Russia - Plane crash lands in field after bird strike

[Titania]

Plane crash lands in field after bird strike sets fire in both engines - All safe! Flight Ural Airlines U6178, Moscow - Simferopol, ZIA-SIP, Airbus A321, registration VQ-BOZ, MSN 2117, first flight 16 December 2003. Scheduled departure 06:10 Moscow time. Some 234 passengers, 7 crew, 15 light injuries. Plane engines caught fire shortly after take-off due to large bird strike. Crash landed in field without landing gear extended. First responders arrived at 06:40 and doused the plane with foam. Location Moscow suburb of Ramenskoye.

In Russian:
https://m.e1.ru/news/66198010

[pattern_is_full]

"Sully in the cornfield?" Looking forward to more info on this.

[Australopithecus]

What’s the Russian word for “Sully”? Incredible outcome.

[GordonR_Cape]

English version: https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKCN1V50DQ

[PoppaJo]

I assume in what appears to be a slow evacuation is due to following step number 1 in modern day evacuations -retrieve your luggage.

That CFM sounds quite unhealthy. Top effort to tech crew. Full tanks, corn field and quite a bit of speed on the video. Great work guys!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1VaUxbCj8Q

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=17&v=mkDXwUFRsBY

[DaveReidUK]

Plane engines caught fire shortly after take-off due to large bird strike.

Immediately after, in fact.

Judging from the very sketchy data on FR24 (supported by the video), the aircraft was already earthbound within 45 seconds of passing over the upwind THR.

[jack11111]

It doesn't get any better than this outcome. Everybody, quick, buy lottery tickets!

[ATC Watcher]

Great job by the Crew indeed . . I must also raise my hat to the CEO of the airline for the typical Russian Public Statement after the accident :
“There was an emergency landing in Zhukovsky. Birds got into both engines. Engines turned off, the crew carried out the landing,” Ural Airlines general director said ,

[atakacs]

Well maybe something was lost in translation!

In any case a great outcome. And to be honnest a lucky one too...

[Farmer106]

Truly outstanding! All alive, well done!

[Volume]

It doesn't get any better than this outcome. Everybody, quick, buy lottery tickets!
VMC, level fields ahead, the chances were much better than in the lottery.
Still a great job. This is why we have humans sitting in row zero.

IMC/Night, build up areas around the airport and the chances would have been slim.

Video looks like a flaps 1 (slats but no flaps) configuration at landing. Strange, but maybe not the worst option to have the wing staying intact.
Looking forward for the report, again a lot to be learned.

[FlightDetent]

1+F my guess, common take-off setting. Check the other vid.

[Nightstop]

VMC, level fields ahead, the chances were much better than in the lottery.
Still a great job. This is why we have humans sitting in row zero.

IMC/Night, build up areas around the airport and the chances would have been slim.

Video looks like a flaps 1 (slats but no flaps) configuration at landing. Strange, but maybe not the worst option to have the wing staying intact.
Looking forward for the report, again a lot to be learned.

Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:

APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS

ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY

[42go]

“Immediately after, in fact.”

OH dear! Mind you, let’s not be pedantic about pedantry.750ft?? David – to avoid too much knicker-twisting, we’ll go with your definition if it helps.

[macdo]

Respect to the crew. Great outcome.

[ORAC]

IMC/Night, build up areas around the airport and the chances would have been slim. As would the possibility of a bird strike....

[VolLibre]

I hope we see this story featured as much as Sully's, or at least given credit due to the professionalism of the crew and the design factors - Asiana 214, Lion Air in Bali and PNG Chuuk for instance. It's amazing. I've out-landed over a thousand times, but a in a hang glider not in a A321 LOL.

[jettero]

They struck birds right on the runway
http://twitter.com/360tv/status/1161891727902482434

[jettero]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/589x1067/0217f6c2b496eca425cc8d98fb9f3f2f_full_1cbc20ab75d1e714b733f7 ebfa21de1d4e27f066.jpg

[strake]

Some quick translations from the passengers on the first video:

"We're alive....we're f****** alive'

Pax on phone: "It's bad news....but it's good news'

Cabin crew: 'Would you mind moving away from here now, please. Thank you.'

Result.

[Airmann]

Makes me wonder about whether putting gear down is really the best option in an emergency landing? I mean doesn't gear increase the chances of damage since you fully expect them to rip off after hitting the ground? Could rupture fuel tanks, fuselage? I think manufacturers reason for having them down is that they would soften the impact somewhat.

[Ploz]

The act of ripping the undercarriage off absorbs energy - so worth keeping the gear down from a physics perspective

[Lord Farringdon]

VMC, level fields ahead,

IMC/Night, build up areas around the airport and the chances would have been slim.



I'm guessing it was the corn fields close to the airport that attracted the birds in the first place. I'd wager they have had a few strikes from this airfield at the appropriate times of the season but a 'Sully' strike that takes out both engines shortly after takeoff? ...that the pits!

Now I don't want to take away from the crew skills that got everyone on the ground safely, but I suspect these guys didn't have time to make any significant decisions. Sully did. So he had to make decisions that could have been wrong but ultimately turned out to be right. All under considerable pressure. But for these guys , at 750 ft? there was really only one place they were going and thank God it wasn't into rough ground.!! Still, they pulled off a text book landing, saved everyone's skins and deserve to wear their wings proudly in the future with their Sully like emergency and same outcome.!!

What about the gear up landing? The checklist says gear down by gravity. So I assume the APU (first item on the checklist) doesn't provide power for the hydraulic pump system operating the landing gear? But at 750 feet.did they even go to the checklist? And if they did, would the APU have even been on speed by they time they hit? Would the gear have only been partially down anyway? i'm thinking gear down anywhere other than a runway is going to be a disaster so, maybe these guys deliberately chose not to lower.. I know 'speculation'...'wait till the report comes' out blah blah, but I just am really curious and I'm not actually speculating anything. Just wondering about the configuration possibilities that may have affected the outcome. Kudos to the crew!!

[172_driver]

Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:

APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS

ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY

What's the name of that checklist? I am not A320 rated but I am also, among with others, curious on what basis the gear should be left down. In my mind it ought to depend on surface. Water, soft ground, hard ground...

[HolyMoley]

What's the name of that checklist? I am not A320 rated but I am also, among with others, curious on what basis the gear should be left down. In my mind it ought to depend on surface. Water, soft ground, hard ground...

“Emergency landing” checklist. Two versions - gear down on land, gear up on water.

[JCviggen]

Wonder if there was a brace announcement... if so quite mind boggling that someone was still filming with their phone in 1 hand all the way down. It worked out OK in this case but if I hear brace for impact I couldn't care less about social media fame at that point.

[flyfan]

If their altitude was only 750ft, I'd simply say there was no time to run through checklists, considering the low speed and nose up attitude of the plane. Really looking forward to the investigation and also to hear/read from the pilots and why they decided whatever they decided.
But, gear up or down: Great job by them, absolutely no question there.

[LEM]

Apparently no BRACE FOR IMPACT warning by the crew?

[UltraFan]

I don't think any checklists apply when you are 750ft off the ground on take-off with full load of pax, full fuel and both engines out. At the risk of being a backseat driver, I think the decision to keep the LG up was the correct one (if it indeed was a conscious decision). They do absorb the impact energy but only if they are fully down. What happens if the impact catches them in transition, nobody knows. Also, LG down during crash landing increases the chance of flipping the craft.

[clareprop]

Apparently no BRACE FOR IMPACT warning by the crew?

A.N.C. Look it up.

[Nightstop]

The Checklist is titled:

EMER Landing ALL ENG FAILURE

It’s on the flip side of laminated cards which are located at the side of each pilot (the front side being the Normal checklists).

DITCHING on the left, FORCED LANDING on the right.

The DITCHING checklist states DITCHING Pb ON and LANDING GEAR UP, the FORCED LANDING checklist states SPLRS ARM and LANDING GEAR DOWN.

[Global_Global]

Love the people leaving a crash landed aircraft still full of fuel with their handluggage... Time for a central lock on the overhead lockers...

Rant over: great job by the crew :D

[clareprop]

Love the people leaving a crash landed aircraft still full of fuel with their handluggage...

Have to disagree....the majority of images currently available of the immediate aftermath seem to show only one person carrying a large bag.

Given the legendary stoicism of most Russians however, I sure some, having seen no immediate danger, would have shrugged and tried to get back on-board to retrieve their luggage before trudging back to the airport to wait for the next flight.

[Feathers McGraw]

The Checklist is titled:

EMER Landing ALL ENG FAILURE

It’s on the flip side of laminated cards which are located at the side of each pilot (the front side being the Normal checklists).

DITCHING on the left, FORCED LANDING on the right.

The DITCHING checklist states DITCHING Pb ON and LANDING GEAR UP, the FORCED LANDING checklist states SPLRS ARM and LANDING GEAR DOWN.

Honestly wonder if the gear being up was good fortune. Landing on a field with gear down increases the risk of fuel tank rupture if there are drainage ditches about, in this case with igniters probably off and no spilled fuel they added to their luck.

That gull looked surprised!

[junior.VH-LFA]

Apparently no BRACE FOR IMPACT warning by the crew?


Yeah righto. Make the PA the priority after an total loss of power on the upwind threshold.

[DaveReidUK]

“Immediately after, in fact.”

OH dear! Mind you, let’s not be pedantic about pedantry.750ft?? David – to avoid too much knicker-twisting, we’ll go with your definition if it helps.

You are too kind.

"Shortly after takeoff" could mean 5-10 minutes after (ET302, for example) - a rather different scenario from starting to descend when the gear doors have barely closed, don't you think ?

[BDAttitude]

The act of ripping the undercarriage off absorbs energy - so worth keeping the gear down from a physics perspective
I'd be interested in the kinematics with respect to the pitch axis of a MLG in soft ground.
Anyone knows any studies or reports?

[Finals27]

There is drone footage on YouTube taken after the incident (can't post due to forum rules). Shows a stream / ditch between the field which the aircraft went over. Wonder if this was why the crew didn't deploy the landing gear!

[cats_five]

It doesn't get any better than this outcome. Everybody, quick, buy lottery tickets!

They will have used up several months supply of luck. I wonder how much previous glider experience the pilot had? He's got a few minutes now. :)

[cooperplace]

There is drone footage on YouTube taken after the incident (can't post due to forum rules). Shows a stream / ditch between the field which the aircraft went over. Wonder if this was why the crew didn't deploy the landing gear!
Are you serious? All they had time for was "fly the aircraft" at which they did a great job.

[atakacs]

Agreed.

To be honest this was more à ballistic trajectory than anything else. They were smart / lucky enough not to try anything bone headed (like a return to runway). That's about it I guess.

[PoppaJo]

Forget the gear. I mean the chances of even getting three greens at such height is fairly slim when the decision to drop is even made.

The only checklist I’m aware of for 500ft failures are Trim/Pick Field/Land. Those who start looking at checklists usually end up dead.

[Sobelena]

Finally, a few sensible and realistic comments!

[Feathers McGraw]

I'd be interested in the kinematics with respect to the pitch axis of a MLG in soft ground.
Anyone knows any studies or reports?

BA008 at LHR is instructive, main gear dug deep furrows before separating from the wing spars.

[WHBM]

Zhukovsky has one of the longest runways in the world, over 17,700 feet I seem to recall. Used to be a Soviet test base, and I suspect the fields beyond may have been envisaged as an overrun.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Nothing to add except hats off to that crew, and further proof that the A321 is built like a damn tank :O

Enjoy that vodka lads, you earned it :ok:

[givemewings]

Apparently no BRACE FOR IMPACT warning by the crew?

Judging on the video, they were busy aviating.

From the cabin crew side, an injured donk isn't immediately reason for initiating unprepared emergency landing procedure. They may have not even realised it was coming to a forced landing until too late- I've not operates on A320 of that type, only A380, but if it's anything like B737 visibility when seated is fairly limited unless you crane your neck out if semi brace position.

Crew were likely going on the cues available to them- no announcement from FD, odd engine noise with stable but descending flight- would not be surprised if it was perceived as return to field situation by cabin crew.

They likely just didn't realise until right at touchdown how literally a "field" it was :}

Well done to all, amazing to see a pretty intact aircraft.

Anyone else see the corn and get shades of UAL232? Better outcome this time fortunately

[Auxtank]

Bloody well done.

[beamender99]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49355236

Some images from a drone.

[LEM]

Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY.
You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do.

I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact.

Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation.

[4runner]

Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY.
You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do.

I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact.

Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation.


thank you so much for your critique into this potentially catastrophic event. I’m glad you could grace us with your expertise and explain how you would do it differently.

[DaveReidUK]

Anyone else see the corn and get shades of UAL232? Better outcome this time fortunately

If you're going to come down in a field with the gear still up, a crop of nicely frangible maize is probably as good as it gets.

[pattern_is_full]

For the most part, landing on agricultural land is more akin to a water landing than a ground landing. Rough furrows and ditches, soft surface to grab the gear (how many planes get their gear stuck in soft ground 1 meter off a taxiway?!), etc. Stick one gear in the mud before the other, and you're going for an amusement-park ride.

