If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today) Video Incredible security cam video of Tatarstan Airlines crash. (low whistle)   (rt.com) divider line 51
    More: Video  
•       •       •

4893 clicks; posted to Video » on 18 Nov 2013 at 8:58 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-18 08:19:14 AM
Looks like the video of the bombs hitting Baghdad.
 
2013-11-18 09:14:08 AM
Does someone mumble "terrorists" at the 13½sec mark?

// is Russian for "terrorist": "terrorist"?
 
2013-11-18 09:38:46 AM

Big Ramifications: Does someone mumble "terrorists" at the 13½sec mark?

// is Russian for "terrorist": "terrorist"?


Si
 
2013-11-18 09:56:49 AM
Wow. That thing went straight down. Not a really really bad landing type crash, but straight down. Kind of like how my brother in law died, but in a little Cessna.
 
2013-11-18 09:58:21 AM
Damn, didn't the media reports indicate a hard landing at first? That is sooo not how I envision a hard landing.
 
2013-11-18 10:00:11 AM

lucksi: Damn, didn't the media reports indicate a hard landing at first? That is sooo not how I envision a hard landing.


Yeah, that's what I heard. They missed the first approach or went around then had a hard landing the 2nd time. I guess "hard landing" in Russian is not an understatement.
 
2013-11-18 10:15:48 AM
www.space2099theseries.com
 
2013-11-18 10:18:12 AM
Everything in the article contradicts everything else. Nice to know their investigation is off to a fine start.
 
2013-11-18 10:18:43 AM
From what little detail the article gave, it seems that the pilots were badly distracted by something going on. It will be an interesting transcript from the voice data recorder, that's for certain.
 
2013-11-18 10:30:44 AM
Could a sudden engine shutdown at just the wrong time cause the plane to roll over like that, leading to a stall and a nosedive?
 
2013-11-18 10:51:14 AM
My Oldest was on a flight from Tyumen to Moscow the same day that the Russian National hockey team burned in near Yaroslavl. He told me that he would never fly in a Russian owned aircraft ever again. Said the interior of the plane was literally falling to pieces during their flight. To be honest I'm surprised they don't have more incidents.
 
2013-11-18 11:17:00 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: My Oldest was on a flight from Tyumen to Moscow the same day that the Russian National hockey team burned in near Yaroslavl. He told me that he would never fly in a Russian owned aircraft ever again. Said the interior of the plane was literally falling to pieces during their flight. To be honest I'm surprised they don't have more incidents.


Meanwhile, Aeroflot is working to be the next Emirates and make Moscow a major hub.
 
2013-11-18 11:18:45 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: My Oldest was on a flight from Tyumen to Moscow the same day that the Russian National hockey team burned in near Yaroslavl. He told me that he would never fly in a Russian owned aircraft ever again. Said the interior of the plane was literally falling to pieces during their flight. To be honest I'm surprised they don't have more incidents.


When I was there in the 90s, you saw a lot of planes flown by the regional airlines with clear nosecones.  I asked my Russian colleagues why, and they said "That's where the bombardier sits."

Yep. Most of the passenger planes were built dual-purpose. Tear out the seats, install munitions racks, go bomb Frankfurt and Paris and London.  I have no idea how well the bomb bays doors were sealed, but just think about what would happen w/ a loss of pressure situation there.
 
2013-11-18 11:21:12 AM
I used to write software for the F/A-18 Super Hornet.  That has a hard-landing sensor, which will trigger a secure erase of the computers when tripped.  I always thought the name was a tad euphemistic.
 
2013-11-18 11:22:22 AM

wxboy: Could a sudden engine shutdown at just the wrong time cause the plane to roll over like that, leading to a stall and a nosedive?


Short answer: no, not realistically, unless other aggravating factors are present.

Slightly longer: As far as I know, every two-engine jetliner has to be fully capable of flight with one engine out.  Yes, aerodynamically, having one engine out can lead to one wing generating more lift than the other, causing the aircraft to 'want' to roll (as well as yaw), but that should be controllable by the pilots in normal flight conditions.  The only conditions I can think of where it might not be is if the aircraft was already going too slowly, such that one engine dying made that wing (and only that wing) stall almost instantly.
 
2013-11-18 12:39:40 PM
wow, planted that thing good.
 
2013-11-18 12:42:36 PM

SpaceButler: wxboy: Could a sudden engine shutdown at just the wrong time cause the plane to roll over like that, leading to a stall and a nosedive?

