Tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, RR: 19 Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13361 times:
Today experts have revealed their preliminary findings in the cause of the crash of an Airbus 310 belonging to Sibir Airlines on July 9th flying a domestic scheduled passenger flight from Moscow Domodedovo International Airport to Irkursk International Airport.
Experts have managed to reconstruct the events of the crash at Irkutsk. Upon landing, the aircraft left the runway, collided with structures because its left engine went to TO thrust during landing.
Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W)
Commander of the A310 Sergei Shabanov landed the aircraft perfectly - in accordance to all regulations and flight manuals. After landing the braking systems functioned properly - wheel brakes, flaps, spoilers. All automatic systems were functioning properly.
For unknown reasons, some time before the crash the left engine reverse systems had problems switching on after landing (during the last several flights) but the aircraft is certified to land with no reverse and the problem was deemed to not be critical and would be adressed during the next B check (in 3 flights). The flight data recorder showed that the left engine was set to idle after landing but when Shabanov decided to shorten the landing run on the wet runway and turned on the reverse of the right engine, the left engine went to Maximum Thrust. The brakes, spoilers and flaps could not handle the ammount of thrust generated by the left engine and the aircraft quickly left the runway to the right.
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13325 times:
It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. Cancelling reverse thrust and bringing both throttles to the flight idlep position would have helped. I guess they thought they were battling a gust of wind or something.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Bennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13284 times:
Jeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13062 times:
This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft. Control systems, thrust reversers included, are airframe components made by the airframe manufacturer, not the engine manufacturer.
Aviator27 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12972 times:
When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.
If only one reverser deployed, while both engines were spooling up to maximum thrust, it would create a serious situation.
Sitting online and having the benefit of hindsight is great. One's reaction time isn't what it is suppose to be after flying on the back side of the clock. I have been there and done that.
Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2777 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12899 times:
Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter): The flight data recorder showed that the left engine was set to idle after landing but when Shabanov decided to shorten the landing run on the wet runway and turned on the reverse of the right engine, the left engine went to Maximum Thrust.
Very strange... How can an engine go to full thrust if (presumably) you don't touch the throttle?
Is it allowed to use reverse thrust on only one engine?
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1115 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 12667 times:
I do recall some years back that our P&W powered 310's had to have their reverseres locked out for a period of several months due to a similar problem. This did not effect our GE versions, just the P&W's.
Mika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12620 times:
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3): This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft.
I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to make statements like that.
FlyHoss From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 598 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12398 times:
After reading the thread-starter's post, I thought of this incident:
Jeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 12335 times:
Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.
IceTitan447 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12294 times:
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.
I know for most on this forum that is probably common knowledge, that being said I didn't know that, and thanks for sharing it.
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.
It was nice to read you few posts, you sounded like you have the knowledge of situation. You made it clear and painted a easy picture to follow.
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12281 times:
Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter): Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W)
Hogwash. "Must???" You are assessing the blame already? It is likely that the manufacturer of the engine will be supporting the investigation. Anything can happen with accidents, but the A310 is not a new airframe, and therefore the maintenance of the powerplant is one area to be scrutinized, not the design.
Quoting Mika (Reply 7): I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to make statements like that.
What qualifications do you posess that allow you to make that judgement?
OV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 860 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11988 times:
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 1): It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do.
According to the article posted by Tu204, it wasn't. The problem was that the left engine went to full take-off thrust. I'm pretty sure they would have managed to keep the plane on the runway with one engine in reverse and another at idle, but in this case, one was in reverese, and the other was developing full power.
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.
I might be mistaken here, but would a reversed engine really be running in full power? I always thought it would go only to around half power, if even that.
LTU330 From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11801 times:
Reverse thrust never reaches take off or go around power on a high bypass Engine. Maximum is usually about 70 to 75 percent, give or take a few percent.
