Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

64947 · Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:09 pm

Today experts have revealed their preliminary findings in the cause of the crash of an Airbus 310 belonging to Sibir Airlines on July 9th flying a domestic scheduled passenger flight from Moscow Domodedovo International Airport to Irkursk International Airport.

Experts have managed to reconstruct the events of the crash at Irkutsk. Upon landing, the aircraft left the runway, collided with structures because its left engine went to TO thrust during landing.

Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W)

Commander of the A310 Sergei Shabanov landed the aircraft perfectly - in accordance to all regulations and flight manuals. After landing the braking systems functioned properly - wheel brakes, flaps, spoilers. All automatic systems were functioning properly.

For unknown reasons, some time before the crash the left engine reverse systems had problems switching on after landing (during the last several flights) but the aircraft is certified to land with no reverse and the problem was deemed to not be critical and would be adressed during the next B check (in 3 flights). The flight data recorder showed that the left engine was set to idle after landing but when Shabanov decided to shorten the landing run on the wet runway and turned on the reverse of the right engine, the left engine went to Maximum Thrust. The brakes, spoilers and flaps could not handle the ammount of thrust generated by the left engine and the aircraft quickly left the runway to the right.

As a result of the crash, 124 passengers died.

http://www.avia.ru/news/?id=1154586534

cedarjet · Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:22 pm

It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. Cancelling reverse thrust and bringing both throttles to the flight idlep position would have helped. I guess they thought they were battling a gust of wind or something.

bennett123 · Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:31 pm

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19950331-0&lang=en

I seem to recall that in this crash, that the autopilot was a factor.

I thought that if the engine power on one side reduced that the other engine power was increased automatically to compensate.

jeb94 · Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:58 pm

This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft. Control systems, thrust reversers included, are airframe components made by the airframe manufacturer, not the engine manufacturer.

Aviator27 · Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:19 pm

When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.

If only one reverser deployed, while both engines were spooling up to maximum thrust, it would create a serious situation.

Sitting online and having the benefit of hindsight is great. One's reaction time isn't what it is suppose to be after flying on the back side of the clock. I have been there and done that.

Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.

Buyantukhaa · Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:33 pm

Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter):
The flight data recorder showed that the left engine was set to idle after landing but when Shabanov decided to shorten the landing run on the wet runway and turned on the reverse of the right engine, the left engine went to Maximum Thrust.

Very strange... How can an engine go to full thrust if (presumably) you don't touch the throttle?

Is it allowed to use reverse thrust on only one engine?

Flaps · Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:55 pm

I do recall some years back that our P&W powered 310's had to have their reverseres locked out for a period of several months due to a similar problem. This did not effect our GE versions, just the P&W's.

mika · Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:03 pm

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3):
This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft.

I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to make statements like that.

FlyHoss · Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:38 pm

After reading the thread-starter's post, I thought of this incident:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020828-1&lang=en

In this case, the captain inadvertently moved the #1 power lever to the TOGA (take off/go-around) thrust position while #2 remained in reverse.

jeb94 · Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:54 pm

Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.

IceTitan447 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:02 am

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4):
When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.

I know for most on this forum that is probably common knowledge, that being said I didn't know that, and thanks for sharing it.

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9):
Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.

It was nice to read you few posts, you sounded like you have the knowledge of situation. You made it clear and painted a easy picture to follow.

miamiair · Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:05 am

Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter):
Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W)

Hogwash. "Must???" You are assessing the blame already? It is likely that the manufacturer of the engine will be supporting the investigation. Anything can happen with accidents, but the A310 is not a new airframe, and therefore the maintenance of the powerplant is one area to be scrutinized, not the design.

Quoting Mika (Reply 7):
I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to make statements like that.

What qualifications do you posess that allow you to make that judgement?

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9):

Your statement is on the money.

OV735 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 1):
It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do.

According to the article posted by Tu204, it wasn't. The problem was that the left engine went to full take-off thrust. I'm pretty sure they would have managed to keep the plane on the runway with one engine in reverse and another at idle, but in this case, one was in reverese, and the other was developing full power.

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4):
When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust.

I might be mistaken here, but would a reversed engine really be running in full power? I always thought it would go only to around half power, if even that.

Regards,
OV735

LTU330 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:10 am

Reverse thrust never reaches take off or go around power on a high bypass Engine. Maximum is usually about 70 to 75 percent, give or take a few percent.

