Passenger Plane Crashes at Rostov-on-Don Airport in Russia

loreta said:
Thanks everybody for all the technical information. This information does not answer why the pilot decided to wait 2 hours, flying 2 hours! instead of going to another airport. Is this an answer to this question? I imagine the poor travellers in the airplane waiting 2 hours, tired, nervous, anxious. And then... This accident is horrible!

Maybe they crossed over to a no time zone, and back, due to some dimensional overlapping? Otherwise why remain calm in their conversation up to the end? Maybe reinsertion in our reality went wrong?

Maybe this sounds" twilight zone-ish", but the perception of time could have been affected. Were there any observation that the contact with the pilots was discontinued? I didn't notice this aspect, but who knows?

Just my thoughts
 
loreta said:
Thanks everybody for all the technical information. This information does not answer why the pilot decided to wait 2 hours, flying 2 hours! instead of going to another airport. Is this an answer to this question? I imagine the poor travellers in the airplane waiting 2 hours, tired, nervous, anxious. And then... This accident is horrible!

It's fairly standard procedure to carry extra fuel when the weather forecast for the destination is bad. When an aircraft diverts to another airfield, there is additional costs involved; landing fees, refuelling, parking, various ground handling fees, (eg. catering) hotel rooms for passengers and so on. So, carrying that extra fuel to hold till the bad weather at destination clears, is very common.

In this case, the crew did make an initial approach which wasn't successful. They did a 'go round' and into a holding position for the weather to improve. Then, after a certain amount of time, (not sure how long they were in the holding position) the crew asked for the weather from the air traffic controller (ATC). You can here this in the audio transcript below. The flight's callsign is SkyDubai 981. In between, there is chatter in Russian, which I don't understand.


The weather passed to the pilots was not very unusual. So, the crew decided to attempt an approach, although it seemed to me that they were not very confident that they could land, since I can hear the pilot telling the ATC that if he goes around again, they will climb to a certain altitude. The tape ends when the pilot says 'going around' and the ATC tells him to call another controller on another VHF frequency.

So a severe microburst exactly at the time of the go around, could have possibly caused this accident. Reports from RT, also suggest that there may have been a technical fault as well - https://www.rt.com/news/336315-flydubai-crash-rostov-versions/ Hopefully the 'black box' will give us more details.
 
Just to note and it may have nothing to with it, almost one year ago on March 24 the Germanwings accident happened in France.

Niall said:
I don't see, from that video, that the plane was on fire prior to impact. That light you see is, I think, the headlights.

Tatarstan Airlines Flight 363, also a Boeing 737, flying from ‌Moscow to Kazan, crashed during adverse weather conditions at Kazan airport in November 2013.

This airport security camera footage shows the moment of that crash, which killed all 50 on board. This plane was also making its second attempt at landing. Notice the angle is comes down at...


The 2013 crash was put down to a combination of 'pilot inexperience/old aircraft/bad weather'.

I think most crashes in recent years can be put down to unusually extreme weather.

This may really be the case and as supposed by others maybe a strong burst of wind.
 
Yozilla said:
Just crossed my mind if some sudden "dropping" of cold stratospheric air (some kind of air eddies :-[) is already happening. That kind of thing maybe could slam the plane down :huh:. Maybe even plane acting like a needle - to punch the "warmer air zone" below and hence causing it's own horrible ending... Uh maybe in the same manner asteroid or comet is first needed to punch the lower atmosphere so the freezing air could penetrate down :huh:... like crack in a dam thing?

y

That's a possibility, the plane could act as a needle but not necessarily a mechanical one (punching hole by modifying pressure or draft) but an electric one. Indeed, plane can carry an electric charge different from the one carried by the surrounding (see discharge of the Boeing hitting the WTC tower, or planes struck by lightning for example). A negatively charged plane could attract positive charges (including ionised air molecules) from higher atmosphere.
 
Thank you Vulcan59 for the information.

