After a Boeing 737 operating as Flydubai Flight 981 crashed in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don Saturday, preliminary accounts suggested that the plane had clipped a wing or struck the ground with its tail while attempting to land in stormy weather. Indeed, in a story published later that day, RT.com quoted Rostov region governor Vasily Golubev as saying, “The plane was descending and then suddenly dived down. Experts say this was an air pocket that dragged the plane to the left of the runway center. And the plane debris were scattered to the left as well.” Obviously, there is no such thing as an “air pocket.” But it makes intuitive sense that a plane attempting to land in high, gusty winds might succumb to shear at low altitude and low airspeed as it nears touchdown. But this, it appears, is not what happened at all. Frequent contributor Victor Iannello has created a graphic based on ADS-B data transmitted by the plane during its final moments. What it shows is that the plane had descended to land, then aborted the landing and climbed, accelerating as it went. It had already gained 3000 feet altitude and reached a speed of 200 knots when it suddenly plummeted from the sky. Here’s the data in graph form:
This security-camera footage offers a visual sense of what happened:
Mar19 #Rostov, #footage of FZ981 crash, view from Aleksandrovka micro-ds @Eisenhoden pic.twitter.com/TqIdvOmMys
— English Lugansk (@loogunda) March 21, 2016
What happened? Authorities on the scene have found the black boxes and hopefully will have answers soon. For the time being, some have speculated that the plane encountered severe windshear or a microburst, causing it to stall and plummet. But the plane’s descent was nose-down at high speed, so the pilot should have been able to at least attempt to pull up. Personally, I’m reminded of AA587, which crashed in 2001 on takeoff from Long Island after the pilot flying applied to much rudder after encountering wake turbulence from the plane ahead of him on climbout, causing the vertical stabilizer to rip off; the plane dived nearly vertically into the ground. If something similar happened here, parts of the tail should be found at some distance from the main wreckage. Another case that may offer parallels was Kenya Airways Flight 507, which crashed in 2007 while on climbout in bad weather. The pilot lost situational awareness while the autopilot was only partially engaged, the plane entered into an increasingly steep bank, and plunged into the ground. What’s different in the present case is that the plane impacted right on the runway it had been trying to climb away from, implying that it stayed on the same heading the whole time. (That is to say, it hadn’t gone into a roll.) Another unusual aspect of the case was the fact that the pilots had been holding for two hours before making a second landing attempt. I asked Phil Derner, an aircraft dispatcher and aviation expert, for his take. He replied:
For me, as a dispatcher, 1 hour is my max to let an aircraft of mine hold. It’s just a waste of gas; might as well divert and wait for conditions to improve. Shit, even fitting an additional 2 hours of holding fuel to a flight is tough as it is, and then to burn it away in a hold? Also, I only let my flights sit in a holding pattern if I think they WILL get it. If conditions don’t look to be improving right away, I won’t even have them hold…I divert and would rather have them wait it out on the ground. It saves gas, and is safer on the ground. But then again, I don’t know all of the conditions they were facing, what conditions were at their alternate airports, etc. There are so many variables and we just don’t have a lot of info, so it’s tough to determine or judge. But 2 hours….damn.
Meanwhile, on an unrelated topic, I might as well put up a picture of the latest piece of aircraft debris, this one found on a beach in South Africa. Not many details forthcoming yet, but it’s worth noting that MH370 was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines. 
A quick glance at there not-very-high-res images suggests that the piece is roughly similar in appearance to the two pieces recently found in Mozambique, though perhaps somewhat more discolored/weathered. Apparently the piece is on its way to Malaysia.
UPDATE: Here’s another picture that @Susie provided a link to in the comments section:
@DennisW,
“Was it in the water or on a beach?”
It was reported as a sandbank, that was known by fishermen as a place where debris of all sorts tended to wash up. Would it be far fetched to imagine that the boat owner found it so quickly because he had been to the place earlier, had seen the piece but paid little attention to it, and knowing the American’s interest, went directly to that sandbank?
