Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 43): Where did you read that?

German news mag "Der Spiegel", which referred to a statement of an Ukrainian ministry. Thus I considered this information trustworthy.

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 50): I thought after we landed the second time how silly It was for me to think that there was any statistical chance of us actually crashing, but now i'm scared because it was more likely than I thought.

Why was it more likely? Sorry, but this statement smells.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 52): Why was it more likely?

Because its a Soviet era Airliner which is notorious for being less safe than western aircraft. Western airlines have tighter controls, and higher standards for maintenance so I still believe my fears were at least mildly justified.

Having flown on those flights, I can definately say that the cabin was not up to the worst standards on western airlines

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 52): Sorry, but this statement smells.

Tell that to the crash victims

R.I.P

Sad News. Ne 1 with pics of the crashed jet.

Rgds

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 52): Why was it more likely? Sorry, but this statement smells.

Huh?
The poster is saying that he flew on the same airline, same aircraft-type just last week. While on those flights, he thought about crashing (a morbid thought a lot of people have while boarding airliners everyday, I'm guessing). It sounds like today's sad crash sort of legitimized his fears.

Nothing more than that.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 55): Huh? The poster is saying that he flew on the same airline, same aircraft-type just last week. While on those flights, he thought about crashing (a morbid thought a lot of people have while boarding airliners everyday, I'm guessing). It sounds like today's sad crash sort of legitimized his fears. Nothing more than that.

Thank you

The only way they can start finding out what really happened is to find out what started the fire on the plane before it crashed. They need to check the black boxes for the telltale signs of an explosion; if that is the case we may have to consider the possibility that a Chechen terrorist managed to sneak some sort of explosive device on the plane and detonated the device.  

registration number is 85185. Was built in 1992 and had flown a little over 24000 hours

Thanks SU! That puts to rest the aging debate. It is (speculatively) looking more like a sad combination of turbulence and lightning, rather than a pilot or maintenance issue. I have flown on SU, PC, S7, and Aeroflot-Don without hesitation each time, and while there are certainly problems in the post-Soviet aviation sector, jumping to conclusions is rarely the way to go.

Quoting SU (Reply 58): registration number is 85185. Was built in 1992 and had flown a little over 24000 hours

Here's a pic of the exact aircraft 85185.

View Large View Medium

Photo © Uwe Lokowand


RIP

-Zaki

UPDATED INFORMATION FROM THE BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5274958.stm
Tuesday, 22 August 2006, 15:09 GMT 16:09 UK

Quote: A Russian plane has crashed in eastern Ukraine killing all 170 people on board, Russian officials say. The Tupolev-154 was flying from southern Russia to St Petersburg when it disappeared from radar screens following a distress signal. Rescue workers at the scene had found the airliner's blazing wreckage, Ukraine's emergencies ministry said. A Russian official said 30 bodies had been found at the crash site, about 45km (30 miles) north of Donetsk. The crew sent a distress signal at 1537 Moscow time (1137 GMT), and the plane disappeared from radar screens at 1539 (1139 GMT), Irina Andrianova of Russia's Emergencies Ministry told Itar-Tass news agency. The plane belongs to St Petersburg-based Pulkovo airlines, she said. The plane had 160 passengers and 10 crew on board, and was travelling from the Black Sea resort of Anapa, emergency officials said. Reports of the cause of the crash were confused. Ukraine emergencies ministry spokesman Igor Krol said the crew had decided to make an emergency landing after a fire broke out onboard. The plane's landing gear failed to deploy normally and the aircraft crashed "on its belly," Mr Krol told the French news agency AFP. But Russian officials told the Itar-Tass news agency that the plane had encountered severe weather conditions before it came down. Ms Andrianova said the available information suggested "the plane most likely was hit by lightning". "After it fell, it broke apart and burst into flames," she said in comments on Russian television. Russian media reports said President Vladimir Putin had been informed of the crash. The crash comes less than two months after at least 124 people died when a Russian Airbus A-310 skidded off a runway and burst into flames in the city of Irkutsk in Siberia.

