Flydubai Flight 981 Crashes on Landing in Rostov-on-Don, Russia

[Rapha477]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mGF-RN8NqYY&feature=youtu.be

Severe turbulence on final

[3WE]

When there are a whole lot of people in back paying for the ride, you follow procedures.

By the way, using one's flying skills is perfectly fine if you respect procedure while you are doing it.

I'm thinking there's new procedures being proposed that folks hand-fly more so they hopefully don't perform deliberate stall procedures like Airbus guys like to do and maybe scan instruments like airspeed somewhat more like the general way I was taught.

[Gabriel]

Hey out of curiosity... when an airplane is first flown, before there are any procedures written, by the guys (& girls) who *write* the procedures... are those people being "cowboys"?

I'm just trying to distinguish when using one's flying skills is irresponsible and when it's not.

So do you really think that test pilots do not follow procedures or that such procedures do not exist for the first flight of a new type?

[elaw]

Sure they do but they're not the same procedures as line pilots follow. As I'm sure you know, their philosophy is dramatically different in that many of the tests are designed to *find* (or confirm) the limits of the aircraft rather than avoid them. Or in other words their purpose is not to ensure absolute safety, it's to try to maintain safety while deliberately exploring conditions that could be unsafe.

Also, the team that creates test procedures often includes the same pilots that will be using those procedures to fly the aircraft.

Put together, to me what the above means is that while standard operating procedures in line operations are designed to ensure safety by having pilots follow them like robots without thinking or using their flying skills to any great degree, test procedures involve thinking by the pilots in their creation, and rely heavily on the pilots' flying skills to ensure safety.

So while what I wrote may not be correct in implying test piloting involves no predefined procedures, those procedures vs. airline SOP is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[3WE]

...pilots follow them like robots without thinking or using their flying skills...

...and this all started when I suggested a scenario where the pilots might be hand flying, which brought out Evan's robotic, procedural reply that automation should have been used. I recall an article in an obscure aviation magazine by Less-in-height Abend where they took a trip around the pattern hand flying during a 777 recurrent simulator training. And of course many of us keyboard experts sit around and say that the industry should hand-fly more (except Evan).

Last I knew, there were several solid procedures in place (with nice safety buffers) allowing a hand-flown approach to 300 scattered, 1000 ft broken, and 1/2 mile visibility, and 25 MPH wind gusts and a 15 kt crosswind component. Sounds like a good exercise for a professional pilot.

But when I make comments like that, the EMS computer elicits the warning "Cowboy...Cowboy..." much like the beep when pilots go click clack paddy-whack, give the pilot the plane.

Maybe one of the procedures is to go around if turbulence is severe?

After hearing the ATC recording and the nice, professional and reasonably calm replies from the aircraft (including "going around") and the videos of very boring minute-long climb into the clouds, I'm wondering a little more if it wasn't something mechanical, sudden and catastrophic?

[TeeVee]

yeah, i'm thinking the pilot sounded pretty alert and proactive--asking several times about the weather, and responding immediately when called. however, this could also have been a case of land-now-itis....

[elaw]

I think the aircraft's descent rate in the moments before impact will be very telling here.

500 or even 1000 feet/minute would indicate a relatively normal landing that went south and had a bad ending. 21,000 feet/minute that I think I saw earlier in this thread and seems (maybe) to be backed up by the videos... there's nothing "normal" about that!

[Evan]

...standard operating procedures in line operations are designed to ensure safety by having pilots follow them like robots without thinking or using their flying skills to any great degree...

Robots... robots...

What you both fail to understand is the difference between structured flying (procedure) and robotic flying (complacency). Most of the procedures I refer to are NOT established by test pilots pushing the envelope. They are established by engineers and experts in HUMAN FACTORS working closely with pilots. Most of the procedures that concern me are designed to compensate for the psychological or sensory human errors that WILL occur without them. Most are not specific to the performance envelope of the aircraft. There is no procedure that allows for complacency.

Procedure is NOT the opposite of hand-flying. Procedures allow for hand-flying and hand-flying requires procedures. Improvising instead of adhering to CRM procedure is the single deadliest problem in aviation today. Almost every non-terrorist-related crash in the past ten years involved poor CRM and skipped or violated procedure.

Procedure is NOT the opposite of thinking. It is thinking very clearly about safety. It is having the intelligence to understand why you must respect it. It is having the mental discipline and proficiency to always get everyone on board safely back on the ground (including yourself). Learning and becoming proficient at procedure is mentally challenging and some pilots can't think well enough to learn it. They may have ace flying skills in a Cessna but they are not airline pilot material.

[Evan]

FYI: FlyDubai crash pilot 'was due to leave job over fatigue http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35855678

(I think we can pretty much stick a fork in FlyDubai after this article. Hopefully it will embolden other pilots and serve as a strong lesson to other abusive operators.)

[LH-B744]

No.

Unless you are suggesting that the actual final descent rate at touchdown was deliberate. A touchdown at that descent rate did indeed exceed a/c limits.

Hm. All of you seem to know more about FZ 981. It seems that en.wiki is quite accurate in case of incidents, as long as (local) aviation enthusiasts feed it. But we all know the limits of that theory. Even after seahawk and me are supervising the en.wiki for an incident that happened exactly one year ago, the result still is not accurate. But that should be discussed in the special topic.

Let me see if the METAR that I can set up for FZ 981 is at least acceptable, if not accurate.

Schedule:
dep (Dubai) 1745 z
arr (Rostov na Donu) 2220 z
delay in Dubai 35 minutes

METAR URRR 182200Z 23027 ...

After a closer look at that, I like to second what you have said: No. The limits haven't been exceeded.

"The captain was 38-year-old" . This can't be a reason either, since March 24th, 2015.

"under investigation". But they proceed with a list: zero US-Americans, zero Germans, zero Great Britains,
but 2 Spanish.

I am not able to write Spanish, but March seems to be an awful month for Spanish (and German) aviation.

2 minutes of silence for each of the flights.

[LH-B744]

vis is reported as normal but decreasing, from 3 (5000 m) to less then 1.9 (3500 m).

I know that Boeing jets are able to fly with a visibility of 1, a 110% perfect ATC and ILS guidance assumed.

[BoeingBobby]

vis is reported as normal but decreasing, from 3 (5000 m) to less then 1.9 (3500 m).

I know that Boeing jets are able to fly with a visibility of 1, a 110% perfect ATC and ILS guidance assumed.

Your posts are as inane as Avions!

[LH-B744]

Your posts are as inane as Avions!

Let me correct you. The word that you are looking for is

insane.

Do you know more than just that one word?

[BoeingBobby]

Let me correct you. The word that you are looking for is

insane.

Do you know more than just that one word?

Actually, had I wanted to use insane I would have. I do not know you well enough to determine that. However inane is a word in the English language.

in·ane iˈnān adjective silly; stupid. "don't constantly badger people with inane questions"

[LH-B744]

Actually, had I wanted to use insane I would have. I do not know you well enough to determine that. However inane is a word in the English language.

in·ane iˈnān adjective silly; stupid. "don't constantly badger people with inane questions"

Hm. As I am concerned, we can continue until I reach the Senior member status. My question stays the same:

Do you know more than just that one word?