The passengers were not lucky to have a Dubai pilot. How bad luck!

In this article they play with 3 theories for the cause of this accident, one of them an terrorista attack.

FlyDubai air disaster: Pilot error, technical malfunction or terrorism?

http://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/03/19/rostov-plane-crash_577209

Russian investigators are looking into several possible causes of the country’s latest air disaster, after a FlyDubai airliner crashed while attempting to land in poor visibility at the airport in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don in the early hours of March 19.

The Boeing 737-800, en route from Dubai, crashed about 250 meters short of the runway while attempting a landing. All 55 passengers and seven crew members were killed in the disaster.

According to the website Flightradar24.com, after abandoning its first attempt to land, the plane circled for two hours in the sky above the airfield before the captain decided to land for the second time.

However, the plane failed to execute a landing and hit the ground as it attempted to climb, resulting in the aircraft breaking up.

Theory 1: Technical failure
Russian experts say one of the main theories is a technical malfunction.

According to Alexei Gavrilenko, captain of a Boeing 777 aircraft, “it is impossible to give a precise assessment” of why the captain opted not to land at another airport until the flight recorders are decoded.

"The plane had been circling over the airport of Rostov-on-Don for two hours before a landing attempt, so it is likely that a technical failure could have prevented it from diverting to an alternate aerodrome," he told RBTH.

The media reports do not mention any malfunction before the plane’s departure from Dubai, but experts agree that a failure could have occurred during the flight.

Theory 2: Pilot error in bad weather
As Oleg Panteleyev, executive director of the Aviaport agency, noted in an interview with RBTH, ground control warned the Boeing 737 crew of bad weather in Rostov-on-Don before departure, and, if necessary, is always ready to provide an additional weather report at the time of landing.

"The city was under a storm warning, wind with gusts up to 28 meters per second was expected," said Panteleyev.

"The captain decided to land and it all depends on his decision. He is guided by the technical capabilities of the aircraft to operate in a variety of weather conditions, as well as by international air travel rules and FlyDubai's internal regulations. It is likely that he overestimated the capabilities of his aircraft."

According to Boeing-777 captain Gavrilenko, pilots are always trained to fly even under a storm warning and there is nothing out of the ordinary about landing in bad weather.

"We spend a lot of hours in simulators, practicing landing in low visibility conditions, in a strong crosswind," he said.

"Perhaps the pilots overestimated the capabilities of their aircraft – the Boeing-737 training manual clearly states under what weather conditions the aircraft can operate – and also failed to assess the weather conditions in Rostov-on-Don. Therefore, pilot error is one of the main theories."

Aviation experts emphasize that it is necessary to wait for data from the flight recorders before drawing final conclusions about the causes of the tragedy.

Theory 3: Terrorist attack
According to Aviaport's executive director Panteleyev, investigators always examine the theory of a terrorist attack. However, in his opinion, this possibility is unlikely because the controllers did not receive reports about any incidents on board from the crew.

Russian experts believe that this is also evidenced by the footage from surveillance cameras that shows the airliner exploding as it hits the ground.
 
Black boxes from the deceased aircraft were badly damaged, apparently they need a month to be decrypted.
Quote:
"Take the recording devices are difficult mechanically damaged," says the State Commission for Aviation (IAC) said in a statement that it is next to photo crushed boxes published on its web site "
box-460_1044836S0.jpg
 
Gawan said:
Unfortunately it is reported that a passenger plane crashed in Russia supposedly due to bad weather and bad sight during landing. It is reported that all 62 passengers died in that incident. When checking the shared video it looks like if the plane falls like a stone from the sky. May the people rest in peace.



I have reviewed this video several times and have a question. Right in the very beginning - at the :03-:04 mark, there is a noticeable "thump" in the sound track - and nothing after that? I'm taking this to be a stationary security camera with a visual and sound tract? Is the thump, a technical glitch in the RT editing of the video or a percussion picked up by camera sensors - just prior to the plane coming into focus on the video?

