Saying a passenger aircraft "landed" on a motorway just outside Moscow and is now on fire. No further information as to airline or aircraft type at this stage.
Anyone have anymore information?
Next Flights: LHR-OSL (319), OSL-LHR (321), LHR-ARN (320), ARN-VXO (S34), VXO-BMA (ATP), ARN-LHR (763), LHR-CPH (320), C
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 81787 times:
I don't want to be the pesimistic guy here, but looking at the pictures, the first section of fuselage ( + cockpit ) is just absolutely destroyed...I think, sadly, there is no chance of "Zero Fatalities" in this crash...
R.I.P. to the victims and prayers for their families and friends...
KFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1211 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 81696 times:
Appears to be RedWings RA-64047. WZ has 9 of the type in fleet. RIP to all involved.
P.S: Per Flightradar24, it has been on WZ9268 from Czech Republic.
[Edited 2012-12-29 05:32:18]
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
by738 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 2004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 81373 times:
Sorry for all those injured. Without knowing the details though before hand, it was all too predictable. I was predicting either a Russian airliner operating mid winter or a low cost Indonesian/Indian poor weather short haul.
Terrible.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 81397 times:
Quoting by738 (Reply 20): Without knowing the details though before hand, it was all too predictable. I was predicting either a Russian airliner operating mid winter or a low cost Indonesian/Indian poor weather short haul.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 81793 times:
If the aircraft was on fire already on approach, what could that be ? Engine failure ?
Quoting by738 (Reply 27):
Look through the frequency of aircraft type and location of the most serious civil aviation accidents of the past 10 years.
There has only been 1 accident involving this type of aircraft before and that was without fatalities. So a pretty safe russian aircraft. The type was introduced in 1994.
by738 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 2004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 84021 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 30): There has only been 1 accident involving this type of aircraft before
I meant Russian operated aircraft in general, and given there are so few 204s specifically in operation, to have one accident already is a pretty high hit rate.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 27, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 87306 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 28): If the aircraft was on fire already on approach, what could that be ? Engine failure ?
To be honest, you hear with every other airplane incident that someone saw the plane, one or more of its engines, its wing, etc. on fire. Mostly turns out not to be the case - see e.g. Spanair 5022 where multiple eyewitnesses reported the engines had been on fire.
As for this Red Wings flight - the plane appears quite damaged, but it doesn't look like there is any fire damage whatsoever, which I think pretty much rules out the plane being on fire on approach.
Regarding an engine failure - possible, but it's rare for engine failures to cause runway overruns
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 5 Reply 30, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 86392 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting anfromme (Reply 33): but it's rare for engine failures to cause runway overruns
Not really, overruns are rare altogether, but several of them have been caused by engine failures, or engine related issues like failing thrust reversers.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 34, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 84628 times:
Quoting LH648 (Reply 40): Hospital representative told that persons passed away are in pilot's uniform.
Looking at the picture in reply 9 I am not surprised that both pilots died in the crash. The whole nose section is disintegrated.
I thought the same at first, but is not "disintegrated". Look at the end of the RT video linked by Mortyman in the previous reply, and you will see the cockpit and the first section of fuselage was ripped off the plane and is in front of the wreckage, resting on its left side, but still recognizable.
Confirmed is Reg number RA64047 according the picture in previous reply.
Cassi From Hungary, joined Apr 2010, 57 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 83613 times:
Apparently this is the first fatal accident involving a TU-204. Red Wings is the largest operator of the type even after the loss of this aircraft (7).
This single accident will send the TU-204 to the bottom of the safety statistics tables, no doubt....
It is 99% the motorway in the pics. At least it seems like they haven't crashed against any car... in the pictures it looks like the plane literaly ended over half of the motorway! And I guess a 4-lane motorway outside Moscow at 2 PM is not gonna be empty.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3279 posts, RR: 1 Reply 40, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 82982 times:
The reason for the few passengers is that according to this article:
December 29, 2012 14:23 | Tupolev 204 crashed Pardubice to Moscow Vnukovo to
Tupolev 204 Red Wings (registered RA-64047), which is only manned returning after unloading tourists in Pardubice back to Moscow, slid at 16:35 Moscow time when landing at Vnukovo airport from the runway, broke up and caught fire ( photo from today's departure from Pardubice ). On board the flight RWZ9268, which started at 11 am from the Czech Airport were 12 people. Unfortunately, three were killed, three others suffered serious injuries. On the site affect rescue, Vnukovo airport was temporarily closed after the crash, flights are diverted to other Moscow airports.
Praise god that very few people were involved. to those who did not make it no matter how few or many, 1 person is too many.
AirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, RR: 3 Reply 41, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 82007 times:
Quoting Cassi (Reply 38): Apparently this is the first fatal accident involving a TU-204. Red Wings is the largest operator of the type even after the loss of this aircraft (7).
I thought that an Aviastar TU-204 already crashed last year while landing at DME, also without passengers (ferry flight from Egypt I guess)?
LXa332 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 81367 times:
RT says 4 dead now. As reported, both pilots are dead. The plane took tourists to PED and was returning without pax. Looks like there may have been a fire on the right wing.
"Media allege that Vnukovo firefighting cars were on repair so the first emergency crews appeared on the scene no earlier than 50 minutes after the blaze broke out."
kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11997 posts, RR: 36 Reply 44, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 80691 times:
Quoting LXa332 (Reply 44): "Media allege that Vnukovo firefighting cars were on repair so the first emergency crews appeared on the scene no earlier than 50 minutes after the blaze broke out."
Seems very unlikely; the airport would not be able to operate without functioning emergency vehicles.
Can't help wondering what the Russian transport ministry's response to this will be; usually, they tend to be quite draconian in punishing airlines after accidents.
irshava From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 46, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 80243 times:
Quoting LXa332 (Reply 44): "Media allege that Vnukovo firefighting cars were on repair so the first emergency crews appeared on the scene no earlier than 50 minutes after the blaze broke out."
Very typical explanation. I don't believe it at all. What kind of airport doesn't have at least one operating safety vehicle... if the airport was on fire it would take 50 minutes for the fire brigade to get there? I don't think so.
For years Red Wings management have been expressing their displeasure with the aircraft and how they haven't been able to turn a profit... perhaps a linkage of some sort?
R.I.P Victims
“If you were born without wings, do nothing to prevent them from growing.”
TupolevTu154 From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2127 posts, RR: 31 Reply 47, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 79791 times:
It must have been going very, very fast to get that far off the end of the runway, through what looks like a couple of walls and break into pieces like that. Where it has come to rest is 300 meters/1000ft past the very end of the runway surface. Usable runway distance is even further away.
Anybody have an idea of the METAR at the time of the incident? Perhaps a longer than anticipated float down the runway before touching down? An empty aircraft is obviously alot lighter so will handle differently (according to various pilots I've spoken to). Who knows, just throwing in my two kopeks.
Just as well it wasn't full of pax, but still very sad to hear of deaths.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 48, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 78244 times:
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 30): Not really, overruns are rare altogether, but several of them have been caused by engine failures, or engine related issues like failing thrust reversers.
I'm aware of that, but I understood "engine failure" in the sense of "engine(s) completely non-operational".
And those are rare to cause overruns.
Overruns themselves aren't that rare, by the way - checking ASN, I found 5 such incidents in the period from October to December this year alone. (And ASN does not even list all runway excursions, only those with loss of life or substantial damage to the airplane.)
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 49, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 77082 times:
Could this been a failed 'go around' ? Perhaps the pilots misjudged their landing point and touched down too far down? What was the weather and visability at the time of the crash?
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 50, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 76829 times:
Quoting AirGabon (Reply 42): I thought that an Aviastar TU-204 already crashed last year while landing at DME, also without passengers (ferry flight from Egypt I guess)?
Quoting LXa332 (Reply 44): "Media allege that Vnukovo firefighting cars were on repair so the first emergency crews appeared on the scene no earlier than 50 minutes after the blaze broke out."
Other have already commented on the fact that all of the fire engines being repaired at the same time sounds dubious to say the least. Also, it's apparent from all the footage we've seen so far (see particularly the video and slideshow in Mortyman's last post) that there was no blaze that had 50 minutes to cause damage before firefighters arrived. In fact, I can't see any visible fire damage in the footage; having said that, I haven't seen any clear photos of the wings.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 53, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 74759 times:
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 37): thought the same at first, but is not "disintegrated". Look at the end of the RT video linked by Mortyman in the previous reply, and you will see the cockpit and the first section of fuselage was ripped off the plane and is in front of the wreckage, resting on its left side, but still recognizable.
Yeah, I see now. But still, doesnt make it much more survivable.
Quoting okjet (Reply 36): Here is a picture of the aircraft departing from PED today.http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/115805...d-wings-rwz-wz-pardubice-ped-lkpd/
Eerie to look at that picture, knowing that the plane crashed only a few hours afterwards.
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 74150 times:
8 total people on board, I'm pretty sure all crew. At least 4 dead and the others very badly injured. Some reports are saying this was the second landing attempt and was making a forced landing. Maybe details on the initial go around and the pre-landing fire will come out.
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 73011 times:
From ASN...
It had been snowing prior to the accident and there was a significant cross wind with gusts up to 29 knots.
Runway 24 was closed since 19 December according to an airport Notam: "A5127/12 - RWY 06/24 CLSD FOR TKOF AND LDG OF ALL TYPES ACFT. 19 DEC 06:30 2012 UNTIL 31 MAR 23:59 2013. CREATED: 19 DEC 07:46 2012"
The weather reported at the time of the accident was:
UUWW 291230Z 28008G15MPS 9999 OVC024 M02/M07 Q1010 19410250 NOSIG
12:30 UTC / 16:30 LT: wind 280 degrees at 8 m/s (16 kts) gusting to 15 m/s (29 kts); overcast cloud deck at 2400 feet AGL ; Temperature: -2°C, Dewpoint -7°C
PlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11256 posts, RR: 63 Reply 56, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 72544 times:
Very sad news, RIP to those who didn't make it.
The path along which the aircraft careered after leaving the runway would have made what was happening very evident to road users, which may well have saved many lives on the ground as motorists could take action quicker than if the aircraft was coming directly towards them.
USAirways757 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 66255 times:
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 840 posts, RR: 12 Reply 60, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 65537 times:
Quoting by738 (Reply 19): Without knowing the details though before hand, it was all too predictable. I was predicting either a Russian airliner operating mid winter or a low cost Indonesian/Indian poor weather short haul.
Terrible.
Quoting by738 (Reply 26): I meant Russian operated aircraft in general, and given there are so few 204s specifically in operation, to have one accident already is a pretty high hit rate.
I would save these types of assessments for some other occasion as people died in this accident and they deserve some respect. Also, if you are so good at predicting outcomes you shouldn't be losing time on this board but go work in the insurance industry or test your luck in the money market.
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
flyingbird From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 64963 times:
Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 54): Some reports are saying this was the second landing attempt and was making a forced landing. Maybe details on the initial go around and the pre-landing fire will come out.
Quoting soyuz (Reply 57): Czech media also reporting that the aircraft was attempting to land a second time.
You can see clearly on Flightradar24 that there was only one landing attempt.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 63, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 63435 times:
I can see why the aircraft broke into large pieces. The roadway has to be 20-30 feet or so below the airport boundary area.
Falling at fairly low speed would create the effect of breaking off the cockpit, yet creating the crush damage at a steep angle of the aircraft nose under the cockpit windows shown in the shot of the crane picking up the nose section.
Reports of go around attempts, multiple landing attempts, aircraft on fire are all too common early after an accident.
As far as the fire department - given where the roadway is located and its below grade nature - I can easily see a lengthy delay getting to the crash scene. Fire trucks following the aircraft down the runway and down the over run area would have had to stop at the edge of the roadway and just watch.
The overpass was probably damaged, even if it was ever able to hold the weight of a fire truck. From Google Earth - it looks only like a structure to hold approach lights.
