Backfire Crash

[ORAC]

CFIT or stall? Fleet grounded, but that’s standard Russian stand down after a crash. Expect them to be back in the air after a couple of days. RIP crew.

I’d be interested to knowing more about which of the 4 got out. Command ejection, crash on runway?

TASS: Emergencies - All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday?s crash near (http://tass.com/emergencies/1041212)

All Tupolev-22M3 grounded till end of probe into Tuesday’s crash near

MOSCOW, January 22. /TASS/. All strategic bombers Tupolev-22M3 have been grounded until the end of the probe into the causes of Tuesday’s air crash near Murmansk, a source in the law enforcement has said. “For now all Tupolev-22M3 have been banned from flying until the causes of today’s crash become clear," the source said.

A Tupolev-22M3 bomber crashed on Tuesday afternoon while trying to land at an air base near Olenegorsk, the Murmansk Region. Three crew members died. One survived. A source in the law enforcement said that according to early estimates the pilot’s mistake made in bad weather was to blame.

[Rhino power]

That one crew member actually survived this is barely believable!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHMSSU_XyxU

-RP

[etudiant]

Seems like a very high sink rate and the aircraft lost its right wing after the initial touchdown.
Of course, these may be normal speeds for this design, but the structure clearly did not hold.

[tubby linton]

In very poor weather you wonder why anybody was out filming the approach and subsequent crash.

[Two's in]

The video looks like less than a mile visibility, indistinct cloud base merging into fog/snow, and although it's hard to tell until the camera pans in the runway direction, snow covered runway merging into the background whiteout and less than stellar runway lighting. It looks like a high ROD when they came out of the bottom, with very little time to put a site picture together, just broke the back when it hit, cockpit tucks under and breaks off, the now very tail heavy bomber climbs for a short period before impacting. Almost certainly CFIT by definition, but the type of approach and aids they were using in those weather minima will definitely be a factor.

RIP Ivans.

[ViktorKilmy]

this is a standart procedure at military airdromes.everytime a member of airdrome staff makes video all takeoffs and landings to discussing after work/sombody dealed a good work or somebody did not

[Pontius Navigator]

Slow motion and ROD would be interesting. In other similar crashes it us the undercarriage that collapses before structural failure, tank rupture and fire.

That looked much more like structural failure of the fuselage. I didn't see the right wing departing.

[unmanned_droid]

My take is that the RoD and approach speed is soo high that the aircraft half flies and half bounces back in to the air, and the forward fuselage breaks off as a result of reacting the impact loading. Yes, normally you would expect the undercarriage to seperate (either by a built in structural fuse or static strength failure due to overload), but I guess this aircraft could have been over engineered in that area

[weemonkey]

Tu-22M3The later Tu-22M3 (NATO: Backfire-C), which first flew in 1977, introduced into operation in 1983[64] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-:0-64) and officially entered service in 1989,[65] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-65) had new NK-25 engines (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznetsov_NK-25) with substantially more power, wedge-shaped intake ramps (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intake_ramp) similar to the MiG-25 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25), wings with greater maximum sweep and a recontoured nose housing a new Almaz PNA (Planeta Nositel, izdeliye 030A) navigation/attack radar (NATO ‘Down Beat’)[66] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-66) radar (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar) and NK-45 nav/attack system, which provides much-improved low-altitude flight. The aerodynamic changes increased its top speed to Mach 2.05 and its range by one third compared to the Tu-22M2.[64] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-:0-64) It has a revised tail turret with a single cannon, and provision for an internal rotary launcher (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_bay#Rotary_Launcher) for the Raduga Kh-15 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15) missile, similar to the American AGM-69 SRAM (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-69_SRAM). It was nicknamed Troika ('Trio' or third) in Russian service. 268 were built until 1993.[67] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-67)
[68] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-68)
[64] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-:0-64)As built, the Tu-22M included the provision for a retractable probe in the upper part of the nose for aerial refueling (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling). The probe was reportedly removed as a result of the SALT (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks)negotiations, because with refueling it was considered an intercontinental range strategic bomber.[69] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-Janes_80_p212-69) The probe can be reinstated if needed.[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-vectorsite-2)
[70] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-70)Tu-22M3s used to attack targets in Syria underwent modernization, during which the SVP-24-22 specialized computing subsystems were installed on them, significantly increased the accuracy of the bombing.[71] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#cite_note-71)

Looks like the fuselage broke clean off at a marry up point.
(For the spams that is where two separate fuselage "barrels" are joined in production and nothing to do with marijuana ..)

https://youtu.be/CXoIy3IKEso

And yes I am tarring them all with the same brush!

[etudiant]

Slow motion and ROD would be interesting. In other similar crashes it us the undercarriage that collapses before structural failure, tank rupture and fire.

That looked much more like structural failure of the fuselage. I didn't see the right wing departing.

Stop action review shows you are correct. I mistook the folded under forward fuselage for the right wing.

[DIBO]

The post by Two's in sums it up very well: "Snow covered runway merging into the background whiteout". Even when well lit from the first fireball, no concrete to be seen clearly (from the sideline, at least)
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1027x387/tu_22m3_crash2_png_52e48a7ae9160f7831a516392d753dd4dcf13e21. jpeg

Lateral instability of the camera precludes any conclusions on AoA & approach attitude. I doubt if ROD was really all that high before the flare (which was too little, too late, if any!)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x389/tu_22m3_crash_7727a1258815719c18582f4b255017cbf8488e1c.png

[Davef68]

Reports from Russia say two crew were taken to hospital but one subsequently died.

