A321 tail hit ILS at TO GA at Kazan (UWKD)

[Kulverstukas]

Accident: Ural A321 at Kazan on Jan 25th 2013, aircraft struck localizer antenna during go-around


By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jan 25th 2013 15:13Z, last updated Friday, Jan 25th 2013 15:17Z

A Ural Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration VQ-BOZ performing flight U6-3045 (dep Jan 24th) from Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) to Kazan (Russia), was on final automatic approach to Kazan, visibility about 800 meters with cloud base at 100 feet, when the crew after breaking out of cloud at about 100 feet AGL initiated a go-around due to not being in a proper position to land on the runway. The aircraft struck one of the localizer antennas but managed to climb out safely. The aircraft positioned for another approach to Kazan and landed safely. There were no injuries, the aircraft received substantial damage to its tail.

Russia's Emergency Ministry of Tatarstan confirmed the aircraft struck the localizer antenna during the go-around, but managed to land on its second approach to Kazan. There were no injuries, the aircraft was substantially damaged in its tail area, the next scheduled flight of the aircraft had to be flown by a replacement aircraft VQ-BOF.

The airline confirmed the aircraft was damaged when it struck the localizer however there were no injuries.

Kazan offers a runway 11L/29R of 3724 meters/12210 feet length with ILS approaches available to both 11L and 29R.

Metars:
UWKD 250200Z 32002MPS 3000 BR BCFG OVC003 M24/M26 Q1006 118/0050 NOSIG RMK QFE745/0994
UWKD 250130Z 09002MPS 0200 R29R/0650 FZFG VV002 M24/M26 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB060 QFE743/0991
UWKD 250100Z 09002MPS 5000 BR BKN002 M24/M27 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB080 QFE743/0991
UWKD 250030Z 00000MPS 5000 BR BKN002 M24/M27 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB080 QFE743/0991
UWKD 250000Z 10002MPS 1700 BR BKN002 M24/M27 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB080 QFE743/0991
UWKD 242330Z 11002MPS 0900 R29R/P1500 FZFG VV001 M23/M26 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB030 QFE743/0991
UWKD 242300Z 04002MPS 0250 R29R/0800 FZFG VV001 M23/M26 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB030 QFE743/0991
UWKD 242230Z 02002MPS 0600 R29R/P1400 FZFG VV001 M22/M25 Q1006 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB030 QFE743/0991
UWKD 242200Z 00000MPS 2000 BR OVC001 M22/M25 Q1007 798/0050 TEMPO 0800 FZFG RMK QBB030 QFE744/0992
UWKD 242130Z 07002MPS 0350 R29R/0900 FZFG VV001 M20/M23 Q1007 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB030 QFE744/0992
UWKD 242100Z 08002MPS 5000 BR OVC001 M19/M21 Q1007 798/0050 NOSIG RMK QBB050 QFE744/0992

© avherald (http://avherald.com/h?article=45cb69c9&opt=0)

[Kulverstukas]

http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29265.jpg http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29266.jpg

http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29267.jpg http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29268.jpg

http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29269.jpg http://www.business-gazeta.ru/images/article/29270.jpg

via (http://www.business-gazeta.ru/article/73894/)

[Kulverstukas]

http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet1.jpg


http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet2.jpg http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet3.jpg

http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet4.jpg http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet5.jpg


http://i1.tatar-inform.ru/image/2013/01/samolet6.jpg


via (http://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/2013/01/25/346366/)

[BOAC]

Which ILS? Active or reciprocal?:sad:

[Fullblast]

It doesn't say clearly which antennas it struck, cause they are on both runway so I guess it struck the antennas of the opposite localizer; it seems a wise decision to go-around, don't know the autoland system of the bus, but for sure it already killed once.

[Kulverstukas]

Which ILS?

NOTAM already issued.

[toffeez]

".. don't know the autoland system of the bus, but for sure it already killed once."

That's a statement the Airbus lawyers can take all the way to the bank.

[BOAC]

AvHerald says on approach 29R and struck 11L loc.

[fantom]

Fullblast, do you have a very special legal team?

[fantom]

A310 enjoys the protection of the same excellent legal team as Fullblast, it seems.

[guclu]

What I understand is they were making a CATII approach on RWY29.

If it was an automatic approach can there be an affect of the very low temperature ?

Because if the aircraft did hit the loc antenna of the other runway it means the aircraft was lower than normal. And what I see from the PICS is that the aircaft was on centerline.

The biggest question is why was the aircraft lower if it was following glideslope ?

[fdr]

Kulva: good photos... guess you aren't going to be invited to the next Xnas party at UralAir... but great images. I always thought that there was issues with cameras on an airport in the CIS.

guclu: temperature impact on true altitude can be significant, particularly at higher elevations. THe GS antenna signal itself is not affected by temperature however the environmental conditions in front of the GS antenna can affect the ground plane reflectance and that can put the GS out of alignment. In front of the GS antenna there is a monitoring receiver that validates the GS transmission, or is supposed to. A "false GS" lobe is a large variation that is primarily above the real GS, the false lobe that occurs below the normal GS is a mirror image and is not usually an issue.