LTU330 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:12 am

Further to my previous post, as extra information, the Engine is only re-directing cold first stage fan air. None of the 'hot' air, as in air that has passed through the main compression stages and turbine stages is redirected.

WildcatYXU · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:16 am

If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident. Look at this one:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19910526-0&lang=en

CruzinAltitude · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4):
Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.

All who second this motion say Aye!

brdcessna · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 20):
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4):
Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this.

All who second this motion say Aye!

AYE AYE.
I will sit here quietly and await ALL facts before getting involved in this one lol

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9):
Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.

Thanks for the insight, its nice to have info like that on hand.

mika · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:59 am

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9):
Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash.

I respect your clear and humble approach Jeb94 and i am sure that you know alot about A/C mechanics that i do not. What i was trying to imply though was that you (nor anyone else of us in here) know what caused the crash and what did not cause it. In my mind it was just too drastic for someone here with no insight in the investigation to say that it was NOT (or that it was for that matter) anything wrong with the engine itself.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 11):
What qualifications do you posess that allow you to make that judgement?

At the time when i made that comment; A broad mind and open view for what could have caused the accident.

jeb94 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:11 am

The engine didn't fail. It didn't hiccup. It didn't burst into flames. It didn't throw blades. It simply went to full power. Turbine engines don't go to full power on their own. They are commanded to go to full power. That is what I was trying to say. That command on older aircraft comes from pushrods, cables, pulleys, and levers. On newer aircraft it comes from a computer that can either be sending a signal to another computer for FADEC engines or to an electric motor driving mechanical linkages. I'm sure I fell victim to a mistranslation on the part of the original poster but to say that P&W must answer for this is what I reacted to. If anything the engine manufacturer holds the least amount of blame, if any. The investigators are the ones that will determine blame and I'm sure both European organizations and the NTSB will provide as much assitance as they can as requested by the Russians. The data is there, it just needs to be put together and interpreted by the experts, which I'm not. I'm just a mechanic working as a Maintenance Controller.

Flaps · Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:19 am

Quoting LTU330 (Reply 18):
Further to my previous post, as extra information, the Engine is only re-directing cold first stage fan air. None of the 'hot' air, as in air that has passed through the main compression stages and turbine stages is redirected

This is correct. In addition, in order for the reversers to be engaged the throrttle must be lifted up and pulled back into the detent in order for the buckets to deploy.

Assuming that all of the info above is correct may I suggest a POSSIBLE scenario. Let me make myself clear, I am not stating or suggesting that this happened, just that this may be a possible scenario:

Upon landing and finding that decelleration was unsatisfactory and upon encountering difficulties with the reversers the crew or one of the crew decided to abort the landing and go around. In doing so, could the right throttle have stuck in the reverse detent while a slipping hand knocked the left throttle forward. I have seen sweaty palms and/or loose or improperly adjusted friction locks lead to some pretty wild (albeit extremely brief) power excursions. On a wet runway at high speed, such a scenerio would be instantaneously devastating.

Again, let me make myself clear, I am not saying this is what occurred here, I am just suggesting one possible scenario that could cause the events as listed at the top of the post. There are many other possibilities to be sure.

777Dad · Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 20):

Aye,
Jeff

Qantas744er · Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:46 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19):
If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident.

We all know that terrible incident, Niki Lauda, back then the owner of Lauda Air, and himself a certified pilot on the 767 and 777, helped to prove boeing and PW there was a problem with the T/R lock mechanism. But this problem has been solved since then, and PW engines have done what they were made for doing safely.

But we also know the SU incident, were over Siberia, a SU 310 crashed, because the pilot let his children into the cockpit, and his son deactivated the LNAV, meaning that the plane started to veer off to the right in a steep turn. And the plane eventually crashed. But all the Captain had to do was release the sitck, and the FBW would of put the plane back into proper flight position.

And as stated in the Nacional Geographich report, these were SU's best trained pilots. And for now none of us know the reason and all we can do is speculate. But in my opinion PW or in general the engine manifacturer is just used as the dirty towl, only because of 1 previouse incident.

Maybe the pilot activated TO/GA but this is just an opinion..

Cheers Leo

Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:44 am

Is there any information yet about the pilot's and F/O's skill level in that type - how many hours of experience did they have in the A310?