Mossel Bay, South Africa is more than 2500 km from the Mozambique debris location. It is also right on the south coast of south Africa much closer to Cape Town than Durban. Has anyone seen a drift analysis that shows any debris reaching near to this destination? All the graphics I can find are either showing this as outside the extent of the image or no debris making it along here. Is this the to the time parameters used in the modelling? If the scenarios were run for longer would it get there eventually?
This current diagram seems to suggest that a current running through the Mozambique channel and down to the Cape of good hope could have played a part.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=debris+mh370+Mozambique&client=ms-android-h3g-gb&biw=360&bih=559&prmd=nimv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivjNH2stXLAhXLVhQKHYxgBqcQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=drift+analysis+mh370&imgrc=BQGqpxpzITiV7M%3A
@Gysbreght
Could have happened like you described. I just wish Blaine had chronicled exactly where the piece was found. Seems like all the pictures were “choreographed” a bit. Not trying to be overly suspicious here, just trying to understand what the “as found” disposition of the part was. Probably not a big deal.
@Crobbie
Your question was actually what led me to my question about the disposition of the “No Step” piece. My assumption is that the Mozambique pieces beached themselves much earlier than the SA piece, and the “scrubbing” action of the elements had a longer period of time to “sanitize” the Mozambique debris. The flaperon was obviously found very shortly after it exited the water.
@Gysbreght, that wouldn’t be far fetched at all- except that nothing in Blaine’s account indicates that. According to Blaine the captain said that this piece couldn’t have been there for more than 2-3 days because everything even remotely useful would get picked up immediately. That doesn’t indicate previous knowledge of the piece. Otherwise he would’ve said:”Last time I was here I saw it already”, especially after he learned about the significance of the piece. He would’ve known that it might be important how long the piece had been on the sandbar.
Warren:
I suspect your 981 conclusion is basically correct: “…crew spatial disorientation in gusty conditions after a long duty day…”. But what triggered it?
I note that the gnd spd varied by 102 kts in opposite directions in the holding pattern, not 60, so we know the wind at that altitude was at least 51 kts. We also know the final approach gnd spd was only ~100 kts, indicating a very strong headwind, probably >50 kts at 1500 ft. We also know cumulonimbus clouds were observed (strong convection) conducive to windshear and microbursts. Some of the WX advisories specifically warned of windshear and microbursts in the area. Whether 981 stalled or not, I believe there was probably an abrupt change in TAS immediately prior to the time the plane headed down, and that abrupt change in TAS…maybe as much as 100 kts in a few seconds…is what triggered the event.
@littlefoot
Regarding the Liam Lotter debris find, the AP story had this:
On Dec. 30, Liam Lotter was strolling on a beach in southern Mozambique, near the resort town of Xai Xai, when he spotted a gray piece of debris washed up on the sand, he recalled. It had rivet holes along the edge and the number 676EB stamped on it, convincing him he had found a piece of an aircraft. So he dragged the piece back to his family’s vacation home.
“It was so waterlogged at that time, it was quite heavy. I struggled to pick it up,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. The curved piece of debris is about 3.3 feet (one meter) long, and about half that length wide, his father Casper Lotter said.
His parents dismissed it as a “piece of rubbish” that was probably debris from a boat, with his uncle making fun of him for dragging it around, but the 18-year-old insisted on bringing it back to South Africa to research the fragment.
“He was adamant he wanted to bring it home because it had a number on it,” said Casper Lotter,
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-11/south-african-teen-finds-possible-mh370-plane-debris
ATSB Update here: http://goo.gl/5TrNB8
@ALSM
Thx. Sounds like progress is being made. The fact that an early progress report was forthcoming is a very good sign, IMO.
What are you thinking? I know there is a ton of evidence to support the current search area, but there is also a lot to say relative to alternatives. Are you still absolutely convinced (in your heart) that you are right, or are doubts creeping in? I am looking for a yes/no answer here. I appreciate a complete answer would amount to a book, and the DSTG has that covered.
@PhilD, I stand corrected, then. According to the AP article Liam Lötter might’ve insisted on keeping the piece because of the number on it, although he apparently was in no hurry to find out what the number stands for.