RIP. Professionals doing their job

[MPN11]

Having reviewed with ‘Pause’ I get the feeling that the nose gear never made contact, and that the fuselage break may thus have been caused by heavy impact by the main gear. The subsequent moment caused the fuslage to ‘snap’.

[BigEndBob]

This was just white out, lack of a visual cue to flare, it slammed right into the ground at descent speed.

[Just This Once...]

Aircraft don't usually fall apart at approach RoD with no flare - that event is a design consideration before you even start drop testing.

[MPN11]

JTO ... that’s my thinking, but as an ex-ATCO I defer, as always, to Eng and Aircrew. ;)

[Carbon Bootprint]

Slow motion and ROD would be interesting. In other similar crashes it us the undercarriage that collapses before structural failure, tank rupture and fire.

That looked much more like structural failure of the fuselage. I didn't see the right wing departing.
That was my take on it, too. Nasty touchdown. RIP to the fallen crew member and best hopes for the survivor.

[Kerosene Kraut]

Are they used for a lot of low-level flying and stuff that might let fatigue the structure early?

[tdracer]

Aircraft don't usually fall apart at approach RoD with no flare - that event is a design consideration before you even start drop testing.

Agreed. While it hit the ground hard (and admittedly it's difficult reliably estimate the actual descent rate with the lack of external ques), I wouldn't expect a complete failure of the fuselage. Damage, yes, but compete failure, no...

[tubby linton]

Questions-
What type of approach was being flown and descent angle?
What avioinics are fitted? Radar Altimeter? HUD?
What would be a typical approach speed?
What G is the aircraft stressed to?
Why can we not see any of the airfield lighting?

[richardthethird]

Don't forget lack of RA reliability on snow...

[Kerosene Kraut]

Said to have been some NDB approach.

[megan]

I wouldn't expect a complete failure of the fuselage. Damage, yes, but compete failure, no... It does happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaqRx3SV-k8

[Just This Once...]

The MD-80 breakup was not a normal approach and happened during a overly risky development profile flown by test pilots. Most of reasons for that crash happened well-before anyone got onboard.

[dead_pan]

Technicalities of the crash aside, I'm amazed there was someone actually filming the landing in those conditions. I'm even more amazed they stuck with it after the initial impact - Gawd only knows where the debris was headed after the initial break-up. I for one would have dived for cover.

[AndoniP]

Technicalities of the crash aside, I'm amazed there was someone actually filming the landing in those conditions. I'm even more amazed they stuck with it after the initial impact - Gawd only knows where the debris was headed after the initial break-up. I for one would have dived for cover.

so you didn't read post #6 then...

[Pontius Navigator]

LWithout the benefit of frame by frame viewing it looks as if the fire was fully developed at the moment of the nose breaking away

Is it possible the landing was an emergency one though the lack of fire trucks suggests otherwise?

[dead_pan]

so you didn't read post #6 then...

Answers my first point, but not my second. Is the cameraman under strict instruction to carry on filming, come what may?

[MPN11]

LWithout the benefit of frame by frame viewing it looks as if the fire was fully developed at the moment of the nose breaking away

Is it possible the landing was an emergency one though the lack of fire trucks suggests otherwise?
MLG punched up through the wing into fuel tanks in cnsequence if the firm arrival?

Haven’t looked at placement, but presumably a lot of ‘fuel based equipment’ in that area?

[Davef68]

LWithout the benefit of frame by frame viewing it looks as if the fire was fully developed at the moment of the nose breaking away

Is it possible the landing was an emergency one though the lack of fire trucks suggests otherwise?

No, tail seems to hit the snow, then the fuselage breaks in half, then the first appearance of fire is at the apex of the two broken sections as the rear pitches up and the front pitches down

[Less Hair]

Some russian report claims the tower had ordered some diversion due to bad weather below minimum but the regiment's commander insisted they had to land right there.

https://www.murmansk.kp.ru/daily/26933/3983422/

[jimjim1]

Without the benefit of frame by frame viewing

Youtube allows 0.25 speed (and others). Gear Icon/Speed.

At that speed the nose can be seen to fall off before the fire is visible.

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if those birds are equipped with FDR?

[unmanned_droid]

Youtube allows 0.25 speed (and others). Gear Icon/Speed.

At that speed the nose can be seen to fall off before the fire is visible.

Yes, the fuselage fractures due to the impact on to the runway. That was the reaction to the impact. The fuselage acts like a simply supported beam subject to a distributed load (in this case the fuselage weight x NZ (G) load factor). The simple support is at the interface of ground and tyre. The force finds the weakest point and if the force is high enough, structural failure ranging from material plasticity and bolt failure up to catastrophic rupture, as seen here, occurs.

Often, the weakest point is the MLG joints and the landing gear collapses or punches through the wing, and the fuselage hits the ground more or less in one go, as with the 777 at Heathrow.

[Pontius Navigator]

Youtube allows 0.25 speed (and others). Gear Icon/Speed.

At that speed the nose can be seen to fall off before the fire is visible.
My system does not allow speed change but on YT is was clear that the breakup came first.