PDA

View Full Version : B737 Utair runway excursion upon landing, in Sochi, Crimea,


Sunamer
1st Sep 2018, 06:18
Utair airline official statement:
B737-800 VQ-BJI during flight UT579 Moscow-Sochi, departed the runway after landing. Aircraft ended up in a river, and as a result, main landing gear and wings were destroyed. Left engine caught on fire. There were 164 people on board and 6 cabin crew/pilots. Airport firefighter brigade stopped the fire, and people were successfully evacuated.


Самолет Boeing 737-800 с бортовым номером VQ-BJI, следующий рейсом UT579 Москва - Сочи, после посадки выкатился за пределы взлетно-посадочной полосы. Воздушное судно скатилось в русло реки, в результате чего разрушились стойки шасси и крыло, произошло возгорание левого двигателя. На борту самолета находилось 164 пассажира и 6 членов экипажа. Пожарные расчеты аэропорта Сочи потушили возгорание, людей эвакуировали. Жертв нет. Авиакомпания и авиационные власти начали расследование причин случившегося.
https://www.utair.ru/about/news/informatsiya-o-reyse-ut579-moskva-sochi/

ViktorKilmy
1st Sep 2018, 07:15
it is not Crimea,it is Krasnodar area (Krasnodarsky kray) Russia

DaveReidUK
1st Sep 2018, 07:24
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1024x512/dl_wbwww4aam3sp_f3e2b3bc9560aeaa723676069e65443be9df5e7c.jpg

Gibair
1st Sep 2018, 07:28
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/956x609/341f2122_85e0_479d_921a_6f4b5667cde6_69af81557422b72f16633e5 f9d1dda86bbf80003.jpeg

Credit TASS

fox niner
1st Sep 2018, 10:16
Landed in the WOCL (0300 local time). Runway is 2900m/9500 ft. Runway was wet, there were thunderstorms and windshear was given in the metar.
Pure speculation of course, it resembles the DHL overrun at bergamo in 2016. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20160805-0&lang=nl

John Boeman
1st Sep 2018, 10:34
it resembles the DHL overrun at bergamo in 2016. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20160805-0&lang=nl

Of course I’m sure what you actually meant to say is that it resembles the ASL Airlines Hungary overrun at BGY.
(Yes it was doing flights under contract for DHL at the time....)

Doors to Automatic
1st Sep 2018, 10:36
Of course I’m sure what you actually meant to say is that it resembles the ASL Airlines Hungary overrun at BGY.
(Yes it was doing flights under contract for DHL at the time....)

It also resembles the AA 737 overrun at Kingston.

AlexGG
1st Sep 2018, 10:47
Russian forums report, referencing emergency services, 166 souls on board, 18 injured. Also reports have it that one of the airport officials died of cardiac arrest during or after evacuation/firefighting.

oceancrosser
1st Sep 2018, 11:01
Yet another 737 goes off piste. I know there is a lot of them, but as a type it is truly not underrepresented in this category of events.

atakacs
1st Sep 2018, 13:06
Yet another 737 goes off piste. I know there is a lot of them, but as a type it is truly not underrepresented in this category of events.
maybe... Do you have some actual numbers to back this?

meleagertoo
1st Sep 2018, 13:31
Yet another 737 goes off piste. I know there is a lot of them, but as a type it is truly not underrepresented in this category of events.
Perhaps you could expand on how or why 737s are more prone to overruns than other types. Is this a previously unrecognised design fault perhaps? Or something the aeroplane does to skew pilots' judgement in bad weather?

Your insight into this most serious allegation will be absolutely critical to saving human lives in future, you are morally and duty bound to reveal your knowledge.

oceancrosser
1st Sep 2018, 13:52
maybe... Do you have some actual numbers to back this?

