Russian Air Crash [Archive]

DownIn3Green

4th Jul 2001, 14:23

Markbingo,

Not to speculate on the cause of this disaster, but if it is as you say, you've hit the nail almost squarely on the head.

In the early-mid 90's I was involved in training a group of former Aeroflot pilots to Western Standards and procedures on the B-727. At the time, the company I worked for conducted regularly scheduled passenger operations throughout Europe.

One day coming into LGW, we hit the hold at Mayfield. LGW was closed as was our alt STn due to fog. I was preparing 2 Captains for their type rides on the Boeing. As we were holding I asked the guy in the left seat what his plans were if LGW didn't open up. Him and the other guy discussed it, checked with the F/E as to how much holding fuel we had, etc. These 2 guys decided we could hold for approx 1+45 before having to go to our alt. I asked what we would do if the weather hadn't improved by then. (and this is the part that really got me)

They said they would land at LGW anyway. I remember the words to this day: "This is Boeing, it is good aircraft, it will land ok".

We eventually diverted to MAN, but my point is, these 2 former Aeroflot guys were fully prepared to attempt an approach in zero-zero conditions with min fuel. That was the mentality of how they were trained in the former Soviet Union. Diverting to an alternate was not an option.

As another point of interest, their practice was to carry just enough fuel to get to their destination and no further, just to reinforce the above thinking.

Although nothing has been determined yet regarding this tragedy, it would be very sad indeed if these practices were still continuing.

Condolences to all affected...

5 APU's captain

4th Jul 2001, 15:21

DownIn3Green,
The problem you have notified has another reason:
when these guys flew under Soviet time -everywhere was AEROFLOT, everywhere they could get a service.Now they are flying abroad with a question :" Who will PAY if we land out of the destination???"
(10 years ago I flew for AEROFLOT and always had a fuel for diversion.)
About the TU 154 story:
Officials say about two main versions of tragedy- all 3 engines failure or bomb explosion. FDR has been found in a good condition,and I hope tomorrow can be deshifrated.

enginefailure

4th Jul 2001, 15:38

well my username may give the impression of knowledge in this case but first question would be:

If they really ran out of fuel what exploded after impact ? A triple engine failure should be next to impossible except there was either no more fuel or the fuel (and that could be the main reason)didn't reach the engines through a malfunction.

But the FDR is recovered and soon we hopefully will get more infos.

condolences to all relatives of the victims.

Pete Otube

4th Jul 2001, 16:43

Can we cut out all this "my condolences" and "my thoughts" etc - it is meaningless and is just some anonymous writers trying to tell anonymous readers that deep down they are nice guys.

These "thoughts and condolences" do not reach anyone affected by the tragedy, and even if they did they are still meaningless as the origin remains unknown.

Belgique

4th Jul 2001, 16:47

From the USAToday coverage:

"It is so hard to comprehend how it could happen ... based on an elementary knowledge of aerodynamics. It is a weird accident," Shoigu told reporters on the meadow, which was littered with smoking fuselage. He said the plane was at an altitude of 2,800 feet when it suddenly made a 180-degree turn and crashed.

FROM AN EARLIER Tu154 ACCIDENT REPORT

07.12.1995
Aeroflot Khabarovsk Airlines

Remarks:
Went missing on a flight from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Khabarovsk. The wreckage was found 11 days later. The aircraft was flying at 9600m when it suddenly banked right and entered a steep spiral dive.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Fuel-feed selected from wing tanks on the left side only. This was done to counteract the tendency to fly left-wing low. The fuel imbalance caused the aircraft to bank to the right during the flight. The autopilot was able to counteract this bank until 35 minutes after take-off.

As they had been airborne for just under four hours:
The fire on impact would tend to rule out fuel exhaustion however what may have happened to cause near-simultaneous fuel starvation of all three engines might have been a Flight Engineer's fuel-panel adjustment. Ther reason for this would be a configuring of the cross-feed/cross-transfer system designed to avoid any one engine from flaming out due to the low fuel levels remaining (after they had overshot two approaches and were midway through the third). If you get it out of sequence, or a fuel-valve is stuck, you can end up with a rollback / flame-out (much like the UAL 767 out of Hawaii earlier this year).