Fire trucks would have had to back track to the scrapping facility or what looks like an airport admin center to access the roadway - then fight past the stopped traffic to get to the crash scene. At least an extra mile, maybe as much as three miles.
So a delay of several minutes - longer than 10 minutes - in arriving on scene would not be out of the question.
But there is no way the aircraft burned out of control for 50 minutes - and remained largely whole and with the paint intact. It only takes a few minutes to start melting a cabin structure.
Surviving such an impact seems incredibly unlikely, but I'm glad news report that most did. My greatest condolescence to the families of the departed. May your loved ones rest in peace.
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
Dang, with all of the Russian car accident / road rage videos on YouTube uploaded from so many Russian drivers with dash cameras, but who would expect capturing an event like this live? And while semi-truck wheels have been known to fly through the air into cars, who would expect a flying airplane wheel to knock a car into the guardrail?
Sure there will be more dash camera videos to follow.
With the flying snow and debris, it does look like the airplane made impact beside the roadway before ending up there.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 67, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 62883 times:
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 68, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 62432 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 58): What does a "forced landing" mean ?
US FAA definitions:
Forced landing -- An immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the inability to continue further flight. A typical example of which is an airplane forced down by engine failure.
Precautionary landing -- A premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further flight is possible but inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine trouble.
usxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 845 posts, RR: 6 Reply 69, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 62380 times:
I'm shocked by the video posted by Mortyman - with the rescuers opening the door to the plane - anyone notice the slide did not inflate? I thought most JAR/FAA requirements are that all door slides are armed prior to landing...
I was expecting to see the slide blow and knock all of those guys down, to be honest...
by738 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 2004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 70, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 61911 times:
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 60): I would save these types of assessments for some other occasion
What other type of occasion would you suggest ? I don't you see you in your authority questioning any of the other posters speculation. If youre suggesting insensitivity, I would suggest you question the suitability of posting live video footage of those who perished rather than personal remarks
horstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0 Reply 71, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 61696 times:
Quoting usxguy (Reply 69): anyone notice the slide did not inflate? I thought most JAR/FAA requirements are that all door slides are armed prior to landing..
the slides are not intended to inflate when the door is opened from outside, because of
Quoting usxguy (Reply 69):
expecting to see the slide blow and knock all of those guys down
usxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 845 posts, RR: 6 Reply 73, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 61461 times:
Oh that's interesting.. In the States - some airlines anyway - ground staff opens and closes the door, and I at least am aware that on Boeings and the Embraer 170 family, even if you open the door from the outside the slide can still be blown. I've heard of a lot of agents getting hurt by opening a door from a jetway, with the slide then blowing IN the jetway...
ThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 739 posts, RR: 9 Reply 74, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 61439 times:
Quoting usxguy (Reply 69): I'm shocked by the video posted by Mortyman - with the rescuers opening the door to the plane - anyone notice the slide did not inflate? I thought most JAR/FAA requirements are that all door slides are armed prior to landing...
I can't speak for this aircraft type in particular but generally, if an aircraft door is opened from the outside in the 'Armed' mode, it will automatically 'Disarm'. This isn't the case for the B737 due to its manual arming/disarming process but certainly true of most Boeing and Airbus types including the 747 and A380.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3237 posts, RR: 2 Reply 77, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 60391 times:
According to the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda the Tupolev factory was informed about possible problems with the brakes on this type of aircraft the day before the accident.
A similar Tu-204 aircraft from Red Wings had the same problem at the airport Novosibirsk in Siberia 20 December.
The Russian aviation agency sent a directive to the Tupolev factory on Friday, demanding that action were to be taken quickly , according to AP.
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 840 posts, RR: 12 Reply 79, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 59817 times:
Quoting by738 (Reply 70): I don't you see you in your authority questioning any of the other posters speculation. If youre suggesting insensitivity, I would suggest you question the suitability of posting live video footage of those who perished rather than personal remarks
It's one thing to post the video of the actual event vs. saying "told you so" as if you just knew yet another Russian/Indian/Indonesian airline/aircraft would crash. I did not necessarily suggest insensitivity but warned against clairvoyance.
Others are speculating what could be the cause of this accident as all of us are, but you are determined it was just a matter of time when this would happen. I see a big problem in the latter.
Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
PROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 80, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 58993 times:
For legal reasons a high percentage of Russian vehicles are equipped with dashcams. As a result, it's perhaps not so surprising that a video of this sort exists.
"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7421 posts, RR: 9 Reply 81, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 58378 times:
RIP to those who died.
But if I am reading this correctly, this relatively "modern" aircraft still has a Flight Engineer?
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
rampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 7 Reply 82, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 57811 times:
A terrible tragedy lessened only slightly by the fact that it wasn't full of passengers. My heart goes out to all affected by this, and I hope the investigation answers all the questions raised as to why. One weird observation I had was the lack of any kind of noise from the driver of the car. I guess that shock can do strange things to you...I think I would have been a bit hysterical myself.
TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 769 posts, RR: 0 Reply 83, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 58193 times:
Holy crap that video is kind of chilling to watch. That nose landing gear tire nailed that one car and tossed it into the guard rail. What a horrible situation and my thoughts with those that died. Sad to know at that exact moment in that video those pilots and apparently others died
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 87, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 57354 times:
Wow! The dash cam video is incredible! The tire knocking that car into the sidewall, and the car with the dash cam running over the seats! From what I could tell, the seats were not occupied. This was indeed a high speed impact! I wonder what in the heck went wrong. So heart breaking, and so sad for those lost. Just too bad they could not get it stopped before final impact. That highway was no doubt at a slope that did not favor the forward section of the plane.
Also, was there no flight attendants in the rear of the aircraft? When the firefighters entered the back, I did not see anyone in the back jump seat.
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 89, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 56722 times:
I am learning new things everyday. So, this has a three man cockpit crew? Do all of the 204's have a three man crew? I could have sworn the plane was modeled to be similar to a 757? Can anyone give me general comparisons of the 204 to the 757 stats?
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 90): Amazing that it was going that fast well over 2 miles/3km from the runway threshold.
More will come out in the investigation.
Yes, and judging by that high speed impact, they did not appear to have the intentions of stopping in any way. Could they have been trying to do a go around? I mean, so much experience in that flight deck, tells me something went real bad. I estimate they hit doing well over 120 MPH.
teneriffe77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 426 posts, RR: 0 Reply 91, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 56905 times:
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 94, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 56627 times:
Quoting Dizzy777 (Reply 95): it has a Flightcrew of two, although original Aeroflot requirement specified a flight engineer.
Weird! I just got done looking at pictures of the flight deck on Red Wings Airlines 204, and it showed a total of 3 flight crew members. And it says there were a total of three crew members in the cockpit in this crash. Are all the 204's in Red Wings fleet 3 crews, or do some aircraft have 2?
Dizzy777 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 91 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 56049 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 96): Are all the 204's in Red Wings fleet 3 crews, or do some aircraft have 2?
they could be using some former Aeroflot aircraft and had new ones delivered in the same config for commonality purposes, or there may just be a few.. it was mentioned in an article that the aircraft involved was a 2008 delivery
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 96, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 55282 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 77): about possible problems with the brakes
Quoting scbriml (Reply 78): the plane was still travelling at considerable speed
Quoting F9animal (Reply 91): I estimate they hit doing well over 120 MPH.
I might be wrong, but I'd put the speed closer to 60 than 120. It was slow enough to descend quickly down the steep embankment and strike the rising embankment of the roadway edge. Had it been going 120, it would have cleared the area between the higher airport run off and the roadway in my opinion.
In my life, I've seen two aircraft hit the ground at a relatively flat angle like this at speeds of about 110 and 140 kts. The video and the damage doesn't look to me like it was going that fast.
Quoting F9animal (Reply 89): was there no flight attendants in the rear of the aircraft? When the firefighters entered the back, I did not see anyone in the back jump seat.
Why would the FA be in the rear of the aircraft? They were dead heading an empty aircraft back to the airport. Everyone would sit up front in the best seats. Faster to get on, and faster to get off the aircraft.
Also, it seems to me that the video of the fire fighters at the rear of the aircraft is quite a while after the crash, not an immediate rescue search.
ThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 739 posts, RR: 9 Reply 97, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 55251 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 98): Why would the FA be in the rear of the aircraft? They were dead heading an empty aircraft back to the airport. Everyone would sit up front in the best seats. Faster to get on, and faster to get off the aircraft.
I can't speak for this carrier but at my airline, I we are positioning an aircraft, all crew must be at their designated work position (door) for take-off and landing.
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 774 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 54936 times:
The following is a fragment from an Associated Press, Moscow datelined story. It quotes a Russian official as saying "initial indications" indicate pilot error. Shouldn't he have waited a bit? The investigation is just getting started. Also, the AP has a little more on the brake and reverse thruster issue.
"A spokesman for Russia's top investigative agency, Vladimir Markin, said initial indications were that pilot error was the cause.
"The state news agency RIA Novosti cited an unidentified official at the Russian Aviation Agency as saying another Red Wings Tu-204 had gone off the runway at the international airport in Novosibirsk in Siberia on Dec. 20. The agency said that incident, in which no one was injured, was due to the failure of the plane's engines to go into reverse upon landing and that its brake system malfunctioned.
"On Friday, the Aviation Agency sent a directive to the Tupolev company's president calling for it to take urgent preventive measures."
Cleanup starts quick in Russia. I've been to incidents (mostly fatal car crashes but also the Kalitta overrun in BRU) as a fire / police photographer where it took longer before they even started thinking about the clean up, let alone hire the cranes, transport, etc... to move the pieces.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 102, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 53103 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 98): I might be wrong, but I'd put the speed closer to 60 than 120.
I'd wager you are wrong - I wouldn't try to peg a specific speed but I'd be very surprised if that plane is not traveling faster than 60mph in the video. Size makes for a bit of an optical illusion (large objects look like they're moving more slowly), but I watch airliners take off and land across a road I travel on on a daily basis (I live about a mile from the end of the 4/22's at JFK and I commute past the airport) and this plane looks to be going about as fast as an average landing airliner *before* touchdown. I'm sure it wasn't quite - there had to be *some* loss of speed - but it is going very fast for a runway overrun. That nosewheel shoots straight out of there and across the road at probably 60mph just on its own, and that's *after* being slowed by the impact.
If the land was flat off the end of the runway, this thing might have traveled another 2,000 feet before stopping. It wasn't even close to being stopped when it ran off the end of the runway.
This had to be either a major brake failure or serious pilot error. I can't remember another overrun due to brake failure like this, although given what other people have said about a previous incident with the Tu-204, I guess you can't discount it. We have seen overruns similar in appearance to this one caused by pilot error, such as the TAM 3054 crash (high speed overrun in bad weather). Thankfully this plane did not have many people on board and there were no major obstacles off the end of the runway, nor did there seem to be a lot of fuel on board to ignite.
[Edited 2012-12-29 21:27:31]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 103, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 52735 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 91):
I am learning new things everyday. So, this has a three man cockpit crew? Do all of the 204's have a three man crew? I could have sworn the plane was modeled to be similar to a 757? Can anyone give me general comparisons of the 204 to the 757 stats?
Quoting F9animal (Reply 96): Weird! I just got done looking at pictures of the flight deck on Red Wings Airlines 204, and it showed a total of 3 flight crew members. And it says there were a total of three crew members in the cockpit in this crash. Are all the 204's in Red Wings fleet 3 crews, or do some aircraft have 2?