Well the sources do exist. Feel free to search. Here is one, although only covering 1998-2007 by the ATSB https://flightsafety.org/files/RERR/ATSB%20Report.pdf
Out of 144 landing accidents, 737s accounted for 35 or almost 25%. Did 737s at the time account for 25% of Commercial Aircraft flights? Probably not.
Other sources excist for those who want to look Aviation Accident Archives - Aviation Accident Database (http://www.aviation-accidents.net/category/accident/) .
Since 2008 there have been quite a lot of 737 runway accidents. Indonesian carries anyone? I am quite sure the percentage has not gone down. So apparently not underrepresented at all.
I have flown the 737 from both pilot seats, in an operation that most of the time was either limited by MTOW og MLGW. And I did not like its appetite for runways, nor mediocre stopping capability.

RatherBeFlying
1st Sep 2018, 13:52
Etobicoke Creek at Toronto Pearson has hosted a DC-9 and an A-340.

500 above
1st Sep 2018, 13:59
Runway was wet, there were thunderstorms and windshear was given in the metar.

As usual for Sochi.

racedo
1st Sep 2018, 15:04
Used this airport twice in June during World Cup...................... smallihs but with high mountains in the background plus water there is always likely to be a higher risk with weather than elsewhere.

Herod
1st Sep 2018, 15:12
Ref statistics, oceancrosser, don't forget that the 737 is a short-haul aircraft. It probably does between 4 and 8 landings a day, while a long-haul may only do 2. You need to look at the percentage of landing accidents against the total number of landings on type to achieve any meaningful figure. I suspect other short-haul types like the Airbus 320/321 series will have a similar rate.

WHBM
1st Sep 2018, 15:33
Looking at the news pictures of a substantial fire, and then the minimal fire damage, seemingly to the port wing only with no fuselage breach, you can only conclude the ARFF must have been absolutely on the scene in a flash - at 3 am local.

Carbon Bootprint
1st Sep 2018, 15:49
Looking at the news pictures of a substantial fire, and then the minimal fire damage, seemingly to the port wing only with no fuselage breach, you can only conclude the ARFF must have been absolutely on the scene in a flash - at 3 am local.
That's what they're there for, especially to be ready at times when aircraft movements are expected. But to your point, they seem to have done their job quite well in this case.

fox niner
1st Sep 2018, 16:24
Apparently ths was the third attempt, after 2 missed approaches.

rog747
1st Sep 2018, 16:35
The 737 was on its 3rd attempt to land.

Maybe the Fire service was up and about anyway standing by with such mucky weather?

Also ref the fierce wing fire fed from No.1 engine, seems the wind direction fortunately blew the fire away from the fuselage and LHS exits looking at the video's...

wiedehopf
1st Sep 2018, 16:40
Aren't approach speeds generally higher than on the A320? Also high winds could mean flaps 30 and higher speeds or am i mistaken?

Also the A320 undercarriage has more travel i believe sitting higher above the ground.
Maybe the bus calling people retard helps who knows.

Just because everyone is talking about type prevalence i thought i'd throw some ideas around so it's not just a yes/no game.

pattern_is_full
1st Sep 2018, 17:04
Yet another 737 goes off piste. I know there is a lot of them, but as a type it is truly not underrepresented in this category of events.

Might be worth breaking out 800/900 versions in the stats. It came up in our discussion of the Kingston, Jamaica overrun that the stretched versions sometimes land flatter, with more tendency to float, due to the reduced tail clearance and pitch limits. And will have higher landing weights, on average.

But there are so many other factors - where flown, quality of crews and training, willingness to push tailwind limits, SOP flaps choice, etc. I leave it to experienced 738/9 drivers to comment - but it is true that if I see "737 overrun", I'm never surprised if it's an 800/900.

