Russian plane crash

[I Ratant]

The first stall a new pilot in the L-1011 experienced would result in at least a 3000 foot loss of altitude.
1500 feet would be the usual loss after that.
During testing or training, starting at 15000 feet, we could do 3 stalls in sequence without getting too close to the ground here in the Antelope Valley.
I would always keep this in mind when we were out over the Santa Barbara channel at 1000 feet, testing Vmca... the minimum speed for control.
This involved turning off one wing engine, and slowing the plane until the pilot ran out of rudder travel. Amazingly, that speed was always right where Aerodynamics said it should be.
And made me very happy, although getting close-up views of the California Grey Whales was a perk.

 

[Vermonter]

You merely need style for a proper swan dive.

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.

Yup, pure uninformed speculation on my part. As already demonstrated, there are far more knowledgeable folks pondering this!

 

[s_pepys]

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.

That's not exactly how the aero flot accident happened although your point still stands.

 

[sarge]

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.

I did specify missed approach. I understood from the story that the pilots were attempting to conduct instrument approaches and had to go missed.

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.

But that's all stuff I would expect any airline pilot anywhere to know, cold. I expect (with flaps configured for landing) even my (as of last night) 172 to pitch up if I firewall it for a go-around (but not a missed approach).

Sarge, think about the DA40 in your avatar.

It's a -20

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.

Everything you've written is gospel, but I don't understand the significance in this instance. It certainly would explain a crash - but it wouldn't explain away two airline pilots on an instrument flight plan never having flown a missed approach.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Having flown on scores of flights with Russian or CIS pilots, I'd say they are at least as capable as any - and a darn sight lighter on landings than most British or American pilots.
(That may have something to do with their runways which tend to be concrete and meant for military aircraft.)

 

[sarge]

Having flown on scores of flights with Russian or CIS pilots, I'd say they are at least as capable as any - and a darn sight lighter on landings than most British or American pilots.
(That may have something to do with their runways which tend to be concrete and meant for military aircraft.)

Did you fly in the cabin or the cockpit? If the cockpit, you'd certainly be in a position to assess the pilot's competence. In the cabin, not at all - although you'd surely know whether or not they greased a landing.

 

[I Ratant]

One of our pilots.. Bill Weaver.. could land the L-1011 so softly you'd not be aware of the touchdown until he let the nose drop.
Considering his position relative to the landing gear... 100 feet ahead and 50 feet higher in the landing attitude, we found this remarkable!
The autoland designers tried for similar soft landings, but found the squat switches in the landing gear would not always trigger to initiate the nose-down mode, and a soft-landing would result in a nose-high trip along the runway until the pilot intervened.
The landing flare was made less soft to get a positive response from the landing gear switches.