News Flydubai flight FZ981 passenger Boeing from Dubai crashes in Rostov-on-Don

[ADSWNJ]

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=495997e2/0030&opt=0

Interim report out. There was some fighting between the pilot inputs and the flap automation (flaps auto retracting and then deploying within 3 sec due to speed thresholds), but the indications are gross overcontrol to arrest the climb from the second rejected landing, leading to a -1.0g dive and impact before time to correct.

Reports in Russian and English, so interested if our Russian buddies can see anything more from the native language report.

 

[Artlav]

On a quick look both versions seem identical.

 

[Urwumpe]

Meaning what? No AP conflicts, no auto-stab trim? What's your theory?

What I meant there is, that Airbuses are FBW aircraft and have such annoying own intelligence, that can lead to conflicts between aircraft and unexperienced pilots. If you force it to land, but the FBW does not want to, it goes wrong.

And as the report shows - having the pilot have the ultimate word in a Boeing usually means that pilot errors are far more trivial and boring than in Airbus aircraft.

The flap problems look like gusts could have caused it, the plane was flying almost straight into direction of the wind.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Yet another incident cementing my opinion that Airbus pilots are systems managers, not pilots...:dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

Yet another incident cementing my opinion that Airbus pilots are systems managers, not pilots...:dry:

Despite the plane involved

1. being a Boeing?
2. had actively piloted in a way, that led into the crash?
3. crashed in a way that would have been impossible with an Airbus aircraft (* In primary law)?

This was a typical Boeing accident. Pilot got lured by dumb automatisms into deciding wrong.




A captain of a (naval) ship is also everything today but a typical sailor. He is a systems manager as well, operating the ship with a minimum crew from central control posts directing automatic subsystems. What is the matter? if you want romantic nostalgy, hire on the USS Eagle or the Gorch Fock. It gets especially romantic in the roaring 40s.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Despite the plane involved

1. being a Boeing?
2. had actively piloted in a way, that led into the crash?
3. crashed in a way that would have been impossible with an Airbus aircraft (* In primary law)?

This was a typical Boeing accident. Pilot got lured by dumb automatisms into deciding wrong.

:facepalm:

You're right. Somehow I thought it was an Airbus.

Revised statement, then... Flight crews today aren't true pilots. They're too dependent upon automated systems.

 

[Urwumpe]

Revised statement, then... Flight crews today aren't true pilots. They're too dependent upon automated systems.

About the same can be said about senior pilots, who have never flown an Airbus and instantly collide with the FBW and its "flying on rails" behavior, despite being extremely experienced.

They are no true pilots. A true pilot KNOWS his plane. Even the automatic systems. A really good pilot knows it even better than the guy who designed it.

I think such generalizations about ideal pilots and the majority of the pilots don't reaching this ideal don't bring you much joy. Somebody made an error and others will have to learn from this mistake. Many people died, likely because of something trivial, that the pilot missed in an extremely stressful situation.

Sullenberger was also no perfect pilot. But he was perfectly suited for landing an unpowered plane in the Hudson river in relatively good shape.

 

[Spacethingy]

"SCE to AUX" is quite an interesting example of that point - out of a crew of astronauts and mission control, only one guy really knew that switch could save the situation.

 

[RisingFury]

We're at a critical time in aircraft industry, where the automation is flying half of the aircraft and the pilot flying the other half, so the errors are stemming from pilot-machine communication.

This problem will go away once we move to full automation.