[Edited 2006-08-22 17:22:03]

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 33): There's only been 3 major crashes involving Russian airliners and only this one is fatal AFAIK. The Il-62 that crashed in April or May and the Russian AF Tu-134 were both without fatalities. I love how the American media always assumes the reason a Russian plane crashes is because it is old or something related.

You say "only 3 major crashes" like it's an enviable statistic. If there had been 3 major crashes in the US, the world would be in an uproar.

FLY2LIM

I have never responded to a post like this before because I never felt I could say anything that would help the topic. However, I read this and saw that it contained new information that had yet to be discussed there. People are anxiously waiting for answers and I wanted to share this.

It now sounds like the cause for the fire was lightning. They have also ruled out terrorism.

Link

Such a shame. The Tu-154 is a really sweet plane. All they are trying to do is build more reliable, efficient, and helpful commercial airline service in the former Soviet Union to make everyone's life better, and this happens. More importantly, and sadly, 171 unique individuals are gone forever.

  

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 53): Because its a Soviet era Airliner which is notorious for being less safe than western aircraft. Western airlines have tighter controls, and higher standards for maintenance so I still believe my fears were at least mildly justified.

So my nose didn't fail me. Would you mind sharing hard facts that support your theory? Pulkovo may be poor in service terms, but I did not hear about any security issues with them.

And the TU154 had 5 crashes in the past 5 years. 1 due to a believed terror act, 1 due to ATC mistake (crashed into another plane over the Bodensee), 1 was accidentally shot down by a military missile, 1 crashed during approach in Iran, and 1 during approach towards Novosibirsk.

That does not sound overly notorious to me.

But hey - it's a Soviet aircraft and a Soviet airline, so it must be unsafe, right?
According to that logic, one may argue that it was the victims' own fault. Rather cynical, I would say.

Just because it was a Soviet era jet doesn't make it unsafe. Even the newest most modern western jet can fail if the airline it belongs to does not maintain it properly or does not fully comprehend its complexity. Weather has claimed more than its fair share of commercial aircraft over the years. Too often Russian airlines are characterized as third world and that simply isn't a fair statement. I will save my opinions until the facts come forward. For now I extend my sympathy to the vicitims and their families.

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 62): If there had been 3 major crashes in the US, the world would be in an uproar.

Or at least the US would.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 66): Just because it was a Soviet era jet doesn't make it unsafe

Totally correct. The T-154 is a very good plane even though it is old. The only reason for their problems is bad maintenance.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 65): But hey - it's a Soviet aircraft and a Soviet airline, so it must be unsafe, right? According to that logic, one may argue that it was the victims' own fault. Rather cynical, I would say.

Are you kidding? Your nose needs attention because I think you are reading into one post WAY TOO MUCH! Chill out! Heck, the poster did say he flew on the aircraft, didn't he? He didn't say he was trembling with fear, did he? He didn't say it was unsafe because it was Soviet, did he?

It is true that Soviet-era aircraft do not enjoy an enviable reputation in the US, partly because of inaccurate news media reports (and in some cases, lack of them). But I do believe that if you fly on a Soviet-made aircraft by an airline from a former Soviet-bloc country, then yes you are statistically less safe than a random flight in the US or Europe. Whether that means the plane came down by missile, bomb, or lightening. Having crappy service can only reinforce the rag-tag operation and shoestring budget some carriers live by. Stick your nose in that.

Honestly, I'd love to have the opportunity to fly a Soviet airliner one day. I have not, to date, but this really is not the thread to be discussing this. 170+ people just perished and hundreds of other lives just completely changed forever - this should be the real focus. One day, we'll know the cause of this crash. That day isn't going to be today.

I know this thread is like beating a dead dog... but I can't help myself. All of these comments about Russian aircraft being sub par is hogwash. It's not the manufacturer's job to govern and put safety procedures and regulations in place. I fault their government agencies for these accidents, is as much as look at NW. They fly DC-9's. I flew for AirTran. Together, FL and NW flew some of the oldest planes in the industry. They are now, still, airworthy. So, it's the individual companies and the governments that that are to blame, not the airframe. Come on.