Fuel management whilst at low tank levels is always critical. Pumpsare usually designed to pump from fuel collected inside a collector-box. At low fuel levels the boost pumps and tank outflow ports can become uncovered during turns and pitch attitude changes (or the steep spiral dive described above).

Alternatively they may have suffered a flameout of one engine due to low fuel levels (after a 3:40 flight time) and in the ensuing panic managed to get the fuel panel switchology wrong, flaming out the remaining two.

enginefailure

4th Jul 2001, 16:49

well, you may be right. It's just to avoid the impression that we only discuss the technical side and forget the people involved in the crash.

MrNosy

4th Jul 2001, 16:56

I heard accident was when turning onto base leg on first approach. Wx 'normal' pilot had reportedly advised runway in sight. Impacted in flat attitude. u/c down and flaps 15deg.

angels

4th Jul 2001, 17:33

Pete Otube - I think your post is a disgrace. When you sober up, please remove it.

SKYDRIFTER

4th Jul 2001, 17:52

A second to "Angels." Pretty tasteless, Pete.

SKYDRIFTER

4th Jul 2001, 17:57

The cause is going to be interesting - if we ever find out.

Sounds as though it might have stalled. Possibly a panic maneuver, thinking they'd passed the runway, having spotted a road beneath them or some such.

The fire certainly suggests fuel on board. That's not to say that all crossfeeds were open & all boost pumps were on, however.

Belgique

4th Jul 2001, 18:20

Further to the earlier post above:

Setting up cross-feed/cross-transfer is one of those boring/mundane (yet totally critical) tasks in a 3 crew aircraft where the Flight Engineer can get you in big trouble. Pilots concede the demarcation dispute threshold by allowing the FE to manage "his" panel and as a result don't themselves monitor it (i.e. either the setting up or the eventual need to reconfigure it). If the FE then fails to watch it like a hawk (or gets distracted), it's a nice setup for a big surprise later on.

Meanwhile the autopilot can conceal large fuel imbalance discrepancies by trimming it out. If you decelerate and then disconnect the autopilot you will suddenly experience a rapid roll (because the trim is still in effect). By decelerating to slow speed before disconnecting you will guarantee that the amount of aileron trim (away from the heavy wing) will be maximised. If the autopilot disconnect was done as a result of an engine flaming out (because a tank had been run dry), then you've suddenly got the surprise out-of-trim forces plus the (apparent) engine-failure to contend with.

In this case I could suggest that the ensuing flameout of the other two engines in quick succession was either yaw-induced (not a good idea at low fuel-levels - but can happen on A/P disconnect if drastically out-of-trim) or because all engines had been left feeding from the one tank in cruise or crew-induced (panic-stricken switch-flicking). Any one scenario might be valid.

Then again the investigators' first reading of the FDR may be wrong. One of the recovery actions for an autopilot disconnect spiral entry would be to retard all throttles to idle. This might have been misconstrued as a triple engine failure - on a first reading of the black box.

However, if they'd already carried out two missed approaches they'd surely not be unaware of any significant fuel imbalance. i.e. Doubt the TU154M can do coupled approaches. Looking more like another case for CCTV.

Kerosene Kraut

4th Jul 2001, 19:06

Is there really enough plain info available on this crash right now to determine what has happened? I doubt it. Every serious investigation takes at least several months if not longer. Shouldn't we wait a minute for results? However I don't know if the Russians do publish their analysis like the US do.

PaperTiger

4th Jul 2001, 20:27

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"Our specialists estimate the cause of the accident could have been a breakdown of the plane's fuel transmission system," said a senior executive of the Vladivostokavia airline which owned the plane. (via AP)</font> Whatever that means.

Pete O Agree. Makes me cringe too.

[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 04 July 2001).]

5 APU's captain

4th Jul 2001, 21:17

For info:
Only during this year 11 emergency landings TU 154 have been declared.
The crashed one is 15 y. o. from China North-East airline.
The aircraft parts are found on a 60 meters to 100m square (too small for the explosion).

markbingo

5th Jul 2001, 01:35

Pete Otube

How sad a person you must be.
When you can not even spare a thought for a fellow Human being who has been tragically killed.

I hope that I never find myself having to "spare a thought" for you, as it would seem that I would be wasting my time.