This is not to badmouth anybody or anything, but it seems to me that on more than one occasion A300's and A310's have done things like this because the FBW software was designed to "think beyond" the pilots in some ways. And when it "thought beyond" what the pilot's goals or intentions were, it did more than the pilots wanted, needed or intended the aircraft to do, which means the aircraft did NOT do what the pilots requested it to do. And often it seems like some of the pilots who have had problems like this are new or newer to the Airbus, meaning they came from a machine with less automation to mediate their flying.

Some of the stuff designed into Airbus FBW software and other control systems is absolutely amazing and futuristic. One reason for it is to protect from the occasional human error. But, if you are in command of an aircraft and you are telling IT what to do but the machine disagrees then does what it believes is right, even though it is not really able to judge all the conditions that apply, who is all this automation really protecting?

This is akin to me slamming on the brakes of my car because a child who is chasing a ball darts out into the street. But the car disagrees with me (because, lets say, it has sensors but the sensors can only pick up larger creatures, like a deer or a moose, but not a child) and believes there is no child running into the street so it disables my brakes and locks my steering for a dead-on course. But, before this incident, the car picked up a deer crossing the road and manuevered me out of harm's way.

I will probably get singed by the flames of this post, but all input appreciated.

scarebus03 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:52 am

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 27):
But we also know the SU incident, were over Siberia, a SU 310 crashed, because the pilot let his children into the cockpit, and his son deactivated the LNAV, meaning that the plane started to veer off to the right in a steep turn. And the plane eventually crashed. But all the Captain had to do was release the sitck, and the FBW would of put the plane back into proper flight position.

A310 is not a fly by wire aircraft. The co/pilot in the crash you mention had the seat too far back from the controls to reach them in the ensuing dive after the inadvertent disconnection of the autopilot.

Thank you Jeb for a level headed post in relation to the topic at hand. Yes it does sound airframe related and not engine. It will be interesting to see the full report. I hope the t/r wasn't incorrectly deactivated

Brgds
SB03

A320ajm · Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:48 am

You would think that the two different engines would be on seperste systems so the operation of the right engine (reverse thrust) should have no effect on the other engine (full thrust).

Qantas744er · Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:52 am

Quoting Scarebus03 (Reply 29):
A310 is not a fly by wire aircraft. The co/pilot in the crash you mention had the seat too far back from the controls to reach them in the ensuing dive after the inadvertent disconnection of the autopilot.

Yes but when the russian investigator, who was a Certified pilot on the A310 that was also involved in the certification of the plane, visited the airbus plant in Tolouse to find out what happened in the SU crash he did a flight under the same conditions in the simulator, and the plane went into a sharp right turn causing a dive, he released the stick and the plane leveled out again.

And the cause of the crash was also related to the fact that the pilots were not aware of the fact that the LNAV (lateral Navigation) deactivated. They even managed to pull out of 1 dive, but by pulling to hard the plane whent up again and eventually stalled.

The A310 does have a mechanism to prevent it from stalling by leveling out with the A/P over VNAV (vertical navigation), and by pulling the stick the F/O was fighting the A/P. And preventing it to level out again.

The seat was also factor, but read a more detailed report, and you will find the other factors.

Maybe the pilot activated the T/R of both engines, but only the right main gear touched down, meaning that the left engine whent back to idle.. but i have no idea about the full thrust factor on the left engine.

Cheers Leo

boeingfixer · Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:14 am

Quoting Flaps (Reply 24):
In addition, in order for the reversers to be engaged the throrttle must be lifted up and pulled back into the detent in order for the buckets to deploy.

This may be the case with more modern Airbus aircraft but the A310 has separate Reverse Thrust levers that are attached to the forward side of the Thrust Levers. At touchdown, the Thrust levers are all the way back to Idle and the Reverse Thrust Levers are pulled out of their stowed position and rotated up and back to provide reverse thrust.

There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread on how the A310 PW reverser system works and I highly doubt that the L/H engine went to max power. With a reverser locked out. Here is a warning directly out of the A310 MEL:

CAUTION:Raising the inoperative thrust reverser control lever will result in an increase of forward thrust to 40 percent N1.

Taking this into account if the pilot flying pulled both Reverse Thrust levers out of the stowed position, he would command a forward thrust increase on the locked out reverser while getting reverse thrust out of the normal reverser. This would result in an uncontrollable situation, especially on a wet runway.

I'm not saying that this is what happened but a little understanding of the system is in order. BTW, I'll wait until the experts release their findings.