Short answer: no, not realistically, unless other aggravating factors are present.

Slightly longer: As far as I know, every two-engine jetliner has to be fully capable of flight with one engine out.  Yes, aerodynamically, having one engine out can lead to one wing generating more lift than the other, causing the aircraft to 'want' to roll (as well as yaw), but that should be controllable by the pilots in normal flight conditions.  The only conditions I can think of where it might not be is if the aircraft was already going too slowly, such that one engine dying made that wing (and only that wing) stall almost instantly.


A dicked up rudder will cause a plane to roll over, stall, and crash.  It's happened before with 737s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues .
 
2013-11-18 01:10:29 PM

KidneyStone: SpaceButler: wxboy: Could a sudden engine shutdown at just the wrong time cause the plane to roll over like that, leading to a stall and a nosedive?

Short answer: no, not realistically, unless other aggravating factors are present.

Slightly longer: As far as I know, every two-engine jetliner has to be fully capable of flight with one engine out.  Yes, aerodynamically, having one engine out can lead to one wing generating more lift than the other, causing the aircraft to 'want' to roll (as well as yaw), but that should be controllable by the pilots in normal flight conditions.  The only conditions I can think of where it might not be is if the aircraft was already going too slowly, such that one engine dying made that wing (and only that wing) stall almost instantly.

A dicked up rudder will cause a plane to roll over, stall, and crash.  It's happened before with 737s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues .


That issue was resolved over a decade ago. If the pilot says they're going to crash then I doubt it's going to be a stall as they're trained to deal with those. I'm also not going with an engine failure as the most basic pilot's license requires knowing how to land / crash land without any power. They won't be going in at that angle unless they stalled the plane after an engine failure, which would still be pilot error.

I'm going with mechanical failure just because of the state of their aircraft, but any number of improper settings could result in this. Right down to a kid sitting in the seat and pushing the stick over. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593
 
2013-11-18 01:22:09 PM

KidneyStone: A dicked up rudder will cause a plane to roll over, stall, and crash. It's happened before with 737s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues .


Yeah, and a mechanical or control problem with the elevator could do it too, as well as the right kind of mechanical failure.  And the issue with the 737 rudders which caused the crashes in the early 90s was fixed and, as far as I know, hasn't recurred since.

I'm getting outside of even my armchair expertise here, so take this with even more salt than everything else you read on internet comment threads about air disasters, but the video seems to show a plane just flying straight into the ground, seemingly nose-down with no spiral-type motion to it.  A stuck rudder or a stall due to engine failure while already flying at an unsafely low speed seem like they would put the aircraft into a spin, not a straight dive.  Though it's hard to say for sure from the video; it looks like it's running slower than realtime, so maybe the craft just hit the ground so fast that its spin wasn't visible while it was in-frame.  But if it was just nose-down without spinning, all I can think of other than pilot input is a mechanical or control problem with the elevator, a huge microburst which the pilots didn't handle correctly, or maybe a center-of-gravity problem (though you'd think a balance issue bad enough to do that on landing would've been an issue on takeoff too, so..  maybe if a ULD broke loose in the cargo hold on approach and slid forward?).

/Not a pilot, nor trained in aerodynamic physics
//Just an engineering geek who's read a lot of aircraft incident investigation reports
///They can provide fantastic examples of how minor design decisions can influence major events
////And complex investigation and problem-solving in general
//Not many slashies in them, though
 
2013-11-18 01:34:25 PM
Unavailable for comment.

images.starpulse.com
 
2013-11-18 01:39:55 PM

MadMattressMack: I'm also not going with an engine failure as the most basic pilot's license requires knowing how to land / crash land without any power.


There was a crash of a small two-engine plane in Canada which illustrated how that can actually happen -- and in that case the engine wasn't even dead, the pilots just incorrectly thought it was.

I'll see if I can find the actual report again, but off the top of my head:  The plane had been modified in a way which increased its stall speed, and thus increased the minimum safe flying speed.  It was a perfectly legal modification, approved by relevant authorities.  During the flight, the pilots saw indications of a potential issue developing with one of the engines, so they reduced that engine to idle and continued.  This further increases the minimum flight speed required to maintain control.  I think the pilots were aware of one of these factors affecting necessary approach speed, but may not have been properly notified about/trained for the other.  In any case, on final approach, their airspeed went too low, and the plane went from "controlled flight" to "flipping over and diving" almost instantaneously.  IIRC, it was one wing stalling while the other didn't, and since they were almost at the runway they didn't have anywhere near enough altitude to recover.