Welcome to Russian union rules. Many airliners had to have a flight engineer AND a navigator until recently. Basically they take a two man design and remake it for three man operation. Ansett Australia asked for an F/E position on the 767, and Boeing made it a three man plane.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 105, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 51898 times:
Hang on a second!!! The picture you posted which I will copy and paste below. What is that coming from the center of the main gears? It looks like a fluid coming out, or something hanging on each main. Not familiar with this plane, so maybe I am alarmed for no reason?
mesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 801 posts, RR: 1 Reply 106, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 51579 times:
I find it amazing that this particular aircraft had been videotaped, photographed, and caught on a dash cam when it crashed! This is, what seems to me, like a weird coincidence. Not In the sense that the plane could have been sabotaged or fewred to crash, but just that how many times is a plane videotaped and photographed on the day it crashes and then caight on camera when it does!
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 840 posts, RR: 12 Reply 108, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 50549 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 105): Hang on a second!!! The picture you posted which I will copy and paste below. What is that coming from the center of the main gears? It looks like a fluid coming out, or something hanging on each main. Not familiar with this plane, so maybe I am alarmed for no reason?
Not sure. Both "streaks" look too symetric to be leaks of some sort. See how they start with wide cylindric shape, then there is a small bump half way down... Not sure what these could be. Here are a few photos where all of them have "it":
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 109, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 50261 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 105): Also, do we know which aircraft it was that over ran with engines not reversing?
64049. This plane was 64047. I wouldn't put too much stock in the numbers being so close together; only 62 of these planes exist in total, and I'd guess Red Wings doesn't have *too* many of those 62, so the numbers are going to be fairly close no matter what. But it's not the same plane.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 110, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 49988 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 96): I might be wrong, but I'd put the speed closer to 60 than 120.
It is somewhere in between.
1. it maintained pitch as it leapt onto the embankment.
2. The trajectory was increasingly down (after taking to account the moving camera).
3. The distance it leapt and the altitude difference between where it leapt and where it hit the embankment, isn't too great either.
So, aircraft was below it's Vstall for that config, if faster, spoilers must have been deployed otherwise the trajectory would be flatter. The aerodynamic effect (nose-up tendency) of the spoiler deployment must have been present, or the elevators still had authority... since there was no nose-down tumbling movement. I don't know about this type, but in other aircraft this would have to be faster than 60kts, but probably around 80-90kts ish... if it's 120 or above... well... won't make sense.
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5411 posts, RR: 18 Reply 111, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 49949 times:
Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 106): This is, what seems to me, like a weird coincidence. Not In the sense that the plane could have been sabotaged or fewred to crash, but just that how many times is a plane videotaped and photographed on the day it crashes and then caight on camera when it does!
The explanation is actually quite prosaic: PED is a sleepy, provincial airport with mixed military/civilian ops. Passenger traffic during the winter consists almost exclusively of charter flights from Russia. Russian charter airlines often use PED as a cheaper alternative to PRG
End of the year is always a very busy period for PED since a lot of Russians choose PRG as a place to spend the New Year's Eve and their Christmas, see list of upcoming flights to PED: http://www.lkpd.info/expected.php
Therefore late December/early January is always a heyday for the local community of spotters. If I wanted to be cynical, I'd say that given the low traffic volume, literally ANYTHING that comes to PED - on weekends in particular - is caught on camera and/or video... multiple times: http://www.lkpd.info/search.php?airport=a1
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 112, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 49524 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 102): This had to be either a major brake failure or serious pilot error.
They had a long runway, and the plane still did not decelerate much. And hundreds of meters of field to slow down some more. Maybe they had lost both reversers _and_ brakes. Or maybe they had decelerated but were now indeed speeding up and trying to go around, with the field perhaps slowing them down they did not get airborne.
Are there any common cause failures that would prevent reverser and brake from working? Aircraft in wrong configuration?
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 49178 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 105): Hang on a second!!! The picture you posted which I will copy and paste below. What is that coming from the center of the main gears? It looks like a fluid coming out, or something hanging on each main. Not familiar with this plane, so maybe I am alarmed for no reason?
Can it be a ground contact for static electricity discharge?? like the ones are usually in the wings and tail??
Apparently one of the previous overruns of this plane type was confirmed as a brake malfunction in OVB, and Tupolev was warned about the situation, let´s see what´s going out here after the investigation.
It´s kind of weird that a plane with only 12 on board can´t be stopped in a long runway, Captain had more than 3.000 hours on the plane, so he was not new on it.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 114, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 48987 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 110): So, aircraft was below it's Vstall for that config, if faster, spoilers must have been deployed otherwise the trajectory would be flatter. The aerodynamic effect (nose-up tendency) of the spoiler deployment must have been present, or the elevators still had authority... since there was no nose-down tumbling movement. I don't know about this type, but in other aircraft this would have to be faster than 60kts, but probably around 80-90kts ish... if it's 120 or above... well... won't make sense.
Interesting.
I had a look at the video again. I wanted to see if there's a way to measure the speed.
First, I attempted to measure the speed of the tire. At approximately 10.6s into the video, the tire is roughly at the right side of the road. At roughly 11.9 it hits the car. By the way, if you go frame by frame you'll see that the tire disappears into the car more or less completely upon impact. Crazy...
The car that was hit veered to the left before impact, at 10.8s its own tires are on the left lane marking. The car was small, so I'll assume there was 2 meters to the right lane marking.
This leaves 2+3*3.5+2 = 14.5 meters to the right side of the highway. Time was 1.3s, i.e., horizontal speed was 11.2 m/s, or about 22 knots. Not so fast. Of course this tells very little of the speed of the aircraft, though it was probably more than 22 knots.
I'm also trying to see if there's a way to measure the speed of the aircraft, but it is difficult. It appears only in the corner of the video from about 9.15s to 9.75s, before disappearing behind the embankment and then exploding into pieces after that on about 10.25s onwards. But I have no frame of reference for distances.
Northstar80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 164 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (5 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 47056 times:
Regarding the video, I am shocked to see the triple seats flying and then falling in the middle of the highway. I remember seeing somewhere that the seats are produced to almost never break loose from the aircraft during an accident.
Luckily the flight was empty and there were no people on those seats...
You have to have your heart in the business and the business in your heart. -Thomas J Watson
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9248 posts, RR: 42 Reply 119, posted (5 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 44596 times:
Quoting Hywel (Reply 118): Two more photos have emerged of the aircraft just before touchdown at VKO
And one of the big questions is: where (and how) did it touch down? Hopefully it won't be long before that information comes to light.
Quoting Northstar80 (Reply 116): Regarding the video, I am shocked to see the triple seats flying and then falling in the middle of the highway. I remember seeing somewhere that the seats are produced to almost never break loose from the aircraft during an accident.
True, but if the aircraft breaks up I think you can expect one or two rows of seats to become detached.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 120, posted (5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 44488 times:
Quoting Hywel (Reply 118): Two more photos have emerged of the aircraft just before touchdown at VKO
In the second photo the aircraft appears to be pretty high still, maybe at 100 feet. And this is at a place that looks like a normal section of the runway, not something on or before the piano keys.
Looking at the map at https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...182&spn=0.011732,0.030727&t=h&z=15... and there are aircraft and buildings behind the runway. If the photo is taken from west to east, it must still be within the first parts of the runway. If the photo is taken from east to west, maybe we are looking at the big plane parking area on the west side of the runway, which is a little bit further down the runway, maybe 1/3 or 1/2 of the runway already used at that point. Does anyone recognize the views from the photographs?
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16598 posts, RR: 11 Reply 121, posted (5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 44282 times:
Quoting Hywel (Reply 118): Two more photos have emerged of the aircraft just before touchdown at VKO - literally 20-30 seconds before it overran the runway
Wow. Is there any other crash that has been so well documented? You have photos of the aircraft at the origin airport, video of it crashing and photos of it moments before touch down.
I'd say it's about 30-50ft and the photo shows the first touchdown zone marker between the piano keys and the aiming point (photo was taken from north to south). doesn't look unusual to me.
ushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2890 posts, RR: 18 Reply 123, posted (5 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 43741 times:
Quoting Hywel (Reply 118): Two more photos have emerged of the aircraft just before touchdown at VKO - literally 20-30 seconds before it overran the runway
Link 1
Link 2
No flames, thus one can once again dismiss most eye witness accounts as false.
Bralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 587 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 43840 times:
Belgian media are reporting that the incident was probably caused by a failing brake system and that the pilots tried everything to slow the plane down. There's no source in the report but it states that was determined after the first analyse of the FDR/CVR.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 43436 times:
Quoting Bralo20 (Reply 124): Belgian media are reporting that the incident was probably caused by a failing brake system and that the pilots tried everything to slow the plane down. There's no source in the report but it states that was determined after the first analyse of the FDR/CVR.
As I previously said, that was the cause of runway overrun in OVB not long ago, so i´m sure it will be check carefully, it was Ra-64049 in that occasion. This will cause a deep investigation and we will see some consequences soon.
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 126, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 43431 times:
Quoting Bralo20 (Reply 124): Belgian media are reporting that the incident was probably caused by a failing brake system and that the pilots tried everything to slow the plane down. There's no source in the report but it states that was determined after the first analyse of the FDR/CVR.
Some German media are reporting the same thing, but I'd take such early reports of definite causes with more than a grain of salt, to be honest, as there was hardly time to do a proper analysis.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 127, posted (5 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 43441 times:
Quoting Northstar80 (Reply 116): I remember seeing somewhere that the seats are produced to almost never break loose from the aircraft during an accident.
You are correct, but this aircraft fuselage broke cleanly in the passenger compartment area - so the floor to which the seats were attached came apart. The seat attachments probably didn't fail, the floor to which it is attached was destroyed.
zanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 131, posted (5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 43054 times:
Quoting migair54 (Reply 125): As I previously said, that was the cause of runway overrun in OVB not long ago, so i´m sure it will be check carefully, it was Ra-64049 in that occasion. This will cause a deep investigation and we will see some consequences soon.
Gonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 132, posted (5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 42830 times:
Ok, this seems probably one of the most extensively documented plane crashes ( except maybe for the ones made on purpose in the desert ) with many pictures of the plane at departing airport, final approach, and actual crash / aftermath.
But despite all this amazing ( and painful images ), I think all the efforts of some fellow members here to know the speeds, configuration and all, are very kind, but useless. We have pretty much undamaged the section where the CVR and FDR are located, and should be very precise information recorded, and although the *real numbers* will not be available for the public in a long time, some day we should have access to them.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 133, posted (5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 42054 times:
Quoting David L (Reply 119): And one of the big questions is: where (and how) did it touch down? Hopefully it won't be long before that information comes to light.
I don't vouch for the accuracy of the conclusion that "bad brakes" were to blame, but the relevant quote to your question is "The plane touched down in the proper landing area but for some reason was unable to stop on the strip" according to Russian authorities.
For those wondering how fast the plane was going, there's not an exact number given but the same guy says "It then careered at high speed and crashed into a radar beacon which it destroyed and then kept on going….”
So it was not a low speed overrun, it was a high speed overrun after touching down in the proper landing area. It used probably 6,000-7,000 feet of runway, traveled another 1,000 feet or so off the end of the runway and hit this embankment still at high speed. Something is very wrong there.
I realize there was an earlier incident with some sort of brake failure in the Tu-204 but a) it seems like the fix was not that difficult, and should have been done already, and b) I'd just find it incredibly coincidental that we'd have no Tu-204 incidents like this for several years, then suddenly have two identical ones in about a week, one of them fatal. It's possible, but it seems more likely that there were other factors involved, or that the cause is just completely different.
I keep thinking back to the TAM crash, which was a mystery for a long time and turned out to ultimately be a combination of pilot action, a technical fault and software design; the plane's auto-throttle and auto-spoiler software wasn't designed to act in the way the pilots expected in a situation with one reverser out (though it was documented and trained for, so ultimately it was pilot error). It wouldn't surprise me to see a combination of multiple factors here as well when all is said and done. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the conclusions being reached in the media already.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 134, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 41799 times:
From the first link above.
"He [Lebedev-Red Wings owner] also suggested that traffic controllers' initial refusal to authorise landing - requiring the plane to complete several circles over Vnukovo in bad weather - may have been a contributing factor."
