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

[Rapha477]

I read that an A319 and a A320 landed at 01:23 and 01:28 LT respectively. Another made 3 attempts before diversion. We can call this extreme weather. I can imagine these approaches.

[3WE]

I read that an A319 and a A320 landed at 01:23 and 01:28 LT respectively. Another made 3 attempts before diversion. We can call this extreme weather. I can imagine these approaches.

Good post and what can you say?

...two planes got in just fine
...ON PAPER, SURFACE winds like that occur from time to time at airports and operations continue
...Bad enough to send at least one guy elsewhere AND who knows what was happening a few hundred feet up???
...Yep, L-1011's can land a mile short even though **fair airmanship** is used and powerful 727's can fail to climb out on normal take offs.

**"fair airmanship"** shut up, Gabriel

[3WE]

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"

In a rare moment of seriousness for me, may I suggest that this might simply be a language barrier.

Perhaps a person who's native language is English might say, "I know that jets are able to fly quite well in low visibility and bad weather using all of the instrument guidance and ATC systems..."

During your glorious oriental travels have you ever seen one of those signs that says, "Please take advantage of the maids". Or aware what happens when you strictly translate "Take it easy" into Spanish?

Indeed LH-B's stuff sounds strange, but...

[Rapha477]

What I can say..? Its options...severe turbulence on final, moderate windshear...cross wind in limitations, low level jet. A go around in severe turbulence with strong (very) wind gradient with the vfe going into face...after 6 hours of flight...every body has made a GA that starts to be very difficult at one point, on flight simulator or in flight. Options, need choose one or the safest.

[3WE]

What can you say?

Responses

What I can say..?

Its options Yes, here and Yes later

...severe turbulence on final Yes.

moderate windshear Ok, but it happens with some regularity.

cross wind in limitations NO! Trignometry! The crosswind was less than 15 knots!

low level jet. OK, but...how low...seriously, I want to know, we think we have video of them flying pretty OK

A go around in severe turbulence with strong (very) wind gradient with the vfe going into face ...with an arguably nice altitude cushion. Perhaps 1000 ft overcast (300 scattered)

after 6 hours of flight Noted, and time of day probably even worse.

every body has made a GA that starts to be very difficult at one point Not sure I agree here, the vast majority of my go-arounds have been non events...No, I have not encountered Delta 191-like wind shear.

...on flight simulator or in flight...

Options Yes here, and Yes earlier.

need choose one or the safest. The safest is to stay on the ground (shred of truth intended)

What you didn't say was to side step one of the age-old questions.

No argument- the weather was challenging.

But two guys got in and I hear no stories of bent landing gear or scraped wing tips or wrenched necks from passengers, nor pilots nor FAs nor passengers ready to quit flying and/or become more religious after their landings.

Challenging weather hits places from time to time and operations continue*.

The fact that someone got in ahead of you can be hugely influential in decision making, and the fact that someone got in before and/or after you is significant for analysis.

(*Unless you are Boeing Bobby and there's red radar returns).

[elaw]

But two guys got in and I hear no stories of bent landing gear or scraped wing tips or wrenched necks from passengers, nor pilots nor FAs nor passengers ready to quit flying and/or become more religious after their landings.

Hmm... sounds just like Delta 191, Eastern 66, United 585...

[3WE]

Hmm... sounds just like Delta 191, Eastern 66, United 585...

Indeed it does.

And the situation begs the questions: Should EVERYONE be waving off their landings?...who is right, who is wrong that question goes to the folks who crash and the folks who didnt.

[Rapha477]

Ah yes on the video it's possible to see that the flight on final was OK..? Yes it seems to fly. I also forgot that 737 has crosswind limit below 15 kts,.maybe there was 1 inch water on the runway, may be I didn't understand well the so excellent English ATIS given by controlers. After 30 years of airline pilot, i learned that moderate windshear happens sometimes...impressive. 70-80 kts with a 35-40 kts crosswind (compared with QFU, its trigonometry and aerology) at 5000 ft is not a low altitude jet, and icing on the cake, that some made all professionnal life perfect GA, so in front of such superiority, my status will remain at the "JUNIOR STATUS". Have safe flights ! (Its true, sometimes it means to stay on ground, it's option).

[elaw]

Should EVERYONE be waving off their landings?

Of course not! Only the ones that crash.

In accidents like the one I mention, the investigators often criticize the "sheep mentality" (my words) where pilots figure that since the aircraft or ten in front them got in okay that they can too.

The counterpoint of course is that the "he got in so I can too" logic often is perfectly sound. It can take a lot of skill, and sometimes luck, to know when your situation is different enough from those that came before you to justify making a different decision.

[Gabriel]

Guys,

The bad weather, gusting winds, and other etceteras may explain what caused the pilots to decide to go around.
That doesn't explain why, after what appears to be a reasonably normal initial climb out, the pilots loose control of the plane and they crash at an enormous sink rate. A stall or windshear might have been an initial destabilizing factor, but only a severely botched recovery from those situations can explain the crash as seen in the video.

