Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Russian plane 'crashes into road outside Moscow'

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by 27vet View Post
    I am wondering exactly how professional those guys were. If there is no danger of fire, the protocol is to stabilize the patient and secure them so that they can't suffer any further injury before moving them.
    I agree, the emergency team did seem rather unprofessional - but then apparently the engines had caught fire which might explain their haste.
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ABJ-LBV-JNB-DBN
    Posts
    2,343
    The press continues to mention pilot error. Usual sensationalism.

    MAK: Vnukovo Plane Crash Not Caused by Runway - The Moscow Times

    MAK: Vnukovo Plane Crash Not Caused by Runway
    31 December 2012 | Issue 5045
    The Moscow Times
    The Interstate Aviation Committee announced Monday that the Red Wings plane crash that occurred on Saturday at Vnukovo Airport was not caused by the airport's runway.

    According to the committee, the runway was checked immediately after the crash, and the traction coefficient measurement satisfied all requirements for the given type of aircraft, RIA-Novosti reported.

    "The chairman of the Interstate Aviation Committee's technical commission on the Tu-204 RA-64047 crash at Vnukovo has reported that a visual inspection of the runway was carried out an hour and 20 minutes before the incident," the committee said in a statement.

    The preliminary cause of the crash is reported to be pilot error, though the committee is still looking into other possible causes, including adverse weather conditions and technical malfunctions.

    Five people were killed in the accident, which occurred Saturday morning when the plane overshot the runway on arrival and caught fire. Three more people remain in hospital in stable but serious condition.

    Red Wings is reportedly continuing to carry out charter flights at this time despite the incident, Interfax reported. Another Tu-204 operated by Red Wings and arriving from Pardubice, the Czech Republic — the same city that the tragic flight was arriving from — landed at Vnukovo on Monday afternoon.
    Source: MAK: Vnukovo Plane Crash Not Caused by Runway - The Moscow Times
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=24455&dateline=137163  6822Hindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by 27vet View Post
    The press continues to mention pilot error. Usual sensationalism.



    Source: MAK: Vnukovo Plane Crash Not Caused by Runway - The Moscow Times
    not first time it happen with this plane. other incident with this plane all include landing problem. seem some thing is consistent. bad crew training, bad autoflight system, bad ground control.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,560
    Tu-204 directive warns pilots to check thrust-reverse status

    Russian authorities have ordered immediate action by Tupolev Tu-204 operators in the wake of two runway overruns by Red Wings aircraft, including the fatal accident at Moscow Vnukovo.

    Federal aviation authority Rosaviatsia has issued an airworthiness directive highlighting the 29 December crash at Vnukovo - in which five crew members were killed - and an incident on 20 December during which another Red Wings Tu-204 rolled beyond the end of the runway while landing at Novosibirsk.

    Rosaviatsia says Tupolev has developed a technical response for Tu-204 and Tu-214 twinjets, powered by Aviadvigatel PS-90 engines, which centres on lubricating mechanisms linked to limit-switches on the landing-gear, notably during low-temperature operations.

    But the authority has also ordered a temporary amendment to the aircraft operating manual regarding the operation of thrust-reversers on the type.

    It points out that the crew should check for an early indication that the reverser system is operating correctly.

    After touchdown, with the throttle reduced to idle and the spoilers deployed, the thrust-reverse control lever should normally be moved, over the course of 1-2s, initially to the 'small reverse' position.

    The engine instrument panel should indicate, in yellow text, that the thrust-reverse lock has opened and then - with the symbol 'REV' in green text - that the reverser is active, says the manual.

    Once the crew has confirmed this, and the correct alignment with the runway, the nose should be lowered and maximum reverse-thrust engaged. When the speed has reduced to 70-75kt (130-140km/h) the crew should restore the reverser control to the 'small reverse' position and, at about 25kt, disengage it.

    But the operating manual specifically warns the crew to check that the reverser is active, with the presence of the green 'REV' indication, before committing to maximum reverse thrust.

    If the indication does not appear after the control lever has been moved to the 'small reverse' position, the warning says, the pilots should "immediately" disengage the lever and continue the roll-out without reverse thrust.

    The Novosibirsk incident involved a Red Wings Tu-204 registered RA-64049, which had arrived after flight WZ123 from Moscow Vnukovo.