Operating the gear adds drag - what does that do to your ROD and ability to hold that touch of extra speed for a flare (which may do more to soften the impact than the gear themselves)?

Personally, I think this crew just reverted to basic flight training - Session #2. In case of low-altitude power loss: 1) keep your airspeed safe. 2) land straight ahead. Good for them and good for everyone else.

If you have 10000 meters, or 1000 meters, instead of < 250 meters - then you have time to consider other options and dig out the SOPs.

[A_Van]

I am surprised to hear that only some 50 pax decided to cancel the trip. The rest 170+ are ready to take another flight tomorrow or the day after. Those civvies are not so ease to scare :-)

[Sobelena]

Looking at a number of aerial photos, I would say that the evidence of just how quickly it all happened is that there was no attempt to bank even slighly so as to line up with a single field rather than across 2 fields which included a ditch. I'd say it was just a case of straight in and hope for the best.

[gearlever]

I am surprised to hear that only some 50 pax decided to cancel the trip. The rest 170+ are ready to take another flight tomorrow or the day after. Those civvies are not so ease to scare :-)

Many moons ago an AUSTRIAN FOKKER crahed on a field close to at EDDM, both engines out due to icing
Pax o/b 27. They went on to an airport bus and about 20 or so took their connecting flights....

[guadaMB]

A friend, pilot flying A-321 for the time being, told me he remembers the list in case of no power on both engines, GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY is preceptive if you're ABOVE 1000 FT.
He added that he thinks there were no "real time" to make anything else but aviate.

Now from my own: surely PIC knew what had down and ahead (an open field) and made thinks smooth enough to come to this happy end.
I'm pretty sure he couldn't SEE ahead and only tried to make the "landing" the best the possible. And did it!!!

Airbuses are really strong beasts :D

[LEM]

thank you so much for your critique into this potentially catastrophic event. I’m glad you could grace us with your expertise and explain how you would do it differently.

As I said, the call Brace for impact is a must.
And... try to apply the procedure.
Flaps 2, gear DOWN.

[DaveReidUK]

You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps

And... try to apply the procedure.Flaps 2, gear DOWN.
Which is it, then ?

[Jonty]

The guys lost both engines. He managed to put it down in a field, and everyone walked away. THe pilots need a big slap on the back and a large bottle of something strong.

The rest is just window dressing.

[gearlever]

The guys lost both engines. He managed to put it down in a field, and everyone walked away. THe pilots need a big slap on the back and a large bottle of something strong.

The rest is just window dressing.



Yep, simple but spot on:ok:

[Busbert]

The crashworthiness of the A320 family is pretty impressive. 737s tend to break into 3-4 sections in similar circumstances. Another grandfather rule you don’t hear much about.

[Hotel Tango]

The crashworthiness of the A320 family is pretty impressive. 737s tend to break into 3-4 sections in similar circumstances.

Oh come on now! It depends on many different factors. Can you back your statement with unbiased evidence?

[BluSdUp]

Job Well done to my Russian neighbors.
With regards to Airbus sturdiness I have to say I am impressed.
Crossing that drainage ditch could have split some other aircraft on the market !

Congratulations again
Regards
Cpt B

Ps
Cant help thinking the massive corn first cushioned the touchdown (" Corn effect + Ground effect").
Then made for a rapid deceleration , as the ground run is less then 500 meters.
Ds

[GlobalExpressDriver]

Fabulous result... but I expect the investigation may find some disturbing facts.

I’ll wait ...

[Seat4A]

Video clip and still photos from Jacdec. You can see additional ones on their Twitter thread.

Overhead video in this tweet
https://twitter.com/HavArenaMedya/status/1161929934085992448


https://twitter.com/JacdecNew

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/954x683/1jk_15df779934bdb046c6ef929b3f87101c92404a38.png

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/494x801/1jk1_dd9778170c295188a7a93c7d1272c4fdf8e9359b.png


Video clip and still photos from Jacdec. You can see additional ones on their Twitter thread.

Overhead video in this tweet
https://twitter.com/HavArenaMedya/status/1161929934085992448



copied for those who can't see the link

[BluSdUp]

GED
Now that is not fair!
Do tell!!

[czarnajama]

The crashworthiness of the A320 family is pretty impressive. 737s tend to break into 3-4 sections in similar circumstances. Another grandfather rule you don’t hear much about.

The evidence for this is presented in the 2010 documentary "People & Power - On a wing and a prayer", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0&t=6s
This documentary shows that there were problems with the fail-safe chords of the fuselage in the centre section (around the wings) of the 737NG series (mainly 737-800). These structural members were outsourced and according to fired Boeing employees were faulty, which Boeing is alleged to have ignored. Some 737's have broken up into sections in forced landings similar to this latest incident in Russia.

[JanetFlight]

Does anyone knows the type/species of birds involved in this accident? Tks
Great work by the entire crew.

[Rated De]

The next time an idiot CEO, press release from same, IR drivel or some ill informed administrative type( that airlines are full of), waxes lyrically about the "automation" and how pilots are glorified bus drivers point to this and Sully.

[jettero]

Does anyone knows the type/species of birds involved in this accident? Tks
Great work by the entire crew.
It was the seagulls.

[nevillestyke]

From the channels cut in the corn, looks like there may have been a bit of a tailstrike.:hmm:

[jettero]

Another video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ft_pe3tzU

[Admiral346]

From the channels cut in the corn, looks like there may have been a bit of a tailstrike.:hmm:

And exactly how would you have set her down? Nose first? Or maybe belly-flop her into the corn?

What a #%&§$ comment...


I salute the heroes of Moscow.

Nic

[FrequentSLF]

Take easy...he was joking!

[lomapaseo]

What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?

[jettero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRb8bTM6RFY

[Hotel Mode]

The Checklist is titled:

EMER Landing ALL ENG FAILURE

It’s on the flip side of laminated cards which are located at the side of each pilot (the front side being the Normal checklists).

DITCHING on the left, FORCED LANDING on the right.

The DITCHING checklist states DITCHING Pb ON and LANDING GEAR UP, the FORCED LANDING checklist states SPLRS ARM and LANDING GEAR DOWN.

Think you might find that's company specific. That's not what's on the reverse of ours.

[CargoOne]

What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?

Tsss... Medals and awards first, DFDR readout second!

[atakacs]

How long do you keep hydraulics assuming both engine off? Is the RAT auto deploying?

[ve3id]

Makes me wonder about whether putting gear down is really the best option in an emergency landing? I mean doesn't gear increase the chances of damage since you fully expect them to rip off after hitting the ground? Could rupture fuel tanks, fuselage? I think manufacturers reason for having them down is that they would soften the impact somewhat.
My thoughts exactly. I was always taught gear up for soft field forced landing.

[Airgus]

They made a soft landing with gear down.
Picture is attached.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/728x500/lv_jne_after_its_hijacking_october_1975_23a4990dad1e7f3ba8d0 5bb2dd0e6b97c886cd66.jpg
After sitting there for 16 days and building a 600m long metallic improvised runway, it took off again.
This airplane was hijacked and I don't know if they landed with engines on with low fuel or engines flamed out.
Not the same case, but it shows how a gear down worked nice.

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:LV-JNE_after_its_hijacking,_October_1975.jpg

[Australopithecus]

What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?

Not much altitude and certainly not enough speed for a windmill start. Plus what crew actions recover a damaged engine spitting flames?

Regarding the landing gear or not, the results speak for themselves. Who cares if they get to use the plane again?

[lomapaseo]

Plus what crew actions recover a damaged engine spitting flames?

On older engines you retard the throttle and then advance as necessary

On today's newer engines the engine controls will do it automatically albeit possibly with EGT exceedances

[Water pilot]

Hats off to both the pilots and the engineers of the plane. There are many factors of course, pilots being crucial and lady luck helping out but the plane held together, the seats didn't break, the belts held and a thousand other little details that nobody other than techs know about all conspired to defeat Mr Murphy. That is one for us.

[Australopithecus]

On older engines you retard the throttle and then advance as necessary

On today's newer engines the engine controls will do it automatically albeit possibly with EGT exceedances

Yeah sure, for surge and/or stall due to (for example) icing. But a modern fan engine won't shudder and vent smoke like that if its going to restart. I have ingested lots of birds in CFM-56 engines and never had a failure like that, despite heavy damage and damaged blades.

The min speed for a windmill start attempt on the 737 is 300 kts btw. An APU start would itself take longer than the glide portion of their flight

[cappt]

Geez, what a tough crowd that can't wait to start crucifying the pilots for not handling it the way these keyboard captains would have.
My hats off to you Captain Yusupov, the outcome could not have been better.

[PAXfips]

What factual evidence do we have that both engines lost power and were not recovered by crew actions?
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vesti.ru%2Fdoc.html%3Fid%3D3179032

In the video, the pilot starts talking at about 6min in.
They had "some" thrust on engine 2, but not enough to return.
Also deliberate choice not to put down gear because of the ditches seen.

[jettero]

From interview with the Captain:
- After struck left engine totally failed.
- 1st decision was to return and he asked permission from tower.
- But the right engine wasn't working at full thrust and they wasn't able even to maintain the altitude they had.
- So they had to land immediately, they stopped engine and didn't down gears deliberately.
- He refuses to be called a hero, he just did that they were trained for.

[NEDude]

Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY.
You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do.

I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact.

Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation.


AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE, In that order. The first rule of piloting. If you do not get this, you do not belong in an airplane. This crew had very little time to overcome the startle effect (that can paralyze a person for 15 to 30 seconds) and make a decision. They did an outstanding job at getting the airplane down and in a position FOR EVERYONE TO SURVIVE.

[rock-the-boat]

"Applying the correct procedure..." - ridiculous comment under the circumstances!
1. I think we will find, when investigating the training background of the pilot, that his ab initio was not conducted by a 21 year old, who did not know that a cessna 172 could be flown without a checklist or the appreciation of concepts like a rotation speed...
2. The misconception that automation complacency begins with the act of engaging the autopilot is evident in many of the posts, if the first course of action this close to the ground is to grab the QRH, who grabs the controls?
3. The primary ersponsibility of the captain is the safety of the occupants of the aircraft, under normal circumstances this can be achieved most reliably using tried and tested procedures, but as the conversation tends towards a lambasting for not entering a holding pattern and completing the ECAM actions, I worry about the degree to which pilots understand the machines they fly, the environment they operate in and the risks of believing that your LPC is representative of that instant that these pilots went with instinct and saved everyone on board.

[cooperplace]

Warning the cabin crew about the imminent crash IS INDEED A PRIORITY.
You can forget all the rest, the checklist, the gear, the flaps, but SHOUTING loudly in the PA, yes SHOUTING Brace for impact, is a must, and easy to remember and to do.

I think flying the airplane in such circumstance is by far the easiest thing to do, quite easy in fact.

Applying the correct procedure is the real challenge, in every situation.




LEM, you're a hard man to please. How many of us have been tested in this way? Despite the startle effect and very little time, everyone walked away, it could have been much worse. They only had time for the A of ANC. It's a brilliant result.

[eu01]

Interesting. The Captain used to be a lawyer (https://meduza.io/en/feature/2019/08/15/a-local-lawyer-who-dreamed-of-flying), he worked in this profession for a few years and became a pilot thereafter.

[petrichor]

As I said, the call Brace for impact is a must.
And... try to apply the procedure.
Flaps 2, gear DOWN.


ahhh..better to die in a ball of flames with checklists complete than use good old airmanship and instinct to keep everyone alive?

Surely you must be kidding! I admit I’m a 330 driver but I assume the 320 goes straight into Emer Elec Config with both donkeys out which means NO NORMAL GEAR EXTENSION, NO FLAP EXTENSION, NON-NORMAL FLIGHT CONTROLS and a whole lot of bells and whistles, all at less than 1000ft...do you seriously think there’s time for the APU to start (loaded question..the answer is NO because it takes over 50secs to start the APU). Given the RW length one assumes the take off wold have been inConfig 1+F so leaving it as is was surely the best bet.

The crew did an AMAZING job and hopefully we can all learn from their experience once the reports are published, but for me, good old airmanship prevailed and thank God he didn’t decide to focus on checklists or the outcome may have been different.

[gearlever]

If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact.

[Gate_15L]

If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact.
and what’s your point?

[kontrolor]

pilots had seconds to decide, they decided, landed the airplane in the corn field. That is all that matters. Post festum lamentation and discussion what they should have and not should have done is irrelevant. The only thing relevant at this point is information, weather they were trained in small airplanes first (so they DO know how to fly an aircraft), or they were one of those "iPad" pilots (which I doubt).

[Hotel Tango]

If I understand it correctly, eng#2 was running until shortly before impact.

According to the Captain it was running but not giving sufficient power to maintain altitude. He elected to land in the field and shortly before impact turned it off (good thinking).

[Bergerie1]

In my experience, there are times (very very few) when your only option is to chuck the checklist out of the window and fly the aircraft. It takes a good airman to know when. And this seems to me to be one of those times. Of course, it would have been nice to shout, "Brace, Brace" on the PA, but not at the expense of getting the landing right - priorities, priorities, priorities!