Unbelievable and very sad.

PaperTiger

5th Jul 2001, 10:19

Couple of aerial shots of the crash site over on the www.airdisaster.com (http://www.airdisaster.com) board.
The debris appears to be completely contained within the length and span of the aircraft. The tail is intact otherwise it's completely consumed by fire.

My initial impression was deja vu of photos from the prototype BAC-111 and DH Trident crashes. Flat impact, virtually no forward speed - indicative of a deep stall ?

bobtoldmetodoit

5th Jul 2001, 13:41

Mr Otube - as we are regularly reminded these forums are public access and are often used by journalists. I can just see the story now 'Professional Pilots don't give a damn for victims of air disaster'.

This is not to say that you HAVE to provide condolences, but please let other people express themselves should they choose to.

Of course you would not express such an attitude if the loss had occured in Western Europe or the US, rather than what you obviously regard as 'backward' and non-connected parts of the world.

Two of my colleagues are flying out to Vladivostok over the weekend - a major Civil Aircraft loss of this type does not just have a local effect.

TheDrop

6th Jul 2001, 09:38

Regarding "my thoughts are with the victims and families" ... I feel sad on the behalf of the victims and even more their friends and families. Though I don't know any of them (from what I am informed). Worldwide there are many people dying from numerous accidents of all kinds, all the time, around the clock. I feel sorry for ALL theses people and ALL their families, not just for the ones mentioned in the media because they make good stories.

However, writers here with premature speculations like if they want to have "said it first" what really happened, they seem to justify any post by signing with "my thoughts are with the families ..." or the like.

My thoughts are with ALL the people of ALL countries suffering ANY hardship from any accident, disease, death in the family etc.

ramsrc

6th Jul 2001, 10:31

bobtoldmetodoit:

Here here.

It may be too early to speculate on the cause of the crash, but it is never too early to spare a thought for the victims and the families who have lost loved ones.

The Burdanovka crash makes me feel just as sick inside as the Concorde crash did.

BOEINGBOY1

6th Jul 2001, 10:32

it wasn't the 12yr old son of the captain practising his touch and go's then ?

SKYDRIFTER

6th Jul 2001, 20:21

Boeingboy -

That was as bad or worst than Pete-O.

Pete Otube

7th Jul 2001, 00:11

Can pilots not read properly? Can they they not understand what they see written? I am not against condolences or thoughts, or better still, prayers on behalf of bereaved or injured humanity - but they must be at a personal level to have value. I am against meaningless affectations on this website that do nothing to help the poor victims or their families.

Who gives a damn for your thoughts if they don't know where or who they come from, and they don't reach the victims anyway?

[This message has been edited by Pete Otube (edited 06 July 2001).]

Stubenfliege

7th Jul 2001, 01:39

According to INTERFAX, the read out of the recorders didn´t reveal any problems with the aircraft. Furthermore, the a/c had enough fuel, when it crashed.

http://www.avia.ru/cgi/news/news.cgi?action=geten&id=994420914

An earlier release stated:

***Causes of air crash to become clear on Monday - Klebanov

[5 Jul 2001] The state commission for investigating the causes of the Tuesday air crash near Irkutsk will be able
to announce the causes of the disaster on Monday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov has told
Interfax.

He said Irkutsk experts, using equipment available to them, have read information from two of the three black
boxes. But the analysis was incomplete, as the equipment used by Irkutsk experts is imperfect, so the black
boxes will have to be sent to Moscow, Klebanov said.

He also said that the identification of the victims by relatives began at 1
p.m., local time.

ionov

7th Jul 2001, 03:03

Although I have much experience on TU-154,I
can't explain this crash,at least to give a
meaningful answer.I would only be guessing.
Especially as every serious disaster takes
at least one month and therefore nobody tell
us true reason of tragedy untill end of the
investigation.If somebody has Russian version
of Windows,please visit on the web-site:
www.svavia.ru (http://www.svavia.ru) and overthere you'll find much
more information about this crash even names
of passengers and crew members.

El Grifo

7th Jul 2001, 21:13

Well I agree 100% with Pete, There is something very Creepy associated with this simpering phony "condolences" garbage. He at least has had the courage to come out and say it. Angel's reaction was pretty predictable, never mind, Jesus probably loves you ;)

Flaps90!

