Russian Emergency Landing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: So far away
Age: 54
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary, they got hydrolic system failure, and according FR 24 diverted from Omsk to Novosibirsk, but looks like run out of fuel on the way there.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian Emergency Landing
It seems Ural Airlines in Russia just put an A320 into a field. No fatalities or injuries were reported. Is this linked to the ongoing war and no spares? https://crisis24.garda.com/alerts/20...ing-of-sept-12
Respect to the pilots for landing an A320 in a field without killing everyone on board. That's quite an achievement.
As for Russian aviation: there'll be more incidents like this one in future. It's what happens when you repair stolen aircraft with fake or recycled parts.
As for Russian aviation: there'll be more incidents like this one in future. It's what happens when you repair stolen aircraft with fake or recycled parts.
Well they have plenty of fuel, but no spare parts. Sounds like Iran, who have somewhat managed to keep itself together over the years, although with a with a diminished fleet.
Aircraft looks a bit ratty, certainly a few patch up jobs in certain areas when zooming in on a few photos.
Well now they have a whole A320 they can pull apart and re use.
Aircraft looks a bit ratty, certainly a few patch up jobs in certain areas when zooming in on a few photos.
Well now they have a whole A320 they can pull apart and re use.
But no respect to the pilots for Hapag-Lloyding into what was a fortunately large, firm and dry field. Looks like manual gear and limited spoilers so yes a green failure followed by a fuel consumption miscalculation.
Never mind, plenty of Airbus spare parts to be trucked out of the farm.
Never mind, plenty of Airbus spare parts to be trucked out of the farm.
Seems like sanctions bite though I meet again and again some Putin fans who believe that Russia is doing well and even winning the war.
Here is some footage shortly after evacuation:
Here is some footage shortly after evacuation:
Sanctions are wonderful, for our competitors. other potential Airbus and Boeing customers will remember this. China's aviation industry is on the rise. Give it 10 or 20 years and we can say we shot ourselves in the foot.
Sanctions work as could be seen during the cold war.
On Avherald, it is said that the green hydraulic system is suspected to have failed.
This has the following main consequences:
- Landing gear operation is severely impaired. If down, it cannot be retracted any more, carrying a fuel consumption penalty of 180% in case of closed landing gear doors.
If it was retracted at the time of failure, it can be extended by gravity only, the landing gear doors will stay open after this. This will lead to a fuel burn much more than the 180% malus mentioned, the exact value is not published by Airbus.
- Main brake is unusable, alternate braking with antiskid remains available from yellow hydraulic.
- Nose wheel steering may or may not be usable depending on aircraft version: on the newer 320 series, it is driven by the yellow hydraulic, on the older ones by the green system.
- #1 reverser is unusable and will stay stowed.
- 2 of 5 spoilers per wing are unusable.
- Slats and flaps may be slow but operable
The other flight controls are unaffected in principle - they may lose one of their power sources but fall back on their respective alternate.
The FMS however calculates its fuel estimates based on the original performance model and does not know the impaired performance status of the aircraft. Manual calculation of endurance, range etc. is required - in case of open landing gear doors and therefore in absence of Airbus published data, fuel flow and ground speed is an appropriate starting point.
If so, there may well be some similarities to the well known Hapag-Lloyd 3378 accident in this case.
This has the following main consequences:
- Landing gear operation is severely impaired. If down, it cannot be retracted any more, carrying a fuel consumption penalty of 180% in case of closed landing gear doors.
If it was retracted at the time of failure, it can be extended by gravity only, the landing gear doors will stay open after this. This will lead to a fuel burn much more than the 180% malus mentioned, the exact value is not published by Airbus.
- Main brake is unusable, alternate braking with antiskid remains available from yellow hydraulic.
- Nose wheel steering may or may not be usable depending on aircraft version: on the newer 320 series, it is driven by the yellow hydraulic, on the older ones by the green system.
- #1 reverser is unusable and will stay stowed.
- 2 of 5 spoilers per wing are unusable.
- Slats and flaps may be slow but operable
The other flight controls are unaffected in principle - they may lose one of their power sources but fall back on their respective alternate.
The FMS however calculates its fuel estimates based on the original performance model and does not know the impaired performance status of the aircraft. Manual calculation of endurance, range etc. is required - in case of open landing gear doors and therefore in absence of Airbus published data, fuel flow and ground speed is an appropriate starting point.
If so, there may well be some similarities to the well known Hapag-Lloyd 3378 accident in this case.
Last edited by Tu.114; 12th Sep 2023 at 10:29.
We are given to believe that it's the green system failed. That controls the normal braking system, leaving the aircraft on the alternate system (controlled by the yellow system). That's only limited to 1,000psi and around 7 applications of braking. That requires you to have a longer runway to land on. The gear is also controlled by the green system. Appears that it was stuck down with the loss of hydraulics. Looks like they really had no other choice!