Quoting Afay1 (Reply 45): They also should be more careful as the Tu-154 is Soviet-made, not Russian-made.

.

Quoting SU (Reply 58): registration number is 85185. Was built in 1992 and had flown a little over 24000 hours

As this aircraft was built in 1992, it is a Russian aircraft, as the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. Anyway, most of the Tu-154 (even built before 1991) can also be called "Russian", as Tupolev, just like Ilyushin, is a Russian company, unlike Antonov who is Ukrainian.

Besides, is't it a group of people who design, build, and maintain an aircraft? Isn't it a group of people who govern all of this? And isn't it true that people, humans, certify an equipment type for service. It would not get that certification unless it was safe enough. There are long chains of events that cause an accident. But I find it hard to swallow that a plane, by itself, can be to blame.

Seems there were 45 kids aboard, returning from vacation. Why are there so many kids in accidents  

From El Mundo

Quote: La compañía Púlkovo, propietaria del avión, había informado de que a bordo había 11 tripulantes y 160 pasajeros, incluidos 45 niños que regresaban de sus vacaciones en el balneario ruso de Anapa, en el mar Negro, a San Petersburgo para el inicio del año escolar. En la nave siniestrada viajaban 39 niños de hasta 12 años de edad más seis bebés menores de dos años, dijo un representante de la compañía al diario digital Gazeta.ru.

This is very sad. May God embrace them all..

Asturias

Greek media says it fell into a heavy turbulences’ zone and fire was ignited on board, in the cabin possibly by lightning and at 10000 feet. They tried to make an emergency landing but the (or some of the) wheels didn’t deploy and it crashed-landed with the belly.

That is the first flight I read about that crashed because of turbulence.

Is it the first one (turbulence, not windshear)?

Kay

Quoting ATA1011Tristar (Reply 61): It now sounds like the cause for the fire was lightning. They have also ruled out terrorism.

Ugh! I'll excuse this because your profile says you're 16-20.

The crash happened TODAY. Nothing can be ruled in or out. Nobody can even say definitively if there was lightning, if there was a fire or anything else yet.

I don't care what these so-called officials are saying. They haven't even had access to the FDR or CVR yet. Most of them probably haven't even seen the wreckage.

It's apparently some kind of cultural thing in the former Soviet republics to just spout your mouth off on anything even if you're an official that's supposed to know better. In the west, you'd never see anyone even speculating on the cause of the crash yet in an official capacity. (Off the record, maybe, and the media is obviously free to draw whatever erroneous conclusions they want, but *officials* in Europe, Canada and the US do not make statements like what I'm reading so far so soon after the accident, to the point of contradicting what they've said just a few minutes earlier.)

Let's all take a step back and realize that, like in every other crash, the cause will not be definitively known for at least several weeks or months, and that's assuming the recorders are in good condition. You can speculate all you want, and I do that as much as anybody here, but you can't read what any of these officials are saying right now and assume they know any more than you do. You also have to assume that anything you speculate on, and anything anybody else says at this point, has a good chance of being proven wrong in the end.

Very Sad news. And Spacecadet, you hit your last paragraph right on the money! Let's not make things up and get into a flame war over something that can be explained, no matter how long it may take.

Very sad - I think this picture says it all.

Very sad picture right there, I wouldn't think anybody could survive a total disintegration of the aircraft like that.

Quoting Pillowtester (Reply 76): Very sad picture right there, I wouldn't think anybody could survive a total disintegration of the aircraft like that.

Sadly, I believe you are correct. The latest reports are that there are no survivors from this crash.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 70): This is very sad. May God embrace them all..

Couldn't have said it better myself.

This crash is tragic, indeed. May those who died rest in peace. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of those affected. God be with all of them.

RIP





[Edited 2006-08-22 19:53:17]

Very sad news. Apparetnly there were many duitch people on board.
May they rest in peace

Quoting Afay1 (Reply 43): They also should be more careful as the Tu-154 is Soviet-made, not Russian-made.