Doors to Automatic
1st Sep 2018, 17:21
Indeed - the 738 can usually be comfortably brought to a stop within around 1000m once on the ground, and operates daily into many airports with 1000m less to play with than Sochi, so there must be far more at play here.

cappt
1st Sep 2018, 18:12
The 800/900 do land fast and it's uncomfortably at times, Boeings fix for shortcomings and stretching out the fuselage. Having said that this runway length should not have been a factor at all. Delayed reverser/braking with hydroplaning maybe. I know a lot more focus is coming down on briefing and discussing where the go-around decision should be executed if not planted on the runway. Easier said then done when the WX is ugly, the last thing you want to do is go back up and fly around some more.

oceancrosser
1st Sep 2018, 19:31
Someone else came up with this:

https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Boeing-737-800/database

andrasz
1st Sep 2018, 19:45
I have lived through a fleet transition fron Classic NG-s to NG NG-s (I'm old enough to remember when the -300 was called the NG and the -200 the Classic), in the first couple of months it was quite common to float 200-300 metres on flare due to the highly efficient wings. It took a while to become accustomed to a much more assertive touchdown. I don't know when UT did the transition, but last time I looked they still had quite a few classics around...

ManaAdaSystem
1st Sep 2018, 21:10
-800’s does seem to show up more often when it comes to overruns.
Why? I has a high approach speed. You need to land it where it is supposed to be landed, at the correct speed, or it will eat runway like few other aircraft. Under adverse conditions you need to maintain positive stopping efford all the way until it stops. If you use autobrakes and disconnect them, the system will need time to start braking again if you brake manually. This is really an issue on contaminated runways.
If you use high reverse and unreverse quickly, you will get positive thrust when the reversers stow.
An maybe it is flown by a lot of P2F and low experienced pilots? I flew with one of our new, low hour pilots. Flying is so easy, he said. Well, yes, AP B CMD, push som buttons, and you can fly from A to B in LNAV/VNAV. Easy!
But landing 60 something tons of 737 on a contaminated runway in adverse weather conditions is a difficult as it always has been.
The flat attitude on approach with the -800 make it very easy to end up high when you get close to the runway. The tendency is to raise the nose a bit to get into a more familiar «nose high»attitude. I still do this from time to time and need to maintain forward pressure to get back on profile.
I am never shy about using AB 3 on a dry runway, or max on a contaminated runway.
I also fly -700. Easy aircraft compared to the -800.

I treat the -800 with the respect it deserves and have never had any close calls, despite flying it into some really interesting places with limited runway lengths and bad weather.

PJ2
1st Sep 2018, 21:16
Boeing publishes a yearly statistical summary of commercial jet air carrier accidents. Link below to the 2017 publications by Boeing and by Airbus, (for 2016):

From the Boeing document:
Fleet Type........................................Hull Losses......................Hull Losses w/fatalities..................Hull Loss Accident Rate - All.....................Hull Loss Accident Rate w/fatalities
B737-300/400/500........................................50............... ......................................19.................... .................0.25....................................... .......................0.66
B737-600/700/800/900..................................15..................... ..................................7......................... ...........0.09............................................. .................0.19
Airbus A320/A319/A231/A318........................25.............................. ........................12.................................. ..0.11...................................................... ........0.23

Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents Worldwide Operations 1959 – 2016 (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/4239.pdf)

A Statistical Analysis of Commercial Aviation Accidents 1958 / 2017 (https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/safety-first/Airbus-Commercial-Aviation-Accidents-1958-2017.pdf)

OvertHawk
1st Sep 2018, 21:29
Looking at the news pictures of a substantial fire, and then the minimal fire damage, seemingly to the port wing only with no fuselage breach, you can only conclude the ARFF must have been absolutely on the scene in a flash - at 3 am local.

In bad weather such as this many airports I'm familiar with would have put their RFFS crews on "weather standby", i.e In their appliances and positioned at the holding points for just such an eventuality as this. Not sure if this is something that would have happened at Sochi.

