Aircraft Crash in Moscow
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks as if the confusion may have occurred with RedWings 9610 (another TU204-100) which appears to have held for around an hour south of Moscow probably as a result of the crash before diverting, although how that appears to have 'confused' a 'crash survivor' I do not know.
What is interesting is the far slower approach speed shown on FR24 for 9610 - 104kts as opposed to 141kts for 9268. I'll use
instead, thanks all.
What is interesting is the far slower approach speed shown on FR24 for 9610 - 104kts as opposed to 141kts for 9268. I'll use
instead, thanks all.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sqwak7700. The runway appears to meet ICAO geometric standards for a 90m RESA. In Kulverstukas graphics post, he marks "end of paved surface runway". This is the rectangle shown without fill in the precision approach terrain chart. A look at this in Google Earth suggests that the rectangular bit of runway we see is actually not runway but approximately 50m of paved jet blast/undershoot area – there are no runway shoulders on this section. In ICAO terms, this would be part of the runway strip. The possible RESA starts at the end of the runway strip, possibly 10m beyond that, and possibly runs to the ILS localizer antenna array, and I measure 160 metres of possible RESA in terms of slope, length and width. I cannot say what condition this is in and if all the other ICAO requirements are met. The investigation will have to determine if it does meet the mandatory 90m requirement of ICAO. It does not meet the 240m recommendation of ICAO.
Capn Bloggs – yes it is the V2 involved which gives the results I got. I had not really thought about this much before, and it wasn't I read SGC's post earlier in this thread that I decided to model it. I admit that I was a bit surprised by what I got. I would have guessed that even if the aircraft did depart the runway at 100 knots, the EMAS would have slowed the aircraft more than it did, but I hadn't properly considered the physics of it before now.
Lyman, the commercially available Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) comprises cellular, aerated concrete blocks that collapse under heavy load. They transfer the kinetic energy of the overrunning aircraft into the action of crushing the concrete blocks, creating drag at the leading edge of the wheel and decelerating the aircraft. In arresting bed technology, the energy absorbed on a continuing basis during compressive failure of the material is the important characteristic (i.e., actual strength during continuing compressive failure). It is not 'braking' as such where the transfer of energy is into thermal energy or heat.
I have found it difficult to put the EMAS into context in other discussions because it seems to carry a connotation that it will "arrest the aircraft" and that all overruns will be prevented if "an EMAS is installed". This is not the situation and I find that I can explain EMAS better by saying it effectively adds 525 feet of runway with guaranteed maximum braking. Of course it is not real runway for flight planning purposes. The EMAS deceleration is better than that provided by aircraft on MAX braking for all but the heaviest aircraft, so it is generally better than runway braking.
As I understand it, there is emphasis on minimal or no damage to aircraft. So the landing gear is not destroyed by the EMAS. I have a photo of one in use which I will post shortly. There is a sacrificial nature to EMAS when used, and that is one of the concerns about them in service. However the EMAS is designed for repair to a usable condition (in which the bed is completely repaired) within 45 days of an overrun by the design aircraft at the design entrance speed.
Your points on survivability, restraint devices and energy absorbing limits of the airframe are noted but are beyond my scope of knowledge.
Capn Bloggs – yes it is the V2 involved which gives the results I got. I had not really thought about this much before, and it wasn't I read SGC's post earlier in this thread that I decided to model it. I admit that I was a bit surprised by what I got. I would have guessed that even if the aircraft did depart the runway at 100 knots, the EMAS would have slowed the aircraft more than it did, but I hadn't properly considered the physics of it before now.
Lyman, the commercially available Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) comprises cellular, aerated concrete blocks that collapse under heavy load. They transfer the kinetic energy of the overrunning aircraft into the action of crushing the concrete blocks, creating drag at the leading edge of the wheel and decelerating the aircraft. In arresting bed technology, the energy absorbed on a continuing basis during compressive failure of the material is the important characteristic (i.e., actual strength during continuing compressive failure). It is not 'braking' as such where the transfer of energy is into thermal energy or heat.
I have found it difficult to put the EMAS into context in other discussions because it seems to carry a connotation that it will "arrest the aircraft" and that all overruns will be prevented if "an EMAS is installed". This is not the situation and I find that I can explain EMAS better by saying it effectively adds 525 feet of runway with guaranteed maximum braking. Of course it is not real runway for flight planning purposes. The EMAS deceleration is better than that provided by aircraft on MAX braking for all but the heaviest aircraft, so it is generally better than runway braking.
As I understand it, there is emphasis on minimal or no damage to aircraft. So the landing gear is not destroyed by the EMAS. I have a photo of one in use which I will post shortly. There is a sacrificial nature to EMAS when used, and that is one of the concerns about them in service. However the EMAS is designed for repair to a usable condition (in which the bed is completely repaired) within 45 days of an overrun by the design aircraft at the design entrance speed.