How many of you armchair pontificators have ever had to make a decision like the one faced by this crew?

[slip and turn]

If you're going to come down in a field with the gear still up, a crop of nicely frangible maize is probably as good as it gets.
Yep the field of dreams from now for any forced landing of something with a lot of energy to disperse safely? Would have loved to have seen the looks exchanged by the pilots after they realised they'd pulled this one off :ok:

[aerobatic_dude]

Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:

APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS

ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY


The theoretical procedure is great in time available situation. You, I or anyone faced with this situation of both engines out low level will use instinct - " Oh s**t" - fly the airplane to the best of your abilities.

[kontrolor]

this comes to mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1fVL4AQEW8

[GordonR_Cape]

No hard-news in this video, but a better summary of the events than most (including this forum).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lwwrD3gnY

[Deadstick126]

IMHO the Captain made all the right decisions given the problem and short time to work it. Everyone walked away. How much more could you ask?

[lomapaseo]

[QUOTE=GordonR_Cape;10546652]No hard-news in this video, but a better summary of the events than most (including this forum).

Good description of how the engines and aircraft work, but should not be taken as factual of what happened in a timeline

[gearlever]

and what’s your point?

I was referring to petrichors comment which was about dual engine failure.
IMHO this wasn't the case with U6-178 .
Systemwise they were on single engine, e.g. NORMAL LAW.

[standbykid]

pilots had seconds to decide, they decided, landed the airplane in the corn field. That is all that matters. Post festum lamentation and discussion what they should have and not should have done is irrelevant. The only thing relevant at this point is information, weather they were trained in small airplanes first (so they DO know how to fly an aircraft), or they were one of those "iPad" pilots (which I doubt).

This. The incident will be reviewed in time. EVERYONE SURVIVED.

[DaveReidUK]

Good description of how the engines and aircraft work, but should not be taken as factual of what happened in a timeline

Yes, while it's useful background it doesn't really add a lot to what we already know. I'm curious to know how he can assert so confidently that the RAT deployed.

[Longtimer]

From the channels cut in the corn, looks like there may have been a bit of a tailstrike.:hmm:
According to the following story, It was intentional to reduce speed.Russia bird strike: How cool heads glided jet down to safety

1 hour ago

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/720x405/p07krvy8.jpgMedia captionFootage from inside the plane showed it striking birds after take-offThe Russian pilots who crash-landed a fuel-laden Airbus jet in a corn field, without any serious harm to the 233 people on board, are being hailed as heroes.

The A321 was moments into its flight, after taking off from Moscow's Zhukovsky airport, when a flock of seagulls got sucked into its engines, causing both to fail.

Russians are comparing the drama to "Miracle on the Hudson" - the bird strike that almost doomed an Airbus over New York in 2009, but ended happily when the pilot landed the jet safely in the Hudson River.What happened to the Russian A321?It was a regular flight from Moscow to Simferopol, in Crimea, with 226 passengers on board, mostly going on holiday to the seaside.

The Ural Airlines plane weighed as much as 77 tonnes and pilot Damir Yusupov told reporters how narrowly the passengers and seven crew had escaped disaster.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/F035/production/_108339416_rusyusupovgetty15aug.jpgImage copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionCapt Damir Yusupov was praised for a "textbook" crash-landingThe plane was climbing, accelerating, when first one engine, then the other, suddenly shut down.

When one engine failed they thought they could still turn back to the airport, Capt Yusupov said.

"When we saw that the second was also losing power, despite all of our efforts, the plane began losing height," he said.

"I changed my mind several times, because I was planning to gain height," he said. But Flightradar data shows that the A321 had only reached 243m (797ft).

"I planned to reach a certain height, hold it there, figure out the engine failure, make the correct decision, work it all out. But then it turned out there was really hardly any time."

Skip Twitter post by @BBCSteveREnd of Twitter post by @BBCSteveRhttps://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/17B75/production/_105914179_blank_white_space-nc.pngCapt Yusupov and his co-pilot, Georgi Murzin, managed to stop the fuel supply to the engines and kept the jet level, gliding it down into the corn field, without lowering the undercarriage. With the wheels down, there is a risk of flying debris rupturing the plane's fuel tanks.

He said he had practised emergency landings on a flight simulator at Ural Airlines.

"I really don't feel like a hero," he said. "I did what I had to do, saved the plane, the passengers, the crew."

Yuri Sytnik, one of Russia's top pilots, told the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda (https://www.kp.ru/daily/27016/4078962/): "The crew did everything by the book: shut down the engines... brought the plane down really smoothly, touched down first with the tail section, as required, killed the speed - that's a very tricky moment: you don't dip the nose, don't let an engine hit the ground."https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/E8DC/production/_108321695_russia_plane_640-nc.pnghttps://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/17B75/production/_105914179_blank_white_space-nc.pngPassengers were evacuated via escape slides and were told to get away from the plane quickly.

An 11-year-old boy, Vitya Babin, said: "One of the stewardesses said there was smoke coming from the plane and we immediately panicked. We ran after one of the men. He said follow me."

About 70 of the passengers got medical attention, as the landing was rough and they were bruised, but just one woman needed to stay in hospital.

Luckily, the high-standing maize crop acted like a cushion, and it was damp from rain, so sparks did not ignite it. In many other directions around Moscow the jet would have come up against a terrain of roads and buildings.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/A215/production/_108339414_rusjet15augreut.jpgImage copyrightREUTERSHow big is the risk of bird strikes?Russia's Vedomosti daily reports that bird strikes are more common in Russia than in most other European countries.

According to its data, in 2015 there were 411 bird strikes in Russia, and last year 1,021. But it is a daily hazard in aviation worldwide.

There is a rubbish dump that attracts birds, just 2km (1.2 miles) from Zhukovsky airport, according to Vedomosti. Other Russian dailies also point to illegal rubbish dumps near airports as a serious hazard.

Moscow officials quoted by Tass news agency however said the nearest rubbish dump to Zhukovsky was 14km away.

Plane crash-lands after hitting flock of birds (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49355236)
How likely are you to survive a plane crash? (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45030345)
Why you should listen to flight safety demos (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43823145)
Hero pilot 'knows 737 crash fight for life' (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48631362)

Gen Vladimir Popov, a military pilot quoted by Komsomolskaya Pravda, said Russian airports were assisted by bird-watching experts, but no counter-measures were wholly effective.

Grilles could not be installed on the engines, because they would interfere with the aerodynamics and air supply, cutting the jet's speed and thrust, he said.

Airports use various methods: scarecrows, big shiny balls like those in discos, fire engines with loud sirens, cannon firing blanks and jets of water.

According to Gen Popov, August is a risky time, when young birds are taking wing, adventurous and full of energy.How does this case differ from the Hudson River landing?The New York drama was turned into a movie, "Sully: Miracle on the Hudson", and the Moscow flight could well be similarly immortalised.

Russian pilots interviewed by BBC Russian spoke of some significant differences, although both flights were almost doomed by bird strikes, and in both cases there was total engine failure.

All 155 people aboard the US plane were rescued by nearby boats and there were few serious injuries. The Moscow flight had a similar happy ending.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/11745/production/_108339417_rushudsongettyjan09.jpgImage copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionThe US Airways jet lying in the Hudson River in January 2009The Russian A321 pilots had less flying experience, whereas the US Airways pilot was aged 57, with 30 years' experience, and had also flown fighter jets.

The two Russians, however, had both graduated with top marks from a top civil aviation college. Capt Yusupov joined Ural Airlines in 2013, aged 33, after college; before then he had worked as a lawyer.

The Russians had less time to react. The US Airways jet had climbed to 975m before the bird strike - three times higher than the A321.

In both cases, there were safe landing sites: a corn field and a fairly shallow stretch of the Hudson River.Related Topics

[gearlever]

Russian pilots interviewed by BBC Russian spoke of some significant differences, although both flights were almost doomed by bird strikes, and in both cases there was total engine failure.

As far as I understand it, Sully had lost both engines, right?
Ural Airlines flt still got one engine running, delivering elec and hyd.
NORMAL LAW?

[lomapaseo]

Among all the various investigation as contributors, the issue of bird control should receive top billing.

In my view this is not comparable to the Sully-Hudson incident regarding the bird hazard itself.

Assuming that the initial ident are gulls (in video), and first flight of the day. It is typical for gulls to rest on flat open ground where bird-lookouts have a good field of view of predators. Most airport bird management recognizes this and sends out a vehicle to clear the runway if it has not been active for a length of time. Too many lessons learned in the data about this in the early jet years.

[IcePack]

Gear-lever Sully had an engine running & not producing power also.

[ORAC]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-airplane-accident-idUSKCN1V615WKremlin hands top state honors to pilots after crash-landingMOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday bestowed top state honors on two pilots for courage and heroism after they safely landed a packed passenger plane in a cornfield near Moscow as its engines were failing.

Russians have said it was a miracle that no one was killed when the Ural Airlines Airbus 321 struck a flock of gulls on Thursday, disrupting its engines and forcing it to land less than two minutes after it took off.

Putin, in a decree published on the Kremlin's website, handed captain Damir Yusupov and co-pilot Georgy Murzin Russia's highest state award - the Hero of Russia. He granted the Order of Courage, another top state award, to five flight attendants.

[787PIC]

"Sully in the cornfield?" Looking forward to more info on this.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1119/01ad6c96_ef58_407e_b6c3_64cedd21f9b1_e191eecb9f8467c2553f415 cf56d9f6335533822.jpeg

[rog747]

Airbus Flight Control Systems -

Speaking to RT the Capt, Damir Yusupov 41 said he was in Manual law..... not sure what he meant by that...

He did say there were other options and it’s good that we didn't use them – if we had tried to go back, I don't know what would have happened.
He’d originally wanted to gain some height then turn the plane around, but when he saw that the second engine had also failed, he knew it was quickly clear that hitting the ground was going to be “inevitable.”

Co-pilot Georgy Murzin 23 said that Yusupov took over control and landed the Airbus A321 in manual mode: “Around lift off/during the takeoff, birds went into both the engines. The port engine stalled immediately, and then the other engine too, and all the rpm's became uneven.
Then, the second engine stalled too, there wasn’t enough thrust, and our altitude (max ALT reached was 750') began dropping rapidly. We landed in a field in manual mode.”

Sully and his co-pilot had 208 seconds - how long did these guys have...?

Amazing job and the A321 stayed intact.
Seen Boeing's that have rather a tendency to crack up in 3 or 4 bits (BY 757 at GRO and a fair few 737NG's)

[littco]

VMC, level fields ahead, the chances were much better than in the lottery.
Still a great job. This is why we have humans sitting in row zero.

IMC/Night, build up areas around the airport and the chances would have been slim.

Video looks like a flaps 1 (slats but no flaps) configuration at landing. Strange, but maybe not the worst option to have the wing staying intact.
Looking forward for the report, again a lot to be learned.

Chances of hitting a flock of birds in IMC/night are next to 0. Simply as birds don't tend to fly at night in IMC. One thing to grateful of!

Create job by all the crew involved.

[GordonR_Cape]

I didn't see anyone post the FlightRadar24 profile for this flight: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ural-airlines-flight-178-lands-in-field-shortly-after-take-off/

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1408x959/ural_airlines_178_granular_graph_1f30f6239f22f2e622fc89cb025 1c413873a1c11.png

[tdracer]

Yep the field of dreams from now for any forced landing of something with a lot of energy to disperse safely? Would have loved to have seen the looks exchanged by the pilots after they realised they'd pulled this one off :ok:

Do Russians do "high fives"?

[733driver]

Do Russians do "high fives"?

Borat did. And he's from Kazakhstan, so close enough :}

[BluSdUp]

I killed a bird at night over Madrid some time ago at ca 3500 agl.
Oddest thing ever, as it hit the radome when the FO selected OFF on the gear lever, with a BOING!
We had no idea we hit a dammed bird so we speculated wildly as to what the Dickens the BOING was all about.
On approach we dropped the gear well early just in case we had to run the QRH ( The Boeing one).

Anyway
After washing the radome and clearing the teck log we departed a few minutes late.
An Owl I figure, but VMC, so right You are: Not to many Night IFR rated birds around, and certainly one less in Madrid TMA !

Regards
Cpt B

PS
On the same flight I had an off duty Police Officer arrested for smoking in the lavatory!
I was going to let him off with a warning, but then he pulled out his badge,,,,,,,
Bad mistake!!
Back to the Airbus tractor pull,,,
DS

[BluSdUp]

Not sure about the high five, but as our Finnish neighbors very cool calm and collected!
" So Captain, Transit Shut Down checklist or Full Shutdown Checklist?"

[F-16GUY]

Chances of hitting a flock of birds in IMC/night are next to 0. Simply as birds don't tend to fly at night in IMC. One thing to grateful of!


Don't know where you got that info from. According to ICAO, 25% of all wildlife strikes between 2008-2015 occurred at night. Migratory birds do fly both night and IMC. Of the 3 I have had, 2 happened at night and one of the 2 was IMC at 2000'.