Something much beyond weather happened here. Maybe a technical problem, maybe pilots' loss of situational awareness or severe spatial disorientation, maybe a "pull up"technique to recover from a stall...

And I don't see that we have any provable cause or even reasonable suspicion for getthereitis or land-now-itis, at lest yet.

According to AvHerlad, they had taken lots of extra fuel for holds (probably because they knew about the weather) and where still well short of their diversion fuel limit. So it seems that they had a plan since before take-off and they were following it. Also, they were already well within visual contact of the runway (and had been for some time) when they went around still with some altitude, so it is not like they were pushing the minimums and in last-second attempt to go around they crashed with trees that were hidden behind a dense fog.

It seems all well planned and executed all the way to the go-around. Then, something very bad happened. We will not know what it was until we have info of the contents of the FDR and CVR.

[Gabriel]

**"fair airmanship"** shut up, Gabriel

Don't get me started!

[BoeingBobby]

In a rare moment of seriousness for me, may I suggest that this might simply be a language barrier.

Perhaps a person who's native language is English might say, "I know that jets are able to fly quite well in low visibility and bad weather using all of the instrument guidance and ATC systems..."

During your glorious oriental travels have you ever seen one of those signs that says, "Please take advantage of the maids". Or aware what happens when you strictly translate "Take it easy" into Spanish?

Indeed LH-B's stuff sounds strange, but...

Language barrier is one thing. Posting nonsense is another. And yes I deal with it every month, but the maids in Hong Kong don't spout nonsense!

[Evan]

NO! Trignometry! The crosswind was less than 15 knots!

Tell us, how does one use trigonometry to determine wind conditions at altitude from a surface observation?

But I agree with Gabriel here. Whatever the reason for the go-around, the solution to this mystery lies in what went wrong during the go-around.

[3WE]

Tell us, how does one use trigonometry to determine wind conditions at altitude from a surface observation?

Before I tell you that, how about you tell us what the crosswind limitations are at altitude (or on the surface for that matter).

Now, to your question: You don't tell them at altitude from a surface observation.

Instead you use the difference between the ground track and ground velocity versus the heading and calculated airspeed...It gives you a triangle.
(If you need further help with the Algebra that can be used to calculate a crosswind component, ask Gabriel).

Are you ready for the coolest part? Navigation computers on big jets do exactly that extremely quickly and extremely frequently and place the results at the pilots finger tips.

Now, again, what are the limitations on crosswinds at altitude that aircraft must follow?

And, what does that the cross wind at altitude have to do with a go-around decision on short final anyway. The surface crosswind at the time of touchdown is sort of where the proverbial rubber meets the pavement, and is rather relevant to short final too.

AND FOR CLARITY: A number of posts have (in effect) said, "Oh, the terrible gusty crosswind". That isn't really true, the wind was only 20 degrees off the runway heading- which I think a lot of pilots would tell you is pretty good.

Gusting from 20-something to 40-something knots...yeah, that's significant, but again, I think a lot of AIRLINE pilots would tell you that DFW and ORD and ATL are still going to be operating in those conditions.

My closest relevant experience was riding an MD-80 where the weather FORECAST said "Winds 20 gusting to as high as 50 MPH" (not sure of ACTUAL observations) (a post-cold front deal). You could feel some pretty significant gusts on approach and power and pitch adjustments (and roll adjustments), but the actual chop and roughness was not all that out of the ordinary- didn't have to kiss the ground after landing nor deal with fouled underwear.

Make no mistake, I'll praise the pilots for their genius cowboy use of the wheels and rudder pedals and power levers AND would further assume all procedures were followed...skill was required...skill was demonstrated.

...that being said, every other pilot that landed there that day deserves similar praise.

20 degrees off runway heading generally does not a big crosswind make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erttyI7WOKo

(Two aircraft landing on the runway at the same time...deviation from proper procedure? Then again, I think the Blue Angels do it)

[elaw]

Guys,

The bad weather, gusting winds, and other etceteras may explain what caused the pilots to decide to go around.
That doesn't explain why, after what appears to be a reasonably normal initial climb out, the pilots loose control of the plane and they crash at an enormous sink rate. A stall or windshear might have been an initial destabilizing factor, but only a severely botched recovery from those situations can explain the crash as seen in the video.

Something much beyond weather happened here. Maybe a technical problem, maybe pilots' loss of situational awareness or severe spatial disorientation, maybe a "pull up"technique to recover from a stall...

Agreed!

Haven't there been some accidents in the past where the elevator trim was managed improperly during a go-around and when power was applied, the aircraft pitched up until it stalled? If the situation is as it seems from the videos, meaning a fairly normal approach, initiation of a go-around, plane starts to climb and moments later falls out of the sky, there's a heck of a resemblance to those other accidents.