Russian plane crash

[I Ratant]

Check the ADI on the pilot's panel!
Ralph Cokeley is the pilot, flying the airplane into a stall.
I was standing behind the first officer's seat during the event to get the photo.

 

[Checkmite]

.
Yeah, if the paperwork followed the plane, the number of unincorporated Air Worthiness Directives should set a record!
One has to work very hard at crashing a 737. The airframe is quite robust, but.... what is the "quality" of the pilots?

Okay, but let's make sure we're being fair across the board, here - the most historically-dependable, well-found model truck will still end up a giant pile of rusted scrap if you as the owner don't hold up your end of the relationship.

That said, the initial report - which I presume is by the appropriate version of the NTSB - doesn't hesitate to blame the pilots and nothing but the pilots, unequivocally. So I agree - let's hear some more about those guys.

 

[Checkmite]

Check the ADI on the pilot's panel!
Ralph Cokeley is the pilot, flying the airplane into a stall.
I was standing behind the first officer's seat during the event to get the photo.

Yanking and banking airliners. I want that guy's job.

"Standing" is a liberal word choice, I imagine.

 

[I Ratant]

Yanking and banking airliners. I want that guy's job.

"Standing" is a liberal word choice, I imagine.

.
Really, the cockpit gyrations aren't really that severe.
Back in the aft cabin, the pushover from a stall can be fun...
That's my boss.
Just about everyone did that, it is fun!
And another..

 

[sarge]

.
Really, the cockpit gyrations aren't really that severe.
Back in the aft cabin, the pushover from a stall can be fun...
That's my boss.
Just about everyone did that, it is fun!
And another..

Phtoshopped!

At the time those clothes were popular, man had not conquered powered flight.

 

[sarge]

Aerodynamic stalls are not due to lack of speed - they are due to exceeding the wing's critical angle of attack. Also, most certificated aircraft are stable in the stall. The stuff you see on videos is usually from improper control inputs (or, if it's aerobatics, deliberate inputs).

It is conceivable that the crew over-pitched during a go-around, stalled, didn't recover properly, and allowed the plane to crash in a near-vertical attitude (which would happen if the CG is ahead of the center of lift). But that would be such amazing gross incompetence, I have a lot of trouble believing that. Maybe a low-time, poorly trained private pilot, but airline pilots, regardless of where they're from...

Dang, beat me to it. I was going to pick that nit myself.

I'd discount intention as a cause. Why attempt a go-around (really, 2000 hours and have never gone missed?) if you intend to dork it in?

 

[Checkmite]

I'd discount intention as a cause. Why attempt a go-around (really, 2000 hours and have never gone missed?) if you intend to dork it in?

You need the altitude for a proper swan-dive?

But nah - I don't tend to think intentional either. I'm not sure how it became one of the theories under consideration.

 

[sarge]

You need the altitude for a proper swan-dive?

You merely need style for a proper swan dive.

But nah - I don't tend to think intentional either. I'm not sure how it became one of the theories under consideration.

The second poster believes "The video suggests an intentional crash, given that the plane was nearly vertical at the moment of impact." He allows that this is mere speculation at this point.

I have zero experience with the course of accident investigations in other countries, but the linked stories give me a vague impression of the airlines circling the wagons and promoting the pilot error angle. It seems quite likely that some element of pilot error was involved, but admitting that neither your Captain nor his First Officer have ever conducted a missed approach.......... that seems to me to indicate a glaring fault in the airlines training program.

If you take a brand new student pilot out in IMC and have him shoot an approach, he will almost certainly crash. When he does, is it really pilot error?

 

[I Ratant]

With the quoted flight hours for the crew, neither of them encountering a missed approach situation in that time is unlikely.
Arguing about what to do in a missed approach is possible.
ISTR a BEA crash at Heathrow which resulted from a cockpit dispute.
"You got yourself into this mess, you get yourself out of it."

 

[sarge]

With the quoted flight hours for the crew, neither of them encountering a missed approach situation in that time is unlikely.
Arguing about what to do in a missed approach is possible.
ISTR a BEA crash at Heathrow which resulted from a cockpit dispute.
"You got yourself into this mess, you get yourself out of it."