The Tu-154M is certainly not a very modern plane, but they were made up through the 1990s and many relatively new planes are flying. I remember how many people assumed that it was outdated technology that caused the Tu154 midair collision with a DHL757 over Europe a few years ago despite the fact that the Russian plane was only 10 years old and is fairly comparable to the 757.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 33): There's only been 3 major crashes involving Russian airliners and only this one is fatal AFAIK. The Il-62 that crashed in April or May and the Russian AF Tu-134 were both without fatalities. I love how the American media always assumes the reason a Russian plane crashes is because it is old or something related.

While there have only been three crashes involving Russian jets this year, there have been three fatal crashes in that region recently. There was the Armenian A320, S7 A310 and now a Pulkovo Tu154. Two of the planes were from Airbus, but I think regardless of manufacturer, aviation in the former Soviet Union is not as safe as the United States or Western Europe. If you compare the number of flights within the United States, to those of all the former Soviet States, then there is a huge disparity.

The plane cought fire at 10 000 meters.

45 of the ones killed were children according to Norwegian press.

Quoting AirTran717 (Reply 67): All of these comments about Russian aircraft being sub par is hogwash.

Amen brotha   .



I'm still not too convinced it was lightning. Planes get struck by lightning the whole time, and at most they'll get a round charred spot on the fuselage and maybe radio failure, or if on fiberglass then some cracks, but thats about it.

Anyways, we very well might not know what really happened until many months, or maybe a year, after the accident.

An article on MSNBC.com said that the pilot made 3-4 radio calls as had some problem, that may have had problems going above the storm, descended to 10,000 ft and things got bad from there. I have problems as to a lighting strike hitting the a/c and causing a problem as they are designed to take them.
Noting that apparently was a full flight, and possible maximum flight height of this model a/c, could that have limited the pilot from going to a higher altitude to go over the storm?
Still, it is a tragedy. 170 people are dead.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 81): I remember how many people assumed that it was outdated technology that caused the Tu154 midair collision with a DHL757 over Europe a few years ago despite the fact that the Russian plane was only 10 years old and is fairly comparable to the 757

This crash was by no means related to the T54 nor 757 and that has been discussed here on A.net very recently.

The TU-154 crashes all the time. In fact it has a history of incidents with over 2500 deaths. Not safe under any circumstances....

02.19.1973 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154 66:100
Prague, Czechoslovakia SSSR-85023

09.30.1975 Malev Tupolev TU-154B 60:60
Beirut, Lebanon HA-LCI

06.01.1976 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154A 46:46
Nacias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea SSSR-85102

12.02.1977 Balkan Bulgarian Airlines Tupolev TU-154B 59:165
Al Bayda, Lebanon LZ-BTN

07.07.1980 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 166:166
Alma-Ata, Kasakastan SSSR-85355

11.16.1981 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 99:167
Nor'ilsk, Russia SSSR-85480

10.11.1984 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 174:175 + 4

Omsk, Russia SSSR-85243
12.23.1984 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 110:110

Kranoyarsk, Russia SSSR-85338
07.10.1985 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 200:200

Uchuduk, Uzbekistan SSSR-85311
01.18.1988 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154B 11:143

Krosnovodsk, Turkmenistan SSSR-85254
05.23.1991 Aeroflot Tupolev TU-154 13:178

Leningrad, Russia SSSR-85097
07.20.1992 Georgian Air Tupolev TU-154B 24:24
Tbilisi, Georgia SSSR-85222