But while the fact is astonishing that each new piece has some letters or writing on it which helps identification, people will naturally tend to report debris which has some distinguishing marks on it.
There’s another close up image here:
http://imgur.com/a/QLnxu
Appears to be the underside.
The ‘underside’ is actually the inner surface of the intake. It is a perforated sheet. The perforations together with the honeycomb alveoles form Helmholtz resonators which are tuned to absorb the dominant frequencies in the noise emitted by the fan at approach power settings.
@DennisH
IF (yes a big IF) the deberis was planted it would have been planted by the hijackers themsleves (to misslead), who else?. Obviosly it would have come from the plane itself (MH370).
@All
Yes, it seems logical that interesting looking parts, eg with numbers on, would be recovered preferentially.
IMHO the microburst scenario doesn’t fit the events shown in Victor’s chart above. A microburst is a downdraft of cold air that spreads out in all directions when it hits the ground. An aircraft that flies through it at low altitude in the final approach first encounters an increasing headwind, changing to increasing tailwind. The trap is that in the increasing headwind airspeed increases, causing the pilot to reduce thrust, which reduces the groundspeed. When the headwind changes to a tailwind the pilot will increase the power setting, but the engines take a long time to spool up from the low power setting, so that airspeed reduces and cannot be restored in time.
Firstly all this is unlikely to occur at 1500 ft altitude, but also there is no reduction in groundspeed. The groundspeed is increasing all the time until the sudden dive.
I understand that there is a circumpolar circulation, passing eastwards, south of Australia, South America, to southern Africa from the west, as well as the counter clockwise anticyclonic SIO gyre up past Perth and over and around towards Reunion. Maybe there’s more near Tierra del Fuego?
Thanks @Gysbreght, that’s really interesting. I had no idea there was a sort of noise moderation built into the structure.
@Gysbreght,
“The ‘underside’ is actually the inner surface of the intake.”
It’s actually the inner surface of the outer skin of the intake. There is more structure than what you are eluding to.
OZ
@OZ: Thanks. Yes, that was a stupid remark of me.
@Erik. The circumpolar current basically sweeps round and around at >45S. If debris missed S Australia and NZ south island, then yes, it would keep going. But first landfall would be the bottom of S America (max 55S). Don’t think it would touch SA coast again since that sits at ~35S. From my understanding of major ocean currents, the most likely route to SA is: around the SIO gyre, westward on the equatorial current, then down along the MZ current (which becomes the Agulhas current), sweeping all the way westward around the SA coast.
@Susie:
“I had no idea there was a sort of noise moderation built into the structure.”
The inner surface of the intake has a noise-suppressing liner but as OZ points out, there is a space between the inner and outer skins of the intake.
@Paul Smithson
The modelling at http://www.adrift.org.au gives a good view of the potential routes to S. Africa on the lines you indicate. That is of course only one of the models in play and not the most recent.
@Richard. Thanks I’m aware of adrift as well as the 2 degree resolution NOAA oscar resource and have used both. Without going into any detail on high resolution swirls, eddies or real-time data I was trying to point out the prevailing major current route by which items from SIO would reach SA coastline.
I have no doubt that there is plenty more debris that has made landfall and what might be most instructive is to focus attention on those areas of coastline where debris tends to wash up. This is very far from uniform along a coastline and there are known places where flotsam tends to arrive in quantity.
While we are at it, I remain of the belief that the debris now making landfall came from the same area of “objects” sighted by satellite, some 300NM beyond the 7th ring and that one day the reason for that (and the other ping rings) being wrong will be understood. The drift trajectory from there (45S) will, I believe, deposit items both in S. Australia / S Island of NZ as well as on the E African coast.
I am therefore of the view that that quite apart from E African and SA coast lines, there will be debris finds in southern Australia, in vicinity of Encounter Bay/Adelaide at the eastern end of the Great Australian Bight as this is one of the higher probability areas for objects that started out in vicinity of 45S 88E. Where, precisely, the flotsam congregations occur along the eastern end of the Bight I don’t know. But that’s where I’d aim to look if I were in that neck of the woods.
@Gysbreght: Alles Klar.