Unless the training required for an instrument ticket is radically different between nations, it is inconceivable that an airline pilot would not have accomplished missed approaches at some point. It should be nearly as unlikely that an airline pilot would not have at least practiced missed approaches recently, even if they haven't actually missed an approach recently.

There isn't much room for arguing about what must be done during a missed approach, either. Missed approach instructions are defined on a chart and must be followed unless ATC gives some instructions that differ from the published missed approach. Of course, I don't know much about multiple crew standard procedures. Perhaps an airline pilot might offer an opinion about whether or not it is likely a crew would botch a missed approach because they did not have procedures for who does what during the missed approach.

 

[SUSpilot]

Unless the training required for an instrument ticket is radically different between nations, it is inconceivable that an airline pilot would not have accomplished missed approaches at some point. It should be nearly as unlikely that an airline pilot would not have at least practiced missed approaches recently, even if they haven't actually missed an approach recently.

There isn't much room for arguing about what must be done during a missed approach, either. Missed approach instructions are defined on a chart and must be followed unless ATC gives some instructions that differ from the published missed approach. Of course, I don't know much about multiple crew standard procedures. Perhaps an airline pilot might offer an opinion about whether or not it is likely a crew would botch a missed approach because they did not have procedures for who does what during the missed approach.

Well, wait a second. This is why I ding my CFI (certificated flight instructor) candidates so hard on terminology (e.g. if one of them tells me they have a pilot's license, I ask to see what country they're from - pilots in the United States get certificates). A missed approach does mean you follow the procedure on the plate (for you non-pilots, the diagram of the instrument approach procedure) unless otherwise instructed by air traffic control. A "go around", or, more properly, a rejected landing means that the crew, elects, for some reason, not to land the airplane. Typically, this would be a bad set up or something encroaching on the runway, whathaveyou.

In either case, even if you're following the published missed approach procedure on an instrument approach, vs. powering up at the last instant to miss an airport vehicle that wandered onto the runway, you're powering up the airplane and climbing. If you're in an aircraft that has a natural hard pitch up tendency at full power in the landing configuration, it doesn't matter whether it was a visual approach or an instrument approach. [ETA]This is why it is critical for pilots to memorize what the USAF calls the bold-face items on their checklists.

Sarge, think about the DA40 in your avatar. No real marked tendency for it to pitch up on a go around - until you get the T-Tail into the prop wash. Cessna 182's, trimmed to help the pilot in the flare, are another airplane that can bite you if you're not ready for it - smaller statured pilots actually have to push on the yoke in that situation, as they've trimmed it fairly nose-up for landing.

 

[Reheat]

Perhaps an airline pilot might offer an opinion about whether or not it is likely a crew would botch a missed approach because they did not have procedures for who does what during the missed approach.

Well, it's really pretty simple. The flying pilot would initiate the go-around and call for gear and flap retraction in addition to flying the airplane. The non-flying pilot would retract the gear and flaps as instructed and help with the procedure to be followed setting up avionics i.e. course guidance, frequencies etc and notifying the tower of the go-around.

It sounds if they didn't really get very far. As has been mentioned it sounds as if the flying pilot allowed pitch to get away from him perhaps not counteracting the nose up trim after he was setup for landing. In some aircraft that is a big deal, but I'm not familiar enough with the 737 to know if that's the case in that aircraft. He could have been distracted by looking at the approach plate to determine the procedure to be followed as opposed to flying the machine. Both were low time, so anything is possible. Someone forgot to fly the aircraft, that's for sure...

 

[BowlOfRed]

I have zero experience with the course of accident investigations in other countries, but the linked stories give me a vague impression of the airlines circling the wagons and promoting the pilot error angle. It seems quite likely that some element of pilot error was involved, but admitting that neither your Captain nor his First Officer have ever conducted a missed approach.......... that seems to me to indicate a glaring fault in the airlines training program.

Unfortunately, it seems exactly like many responses from the Russian space agency after problems. A press release assigns blame to an individual rather than a process or systemic issue much more quickly than you might expect a useful investigation could be completed.

It doesn't mean that it must be wrong, but it doesn't give me confidence in it being correct.

 

[Checkmite]

It sounds if they didn't really get very far. As has been mentioned it sounds as if the flying pilot allowed pitch to get away from him perhaps not counteracting the nose up trim after he was setup for landing.