Cheers,

John

greasespot · Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:26 am

Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter):
Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W)

P&W ssupplies all engines to both airbus and boeing minus a Nose cowl and Thrust reverser.....Those are then bolted on by the builder of the airframe and therefore supplied by them...If the Russian investigators say it was caused by the Thrust reverser then It therefore cannot be the fault of P&W....

Now i am reaching a bit here and using what i know from other engines...If the interconnect shaft that connects the FCU and Fuel pump was to shear i believe the fuel pump will then just deliver as much fuel to the engine as it can burn...Essentially going to full power with out crews command. Note: it may not be the same in large P&W engines...

GS

GS

wjcandee · Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:54 am

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 15):
If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident

There is no indication of any kind of systemic or manufacturer-based problems with P&W thrust reversers. There was a failure mode that wasn't anticipated in one model of engine. It was fixed. End of story.

Ever since that accident, of course, the media asks about thrust reversers in every 767 incident, and of course the answer is ultimately "No". Similarly, EgyptAir tried to say that their plainly-suicidal pilot (who couldn't have been, according to them, because he was a religious man) didn't crash their 767 into the Atlantic. No...it was the thrust reverser. Yep. That's the ticket.

DIA · Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:30 pm

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3):
This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft. Control systems, thrust reversers included, are airframe components made by the airframe manufacturer, not the engine manufacturer.

Best approach and insight I've read on this thread.

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 19):
The engine didn't fail. It didn't hiccup. It didn't burst into flames. It didn't throw blades. It simply went to full power. Turbine engines don't go to full power on their own. They are commanded to go to full power.

The engines are commanded to go to the power they are told. (Good point) The multiple systems and components in the A310 that command this (less the pilot) should bare the root of this horrific incident.

Name one incident -ever- where an engine went to full power unprovoked (basically, on its own with no a/c systems (or human) telling it to do so).

Sure, there have been complete engine failures both contained and uncontained (Delta MD-88s have had them, the Airtran A320 leaving ATL, the Emirates 773 down under, the recent A^A 762 at LAX, etc.)...but not a case where the engine went to max on its own...

This engine was a P&W...it wasn't built by Ford.

AirWillie6475 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:00 pm

WTF? If this is true, this must be one of the strangest crashes in aviation history. I had to read the paragraph 2 times to make sure I was reading right. An engine going full power on it's own? Sounds like bullshit to me.

AirWillie6475 · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:07 pm

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 1):
It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do.

Yea I think so too. If one engine is on reverse thrust and one engine is full power it is practically impossible to correct even with full opposite rudder unless you immediately apply full oposite rudder but pilots don't have that kind of reflexes I would imagine becaue they need a few seconds to realise what's happening.

boeingfixer · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:27 pm

Quoting DIA (Reply 33):
Name one incident -ever- where an engine went to full power unprovoked (basically, on its own with no a/c systems (or human) telling it to do so).

Ok... The JT8D FCU has a fail safe feature that if the FCU internal governor fails it goes to full power with no way to control it other than to shut it down. We were doing a post 'C' check run-up on a 737-200 and when starting #2 engine it accelerated straight through idle and right up to max power. It's a very startling thing to happen but is a safety feature of the engine and we shut it down immediately.

I know you were probably looking for a NTSB incident but I can tell you it happens and has happened in the air resulting in shut-downs.

Cheers,

John

DIA · Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:45 pm

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 36):
Ok... The JT8D FCU has a fail safe feature that if the FCU internal governor fails it goes to full power with no way to control it other than to shut it down. We were doing a post 'C' check run-up on a 737-200 and when starting #2 engine it accelerated straight through idle and right up to max power. It's a very startling thing to happen but is a safety feature of the engine and we shut it down immediately.

I know you were probably looking for a NTSB incident but I can tell you it happens and has happened in the air resulting in shut-downs.

I went fishing and I caught a challenger.

BoeingFixer: First of all, thanks for your insight. Secondly, is this type of technological (or engineering) breakdown, if you will, specific to the JT8D or does it also apply to the JT9D (as on the A310 in question)? And when you say this happens every now-and-then...are you saying this in reference to RR, GE, etc? Perhaps more common than people think?

lhrmaccoll · Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:52 pm

Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3):
This isn't a malfunction of the engine.

Well, no it could be.
Airbus don't make the internal computers of P&Ws engines.
Then again it could be an airbus computer malfunction.

Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

RE: Cause Of Crash Determined - S7 778

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net