02.08.1993 Iran Air Tupolev TU-154M 132:132 Tehran, Iran EP-ITD

09.22.1993 Transair Georgia Tupolev TU-154B 106:132
Sukhumi, Georgia SSSR-85163

01.03.1994 Baikal Air Tupolev TU-154M 124:124 + 1
Irkutsk, Russia RA-85656

06.06.1994 China Northwest Airlines Tupolev TU-154B 160:160
Xi'an, China B-2694

12.07.1995 Far East Aviation Tupolev TU-154B
97:97
Grossevichi, Russia RA-85164

08.29.1996 Vnokovo Airlines Tupolev TU-154 141:141
Spitsbergen, Norway RA-85621

09.13.1997 Luftwaffe Tupolev TU-154 24:24
Namibia, Africa ---

12.15.1997 Tajikistan Airlines Tupolev TU-154 85:86
Sharjah, United Arab Emirates EY-85281

08.29.1998 Cubana de Aviacion Tupolev TU-154M 69:90
Quito, Ecuador CU-T1264

02.24.1999 China Southwest Airlines Tupolev TU-154M 61:61
Rui'an, China B-2622

07.03.2001 Vladivostok Avia Tupolev TU-154M 145:145
Burdanovka, Russia RA-85845

10.04.2001 Sibir Airlines Tupolev TU-154M 77:77
Black Sea - off Sochi, Russia RA-85693

02.12.2002 Iran Air Tours Tupolev TU-154M 118:118
Khorramabad, Iran EP-MBS

07.01.2002 Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev TU-154M 69:69
Ueberlingen, Germany RA-85816

08.24.2004 Sibir Airlines Tupolev TU-154B2 46:46
Millerovo, Russia RA-85556

08.22.2006 Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise Tupolev TU-154M 171:171
Donetsk, Ukraine RA-85185

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 55): They need to check the black boxes for the telltale signs of an explosion; if that is the case we may have to consider the possibility that a Chechen terrorist managed to sneak some sort of explosive device on the plane and detonated the device.

They need to look at all sorts of things.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 62): So my nose didn't fail me. Would you mind sharing hard facts that support your theory? Pulkovo may be poor in service terms, but I did not hear about any security issues with them. And the TU154 had 5 crashes in the past 5 years. 1 due to a believed terror act, 1 due to ATC mistake (crashed into another plane over the Bodensee), 1 was accidentally shot down by a military missile, 1 crashed during approach in Iran, and 1 during approach towards Novosibirsk.

Quoting Richierich (Reply 66): Are you kidding? Your nose needs attention because I think you are reading into one post WAY TOO MUCH! Chill out! Heck, the poster did say he flew on the aircraft, didn't he? He didn't say he was trembling with fear, did he? He didn't say it was unsafe because it was Soviet, did he?

Oh yes he did...

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 48): but now i'm scared because it was more likely than I thought.

Quoting EFCar98 (Reply 51): Because its a Soviet era Airliner which is notorious for being less safe than western aircraft. Western airlines have tighter controls, and higher standards for maintenance so I still believe my fears were at least mildly justified.

Sorry but I agree with ZakHH.

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 73): Quoting ATA1011Tristar (Reply 61): It now sounds like the cause for the fire was lightning. They have also ruled out terrorism. Ugh! I'll excuse this because your profile says you're 16-20.

In fairness to Spacecadet, according to the BBC, "Russia says terrorism has been ruled out as a possible cause".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5274958.stm

Edit: I forgot to say that I agree it's ridiculous for anyone to rule out a cause at this stage.

[Edited 2006-08-22 21:15:40]

[Edited 2006-08-22 21:15:58]

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 85): This crash was by no means related to the T54 nor 757 and that has been discussed here on A.net very recently.

But at the time there was a popular assumtion that the Russian aircraft didn't have TCAS.

Quoting Vegas005 (Reply 86): The TU-154 crashes all the time. In fact it has a history of incidents with over 2500 deaths. Not safe under any circumstances....

You have to look at the causes and circumstances before you can blame the aircraft.   

The best way to get news on this is from PRAVDA the russian news agency.
For those of us that don't speak russian click on english.

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/

Quoting David L (Reply 88): You have to look at the causes and circumstances before you can blame the aircraft. sarcastic

Tell that to the 2500 dead folks. The number is astronomically high and is a good indication of the pathetic track record of the aircraft. If you take it one step further and look at the entire aircraft family, the number of crashes and deaths is shocking.

Quoting BillReid (Reply 89): The best way to get news on this is from PRAVDA the russian news agency.

There seems to be less information there than on the BBC site.  