If the ground plane conditions affect the signal alignment, and the monitoring fails to terminate the transmission, then the temperature affect to true altitude is critical in order to identify the error.

All in all, I would think that this is not the reason behind this low approach, would be looking more at the procedures and setup....

[Lone_Ranger]

Fullblast, do you have a very special legal team?

Party Pooper :}

[DownIn3Green]

I think the key phrase here is "automatic approach"....To my old grey haired head, doesn't a Cat II take you to 100' and then you either take over manually or "go around"?

I have a lawyer but won't need her here...this shouldn't be an "Airbus" thing...It should be a "crew" thing...

Fly enough Cat II's successfully in the sim and you simply aren't mentally prepared to do anything other than land....

However, on the Boeing....:D

[PT6A]

DownIn3Green, a CATII approach would not always be a manual landing, infact it is perfectly normal to conduct an auto land from a CATII (subject to various conditions)

Likewise an auto land from a CAT I approach (for example LTS minima)

[Sqwak7700]

I don't think low temp altimetry would be a factor in this. They where on a glideslope. The glideslope is not affected by temp errors. If they had gone lower than DH due to uncorrected cold altimeter they would have scraped the runway, not the loc antenna.

This looks more like a "decision, going visual", followed by a lowering of the nose trying to see better followed by someone realizing that they should throw it away.

They were extremely lucky and got off by the skin of their teeth. They certainly won't be able to blame this on the old favorite, "Russian equipment".

[DownIn3Green]

PT6A...Not sure what you're trying to say....

While any approach (even visual) can be turned into Cat !!! (autoland), they are called CAT II for a reason...either the runway, crew or A/C don't meet the requirements of a CAT III....ergo a CAT II is flown and CAT II minimums apply, which do not include "autoland" (CAT III)...

Unless things have changed in the last 30 years....

And BTW, in the 80's at Eastern our (certain ones anyway) B-727's had CAT III autoland capability...and a logbook entry had to be made in the logbook at least every 30 days indicating a CAT III UTOLAND WAS MADE to keep the A/C current...

[Clandestino]

Way it was done on 320 while I was active:

Compulsory AP for all LVP approaches, CAT2 with either manual or autoland, CAT3 down to NO DH 3b strictly autoland, which is allowed only for actual or practice LVP approaches, however most of the 320 operators are not so conservative and allow autolands even on CAT 1 beams, if practice shows they are safe. Beats me how they evaluate that.

While any approach (even visual) can be turned into Cat !!! (autoland)Can or can't depends on who issued your CofA and who are you working for.

CAT II minimums apply, which do not include "autoland" (CAT III)... That autoland is compulsory for some LVP approaches has lead many a person to wrongly assume that it is connected with LVP only. If your (type, model, version, installation specific) George was limited to CAT3 autolands only, it doesn't follow all the others were so. Currently I can perform CAT3a even without CAT3 capable autopilot, let alone autoland.

[DownIn3Green]

Well, Clando...I don't have the current knowledge to argue with you....It seem we agree on many points re: A/C, Aircrew and Rwy quals regarding Cat III's.
At EAL we had CAT IIIa AUTOLAND on the 727...RVR had to be 700'....

Captain worked the thrust levers once the "Flare" amber turned to Green at +/- five feet R/A 50' AGL....(No Auto-throttles here!)

Cat III3b (which we didn't have on the 727) was Auto-throttle and centerline steering after touchdown...

As I said, this almost 30 yrs ago, and that technology was from the late 50's...

I'm sure things today as far as automation and technology are far, far advanced, but as for today's pilots???

I can still fly a raw data ILS to mins...in IMC....can 90 out of 100 ATP Commanders today say that???

Just saying....

[Annex14]

Like to call that a strange accident!!
ILS facts:
Touchdown Point of 3deg ILS GS is about 1000 ft beyond THD.
Height over THD is calculated at 50 ft.
Installation of ILS LLZ is about 1000 ft before THD
2000 ft of distance on a 3 deg GS convert into 100 ft. above THD height
Both RWY ends at Kazan appear to connect to lowering terrain(acc. Google Earth)

That indicates aircraft was far too low when hitting the LLZ installation.
Assumption : This accident should be considered as a barely avoided undershoot

[Clandestino]

I'm sure things today as far as automation and technology are far, far advancedYou should not be. They are not. Myth that aeroplanes of today are radically different form those of 20-30-40-years-ago is blatantly false, yet perpetuated by manufacturers' marketing divisions - in both complimentary an derogatory sense depending whether they are praising their product or maligning the competitor's. Yup, we got EFIS, FMS and all other neat stuff, but when it comes to autopilots and low vis procedures, it is just the mater of replacing transistors with microcircuitry. Basic principles applicable to Airbus are the same that were applicable to HS Trident.


but as for today's pilots???They are doing fine, thank you for asking. Given the sheer volume of flights today, how occurrences where their manual flying skills save the day seldom make it past the internal safety bulletins and that some pilots of yesteryear did manage to hit the ground below the airport elevation, claiming there were good-old-days-when-everyone-knew-how-to-fly-unlike-today is misinformed at the very least.