7th Jul 2001, 23:45

Well, I also have to agree with Pete. Expression of condolences that will never be seen by the subjects seems rather empty and pointless. If indeed such condolences are genuinely heartfelt, then posting a message on a web page is not as effective as getting out your fat (by Russian standards) chequebooks and seeing if it's possible to get some almost certainly needed financial help to those affected families, a lot of whom will have lost the only breadwinner. ...or is that 'caring' a bit too much ?

Sorry if my views offend anyone, it is genuinely not my intention to aggravate, but I have to say it as I see it.

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Flaps90! ]

broadreach

8th Jul 2001, 03:03

Pete O Tube and others, re condolences.

There are probably quite a lot of us who feel uncomfortable offering condolences to people we've never met.

Then again, some don't and for them, condolences are not "meaningless". So, perhaps it would be reasonable to let people post as they feel is right without being sniped at?

Whatever the case, this is not the best thread to put your thoughts forward.

JR_wilco

8th Jul 2001, 15:54

Anybody who can provide information wether an official russian aviation safety website does exist ??
I looked into the Dep. of Transportation site, but all is in kyrillic...

any help is greatly appreciated http://www.jacdec.de

Belgique

8th Jul 2001, 16:15

In the current political climate in Russia it's highly probable that they will be publicising their accident investigation results. It always helps families accept their loss if a logical explanation is found.

I believe (from what I've very recently heard) that this accident may well be something similar to the Tu154B one spelt out at this URL: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1995/951207-0.htm (i.e. human error)

The difference may have been that the 1995 accident a/c was at 9600 metres and this Irkutsk a/c was in its third instrument landing approach at 800m (2500ft), having missed the first two landing attempts. As it was a refuelling stop, it's possible that fuel quantities were down (and if they'd set up a crossfeed earlier and forgotten about it, they may have run one wing-tank dry, leading to both a fuel-starve progressive flame-out [as in 1,3,2 in quick succession) plus an autopilot-disguised significant out-of-trim situation. The simultaneous sudden combination of the two circumstances may well have led to a loss of control - in addition we don't know how useful/automatic the Tu154 reversion to backup-battery power (for standby flight instruments) in IMC would be. Loss of control may have followed very quickly. When they lose all electrics does the autopilot disconnect cleanly from the hydraulics? Is it immediately apparent to the crew when a flame-out initiated bus change-over has tripped the autopilot? Are there any back-up hydraulics for the flight-controls?

Most significantly, I also would venture that, after a triple flame-out, having lost electrical power to crossfeed and cross-ship valves, there would have been no way they'd have been able to access the remaining fuel in the other wing's tanks. I doubt that the Tu154 has a RAT or ADG that would kick in. Just try and imagine the crew's confusion as one engine after another flamed out. They probably didn't even discover, before losing control, that it was the fuel panel setup that had led to their situation. So were they doing engine failure drills or engine-relight drills, as each successive failure diverted their attention from completing a drill? Sounds like a total overload for even a three-man crew.

So I'd suggest that this one will not go against the ruling odds and it will be an idiosyncrasy of the Tu154 and their crossfeeding habits that eventually caught them out. Final loss of control could have been the autopilot disguising an out-of-trim situation but was more likely to have been a loss of control in IMC stemming from the (total?) loss of electrics/ electrical inability to access remaining fuel / control loss.

Perhaps there's a Tu154M endorsed person out there who can comment.

PaperTiger

8th Jul 2001, 22:20

this Irkutsk a/c was in its third instrument landing approach at 800m (2500ft), having missed the first two landing attempts

I'm not sure this is true although it's been widely reported. A post elsewhere by a Russian speaker suggests it was after the third procedure turn, ie to final that the a/c crashed. This implies Irkutsk does not have ILS ?

Techman

8th Jul 2001, 22:45

Belqique,
I dont know if you operate as 2 crew + an FE, but in any 3 crew operation the FE will ALWAYS advise the rest of the crew, if he alters the fuel panel setup. The pilot who is in the best position, normally the Captain, will also monitor the FE panel on a regular basis.

This is know as crew coordination.

