Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Red Wings TU-204 Crashes On Moscow Motorway  
User currently onlineSKAirbus From Norway, joined Oct 2007, 1812 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 86039 times:

Breaking news on BBC and NRK (in Norwegian): http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.10855720

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: LCY-DUB (E70), DUB-LHR (319), LHR-PHL (772), PHL-LAX (321), LAX-HNL (752), HNL-LAX (752), LAX-LHR (388)
254 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseansasLCY From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 903 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 86131 times:

I just posted on this but you have more info. Its a tu-204 coming into VKO from the Czech Republic

User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 86016 times:

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/285006960309465088

 


User currently offlinebigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 170 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85990 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20865369

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85894 times:

So according to the Norwegian news site the plane is on fire, and no one knows yet how many people on board, or casualties.

Let's hope there are no fatalities...

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85825 times:

BBC is reporting that the plane ran off the runway upon landing.

User currently offlinetrintocan From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2000, 3257 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85730 times:

This is very tragic. May there be some good news on survivors.

Trintocan.



Hop to it, fly for life!
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85784 times:

Airline: Red Wings Airways

Came from: Czech republic


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85820 times:

I just saw this on RT.

A/C type is a Tupolev-204

The aircraft looks in really bad shape from what i see on the picture...
I hope there will not be too many casualties...

http://rt.com/news/plane-vnukovo-airport-moscow-073/

      

[Edited 2012-12-29 05:20:12]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinebigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 170 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85835 times:

image taken from twitter

Big version: Width: 600 Height: 450 File size: 31kb
Overshot runway, taken from twitter


[Edited 2012-12-29 05:20:02]

User currently offlineEliNYC From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85674 times:

Russian media reports 12 dead - 4 crew, 8 pasenegers. Strange numbers. RIP.

User currently offlineHywel From Malaysia, joined Apr 2008, 814 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85579 times:

Quoting EliNYC (Reply 10):

Russian media reports 12 dead - 4 crew, 8 pasenegers. Strange numbers. RIP.

Still unconfirmed.

"The plane may have been carrying 12 people: 8 passengers and 4 crew."


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85536 times:

Wikipedia editors on the ball. Sheesh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Wings_Airlines#Accidents


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineEliNYC From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85493 times:

Apologies, other reports say 12 people on board, one dead.

[Edited 2012-12-29 05:24:27]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85431 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...

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85405 times:

twitter
Out of 12 people onboard the crash-landed plane 3 people in critical condition, 2 others severely injured


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85400 times:

Russian State television reports that the aircraft was already on fire on approach to land ...

Article in Norwegian:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.10855720


User currently offlineHywel From Malaysia, joined Apr 2008, 814 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85362 times:

In the last 2 months, Red Wings have had 2 other runway excursions in the Tupolev 204...   

Link


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85340 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.
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85017 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.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85041 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.

Why ?


User currently offlinejoekuboj From Serbia, joined Feb 2004, 164 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85077 times:

Replay on Flightradar24: http://fr24.com/2012-12-29/10:12/RWZ9268


It's not a bug, it's a feature.
User currently offlinemika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2881 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85008 times:

Here's hoping for the best possible outcome...

User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85398 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 21):
Why ?

Look through the frequency of aircraft type and location of the most serious civil aviation accidents of the past 10 years.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 85437 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.

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:29:33 by SA7700]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 87712 times:

I was thinking more in a ferry or test flight, 4 crew for 8 passengers on board a twin jet of that capacity sounds crazy...

G.

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:28:27 by SA7700]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 87671 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.

[Edited 2012-12-29 05:47:32]

User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 90964 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



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineLH648 From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 579 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 90256 times:

2 confirmed dead.

RIP.



I hate Lufthansa
User currently offlineLH648 From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 579 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 90506 times:

Police representative live on Russian news just told that 3 people are dead.

No pax onboard.

Incoming from Pardubice, Czech Republic (PED)

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:08:21 by SA7700]


I hate Lufthansa
User currently onlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1401 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 90050 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.



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8766 posts, RR: 42
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 90184 times:

   and hopefully, the death toll will not increase

This COULD be the approximate site of the crash, reconstructed from the approach path on flightradar24.com and the photo in reply #9.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 89741 times:

Reuters says now 11 crew and no pax on board...

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineLH648 From Kazakhstan, joined Sep 2006, 579 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 90086 times:

Officially confirmed 2 dead, 5 injured, 3 of them in very bad condition.

Hospital representative told that persons passed away are in pilot's uniform.

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:09:36 by SA7700]


I hate Lufthansa
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17147 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 88287 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.