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 136, posted (5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 41699 times:
Quoting tp1040 (Reply 134): Hasn't is been refuted that the plane circled?
I've seen radar tracks that certainly suggest it has been. I think one was posted in this thread.
He's the owner of the airline, though, not an investigator. I'm sure he has more info than any of us do but on the other hand, he's probably not a technical guy and he's not really bound by any sort of rules with regard to the accuracy of anything he says. I put more stock in the quote I actually posted, which come from someone in the air transport ministry.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Wait, in that video, am I seeing things or did the car in front take full brunt of an aircraft wheel into the side of the vehicle and just keep driving!? I can't imagine what one of those wheels must weigh.
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 138, posted (5 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 40820 times:
Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 114): This leaves 2+3*3.5+2 = 14.5 meters to the right side of the highway. Time was 1.3s, i.e., horizontal speed was 11.2 m/s, or about 22 knots. Not so fast. Of course this tells very little of the speed of the aircraft, though it was probably more than 22 knots.
The aircraft tire hit the top of that building before hitting the car. I suspect that would have slowed the speed down quite a bit.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 110): It is somewhere in between.
1. it maintained pitch as it leapt onto the embankment.
2. The trajectory was increasingly down (after taking to account the moving camera).
3. The distance it leapt and the altitude difference between where it leapt and where it hit the embankment, isn't too great either.
I suspect it was well above 60. Just based on the incredible amount of earth being thrown from the side of the freeway, and how the cockpit was sheared that way says alot. Also, the injuries being reported would I think be caused by a much higher speed.
Quoting Bralo20 (Reply 124): Belgian media are reporting that the incident was probably caused by a failing brake system and that the pilots tried everything to slow the plane down. There's no source in the report but it states that was determined after the first analyse of the FDR/CVR.
This could very well be good information. I am sure the moment they got the FDR/CVR out, it was being analyzed almost immediately. I hope they find out and share what they learn as it happens!
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 108): Not sure. Both "streaks" look too symetric to be leaks of some sort. See how they start with wide cylindric shape, then there is a small bump half way down... Not sure what these could be. Here are a few photos where all of them have "it":
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5106 posts, RR: 14 Reply 140, posted (5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 37572 times:
I read a report in the paper this morning that says the EU may ban flights on a TU-204 until this breaks issue is worked out. I ran a search on Google and couldn't find anything along those lines. Anyone have more confident reports?
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62): Someone captured the crash from the inside of his car:
Quoting Skydrol (Reply 66): Dang, with all of the Russian car accident / road rage videos on YouTube uploaded from so many Russian drivers with dash cameras, but who would expect capturing an event like this live? And while semi-truck wheels have been known to fly through the air into cars, who would expect a flying airplane wheel to knock a car into the guardrail?
Out of all of the Russian dash-cam videos, this is the most haunting.
affirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 321 posts, RR: 0 Reply 141, posted (5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 35130 times:
Considering the plane was empty and wind was not too bad the approach speed must have been slightly lower than normal. Looking at the pictures that are allegedly from the moments before touchdown they seem to be using full or at least close to full flaps which indicates a normal approach. I know nothing about surface abrasion at the time but being an international airport one would expect fair grip with those temperatures. Even with no brakes and no reversers but working spoilers what retardation would be expected? My guessing would put an approach speed of maybe 120-125kt, spoiler deployment would lose maybe 25-30kt and friction 10kt which would put the final speed at about 80-90kt (= more than 100mph)..
What surprises me is why they didn't abort and went around..
It will be interesting to read what the report will uncover..
Taking the pics from the links, and using Google translate to read the text, (as well as expected), they compare the height of the 204 to a tu134 at approximately the same position along the runway.
It does appear that the 204 did land long.
Here is what I assume is the comparison between where the 134 was at 5m height and the 204 at approx the same height.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 143, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 34673 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 144): It does appear that the 204 did land long.
No it doesn't. That last picture you showed there is taken from the threshold, basically - those are the first piano keys in the frame. They landed in the TDZ, this has been confirmed by MAK from the FDR readout.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 145, posted (5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 34173 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 133): For those wondering how fast the plane was going,
We were speaking about the speed of the aircraft at the time of the final impact with the uphill embankment on the edge of the roadway. The aircraft is shown in the video as an intact fuselage with realtively little nose damage until it makes that final hit.
From dash cam video - RedWings aircraft just before impact
I'm not sure how fast the plane was moving when it left the end of the runway - which according to Google Earth is 870 ft from the piano keys on the end of the runway to the final impact poiint. The structure we see over the highway holds the approach lights for a landing from the south over the roadway.
There is about 120-140 feet distance according to Google Earth from the airport property at the height of the approach lights to the edge of the structure holding the lights. The aircraft dropped several feet in height in that short distance, however contributing to the downward path of the aircraft, the ground between the runway end and the roadway slopes down about 10 or 15 feet in elevation in the approx 750 feet of distance.
Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 137): Wait, in that video, am I seeing things or did the car in front take full brunt of an aircraft wheel into the side of the vehicle and just keep driving!?
The car is hit by the nose gear and slams into inside guardrail and begins to slow quickly. It doesn't keep going. The car slows as it crosses roadway to come to a stop against the guard rail against the outside of the roadway right at the end of the video. The car with the camera slows more quickly because it ran over a set of seats, probably puncturing several of the tires.
Here is a link to a video of a 204, (perhaps the same one), landing in summer at the airport. If you look at the 48 second point, you will see the plane at the same position along the runway as in the second 204 pic.
In the pic he is higher and has yet to flare. Since we don't know his speed at the time, it would be difficult to tell exactly where he touched down.
a380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 31806 times:
Firstly let me pass on my sincere condolences to the families of those who perished in this tragic accident.
It's safe to day that aircraft accidents take place when there are usually a number of contributing factors.
In the second photo of the Redwings 204 landing the aircraft seems to be in a slight nose down attitude with the piano keys in view so it is reasonable to assume it did land long.
The aircraft is still yet to flare so I assume touchdown was some way beyond the ideal point. If the crew only managed a shallow angle during the flare there wouldn't have been much aerodynamic braking to bleed off speed. This assumption would lead to excess speed upon landing with a reduced distance available for the deceleration.
It was reported that the weather conditions were light snow at the time of landing which I can't imagine would be too demanding for a captain and first officer with a combined 25,000 hours under their belts - especially pilots who are used to the Russian climate and who are in command of a modern airliner.
Were the thrust reversers operable? If so, how much wheel braking would be required on this length of runway - assuming touchdown was not long and the aircraft wasn't
travelling too fast at the point of landing?
flood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1148 posts, RR: 1 Reply 149, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 31860 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 147): Here is a link to a video of a 204, (perhaps the same one), landing in summer at the airport. If you look at the 48 second point, you will see the plane at the same position along the runway as in the second 204 pic.
torontofly From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 150, posted (5 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 31925 times:
Hi everyone!
This is my first post on this forum, although I follow it for several years. I just want to contribute to the discussion that helps identify the causes of this accident. I attempted to compare two landings.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 151, posted (5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 31076 times:
Brake malfunction on dual (I guess) independent systems with no malfunction indications to the crew? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did wouldn't that indicate some rather severe design and/or maintenance deficiencies?
Quoting torontofly (Reply 150): You can see the difference in pitch angle and altitude at the same location.
Welcome to A.nut!
The altitude difference is clear of course. However the pitch attitude difference is due to the fact that the plane in the right hand shot is flaring while the one on the left has not started the flare (too high).
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
To me, it looks like that thrust reversers and ground spoilers were deployed approximately at the middle of RWY length. The remaining distance (approx. 1500m) was enough to complete landing safely.
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 153, posted (5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 30743 times:
Comparing other photos of other flights to this one can make for a long day. Camera angles, lens, position, height can trick the eye. In the end, it doesn't share much real information to this accident.
As stated, the pilot touched down in the correct location and still was traveling at a substantial speed when he left the runway.
What happened at touchdown and beyond will be revealed as more information is released.
All sorts of possibilities involving different systems. But not stopping in 2 miles indicates a serious failure of systems designed to slow down the aircraft.
horstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0 Reply 154, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 30448 times:
Quoting torontofly (Reply 150): You can see the difference in pitch angle and altitude at the same location.
the aircraft is about 50ft above the first landing zone marker before the aiming point. with a 3° glide path and considering the flare, the aircraft should touch down well between the first and second landing zone marker behind the aiming point, which should give enough runway (about 8000ft of paved surface left)
though the pich angle seems a bit nose down. maybe he was too fast?
awthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 155, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 30467 times:
Despite what some officials have allegedly stated, it does appear (in my opinion - which I am entitled to hold and express) that this accident aircraft landed longer than ideal. If definitely within the touchdown zone, it was certainly at or near the end of it and we know what is said about the usefulness of runway behind you. Add any other problem or distraction and you have an accident starting to take shape.
The piano keys by the way are NOT in view in the second photo - I can only see touchdown zone markers with the aircraft yet to flare. Remember also that this aircraft is empty/light and so likely drifted quite some distance before finally touching down, if not bouncing a time or two. Most of us pilots know how hard it is to get a light/empty aircraft to 'settle' on landing. (For what it is worth, flight radar show 143 knots on late final.)
Why also are some officials already alleging pilot error? There is little else they could have seen to make them give such a prognosis so early.
I REALLY hate to speculate, but that was my first thought upon seeing the photo. Only A handful of crew on board would make for a light airplane though, so a "bit fast" may be correct for the weight of the aircraft during this particular landing, but I am sure he wasn't much faster than a normal approach with an aircraft full of people.
Again, like I said, I hate to speculate, and I also do not this aircraft at all. For example, the airbus 320 series has a very high angle of attack, even prior to flare (especially on the 321, and when companies opt to use flap settings other than FULL), whereas other aircraft don't have such a big angle. Approach angle, whether it be before or during flare, has everything to do with weight and therefore approach speed..
Now, I am not wiling to speculate on whether or not he landed hot, or long, because both of those things happen regularly, all the time, with all aircraft types. But with this aircraft, I think it is safe to say that Regardless of touchdown point, or speed (unless Ridiculously fast or long), they should have been able to stop on this runway with such a light a/c. Assuming all systems were functioning... We will have to wait and see what went on. You don't know unless you were there...
btblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 546 posts, RR: 4 Reply 157, posted (5 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 28978 times:
I'm looking at the pictures and there seems to be a fair amount of blurring of planes in the background (compared to the picture of the TU134)... I'm thinking he's going at a considerable speed.
Seeing as this was a positioning flight after dropping tourists off, feasible that an error was made by the pilot in that he calculated for a heavier landing (having landed previously with pax) therefore requiring more thrust when in fact the aircraft was empty of PAX? This would result in higher speed, greater height above the threshold and the reason he has full flaps?
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 158, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 27398 times:
Quoting btblue (Reply 157): there seems to be a fair amount of blurring of planes in the background
Darker day (slower shutter speed), smaller sensor, different lens, who knows. You can't judge anything by comparing pictures taken in uncontrolled conditions like this. Lots of things can blur a background in one photo and not in another.
This is a 10,040 foot runway. The altitude in the shot of the accident flight appears to be about 20-30 feet. Assuming a final descent of 250fpm, it would take about 5 seconds to touch down from the photo taken of this accident. Assuming a landing speed of around 120 knots, that would eat up about 1,000 feet of runway. That's not insignificant but again, that's 1,000 feet of a 10,040 foot runway. And this plane was still traveling at a "high speed" when it hit the embankment, which is almost 1,000 feet beyond the end of that 10,040 foot runway. You're still talking about a plane going what appears by the *low* estimates here to be going about 60 knots after traveling about 1 1/2 miles on the ground.
And when you talk about potential landing speeds with an empty plane, don't forget about *braking* speeds with an empty plane. It takes a lot less runway to brake an empty plane than a full one, yet still this one ran off at high speed.
