Fly Dubai 737 crash!

This morning a Fly Dubai Boeing 737-800 crashed just short of the runway at Rostov-on-Don in bad weather. The flight which originated from Dubai International (DXB), had already attempted to land once but aborted and went into a holding pattern while an Aeroflot flight attempted 3 times to land before diverting to another airport. The doomed 737 then attempted to land again when she smashed into the ground. There were 18 men, 33 women and 4 children on board when it crashed.

flydubai%20crash%20radar%20track.jpg

R.I.P. to all who died

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/boeing-737-from-dubai-crashes-in-southern-russia/news-story/fd2d6d59cb502bf95fd56ab32adaf021

Not to long after that, a Lufthansa A380 near miss with a drone while on final approach to LAX!   :huh:

RIP for the crews and passengers of FZ981.

http://avherald.com/h?article=495997e2&opt=0

Diversion to alternate in Russia

By Martin on Saturday, Mar 19th 2016 08:01Z

 

The Crew had to hold 2 hours as when you divert as a non Russian operator to an other airfield than your planed destination you will on your alternate only receive fuel for your flight back to the orgine. In this case they would have been sent from their alternate after refueling back to Dubai which would be a significant los for the Airline. The Pax in such cases are not allowed to exit the Aircraft as well. 

This is always imposing a lot of pressure to Crew and Ops in case of bad weather conditions.

Will be also very interesting to see what was the conversation between OPS and cockpit.

To my point the Crew and OPS have been aware of this rule and this is why they took 2:30 hours on extra fuel. 

It appears diversion to an alternate for non-russian operator could be quite complicated and put some pressure to the crew to make it to destination. Can't imagine holding for 2 hours in those kind of weather. 

From the ATC recording, it appears they are initiating another go around when they smashed the runway. 

Why didnt they just return to Dubai or fly to another airport in the area.

I think its the fault of the pilots.

As example turkish airlines flew the whole route to istanbul back.

Here is a video of the crash and you can clearly see the plane stalling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri7BYZwKINU

In 2014 a similar thing happend to me (no crash but there could have been one). Here is a memoir I wrote after the accident which explains how my aviation inerest sparked. I knew about AS before this but I never gave it a serious try and I almost saw it as impossible.

I love planes, I really do. I love the mightiness, the power and sheer scale of aeroplanes. They are beautiful. They are one of the mankind’s most important inventions because they have the possibility to carry 800 people 39,000 feet up in the air travelling at 900 km/h and get to any location in the world within 24 hours.

My interest started when I was on my way towards my apartment in Constanta, Romania on a beautiful summer day. The flight was in the evening from Malmö (MMX) to Bucharest (OTP). Bucharest is the capital of Romania which is about 230 km from Constanta, the drive itself taking about 3 hours. The flight takes about 2.5 hours under normal wind conditions with the ideal cruising speed of the A320-­200 which is Mach 0.78 (828 km/h) and the flight distance being 1523 km. The plane took off at 9 CET and we climbed towards a beautiful sunset with colourful skies and a peaceful calm wind.

We had a great flight with a fantastic sunset until we got over the carpathian mountains which are 400 km from Bucharest. Without introducing himself our captain said “This is your captain speaking, be prepared for turbulence... Cabin crew prepare the cabin and get seated” in a strong accent of some eastern european language. As a frequent flyer I am used to turbulence and I did not worry. The turbulence started about 3 minutes after the announcement by the captain. The shaking got intenser and intenser, and in a couple of minutes we were bumping around by meters. Without much knowledge I saw the flaps coming down, but the cabin crew had not even passed by to take any rubbish and the captain had not said anything about landing. You could hear everybody onboard screaming desperately and other passengers shouting for water to assist passengers that faited.

By looking out the window we saw a big city with many lights. My mother who had lived in Bucharest could quickly identify the mystery city to be Bucharest. Later we could hear the gear going down and the plane started it´s flare. The intense shaking continued and the plane was still not straight. You could feel how the strong cross wind pulled the plane to the side and the pilots battling against it even using the vertical rudder . On our third attempt to land we had a different feeling, a feeling of falling freely. I can still remember that feeling. Then the tail started dropping and and the nose started lifting as we could see the rain smashing in the window and we could really feel the wind. After a moment we realised that we were in a stall. After about 5 seconds we could hear the the powerful IAE W2500 roaring and the aircraft slowly but firmly recuperating again. You could feel how the plane was leveling and launching out of the free fall. The pilot climbed a couple of thousand feet and the purser made an announcement: “As you can see we will not be able to land in Bucharest so we will be landing in Constanta in 45 minutes”. Passengers were fainting and vomiting but the cabin crew did not move out of their seats. Passengers started passing around water and other food from other passengers and shouting at the cabin crew to help, but nothing happened. We landed in Constanta safely and easily at 2 pm. The airport, which otherwise is a US Air Force base, came into full operation taking our luggage and doing passport controls. Four ambulances came to take fainted passengers.