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/wildlife/The%20Global%20PIcture/YONG%20WANG%20WSHRS%202017.pdf

[FlightDetent]

Towards the mention of a deliberate tail-strike: Reader beware. It is not the PIC being quoted but a commentator on the news, most likely a bit here or there lost in the translation too. Besides, without the L/G guess what is going to touch first? Pitch for level flight with 1+F cca 5 degrees NU.

[DaveReidUK]

I didn't see anyone post the FlightRadar24 profile for this flight: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ural-airlines-flight-178-lands-in-field-shortly-after-take-off/

Interesting - only 78 seconds from start to finish of the trace !

It's not clear (FR24 doesn't say) whether or not the height readouts are adjusted for QNH, so if they aren't you need to subtract approximately 150' from each point.

Either way, there's a bit missing from the beginning, and possibly the end, of the trace (Zhukovsky's rwy is 400' AMSL).

[Steepclimb]

He did a great job saved everyone. What's to bet he's also a stick and rudder pilot of some sort?
He's appropriately modest.
Like Sully he was lucky on one level. Like Sully he took it and they all walked away.

He says he's no hero, any pilot would do the same. He's right. But not all pilots could dead stick an electric jet into a cornfield.

[littco]

Don't know where you got that info from. According to ICAO, 25% of all wildlife strikes between 2008-2015 occurred at night. Migratory birds do fly both night and IMC. Of the 3 I have had, 2 happened at night and one of the 2 was IMC at 2000'.

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/wildlife/The%20Global%20PIcture/YONG%20WANG%20WSHRS%202017.pdf
I take this on board, but my point was the chances of hitting a flock of birds at night in IMC, large enough to take out both engines is next to 0.

Seeing and hitting a flock of geese in day time is at least slightly better as you know what's happened, assuming you've seen them. As opposed to night IMC and hitting a flock of geese and not having a clue what the hells going on because there was no visual.
I guess it's a small saviour birds dont seem to like to fly at night and in clouds!

[obgraham]

Back in the days of flying checks around at night in a clapped out aircraft, local guy hit a Canada Goose at about 5000 feet (IIRC). On the windshield. Severely cut up the pilot, who managed to land safely.

Several photos of the cockpit the next day, with incredible amount of chopped goose all over everything.

So yes, they do fly at night.

[WingNut60]

Don't know where you got that info from. According to ICAO, 25% of all wildlife strikes between 2008-2015 occurred at night. Migratory birds do fly both night and IMC. Of the 3 I have had, 2 happened at night and one of the 2 was IMC at 2000'.

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/wildlife/The%20Global%20PIcture/YONG%20WANG%20WSHRS%202017.pdf

I have seen HUGE aggregations of gulls circulating over well lit areas of Perth at night - all hours.

[Tech Guy]

Frequently when the sh#t, (or seagull) hits the fan you often have to make a snap decision based on little more than instinct and training. There isnt time for manuals or discussions. You have to "do something" and "do it now".

In this case, whatever they did was the correct action for this particular circumstance. They kept their cool and delivered. Cant ask for more than that.

Bloody good job chaps.:ok:

[givemewings]

I can't speak for all cabin crew but if I had to pick between getting a "brace brace" PA but a shoddy landing and having to guess and walking away... I'd rather walk away thanks :ok:

Sometimes you have the throw the book out and just get the job done however you can

[VH DSJ]

Many moons ago an AUSTRIAN FOKKER crahed on a field close to at EDDM, both engines out due to icing
Pax o/b 27. They went on to an airport bus and about 20 or so took their connecting flights....

People were generally a lot tougher back in those days. After an accident, they can easily put it all behind them quickly and literally move on. No trauma counselling, nor rehab. Gee I hope they got their luggage transferred as well.

[Mariner]

I take this on board, but my point was the chances of hitting a flock of birds at night in IMC, large enough to take out both engines is next to 0.

Seeing and hitting a flock of geese in day time is at least slightly better as you know what's happened, assuming you've seen them. As opposed to night IMC and hitting a flock of geese and not having a clue what the hells going on because there was no visual.
I guess it's a small saviour birds dont seem to like to fly at night and in clouds!

You're ill informed littco, birds fly at night too, just like us. Alone or in flocks.

I've hit a flock of geese in between cloud layers at night while on approach. Made a nice mess of our rh flaps. Had they flown in a different direction they could have ended up into all our engines. Just luck.

And birds like seagulls tend to sit on the runway at night too. Makes you wonder if they were the first flight out that morning and if a bird check had been done.

[wiggy]

..birds fly at night too, just like us. Alone or in flocks.


Absolutely correct.

A heck of a lot of birds migrate at night..something that only really began to be appreciated with the introduction of radar..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19459237

https://web.colby.edu/mainebirds/2011/11/09/nocturnal-migration/

[DaveReidUK]

I can't speak for all cabin crew but if I had to pick between getting a "brace brace" PA but a shoddy landing and having to guess and walking away... I'd rather walk away thanks :ok:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of the brace position to improve the passengers' and F/As' chances of walking away from an abnormal landing ?

If not, then what's it for ?

[clareprop]

If not, what's it for

I guess, like a lot of the items in the safety briefing....for a perfect situation as shown on the card rather than the reality of something going wrong very quickly and having to deal with it as best as possible and it being over before most people knew it started.

[UltraFan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of the brace position to improve the passengers' and F/As' chances of walking away from an abnormal landing ?

How exactly does bringing your head closer to the hard plastic of the seat back in front of you improve your chances? And even if you are in business or first and can actually bend down to hug your knees, doesn't it actually increase your chances of getting a spine injury? And why do we have to put our seats in an upright position if lying back is actually safer? (Cosmonauts go to space like that.)

As almost everything in aviation, the "brace position" is a compromise and the least of some evils. It is supposed to (kind of but not really) protect your head and chest from flying debris. But it's, by no means, ideal. Especially considering that it was "invented" at the times when economy had a 40-inch pitch and NASA could afford to crash an airliner just to see what happens inside. And just like most of the "common knowledge" from those times, it's a myth. Not unlike the "dangers" of activating the de-icing boots "too soon".

[atakacs]

Reading Russian press reports (https://baza.io/posts/7be00c62-1198-45f9-84db-a34d6b26adfe) that both ATC and crew were aware of the birds nearby...

[EnglishMartyn]

Speaking in my capacity as a moderately-interested SLF...

For all of you debating the merits of gear up, gear down, this checklist, that checklist etc., surely the important points are these:
1) Aircraft with minimal power due to double bird strike gets down safely
2) Everyone got out safely.

Problem solved, no?

[MPN11]

Reading Russian press reports (https://baza.io/posts/7be00c62-1198-45f9-84db-a34d6b26adfe) that both ATC and crew were aware of the birds nearby...
I don’t read Russian at all, but I seem to decipher “pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan” amidst all that Cyrillic text.

[lomapaseo]

Speaking in my capacity as a moderately-interested SLF...

For all of you debating the merits of gear up, gear down, this checklist, that checklist etc., surely the important points are these:
1) Aircraft with minimal power due to double bird strike gets down safely
2) Everyone got out safely.

Problem solved, no?

Its about how often you are faced with this problem that the passengers care, thus the need for a deeper investigation.

[CabinCrewe]

People were generally a lot tougher back in those days. After an accident, they can easily put it all behind them quickly and literally move on. No trauma counselling, nor rehab. Gee I hope they got their luggage transferred as well.
Just because they didn't get or have access to counselling, doesn't mean they shouldn't have or would have found no benefit. Times move on...

[CabinCrewe]

How exactly does bringing your head closer to the hard plastic of the seat back in front of you improve your chances?
By clearly reducing the momentum G strain on your cervical vertebrae during a forward dead stop collision (as the airbag in your car does). As you say a comprise for the probability of most likely movement scenario but I most certainly wouldn't want my neck and heavy skull flailing about at 150mph

[Back door]

are there different engine options for the A320/321 series . Would be interested to know ifs the same engines as Sullys aircraft. A bird strike gonna damage any engine but still be interested in the comparison of the engines and the damage that resulted.

Well done to crew, nice to hear a good news aviation safety story from that region of the world

[CEJM]

are there different engine options for the A320/321 series . Would be interested to know ifs the same engines as Sullys aircraft. A bird strike gonna damage any engine but still be interested in the comparison of the engines and the damage that resulted.

Well done to crew, nice to hear a good news aviation safety story from that region of the world


Yes, same engines. Both had CFM56’s.

[lomapaseo]

Yes, same engines. Both had CFM56’s.

It's the engine control response to damage that's important, coupled with crew action, if any.

[UltraFan]

Speaking in my capacity as a moderately-interested SLF...

For all of you debating the merits of gear up, gear down, this checklist, that checklist etc., surely the important points are these:
1) Aircraft with minimal power due to double bird strike gets down safely
2) Everyone got out safely.

Problem solved, no?

Have you checked the name on the door as you walked in? :O

Yes, the positive outcome and everyone being alive is the ultimate result. But every crash give us something even more important - a lesson to learn. And since at least some people here are pilots, of course they can't help thinking, "what if it was me". And "what would I do"? This discussion is the way to answer that question.

Or maybe people just like to talk. :O

[UltraFan]

My biggest question to the investigators is, why they continued to roll after the FIRST strike? The cabin video clearly shows at least six birds hitting the left engine, yet the plane kept on rolling. If I understand this recording correctly, they realized the problem with the left engine just 8-19 seconds after the start of the take-off roll, and declared panpan. They were still on the ground when it happened. I just checked, ZIA has 4,600m long runway, enough tarmac to abort and stop. Why didn't they?

And the second question is, why the tower had to explain to the rescue team what they should do. Fourth phrase from the bottom: "Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you're staying? Move there. Fire engines stay. The rest of the rescue vehicles move there."

YOU'RE A RESCUE TEAM AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!? WHAT THE...

[givemewings]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of the brace position to improve the passengers' and F/As' chances of walking away from an abnormal landing ?

If not, then what's it for ?
as mentioned above, it's a compromise.

Your seat needs to be upright so the poor side behind you can get out of his during the evac, and so you can reach the seat in front in order to brace.

It may not be effective in all instances though, ask any emergency room doctor who's seen sleeping passengers in road accidents come out unscathed while the awake ones got broken bones or worse from trying to "brace for impact"impaccalling for brace may actually have made things worse in such a short time as pax might have been confused about what to do and adopted wrong position, been midway through and injured themselves.

I'm sure they knew something wasn't right but probably not realising how serious it actually was may have contributed to them all walking away rather than a panic. Just my opinion of course

[MPN11]

Is there an English translation of that transcript? UltraFan seems to have an unfair advantage here!

[Auxtank]

My biggest question to the investigators is, why they continued to roll after the FIRST strike? The cabin video clearly shows at least six birds hitting the left engine, yet the plane kept on rolling. If I understand this recording correctly, they realized the problem with the left engine just 8-19 seconds after the start of the take-off roll, and declared panpan. They were still on the ground when it happened. I just checked, ZIA has 4,600m long runway, enough tarmac to abort and stop. Why didn't they?

And the second question is, why the tower had to explain to the rescue team what they should do. Fourth phrase from the bottom: "Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you're staying? Move there. Fire engines stay. The rest of the rescue vehicles move there."

YOU'RE A RESCUE TEAM AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!? WHAT THE...

1) V1 exceeded.
2) So easy to be wise after the event.

[Herod]

OK guys. Lots of talk on here, but here's a question...Could you have done as well? I posted after the Hudson that, with forty years aviating, it's nice to think I could have, but I very much doubt it.. The same applies here. Impossible situation, everyone survived. Very well done.

[MemberBerry]

Is there an English translation of that transcript? UltraFan seems to have an unfair advantage here!

The Google Translate version is not that bad:

Transcript of the negotiations of the pilots of the A321 aircraft, which sat down in a field with corn

On the morning of August 15, Airbus 321 Ural Airlines pilots Damir Yusupov and Georgy Murzin landed a plane in a cornfield in the Moscow Region just a few minutes after the departure from Zhukovsky Airport. The reason for the forced landing was the failure of engines, in which flocks of birds fell. Judging by the negotiations with the dispatchers, which we publish below, the pilots gave an emergency signal and reported the failure of one engine almost immediately after takeoff. The controllers, in turn, several times warned the pilots about the migratory birds.

Designations:

Proud - the radio call sign of Zhukovsky airport.
СЖР178 - the call sign of flight U6178.
PAN-PAN - emergency signal.

Negotiations with the airport controller:

06:00:32 - 06:01:45

Pilot: Proud taxiing, good morning, СЖР 178 in the parking lot, allow the weather and the conditions for access to Simferopol.

Dispatcher: Proud, good morning. At the departure of the 12th lane, the wind is 110 degrees, 5 meters, visibility is 7 kilometers, the lower edge is not defined, QNH 1008, QFE 994, temperature 16 degrees, cohesion coefficient 0.5, individual bird flights. For the departure, count the 12th lane. Allowed according to the plan for Simferopol at the take-off course, dial 900 meters, communication with Proud 125.25. Squock will be optional.