Either way, it seems like the RFFS team did a good job.

sonicbum
2nd Sep 2018, 09:34
Guys all this discussion about the -800 having "high approach speeds" and be prone to "getting off the runway" is just plain ridiculous. There are landing performance calculations that can be based on a 130 kt or 160 kt or 190 kt or whatever Vref it just does not matter as long as You put in the correct landing data and the landing technique is appropriate. The theory that if on a classic You f#ck up the landing You can still probably make it without veering off the runway is better left out for a pub talk please. Nonsense. Let's focus on the root causes and contributing factors and let's try to learn something beneficial for ourselves.

scifi
2nd Sep 2018, 09:56
Is the airport open for use.? It could take a long time to extricate the remains.

OldLurker
2nd Sep 2018, 10:41
Is the airport open for use.? It could take a long time to extricate the remains.Airport seems to be functioning, according to its web site: aer.aero/en/passengers/online-schedule/ (http://aer.aero/en/passengers/online-schedule/)
From the photos above and the map on AvHerald, at least 02/20 is surely usable, although on lineup for 20 the pax would get an interesting view of the remains.
Accident: UTAir B738 at Sochi on Sep 1st 2018, overran runway on landing (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4bd19050)

500 above
2nd Sep 2018, 10:43
Is the airport open for use.? It could take a long time to extricate the remains.

yes, it’s open.

FBW390
2nd Sep 2018, 11:45
Third attempt? Usually if you have missed 2 times the landing something is really wrong. Time to divert!

FBW390
2nd Sep 2018, 11:58
Anybody has the METAR at the time of the accident? Thanks.

PEI_3721
3rd Sep 2018, 16:06
Re # 9 - 11. Not to drift too far from the thread, nor A vs B; the FAA doc ‘Normal Operational Landing Performance’ (http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar077.pdf) illustrates how similar aircraft can have different performance capabilities for given situations. This reinforces the need to know and understand the implications of aircraft operating performance, and how to adjust operations for different landing conditions.

Relevant to this accident might be Figs 20 / 21, ‘difference in speeds at the threshold’, “The difference in the actual speed and the reference speed over the threshold has a strong influence on the airborne distance.”
And Fig 31 ’influence of autobrake setting’, particularly if normal values for 737 are markedly different from other types, and similarly from Fig 32 for wet conditions where one aircraft type has a greater deviation from the norm.

Irrespective of the aircraft type, the weakest link may still be the human in judging the conditions and adapting for them, particularly where there are differences in safety margin; this may require more skilful judgement and knowledge, and greater adaptation from the norm in order to retain an adequate safety margin.

This view should not conclude ‘crew error’, but is an opportunity to consider the wider human factors in the event. Two previous approaches were discontinued; apparently good awareness, judgement, and decisions for the conditions, thus what factors in the third approach changed this process.

cappt
3rd Sep 2018, 23:48
Anybody has the METAR at the time of the accident? Thanks.

URSS 010000Z 23004MPS 5000 1800E R02/P3000N TSRA BKN006 OVC030CB 21/21 Q1014 WS ALL RWY R02/250350 R06/250350 NOSIG RMK R06/19004MPS QBB200 MT OBSC QFE759=
URSS 312330Z 10010G22MPS 030V140 0500 0250NW R02/1200U +TSRA VV013 19/19 Q1014 WS ALL RWY R02/250350 R06/250350 TEMPO VRB10G22MPS 0500 +TSRA BKN006 BKN020CB RMK R06/11015G24MPS MT OBSC QFE759=

The overrun happened at 2357Z

45989
4th Sep 2018, 07:37
Two missed approaches? Common sense says divert

andrasz
6th Nov 2018, 17:09
Preliminary report is out, details on AVH. In summary, repeated ignoring of windshear warnings, app speed well above vref, landed long, late T/R...
Sounds familiar from several previous accident reports.

BARKINGMAD
8th Nov 2018, 12:22
Here in the Northern Hemisphere it's once again time for hoary old chestnuts:

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/599762-737-runway-overruns.html

Aaaah that warm wet sense of security with Vref+20 kts and the far end of the runway approaching even faster.........!!!

Hawala
9th Nov 2018, 12:23
I do see 737s (NGs) using full rev on the same runway I landed with A320 with idle rev. May be just me....