That makes sense to me - I can imagine suddenly adding full power bringing the nose up fairly quickly if the plane is trimmed for the approach. Wouldn't full flaps (assuming they were landing that dirty) also add some nose-up force under sudden full power?

But I'm still having trouble getting from that extreme pitch-up leading to an aerodynamic stall, to nearly vertical nose-down at least a few seconds before impact - the video makes the aircraft look pretty established in that attitude by the time it enters the frame (as opposed to "in the process of tumbling forward"). Don't control surfaces lose a lot of efficacy during a stall? Would there still be enough function to make overcompensating to that degree possible, or does that particular aircraft already tend to nose-down all by itself after a stall?

 

[Checkmite]

I have zero experience with the course of accident investigations in other countries, but the linked stories give me a vague impression of the airlines circling the wagons and promoting the pilot error angle. It seems quite likely that some element of pilot error was involved, but admitting that neither your Captain nor his First Officer have ever conducted a missed approach.......... that seems to me to indicate a glaring fault in the airlines training program.

Unfortunately, it seems exactly like many responses from the Russian space agency after problems. A press release assigns blame to an individual rather than a process or systemic issue much more quickly than you might expect a useful investigation could be completed.

Yeah I don't know guys; 2500 hours and never practiced a go-around is an awfully specific claim for something made up just to deflect blame - and it doesn't exactly make the airline look any better.

It's scary to think about, though. If these airline pilots never practiced a single missed approach in 2500 hours, one wonders what else they never got around to practicing.

 

[I Ratant]

Once the plane leaves the plant, the operator might do anything unthought of!
All Nippon Airlines for instance had the practice of pulling the wing motors to idle at cruise, on the L-1011.
They reported that upon adding power for the landing approaches, the compressor casing would split due to the heat difference, inside burning, outside cold from the long cold soak at altitude.
And then, and then..... Rolls Royce informed us that "Yes, the motors will do that. We designed in fault points for just that situation."
!!!!
We never even came close to thinking that procedure could be conceived, in the flight testing of what we would expect.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

In 1994 an Aeroflot A310 crashed after the pilot allowed his 12-year-old daughter and 16-year-old son to enter the cockpit and sit at the controls. One of the two kids apparently disengaged the autopilot by accident - an event that went unnoticed by the flight crew until the aircraft banked over to 45 degrees. By then it was too late to recover. All aboard died.

How is it that we are still having a discussion about Russian pilot training and conduct almost 20 years after this happened?!?!?!?!?!

Luke.

 

[I Ratant]

Probably because those that experienced the ineptness of the Russian training system are dead in crashes caused by ineptness.
No grizzled old farts to pass on their knowledge, it died with them.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

At some point you'd think natural selection would bring an end to Russian aviation . . . .

 

[Reheat]

That makes sense to me - I can imagine suddenly adding full power bringing the nose up fairly quickly if the plane is trimmed for the approach. Wouldn't full flaps (assuming they were landing that dirty) also add some nose-up force under sudden full power?

It would make acceleration slower if they didn't retract full flaps fairly quickly. I don't think it would affect pitch, but trim (not corrected) would. They should have selected take off-flaps at about the time they increased power (assuming they did add power).

But I'm still having trouble getting from that extreme pitch-up leading to an aerodynamic stall, to nearly vertical nose-down at least a few seconds before impact - the video makes the aircraft look pretty established in that attitude by the time it enters the frame (as opposed to "in the process of tumbling forward"). Don't control surfaces lose a lot of efficacy during a stall? Would there still be enough function to make overcompensating to that degree possible, or does that particular aircraft already tend to nose-down all by itself after a stall?

You're right, that's difficult to imagine. The report I've seen indicates they were at 2300', but it didn't indicate if that was MSL or AGL. Assuming that was AGL, that is not a lot of room to recover. It should not have been that severe unless they allowed it to get deeply into a stall before they reacted. Even so, Boeing aircraft should not react like that after a stall with CORRECT control inputs. How in the heck it reached a 75 degree nose down attitude is a mystery to me. Maybe there were multiple issues such as a stall combined with loss of attitude indicator system.. That aircraft was old and had likely never seen 25 degrees of pitch up before!