Pilot: Received information. The strip in the work is the 12th. In a straight line, we recruit 900, we work 125.25. Squawk additionally, SJR178.

Dispatcher: That's right.

06:05:38 - 06:05:54

Pilot: Allow towing and launch.

Dispatcher: I allow towing to the second point, start on readiness.

Pilot: The second was allowed, launch on readiness, SZHR 178.

06:09:25 - 06:09:46

Pilot: SZHR 178, I ask taxiing.

Dispatcher: SZHR 178, preliminary runway 12 I authorize. Runway 12 behind the escort vehicle at B7.

Pilot: Advance lanes 12 allowed, by B7 behind the escort vehicle.

06:11:20 - 06:11:38

Pilot: SJR 178, preliminary strip 12.

Dispatcher: SZHR 178, work. Bon Voyage!

Pilot: Work. 125,250. Thank you very much, and all the best to you!

Negotiations with an air traffic controller:

06:11:39 - 06:11:57

Pilot: Proud launch, СЖР 178, preliminary runway 12.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, good morning! Occupy executive runway 12. Wind off the ground 110 degrees, 4 meters per second.

06:12:28 - 06:12:51

Pilot: СЖР 178. Ready for take-off.

Dispatcher: Runway 12. I authorize take-off, individual bird flights. SJR 178: Runway 12, take off, SJR 178.

06:14:10 - 06:14:21

Pilot: SZHR, PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN, SZHR.

06:14:29 - 06:14:39

Dispatcher: SJR 178.

Pilot: PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN, SZHR 178. One engine failure.

Dispatcher: SVR 178, your decision.

06:14:55 - 06:15:09

Pilot: Allow reverse reversal. Height.

Dispatcher: Allowed reverse call.

Pilot: Return call allowed, SZHR 178.

But the pilots did not begin to deploy the plane back to the airport. According to PIC Damir Yusupov, they wanted to return after the failure of one engine. After the pilots realized that the second engine began to lose power and the speed began to fall, they had to land the plane in the nearest place - on a corn field.

06:15:49 - 06:15:57

Dispatcher: СЖР 178 Proudly.

Pilot: Sverdlovsky, we ask for an ambulance and rescue service.

Dispatcher: We are waiting. Your height and how many passengers are on board?

Pilot: Altitude. We performed, sat behind the strip. Passengers 226 and seven crew members.

Dispatcher: Repeat again.

Pilot: 226 and 7 crew members.

Dispatcher: 226 passengers and 7 crew members?

Pilot: 7 crew members.

06:16:52 — 06:16:5706:16:52 - 06:16:57

Dispatcher: СЖР 178, where are you?

Pilot: Minute, SZHR 178. Did the emergency beacon work?

Dispatcher: Once again. Repeat.

Pilot: Did the emergency beacon work for us?

Dispatcher: No, it did not work.

06:18:11 - 06:18:22

Dispatcher: Watching this, SJR 178.

Pilot: Do not distract, we have the evacuation of passengers.

06:19:18 - 06:19:45

Dispatcher: СЖР 178, report the situation.

Pilot: All passengers were evacuated, SZHR 178.

Dispatcher: Victims, victims, tell me.

Pilot: No casualties, injured later.

Dispatcher: Got it later.

06:25:36 - 06:27:31

Dispatcher: СЖР 178 Proudly.

Pilot: At the reception.

Dispatcher: SZHR 178, do not tell me the number of victims?

Pilot: No injuries.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, I understand that there are no victims. All evacuated, understand correctly?

Pilot: All evacuated. Did you find our location? We turned on the emergency beacon.

Dispatcher: All emergency services are notified.

Pilot: Thank you.

06:48:10 - 06:48:29

Pilot: At the reception, SJR 178. At the reception. At the reception.

Dispatcher: СЖР 178, but can you tell me your location?

Pilot: Wait a minute.
Pilot: SJR 178.

Dispatcher: Answered Proud, SJR 178.

Pilot: Coordinates.

EMU: 30.46.55.7 'north latitude. 38̊15.7 East.

Dispatcher: Tell me the latitude again.

Pilot: 55–30.6 north latitude, 38–15.2 east longitude.

Dispatcher: SZHR 178, tell me again the latitude, please.

Pilot: Coordinates 55̊.

Dispatcher: Yes.

Pilot: 6 north latitude.

Dispatcher: There are 6.

Pilot: 15 point 2 east longitude.

Dispatcher: I accepted everything.

Negotiation of a dispatcher with ground services:

04:13:40

Dispatcher: 03, Proud.

03: Answered.

D: Let’s go, inspect the strip.

03: Got it, I'm leaving.

Dispatcher: Especially the “Trap” (pairing the MRD3 with the runway 12/30) and the “B7” area, the presence of birds. Although unlikely, but still.

03: I'm leaving.

06:46:28

05: Proud 05th.

D: Proud answered.

05: Do we need to send a Ramport bus for the passengers, or is it not necessary?

D: Naturally, you need to evacuate passengers with something.

05: Accepted. We send buses. I understood correctly, once again - in the area of ​​the long-distance drive, where are the fishermen?

D: About yes.

05: Accepted.

07: 06.04

05: Proud 05.

D: Answered.

05: Do we stay here or do we go to duty stations, what are we willing to do?

D: Guys, they gave you the coordinates, the plane fell over the lane. What, where do you stay ?! Move out there. Fire engines stand still. The rest of the emergency rescue vehicles all move out there.

05: The emergency services have already left there.

D: Well everyone else is standing there waiting then.
05: Accepted. They stand still.

[MemberBerry]

Is there an English translation of that transcript? UltraFan seems to have an unfair advantage here!

You could try the Google Translate version, I tried posting it in a previous comment, but it seems it has to be approved by a moderator for some reason:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fbaza.io%2Fposts%2F7be00c62-1198-45f9-84db-a34d6b26adfe

[brak]

Admittedly, rescue service did sound a bit disoriented and lackluster in the transcript. Hopefully, they will look into this for future improvement.

The rest is great, though. The time period between the pan-pan and the "don't interrupt, we are evacuating" is astonishingly short.

[apatity2]

After listening to the radio, it appears that ATC warned the pilots twice about the birds on runway.
1.I did a lot take offs and landings at various airports with the birds "vacating" runway right in front of the airplane. Scary... But never I heard ATC warning me about the birds. Not to mention warned twice. I do not remember if it exists in UK CAP413. I do not remember reading any manuals or local procedures about any actions required by the pilot if he observes birds all round the place. May be, in the worst case, one would report birds to ATC and request for assistance. However, I would not know what to do if ATC themselves warns me about the birds activity right before the take off, twice. I guess it sounds similar to ATC warning about wake turbulence and take off at my discretion, after which I would give it enough time to get around. What do I do when ATC warns me about the birds twice? Open the window and shout at birds? Or steer carefully around the birds on take off? Sound stupid. Any one ever heard this ATC warning and what is the procedure?

2. These Pilots did good, given the pressure and realities.

[rog747]

The A321 was built as G-OMYA Airbus A321-211 for MyTravel Airways
but NTU

2x CFMI CFM56-5B3/P

[tdracer]

It's the engine control response to damage that's important, coupled with crew action, if any.

To be fair loma, I can remember a total of two forced landings due to bird strikes taking out both engines during takeoff (fortunately both with happy endings). Both were A320 series with CFM56-5 engines.
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...

[KRH270/12]

aviate
navigate
communicate

thats what they did... perfect job... they just aviated.... no bull****

[zzz]

4600m runway. V1 and Vr are going to be coincident in an A321 and pretty much any aircraft. If there was a bird strike, into the engine before V1/Vr it’s not an easy call to make. Is the engine still producing power? Are there any engine instrument indications suggesting the engine is failing? Bang or swing? Didn’t seem like it in the video. Could it be a tyre burst? Do you want to stop close to Vr with a tyre burst? It’s not cut and dried.

Someone earlier in the thread was banging on about doing the checklist correctly. Tell that to the Swissair MD11 pax and crew who delayed landing at Halifax to finish the SFF checklist before landing. RIP to them all.

On the face of it the crew look like they did a great job under difficult circs’.

[FlightDetent]

Is it not well established that the NYC case had multiple hits beyond the present certification specifications, of all present engines? And we do not know what hit this last one yet. Also, when did it hit.

[jettero]

And the second question is, why the tower had to explain to the rescue team what they should do. Fourth phrase from the bottom: "Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you're staying? Move there. Fire engines stay. The rest of the rescue vehicles move there."

YOU'RE A RESCUE TEAM AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!? WHAT THE...

"We stay here or return. What alert status do we have?"
"Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you're staying? Move there. Fire engines stay. The rest of the rescue vehicles move there."
"All emergency rescue team had departed yet to the site".
"Ok, then all other stay there and wait".

So it was rather misunderstanding over radio.

[tdracer]

Is it not well established that the NYC case had multiple hits beyond the present certification specifications, of all present engines? And we do not know what hit this last one yet. Also, when did it hit.

Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up? Not to slight Sully or this Russian crew - but had their luck been a bit worse we could easily be looking at several hundred fatalities.
If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe.

[b1lanc]

By clearly reducing the momentum G strain on your cervical vertebrae during a forward dead stop collision (as the airbag in your car does). As you say a comprise for the probability of most likely movement scenario but I most certainly wouldn't want my neck and heavy skull flailing about at 150mph

And concussion from head whipping about. Frosts me the number of pax that ignore bringing seats to upright on landing and crews that don't enforce.

[lomapaseo]

Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up? Not to slight Sully or this Russian crew - but had their luck been a bit worse we could easily be looking at several hundred fatalities.
If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe.

Well if those were herring gulls it certainly was beyond the cert basis at the time.

The cert basis has tried to keep up with the bird population in sizes and numbers of flocking birds in areas likely to be encountered.

Certainly the local bird hazard abatement needs to be reviewed as well in this accident.else we would be removing the certificate for a great many airplane/engine types.

[underjet]

aviate
navigate
communicate

thats what they did... perfect job... they just aviated.... no bull****
excellent and professional decision by optg capt.He saved 200 plus lives.

[dr dre]

He did a great job saved everyone. What's to bet he's also a stick and rudder pilot of some sort?
He's appropriately modest.
Like Sully he was lucky on one level. Like Sully he took it and they all walked away.

He says he's no hero, any pilot would do the same. He's right. But not all pilots could dead stick an electric jet into a cornfield.

By “stick and rudder pilot” I assume you mean not an Ab-initio trainee, someone who needed substantial light aircraft experience or military training in order to pull this off? If that’s the case it’s incorrect. From the info given in the articles below the Captain had a total of about 3000hrs and 6 years flying and for the FO about 600hrs and only 1 year of professional flying, and for both of them all seemingly with Ural Airlines in the A320 post initial training. Which means these guys are almost certaintly Ab-initio cadets, who some on this forum and other parts of the internet and the media too often deride as “button pushing children of the magenta”. I think they’ve disproved that now.

Meet the hero pilots who saved 233 lives in ‘miracle’ belly landing of jet in field (https://www.rt.com/russia/466594-hero-pilots-bird-strike-russia/)

Hero pilot says landing in Russian cornfield ‘was only hope’ (https://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.co.uk/news/national/17842430.hero-pilot-says-landing-russian-cornfield-was-hope/)

[UltraFan]

Is there an English translation of that transcript? UltraFan seems to have an unfair advantage here!



I posted the translation, but I guess it makes the post too long and needs moderator approval. Standing by.

[Lord Farringdon]

As aviators (in my case non-pilot aircrew) we are all looking to learn from the mistakes of others or in this case and Sully's case, the success of others. We then assess this against our own decision making, knowledge and cognitive capabilities in order to determine if we were in that situation would we have done better or worse and what what would we now do differently to improve our chances of a successful outcome for some possible similar event in the future.

In this discussion there has been a lot talk about whether the gear should have been up or down, whether the BRACE command should have been given, whether the checklists should have been followed, referred to, or just thrown out of the window. In my opinion, I'm not sure any of us can learn much from this since every accident of this nature has such wildly different circumstances. Phase of flight (T/O,LDG), day or night, weather, visibility, terrain, obstacles, controlled flight with or without propulsion available, result of crew actions (or inactions) or unexpected aircraft malfunction. But probably most importantly is the time available. It seems that luck might be directly proportional to this. That is, the more time you have, the more chance you have to make your own luck (Gimli glider springs to mind) vs the less time you have, the more you rely on a bit of luck to walk away. There can be no doubt though, that whatever gets thrown at you unexpectedly, knowing your job and executing it well is going to give you the best chance of making use of Lady luck if she shows up. For tech crew that's ANC and particularly the A part which we seem to lament the loss of today!

But there is another factor. Whether it is crew error that has caused the situation to arise or an event beyond control of the crew, the survivability of these types of accidents comes down to three things. An acceptably low ROD, no significant obstacles in the landing path and the strength of the monocoque construction of the fuselage. The latter factor provides protection from flame, heat, debris and water impact during the event which I imagine must be akin to a heavily arrested landing on an aircraft carrier!!

