Aeroflot Flight SU1492 crashes, 41 dead

Subscribe
2  3  4  5  6 
Page 6 of 6
Go to
Quote: And LOL at people above talking about FAA certification and safety standards. Ever since this whole Boeing and MCAS thing, the FAA has lost credibility.
The FAA has been owned by the industry since 2001.
Reply
Quote: And LOL at people above talking about FAA certification and safety standards. Ever since this whole Boeing and MCAS thing, the FAA has lost credibility.
They still have more than the Russians.

The un-grounding of the MAX will follow politial/economic fault lines. Something like this...

1. FAA.
2. Asian States aligned with the US.
3. Neutral Third Parties with an economic interest.
4. EASA. Slight delay to prove independence, and get in a little dig at Boeing, but not enough to poison their relationship with the FAA/US (if something happened with the NEO, they REALLY wouldn't want it grounded in the US any longer than necessary either!).
5. Russia. Trying to break into the global airliner market, in no hurry to endorse Boeing. Also trying to compete with US on general principles.
6. China. Trying to break into the global airliner market, in no hurry to endorse Boeing. Also trade war.

5&6 might behave differently if their own short-term economic interests are at stake. Once the MAX is ungrounded by the big players, it will be hard for airlines to claim economic damages from Boeing if they keep it grounded over politics.

Small states will likely follow the lead of whoever they usually align with.
Reply
Quote: Enjoy

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUNgwABCm28

Infuriating watching some of these people!
Thank you!

This is video of the Emirates 777 in Dubai..went around in idle. Same deal. One firefighter died when the wing blew up.

Same idiotic behavior.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jHhmw4xy1mY
Reply
Preliminary FDR report.

Lightning strike, and Direct Law. Good until the flare; Capt overcontrolled.

First bounce 2.5+ g. Second was 5.8g on the nose gear. Last was 5+.

I’m shocked that only the gear failed.

Quote:
On May 17th 2019 the MAK reported that the read out and analysis of the data off the flight data recorder has been completed.

On May 18th 2019 Rosaviatsia reported the captain (43, ATPL, 6,844 hours total, 1,570 hours on type) was assisted by a first officer (36, CPL, 773 hours total, 623 hours on type). About 30-40km (16-21nm) west of Sheremetyevo Airport there was rain in clouds, the clouds extended to a height of 8000 to 9000 meters (FL262-295) and contained a thunderstorm. The aircraft was climbing through 7900 feet at 15:08Z when an electrical failure occurred, the flight control system (FCS) degraded to "DIRECT MODE", the autopilot automaticaly disconnected, the aircraft was in the middle of thunderstorm activity. The captain assumed manual control of the aircraft until the end of the flight. Radio communication, that had taken place on VHF #1 radio so far, became unavailable, the crew was able to partially restore communication via VHF #2 on the emergency frequency only. The crew set the squawk for loss of communication. The crew decided to return to Sheremetyevo and performed a manual ILS approach to runway 24L. At the time the aircraft intercepted the glideslope the aircraft's mass was 42,600kg, which was 1600kg above the maximum landing weight. The crew deployed the flaps to 25 degrees in accordance with the flight crew operating manual for flight with minimum mode (DIRECT MODE) of the FCS as well as landing above MLW. At 15:26Z the crew set the emergency transponder code. Vapp was determined to be 155 KIAS, the descent on the glideslope was stabilized and without any deviation from Vapp. Winds during the approach came from 190 degrees at 30 knots, descending between 1100 and 900 feet the crew received 5 cycles of predictive windshear warnings "Wind Shear ahead, go around!". Descending through 260 feet AGL the aircraft began to deviate below the glide slope, a "GLIDESLOPE" warning occurred, descending between 180 to 40 feet the engine thrust was increased causing the aircraft to accelerate to 164 knots, at 16 feet AGL the speed was 170 KIAS. A Terrain Awareness Warning System aural signal "Retard" occurred, the engine thrust was reduced to idle. At that point the captain began to apply oscillating pitch inputs with increasing amplitude which changed the pitch angle up to +6 and -2 degrees. The aircraft made a "three point" touchdown 900 meters past the runway threshold at 158 KIAS and a vertical load of +2.55G and bounced up to 6 feet AGL. The spoilers did not deploy, in DIRECT MODE they are not permitted to operate automatically and need to be extended manually, however, the spoilers were not manually extended by the crew. 2 seconds after the first touch down the aircraft touched down a second time with the nose gear first at 155 KIAS and +5.85G, the aircraft bounced off again to 18 feet AGL. A third touchdown occurred at 140 KIAS in excess of +5G resulting in the destruction of the construction, a fuel spill and fire. While the aircraft was skidding along the runway at 100 KIAS a first fire alarm triggered in the aft cargo compartment, 16 seconds later in the tail section of the aircraft, the aircraft came to a stop 20 seconds after the first fire alarm. 40 seconds after the first fire alarm the fire extinguisher in the tail section was activated. The engines continued to run until end (at 15:31:04Z) of the FDR recording 47 seconds after the first fire alarm. The MAK is conducting the investigation which focusses also on the predicitive wind shear alerts and the reaction to them.
Reply
Interesting. Key take-away for any FBW aircraft... landing in non-normal laws will be weird, they have all those modified ground prox/flare sub-modes for a reason.
Reply
Quote: Interesting. Key take-away for any FBW aircraft... landing in non-normal laws will be weird, they have all those modified ground prox/flare sub-modes for a reason.
It's a shame that FAA/EASA keep approving sims that fly nothing like the real thing as "level D".
Not defending this crew in any way, but it was likely that they had never felt how the plane handled in real life when flown direct law.
Reply
I wonder how FDR data on control surface positions vs. flight crew inputs from this "landing" would compare to simulator control surface positions vs. inputs in a replicated scenario. If they vary significantly then the crew had zero or negative training on how to conduct a landing flare in direct law.

There's a reason the data for our (A320 drivers) new EEC training had to be derived from actual flight testing. There simply wasn't adequate programming to replicate full stall and upset conditions prior to the data collection flights. There may be a similar dynamic here.
Reply
2  3  4  5  6 
Page 6 of 6
Go to