We saved about 1 hour of travel time as we already had arrived to our final destination. This was the worst storm of the year hitting Romania and we were the first plane not being able to land after the storm broke out. After our flight the airport went onto shutdown and no flights landed until 24 hours later.

I am happy that our pilot did understand that an landing would have been stupid.

Hi,

this is an interesting story. Could be a good starter for another topic... "What sparked your interest in aviation ?"

But as a passenger I would not mind if the pilot announces something like: there is a thunderstorm and possibility of downdraft/microburst/windshear. We shall not take any risks and divert straight away".

I am pretty sure the passengers of that FlyDubai flight would have agreed with me.

After reading the article (link in an above post) I was surprised that Russia has these strange rules for foreign airlines. Seems like a protective measure against foreign airlines. One that also puts extra pressure on pilots to choose money above safety (even more so when flying for a low cost carrier). Does anyone know more about these rules for foreign airlines when they divert in Russia ?

Jan

 

Why didnt they just return to Dubai or fly to another airport in the area.

I think its the fault of the pilots.

As example turkish airlines flew the whole route to istanbul back.

 

We don't know what information and consideration they have for not diverting to other airport.

Except for the gusty wind and unknown possible threat of wind-shear, the ceiling and visibility should be legal to conduct the approach. 

Especially with quite strong wind, it is common for the weather system to be moving away.

Even after airborne for 6 hours, the plane still carry 2 hours worth of fuel.

I believe when he's down to minimum diversion fuel he will eventually divert.

Until they are down to minimum diversion fuel, it is not mandatory to initiate diversion, if they think they could make it to destination. 

In 2014 a similar thing happend to me (no crash but there could have been one). Here is a memoir I wrote after the accident which explains how my aviation inerest sparked. I knew about AS before this but I never gave it a serious try and I almost saw it as impossible.

By looking out the window we saw a big city with many lights. My mother who had lived in Bucharest could quickly identify the mystery city to be Bucharest. Later we could hear the gear going down and the plane started it´s flare. The intense shaking continued and the plane was still not straight. You could feel how the strong cross wind pulled the plane to the side and the pilots battling against it even using the vertical rudder . On our third attempt on 1 final we had a different feeling, a feeling of falling freely. I can still remember that feeling. Then the tail started dropping and and the nose started lifting as we could see the rain smashing in the window and we could really feel the wind. After a moment we realised that we were in a stall. After about 5 seconds we could hear the the powerful IAE W2500 roaring and the aircraft slowly but firmly recuperating again. You could feel how the plane was leveling and launching out of the free fall. The pilot climbed a couple of thousand feet and the purser made an announcement: “As you can see we will not be able to land in Bucharest so we will be landing in Constanta in 45 minutes”. Passengers were fainting and vomiting but the cabin crew did not move out of their seats. Passengers started passing around water and other food from other passengers and shouting at the cabin crew to help, but nothing happened. We landed in Constanta safely and easily at 2 pm. The airport, which otherwise is a US Air Force base, came into full operation taking our luggage and doing passport controls. Four ambulances came to take fainted passengers.

We saved about 1 hour of travel time as we already had arrived to our final destination. This was the worst storm of the year hitting Romania and we were the first plane not being able to land after the storm broke out. After our flight the airport went onto shutdown and no flights landed until 24 hours later.

I am happy that our pilot did understand that an landing would have been stupid.

What a scary experience. It's good to be alive. It could be a downdraft from a wind-shear which is known to exist near thunderstorms cells. Modern airliners built with stall prevention and would required thousands feets before it recover from a stall. Something one could not afford when in low level altitude approaching the airport for intention to land. Pilots are trained to recognize the area of potential wind-shear, through weather report and forecast, pireps, visual observation - which will not be possible during night, on-board wind component and ground speed monitoring, in addition to on-board weather and on-board predictive wind-shear system. When you recognize the sign of potential wind-shear in your path to the airport, cancel the approach and hold if you carry enough fuel, wait for the weather to get better. If it's just the beginning of it, you might don't have enough fuel to hold so long, then just divert and be safe. You can always talk later to the chief explaining your reason while you are alive down at the comfortable airline office.

But as a passenger I would not mind if the pilot announces something like: there is a thunderstorm and possibility of downdraft/microburst/windshear. We shall not take any risks and divert straight away".

I am pretty sure the passengers of that FlyDubai flight would have agreed with me.

Aviate - Navigate - Communicate, in that order.

You don't want to communicate while you are busy aviating and navigating the airplane. Under intense pressure, the pilot's voice could be agitating instead of calming.