    Red Wings' flight WZ9268, a ferry service from Pardubice, had been operated by another Tu-204 (RA-64047) and was carrying just eight crew members when it overran at Vnukovo.
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    London, United Kingdom
    Posts
    568
    The process of engaging the reverse thrust seems overly complicated. I read a report on the Internet that suggested the pilots may have inadvertently applied full forward thrust by not waiting until the green reverse rev indication was showing. Although, if this was the case, I'm surprised the pilots didn't realise sooner they weren't slowing down.
    I would have assumed it would be pretty obvious?
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ABJ-LBV-JNB-DBN
    Posts
    2,343
    IMHO this is the problem with Russian airplanes, un-ergonomic. As I said before I have flown a Yak-42, not bad, but very complicated. I have flown in an Antonov-12 which requires 5 crew members and if one is missing is asking for trouble. Same with the Antonov 20 - 30 series, had quite a few cockpit tours courtesy of my Russian colleagues. It sounds like the Tu204 reverse is unnecessarily complicated. The Boeing's reverse is simple, the thrust levers have to be in flight idle to activate them and IIRC the main gear on the ground. Then you pull the levers up to a detente to deploy the reversers, if you pull them further you spool the engines. However, the reverse thrust is not taken into account for accelerate-stop distance or landing roll.
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=24455&dateline=137163  6822Hindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    345
    from the Avherald

    On Jan 24th 2013 Russia's MAK reported that the captain was pilot flying during the landing on Vnukovo's runway 19. The computed Vref was 108 knots, the Vapp taking winds into account was set at 118 knots for flaps at 37 degrees and slats at 23 degrees and a landing weight of 67.5 tons. The aircraft was correctly configured, the center of gravity was at 26.5% MAC within limits. On final approach the aircraft was flown manually without autopilot and autothrust, the flight director however was used, the aircraft proceeded on final approach without any significant deviations. The aircraft crossed the runway threshold at 50 feet (15 meters) at 134 KIAS, after descending through 12 feet the aircraft took 10 seconds to touchdown, the thrust levers were moved to idle about 5 seconds prior to touchdown, which occurred at 118 KIAS about 900 meters down the runway (3060 meters length) with the left main gear signalling compressed. A gust of 22 knots from the right arrived at that time, the vertical acceleration reached +1.12G. 3 seconds after the left main gear signalled compressed the nose gear was lowered onto the runway, the right main gear still signalled not compressed. Almost simultaneously with lowering the nose gear the thrustlevers were moved to maximum reverse thrust in one move and the brakes were applied. Both thrust reversers did not deploy, both engines however spooled up to about 90% N1 delivering nominell thrust, however forward instead of backward. Neither spoilers nor air brakes automatically deployed, too, the crew did not deploy spoilers manually. Maximum brakes pressure was recorded for the left hand brakes with no pressure in the right hand brakes. About 2 seconds after the thrust levers had been placed at maximum reverse thrust the flight engineer called the thrust reversers had not deployed. About 7-8 seconds after touchdown the aircraft reached a minimum speed of about 104 knots, the thrust levers were taken out of reverse after being in reverse for 8 seconds, the airspeed had increased to 123 KIAS at that time causing further "unloading of the gear", the aircraft began to oscillate in roll from about 4.5 degrees left to about 2.6 degrees right causing that at no time both main landing gear legs were compressed simultaneously. Brakes were ineffective as brakes pressure was only applied with the gear leg reporting compressed. 5 seconds after the levers were moved out of reverse they were moved again into reverse, again neither thrust reverser deployed and the engines accelerated to 84% N1, about 4 seconds later the levers were moved out of reverse again, the aircraft was now about 950-1000 meters short of the runway end. The crew now attempted automated brakes, the thrust levers were placed at minimum reverse thrust. 32 seconds after touchdown the aircraft went past the end of the runway at a speed of 111 KIAS, the flight engineer shut down both engines by the emergency handle. Following the exit onto soft ground both main gear legs signalled compressed, the spoilers, air brakes and thrust reversers deployed, the aircraft however impacted the slope of the ravine at a speed of 98 knots.

    says it all really
    rgds
    EC

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,481
    It does - you keep thinking "Go around! Go around!" while reading it. Many similarities to LH Flight 2904.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES