable airport. Did the captain use too much fuel to safely pursue other options? Did he run out of gas and stall trying to make it to the airport. Did he experience an engine fire that made it necessary to make a desperate attempt to land in low visibility and high winds.

Aviation accidents frequently are caused by several small mistakes which are ignored or handle poorly which result in the loss of the airplane.

a reply to: Zaphod58

From that tower transmission record I can tell they were in no stress except the weather, ruling out fuel or mechanical issue up until the point he goes around. The constant updates of wind speed "18 meter/s gusts" and "moderate wind shear" are telling. So sad to hear his voice last transmission, 981, going around-- bye bye…

a reply to: intrptr

What accounts for the high angle of attack in the video? Did the 737 stall as he starts his go around. It also appears to have a fire in the video as well.

a reply to: buddah6

My gut says they flew into a microburst as they went missed approach. It would have knocked them right into the ground at that altitude, and the weather is consistent with one. There were zero indications of fire or other trouble, right up until impact.

a reply to: buddah6
I think the lo light camera is intensifying the light (and reflections) more. As far as the steep angle, that is surely a loss of control. Wind shear was reported by the tower, that airport is known for it.

Until they rule it out and describe something else from the black box data, that is.

You raise the same question nagging me, wind shear reduces lift but can it make such a steep, fast decent to the ground from such a low altitude?

a reply to: intrptr

A microburst/windshear event knocked an L1011 out of the sky in Dallas. It could easily do the same to a 737.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

A microburst/windshear event knocked an L1011 out of the sky in Dallas. It could easily do the same to a 737.

Do we know at what altitude he initiated the missed pass?