I have selected some flights below where aircraft made unexpected 'landings' and where despite in some cases spectacular crew mistakes, the vast majority of people survived primarily because the fuselage remained intact. Other's will know better than me, but I'd be surprised if the BRACE command was given in many of them and checklists would not have been considered in some at all. It's also instructive to note the Air France outcome in relation to passengers being dazed and the high probability that no Brace for impact command was given.



Air France Flight 296 6 January 1988. Airbus A320. 136 crew and passengers. Pancaked into a sapling forest. All survived crash. Many of the passengers were dazed from hitting their heads on the backs of the seats in front of them. Three died during evacuation in post crash fuel fire.

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 6 July 2013. B777. 307 crew and pax. Tail hit seawall and cartwheeled on runaway. 1 died in crash. 2 non seat belt wearing pax died after being thrown from aircraft. All remaining crew and pax evacuated safely despite post crash fire caused by oil and engine fluids.

Air Niugini Flight 73. September 28, 2018. B737. 47 crew and pax. Aircraft 'landed' short of the runway in to a lagoon. All but one survived the crash.

British Airways Flight 38. 17 January 2008. B777. 152 crew and pax. Fuel freezing shutdown both engines on finals. Aircraft glides and 'lands' short of threshold casuing gear collapse and significant air frame damage. All crew and pax evacuate safely. No post crash fire.

Miracle on Hudson.

Ural Airlines U6178, Moscow - Simferopol.


It's axiomatic that when faced with an off runway landing the crew will do everything possible to reduce ROD but an obstacle free pathway ahead may just be down to lady luck and to time available. Assuming these go right, it is the strength of the fuselage (that cacoons the occupants) that will now determine the outcome and it seems that regardless of manufacturer, or whether landing gear, engines or complete wings get ripped off, fuselage construction has saved many lives in these accidents. I think this is worth noting when discussing grandfathering certifications arising from real air frame crash testing against the newer composite material constructions, the safety of which i understand is determined more by computer modeling. Not arguing either way (I'm just not that bright) but just saying that this accident, others I have mentioned above and the many others I haven't mentioned, all highlight an important element of aircraft construction that despite all of the unknowns that leads an aircraft to 'land' off runaway, has most likely saved thousands of lives.

[UltraFan]

Asiana Airlines Flight 214 6 July 2013. B777. 307 crew and pax. Tail hit seawall and cartwheeled on runaway. 1 died in crash. 2 non seat belt wearing pax died after being thrown from aircraft.

Just for the sake of accuracy and in order to once again name and shame the incompetent idiots at the SFO fire dept, the two passengers died after they were run over by a fire truck. And the department's only response to the accident was banning the helmet cams that were used as evidence. SHAME!

[UltraFan]

Gordy (Proud) — ZIA callsign.

SJR178 — U6178 callsign.

Tower radio commuications:

06:00:32 — 06:01:45

Pilot: Gordy ground, good morning, SJR 178 at parking, weather please and vectors to Simferopol.

Dispatcher: Gordy, goodmorning. Departure runway 12, wind 110, 5 ms, visibility 7 km, ceiling undefined, QNH 1008, QFE 994, temperature 16 degrees, friction 0.5, scattered birds. Calculate departure from runway 12. Departure route – straight ahead 900 meters, contact Gordy at 125.25. Squawk later.

Pilot: Copy that. Runway 12. Straight ahead 900, work with 125.25. Squawk later, SJR178.

Dispatcher: That’s correct.

06:05:38 — 06:05:54

Pilot: Requesting pushback and startup.

Dispatcher: Pushback to second position, startup when ready.

Pilot: Second position, startup when ready, SJR 178.

06:09:25 — 06:09:46

Pilot: SJR 178, requesting taxi.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, holding short of 12. Follow the follow-me to runway 12 to V7.

Pilot: Hold short of runway 12, following V7 behind follow-me.

06:11:20 — 06:11:38

Pilot: SJR 178, hold short of 12.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, right on. Have a good trip!

Pilot: Working with 125.250. Thank you very much and have a nice day!

Communication with tower:

06:11:39 — 06:11:57

Pilot: Gordy tower, SJR 178, hold short of runway 12.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, good morning! Line up runway 12. Wind 110 deg, 4 ms.

06:12:28 — 06:12:51

Pilot: SJR 178. Ready for takeoff.

Dispatcher: ВПП 12. Cleared for takeoff, scattered birds.

SJR 178: Runway 12, cleared for takeoff, SJR 178.

06:14:10 — 06:14:21

Pilot: SJR, PANPAN, PANPAN, PANPAN, SJR.

06:14:29 — 06:14:39

Dispatcher: SJR 178.

Pilot: PANPAN, PANPAN, PANPAN, SJR 178. One engine failure.

Dispatcher: SVR 178, your decision.

06:14:55 — 06:15:09

Pilot: Requesting turn around. Altitude.

Dispatcher: Cleared for turn around.

Pilot: Cleared for turn around, SJR 178.

06:15:49 — 06:15:57

Dispatcher: SJR 178 to Gordy.

Pilot: Sverdlovsky, requesting ambulance and rescue.

Dispatcher: Stand by. What’s your altitude and souls onboard?

Pilot: Altitude. We landing just beyond the runway. 226 passengers and seven crew.

Dispatcher: Say again.

Pilot: 226 and 7 crew.

Dispatcher: 226 passengers and 7 crew?

Pilot: 7 crew.

06:16:52 — 06:16:57

Dispatcher: SJR 178, where are you?

Pilot: Hold on, SJR 178. Do you read emergency beacon?

Dispatcher: Come again. Repeat.

Pilot: Do you read emergency beacon?

Dispatcher: No.

06:18:11 — 06:18:22

Dispatcher: CU, SJR 178.

Pilot: Don’t distract, we’ve evacuating.

06:19:18 — 06:19:45

Dispatcher: SJR 178, situation report.

Pilot: All passengers evacuated, SJR 178.

Dispatcher: Report injured, casualties.

Pilot: No casualties, injured later.

Dispatcher: Copy, later.

06:25:36 — 06:27:31

Dispatcher: SJR 178 to Gordy.

Pilot: Go ahead.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, could you report the number of injured?

Pilot: None injured.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, copy that, no injured. Everyone evacuated, is that correct?

Pilot: Everyone evacuated. Do you have our location? We turned on the emergency beacon.

Dispatcher: Search and rescue informed.

Pilot: Thank you.

06:48:10 — 06:48:29

Pilot: Standing by, SJR 178. Standing by. Standing by.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, could you give us your location?

Pilot: Moment.

Pilot: SJR 178.

Dispatcher: Gordy responded, SJR 178.

Pilot: Coordinates.

Crew: 30.46.55.7’ N. 38?15,7 E.

Dispatcher: Repeat latitude.

Pilot: 55.30,6 N, 38.15,2 E.

Dispatcher: SJR 178, Repeat latitude, please.

Pilot: Corrdinates 55?

Dispatcher: Got it.

Pilot: 6 N.

Dispatcher: Got 6.

Pilot: 15 decimal 2 E.

Dispatcher: Copy that.

Tower to SR:

04:13:40

Dispatcher: 03, Gordy.

03: Go ahead.

Tower: Inspect the runway.

03: Copy that.

Dispatcher: Especially the “Trap” (fork between taxiway 3 and runway 12/30) and V7 vicinity for birds. Hardly possible but do it.

03: On my way.

06:46:28

05: Gordy to 05.

Tower: Gordy. Go ahead.

05: Shall we dispact a bus for passengers?

Tower: Of course. You have to evacuate them somehow.

05: Copy that. Dispatching the buses. Do I have it right, it’s near the outer marker, where the fishermen are?

Tower: About there, right.

05: Copy that.

07:06.04

05: Gordy to 05.

Tower: Go ahead.

05: Do we stay here or go back to base location? What’s our alert status?

Tower: Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you stay?! Move there. Fire engines stay where they are. The rest of rescue vehicles all move there.

05: Search and rescue all went there already.

Tower: Then everyone stay and wait.

05: Copy that. Stay and wait.

[DaveReidUK]

Air Niugini Flight 73. September 28, 2018. B737. 47 crew and pax. Aircraft 'landed' beyond the runway in to a lagoon. All survived crash but one person was later presumed to have drowned during evacuation.

Not that it really affects your argument, but the Air Niugini 737 came down short of the runway rather than beyond it.

[Airbanda]

To be fair loma, I can remember a total of two forced landings due to bird strikes taking out both engines during takeoff (fortunately both with happy endings). Both were A320 series with CFM56-5 engines.
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...

Ryanair 737NG was brought down by birds (Starlings in that case) at Rome Ciampino 1/11/2008. In that case it was in landing rather than T/O. CFM 56 there too.

[Lord Farringdon]

Not that it really affects your argument, but the Air Niugini 737 came down short of the runway rather than beyond it.

Thanks for picking that up David. I have edited my post accordingly.

Cheers

[DaveReidUK]

To be fair loma, I can remember a total of two forced landings due to bird strikes taking out both engines during takeoff (fortunately both with happy endings). Both were A320 series with CFM56-5 engines.
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...

If it helps to put some perspective on it, out of just under 8,000 A320 family aircraft built (excluding the Neo), 58% are CFM56-engined and 42% are powered by the IAE V2500.

[Euclideanplane]

Air Niugini Flight 73. September 28, 2018. B737. 47 crew and pax. Aircraft 'landed' short of the runway in to a lagoon. All survived crash but one person was later presumed to have drowned during evacuation.

Not to nitpick, but citing from the accident report:

"There was no evidence of drowning and the Pathologists concluded that the passenger would have been
severely concussed and died within the first 3 minutes of receiving the traumatic head injuries."

[Lord Farringdon]

Not to nitpick, but citing from the accident report:

"There was no evidence of drowning and the Pathologists concluded that the passenger would have been
severely concussed and died within the first 3 minutes of receiving the traumatic head injuries."


Thanks Euclideanplane. I have edited my post accordingly.
Cheers

[Bueno Hombre]

My biggest question to the investigators is, why they continued to roll after the FIRST strike? The cabin video clearly shows at least six birds hitting the left engine, yet the plane kept on rolling. If I understand this recording correctly, they realized the problem with the left engine just 8-19 seconds after the start of the take-off roll, and declared panpan. They were still on the ground when it happened. I just checked, ZIA has 4,600m long runway, enough tarmac to abort and stop. Why didn't they?

And the second question is, why the tower had to explain to the rescue team what they should do. Fourth phrase from the bottom: "Boys, you got the coordinates, the plane crashed beyond the runway. What do you mean you're staying? Move there. Fire engines stay. The rest of the rescue vehicles move there."

YOU'RE A RESCUE TEAM AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!? WHAT THE...

Made PAN Call while still on the ground. Anyone know about any PAN call ever made on the ground before this. Fake news ?

[PAX_Britannica]

Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke?

You're an engineer, right? You've done Poisson processes, right?

You can figure it out :) :8 .

[Bueno Hombre]

From interview with the Captain:
- He refuses to be called a hero, he just did that they were trained for.
Yes. I looked up the dictionary definition of "hero" I had always imagined that a hero was one who put his own life at risk either to save others or for a just cause. If one would now google "hero" other inclusions might be seen.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.

[UltraFan]

Made PAN Call while still on the ground. Anyone know about any PAN call ever made on the ground before this. Fake news ?

He called out panpan when the LEFT engine injested birds. They still had enough thrust to continue the take-off. He then asked the tower for permission to turn around and land. He didn't call out mayday (supposedly) because right after take-off the RIGHT engine injested more birds and they realized they were having an interesting morning. There was no time for radio coms after that. The next call from the captain informed the tower they were down and evacuating.

See above. Translation just got approved.

[MPN11]

My apologies for my belated thanks for the transcript translation[s].

Apart from the apparent muddle with the Crash Crew (don’t they use local crash maps? Clearly not!) that was a startling quick ‘start to finish’ incident. I add my admiration for the Captain and First Officer for handling that so quickly and efficiently, assisted by Lady Luck (good landing spot, airframe integrity).

Hero? Of course not, by definition, but undoubtedly being in Seats 0A and 0B puts them in the least favourable location for impact with terrain.

[aterpster]

Yes. I looked up the dictionary definition of "hero" I had always imagined that a hero was one who put his own life at risk either to save others or for a just cause. If one would now google "hero" other inclusions might be seen.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
Going out the flight deck sliding window or escape hatch?

[FlightDetent]

...grandfathering certifications arising from real airframe crash testing against the newer composite material constructions, the safety of which I understand is determined more by computer modelling. Someone up mentioned A32x being built strong(er). I personally could imagine the computer modelling of that design era already enabled designs with better load-transfer capabilities, less prone to break up. The real life evidence does not support that view, the 737 which is well comparable in terms of structural weight is a lifesaver too (multiple Asian land short accidents, all of the overruns and this one worth a link. (https://www.sott.net/image/s22/444502/full/plane.jpg)

... the Captain had a total of about 3000hrs and 6 years flying and for the FO about 600hrs and only 1 year of professional flying, ...(my delete - FD) ... deride as “button pushing children of the magenta”. I think they’ve disproved that now. Now you've spoiled it. ;) There is still a chance for a claim to appear later, they should have stayed on the ground past the V1, like true airmen would, saving the day more heroically.

Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up? Not to slight Sully or this Russian crew - but had their luck been a bit worse we could easily be looking at several hundred fatalities.

If the MAX has taught us anything, it's that certified isn't necessarily the same as safe. People like us live (you) and die (me) with science, technology and true meanings. A respectful suggestion about proper wording here is the MAX had been mis-certified.

I guess the tail-mounted engines have a bit of geometrical protection, so statistic would leave the wing-mounted, underslung to compare. I cannot make the split of CFM-5 and IAE 2500 unfortunately. So for what it is worth
at 2008/2009, when the US Airways and Ryanair (clickable) (https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20081110-0) accidents happened, there had been 3700 A32x manufactured. Today, there are 9000. After (avg 6000 A/C / 2 eng options * 5 sectors * 10 years * 365 * 2 tkof-ldg) 110 million movements a case appears again.

A case where we do not really know just yet what and when actually struck, by all means even what happened to the other engine is not clear. Was it really damaged or just not producing enough thrust to keep the A/C airborne on a hot day? (that is a scary thought!). It is not known.

Suggesting right now there is a statistical pattern, warranting a technical review particular to -5 CFM, based on a case of 1 occurrence (beyond spec) and one unknown is something of a stretch. And not really your class (https://www.pprune.org/10547872-post55.html) at all. Hope you do not mind: if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...
if it was up to me, I'd be sending tdracer out of his retirement with a Cat o' Nine and a branding iron to RR, make them excel again.

The sooner we get back to business as usual, the better.

[UltraFan]

Flight, the question remains, is the simple fact that both events have happened with the same engine type meaningful or is it a statistical fluke? Does it point to some a deeper issue with the CFM56-5 bird strike abilities? Do the bird strike cert requirements need to be toughed up?

I don't know the answer to those but here are my 2 cents, for what it's worth. The United 1549 hit at least one goose with each engine. That's roughly 5 kilos of bird per donk. The Ural Airlines 178 hit seagulls. I don't know what happened to the right engine, but I counted seven birds injested by the left one. That's anywhere between 5 and 10 kilograms of meat. And that's, in purely technical terms, A LOT.

If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?

I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.

[DaveReidUK]

Someone up mentioned A32x being built strong(er). I personally could imagine the computer modelling of that design era already enabled designs with better load-transfer capabilities, less prone to break up. The real life evidence does not support that view, the 737 which is well comparable in terms of structural weight is a lifesaver too (multiple Asian land short accidents, all of the overruns and this one worth a link. (https://www.sott.net/image/s22/444502/full/plane.jpg)

If we're quoting anecdotal evidence rather than statistics, then we should take into account events like the Turkish B738 at AMS.

[lomapaseo]

I don't know the answer to those but here are my 2 cents, for what it's worth. The United 1549 hit at least one goose with each engine. That's roughly 5 kilos of bird per donk. The Ural Airlines 178 hit seagulls. I don't know what happened to the right engine, but I counted seven birds injested by the left one. That's anywhere between 5 and 10 kilograms of meat. And that's, in purely technical terms, A LOT.

If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?

I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.

I seriously doubt you could count birds ingested. Maybe a count of those that missed. However the experts could estimate birds that were ingested through a variety of means, including groups of dented fan blades and dents across the leading edge plane surfaces. Even with a hundred or so gulls in front of the engine you probably would get no more than 2 in a CFM56. And like I said before why would that many gulls be allowed on an active runway.
The cert basis is based on historical probabilities and not on lets imagine how many can fit

[Dave Therhino]

To be fair loma, I can remember a total of two forced landings due to bird strikes taking out both engines during takeoff (fortunately both with happy endings). Both were A320 series with CFM56-5 engines.
Now, the A320 is a common aircraft with thousands flying, and the CFM56-5 powers a goodly percentage of those. But there are also a whole lot of V2500 powered A320s, not to mention several thousand more 737s powered by CFM56-7 engines (different fan) - and none of those have had bird strike related dual engine power loss. Perhaps it's a statistical fluke, and the CFM56-5 bird strike resistance is just as good as the other engines, but if it was up to me I'd be taking a good, hard look at the -5 bird strike resistance...

The CFM56-7B has solid titanium wide chord fan blades, which are relatively tough with respect to impact damage. The -5 series has narrow chord fan blades.

[UltraFan]

I seriously doubt you could count birds ingested. Maybe a count of those that missed. However the experts could estimate birds that were ingested through a variety of means, including groups of dented fan blades and dents across the leading edge plane surfaces. Even with a hundred or so gulls in front of the engine you probably would get no more than 2 in a CFM56. And like I said before why would that many gulls be allowed on an active runway.
The cert basis is based on historical probabilities and not on lets imagine how many can fit

I honestly have no idea how they count the number of injested birds. I suspect birds' DNA is as unique as human, but I have very little knowledge of that area. In the case of UA178 I simply counted the number of injested birds from a video I saw online which shows both the image and the distinctive sound of each strike.

[bud leon]

I don't know the answer to those but here are my 2 cents, for what it's worth. The United 1549 hit at least one goose with each engine. That's roughly 5 kilos of bird per donk. The Ural Airlines 178 hit seagulls. I don't know what happened to the right engine, but I counted seven birds injested by the left one. That's anywhere between 5 and 10 kilograms of meat. And that's, in purely technical terms, A LOT.

If we change the certification requirements, which bird do we take for reference? Swans can weigh over 20 kilos. Even a regular wild turkey has been known to grow to 25-30 kilos. And those are just regular birds that can be found anywhere in the world in big numbers. Then the size of the bird matters. Condors and albatroses have wingspan comparable to light aircraft. How do we provide for that?

I just read someone say there is a huge landfil near ZIA - a feasting spot for all local birds. No idea if it's true, but if it is, maybe there lies the solution.

And it would be extremely difficult or more like impossible to apply statistics to this, with only two of these events and both different, in fact I imagine identical bird strikes would be rare. You would have to compare equivalent forces, the bird strikes would need to have hit both engines while taking off. This is where statistics can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands.

You can't differentiate these events from chance, not even with Poisson process, which really isn't applicable to this in my opinion.

[Mk 1]

Yes. I looked up the dictionary definition of "hero" I had always imagined that a hero was one who put his own life at risk either to save others or for a just cause. If one would now google "hero" other inclusions might be seen.
When I was a new pilot in aviation, I remember some advice. If you care about your own survival you don't need to worry about how many hundreds of passengers you have behind you. You will do what is necessary for your own survival and then your passengers will be OK too.
Thank you. A hero is someone who is otherwise safe running in to a hazardous situation to rescue someone. For instance a bystander in the street running into a burning building to rescue someone. If someone is doing their job and doing it well, they deserve congratulations for a job well done, but their actions are not heroic.

[45989]

Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:

APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS

ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLY
I would hope (thankfully it will never will happen) that you might in an event like that, Use your head and not a checklist.

[45989]

Like the pilot did on the day

[fdr]

guess the tail-mounted engines have a bit of geometrical protection, so statistic would leave the wing-mounted, underslung to compare.

The sooner we get back to business as usual, the better.

Amen on second comment.

As to first comment, aft engines have negligible if any geometric protection from a birds trike. They are sensitive to ice shedding from wings, from debris from main gear, and have more problematic uncontained failure collateral damage issues. They add to wing bending moment issues, not relieve them. There is a different thrust couple which benefits rudder size and they add to stability generally... Except in reverse... Where they characteristically disturb rudder effectiveness. An engine failure on a tail mounted design will need similar inputs from the pilot, as the design is optimised or should be to have enough but not too much authority. Excessively sized rudder or vert stab have their own impact on other bits of stability.

As for Hull integrity, the 320 appears to fare well. There are too many concertina shaped debris fields from the early NGs to be too comfortable with the fiasco of the ring frame/CAM/hand "forgeing" to be comfortable with a comparison between the two.

The structural deformation is a complex process, but where the kitsets occur at the same place repeatedly, there would be merit in contemplation. Or not. Where the Hull has zigged and zagged, the events are generally survivable unless you happen to be right at the failure point. Hit hard enough and it it irrelevant, humans are squishy outers with soft centers, and take so much before it ends on tears.

[fdr]

I would hope (thankfully it will never will happen) that you might in an event like that, Use your head and not a checklist.

That is an interesting view,. I would add that a comprehensive knowledge of basics, systems, checklists and common sense apply.

When stuff gets interesting, one of two things happens physiologically, either inaction from shock/cognitive overload, or time dilation...

Which occurs depends on the preparedness of the individual to deal with a surprise.

Your first midair is memorable if you survive, sitting in a. Powered aircraft without noise also is memorable. A flight control failure will always get your undivided attention. Birds strikes vary from
​​​​Curiosity to expensive to catastrophic. And come out of the blue (well, OK there are times and places where birds are more interested in being in your flightpath).

There have been failures of all types of engines from. Ingestion of KFC into the compressor flow... Not just - 5's lor 2500sthere was a nasty little - 7deal into CMP... If it flies, birds can mess up your game. Good news is high bypass, wide chord fans have lower injection into the inner engine, so bird strikes are lower risk on those designs, which is the way RPT jets are developing, if they get their act together.

[FlightDetent]

Up above a suggestion is made CFM56 -7 have fan blades of a wider chord, different material and perhaps different impact failure modes (speculating due to lack of knowledge, but do understand this may not define how fragile they are).

Perhaps a fair reasoning would be like this. If the -7 fan disk is more durable against impact compared to -5, able to deliver more thrust after an equivalent birdstrike, then

On your worst luck day with both engines taking hits, you really want to be sitting on an -7 powered aeroplane.

Previously the chances of dual oversize birdstrike were calculated to be acceptably low, the present-day massive traffic rate already started creating recurring events. How long before this will no longer be tolerable? No matter the ratio to departures / ASK would remain the same, at some moment there will be a fatality. And if nothing is done, the intensity will increase which cannot be allowed to happen - for a known problem.

Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.

[lomapaseo]

I think we are over-reaching in the engine discussion differences in this thread.

In simpler terms it's the aero damage to the fan (in most cases, but not the Sully) and the ability for the engine cycle to support some thrust. If the bird wipes out the inner compressors it's game over.

It might be more productive if some new evidence like condition of the fan blades turns up in this thread

[UltraFan]

And it would be extremely difficult or more like impossible to apply statistics to this, with only two of these events and both different, in fact I imagine identical bird strikes would be rare. You would have to compare equivalent forces, the bird strikes would need to have hit both engines while taking off. This is where statistics can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands.

You can't differentiate these events from chance, not even with Poisson process, which really isn't applicable to this in my opinion.

That's what I've been saying all along!!! Let's go back to four engines! A340-500 FOREVER!

[Herod]

That's what I've been saying all along!!! Let's go back to four engines!

Eric Moody might have some opinions about that option.

[tdracer]

That's what I've been saying all along!!! Let's go back to four engines! A340-500 FOREVER!

I think you'll find losing two during takeoff on a quad isn't much better - especially if they are both on the same side:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Alaska_Boeing_E-3_Sentry_accident

[megan]

Airbus 320 family procedure in this case is:

APU Start
FLAPS Lever 2
VAPP Determine
SPOILERS ARM
LANDING GEAR DOWN by GRAVITY
BRACE
Touchdown at minimum VS

ALL ENG MSTRS OFF
APU MSTR OFF
EMERG EVACUATE PROCEDURE APPLYYou sure they didn't just hit the switch? ;)


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/569x840/cornfield_switch_569x840_00b7e56863efd68c65b28065344eb77e0d8 4faa1.jpg

[EnglishMartyn]

Have you checked the name on the door as you walked in? :O

Yes, the positive outcome and everyone being alive is the ultimate result. But every crash give us something even more important - a lesson to learn. And since at least some people here are pilots, of course they can't help thinking, "what if it was me". And "what would I do"? This discussion is the way to answer that question.

Or maybe people just like to talk. :O
I think most people just like to talk :) And YES, I very definitely DID check the name on the door on the way in. My point was that those people advocating the use of those checklists also seem to have lost sight of the fact that there was not time to use them as the aircraft didn't ever get high enough for those checklists to be useful.

[Bahrd]

[...] Previously the chances of dual oversize birdstrike were calculated to be acceptably low, the present-day massive traffic rate already started creating recurring events. How long before this will no longer be tolerable? No matter the ratio to departures / ASK would remain the same, at some moment there will be a fatality. And if nothing is done, the intensity will increase which cannot be allowed to happen - for a known problem.

Indeed, keeping the birds away from the intake is the first line of approach.

Indeed, it looks scary: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/second-ural-a321-hit-by-birds-a-week-before-field-la-460370/
Rosaviatsia points out that 50 notable incidents have occurred so far this year relating to bird-strikes – on top of a further 823 in which no damage occurred.

[arearadar70]

It seems that these great Russians guys and Sully ignored the SOP`s etc. Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?

[Herod]

Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?

Not really. These folk all thought outside the book, and that will always happen...thankfully

[FlightDetent]

It seems that these great Russians guys and Sully ignored the SOP`s etc. Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?Expand a bit what you mean and we'll share what has been done already.

