BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2142 posts, RR: 1 Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1310 times:
Quote: An Airbus-310 overshot the runway after landing at Irkutsk airport, hit a building and burst into flames.
The Interstate Aviation Committee, a civil aviation agency for Russia and other ex-Soviet states, concluded that the pilots made mistakes after landing. [..]
"The reason for the catastrophe ... was mistaken and uncontrolled actions by the crew at the stage of slowing down after landing," the investigators said in a report.
The jet - on a flight from Moscow - was operated by S7, known until recently as Sibir Airlines. It crashed through a two-metre (6.6-ft) concrete wall, hit a building close to the airfield, broke up and burst into flames.
FVTu134 From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 991 times:
I saw the report on Russian tv yesterday. From what I understood the Captain put one of the engines in cutoff position (which is very strange for me because you go beyond a mechanical stop). They showed some animation which showed one of the engine levers being brought back to the stop. Now early on there was a lot of discussion about one of the reversers failing and that causing the aircraft to go out of control on a slippery runway.
I would say that sounds more realistic then a pilot with more then 7000 hours on type inadvertadly cutting an engine. He would very quickly understand his mistake and balance the thrust by bringing back the other engine to idle as well (as anyway they were on the runway already).
I'll try to get some more info but the common thought here is that this smells very much like a cover up to avoid bad image and financial consequences/payouts. As usual, when the pilot is no longer around, he's the one who gets the blame.
who decided that a Horizon should be HORIZONtal???
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8273 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 961 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting A388 (Reply 2): I assume this accident falls in the CFIT category?
How? The plane landed on the runway!
Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Thread starter): uncontrolled actions by the crew at the stage of slowing down after landing
Scarebus03 From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 161 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 895 times:
Quoting FVTu134 (Reply 3): Now early on there was a lot of discussion about one of the reversers failing and that causing the aircraft to go out of control on a slippery runway.
As far as I understood from the time of the incident one of the thrust reversers was deferred as inoperative? Any more info available as so far all is a bit vague.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7033 posts, RR: 27 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 678 times:
Quoting FVTu134 (Reply 3): From what I understood the Captain put one of the engines in cutoff position (which is very strange for me because you go beyond a mechanical stop). They showed some animation which showed one of the engine levers being brought back to the stop.
I suspect the TV report got things a bit mixed up. I don't know how it works on the A310 but in other Airbus and Boeing airliners, the fuel cut-off levers are separate from the thrust levers. I strongly suspect it's the same on the A310.
"Since the no.1 engine thrust reverser on the airplane was de-activated, this engine's thrust was brought back to idle. The no.2 engine thrust reversers were deployed normally. While handling the throttles, the pilot inadvertently touched the no.1 power lever, increasing engine thrust."
So, increased forward thrust on the left and reverse thrust on the right.
Imiakhtar From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 644 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 6): So, increased forward thrust on the left and reverse thrust on the right.
Wouldn't this have created like a thrust imbalance and forced the A310 to turn right off the runway, rather than continuing straight and crashing into the concrete?
Tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 477 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 551 times:
Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 7): Wouldn't this have created like a thrust imbalance and forced the A310 to turn right off the runway, rather than continuing straight and crashing into the concrete?
He did veer off to the right and crashed through the barrier. The garages were right of the runway, not directly infront of it.
I still find it hard to believe that a small increase in power would have done that. He would have had to "accidently bump" it to half thrust in order for it to veer off like that.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 4778 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 435 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4): How? The plane landed on the runway!
That's why I'm asking. I just looked up the definition of CFIT so I'm a bit wiser now If the aircraft would have landed next to the runway, this would have been a CFIT case, correct? Just trying to understand the CFIT category.
Sponsor Message: 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2142 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Sep 2006, 163 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 4778 posts, 
From Russia, joined Aug 2005, 113 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8273 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Apr 2005, 161 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7033 posts, 
If the aircraft would have landed next to the runway, this would have been a CFIT case, correct? Just trying to understand the CFIT category.
Printer friendly format 