Also there are numerous matters that should be taken into consideration, complexity of a diversion instead of waiting for weather to improve, flight time limitation for flight crew, passengers accommodation - custom and immigration services at diversion airport, etc etc. With so much fuel carried on-board, it's more reasonable to wait until last minute before initiating diversion, imo. 

Aviate - Navigate - Communicate, in that order.

You don't want to communicate while you are busy aviating and navigating the airplane. Under intense pressure, the pilot's voice could be agitating instead of calming.

Hi,

I would have preferred the pilot to say: "I won't try to land. We've waited two hours and the wind is still too gusty. We'll divert to..."

Not while he was turning into final, but when he was in holding pattern.

That's what I meant.

I know it is easy to take the right decision with hindsight. But the other plane that attempted to land and then decided to divert was wiser.

Jan

Hi,

I would have preferred the pilot to say: "I won't try to land. We've waited two hours and the wind is still too gusty. We'll divert to..."

Not while he was turning into final, but when he was in holding pattern.

That's what I meant.

I know it is easy to take the right decision with hindsight. But the other plane that attempted to land and then decided to divert was wiser.

Jan

The other planes that divert might not need to consider factors that this FlyDubai plane has to consider.

Again, given so much fuel he carried, he's perfectly safe and legal to consider diversion on last minute. 

Apparently the subsequent landing and go-around attempt went terribly wrong.

The other planes that divert might not need to consider factors that this FlyDubai plane has to consider.

...

Hi,

you mean like commercial factors ? They always play a role when you run a business. It is the operation's officer job to look at time tables, schedules and profit. And it is the pilot's job to look at safety. Too much pressure on the pilot can influence decisions...

Remember what happened in Spain a few years ago. Every pilot decides how much fuel he needs for a safe flight. It is not a coincidence if three RyanAir planes need priority because they are low on fuel when they cannot land at their planned destination. It means there is pressure on RyanAir pilots to take the legal minimum of fuel. After all, from a commercial point of view it is stupid to burn fuel to carry fuel you don't need.

In this case fuel was not the problem. But I would not be surprised if there was pressure on the pilot to deliver the passengers at their destination. Burning fuel in a holding pattern during two hours and then decide to divert anyway is a double waste.

I have said it before, it is easy for me to see the danger after the accident. But... If things are not 100% balanced during final approach, you simply go around and try again. If you decide to circle for two hours, it means you know the conditions for a safe landing are not there. But hey, the accident just happened. It is possible that landing was within the limits of the plane and crew. Just within the limits. One more (yet unknown) thing that went wrong could have been the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Jan

you mean like commercial factors ? They always play a role when you run a business. It is the operation's officer job to look at time tables, schedules and profit. And it is the pilot's job to look at safety. Too much pressure on the pilot can influence decisions...

In this case fuel was not the problem. But I would not be surprised if there was pressure on the pilot to deliver the passengers at their destination. Burning fuel in a holding pattern during two hours and then decide to divert anyway is a double waste.

I have said it before, it is easy for me to see the danger after the accident. But... If things are not 100% balanced during final approach, you simply go around and try again. If you decide to circle for two hours, it means you know the conditions for a safe landing are not there. 

At no time during the hold, the safety of the plane, the crew and the passengers are compromised. There are no regulation that specify maximum time in holding pattern, as long as you have the required reserve fuel at the end of your ordeal.

Consider it's true that when you divert to alternate airport in Russia, you can only proceed (return) to your point of origin and there's no chances to continue to your destination. In that case it make sense for them to invest (or you can say bet) 2 hours worth of fuel in expectation the weather get better so they can continue to destination. It would be waste to divert on first go around, only to return to origin, while they could stay a bit. Mind you at this point they have no idea the weather will not improve even after two hours, and they carry a lot of extra fuel, possibly tankering for the return leg, which definitely could buy them some time, instead of just cancel the mission and return home. They could also within the very limit of flight time limitation for cockpit crew if they decide to divert to alternate and continue to point of origin. So they could be planning to hold until last minute, and proceed only to alternate and get stuck there, as they have exhausted their flight time limitation.

Whatever their consideration we don't know until the CVR is analyzed. Holding for two hours might not be ideal but should be well thought decision given the time, condition and information presented to them. It's not the holding that went wrong, it's the subsequent approach, land and go-around attempt that went wrong. Might as well happen on their first attempt, that's what we wanted to know what actually happen. If you hear the ATC recording, their last transmission announcing their intention to go around was very calm, everything under control just like normal go-around. God knows what went terribly wrong in that critical phase.

I think I will end here, I am sorry if it's getting too long. It's easy to blame the death because they can't defend themselves. Pilots do consider commercial and operational factor of the flight, but in the end of the day, no one would jeopardize their own life.. well.. except maybe for the one with mental illness *sigh* but it's for a different discussion I believe. Let's hope the investigator can come up with what actually happened and lessons can be learn to avoid this thing to happen again.

Good day!