I'll post a link to the report later if I can find it; it's an interesting one, which goes into how crazy aerodynamics can get in the right situations.
 
2013-11-18 01:40:07 PM

lucksi: That is sooo not how I envision a hard landing.


Well, technically...
 
2013-11-18 01:45:22 PM

SpaceButler: In any case, on final approach, their airspeed went too low, and the plane went from "controlled flight" to "flipping over and diving" almost instantaneously.  IIRC, it was one wing stalling while the other didn't, and since they were almost at the runway they didn't have anywhere near enough altitude to recover.


Sounds like a Vmc encounter, but I'm not familiar with the accident. Basically, if you have one engine failed or shut down, you have to maintain a high enough speed for your controls to counter the roll/yaw/pitch action created by the asymmetric thrust. Go too slow (can be way, way above the stall speed of the plane) and the working engine yaws/rolls you towards the failed engine and there's nothing that can be done about it without lots of altitude to recover.
 
2013-11-18 01:57:05 PM

SpaceButler: MadMattressMack: I'm also not going with an engine failure as the most basic pilot's license requires knowing how to land / crash land without any power.

There was a crash of a small two-engine plane in Canada which illustrated how that can actually happen

...

I'll post a link to the report later if I can find it; it's an interesting one, which goes into how crazy aerodynamics can get in the right situations.


I think this is the one I was thinking of.  Looks like I misremembered about the engine issue not being real; apparently there was in fact an issue with the oil level.

I should also reiterate that the aerodynamics involved in this crash are more complicated than what's usually involved in commercial flight, because I think I made it sound too simple with "one wing stalled while the other didn't".  As the report puts it:

Multi-engine−aircraft flight manuals and training programs do not include cautions and minimum control speeds for use of asymmetrical thrust in situations when an engine is at low power or the propeller is not feathered. There is a risk that pilots will not anticipate aircraft behaviour when using asymmetrical thrust near or below unpublished critical speeds, and will lose control of the aircraft.

Anyway, my ultimate point is just that while pilots are indeed trained to handle engine failures or even all-out loss of thrust, there are still specific, rare situations where the loss of an engine (and the sudden change from symmetric to highly asymmetric thrust which that entails) could have serious effects on the pilot's ability to control the plane.  But even if that's what happened in the Tatarstan Airlines crash, there's still more to the story, because I don't think it would be possible to reach that state without first violating normal safety margins on approach speed and/or weight and balance.
 
2013-11-18 02:01:54 PM

costermonger: Sounds like a Vmc encounter, but I'm not familiar with the accident. Basically, if you have one engine failed or shut down, you have to maintain a high enough speed for your controls to counter the roll/yaw/pitch action created by the asymmetric thrust. Go too slow (can be way, way above the stall speed of the plane) and the working engine yaws/rolls you towards the failed engine and there's nothing that can be done about it without lots of altitude to recover.


I posted the link a moment ago, so you can take a look.  Please correct me if my understanding was wrong.

Is the roll/yaw/pitch action created purely by the asymmetric thrust, or does the asymmetric thrust also result in asymmetric lift from the wings which adds to the problem?
 
2013-11-18 02:24:58 PM

SpaceButler: I posted the link a moment ago, so you can take a look.  Please correct me if my understanding was wrong.Is the roll/yaw/pitch action created purely by the asymmetric thrust, or does the asymmetric thrust also result in asymmetric lift from the wings which adds to the problem?


Yeah, the Northern Thunderbird was (sort of) a Vmc accident. I remember it, I just don't think I've read that report before.

Anyway, yeah, you've basically got it, but the loss of control in that instance is pretty much down to improper flying technique. When an engine actually fails, you are supposed to feather the prop and remove a lot of the drag associated with the prop that wasn't doing anything productive. They pulled the left engine back to/near idle, which can actually create more drag than a completely shut down engine with a feathered prop. They didn't account for this during their approach, got to slow, applied power to the right engine to rectify the speed issue and the resulting thrust/drag asymmetry caused the aircraft to go uncontrollably to the left. If they'd actually shut down the engine or flown at a higher speed, they'd have had the necessary control authority to keep things going where they were supposed to. Fair point in the TSB report, we spend a ton of time teaching people how to handle an outright loss of an engine, much less time dealing with considerations surrounding a limited-power/idle landing situation like that.