I think it's difficult to escape the conclusion that for whatever reason, this plane didn't brake properly after landing. It does not appear to be a case of a plane landing long, braking hard and just running out of runway.
Going from that to saying it was "bad brakes" as the media has done is a jump in logic that I'm not prepared to make yet, without other evidence. But from what I can see so far, the evidence we do have points to it being a fairly normal touchdown - maybe not 100% ideal, but not dangerously long (this according to the Russian authorities themselves) - followed by a lack of braking. If that's the case, then the question is just technical fault or action of the pilots. But I don't think you look at some other incident and assume it must automatically be the same situation here - I would think being aware of the previous braking problem would actually make it *less* likely to happen again right now, unless there was something about the fix itself that was either conceived or applied improperly. But it could be something completely unrelated.
I just don't really see any evidence for the "landing long" theory - I don't think these photos show what some seem to think they do.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 159, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 27352 times:
The dash cam video tells me that the plane was going waaaay too fast, even if it touched down halfway down the runway. Its just such a violent impact. I just could not imagine what was going on in the final seconds. Not to mention, this flight crew was incredibly experienced. It would be a real shocker to me if it was due to a late touchdown, and 100% pilot error. I have a suspicion that the airplane did not respond to flight crew maneuvers.
AirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 160, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 27196 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 158): This is a 10,040 foot runway. The altitude in the shot of the accident flight appears to be about 20-30 feet. Assuming a final descent of 250fpm, it would take about 5 seconds to touch down from the photo taken of this accident. Assuming a landing speed of around 120 knots, that would eat up about 1,000 feet of runway. That's not insignificant but again, that's 1,000 feet of a 10,040 foot runway. And this plane was still traveling at a "high speed" when it hit the embankment, which is almost 1,000 feet beyond the end of that 10,040 foot runway. You're still talking about a plane going what appears by the *low* estimates here to be going about 60 knots after traveling about 1 1/2 miles on the ground.
Perhaps a slightly long/fast landing, followed by the crew's decision to go around, but with something going wrong? Flaps, reversers, power settings, control surfaces, brakes, ... maybe the pilots just forgot to set something. Is Tu-204 equally automated wrt. go around tasks as modern western aircraft are? What things could you in theory forget to set as a pilot, if you were going around in a Tu-204?
Also, a mechanical problem may have occurred. Say, brakes getting stuck, and the aircraft not getting enough speed to lift-off again? Reminds me of this:
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5130 posts, RR: 29 Reply 161, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 27080 times:
Thanks to the RussianPlanes photographers for their pics and links.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 158): I just don't really see any evidence for the "landing long" theory - I don't think these photos show what some seem to think they do.
As with most accidents, it's a chain of events which lead to the accident itself, and everything that happens before that point can compound the effects of the accident.
A little too fast and a little too long added to a slippery runway and sub par brakes, maybe a problem with planting the plane on the mains to get the ground spoilers and reverse thrusters working.
I'm not saying that landing long and or fast was the primary cause of the accident, (or any of the other possible causes happened), but if you look at how much trouble the 204 in the video had staying planted, it could have exacerbated the effects of the accident...and even a little extra energy at impact can make a difference in survivability.
KC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 162, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 26572 times:
Is there a video somewhere in this thread of the entire landing run? I saw the dash cam video... absolutely chilling. It's hard to grasp that people were dying as that plane was crashing into that embankment. Truly sad.
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 163, posted (5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 26254 times:
Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 162): Is there a video somewhere in this thread of the entire landing run? I saw the dash cam video... absolutely chilling. It's hard to grasp that people were dying as that plane was crashing into that embankment. Truly sad.
No, nothing showing the entire landing. But... With as many cameras that airports have nowadays, I would not be surprised in coming days or weeks that footage is found. Hopefully there was a CCTV camera pointed in the right place at the right time and captured the landing.
awthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 25010 times:
With only flight deck and cabin crew on board, hence few duties for cabin crew, I will be interested to find out how many persons were on the flight deck and whether it was fully sterile during the landing phase of the flight.
"On Dec 31st 2012 Rosaviatsia released a modification to aircraft operations manual requiring flight crew to apply reverse thrust only if the engine is operating (stating application of reverse thrust is prohibited on a malfunctioning engine). To apply reverse thrust the engine should be pulled to idle for 1-2 seconds, then command reverse thrust at minimum thrust, verify yellow "thrust reverser unlocked" followed by green "REV" indications appear, only then apply high reverse thrust. Rosaviatsia reported there have been a number of cases where the green "REV" indication did not appear (editorial note: there have been rumours since the Dec 20th overrun, that the crew had applied reverse thrust, the reverser however had not opened and at least one of the engine was delivering full forward thrust instead)."
A very interesting modification to be made to the operations manual - perhaps the FDR has told them something already?
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 167, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21921 times:
Quoting Captainmeeerkat (Reply 166): A very interesting modification to be made to the operations manual - perhaps the FDR has told them something already?
Seems plausible... it's not uncommon for early procedural changes to be made during investigations if there's a clear and present problem. Similar recommendations were made not long after the TAM 3054 crash, I recall (they may have been more like "reiterations" of existing procedures, but they gave a big hint as to where the investigation was going).
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
zanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 168, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21728 times:
Quoting Captainmeeerkat (Reply 166): A very interesting modification to be made to the operations manual - perhaps the FDR has told them something already?
More likely a result of the Dec 20th overrun.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 169, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 20888 times:
Isnt that a long procedure to follow? I mean, by the time the crew determines a failure of thrust reverse, could time be a critical factor? What do you do then? Firewall the throttle and hope you have enough room? And ice I would think could play a very nasty role if its on the runway. I am obviously not a pilot, so it would be great to hear what fellow pilots do in a situation like this. So here is my 31 hours of flight time specialist thoughts...Wheels touch, put throttles in reverse. No yellow, no green.. I just spent 3 seconds minimum looking at my gauges. I apply full thrust to go around. Now... Does it take a few seconds for the throttle to respond to my imput, or a few seconds for my thrust to increase? It just seems like time would not be good if I only have say 6, 000 feet of runway left!!
ajd1992 From UK - England, joined Jul 2006, 2645 posts, RR: 6 Reply 170, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 20702 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 169): It just seems like time would not be good if I only have say 6, 000 feet of runway left!!
6000 feet of runway is a lot of runway - large aircraft similar in size to the TU-204 fly out of airports like that all the time. I doubt it was a problem until it ended up being mostly behind them, although looking at the dashcam video (and I have several times being a dashcammer myself) the speed it was doing, I'm surprised it didn't go around earlier.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6364 posts, RR: 56 Reply 171, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20349 times:
Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 170): Quoting F9animal (Reply 169):
It just seems like time would not be good if I only have say 6, 000 feet of runway left!!
6000 feet of runway is a lot of runway - large aircraft similar in size to the TU-204 fly out of airports like that all the time. I doubt it was a problem until it ended up being mostly behind them, although looking at the dashcam video (and I have several times being a dashcammer myself) the speed it was doing, I'm surprised it didn't go around earlier.
Actually 6000ft is not that much runway for a plane flying the speeds of a Tu-204 on finals. Float a little bit in the flare and you will very quickly find that you do not have much runway left although at least being light weight they would have needed less runway than in normal revenue use.
cbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1512 posts, RR: 6 Reply 172, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20291 times:
Quoting Captainmeeerkat (Reply 166): A very interesting modification to be made to the operations manual - perhaps the FDR has told them something already?
Does anyone know how the reverser on these engines work? Could it be an issue with the reversing mechanism where it failed and the engine spooled up, but instead of providing reverse thrust, it was producing forward thrust?
Different aircraft and engine design, but a NW DC-9 had a hydraulic issue in MSP where the aircraft lost all of the brakes and the Captain engaged the reverse thrust, except the reverser doors were hydraulically actuated as well, and ended up fire walling the engines in full forward thrust, and hit an A319 that had just pushed from the gate next to it!
Curious to know if it possible on the TU-204 engines if something like that is possible?
tp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 161 posts, RR: 0 Reply 173, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 20254 times:
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 171): Actually 6000ft is not that much runway for a plane flying the speeds of a Tu-204 on finals. Float a little bit in the flare and you will very quickly find that you do not have much runway left although at least being light weight they would have needed less runway than in normal revenue use.
The runway is stated at 10,039 feet. The total runway with over run etc., is 2 miles long. 6000 ft would be the middle of the runway.
It has been stated that he touched down within the TDZ. At the worst, that would give him approximately 7,000 for roll out. Plus over run.
horstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19674 times:
as far as I know reverse thrust isn't considered in minimum runway length calculations. so even without T/R the plane should be able to stop on the runway.
I'm not a pilot, so my question is, when I'm intending to deploy the thrust reversers but the engine provides full foreward thrust,do I notice this (I'm pretty sure I should)? and how much does it impact the required landing distance if I set the engines to idle as soon as I notice the error? would it be enough to explain the very high speet 1000ft beyond the threshold?
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 175, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 19629 times:
Quoting btblue (Reply 157): I'm looking at the pictures and there seems to be a fair amount of blurring of planes in the background (compared to the picture of the TU134)... I'm thinking he's going at a considerable speed.
Lower light levels, slower camera shutter speed, on a moving object... result... either:
1. Blurred object of focus and sharp background; or
2. Sharp object of focus and blurred background; or
3. Everything's blurred.
Quoting btblue (Reply 157): Seeing as this was a positioning flight after dropping tourists off, feasible that an error was made by the pilot in that he calculated for a heavier landing (having landed previously with pax) therefore requiring more thrust when in fact the aircraft was empty of PAX? This would result in higher speed, greater height above the threshold and the reason he has full flaps?
They would have calculated the approach and landing speeds (including go-around speed) based on their current weight slightly prior to the approach or expected weight on the approach.
On the full flaps issue... the aircraft probably has 1 or 2 flaps setting allowed for use in an all-engine landing... Full flap may result in a more pronounced pitch down, but also gives more drag which allows the engines to run at a higher thrust setting, which results in a more responsive go-around/
Well, the normal procedure is, check spoilers deployed, reversers unlocked, and brakes (manual or auto)... and yes, spoilers first, then unlock reversers... Yes, this new procedure is potentially cumbersome... but, the landing calculations can be done without reversers and more wheelbrakes... by the standard logic anyways... touchdown, spoilers, apply manual wheelbrakes (or check autobrakes), and not even touching the reversers... are perfectly acceptable.
Quoting F9animal (Reply 169): I mean, by the time the crew determines a failure of thrust reverse, could time be a critical factor? What do you do then? Firewall the throttle and hope you have enough room? And ice I would think could play a very nasty role if its on the runway.
No... once you have commanded reversers and you don't get reverser deployment, general logic would be, keep it at idle and continue without the reverser... Why? Because there is no guarantee that the reversers had not unlocked, the last thing you want is firewall the throttles, get airborne, and then get a "reverser deployed" light on one or both engines. You'd be in deep doo doo!
That warning of not going around once thrust reverser has been commanded (regardless of deployment), exists in almost almost every airliner I've seen the manuals for (300/310, 320fam, 330, 340, 737allgens, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, MD80, a couple of Bombardiers and Embraers too)... so such a logic isn't and should't be limited to the Tu-204.
---
Now, can anyone calculate the speed of the car that has the dashcam? I think from there we can calculate the aircraft speed just prior to impact... (google earth, check the lane markings for distance reference)...????
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 176, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19520 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 175): Now, can anyone calculate the speed of the car that has the dashcam? I think from there we can calculate the aircraft speed just prior to impact... (google earth, check the lane markings for distance reference)...????
I did as you suggested and came up with an approximate speed of the car of 70.9mph. I counted 26 lane markers in exactly 10 seconds, then counted off those 26 lane markers in Google Maps satellite view and came up with about 1,040 feet. 1,040 feet in 10 seconds translates to 70.9mph, which isn't an unreasonable speed for a highway like this with light traffic.