Some people said they thought it was on fire(in video), others are saying they think the ran out of fuel (wouldn't be surprised if they did after a 2 hour holding pattern) and a few others think it nose dived.

I agree with CBE, to me it looks like it's stalling weather that's because they ran out of fuel or for other reasons I don't know. I certainly didn't see any fire but I think the people who've said this have probably seen the navigational lights in-between the rear undercarriage and thought it was a flame. And finally, from what I saw it looked like they hit the ground right way up but if they were the right way up, why did they crash the way they did?

If I would speculate the reason I would say that there was bad weather in combination to weak pilot training and pilots did wrong judgment not to diverte. I even though I know that 737NGs have some structural by the fuselage splitting up into 3 pieces when hitting the ground but that has nothing to do with this accident.

It's all speculation. And of course, if they had diverted, most likely the flight would not have crashed. If, what, when...

My initial thought was that there was a sudden downdraft pushing the aircraft to the ground. Though from the videos available, some comments on AV Herald, that microbursts are very unlikely and the fact that the aircraft aborted the 2nd landing attempt quite early and was already quite high up again is all quite confusing to establish a valid theory at the moment.

As usual, I believe there will be multiple elements surfacing that in combination lead to the crash.

Hi,

again we find it difficult to get on the same frequency  :-)

At no time during the hold, the safety of the plane, the crew and the passengers are compromised. There are no regulation that specify maximum time in holding pattern, as long as you have the required reserve fuel at the end of your ordeal.

...

I never insinuated that safety was compromised during the hold. What I meant was this: if final approach is not stabilized, you simply go around and try again. If the pilots decided to wait two hours, it means they thought the weather was not good enough to land.

... It's easy to blame the death because they can't defend themselves...

Blaming the dead doesn't solve crashes, nor does it avoid future crashes. But ignoring pilot decisions or pilot actions doesn't solve crashes either.

So far, we don't know if some other problem popped up just before the crash. We only know the pilots did not mention any (mechanical) issues to traffic control. What do we know ?

- It was late at night and the pilots had been flying for hours.

- Visibility was limited by clouds and rain.

- No crosswind issues (runway 22 and wind 230°)

- Wind 14 with gusts up to 18 (meter per second).

- Moderate windshear.

- Three other flights diverted.

- Plane impacted with a high descend rate (from watching video).

- Plane seems to be banking heavily before impact (could be wrong but looks like that on video).

- For what it is worth: FR24 data suggests the plane gained a bit of altitude (approach aborted?) and then descended rapidly.

I can't say what caused the crash. And although it may have been perfectly reasonable to attempt the landing, I still would have preferred the pilots to say "sorry guys, but we'll divert to..."

Jan

The likeliest scenario is quite simple and will hopefully change a lot in the workethics EK, QR etc apply on their workforce.

- crew tries to land first time

- aborts landing, go-around, business as usual

- holding pattern for 2 hours

- massive stress of 2 hours endurance (non-stop) additionally to the normal stress

~> caused by bad employment methods (dense scheduling, quick "fire that guy" mentality)

~> caused by said Russian law that the pilot had to choose to waste the airline's money or try to land it in Rostov anyways

~> caused by the extremely severe weather (if you saw the trees "waving" very strong in one of the videos) / and METARS anyways

- pilot decided to do a very risky approach to Rostov

- landing didn't go well (maybe a wing stroke the ground as the LH plane in HAM did)

- pilot panicked (through massive stress) and decides to do the "death sentence" full-throttle high-angle go-around (most likely over 20° nose-up attitude)

- the plane rocketed into the sky (low weight, too much thrust (EDIT: actually, the plane pulls itself into the high angle)) giving the pilot the deadly possiblity to give the plane a stall angle

- the plane stalls since speed =/= lift + harsh wind conditions reducing further the "stable aerodynamic stream" 

- the plane falls uncontrollably from 4000 ft down to the ground

the graphic down below I took from wikipedia showing Tatarstan Airlines 363 crash scheme which is very similar to the possible crash now, the only difference being that the 738 made it a bit higher (~400-500m)

Tatarstan-Boeing737-500-Kazan2013-scheme

Hi,

I don't know if flying a holding pattern causes massive stress, but pilot fatigue may well have contributed. The accident happened well after midnight and after 6 ours of flying.

If the FR24 data are anything to go by, wing strike seems unlikely.

But adding full power in a half empty plane will make it go up, that's for sure. If the plane was a bit trimmed up and if they encountered a gust of headwind when they added power, the plane may well have pitched up rather sharply. Even without pulling hard on the stick. So a stall (and maybe loosing positional awareness in the dark) is possible. With this sort of weather I guess it would also be likely for one wing to drop if the plane went into a stall. Your scenario seems possible.

Anyway, if there was nothing wrong with the plane, this sort of scenario is probable.

Jan