To answer your question, a propeller driven twin (assuming the prop is in front of the wing) will suffer a loss of lift on the wing behind the failed engine because the accelerated slipstream from the prop is no longer traveling over the wing. This means the wing behind the good engine will generate more lift than the wing behind the failed engine, and that difference in lift is what's responsible for the roll action that is associated with an engine out situation. It doesn't really affect the pitch or yaw movements, and it won't be a factor on a jet - the thrust from the engine is not directed over the wing and doesn't directly generate any lift.
 
2013-11-18 02:48:39 PM

costermonger: Anyway, yeah, you've basically got it, but the loss of control in that instance is pretty much down to improper flying technique. When an engine actually fails, you are supposed to feather the prop and remove a lot of the drag associated with the prop that wasn't doing anything productive. They pulled the left engine back to/near idle, which can actually create more drag than a completely shut down engine with a feathered prop.


Ahh, I see.  I had actually been about to ask you why the report says the effect wouldn't have been as bad if the prop had been feathered -- I had been thinking of an idling prop kind of like an idling car engine, in that it would still provide some minimal amount of forward thrust.

costermonger: To answer your question, a propeller driven twin (assuming the prop is in front of the wing) will suffer a loss of lift on the wing behind the failed engine because the accelerated slipstream from the prop is no longer traveling over the wing. This means the wing behind the good engine will generate more lift than the wing behind the failed engine, and that difference in lift is what's responsible for the roll action that is associated with an engine out situation. It doesn't really affect the pitch or yaw movements, and it won't be a factor on a jet - the thrust from the engine is not directed over the wing and doesn't directly generate any lift.


That makes sense; thanks for the answer.  One question, though -- how is it different when the prop is behind the wing, assuming that it's still in line with the wing?  The prop doesn't create any air, so it has to be sucking as much air as it's blowing, so I would have thought it'd be quite similar in its effect regardless of which side of the wing it's on.

Also, as for TFA, can you tell if the plane was in a dive or a spin, or would it really need serious frame-by-frame analysis to know?
 
2013-11-18 02:50:46 PM
Looking at the video, there's a smaller explosion BEFORE the plane hits the ground, then the big one when it impacts.
 
2013-11-18 03:13:30 PM

SpaceButler: That makes sense; thanks for the answer.  One question, though -- how is it different when the prop is behind the wing, assuming that it's still in line with the wing?  The prop doesn't create any air, so it has to be sucking as much air as it's blowing, so I would have thought it'd be quite similar in its effect regardless of which side of the wing it's on.


It's complicated. It helps to think of a prop as having two functions - it creates a low pressure in front of the disc and a high pressure behind the disc, but it also accelerates the mass of air that passes through the disc. So it would seem to me that a pusher design (wing in the entrance stream) does likely contribute to the lift generated by creating a low pressure area which will accelerate the flow, but not as much as a tractor design (wing in the exit stream) which both accelerates and increases the density of the flow.

What I know for sure is that there's some serious, serious math involved in analyzing it completely.

SpaceButler: Also, as for TFA, can you tell if the plane was in a dive or a spin, or would it really need serious frame-by-frame analysis to know?


I can't tell, and I don't think it would be possible to with that short of a video. If control is lost due to a poorly handled engine out situation, the rotation might not be particularly fast (which it would have to be in order to tell from a few frames of video), it just isn't possible to counteract with the aerodynamic forces generated by the flight controls. Have to dive to speed up and get control authority back, and that costs lots of altitude.
All I can tell from the video is there's some kind of loss of control. If they made a few landing attempts and then reported that they 'couldn't land', I'm very curious what kind of situation they might have been dealing with.
 
2013-11-18 03:15:14 PM

bingethinker: Looking at the video, there's a smaller explosion BEFORE the plane hits the ground, then the big one when it impacts.


That flash just looks like a wingtip strobe. I didn't even notice it the first few times I watched.
 
2013-11-18 03:35:30 PM

SpaceButler: Anyway, my ultimate point is just that while pilots are indeed trained to handle engine failures or even all-out loss of thrust, there are still specific, rare situations where the loss of an engine (and the sudden change from symmetric to highly asymmetric thrust which that entails) could have serious effects on the pilot's ability to control the plane.  But even if that's what happened in the Tatarstan Airlines crash, there's still more to the story, because I don't think it would be possible to reach that state without first violating normal safety margins on approach speed and/or weight and balance.