I'll note, though, that he/she seems to have slowed down slightly towards the end of my count - the 70.9 speed is an average over that span. The car was probably going a little slower at the end... I'd guess more like 65.
How can you get the speed of the plane from the speed of the car?
[Edited 2012-12-31 21:39:16]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
mesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 801 posts, RR: 1 Reply 177, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19905 times:
Going back to my post about the amount of times this aircraft was photgraphed and/or videotaped on its last flight, if you go to wikipedia and search this incident, there is a picture of this aircraft mid-flight before it crashed, too! Amazes me how many people spotted this aircraft on flight.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2002 posts, RR: 10 Reply 178, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19189 times:
At first sight, this did not seem to be a split thurst reverse problem. If only one enigne would go into thrust reverse, it would be hard to keep the aircraft on the centreline.
As can been seen on the car video, the aircraft was dead centre on the (extended) centreline; the aircraft nosewheel even bounced against the overhead approach light structure, which is exactly on the extended centreline.
Rgds,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Captainmeeerkat From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 179, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18986 times:
What if the engine(s) was/were indicating idle or T/R deployed but the engine(s) was/were giving forward thrust? Is such a thing possible? How noticeable would such a thing be if it was an unknown fault?
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 180, posted (5 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 17591 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 182): Am actually only interested in the car speed prior to aircraft impact...
Well it would be difficult, if not impossible to calculate that precisely if the car is not at a constant speed, because by nature any measurement you take using the tools we have (Google Maps and a YouTube video) would be an average, and the shorter the measurement, the greater the error that will be introduced. I'm confident in saying the car was traveling an average of 70-71mph over the first 10 seconds of the video, which ends just prior to the plane hitting the embankment.
I just further broke it down into the first 5 seconds and the next 5 seconds. In the first five seconds, they passed 14 lane markers. In the second five seconds they passed 12. Assuming the lane markers are exactly the same length and spacing (which is not guaranteed), that means they traveled 560 feet in the first 5 seconds and 480 feet in the next 5. So in the second 5 seconds, which ends just before the plane hit, they were at an average of 65.5mph. But that still wouldn't be an exact number; they may have slowed further or alternately accelerated slightly as they saw the car in front of them start to pull away just before the impact, the lane markers may be longer or shorter, and YouTube doesn't have precise time codes, so this is just as close as I can get it to 5 second chunks.
But I think 65.5mph has to be pretty close to their actual speed at the time of impact.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
It's not clear if this means that they found evidence that reverse thrust was actually an issue in this crash. From earlier commentary, I gather that not carrying out the required checks/procedures outlined here means that forward thrust actually results. I hope there will be more definitive updates.
horstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 189 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 15991 times:
Quote: 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.
isn't it impossible to increase reverse thrust if the reverser is unlocked but not fully deployed?
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5130 posts, RR: 29 Reply 183, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 15495 times:
I saw a MAYDAY broadcast about a 320 accident at GRU where one reverser was inop and a procedural mixup had one engine on full and another on full reverse. It over ran and went off the side of the runway in a similar fashion as this 204.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 13914 times:
Quoting flood (Reply 184): DavidKM of flightglobal tweeted a link to a clip purportedly from the aircraft's prior landing at Pardubice:
What happened here? Seems like a hard landing... the overhead panels even opened due to the G forces or so it seems!?
Also the speed seems quite high. From the road just before the runway to the building is 420m according to google maps, and they passed that distance in 5s. That would give them the ground speed of 160 knots (tail wind?).
The first touchdown seems to be 650m after RWY threshold and the loud bang (bounce?) is heard 940m after threshold.
Is this considered normal? Did the crew have problems landing this plane? Too fast & too long, same as in Moscow??
In any case, the reverse thrust is heard at about half of the RWY and they seem to stop pretty fast. Something they could not do empty later that day.
I have no idea if it's "just" a hard landing, but it's either a strange coincidence or another piece of the puzzle - as it certainly isn't normal. The initial touchdown on the mains didn't really strike me as hard... does the loud bang originate from the nose gear or elsewhere?
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 187, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13390 times:
I dont think the mains actually touched until the bang. Another words, he kinda floated 5 to 10 feet above the runway, and came down hard.
a380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 188, posted (5 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 13146 times:
I think the mains did touch down before the louder bang because you hear the passenger making an 'ufff' sound as though that represented a hard enough touch down, this was then followed by the louder bang of an impact strong enough to dislodge overhead panels.
The sound of the engines varying seems fairly normal to me, though it does seem that the pilot does retard the engines momentarily - similar to just before the flair but he was some day off the flair at that point.
The speed shortly before touchdown does appear to be fast - I've not done any calculations but it just appears quick to me compared to all the landings I've experienced (barring one in a Delta MD-11 )
shufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 438 posts, RR: 1 Reply 189, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 12808 times:
I would agree with the comments on the landing speed. That does seem like an incredibly fast landing and it just has that feeling that it's not a very relaxed or controlled landing. Anyone one know if the same crew that perished were in control here?
akelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2105 posts, RR: 6 Reply 190, posted (5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 11281 times:
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 192, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10560 times:
I have been hoping to hear something by now. Any news on how the survivors are doing? All of a sudden, news has not said anything about this accident. Interesting development on the CCTV footage. Perhaps airport CCTV? If so, that might explain it not being viral.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 193, posted (5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10229 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 191): I read on pprune that there is supposed to be a CCTV footage of the whole landing + crash, but it has not been released (or leaked).
I would gather the TU-204 has visual clues when the reversers are deployed, much as any other type does. Brakes and/or reversers are still considered suspect, as far as I know. Whatever the cause, the authorities really have gone silent on this one.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 194, posted (5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 10081 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 193): Quoting s5daw (Reply 191):I read on pprune that there is supposed to be a CCTV footage of the whole landing + crash, but it has not been released (or leaked).
I would gather the TU-204 has visual clues when the reversers are deployed, much as any other type does. Brakes and/or reversers are still considered suspect, as far as I know. Whatever the cause, the authorities really have gone silent on this one.
There is an investigation in progress and only in it's very early stages. If there were any airport based video, even by private individuals, it was most likely seized as evidence as would happen in any country. Any survivors and other witnesses are probably under government order not to speak to anyone, that this happened in Russia, with an Russia based airline, the aircraft made by a Russian/former USSR state company, so in a place like Russia there is a different concept of openness of investigations. You also perhaps have, as in other parts of the world, the possibility of criminal prosecutions of the surving flight crew, ATC staff, aircraft mx persons, the airline even the aircraft manufacture's management that means silence is a good idea. The news media in Russia is also under considerable pressures to be shut down or be hassled if they were to leak videos or witness statements.
On Jan 13th 2013 Rosaviatsia enhanced the airworthiness directive released on Dec 31st 2012 demanding operators to check their TU-204 aircraft for proper fitting of cam locks on the thrust reversers. If there are gaps corrective adjustments according to maintenance manuals are to be made. Verify the thrust lever locks preventing maximum reverse thrust application without thrust reversers in their deployed position are working properly by gently releasing the fluid pressure in the reverser accumulator and apply minimum reverse thrust. Apply intermediate reverse thrust and check the locks have engaged. Adjust the maximum position of the levers with the lock engaged according to manual. Report all findings, positive or negative, to Rosaviatsia at the latest on Jan 16th 2013.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 196, posted (5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9415 times:
Some "leaked information" from pprune:
A/c was totaly in order. But...
1) +20 km/h more than MAX laning speed allowed
2) Strong crosswind (possible more than allowed)
3) SOP and FCOM violation
4) Very nervous situation at the cabin from the begining of last flight, because of mistakes made at previous flight.
5) (!) Malpractice to say loud right things but doing wrong - landing speed on approach sounded to the SOP and kept 30-50 km higher, AoA sounded as 5 at pre-landing check but really is 2 and so on...
Limit switches is not the case, they was working but a/c newer touched with all three gears at landig (or more precisely "low flying"). There was 6 touches with left MG, 7 with right and 6 with nose.
Around 25-th (of 39) sec from touchdown at CVR was recorded "Takeoff?!?!" and after that flaps was moved to 18, then, couple seconds before end of the runway - both engines was shut off with emergency valve - there was signal from both MG, automatic engagemet of air brakes and spoilers, but in two seconds starts recorded alternating Ny, which coincides with the exit from the runway. Speed on the treshold was 220 kmh, speed of collision (end of record) - 170 kmh.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 197, posted (5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9285 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 196): a/c newer touched with all three gears at landig (or more precisely "low flying"). There was 6 touches with left MG, 7 with right and 6 with nose.
Is this the result of high cross winds, or some other aspect of the landing (coming on too hard and bouncing, etc)?
Quoting s5daw (Reply 196): Speed on the treshold was 220 kmh
This may have been mentioned somewhere, but is this a reasonable speed on the threshold, or too high?
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 198, posted (5 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9263 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 196): +20 km/h more than MAX laning speed allowed
I may have just answered my own question from my previous post: then the maximum allowed is really closer to 200 km/hr.
Speaking of the nervous atmosphere, these crewmembers were supposedly quite experienced. Of course there is that vid of the hard landing, supposedly taken on the outbound leg, where overhead panels came loose.
tu204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 907 posts, RR: 19 Reply 199, posted (5 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8950 times:
They only managed to lose 50km/h on a 3k runway...well, for anyone here who has any hours behind the controls...you know what they should have done when they see that the aircraft is not decelerating but has enough room to take off again.
Anxious to read the interim report.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 200, posted (5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 8813 times:
Wow! Kinda confused with what is being said here. Can someone break it down to a more understandable reading? Not criticizing at all, I just dont understand some of it.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 201, posted (5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8648 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 200): Can someone break it down to a more understandable reading?
If the leaked info presented by s5daw is accurate, it seems that they were coming in too fast, had some issue making simultaneous, reliable contact with the runway on all three gears, and were only able to lose 50 km/hr out of 220 km/hr during their attempts to slow the plane on the runway. About 2/3 of the way down the runway it seems as if someone in the cockpit inquired about taking off again, but this did not happen. There was automatic engagement of the spoilers and airbrakes, which certainly would prevent taking off. By now they were close to the end of the runway, and one of the last occurrences was engine shutoff with the emergency valve - either in an attempt to slow the plane for inevitable impact, or to stop the flow of fuel and reduce the chances of post-crash fire. (the latter is my speculation). Just my $0.02.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 202, posted (5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8675 times:
Quoting F9animal (Reply 200): Can someone break it down to a more understandable reading?
I agree with everything which CF-CPI wrote in reply #201. I will just add...
It seems they were "dancing" on alternating left and right MLG. They need weight on both to engage spoilers and reversers. And without spoilers to kill the lift from the wing the wheel brakes do little good, especially on a contaminated runway. Automatic engagement of spoilers (and reversers?) seems to ultimately have come. That may have happened more or less simultaneously with much too late decision to go around, and that way it increased go around respeonce time.
So all in all, an unstabilized landing with much too late decision to go around. Pilot error on a perfectly good plane.
Not an easy landing, due to the strong sidewind, but one which the crew should either have performed safely, or known to avoid.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
F9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4745 posts, RR: 29 Reply 203, posted (5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8559 times:
Thanks guys. Makes total sense now. Am I correct by saying they should have full throttled and attempted to takeoff? I would imagine the outcome would have been saving the airplane? I also would imagine with all that going on, the crew took seconds instead of instant decision making time? Another words, time to make a decision took too long?
*If* you believe these leaks (and it seems not everyone does), it seems there was a modification made to the Tu-204 in which the reversers won't deploy even in manual mode unless spoilers are already deployed, and the pilots may have been using the procedure for the old system. This resulted in significant forward thrust throughout the landing. That may or may not be pilot error; it could be a training issue as well, or even a design issue with the way the modification was implemented. (It sounds as if the engines spooled up, but the reversers did not deploy, resulting in one pilot eventually cutting the engines using the emergency fuel cutoff. That seems like a design issue to me.)