But who am I to argue, you seem to have solved this one already.

MGloff

9th Jul 2001, 14:15

Found on aonother forum,unofficial partial transcription of the CVR:
Okay,
I’ve got copy of preliminary CVR transcript fragment spreading a light what was up causing another black day in aviation history.
Plane was descended in night IFR conditions and piloted by Captain in standard approach pattern but was too high and huge descend caused IAS (Indicated Air Speed) increased, CA has extract interceptors (spoilers) and lower landing gears to reduce IAS for normal base turn recommended speed. However at the same time he was RETRACTED flaps with idle flight thrust and soon as he level off at base turn altitude and IAS sudden drop to minimal, Navigator call warning IAS decreasing too quickly and suggest to retract interceptors, but his warning interfered with altitude alert warning and was probably not heard. Soon as IAS decreased to minimum safe there was command (not identified which CA or FO) to set power 66, 68 then 74, 80 etc and finally max TO thrust was set but IAS remain too low and finally a/c enter in flat stall condition and hit the ground with unusually low horizontal speed. There is feeling that CA won’t go around by all means. (and btw at my point it is a main factor) There are also too much exclaiming words in Russian like “Damn! F…k! etc”
I do not put here translation of CVR fragment intentionally by copyright means and some other, but it looks like:
-(interceptors extracted, gears down, idle fl power, rate of descend abt 2600fpm)
- NA: IAS low (350 km/h)
- NA: Interceptors! IAS too low
- ??: set power 66
- ?? 68
- ?? Damn too slow
- ?? &&&
- ?? 74
- CA (a/c began made left step bunk) take off power
- EN: take of power set, spooling up through 78
- NA: We falling!!
- ?? : Damn!
- NA: altitude! IAS not increasing
- EN: maximum take off power
- NA: Oh guys we falling…
But again its not official and just to avoid unnecessary speculation and rubbish talks around..
Ruslan
UKOO

P.S. sorry my English

Any thoughts ?

Flight Safety

9th Jul 2001, 16:00

There's a reason why pilots are taught to fly stabilized approaches, rather than approaching hot and high corrected to a massive undershoot, in this case to what appears to be a deep stall. :(

5 APU's captain

10th Jul 2001, 12:37

The latest from officials:
aircraft has crashed due to a stall during manual flying.
TU 154 pilots opinion: the aircraft computer does not let to get a stall...
So, what happened really?

Evo7

10th Jul 2001, 13:53

BBC news is saying

Russian investigators have blamed last week's plane crash in Siberia, which killed 145 people, on pilot error.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1431000/1431583.stm

swashplate

10th Jul 2001, 14:06

..'Flipped over'..??? :rolleyes:

Never heard of that term... :confused:

Any aerodynamicists out there? :D

Flight Safety

10th Jul 2001, 23:17

Here's more, from Aviation Week...

Pilot Error Blamed For Tu-154 Crash
By AviationNow.com Staff
10-Jul-2001 8:56 AM U.S. EDT

Russian investigators say pilot error caused last week's crash of a Tu-154 in Siberia that killed 145 people, and that no evidence of any onboard mechanical failure has been uncovered.

Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, head of a government commission investigating the disaster, said Tuesday that pilots turned the plane in such way that it went into an uncontrolled spin.

"The crash occurred because the crew unintentionally took the plane to a big angle of attack, which prompted the plane to go into a spin until it crashed," Klebanov said.

"We have not yet determined the reason for such conduct by the crew,'' the deputy premier added, saying that all the plane's systems, including its engines, functioned normally until impact.

The Tu-154, which belonged to Russian airline Vladivostokavia, crashed on July 3 while trying to land at Irkutsk, a large Siberian city 2,600 miles east of Moscow.

AviationNow.com affiliate Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) reported in its July 9 edition that the pilot flying, Capt. Valentin Goncharuk, received a routine command to make the third of four turns required for the approach to the airport. He was also cleared to descend to 2,800 ft. from 3,100 ft. Goncharuk reported having the runway in sight shortly before the disaster, the magazine said.

The plane, which carried 136 passengers and nine crew members, was en route from Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains to Vladivostok, the major port on Russia's Pacific Coast. It was to land in Irkutsk for refueling and passenger discharge.