Voyageur posted a link from Sputnik (Reply 27) that used the RT video but with "no sound". I can reason a technical glitch but on the other hand, the split second percussion thump might indicate something else? What if the plane was targeted from the ground and hit with a projectile of some sort? The plane was circling around and coming in at 150 knots and then suddenly goes up to 200 knots, before crashing to the ground in little pieces. There was a report of Airport Security, picking up a guy from Ukraine, riding around trying to find a spot to place a bomb, the day before? Considering how bad the weather was, it might have been used as cover, for a different attempt?
 
angelburst29 said:
Gawan said:
Unfortunately it is reported that a passenger plane crashed in Russia supposedly due to bad weather and bad sight during landing. It is reported that all 62 passengers died in that incident. When checking the shared video it looks like if the plane falls like a stone from the sky. May the people rest in peace.



I have reviewed this video several times and have a question. Right in the very beginning - at the :03-:04 mark, there is a noticeable "thump" in the sound track - and nothing after that? I'm taking this to be a stationary security camera with a visual and sound tract? Is the thump, a technical glitch in the RT editing of the video or a percussion picked up by camera sensors - just prior to the plane coming into focus on the video?

Voyageur posted a link from Sputnik (Reply 27) that used the RT video but with "no sound". I can reason a technical glitch but on the other hand, the split second percussion thump might indicate something else? What if the plane was targeted from the ground and hit with a projectile of some sort? The plane was circling around and coming in at 150 knots and then suddenly goes up to 200 knots, before crashing to the ground in little pieces. There was a report of Airport Security, picking up a guy from Ukraine, riding around trying to find a spot to place a bomb, the day before? Considering how bad the weather was, it might have been used as cover, for a different attempt?

It sounds like an audio artifact, of the recording starting and the audio switching on. The thing to remember with these CC TV camera recordings is that, very often, they are recordings of camera playbacks. That is to say, someone may be filming with a camcorder, the screen that is playing back the CC TV footage. Notice that the video moves slightly during playback, this could be the effect of someone's hand moving slightly as they film the screen. One other thing. There doesn't seem to be much movement of the trees by the wind, which doesn't really suggest strong wind at ground level.
 
Joe said:
It sounds like an audio artifact, of the recording starting and the audio switching on. The thing to remember with these CC TV camera recordings is that, very often, they are recordings of camera playbacks. That is to say, someone may be filming with a camcorder, the screen that is playing back the CC TV footage. Notice that the video moves slightly during playback, this could be the effect of someone's hand moving slightly as they film the screen. One other thing. There doesn't seem to be much movement of the trees by the wind, which doesn't really suggest strong wind at ground level.

Appreciate the information, Joe and Thanks for looking into the glitch. Didn't realize, it might be a recording of a camera playback with a camcorder verses a formal duplicate copy of the video? Isn't technology ... wonderful? Just learned something new.
 
Pierre said:
That's a possibility, the plane could act as a needle but not necessarily a mechanical one (punching hole by modifying pressure or draft) but an electric one. Indeed, plane can carry an electric charge different from the one carried by the surrounding (see discharge of the Boeing hitting the WTC tower, or planes struck by lightning for example). A negatively charged plane could attract positive charges (including ionised air molecules) from higher atmosphere.

Yup Pierre, i wanted to write something like that this could be only a mechanical part of problem - i have had some vague idea that some electrical phenomenon could be at play there too - even if just the very circling of the plane could create some additional electromagnetic effect in that area to precipitate tings further south. Another speculation: could high winds in some area create some kind of vacuum effect, strong flow of air which could enhance "sucking/pulling" even more freezing air from upper layers if the hole/portal is punched through "warmer" lower atmospheric layer..?