Aol.com is reporting 45 children onboard.   . It also says a distress call came frome the TU-154 before crashing.

A very sad event, may all involved Rest In Peace  

Quoting Vegas005 (Reply 90):
Tell that to the 2500 dead folks. The number is astronomically high and is a good indication of the pathetic track record of the aircraft. If you take it one step further and look at the entire aircraft family, the number of crashes and deaths is shocking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1816099.stm

Naturally, commiserations to the victims and their families.

[Edited 2006-08-22 21:40:54]

[Edited 2006-08-22 21:42:56]

Quoting FLY2LIM (Reply 60): You say "only 3 major crashes" like it's an enviable statistic. If there had been 3 major crashes in the US, the world would be in an uproar.

I don't mean to make it sound good...I'm just saying that the world(US in particular) has the mindset that Russian planes crash everyday when they dont.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 81): While there have only been three crashes involving Russian jets this year, there have been three fatal crashes in that region recently. There was the Armenian A320, S7 A310 and now a Pulkovo Tu154. Two of the planes were from Airbus, but I think regardless of manufacturer, aviation in the former Soviet Union is not as safe as the United States or Western Europe. If you compare the number of flights within the United States, to those of all the former Soviet States, then there is a huge disparity

This is true...maintenance in the former USSR isn't as good whether the plane is Russian or Western built.

Quoting Vegas005 (Reply 86): The TU-154 crashes all the time. In fact it has a history of incidents with over 2500 deaths. Not safe under any circumstances....

This is probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Just because the plane has crashed doesnt mean its the plane's fault. You fail to see that several of those aircraft were lost to circumstances completely irrelevant to the aircraft be it Tu-154 or A-320.
Second, many of Russia's airports have sub-par runways and weather conditions which often lead to crashes.
Third, you can say the same about the B-727. 86 hull losses and 3699 fatalities. It's easy to spit out statistics that dont mean much unless they are analyzed. Judging by statistics alone, the B-727 is actually less safe. 4.86% of all 727s have been lost, 9.86% of all DC-9s have been lost and 3.22% of all Tu-154s have been lost   . Judging by statistics alone like you are, the Tu-154 is actually much safer than two major American airliners of the same type.

Quoting Vegas005 (Reply 86): 09.13.1997 Luftwaffe Tupolev TU-154 24:24 Namibia, Africa ---

Is this the one that collided with a USAF C-141 enroute to Ascension Island?
LPLAspotter

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 82): 45 of the ones killed were children according to Norwegian press.

Hmmm, according to RIA Novosti, there were only six children on board.

Quoting Vegas005 (Reply 86): 09.30.1975 Malev Tupolev TU-154B 60:60 Beirut, Lebanon HA-LCI

Well, the reasons for this tragedy are still uncertain. You can find an article about it here.

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 95): This is probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Just because the plane has crashed doesnt mean its the plane's fault. You fail to see that several of those aircraft were lost to circumstances completely irrelevant to the aircraft be it Tu-154 or A-320. Second, many of Russia's airports have sub-par runways and weather conditions which often lead to crashes. Third, you can say the same about the B-727. 86 hull losses and 3699 fatalities. It's easy to spit out statistics that dont mean much unless they are analyzed. Judging by statistics alone, the B-727 is actually less safe. 4.86% of all 727s have been lost, 9.86% of all DC-9s have been lost and 3.22% of all Tu-154s have been lost Yeah sure . Judging by statistics alone like you are, the Tu-154 is actually much safer than two major American airliners of the same type.

Considering I am a pilot and a mathmatician, if you want to get into satistics I will show you the facts. The only ignorant person here is you. Take the time to crunch real numbers including total hulls produced, cycles, and hull loses before you post such ignorant comments.

Well, I hope they're looking at the PIC decision making process. I'm assuming this aircraft had wx radar, if so, why the reports of possible lightning strikes and heavy turbulence. If it's found out that the pilot chose to do something about his situation when it was too late, well, then that's too bad. PIC should have diverted from bad wx if it was avoidable. We'll see what the investigation uncovers.