The trijet was delivered in 1986 and had 20,943 hours - or about 9,000 fewer than its service life limit, AW&ST said. Vladivostokavia acquired the plane from a Chinese carrier last year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The plane entered into a spin?

[ 10 July 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

Irishboy

11th Jul 2001, 02:35

From http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0710/plane.html...

Russian investigators have blamed last week's plane crash in Siberia, in which 145 people died, on pilot error. The Tupolev passenger jet crashed as it was trying to land at Irkutsk airport. The findings of the investigating committee, made public today, cite a sudden, unexplained lurch on the controls by the co-pilot as the cause of the crash. The disaster has once again raised questions about the safety of Russian airlines.

The head of the committee, Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov, ruled out a fault with the aircraft as the cause of Russia's worst air disaster for decades. Instead, co-pilot Sergei Didenko, a 40-year-old father of two who was at the controls in the fateful final seconds of the flight, was singled out for responsibility.

Investigators said that they are still trying to establish why such an experienced pilot, with 2,004 hours flying time on the Tu-154, should make such a deadly mistake. According to Mr Klebanov, the black box flight data recorders showed no problems with the "emotional state" of Didenko and the captain, 51-year-old Valentin Goncharuk, and both were well rested before the flight.

The only hint of anything untoward was that the co-pilot's reactions to the captain's instructions had not always been "adequate" during the flight, said Klebanov. "We must try to understand why on a plane in full working order in fine weather conditions, at a certain moment the pilots took the wrong actions. For us that is question number one," Klebanov told a press conference in Moscow.

SKYDRIFTER

12th Jul 2001, 01:02

Assuming the latest accounts are accurate; another CRM disaster.

pigboat

12th Jul 2001, 05:40

This was on the Pravda website. http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/04/9313.html

PaperTiger

12th Jul 2001, 06:19

Assuming the latest accounts are accurate; another CRM disaster.
I don't follow. It would appear the F/O let it fall out of the turn to final, and the Capt. did nothing to stop it or react quickly enough when it did. Absent extenuating factors seems to be just bad flying. Unless I haven't seen the reports to which you refer, I can't see this as a Cockpit Resource Management failure, assuming we have the same definition for CRM.

Reports of this crash have been hampered not only by the usual media misunderstandings but also by some translation difficulties or approximations, viz:
'third approach' - no, third turn on the approach
'180 deg turn' - not intentionally
'high angle of attack' - probably bank angle
'flipped' - in the horizontal yes (see above)
'spiral' - not in the usual sense.

So I wouldn't place too much importance in phrases like 'adequate response' or 'lurch on the controls', may not be what the (Russian) spekaer said or meant.

[ 12 July 2001: Message edited by: PaperTiger ]

ionov

12th Jul 2001, 12:21

The copy of preliminary CVR transcript
fragment posted by MGloft looks like the
truth,although it's seems unbelieveble
because the flight manual of TU-154(B,M)
obliged every crew members making crosscheck
an altitude and speed.Only one thing might
diverted of attention of crew members from
conducting of aircraft that's threat of
collision with terrain because Irkutsk has
complicated relief and approach carried out
by night.Also,for information,99% of all
approaches for landing on the A/C TU-154
making in manual regime....

ionov

14th Jul 2001, 14:19

Additional information; http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/07/13/
9995.html

ATC Watcher

14th Jul 2001, 23:17

Thanks ionov for the link to the CVR transcript. Since you know the 154 procedures, is it normal procedure for the Capt only to interfere verbally ( i. e give orders to F/O and F/E) and not take over himself the controls ? Even in a situation like this ?
This is difficult for us to understand.

ionov

15th Jul 2001, 08:36

Of course,I believe the captain took control,
but initually he didn't yet understood danger
of these situation,because time (~10 sec.)
from dangerous to catastrophic position of
aircraft was been very short and action to
recover the plane from deep spin was taken
too late.And according to manual of AC TU-154
by levers conducting the flight-engineer.

bobtoldmetodoit

20th Jul 2001, 14:15

It's so obvious - wonder why no-one realised before !

Chilean earthquake linked to Siberia plane crash
Press Association 20/7/1

Seismologists in Russia say a recent plane crash in Siberia may have been
caused by an earthquake in Chile.