May they rest in peace.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 88900 times:

Video of the crash site and aircraft here:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/12/29/nyheter/utenriks/flykrasj/25014856/

Video to the right in the article

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:31:43]


Another posting of the video here:

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/verden/1.10855720


[Edited 2012-12-29 06:34:13]

User currently offlineokjet From Czech Republic, joined Jan 2006, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 88145 times:

Here is a picture of the aircraft departing from PED today.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karel Bohac



[Edited 2012-12-29 23:18:55 by SA7700]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 87370 times:

Quoting B747forever (Reply 34):
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.

Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2012-12-29 06:43:05]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineCassi From Hungary, joined Apr 2010, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 87272 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....


User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 87355 times:

RIP.

Quoting aloges (Reply 31):

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.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 86640 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.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineAirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 892 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 85664 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)?


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 85510 times:

Oh. My. God.

BBC says 8 pax and 4 crew - is that likely? At least the low count on board has resulted in relatively few casualties, but still a horrifying scene.

Prayers to all involved.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineLXa332 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 85025 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."

http://rt.com/news/plane-vnukovo-airport-moscow-073/


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12595 posts, RR: 34
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 84349 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.


User currently offlineLXa332 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 84037 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 45):
Seems very unlikely; the airport would not be able to operate without functioning emergency vehicles.

Agreed. Surely the fire would have burned more than only the right wing in 50 minutes, no?


User currently offlineirshava From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 83901 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.”
User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 2186 posts, RR: 28
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 83449 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.

[Edited 2012-12-29 07:51:10]


Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 81901 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.)



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 80740 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?

User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 80487 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)?

Correct, but nobody was killed in that crash.

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100322-1

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.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlineflyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 79465 times:

from NBC



User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 78401 times:

Looks lime people on the highway got lucky. Very lucky.


Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17147 posts, RR: 10
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 78414 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.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 77805 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.

User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 76666 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


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11708 posts, RR: 60
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 76199 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.


Dan.



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinesoyuz From Australia, joined Sep 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 74619 times:

Czech media also reporting that the aircraft was attempting to land a second time. My sencerest condolances to the families of the deceased.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6939 posts, RR: 12
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 72040 times:

RIP to the victims. What does a "forced landing" mean ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineUSAirways757 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 69909 times:

Quoting flyPBA (Reply 51):

Wow, RIP to those who perished and my condolences to the families.



737-300/400, 767-200, A319, 320, 321, 330/300, E-170/75/90, Dash-8
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 69192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlineflyingbird From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 68618 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.

http://www.flightradar24.com/2012-12-29/12:24/RWZ9268

http://i50.tinypic.com/2wr4776.png


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13129 posts, RR: 35
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 68306 times:

Someone captured the crash from the inside of his car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hEQdW6yS5o4



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 67090 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.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 67061 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):

Thank you for this video.

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.
User currently offlinepadster From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 66891 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):
Someone captured the crash from the inside of his car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yS5o4

That is chilling ! ... the car occupants were very very lucky there !!  Wow!


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 983 posts, RR: 10
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 67013 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):
Someone captured the crash from the inside of his car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yS5o4

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.

Pray for all affected.



LD4

[Edited 2012-12-29 14:29:51]


∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 66538 times:

Heck of a video - and a lucky driver/ passengers.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 66087 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.


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 66035 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...



xx
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65565 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

[Edited 2012-12-29 14:57:09]

User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65351 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


User currently offlinebogoss From China, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65047 times:

I thought it was a crash from the forced landing on the motorway from the title of this thread, guess I went too far...

My sincere condolences to the families that have lost their beloved ones and best luck to the survivors.


User currently offlineusxguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65115 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...


xx
User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 797 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65094 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.

ThomasCook

[Edited 2012-12-29 15:08:34]


A380 Crew
User currently offlinesulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 539 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 65964 times:

Here's a decent video (in Russian) from Vremya (Channel One - Russia) News:

http://www.1tv.ru/news/social/223201



In thrust we trust!
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 64246 times:

The video is most disturbing.


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 4089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 64043 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.


Norwegian article:

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10064014

Several pictures in this article ( use the arrows on the side of the picture to change picture )


User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12887 posts, RR: 46
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 63482 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):

It's clear from that video that the plane was still travelling at considerable speed when it hit the road embankment.  Wow!



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 63470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 62647 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"
User currently offlineburnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7564 posts, RR: 8
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 62031 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
User currently offlinerampkontroler From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 859 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61464 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.

User currently offlineTrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61846 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 

User currently offlinecomair25 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61235 times:

From the top 5 of the last 24 hours. Also a little bit creepy somebody actually caught her departing on her way to Moscow
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Red-Wings/Tupolev-Tu-204-100/2206717/L/


User currently offlinecapri From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 455 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61076 times:

So, from channel 1 video, he landed but couldn't stop and run off to motorway

there is a pic already of aircraft before leaving czech Republic
edited someone beat me by seconds and posted the pic already

[Edited 2012-12-29 17:45:53]

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11572 posts, RR: 52
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 60854 times:

Damn. That driver runs into a row of seats! Amazing video. How fortunate this was an empty flight.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 61007 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.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60718 times:

Amazing that it was going that fast well over 2 miles/3km from the runway threshold.

