Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian plane 'crashes into road outside Moscow'

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • civilspotter
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2009
    • 364

    #21
    There are photo's on russianplanes.net of the plane landing normally at the other end of the runway.
    From the speed of the impact on the highway video I would judge they were not at the end of a long braking run.

    To me it looks like they landed, found the brakes were not working properly and tried to take-off again.

    This would also explain why authorities said it was at a second landing attempt while flightradar shows it was not. They were in the process of going for a second attempt.

    That would make it a technical error with the brakes, highly probable with the service bulletin to grease the brake limiters the day before, followed by a to late decision to abort the landing.

    just my speculation
    rgds
    EC

    Comment

    • Matt-100
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2012
      • 568

      #22
      I tried calculating the speed of impact using the video footage. I reckon it was between (lower bound) 50 kts and (upper bound) 65 knots - it was likely somewhere between the two.

      And you are right, this is way too fast considering it's just landed on a 10,000 ft runway + 1,500 ft past the displaced threshold.

      Either the brakes failed in spectacular fashion, or a go around attempt failed. Although, if they were attempting a go around, I'd have expected them to be going a bit faster than 50-65 knots?

      EDIT: I've just calculated the actual distance from the verge the aircraft slid down to the highway. It would seem the distance is quite a bit further than my estimate. I now estimate the aircraft was doing around 100 knots on impact - which would suggest a go-around.
      I'm surprised the authorities haven't grounded the Tu-204 (or at least the airline) seeing as this is the third Red Wings Tu-204 overrun in less than 2 months.
      Last edited by Matt-100; 30th December 2012, 11:23.
      Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

      Comment

      • Bmused55
        Aaahh Emu!
        • Oct 2003
        • 11136

        #23
        Stumbled across this amateur footage:

        http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1356848408
        Bmused55

        Keep thy airspeed up, less the earth come from below and smite thee.

        My Blog
        My Designs

        Comment

        • Matt-100
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2012
          • 568

          #24
          Originally posted by Trident View Post
          Chances are they will be right again this time actually, for the trivial reason that statistically most modern airliners crash due to human error, but it's still unprofessional in the extreme to present mere unconfirmed probabilities as fact.
          It looks like they've changed their mind in the heat of mounting evidence. They're now blaming the brakes

          "The plane touched down in the proper landing area but for some reason was unable to stop on the strip. According to preliminary data, the pilots used all the brake systems available on the plane, but for some reason, the machine failed to stop and continued moving. Most likely, the cause was defective reverse engines or brakes."
          Federal Air Transport Agency chief Alexander Neradko said in televised remarks.

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-3...anding/4447876
          Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome

          Comment

          • EGTC
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2009
            • 2835

            #25
            Originally posted by Bmused55 View Post
            Stumbled across this amateur footage:

            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1356848408
            Interesting video. Slightly sick that someone would video while emergency services were rescuing injured people. Even if it was being filmed for evidence etc it seems a bit sick that Reuters published the video along with what looks like another news company.
            The last thing I'd expect is someone to shove a camera in front of me if I happened to crash one day.
            Y.N.W.A

            Comment

            • 27vet
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Nov 2009
              • 2698

              #26
              Death toll now 5 RIP
              sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

              Comment

              • Austin
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2003
                • 6475

                #27
                But dont aircraft use a combination of Reverse Thrust , Brakes and Control Surfaces like spoilers during emergency to stop an aircraft.

                Must have been multiple failure of Brakes and Reverse Thrust to cause such a crash or possibly the runway might be slippery during winter causing these brakes to be less effective and causing it to skid off at end of runway
                "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

                Comment

                • 27vet
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Nov 2009
                  • 2698

                  #28
                  Braking is complex but I will try explain. I can only speak for a Boeing 727 though. Firstly, normal braking distances do not take spoilers and reverse thrust into account. But they do account for antiskid. If the antiskid is inoperative there are big penalties. There are advantages/penalties for wind, airport elevation, temperature, runway condition, and of course the weight of the aircraft. The emergency brakes in the 727 are simply the main brakes operated by a nitrogen bottle assuming a hydraulic failure.

                  I have flown a Yak 42 once in the copilot seat under instruction of the Russian captain. The Russians don't believe in spoilers and reverse thrust as the west do, they put more faith in their brakes. They fit more/bigger wheels with more braking capability. I don't know if this is the same for the Tu 204.
                  sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

                  Comment

                  • MSR777
                    No longer active member.
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 3010

                    #29
                    Some spectacular videos, although I do agree that the second one, was a bit insensitive. It will be interesting to see what the cause really was.
                    "Behold! The Wings of Horus"

                    Comment

                    • 27vet
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Nov 2009
                      • 2698

                      #30
                      Seeing the videos of the EMS crew removing the victims and having being an EMS pilot myself for 4 years, 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. This was not the case from what I saw in the video.
                      sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

                      Comment

                      • Matt-100
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jul 2012
                        • 568

                        #31
                        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

                        Comment

                        • 27vet
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2009
                          • 2698

                          #32
                          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
                          sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

                          Comment

                          • Tigershark
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 285

                            #33
                            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.

                            Comment

                            • Austin
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 6475

                              #34
                              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"

                              Comment

                              • Matt-100
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2012
                                • 568

                                #35
                                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

                                Comment

                                • 27vet
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Nov 2009
                                  • 2698

                                  #36
                                  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.
                                  sigpicHindsight is what you see from the tailgunner's position...

                                  Comment

                                  • civilspotter
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2009
                                    • 364

                                    #37
                                    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

                                    Comment

                                    • Trident
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2004
                                      • 3965

                                      #38
                                      It does - you keep thinking "Go around! Go around!" while reading it. Many similarities to LH Flight 2904.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                      Collapse

                                       

                                      Working...
                                      X