LTU330 From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11729 times:
Further to my previous post, as extra information, the Engine is only re-directing cold first stage fan air. None of the 'hot' air, as in air that has passed through the main compression stages and turbine stages is redirected.
CruzinAltitude From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11663 times:
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.
Brdcessna From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10905 times:
Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 20): Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4):
Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.
All who second this motion say Aye!
AYE AYE.
I will sit here quietly and await ALL facts before getting involved in this one lol
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.
Thanks for the insight, its nice to have info like that on hand.
Mika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 10905 times:
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.
I respect your clear and humble approach Jeb94 and i am sure that you know alot about A/C mechanics that i do not. What i was trying to imply though was that you (nor anyone else of us in here) know what caused the crash and what did not cause it. In my mind it was just too drastic for someone here with no insight in the investigation to say that it was NOT (or that it was for that matter) anything wrong with the engine itself.
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 11): What qualifications do you posess that allow you to make that judgement?
At the time when i made that comment; A broad mind and open view for what could have caused the accident.
Jeb94 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10674 times:
The engine didn't fail. It didn't hiccup. It didn't burst into flames. It didn't throw blades. It simply went to full power. Turbine engines don't go to full power on their own. They are commanded to go to full power. That is what I was trying to say. That command on older aircraft comes from pushrods, cables, pulleys, and levers. On newer aircraft it comes from a computer that can either be sending a signal to another computer for FADEC engines or to an electric motor driving mechanical linkages. I'm sure I fell victim to a mistranslation on the part of the original poster but to say that P&W must answer for this is what I reacted to. If anything the engine manufacturer holds the least amount of blame, if any. The investigators are the ones that will determine blame and I'm sure both European organizations and the NTSB will provide as much assitance as they can as requested by the Russians. The data is there, it just needs to be put together and interpreted by the experts, which I'm not. I'm just a mechanic working as a Maintenance Controller.
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1115 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10526 times:
Quoting LTU330 (Reply 18): Further to my previous post, as extra information, the Engine is only re-directing cold first stage fan air. None of the 'hot' air, as in air that has passed through the main compression stages and turbine stages is redirected
This is correct. In addition, in order for the reversers to be engaged the throrttle must be lifted up and pulled back into the detent in order for the buckets to deploy.
Assuming that all of the info above is correct may I suggest a POSSIBLE scenario. Let me make myself clear, I am not stating or suggesting that this happened, just that this may be a possible scenario:
Upon landing and finding that decelleration was unsatisfactory and upon encountering difficulties with the reversers the crew or one of the crew decided to abort the landing and go around. In doing so, could the right throttle have stuck in the reverse detent while a slipping hand knocked the left throttle forward. I have seen sweaty palms and/or loose or improperly adjusted friction locks lead to some pretty wild (albeit extremely brief) power excursions. On a wet runway at high speed, such a scenerio would be instantaneously devastating.
Again, let me make myself clear, I am not saying this is what occurred here, I am just suggesting one possible scenario that could cause the events as listed at the top of the post. There are many other possibilities to be sure.
777DAD From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 176 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9807 times:
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1251 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9242 times:
Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19): If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident.
We all know that terrible incident, Niki Lauda, back then the owner of Lauda Air, and himself a certified pilot on the 767 and 777, helped to prove boeing and PW there was a problem with the T/R lock mechanism. But this problem has been solved since then, and PW engines have done what they were made for doing safely.
But we also know the SU incident, were over Siberia, a SU 310 crashed, because the pilot let his children into the cockpit, and his son deactivated the LNAV, meaning that the plane started to veer off to the right in a steep turn. And the plane eventually crashed. But all the Captain had to do was release the sitck, and the FBW would of put the plane back into proper flight position.
And as stated in the Nacional Geographich report, these were SU's best trained pilots. And for now none of us know the reason and all we can do is speculate. But in my opinion PW or in general the engine manifacturer is just used as the dirty towl, only because of 1 previouse incident.
Maybe the pilot activated TO/GA but this is just an opinion..