More will come out in the investigation.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60374 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.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60210 times:

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 90):

I measure it at about 300m.



What the...?
User currently offlineteneriffe77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60557 times:

The pic of the plane taking off on it's fatal flight reminds me of this pic from 1967 involving a TWA DC9-10 that collided w/ a Beechcraft 55 over Ohio that killed all 26 aboard both planes.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Trans...d=a5997c4a9d808d3528e42244dc326564


User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60139 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 92):

The landing one.


User currently offlineDizzy777 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60226 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?

it has a Flightcrew of two, although original Aeroflot requirement specified a flight engineer.

further info:

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=377


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 60279 times:

Quoting Dizzy777 (Reply 95):
it has a Flightcrew of two, although original Aeroflot requirement specified a flight engineer.

further info:

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-da...d=377

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?



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineDizzy777 From Australia, joined Dec 2009, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 59701 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


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58935 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.


User currently offlineThomasCook From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 797 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58904 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.

ThomasCook



A380 Crew
User currently offlineRIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58589 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."


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58414 times:

After striking a car, the nose wheel rolls down the highway for what must be a considerable distance.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently onlinehuxrules From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58372 times:

It was going very fast in that video. I wonder if it was trying to do a go around after a brake malfunction.

User currently offlineBralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 58551 times:

Quoting sulley (Reply 75):
Here's a decent video (in Russian) from Vremya (Channel One - Russia) News:

http://www.1tv.ru/news/social/223201

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.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 56753 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!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 56386 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."
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 56468 times:

Pictures of the doomed aircraft, taken just before its departure from PED:

   http://zkracovatko.cz/3SZYLr

   http://zkracovatko.cz/aoKuL9

arrival to PED yesterday morning (DEC 29): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJRkSt6Aq8w

[Edited 2012-12-29 22:06:43]

User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 55549 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?

http://www.planes.cz/cs/photo/115810...d-wings-rwz-wz-pardubice-ped-lkpd/

Also, do we know which aircraft it was that over ran with engines not reversing?

[Edited 2012-12-29 23:07:22]


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3340 posts, RR: 6
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 55230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!


\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2478 posts, RR: 24
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 54195 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 106):

It seems to be normal practice in Russia to place a camera on your car. Maybe due to insurance policies?


User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 980 posts, RR: 18
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 54200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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":


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto gorini


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitriy Pichugin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yury Stepanov


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Beltyukov - RuSpotters Team




FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 53911 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!
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 53638 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 !
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 53599 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


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 53174 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?


User currently onlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 52828 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.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 52637 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...

Anyway, there are four lanes, and the car that was hit was travelling on the rightmost one. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow%E2%80%93Saint_Petersburg_motorway, some highway lane width in Russia is 3.75 meters. Requirements and widths differ from highway to highway, I'll use a conservative number 3.5 meters. On US highways, shoulders should be 3.05 meters (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_standards), but I'll assume 2 meters again to be conservative.

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.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8766 posts, RR: 42
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 50827 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 113):
Can it be a ground contact for static electricity discharge??

exactly my thoughts

You can see the same kind of ground strap on this Tu-154:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Arkadiy Kataev




Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineNorthstar80 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 50706 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
User currently onlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 50346 times:

More footage, not of the crash but immediate aftermath: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1356848408


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineHywel From Malaysia, joined Apr 2008, 814 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 49359 times:

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

[Edited 2012-12-30 04:45:28]

User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 48246 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.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 48138 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?


User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17147 posts, RR: 10
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 47932 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.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 47877 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 120):

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.


User currently offlineushermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 47391 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.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineBralo20 From Belgium, joined May 2008, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 47490 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.

Belgian (French) source: http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/deta...sur-le-crash-du-tupolev?id=7899764
UK source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article3643467.ece


User currently onlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 47086 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.


User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 478 posts, RR: 11
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 47081 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.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 47093 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.


User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 47024 times:

Looking at that 2nd photo of the approach/landing, it looked to me like he was coming in a little high.

User currently offlinewomenbeshoppin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 46808 times:

Quoting rj777 (Reply 128):
Looking at that 2nd photo of the approach/landing, it looked to me like he was coming in a little high.

Give me a break. You are familiar with landing an aircraft at this particular moscow airport?


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 46630 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 117):
More footage, not of the crash but immediate aftermath: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1356848408

It looks like the highway is still open in the opposite direction and you even can see a car go by in the lanes where the debris lies.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 46706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

AvHerald is reporting it as well....

http://avherald.com/h?article=45ad34b5&opt=1


Sounds like the earlier overrun may have been due to lack of lube on a landing gear microswitch.