As I said, not everybody believes these leaks because they're coming from a Russian aviation forum like this one. To me, though, they sound too detailed to be fabricated, and what would be the point? Apparently there will be an interim report on the 16th, so if someone's trolling, they're not going to get a lot of satisfaction out of it.
It sounds like whether due entirely to pilot error or some combination of pilot error and other issues (there was definitely *some* pilot error here, if the leaks are accurate), the plane more or less "wheelbarrowed" down the runway due to excessive speed, which didn't allow spoilers or reversers to deploy and which maintained significant forward thrust.
Someone on PPrune (same guy who reported the leak) is also speculating that the three pilots may have been acting at cross purposes, with one trying to complete the landing at all costs, one trying to initiate a go-around, and the third doing nothing because he'd gotten reamed after the last landing, which was also a hard landing.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
You are closing the case a little too early IMO...
Rosaviatsia asked this for a reason :
Quoting gonzalo (Reply 195): On Jan 13th 2013 Rosaviatsia enhanced the airworthiness directive released on Dec 31st 2012 demanding operators to check their TU-204 aircraft for proper fitting of cam locks on the thrust reversers. If there are gaps corrective adjustments according to maintenance manuals are to be made. Verify the thrust lever locks preventing maximum reverse thrust application without thrust reversers in their deployed position are working properly by gently releasing the fluid pressure in the reverser accumulator and apply minimum reverse thrust. Apply intermediate reverse thrust and check the locks have engaged. Adjust the maximum position of the levers with the lock engaged according to manual. Report all findings, positive or negative, to Rosaviatsia at the latest on Jan 16th 2013.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 207, posted (5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7882 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 193): the authorities really have gone silent on this one.
Because they're investigating it.
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 197): This may have been mentioned somewhere, but is this a reasonable speed on the threshold, or too high?
I think the speed quoted there is actually the overrun threshold, not the landing threshold; 220 kmh is about 118 knots, which doesn't sound like an unreasonable speed to land at (MLW speed is in the 140s on the 204 IIRC). Also, if you assume 220 kmh was their landing speed, and you takr the information that they were "20kmh too fast" (which really isn't much), then you get a Vref of 107 knots, which, even for an empty a/c, seems very low.
Quoting F9animal (Reply 203): Am I correct by saying they should have full throttled and attempted to takeoff? I would imagine the outcome would have been saving the airplane?
If you take this leak as fact, then possibly. But we can never truly know. It's possible that their decision to touch and go would have come too late, and an attempt to take off again would only have resulted in a higher speed accident than the one we saw.
Quoting F9animal (Reply 204):
One other thing. Cant spoilers be manually deployed by crew?
Ground spoilers can usually only be deployed (esp on fly by wire airliners) if the weight on wheels switch has been engaged - ie, the a/c thinks it's on the ground. If the leak is correct and the aircraft never made full contact on the runway, but rather danced over it with various touches from different parts of the gear, it's possible the a/c thought it was still in the air and as such ground spoilers would neither auto deploy, nor be able to be manually deployed.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 211, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7029 times:
I'll paste this from another forum here:
Chairman of the Technical Commission of Inquiry into the accident with the aircraft Tu-204 RA-64047 Airline «Red Wings» informs about the results of the preliminary analysis of the information of objective control and other information received.
Approach was carried out on runway 19 (length - 3060 m) to Vnukovo Airport. Piloting was carried by PIC. Before entering the glide the aircraft was in the landing configuration: Flaps - 37°, slats - 23°, and landing gear extended. Setpoint decision height was set at 60m, landing weight of the aircraft was approximately 67.5 tons, alignment - ~ 26.5%, which is not to exceed the limits set by Flight Manual.
During preplant preparation PIC has identified the target speed of the glide path as 210 km / h, with the PIC said that the need to withstand 230 km / h Reduction took place on the final approach in the director mode with disabled automatic throttle with an average speed of about instrument 255 km / h and vertical speed -3 ... -5 m / s. Reduction was performed without significant deviations from the glide path. Inner beacon marker was passed at an altitude of 65 ... 70 m, end of the runway (runway) was passed at the height of 15 meters and air speed of 260 km / h
Landing of an aircraft was within 5 seconds after the thrust lever (throttle) to mode "idle" at the speed of 230 km / h, at a distance of about 900 m from the 1000 input threshold, ahead of the left landing gear (left bank 1 ... 1.5 °), while there was a signal compression left strut. During the landing of the aircraft on the right side wind gusts reached up to ~ 11.5 m / s. The maximum value of the vertical congestion at touchdown was 1.12g on the record of objective control (hereinafter - MSRP). Since the passage of the true height of 4 meters to touchdown was about 10 seconds.
3 seconds after touchdown nose landing gear was lowered and there was signal of nose landing gear strut compression. Signal of compression of right landing gear strut at this stage not yet formed.
Almost simultaneously with the lowering of the nose landing gear crew moved the controls throttle engines to the "maximum reverse" in one motion and applied the brake pedal on.
Opening of valves reversing system on both engines did not happen. Also did not happen automatically release air brakes and spoilers. Issue spoilers manually crew did not make.
After the transfer of throttle to the "maximum reverse" mode registered an increase with both motors (forward thrust) to the regime Nvd ~ 90%, which actually corresponds to the nominal operation.
The pressure in the wheel brakes left (compressed) landing gear was up to 50 kgf / cm ², the pressure in the wheel brakes right (not compressed) landing gear was missing.
Minimum airspeed to which aircraft slowed after 7-8 seconds field landing was 200-205 km / h at ~ 0 ° pitch and roll of 1 ° to the left, after which the rate began to increase.
2 seconds after the transfer of throttle to the "maximum reverse" flight engineer reported on the non-inclusion of a reverse.
Throttle is in the "maximum reverse" for about 8 seconds, then the reverse was off. During this time the airspeed increased to 240 km / h
The increase in speed of the instrument led to additional "unloading" of the main landing gear. With fluctuations of the roll (from 4.5 ° to 2.6 ° to the left to the right) compression occurred then left, then right landing gear. Simultaneous compression of both main landing gear did not happen. Almost simultaneously with the reversal recorded off compression of brake pedal by left pilot to 60 °. As before braking was ineffective - the pressure in the wheel brakes was applied only when the landing gear strut is compressed.
5 seconds after turning off the reverse, a flight engineer after the words "Turn of Reverse! Reverse!". Registered retransfer throttle to "maximize reverse." As the first attempt, including the reverse has happened, both engines again took to the regime of a direct link (Nvd ~ 84%). Aircraft braking happening, airspeed was 230 ... 240 km / h After 4 seconds the reverse was off. At the time of re-enable reverse the aircraft was a distance of about 950 ... 1000 m from the exit threshold.
Within 6 seconds, reverse is in the off position, at this time the crew attempted to automatic braking, as evidenced by The in talks crew and transient appearance of single commands: "Automatic braking inclusive" for primary and backup subsystems.
In the area of the output threshold throttle were transferred to a small reverse mode.
Rolling out the aircraft as the runway was over 32 seconds after landing, almost on its axis, the air speed of about 215 km / h In the process of rolling out at the command of PIC flight engineer turned off the engine by means of the emergency brake.
Further movement of the aircraft took place almost on the runway extended. After turning off the engine, by braking when driving on snow cover for the runway and arrivals on irregularities occurred simultaneously compress the left and right main landing gear. Compression main landing gear led to the automatic release of air brakes and spoilers, as well as to roll direction valves engine thrust reverser. Clash of the plane with the slopes of ravines happened to ground speed of about 190 km / h
redzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 295 posts, RR: 0 Reply 212, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6960 times:
Wow. A stark reminder of how many systems are working together to stop a landing airplane.
After reading that, I wonder how much did the 22 knot crosswind gust affect the accident? It sounds like the gust may have prevented the intial contact of both main gears, and the reversers and spoilers could not deploy until both gears were compressed. It still seems like the crew still had plenty of time to react appropriately, but my layman's interpretation is that the wind gust set off the dominoes here.
This, plus they were light, since there were no passengers. But really, it seems like 100% captain's fault.
In a tragic way it's good he didn't take more people with him...
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 214, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6665 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 209): This is so sad... they had the option of going around, but were so focused on stopping that they've missed it.
Pilots are trained not to go around after the reverses are engaged. A GA was not an option in their minds, and that wasn't their fault.
Quoting s5daw (Reply 213): They could deploy the spoilers manually
I don't think the ground spoilers are capable of deploying without the aircraft entering ground mode, which it did not while on the runway.
Quoting s5daw (Reply 213): But really, it seems like 100% captain's fault.
I really don't think it's fair to arrive at this conclusion, and certainly unfair to say it was 100% his fault. It was an unfortunate situation - they could have probably handled it better, but this is the type of accident that could befall many good crews.
usxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 845 posts, RR: 6 Reply 215, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6667 times:
But do we know in the TU 204 that you can enable the ground spoilers manually? I have a gut feeling this is a bad case of the computer not allowing the pilots to fly the plane.. one reason I *hate* fly by wire systems.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 216, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6669 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 213): This, plus they were light, since there were no passengers. But really, it seems like 100% captain's fault.
It's the captain's fault but there is definitely a design issue there, as I suspected might be the case. I am not sure how it works in other airplanes but it doesn't seem like selecting maximum reverse should ever command forward thrust. That seems to have contributed pretty majorly to the severity of the accident. Without reverse thrust and spoilers, the airplane may have overrun anyway, but not at 215 knots! (Seems that those of us who saw a high speed overrun were right.) If it had overrun at a slower speed, there may not have been fatalities. And it seems that that forward thrust is what kept both MLG's from compressing.
It definitely would have been a confusing situation. Normal landing, a sudden wind gust at touchdown but otherwise you're just going through normal procedures, select reverse thrust and instead you get *forward* thrust, braking is then ineffective due to the MLG not compressing, no auto-spoilers, and just as you figure out what's going on and take the only decisive action you know to take (shutting off the engines), there's the end of the runway.
The pilots probably did not know why they were getting forward thrust. It is at best a counterintuitive result. They may or may not have been trained to handle this specific situation, but it seems to me that in a confused situation like that, you would want the system to be designed to be intuitive rather than the opposite.
[Edited 2013-01-24 15:47:36]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 217, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6678 times:
Now that some of the facts are falling into place, can we ask if other types, the 757, 737NG or A320 family, would have had the same outcome? I'm not trying to point a finger at the TU204 per se, but I'd be curious as to how those other airframes would have handled the same runway conditions, near empty weight, and a gust.
prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 218, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6533 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 217): Now that some of the facts are falling into place, can we ask if other types, the 757, 737NG or A320 family, would have had the same outcome? I'm not trying to point a finger at the TU204 per se
You don't need to single out 757, 737 and 320. In principle it could be any airliner. There are slight differences how the systems work, but the crews are trained to know exactly how their plane works and act accordingly.
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 217): ...but I'd be curious as to how those other airframes would have handled the same runway conditions, near empty weight, and a gust.
Different weights, sidewind, gusts are conditions which are trained to - and even beyond - the limits in sims.
When positive deceleration isn't established well before running out of runway needed for a go around, then the pilot flying shall initiate a go around. That's trained over and over again in sims, but it didn't happen here. It could look like a serious CRM breakdown is at least partly responsible for this accident.
There may be plane types which would have handled exactly this situation better, or worse, due to slightly different system architecture. Then in a different situation, "better" and "worse" might be reversed. But crews are trained to know and correctly use the systems on their plane as they are. It didn't happen here.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 219, posted (4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6360 times:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 218): When positive deceleration isn't established well before running out of runway needed for a go around, then the pilot flying shall initiate a go around.
The problem is you're not only not getting positive deceleration, you're getting positive (and uncommanded) *acceleration*, with reverser deployment commanded. We don't yet know if this was trained for or not. Even if it was, it's not intuitive behavior, so it would be difficult information to process correctly in a fluid, confusing and quickly-developing situation.