Your points on survivability, restraint devices and energy absorbing limits of the airframe are noted but are beyond my scope of knowledge.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at the end of the day it might turn out to be as as simple as they were in a rush or badly vectored by ATC, came in too fast and too high, touched very late, then maybe bounced due to excessive speed, started initially to brake but then changed their mind and decided to re-launch since they feared to fail in stopping the aircraft before end of rwy and finally crashed on high speed with an accelerating aircraft and engines in take off power or spooling up to it.
so no brake or reverse failure, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
so no brake or reverse failure, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 3rd Jan 2013 at 09:20.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admiral346, thanks for the reply.
Perhaps, although the CCTV footage that was mentioned earlier apparently captured no "bounce" or floating.
And even if the CCTV footage is non-existent, it sounds very sketchy that in your scenario the crew didn't go around long before they hit the brakes for the 1st time.
The previous (recent) Tu-204 over-runs can't just be coincidence. IMO.
My thoughts also.
at the end of the day it might turn out to be as as simple as they were in a rush or badly vectored by ATC, came in too fast and too high, touched very late, then maybe bounced due to excessive speed, started initially to brake but then changed their mind and decided to re-launch since they feared to fail in stopping the aircraft before end of rwy and finally crashed on high speed with an accelerating aircraft and engines in take off power or spooling up to it.
so no brake or reverse failure, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
so no brake or reverse failure, nothing wrong with the aircraft.
And even if the CCTV footage is non-existent, it sounds very sketchy that in your scenario the crew didn't go around long before they hit the brakes for the 1st time.
The previous (recent) Tu-204 over-runs can't just be coincidence. IMO.
It looks as if the confusion may have occurred with RedWings 9610 (another TU204-100) which appears to have held for around an hour south of Moscow probably as a result of the crash before diverting, although how that appears to have 'confused' a 'crash survivor' I do not know.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although how that appears to have 'confused' a 'crash survivor' I do not know
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some food for thought:
Accident Aviastar-TU T204 at Moscow on Mar 22nd 2010, landed short of runway
Incident Aviastar-TU T204 near Moscow on Mar 21st 2010, smell of smoke
Incident Cubana T204 near Toronto on May 13th 2008, navigational equipment problem
Incident Red Wings T204 at Ekaterinburg on Nov 5th 2012, overran runway on landing
Accident Red Wings T204 at Moscow on Dec 29th 2012, overran runway on landing
Incident Red Wings T204 at Novosibirsk on Dec 20th 2012, runway excursion on landing
Incident Red Wings T204 at Omsk on Jan 19th 2010, unsafe gear
Incident Red Wings T204 at Samara on May 10th 2011, unsafe gear after departure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Krasnodar on May 24th 2009, fuel system failure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Minsk on Aug 2nd 2008, engine vibration, in flight shut down
Incident Red Wings T204 near Minsk on Jan 30th 2010, engine shut down in flight
Incident Red Wings T204 near Moscow on Sep 5th 2009, engine failure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Sochi on Apr 25th 2009, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok Air T204 near Krasnojarsk on Aug 3rd 2008, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 at Khabarovsk on Sep 10th 2009, lost brake disc
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 near Ekaterinburg on Jun 20th 2010, engine shut down in flight
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 near Sakhalinsk on Sep 21st 2009, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok T204 at Khabarovsk on Jun 3rd 2012, engine shut down in flight
10 of 18 is RW.
Accident Aviastar-TU T204 at Moscow on Mar 22nd 2010, landed short of runway
Incident Aviastar-TU T204 near Moscow on Mar 21st 2010, smell of smoke
Incident Cubana T204 near Toronto on May 13th 2008, navigational equipment problem
Incident Red Wings T204 at Ekaterinburg on Nov 5th 2012, overran runway on landing
Accident Red Wings T204 at Moscow on Dec 29th 2012, overran runway on landing
Incident Red Wings T204 at Novosibirsk on Dec 20th 2012, runway excursion on landing
Incident Red Wings T204 at Omsk on Jan 19th 2010, unsafe gear
Incident Red Wings T204 at Samara on May 10th 2011, unsafe gear after departure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Krasnodar on May 24th 2009, fuel system failure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Minsk on Aug 2nd 2008, engine vibration, in flight shut down
Incident Red Wings T204 near Minsk on Jan 30th 2010, engine shut down in flight
Incident Red Wings T204 near Moscow on Sep 5th 2009, engine failure
Incident Red Wings T204 near Sochi on Apr 25th 2009, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok Air T204 near Krasnojarsk on Aug 3rd 2008, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 at Khabarovsk on Sep 10th 2009, lost brake disc
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 near Ekaterinburg on Jun 20th 2010, engine shut down in flight
Incident Vladivostok Avia T204 near Sakhalinsk on Sep 21st 2009, engine failure
Incident Vladivostok T204 at Khabarovsk on Jun 3rd 2012, engine shut down in flight
10 of 18 is RW.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WAW
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 of 18 is RW
10 of 18 (incidents) is RW (Red Wings)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Largest 204/214 fleet has Presidental fleet Rossia:
Ту-214 3 RA-64504, RA-64505, RA-64506
Ту-214СР 2 RA-64515, RA-64516
Ту-214ПУ 2 RA-64517, RA-64520
Ту-214СУС 2 RA-64522, RA-64524
Ту-204-300 2 RA-64057, RA-64058
----------------------------------
Total 11
Ту-214 3 RA-64504, RA-64505, RA-64506
Ту-214СР 2 RA-64515, RA-64516
Ту-214ПУ 2 RA-64517, RA-64520
Ту-214СУС 2 RA-64522, RA-64524
Ту-204-300 2 RA-64057, RA-64058
----------------------------------
Total 11
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello overun. Thanks for your meticulous reply. I have updated my file.