ALSM,
“I note that the gnd spd varied by 102 kts in opposite directions in the holding pattern, not 60, so we know the wind at that altitude was at least 51 kts.”
There were meteorological reports about an atmospheric “jet stream” in that area of order 100 kph. It is consistent with your 51 kts.
A transcript of the communication between crew and ATC did not show any signs of worry, tiredness, etc. It was not the first time when the captain landed in Rostov. So these factors could have contributed, but I don’t think they are the major causes. Disorientation – probably. No illusions. By comparing timing in the video and Victor’s plot, the cloud level can be estimated at ~1200 ft (~5 s to the impact). If the aircraft really was plummeting at ~90 deg bank angle, the crew had probably no time to respond.
Dennis,
“Does anyone recall seeing a picture of the Gibson find before he retrieved it – i.e. a picture of the debris before he actually picked it up?”
Perhaps you missed it, but when Victor was in contact with Blaine, I specifically asked him to ask Blaine for the photos with flamingos in background. You know what happened soon after.
@littlefoot;Matty re: Blaine Gibson find (from CNN transcript):
“The owner of the boat that I chartered in (inaudible) who took me out to the (Paloma) sand bank was actually the first one to see it and pick it up. And I was very close to him, and he called me over. And I recognized that it had “no step” written on it. It appeared to be from a plane. I knew it was very important.”
In both cases it’s pretty clear that the lettering caused the finders to think they had an actual aircraft part.
Regarding the alleged lack of marine growth, Blaine had this to say: “There were a few little things that looked like a little bit of algae or calcification that may have come from something that tried to attach there,” (Interview with Jeff Wise)
Also, the March 23, 2016 search update from the ATSB had this to say about “macrofauna” found on the Mozambique objects:
“The items have been treated at Geoscience Australia’s quarantine-approved facilities. The pieces were visually examined to remove all visible macrofauna and then rinsed, submerged and agitated in water to capture any loose fauna. All water was then passed through a series of sieves with any possible macrofauna retained. The sieved material will then be sorted and possible biological material identified. The items were released from quarantine once they were thoroughly cleaned and all visible signs of possible contamination removed.”
I do have one question: Did Blaine ever publish the exact lat/long of the where the NO STEP object was found?
ETA: I found this seemingly ingenuous post on reddit: “There’s was a very large airline crash from the 1950’s a few miles from my house. I periodically find pieces that are 60 years old and they are if great shape. The materials used in the structure and skin of these aircraft stand up to serious corrosion.”
@VictorI:
Your graph says ADS-B data and “Speed”. Would that be groundspeed or airspeed?
@Gysbreght: I am pretty sure it is groundspeed.
@Lauren H: In the 7th row of comments on Jeff’s “Bioforensic analysis” article, you asked “Could you explain how the damage to the flaperon points to a controlled ditching? In a ditching, the engine would hit the water first, correct? Where does it go? It doesn’t look like it hit the flaperon. Did the engine pass under it or did the engine fly up and over the wing? What happened next?”
You should take a look at the ET691 attempted ditching. In that the left wing and engine strike the water first. The a/c then violently struck a reef, causing the fuselage to separate into several pieces. However, despite the violence and the fact that the left wing hit the water first, the left engine never did detach from the wing (cf. the official accident report). Therefore, we should not necessarily expect the right engine of MH370 to become detached either.
In respect of MH370, an attempted ditching would presumably align parallel to the swells. It probably would be going south, with the swell moving from west to east (right to left from the a/c perspective). Therefore, even if the a/c was perfectly level, we could expect the right wingtip or engine to hit first. If the Rolls Royce object recently found is determined to come from right engine cowling, this event would explain the cowling fragment’s detachment, as well as flaperon and No. 7 fairing, whether or not the engine itself became separated.
As for what happened next, in the case of ET961, the left wing hitting the water caused the a/c to roll to the left, causing the horizontal stabilizer to hit the water. We could expect MH370 to behave similarly: it might roll to the right, causing the detachment of the “NO STEP” object, if it is indeed the case that it derives from the right horizontal stabilizer, as has been suggested by a few people.