Would a failure of the air/ground mode switch on the TU-204 cause problems for brakes, thrust reversers, and spoilers?



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1996 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 46482 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.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 133, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 45706 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.

It has already come to light: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...nding/story-fn3dxix6-1226545506612

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.

Here's an earlier story with a headline that reaches an entirely different conclusion, but it includes the second part of that same quote: http://www.euronews.com/2012/12/30/i...pilot-error-for-russian-jet-crash/

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!
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 45451 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."



Hasn't is been refuted that the plane circled?


User currently offlinemanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 45632 times:

Here is Youtube footage of Moscow plane crash:

http://youtu.be/In607kR4HpQ


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 136, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 45352 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!
User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 480 posts, RR: 2
Reply 137, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 44542 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 62):

Someone captured the crash from the inside of his car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...yS5o4

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.


User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 138, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 44472 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":

Thanks for that!



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 139, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 41366 times:

Sadly, a 5th crewmember has died. They have released pics of those who died on Red Wings Twitter and facebook pages.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7968 posts, RR: 19
Reply 140, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 41224 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.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineaffirmative From France, joined Jul 2009, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 38782 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..



I love the smell of Jet-A1 in the morning...
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 142, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 38590 times:

Quoting Hywel (Reply 118):

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.

http://russianplanes.net/images/to95000/094177.jpg

http://russianplanes.net/images/to94000/093669.jpg

http://russianplanes.net/images/to95000/094178.jpg

Here is what I assume is the comparison between where the 134 was at 5m height and the 204 at approx the same height.

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5625/166530881.1/0_b66eb_e6a94bf_XXL



What the...?
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 38325 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.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 144, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 38196 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 107):
Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 106):

It seems to be normal practice in Russia to place a camera on your car. Maybe due to insurance policies?

A couple of recent items on "dashcams" in Russia.
http://www.rferl.org/content/dash-ca...nd-scams-car-crashes/24780355.html
http://www.animalnewyork.com/2012/russian-dashcam/


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 145, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 37825 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.

[Edited 2012-12-30 13:56:32]

[Edited 2012-12-30 14:40:58]

User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 146, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 37049 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 145):

Lucky for that car that the wheel hit the top of that structure first! I suspect that slowed the tire quite a bit!



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 147, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 37137 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 143):

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.


http://russianplanes.net/id94179



What the...?
User currently offlinea380heavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 35458 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?



Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28
User currently offlineflood From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1383 posts, RR: 1
Reply 149, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 35512 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.


Interesting comparison, thanks.

http://russianplanes.net/images/to95000/094178.jpg



User currently onlinetorontofly From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 35577 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Picture 1 is taken from http://russianplanes.net/ID94178
Picture 2 is taken from (approx 15 sec) http://russianplanes.net/id94179

And this is how these two landings look when you put them together



You can see the difference in pitch angle and altitude at the same location.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17180 posts, RR: 66
Reply 151, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 34728 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."
User currently onlinetorontofly From Canada, joined Dec 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 34578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 151):
Welcome to A.nut!


Thanks a lot!

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.


User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 34390 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.


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 34095 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?


User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 34114 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.


User currently offlineCactus105 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 59 posts, RR: 0
Reply 156, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 33587 times:

Quoting horstroad (Reply 154):
maybe he was too fast?

  
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...



Wherever you go, there you are.
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 157, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 32625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 158, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 31045 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!
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 159, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 30999 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.


I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 738 posts, RR: 1
Reply 160, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 30843 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Lokomotiv_Yaroslavl_air_disaster


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 161, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 30727 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.



What the...?
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 162, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 30219 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.

User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 163, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 29901 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.



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 498 posts, RR: 0
Reply 164, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 28657 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.

User currently offlinesmws From Estonia, joined Jun 2012, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 165, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 28712 times:

Information trickling in. It wasn't an issue with the runway, at least:

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20121231/178..._Runway_Not_a_Factor_in_Fatal.html


User currently offlineCaptainmeeerkat From Russia, joined Aug 2010, 398 posts, RR: 1
Reply 166, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 25702 times:

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45b4b3cb&opt=0

From the AvHerald:

"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?



my luggage is better travelled than me!
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 167, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 25568 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!
User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 168, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 25375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineF9animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5125 posts, RR: 28
Reply 169, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 24535 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!!

Again.. Not a pilot, so I dont want a bashing!  



I Am A Different Animal!!
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 170, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 24349 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.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6641 posts, RR: 55
Reply 171, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 23996 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.


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1572 posts, RR: 6
Reply 172, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 23938 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?



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinetp1040 From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 173, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23901 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.

Something did not slow him down.


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 174, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23321 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?