Well i just suck considering speculating :-[
 
angelburst29 said:
Joe said:
It sounds like an audio artifact, of the recording starting and the audio switching on. The thing to remember with these CC TV camera recordings is that, very often, they are recordings of camera playbacks. That is to say, someone may be filming with a camcorder, the screen that is playing back the CC TV footage. Notice that the video moves slightly during playback, this could be the effect of someone's hand moving slightly as they film the screen. One other thing. There doesn't seem to be much movement of the trees by the wind, which doesn't really suggest strong wind at ground level.

Appreciate the information, Joe and Thanks for looking into the glitch. Didn't realize, it might be a recording of a camera playback with a camcorder verses a formal duplicate copy of the video? Isn't technology ... wonderful? Just learned something new.

There's also the fact that while we can hear the "thump", we hear nothing when the airplane approaches and hits the ground, so that's an indication that it's not the external sound that is being played back.
 
From what I have been able to register looking at the various sources, I feel a few clarifications are in order.

The very last phase of this flight was a final approach down to about 800ft height above ground at a GROUND SPEED of 150KTS. This was followed by a climbing attitude at a GROUND SPEED of 200KTS, then a sharp dive. Contrary to what has been repeatedly suggested in this thread, the steps up to the dive correspond to what happens in a go-around procedure, which has been announced by the pilot and acknowledged by the tower.

But first, note GROUND SPEED, which is what is supplied by flightradar24. Ground speed and ground track indications do not help much to judge the aerodynamic situation because the wind factor is subsumed. For that we need air-relative values which are recorded by the FDR together with attitude data (pitch, roll and yaw) and the respective accelerations.

To my main point, there is nothing abnormal with the speed-up from 150 to 200, and climb: that’s simply how a go-around procedure is initiated, as announced by the pilot’s last words declaring “going around”. The steps are essentially, in rapid sequence: 1) full throttle 2) straight and level attitude 3) pitch-up for climb 4) flaps, undercarriage, autopilot etc.

So, the fatal aerodynamic upset would have happened during this climbout phase at 200KTS GROUND SPEED, with the pilot unable to recover from it. At this point and with only the flightradar24 data at our disposal, I can only speculate what went wrong, but knowing that except for the presence of fog, the FDR contains just about all data needed to pin the triggering cause down.

Reiterating a previous post, I can think of a combination of factors: In a pitch-up climbing attitude, manual controls (no autopilot) in turbulence, having just lost sight of the runway lights as horizontal visual reference, entering fog, the blinding effects of the aircraft’s landing lights and strobes, wind gusts or rotors. A four-second nightmare so to speak. Then an aerodynamic stall (perhaps due to an excessive climb angle?), an upset attitude with way too little height over terrain to recover from. In jargon it’s called a Loss of Control In-Flight (LOC-I) situation.

As a side note, at least since the Air France 447 accident over the south Atlantic in 2009, we know that the majority of professional pilots lack the skills to recognize and recover from a serious aerodynamic upset. Slowly, airlines and regulatory bodies are reacting, requiring mandatory training (Upset Recovery Training, URT) not just on simulators, but in real aircraft.
 
asino said:
As a side note, at least since the Air France 447 accident over the south Atlantic in 2009, we know that the majority of professional pilots lack the skills to recognize and recover from a serious aerodynamic upset. Slowly, airlines and regulatory bodies are reacting, requiring mandatory training (Upset Recovery Training, URT) not just on simulators, but in real aircraft.

Thanks for the input. On Flight AF447 though, I'm pretty sure that wasn't any kind of pilot error or mechanical failure. A more likely explanation is outlined here:

http://www.sott.net/article/186672-What-are-they-hiding-Flight-447-and-Tunguska-Type-Events
 
from http://sputniknews.com/russia/20160320/1036636536/boeing-moscow-surgut-crash-landing.html

Passenger Boeing 737 plane en-route from Surgut to Moscow is preparing for emergency landing in Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport because of the technical problems, RIA Novosti reported citing source in the emergencies services.

“Boeing 737 plane is preparing for an emergency landing, during the flight alarm was activated because of engine vibration,” the source said.

The source added there are 90 passengers on board.
 
Back
Top Bottom