True, but that's more of an issue with prop craft due to accelerated slip stream on non-contra props. Either way, I'd at least hope an airline pilot rated to the level to fly IFR commercial passenger service in a 737 has the capability to read the minimums for engine out flying / landing. Then again, this is Russia.

I still think this is going to be mechanical failure, but I wouldn't be surprised with chair / yolk interface failure.
 
2013-11-18 03:36:08 PM
You see that big fire ball that went up?  That's a real concern for pilots ejecting from an uncontrollable aircraft.
 
2013-11-18 03:37:10 PM

costermonger: bingethinker: Looking at the video, there's a smaller explosion BEFORE the plane hits the ground, then the big one when it impacts.

That flash just looks like a wingtip strobe. I didn't even notice it the first few times I watched.


I assumed the flash was an arc from a wing hitting a power line
 
2013-11-18 03:37:37 PM
And I see you've already gone over accelerate slipstream issues.
 
2013-11-18 03:40:06 PM

relaxitsjustme: costermonger: bingethinker: Looking at the video, there's a smaller explosion BEFORE the plane hits the ground, then the big one when it impacts.

That flash just looks like a wingtip strobe. I didn't even notice it the first few times I watched.

I assumed the flash was an arc from a wing hitting a power line


I think it's the strobe. You can see it reflect twice from the ground before the plane comes into view.
 
2013-11-18 03:41:17 PM
Also, it's definitely not a fuel quantity issue.
 
2013-11-18 03:47:52 PM

bingethinker: Looking at the video, there's a smaller explosion BEFORE the plane hits the ground, then the big one when it impacts.


I think that's just the strobe light on the wing.
 
2013-11-18 03:48:08 PM

costermonger: It's complicated. It helps to think of a prop as having two functions - it creates a low pressure in front of the disc and a high pressure behind the disc, but it also accelerates the mass of air that passes through the disc. So it would seem to me that a pusher design (wing in the entrance stream) does likely contribute to the lift generated by creating a low pressure area which will accelerate the flow, but not as much as a tractor design (wing in the exit stream) which both accelerates and increases the density of the flow.

What I know for sure is that there's some serious, serious math involved in analyzing it completely.


Yeah, like accounting for how the out-flow is much more turbulent than the in-flow and such.  Still, what you said makes sense.  Interestingly (to me anyway), the Wright brothers' plane was a pusher design with the props vertically centered halfway between the upper and lower wings, so I wonder if in that case the low pressure zone aided lift on the lower wing while simultaneously decreasing lift on the upper wing.

costermonger: All I can tell from the video is there's some kind of loss of control. If they made a few landing attempts and then reported that they 'couldn't land', I'm very curious what kind of situation they might have been dealing with.


Yeah, this seems like a strange one.  I hope someone translates the report into English once it's released.
 
2013-11-18 04:00:28 PM

SpaceButler: Interestingly (to me anyway), the Wright brothers' plane was a pusher design with the props vertically centered halfway between the upper and lower wings, so I wonder if in that case the low pressure zone aided lift on the lower wing while simultaneously decreasing lift on the upper wing.


Given how little power they created, it probably didn't have a huge effect. They're interesting props to me - they figured out that they needed to twist the blade so that it had a different pitch at the hub and the tip, but instead of tapering the blades towards the tip, they actually flared out (so a disproportionate amount of the thrust created would be from the tips). Ultimately, it doesn't look anything like what you'd need on a plane that is supposed to fly faster than 30mph, but some very smart people have analyzed them and determined they're pretty much optimal for the power they had available and the speed of the Flyer.
 
2013-11-18 04:09:01 PM

MadMattressMack: True, but that's more of an issue with prop craft due to accelerated slip stream on non-contra props. Either way, I'd at least hope an airline pilot rated to the level to fly IFR commercial passenger service in a 737 has the capability to read the minimums for engine out flying / landing. Then again, this is Russia.


Yeah, until Costermonger told me that an idling prop creates more drag than a feathered one, I didn't really realize how much of that incident was specific to it being a prop-driven craft.

As for reading the minimums, though, that only helps if the relevant minimums are actually printed, and the engine out happens before the landing.  The scenario I was thinking of for this 737 is if the engine-out happened near the end of the final approach, when the plane was already near the edge of its flight envelope for other reasons (e.g. going too slow and/or having control problems already).
 