The major differences between MH370 and ET961 would be (1) no one fighting over control inputs; (2) more time to line up; (3) possible power that would allow deployment of flaps, allowing a slower impact speed; and most importantly (4), there would not be the reef the impact of which caused ET961’s fuselage to separate into several sections.
Not striking a reef and possibly having the flaps deployed would increase the chances that the fuselage would remain intact, which would explain the apparent absence of any interior debris. A more or less successful ditching would also explain the apparent overall dearth of debris.
Funny you would use the SilkAir 185 crash that resulted from deliberate flight control inputs to argue for a mechanical failure scenario WRT MH370. There is one interesting parallel though: both incidents began during the ATC ‘no-man’s-land’: after the first ATC has signed off, but before the second ATC has signed on….
@warren
@Lauren
Have to agree with everything you say Warren.
As the flaperon damage & broken flap fairing suggest flaps down, then the APU had to be running to deploy flaps, or perhaps less likely, the engines might have been running at the time. I have been told Boeing recommended procedure for ditching is to have engines running, he might have saved some fuel for that.
It might be difficult to say which engine the cowl fragment came from, as it might not be handed.
There is a claim that a toilet possibly from an aircraft lavatory was found on a South African beach near Capetown.
https://twitter.com/DouweZijp/status/712651560354975744
The 981 crash is not of much interest to me. The relevant statistic is that more than 80% of hull losses are due to pilot error. Anyone placing an even money bet into that statistic, or even postulating other causes, would be very foolish.
Of course, forums like PPRune would be incensed with a comment like the above. There seems to be a childish notion that pilots are blameless until it is proven otherwise.
@ Victor: Curiouser and curiouser! However, I must say that a quick gander at a google image search of 777 toilets did not turn up anything obvious to my eye. But if there is, it will be sure to turn up soon. 🙂
@Warren: I agree. It seems to be too wide and it is floor-mounted. I doubt that it is from a B777.
May I please ask, is it at all possible, to program an AP to perform a water landing?
And, for sake of argument, if Dr. Ulich claims he detects contrails, carved through a cloud decks, then what perchance is the elevation of those clouds? Any figures for those images? Cirrocumulus at up to 39000′? Those signify upwelling convective air currents… Perhaps implying turbulence? Could severe jarring turbulence affect Inmarsat data?
Erik: Auto land function requires an ILS (airport local nav system).
@Warren – Thank you for your explanation of a ditching.
Just to clarify what I intended regarding SilkAir 185: Two things, one that it might have reached supersonic speed before impact (and agree with Oleksandr that the speed was aided by engine thrust); and two, that some parts separated prior to impact.
I cannot help but to believe that at least some of the debris spotted by planes and satellite in the area of 45°S might have come from MH370. If true, and impact occurred north of S40° could the debris moved 4°-5° to the south in 8 – 10 days?
M Pat’s analysis showed that the buoys in the impact area move generally to the north and then to the west but don’t these buoys have sea anchors so they follow the current rather than the wind and chop? I’ve seen in Brock’s informative paper that the amount of freeboard affects an object’s sensitivity to the wind. Could the wind have been strong enough and the correct direction to push the floating debris 4° to the south in spite of northerly ocean currents?
@Warren Platts – How did the ET691 RH engine separate from the wing?
Lauren: You might want to take a look at Duncan’s latest post on debris:
http://goo.gl/I77gME
@Gysbreght: the report didn’t say. Maybe it hit the reef?
@Lauren: for MH370 to go supersonic would probably require controlled inputs as well as plenty of fuel. Simulations show that if a B777 runs out of fuel, the autopilot shuts off. Then, if there are no other controlled inputs, the a/c goes through a cycle of stall-dive-recovery-stall-dive-recovery etc. all the while sharply banking to the left. (@ all: Correct me if I’m wrong on that.)
Re: the South African toilet, it turns out its undoubtedly from a portapotty… lol!