I am embarrassed to have used "landing gear destroyed". I think our vocubalary is otherwise similar, and I note your salient differing opinion re : braking.
Imo opinion arrestment is not braking, it is an entirely different mechanism? I have a habit of being a bit pedantic. What I do note is that the promotion is for arrestment that seems only marginally better than concrete pavement. Since its purpose is to "stop" the a/c within the designed installation, it has a 'fail proof' aspect to it, since heading cannot be easily managed whilst slowing?
Having to replace a seven million dollar installation after one use suggests a design for emergency use only, (single use) so I sensed a representation as "effective" dry concrete "braking" as not truly evocative of the design. Its purpose is to suffer destruction. Likewise, I believe the maker makes no guarantees re: langing gear damage. Or its stated use.
It is an intriguing design. One drawback, as with all designs of this nature are that there will be a human tendency for users to morph their understanding of its purpose into "usable runway". Being benign, its unstated invitation to fold it into flight plans will (may) allow users to cut corners on the basics. The danger remains for those who plan poorly.....
"why wear the seat belt, we have air bags?"
(Do you have provenance for that excellent photograph? It would be instructive to determine how badly damaged that LG was, and cost to repair)
I am embarrassed to have used "landing gear destroyed". I think our vocubalary is otherwise similar, and I note your salient differing opinion re : braking.
Imo opinion arrestment is not braking, it is an entirely different mechanism? I have a habit of being a bit pedantic. What I do note is that the promotion is for arrestment that seems only marginally better than concrete pavement. Since its purpose is to "stop" the a/c within the designed installation, it has a 'fail proof' aspect to it, since heading cannot be easily managed whilst slowing?
Having to replace a seven million dollar installation after one use suggests a design for emergency use only, (single use) so I sensed a representation as "effective" dry concrete "braking" as not truly evocative of the design. Its purpose is to suffer destruction. Likewise, I believe the maker makes no guarantees re: langing gear damage. Or its stated use.
It is an intriguing design. One drawback, as with all designs of this nature are that there will be a human tendency for users to morph their understanding of its purpose into "usable runway". Being benign, its unstated invitation to fold it into flight plans will (may) allow users to cut corners on the basics. The danger remains for those who plan poorly.....
"why wear the seat belt, we have air bags?"
(Do you have provenance for that excellent photograph? It would be instructive to determine how badly damaged that LG was, and cost to repair)
Last edited by Lyman; 3rd Jan 2013 at 13:37.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WAW
Age: 56
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Largest 204/214 fleet
Largest 204/214 fleet has Presidental fleet Rossia
However I think the governmental planes spend much less time flying.
And perhaps they are maintained according to different standards... etc. Anyway, hardly can be compared with an ordinary airline.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And perhaps they are maintained according to different standards
- The sturgeon they sent was second-grade fresh, - said the barman.
- Really, what nonsense!
- Why nonsense? '
- "Second-grade-fresh" - that's what I call nonsense! There's only one degree of freshness - the first, and it's the last. If your sturgeon is "second-grade-fresh" that means it's stale.
- Really, what nonsense!
- Why nonsense? '
- "Second-grade-fresh" - that's what I call nonsense! There's only one degree of freshness - the first, and it's the last. If your sturgeon is "second-grade-fresh" that means it's stale.
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 3rd Jan 2013 at 17:16.
I would like to thank those who provided the pictures of the cockpit.
Are the yokes FBW?
Are the yokes FBW?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to recap this is what is known:
- a FCOM amendment went out
- an airworthiness directive went out re the maintenance of the "weight on wheels" switch and the engine control mechanism
- a FCOM amendment went out
- an airworthiness directive went out re the maintenance of the "weight on wheels" switch and the engine control mechanism
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having to replace a seven million dollar installation after one use suggests a design for emergency use only,
Pardon my morbid interest.