All 145 passengers on board the Vladivostok Avia plane were killed when it
crashed near the city of Irkutsk on July 3.

The Chilean quake happened at a point on the globe exactly opposite Irkutsk,
near where the plane went into a spin before crashing.

Experts say a shock wave of energy could have travelled directly through the
centre of the earth from Chile to Irkutsk and out of a tectonic fault line
under the area.

Seismologists familiar with the incident said alarm signals in the doomed
plane went off 17 seconds after the quake.

The shock wave could possibly have disrupted local electric, magnetic and
gravitational fields, causing a malfunction of the plane's navigational
devices.

Resulting faulty indications on the instrument panel might have been the
reason why the plane crashed.

The Tu-154 passenger jet jerked up its nose while making circles in the air
to approach the airport in the hills. The sudden rise at a low speed sent it
into a wild flat spin, throwing the crew and passengers from one side to
another before the jet crashed seconds later, reports Vlad Daily.

PaperTiger

20th Jul 2001, 19:29

Bwahahaha !

ionov

21st Jul 2001, 01:59

So can explain all desasters all over the
world.......

LatviaCalling

22nd Jul 2001, 02:32

bobtoldmetodoit,

How about just "bob." Anyway, I don't blame you for reporting it, but this earthquake thing has to be the most absurd piece of garbage I've read in a day.

ionov

26th Jul 2001, 02:16

Aeroflot Managers: Safety Regulations Often Abused

By Daniel Mclaughlin
Reuters

Aeroflot pushed Tuesday for tighter safety checks on the nation's hundreds of carriers after Russia's worst crash in years and to halt a post-Soviet slump in standards.

All 145 people on board died when a regional airline's Tu-154 jet plunged into a Siberian forest earlier this month, bringing back into focus the safety of the myriad "babyflots"that rose from the wreckage of the Soviet Union.

"In my view, the former system of safety regulation, beginning with state supervision and ending with the airline, is being abused," said Vladimir Potyomkin, a senior Aeroflot safety adviser.

"There is no effective system; one jet is leased to another company, then subleased to a third … the crew is unregulated, the maintenance team unregulated, and there are not always proper facilities for the planes," he told a news conference.

Potyomkin said Aeroflot had created its own safety inspection board to iron out problems with its own fleet, but insisted Russia's flagship carrier was very highly regarded by international safety bodies.

Former state airline monopoly Aeroflot rapidly mirrored the demise of the Soviet Union, disintegrating into a mass of poorly funded successor carriers that cash-strapped state safety bodies had little chance of keeping a close eye on.

First Deputy Transportation Minister Alexander Neradko said this month that Russia had some 270 airlines.

The chaos of the early 1990s led to a string of serious crashes, perhaps the most infamous of which brought down an A-310 over Siberia in 1994 after the pilot let his teenage son take over at the controls.

Russian officials blamed crew error for the crash that killed all on board the Vladivostokavia Tu-154 in early July. Ten people also died in a cargo plane crash outside Moscow this month.

The vast majority of Russia's fleet was built decades ago, and many Russian carriers, Aeroflot included, are under pressure from international regulators to cut noise and pollution from their planes or face exclusion from West European airports.

Alexander Koldunov, Aeroflot's chief flight safety inspector, said a lack of funds limited pilot training and restricted the quality of crews, as well as prevented Aeroflot from buying enough of the latest technology.

But the company was taking a leading role in trying to help Russia rebuild a regulatory system that has crumbled since Soviet days, Koldunov said.

"On the basis of international norms, we are trying to recreate a unified system that would uphold safety levels … and allow a safety inspectorate to take serious measures against airlines that broke the rules," he said.

Yevgeny Dobry, Aeroflot's chief engineer, said it was fitting its Tu-154s with sound-proofing panels to help them adhere to current limits and was leasing DC-10 freighters to replace the noisy Il-76 aircraft due to be banned by the European Union next April.

An aviation industry source told Reuters earlier this month that aircraft investment company XS Aviation was to sell the DC-10s to Boeing Capital Corp., which would then lease them.

Dobry also warned that all Russian planes except the Tu-204 would be refused landing permission at Western airports when new emissions guidelines come into effect in 2006.