Here is a picture–the little hole is for the urinal to flow into, and the big hole is for the ventilation pipe (thanks to “Erebus” @ airliners.net for digging up the photo):
http://www.contractorsportables.com/uploads/1/0/2/7/10271403/3324491_orig.jpg
Warren Platts & Lauren: In our Nov 2, 2014 simulations, the plane always banked to the right. But we know MH370 banked left from the BTO data. It can bank either way after fuel exhaustion depending on the manually set cruise rudder trim position. We set 0.5º right trim in our sim’s. Also, the Phugoids are common, but not always present. Sometimes the plane just spirals in at about 400-500 degrees per minute in a 90 degree bank (sometimes exceeding 90 degrees). It only takes three turns or so before impact. It happens fast. Thus, it can hit the water either side of the 7th arc, depending on the rate of turn (and a roll of the dice). Mach 1 is unlikely, but it can get very close to Mach 1 (OTOO .98) according to Boeing data. Boeing doc’s say flutter is possible above ~.95 as I recall from memory. In our sim’s, we nearly always observed the IAS hit the 500 kts instrument limit during part of the descent, so we don’t know exactly what the TAS was, but it was obviously way above the normal operating limits.
Question this is bothering me: why the skepticism about the ground radar tracking the plane across Malaysia and up the straits? I realize no radar data is public other than a slide or 2 from a presentation but certainly Australia has been able to certify the private data as reasonably accurate to support their search area. The reason this intrigues me is that if the radar did track MH370 then the plane is not likely in the North somewhere and also the theory that a fire caused the crew to suddenly turn around before entering Vietnam airspace also is highly suspicious.
So does anyone have a good reason to discredit the radar data other than how PR has been handled by the Malaysians so far? Just wondering what I have missed. Thanks
Jerry:
I am not aware of any reason to doubt the overall authenticity of the ground radar data that shows the MH370 track up to 18:22:12. However, there are plenty of reasons to doubt the fine scale details of the track, such as conflicting stories about instantaneous speed and altitude along the route. Victor and Don have done a great job of documenting the radar questions. I won’t repeat all that.
Regarding what Malaysia has shared with ATSB about the radar data…It is interesting to note that ATSB was unaware of the NOK Briefing Photos showing the 18:22:12 end point until I sent them a copy of that photo back in April or May 2014. So we know for certain that as of that date, Malaysia had radar data they were sharing with NOK, but not sharing with ATSB. Just one more reason to distrust anything the Malaysian Government says.
Well, since you ask, it didn’t do stall-dive-recovery cycles in in the simulator experiment posted here by ALSM. At that time I posted the following charts to visualize what happened, filling in a few blanks (add prefix https://www. if your browser requires it):
dropbox.com/s/vi0cmq61k5p1r47/ALSM_altitude.jpg?dl=0
dropbox.com/s/locuoz8quibm44w/ALSM_speeds.jpg?dl=0
dropbox.com/s/6xyjfremawns542/ALSM-lateral.jpg?dl=0
I don’t agree that the uncontrolled airplane will always do stall/recovery cycles. The ATSB says that typically a low-bank angle descending turn develops with some phugoid pitching motion.
Jerry: Correction. It was sometime after June 10th that I sent the NOK radar photo to ATSB, so they were in the dark about this data for 2 months.
@airlandseaman: 90 degree banks? Wow! What happened to the overbank protection? I thought that was supposed to kick in at something like 30 degrees.
airlandseaman,
If the impact speed was M=0.98, what Duncan is trying to find in the satellite images?
Look at SilkAir 185, GermanWings 9525, or FlyDubai 981: not many fragments exceeding 2 m linear size were recovered. Life jackets would likely disintegrate upon the impact.
@Airlandseaman
Sorry if I’m a doubting Thomas, but how does the BTO show it banking to the left? Did you mean the BFO data?
The BFO data at 00:19:30 cannot be relied on, it seems to me anyway. 5000fpm descent rate to 15000fpm descent within 8seconds, coinciding exactly with the time of the second log on, after a flight of 7.6 hours.
I have already shown you that it could have been flying a constant Mach 0.8 for hours, right up to the 7th arc. There could have been no left or right turns, the plane kept a straight course right up to the 7th arc, and very probably beyond.