Two black boxes from the FlyDubai crash near Rostov-on-Don in Russia may not yield much information due to damage:
Aviation experts are examining two black boxes from the FlyDubai flight that crashed in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, killing all 55 passengers and seven crew on board. But officials say the cockpit voice and data recorders have been badly damaged and are unlikely to reveal much data. The FlyDubai Boeing 737-800, coming from Dubai, missed the runway as it attempted to land on Saturday.
Officials say it is not clear what caused the crash 950km south of Moscow. But poor visibility and high winds are being considered as factors. A criminal investigation has been launched into whether pilot error, a technical fault or the bad weather was the cause. [...] The black boxes are being examined by experts from Russia, the United Arab Emirates, the US and France, AP reported, because the American-made Boeing had French-manufactured engines.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @09:34AM
But how is it even possible? The entirety of jetsetter security-theater depends on the absolute dependability of a legally-admissible permanent record! What the shit, fuckwits?!!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hellcat on Monday March 21 2016, @09:59AM
Russian facts are generally suspect, especially when it comes to early on.
Circling in a holding pattern for two hours is unconscionable - pilots know to immediately divert to their alternate where better weather waits.
But then, landing in high winds is what they train for. If winds were above the threshold of the 737-800 then again, he should have diverted.
Which brings us to the crash. If it was a crash on approach, then the recorders wouldn't be in too bad shape.
But if he ran out of fuel at holding altitude, then he could have fallen out of the sky.
Still, way too early to tell.
(Score: 2) by subs on Monday March 21 2016, @01:54PM
Circling in a holding pattern for two hours is unconscionable
It's weird to be sure, but not strictly illegal. Provided that they had enough fuel left to divert + reserves, they would be Ok. Then again, what pilot packs 2 hours of extra for holding? That smells.
If it was a crash on approach, then the recorders wouldn't be in too bad shape.
Crash was on the second go-around. After becoming established in the go-around and climbing through a few thousand feet the aircraft suddenly started a rapid descent. The tower controller even managed to give them a hand off to approach control which the aircraft acknowledged, including an at this point ominous "bye bye" at the end. Sadly, that was their last transmission.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday March 21 2016, @03:41PM
Then again, what pilot packs 2 hours of extra for holding? That smells.
Its such a weird match it almost smells like a "just so" story but it would be too hard to fake.
You have to follow your own countries laws (its complicated as hell) but there are international agreements and from IACO 9th edition word for word
where the aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome:
i) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane .... or
ii) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for two hours at normal cruise consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve fuel;
Even without isolated airport rules, you gotta carry 5% more than flight needs plus 35 minutes plus extra for taxi-ing around and stuff, and
(Score: 2) by subs on Monday March 21 2016, @07:21PM
ICAO 9th edition
No need to quote me the regs. I know. This wasn't an isolated field by any stretch. Suitable alternates were maybe 20 minutes away [skyvector.com]. On reflection, I think they might have simply carried so much extra because it was cheaper to tanker at Dubai (i.e. load up as much as you can to save on purchasing locally at your destination).
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 21 2016, @05:25PM
> Then again, what pilot packs 2 hours of extra for holding? That smells.
Anyone operating an aircraft does that math all the time: Save fuel by flying light, or save money/time by not refueling at XYZ airport where the fuel/service is more expensive, or the schedule tight?
I don't pretend to know the answer.
(Score: 2) by subs on Monday March 21 2016, @07:23PM
Yeah I subsequently realized they might have been tankering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @01:55PM
Russian facts are generally suspect, especially when it comes to early on.
I don't get my news from CNN anymore, because they repeatedly lied and intentionally leave out a lot of important details and facts. (That don't fall in line with their interests) I still check rt occasionally, usually has some info that's not in western media. (It does require a spinning-filter) And these days, you have to tripple check anything anyway, western news + russian news + some outside third party (usually al jazeera for me); gives you a good idea of what really happened. But that's just to much hassle for everyday news items.
Anyway, my point was going to be, that I don't see any Russian facts being declared yet. I only see that an international team of investigators is looking into the crash. You jumped the gun a bit early there.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday March 21 2016, @07:14PM
They were not holding - they were flying erratically https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/fz981/#922b3bd [flightradar24.com]
Perhaps they were trying to find an alternative which they should have had. My guess is that for whatever reason they panicked.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday March 21 2016, @10:21AM
i realize that black boxes are designed to survive most everything but they don't seem to be designed to survive being badly damaged. instead of expecting to survive in one piece, the (memory) components should be easy to reassemble so that if the box is crushed, it it will break into many redundant and salvageable pieces rather than be a total loss.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Monday March 21 2016, @01:18PM
I learned that modern flight recorders have done away with the looped reels in favour of solid-state memory. I can't say I'm ok with that. Although it means it can record from many more data sources, and record for longer periods of time, to me it suggests that damage to a tiny chip means the entire recording is lost, whereas with data reels data can still be retrieved from undamaged sections.
I assume the pros know what they're doing though and considered this and designed around it, otherwise they wouldn't even have received regulatory approval to be used in planes now.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday March 21 2016, @02:13PM
Regulatory is bought. So it carries little value.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @08:24PM
"Why don't they make the planes out of the same stuff they use to make the black boxes?"
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by zeigerpuppy on Monday March 21 2016, @12:26PM
An excellent source of information for such incidents is
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/576325-b-738-crash-russia-rostov-don.html [pprune.org]
The Professional Pilots' Rumor Network generally has informed commentary.
It appears that speculation is focused upon a very rapid rate of descent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @08:22PM
Try avherald.com if you want real information - pprune used to be competent and professional, but was overrun by flight simulator enthusiasts and bored retirees of all kinds of professions in the wake of the AF447 accident a few years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @12:59PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57v4_U-N15c [youtube.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @01:57PM
...strike again! Thanks System D!
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2016, @02:49PM
...strike again! Thanks System D!
You can't blame System D for this. System D is "settled science."
Everyone uses it! Probably even you!