Acidradio From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1855 posts, RR: 11 Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8530 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Is there any information yet about the pilot's and F/O's skill level in that type - how many hours of experience did they have in the A310?
This is not to badmouth anybody or anything, but it seems to me that on more than one occasion A300's and A310's have done things like this because the FBW software was designed to "think beyond" the pilots in some ways. And when it "thought beyond" what the pilot's goals or intentions were, it did more than the pilots wanted, needed or intended the aircraft to do, which means the aircraft did NOT do what the pilots requested it to do. And often it seems like some of the pilots who have had problems like this are new or newer to the Airbus, meaning they came from a machine with less automation to mediate their flying.
Some of the stuff designed into Airbus FBW software and other control systems is absolutely amazing and futuristic. One reason for it is to protect from the occasional human error. But, if you are in command of an aircraft and you are telling IT what to do but the machine disagrees then does what it believes is right, even though it is not really able to judge all the conditions that apply, who is all this automation really protecting?
This is akin to me slamming on the brakes of my car because a child who is chasing a ball darts out into the street. But the car disagrees with me (because, lets say, it has sensors but the sensors can only pick up larger creatures, like a deer or a moose, but not a child) and believes there is no child running into the street so it disables my brakes and locks my steering for a dead-on course. But, before this incident, the car picked up a deer crossing the road and manuevered me out of harm's way.
I will probably get singed by the flames of this post, but all input appreciated.
Scarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 291 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8426 times:
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 27): But we also know the SU incident, were over Siberia, a SU 310 crashed, because the pilot let his children into the cockpit, and his son deactivated the LNAV, meaning that the plane started to veer off to the right in a steep turn. And the plane eventually crashed. But all the Captain had to do was release the sitck, and the FBW would of put the plane back into proper flight position.
A310 is not a fly by wire aircraft. The co/pilot in the crash you mention had the seat too far back from the controls to reach them in the ensuing dive after the inadvertent disconnection of the autopilot.
Thank you Jeb for a level headed post in relation to the topic at hand. Yes it does sound airframe related and not engine. It will be interesting to see the full report. I hope the t/r wasn't incorrectly deactivated
Brgds
SB03
No faults found......................
25 A320ajm: You would think that the two different engines would be on seperste systems so the operation of the right engine (reverse thrust) should have no effec
26 Qantas744ER: Yes but when the russian investigator, who was a Certified pilot on the A310 that was also involved in the certification of the plane, visited the ai
27 BoeingFixer: This may be the case with more modern Airbus aircraft but the A310 has separate Reverse Thrust levers that are attached to the forward side of the Th
28 Greasespot: P&W ssupplies all engines to both airbus and boeing minus a Nose cowl and Thrust reverser.....Those are then bolted on by the builder of the airframe
29 Wjcandee: There is no indication of any kind of systemic or manufacturer-based problems with P&W thrust reversers. There was a failure mode that wasn't anticip
30 DIA: Best approach and insight I've read on this thread. The engines are commanded to go to the power they are told. (Good point) The multiple systems and
31 AirWillie6475: WTF? If this is true, this must be one of the strangest crashes in aviation history. I had to read the paragraph 2 times to make sure I was reading ri
32 AirWillie6475: Yea I think so too. If one engine is on reverse thrust and one engine is full power it is practically impossible to correct even with full opposite r
33 BoeingFixer: Ok... The JT8D FCU has a fail safe feature that if the FCU internal governor fails it goes to full power with no way to control it other than to shut
34 DIA: I went fishing and I caught a challenger. BoeingFixer: First of all, thanks for your insight. Secondly, is this type of technological (or engineering
35 Lhrmaccoll: Well, no it could be. Airbus don't make the internal computers of P&Ws engines. Then again it could be an airbus computer malfunction.
Sponsor Message: 
From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7702 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 588 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2777 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 860 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 74 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 2432 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 291 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