Let's say I'm driving on a highway, and I want to slow down to get off at an off-ramp. I move over to the exit lane and lightly press the brake... yet the car accelerates. I'm a trained driver, and I know how the various systems in my car work. But what am I instinctively going to do? It's not going to be really clear to me that the best way to figure out why my brakes aren't working and my car continues to accelerate uncommanded is to get back on the highway. In this confusing situation, I'm probably going to be more likely to initially just press the brake harder, and then to shut off the engine and yank the emergency brake. By the time I fully realize that the brakes are actually what's *causing* my problem, I'll be at the stoplight at the end of the exit.
This is in effect what it sounds like happened here. It's a catch-22 for a pilot. You're asking a pilot to take off again in the midst of a confusing situation where he doesn't even know where his forward thrust is coming from, and where it seems like all of his safety systems are suddenly not working.
I don't know how the reverser system on every single plane works but I do know that the NTSB noted a design flaw with the Learjet 60 that allowed it to produce uncommanded forward thrust when the reverser cowlings would not open - this seems to be a similar flaw. In fact, this flaw on the Lear 60 contributed to two accidents and was noted both times by the NTSB.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
anfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, RR: 10 Reply 220, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6140 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 219): The problem is you're not only not getting positive deceleration, you're getting positive (and uncommanded) *acceleration*, with reverser deployment commanded. We don't yet know if this was trained for or not.
Personally, I think that's a textbook scenario for going with this rule:
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 218): When positive deceleration isn't established well before running out of runway needed for a go around, then the pilot flying shall initiate a go around.
Particularly given that they were in fact accelerating.
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 221, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5991 times:
Quoting bueb0g (Reply 214): Pilots are trained not to go around after the reverses are engaged. A GA was not an option in their minds, and that wasn't their fault.
Quote:
2 seconds after the transfer of throttle to the "maximum reverse" flight engineer reported on the non-inclusion of a reverse.
Throttle is in the "maximum reverse" for about 8 seconds, then the reverse was off. During this time the airspeed increased to 240 km / h
As I'm not a pilot I can only discuss this in layman's terms, but since the flight engineer reported the reverses did not deploy... So when the reverse was off, and the airspeed increased to 240 km/h, there was an opportunity to GA. Of course, I understand the confusion the reversers caused, but FE did announce they weren't deployed.
Quoting usxguy (Reply 215): But do we know in the TU 204 that you can enable the ground spoilers manually?
I don't know about that, but:
- they could probably at least deploy speed brakes, which should slow them down enough to get WOW and functional wheel brakes, no?
- AKAIK in the prior landing there was an argument over FE deploying uncommanded spoilers (which presumably caused hard landing). If not machine related, it is psychology related.
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 222, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 221): As I'm not a pilot I can only discuss this in layman's terms, but since the flight engineer reported the reverses did not deploy... So when the reverse was off, and the airspeed increased to 240 km/h, there was an opportunity to GA.
It's true, and perhaps had they been more prepared, a GA would have been possible. But as I said, it's standard training not to go around after the reversers have been deployed, even if you stow them; you can't be sure that the doors aren't still open, for example. In hindsight, we are able to see that the doors never did open, and going around would not have been dangerous - this may not have been clear to the crew in the heat of the moment however, and I find it unfair to blame them for this.
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 218): When positive deceleration isn't established well before running out of runway needed for a go around, then the pilot flying shall initiate a go around.
Unless the reversers have been deployed (or the reverser handles pulled), in which case a go around is not an option.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, RR: 74 Reply 223, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5778 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 221): So when the reverse was off, and the airspeed increased to 240 km/h, there was an opportunity to GA. Of course, I understand the confusion the reversers caused, but FE did announce they weren't deployed.
No once reversers have been selected you do not go-around, for the same reason as this not deploying, it could deploy when you go around which would be a disaster too.
Several things I noticed from your translation:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 211): Almost simultaneously with the lowering of the nose landing gear crew moved the controls throttle engines to the "maximum reverse" in one motion and applied the brake pedal on.
This was not in accordance to the Airworthiness Directive for the Tu-204? Was there an AD or circular somewhere that says apply idle reverse to check reversers deployed prior to going beyond idle reverse? Regardless of the AD or circular, it's always good practice to go to idle reverse to check reverser deployment prior to going beyond idle reverse... or even better, let autobrake do it's job.
Quoting s5daw (Reply 211): Opening of valves reversing system on both engines did not happen. Also did not happen automatically release air brakes and spoilers. Issue spoilers manually crew did not make.
I suspect there is something in the ground mode logic. The Tu-204 may require both MLG compressed to enter ground mode (which would allow reversers to be deployed, but only 1 MLG compressed (partial ground mode) to allow the reversers to be selected while ground spoilers require full ground mode, and speedbrake in partial ground mode can only be manual?
Quoting s5daw (Reply 211): The pressure in the wheel brakes left (compressed) landing gear was up to 50 kgf / cm ², the pressure in the wheel brakes right (not compressed) landing gear was missing.
I wonder if someone has an English version of the FCOM *wishful thinking*
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
s5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 224, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5729 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 223): Several things I noticed from your translation
Just to make things clear, not my translations, copied from another forum...
[Edited 2013-01-25 09:20:35]
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 223): This was not in accordance to the Airworthiness Directive for the Tu-204? Was there an AD or circular somewhere that says apply idle reverse to check reversers deployed prior to going beyond idle reverse?
I think there was... something about setting throttle to idle, wait for green REW and only then proceed to apply reversers... I'm just not sure if it was issued before this crash or right after it.
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 225, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5626 times:
It it just me or does this scenario of reverse thrust not working and forward thrust being applied sound a lot like TAM Flight 3054?
Reverse thrust not being engaged even though the pilots thought it was commanded. Spoilers not deploying because sensors didn't show the aircraft on the ground upon landing. Additional unexpected forward thrust being generated by the engine(s).
Yes, I know there are several details different, but the general scenario is frighteningly familiar.
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 226, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5531 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 221): Of course, I understand the confusion the reversers caused, but FE did announce they weren't deployed.
Which might only add to the confusion. Reverse thrust commanded, reversers not deployed, uncommanded forward thrust. If you're in a calm room and have a minute to think, you would probably be able to put 2+2+2 together and figure out what's going on, but we are looking at this in hindsight - not being thrown what seems like contradictory data in a high-pressure situation that we have only seconds to deal with. The big question in their minds would probably be *why* no reverse thrust or auto-spoilers, and once they went to max reverse (which gave them forward thrust), it seems they were doomed. That was probably the decision that really got them into that mess.
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 223): No once reversers have been selected you do not go-around, for the same reason as this not deploying, it could deploy when you go around which would be a disaster too.
Thanks for the info; I had a feeling going around seemed like a bad idea at that point.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 225): It it just me or does this scenario of reverse thrust not working and forward thrust being applied sound a lot like TAM Flight 3054?
Well, but in that case, the situation should not have been so confusing, I don't think. Because the right engine was in the "climb" position, and they should have visually seen that. They just didn't think it would matter because they assumed they were in auto-thrust mode. That was really the root cause of that accident.
In this crash, it seems positive pilot commands did exactly the opposite of what they intended, which is always something that's going to take a human being a few seconds to grasp and correct for. The plane in the TAM 3054 crash actually did exactly what they commanded it to do; the pilots were just confused about how the plane worked. The plane here didn't do what they commanded it to do, because a gust of wind conspired with a design decision to make it do the opposite. Of course, it seems it's still an error that they didn't check reverser deployment at idle before going to max reverse, which is probably the root cause of this accident.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
bueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 228, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5508 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 223): Was there an AD or circular somewhere that says apply idle reverse to check reversers deployed prior to going beyond idle reverse?
There was, but it was after the accident.
Quoting s5daw (Reply 227): The root cause seems to be too fast & too long... reversers did not deploy because they were basically flying the whole time.
Not really, because they had plenty of runway left on which to stop. The root cause was deploying reversers when they weren't properly on the ground (and again, I don't entirely blame them for this).
YVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2120 posts, RR: 0 Reply 229, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 223): The Tu-204 may require both MLG compressed to enter ground mode
Is this unique to the TU-204? I thought it was standard on Airbus and Boeing aircraft too and why in some conditions pilots like to really bump the airplane onto the runway rather than grease it to avoid this? I seem to recall this was one of the issues in this incident too, some aquaplaning IIRC (as well as the other issues already mentioned).
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 225): It it just me or does this scenario of reverse thrust not working and forward thrust being applied sound a lot like TAM Flight 3054?
As an aside and without meaning to be a whatever, if this aircraft had been a 787 or a non Russian airline, we would be onto part 6 at least by now...
spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3277 posts, RR: 14 Reply 230, posted (4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5210 times:
Quoting s5daw (Reply 227): The root cause seems to be too fast & too long... reversers did not deploy because they were basically flying the whole time.
There was a gust of crosswind at touchdown that kept one MLG off the ground, which led to the spoilers and reversers not deploying and braking being ineffective. That in turn led one of the pilots to command max reverse thrust which, with no reverser deployment, gave them forward thrust. That forward thrust led to them "wheelbarrowing" down the runway and gaining speed until they cut the engines.
Touchdown was not long and they were not fast. The landing seemed to be normal until the crosswind gust. Because of the gust, braking did not work as intended, and the selection of max reverse thrust (giving them forward thrust) ensured that the main gears stayed off the ground until the engines were shut off. By then it was too late.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 231, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 230): There was a gust of crosswind at touchdown that kept one MLG off the ground
Can we revisit something that was said early on - and that is the question of whether recorded cross winds were too high to permit safe landings at this field, at this particular time? At one point, it was suggested that both speed and crosswinds were outside the permitted envelope for SOP. I'd just like to get clarification on the issue of proceeding with the landing in the first place (and I don't mean in terms of 20/20 hindsight).
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6192 posts, RR: 25 Reply 232, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4901 times:
Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 231): At one point, it was suggested that both speed and crosswinds were outside the permitted envelope for SOP.
The landing speeds were not high. They were within normal parameters.
Winds gusting to 22 kts would not be outside the normal operational range of a B757 which is a similarly sized aircraft, so presumably not outside the range of a TU-204.
During such conditions, most pilots prefer to make a FIRM landing - where the plane is put down solidly on the runway. As mentioned above in this thread - there had been some issues among the cockpit crew about the previous landing being too firm.
So it appears to me the captain was trying to grease it in - far under normal landing weight due to no pax aboard, and the gust - which combine to keep the airplane from settling on the gear.
CF-CPI From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 233, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4919 times:
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 232): During such conditions, most pilots prefer to make a FIRM landing - where the plane is put down solidly on the runway.
I was talking to an Alaska airlines captain some time back - he joked that passengers complained about his hard landings. Of course, the idea behind them was to avoid what Red Wings found out. FYI, when the L1011 first came to Air Canada, its autoland was so gentle and nice that they almost had a couple of Tristars sliding off the runway in winter conditions. They had to re-program the system to put the aircraft down with a bit more force.
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1345 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2007, 725 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4839 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 143 posts, 
From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1692 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, 
From Peru, joined Apr 2008, 722 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Sep 2000, 2004 posts, 
From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1211 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Feb 2004, 163 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 292 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 549 posts, 
and hopefully, the death toll will not increase
From Czech Republic, joined Jan 2006, 17 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Apr 2010, 57 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3279 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 852 posts, 
From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 214 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2004, 2127 posts, 
From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11256 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 2429 posts, 
From China, joined May 2012, 20 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1059 posts, 
From Morocco, joined Sep 2003, 291 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 2008, 587 posts, 
From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2096 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6211 posts, 
From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 623 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2343 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5106 posts, 
From Estonia, joined Jun 2012, 66 posts, 
From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 354 posts, 
From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 170 posts, 