2013-11-18 04:16:17 PM

costermonger: Given how little power they created, it probably didn't have a huge effect. They're interesting props to me - they figured out that they needed to twist the blade so that it had a different pitch at the hub and the tip, but instead of tapering the blades towards the tip, they actually flared out (so a disproportionate amount of the thrust created would be from the tips). Ultimately, it doesn't look anything like what you'd need on a plane that is supposed to fly faster than 30mph, but some very smart people have analyzed them and determined they're pretty much optimal for the power they had available and the speed of the Flyer.


Oh, very cool, I didn't know that.  My personal favourite part of their design was how some of the flight controls worked -- who needs ailerons?  Just twist the wings!
 
2013-11-18 04:34:32 PM

SpaceButler: My personal favourite part of their design was how some of the flight controls worked -- who needs ailerons?  Just twist the wings!


This makes for some pretty fascinating reading on the subject. The Wrights didn't use ailerons but they did claim that ailerons violated their patents, and ended up so embroidered in a patent war with Curtis that development of the airplane had basically ceased in the US.
 
2013-11-18 06:20:13 PM

flucto: Dancin_In_Anson: My Oldest was on a flight from Tyumen to Moscow the same day that the Russian National hockey team burned in near Yaroslavl. He told me that he would never fly in a Russian owned aircraft ever again. Said the interior of the plane was literally falling to pieces during their flight. To be honest I'm surprised they don't have more incidents.

Meanwhile, Aeroflot is working to be the next Emirates and make Moscow a major hub.


Which is why you should fly with Aeroflot, and not some random Russian regional airline.
 
2013-11-18 08:29:36 PM
I'm going with a worn jack screw that stripped out and jammed.
 
2013-11-18 09:15:19 PM
Painless.
 
2013-11-18 09:29:51 PM
Will Boeing and the NTSB get to examine the wreckage?  Or is Russia going to tell us what happend?

That didn't look like a purely weather-caused crash.
 
2013-11-18 10:10:39 PM

MadMattressMack: KidneyStone: SpaceButler: wxboy: Could a sudden engine shutdown at just the wrong time cause the plane to roll over like that, leading to a stall and a nosedive?

Short answer: no, not realistically, unless other aggravating factors are present.

Slightly longer: As far as I know, every two-engine jetliner has to be fully capable of flight with one engine out.  Yes, aerodynamically, having one engine out can lead to one wing generating more lift than the other, causing the aircraft to 'want' to roll (as well as yaw), but that should be controllable by the pilots in normal flight conditions.  The only conditions I can think of where it might not be is if the aircraft was already going too slowly, such that one engine dying made that wing (and only that wing) stall almost instantly.

A dicked up rudder will cause a plane to roll over, stall, and crash.  It's happened before with 737s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues .

That issue was resolved over a decade ago. If the pilot says they're going to crash then I doubt it's going to be a stall as they're trained to deal with those. I'm also not going with an engine failure as the most basic pilot's license requires knowing how to land / crash land without any power. They won't be going in at that angle unless they stalled the plane after an engine failure, which would still be pilot error.

I'm going with mechanical failure just because of the state of their aircraft, but any number of improper settings could result in this. Right down to a kid sitting in the seat and pushing the stick over. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroflot_Flight_593

~

That was one of the first Air Crash Investigation episodes I watched. It was gripping stuff. I was almost shouting at the TV like a kid at a Punch and Judy show. "Your kid messed with the controls! You're in a barely discernable roll, quit your yammering and get back to the cockpit!!"

kimwim: Wow. That thing went straight down. Not a really really bad landing type crash, but straight down. Kind of like how my brother in law died, but in a little Cessna.
~


Here's an infamous "that thing went straight down" 737 crash that was ruled as pilot suicide [pretty much].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185
 
2013-11-18 10:14:58 PM
Shocking video?

inigomontoya.jpg
 
2013-11-18 10:27:32 PM

Big Ramifications: Here's an infamous "that thing went straight down" 737 crash that was ruled as pilot suicide [pretty much].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185


FTA: It was subsequently discovered that one of the pilots had informed the control tower that making a second circle around the airport would be necessary, but then failed to follow the guidelines dictated back to him, according to Kirill Kornishin, one of the ground crew.

But as a commenter noted, the pilot didn't really say that at all:

Of course all these with the info we got. The pilot said on 1st approach a simple "we will not land", also the traffic control did not mention where the airplane was those seconds that they did not follow their coordinates...

Not saying it was pilot suicide. Just sayin'.
 
2013-11-18 10:37:02 PM
Yer angle of approach looks a mite steep there, son...
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report