[OldnGrounded]

It seems that these great Russians guys and Sully ignored the SOP`s etc. Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?

OK, here's "the Book" for situations like these: "Be prepared. Keep calm. Think fast. Be lucky."

[Banana Joe]

It seems that these great Russians guys and Sully ignored the SOP`s etc. Is it time the Book was re-written to reflect this ?
Not needed. It's already written in the Boeing QRH that in certain circumstances deviations from SOP's and procedures may be needed. I am sure there's something similar in Airbus documentation.

[ph-sbe]

Not needed. It's already written in the Boeing QRH that in certain circumstances deviations from SOP's and procedures may be needed. I am sure there's something similar in Airbus documentation.
Last time I checked, PIC can do pretty much all s/he wants, if necessary to protect lives.

It's a privilege I hope to never use.

[Australopithecus]

Since when do you need permission from anyone to save your own skin? FFS.

[lomapaseo]

Unclear what the question means.

Did you ever accidentally put your hand on something hot and immediately withdraw it?

Which book taught you to do that?

What this flight crew did was surely instinctive.

They just flew the damn aircraft because they had no time or reason to do anything else.

If you can figure out which book we should put that in, then yes it should be put there.

Has the DFDR been released?

[Surlybonds]

Has the DFDR been released?

I shouldn't think there'll be much on it apart from a few Russian expletives - I doubt there was time for running the full Cornfield Landing checklist...

[OldnGrounded]

I shouldn't think there'll be much on it apart from a few Russian expletives - I doubt there was time for running the full Cornfield Landing checklist...

The crew seemed pretty cool and collected in the transcripts of comms with ATC. Anyway, lomapaseo asked about the data recorder, not the CVR.

[GXER]

Attempts to compare the actions of the crew in this accident with those of the crew in the Hudson ditching are, in my opinion, invidious. The certain conclusion that can be drawn about both incidents, it seems to me, is that, given their respective (and different) circumstances, it is hard (or impossible) to see how either crew could have made a better job than they actually did of salvaging the best possible outcome from the extremely adverse situation that presented.

In short, they both performed with the maximum competence and presence of mind that was required by the circumstances. Equal congratulations are due and no more can be said, imho.

[Herod]

GXER. I'll second that.

[Aihkio]

I have a feeling that in both cases the pilots did not necessarily make the best choices but they avoided the bad ones and that is often enough. In any profession experience is for weeding those out, training helps but it is no substitute for experience.

[vilas]

I have a feeling that in both cases the pilots did not necessarily make the best choices but they avoided the bad ones and that is often enough. In any profession experience is for weeding those out, training helps but it is no substitute for experience.
In Russian case there was simply no choice but land ahead may be little left or right. It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up. Sully's case he had to make the decision not to return. There was nothing wrong in every thing he did except dropping speed and getting into alpha prot that prevented a proper flare and resulted in heavy impact. However considering the work load and the time frame it's ok.

[vilas]

The FCTM mentions if forced Landing is anticipated the gear must lowered to absorb some energy. But the forced Landing check list does mention gear to be lowered above 3000ft. Although it doesn't mention the reason. It could be that initially the drag of lowering the gear will increase the rate of descent and below 3000ft not enough height to settle down again. In this case it was only 750ft. So perhaps correct thinking.

[Surlybonds]

It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up.

Somewhere further up thread there's a quote from the Captain where he suggests that his decision was based on the fact that as they had full tanks, there was less chance of causing a rupture and fire if he left the gear up.

[rog747]

In Russian case there was simply no choice but land ahead may be little left or right. It may be interesting to know why he chose to land with gear up. Sully's case he had to make the decision not to return. There was nothing wrong in every thing he did except dropping speed and getting into alpha prot that prevented a proper flare and resulted in heavy impact. However considering the work load and the time frame it's ok.

Landing with the gear up I thought had already been answered by the crew of the A321.

They were only reaching 750' MAX ALT and were starting to go down, with that thought the Skipper had already decided that a return to the airport was impossible and that an immediate forced landing was inevitable.
The crew had raised the gear after the normal rotation/lift off at take off, and the Capt knew how long the time would take to lower it again either by the manual drop/lock or via the HYD systems (if he still had any?) and it was obvious to him they had not the time to get 3 greens.
I do not know if the RAT deployed and was functioning, but that needs 140 or is it 150 kts airspeed to work the turbine and pump for some electrics and HYD's.

Regards R.

[UltraFan]

I was thinking about some accusations here that the captain didn't call "Brace!" for the passengers, and here is the result of my mental effort.

I don't think a call to brace would help anyone. Even in the most airborne country like the US, most passengers would simply not understand it. Other than a few aviation enthusiasts, very few people actually know what this word stands for. They've just boarded the plane, they are tired from all the lines they had to stand in, they are utterly irritated by their encounter with the security, they are finally trying to relax. The plane accelerates down the runway, the shaking stops, and we fly, and the suddenly "BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!"... What do you do? Hug a person in the adjacent seat? Grab the armrests? I don't think it'd work, especially with panic factored in. Even people who know the meaning would need time to process the command, and those who don't know would simply wonder what the heck the PA is screaming about.

And now imagine there is a plane full of people who don't speak a word in English, and there is no set phrase in their language for "assume the brace position". Heck, I just realized I don't know that phrase in my native language, and those that I can come up with would require quite a few seconds to say.

So, in my conclusion, "brace" command, unless called well in advance, gives absolutely NO meaningful result and doesn't improve the outcome by one iota.

[MemberBerry]

According to Wikipedia, there are quite a few variations even in English, depending on the airline:


"Bend over! Stay down!"
"Brace for impact! Prepare for crash-landing, prepare for crash-landing! Heads down! Stay down!"
"Brace!" (repeated until the aircraft lands.)
"Brace! Brace! Stay down!"
"Brace, brace! Heads down, grab your ankles!"
"Brace! Brace! Brace! Heads down! Stay down!"
"Get your heads down, stay down!"
"Heads down, grab ankles, stay down."
"Heads down feet back! Heads down feet back!"
"Heads down! Stay down!"
"Bend down! Böj ner!" (Airlines in the Scandinavian countries repeat the Bend down-phrase in a Scandinavian language, alternating between the two languages.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brace_position

If the Sully movie was accurate, and I remember correctly, they were using the "Brace! Brace! Brace! Heads down! Stay down!" variation.

Later edit: I did remember correctly. Still not sure about the movie's accuracy though: https://youtu.be/3tg0XjF2ldU?t=37s

[UltraFan]

According to Wikipedia, there are quite a few variations even in English, depending on the airline:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brace_position

If the Sully movie was accurate, and I remember correctly, they were using the "Brace! Brace! Brace! Heads down! Stay down!" variation.

Later edit: I did remember correctly. Still not sure about the movie's accuracy though: https://youtu.be/3tg0XjF2ldU?t=37s



Fruitless argument. How many understood his command? And how many followed? Compared to the Russian crew, Sully had all the time and altitude in the world. He was at 900 meters, while the Russians were barely airborne. Plus a much heavier plane. And a tiny insignificant detail - the people onboard didn't speak English.

[MemberBerry]

Fruitless argument. How many understood his command? And how many followed? Compared to the Russian crew, Sully had all the time and altitude in the world. He was at 900 meters, while the Russians were barely airborne. Plus a much heavier plane. And a tiny insignificant detail - the people onboard didn't speak English.

I didn't accuse the Russian pilots of anything. They probably had more important stuff to focus on at the time, and based on the outcome they did an excellent job prioritizing what should be done within the short time available.

However I take issue with the claims that a "brace" command is useless. First of all, the command is not just for the passengers, but also for the cabin crew. And the cabin crew will start repeating the command to the passengers, and instructions about how to do it if the passengers were not previously briefed due to lack of time. They will keep repeating that until the plane comes to a stop. Sully gave the command 90 seconds before impact, and the cabin crew kept repeating the command and the instructions until impact, according to USA Today: 'Miracle on the Hudson' reveals passengers' stories - USATODAY.com (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-12-miracle_N.htm)

Also, nothing stops the airline from personalizing those commands with a version in the local language, like the Scandinavians, that keep alternating between English and their language when the cabin crew repeats the commands.

[UltraFan]

I didn't accuse the Russian pilots of anything. They probably had more important stuff to focus on at the time, and based on the outcome they did an excellent job prioritizing what should be done within the short time available.

However I take issue with the claims that a "brace" command is useless. First of all, the command is not just for the passengers, but also for the cabin crew. And the cabin crew will start repeating the command to the passengers, and instructions about how to do it if the passengers were not previously briefed due to lack of time. They will keep repeating that until the plane comes to a stop. Sully gave the command 90 seconds before impact, and the cabin crew kept repeating the command and the instructions until impact, according to USA Today: 'Miracle on the Hudson' reveals passengers' stories - USATODAY.com (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-12-miracle_N.htm)

Also, nothing stops the airline from personalizing those commands with a version in the local language, like the Scandinavians, that keep alternating between English and their language when the cabin crew repeats the commands.

Just for clarity, I didn't think or imply that you accused the Russian crew of anything. This is more of a theorhetical opinion. I do hope, however, that someone would conduct an empirical study of this phenomenon, just like that did for evacuation panic back in the day... was it after the British Midlands runway fire?

It is an important issue and I for one would like to know how much of what I'm saying passengers actually hear or listen to. I'd also like to know how effective are those fashionable "safety" videos the airline now compete to issue. Personally, I think that instructing passengers on evacuating a sinking plane becomes a lot less effective if done by a generously bosommed and scantily clad Australian lady or a New Zealand dragon or a Man in Black. But that's a very different topic, indeed.

[bud leon]

The answer to this calling out "brace" issue or any other actions taken is really simple when you look at the chronology. I think it's about 90 seconds from the first pan call. I'm not sure how many of you have been in a similar situation. Time is completely distorted in situations like this and the mind is completely overloaded. On the one hand time seems to slow down and on the other things happen too quickly to respond in a considered way. The crew's minds would have been completely overloaded with the immediate control tasks of handling a fully loaded plane that has just left the runway and isn't going to fly and after realizing you can't turn looking for the safest place to attempt a landing and getting the plane to there. That is really all the mind has time for.

[safetypee]

Bud :ok:

The initiating event appeared to be diagnosed as a single engine failure at or shortly after take off. Thus gear up, aim for V2, establish safe climb.
Soon after, or coincident, but not immediately noticed, loss of power on second engine. Need to maintain safe flying speed, nose down, accelerate, perhaps brief consideration of glide speed before realisation of imminent landing, thence seek Vref for the configuration, manage the flight path, and position towards a suitable field.
Capt flying aiming for safest landing, P2 attention on attempting to restore some thrust, ………
Little time to consider any normal operation.

Crew acted as they saw the situation at that time, and within the time available between understanding and continually updating their understanding of a surprising, startling, situation, and the rapidly approaching ground - very much faster than normal.
Gear down, calls, etc, never came to mind in the order of events and within the time available - the crew could only operate within the limits of human performance.

They did, well done. We can ask no more.

[groundbum]

compared to other recent crashes, where airmanship certainly didn't help matters (but also didn't cause the crashes) it would be good to see what piloting experience the two Russian crew had. I'm thinking ex-military, gliders etc. The crew here, much like the BA 777 at LHR, and Sully, handled the 30 seconds or so they had, including the startle factor, amazing well. It was all muscle memory and instinctive airmanship.

If there is a review of pilot training, experience levels, sim session, HR factors, CRM in the wake of MCAS, then I hope the good outcome incidents also get examined to add to the evidence considered.

G

[givemewings]

Can't speak for all airlines, but many only actually use "Brace Brace!" For a PREPARED emergency landing (in which case the brace position and meaning of the command are demonstrated to the pax during cabin preparation phase) If mentioned in the safety video then Brace may be used.

For an unprepared emergency, varying with individual airline SOP, the "brace brace" can be omitted for the reasons mentioned above. The pax just aren't really familiar enough with it in a sudden emergency.

Some variants I can recall from over the years:

Heads down, stay down!
Bend down, hold your knees!
Bend down, protect your head!
Bend down, stay down!
Brace brace, heads down!

Etc

[kontrolor]

please note that passengers were retrieving their luggage after forced landing in corn. Do you people believe they were going to obey "heads down, stay down" commands? LOL

[FlightDetent]

No. Our job is to give a signal to those who may wish to follow the advice.

Similar to others, I believe a shouted command: Heads down, grab your ankles! / Heads down, stay down!, co-ordinated from all the CC stations, delivered in the local language, does have some effect on the PAX.

[fdr]

No. Our job is to give a signal to those who may wish to follow the advice.

After 28,000 hours flying, and over 40 years in accident investigation, I remain stunned by the disregard in general that the travelling public have for their own safety. The attention asked for by the regulator and the crew, both flight and cabin crew is for their safety, yet it is routinely more important to SMS some other party than to take 120 seconds to protect your own life. Having evacuated aircraft quite routinely in my life before the airlines, I still take the time to review emergency procedures prior to any flight, as a captain or as a passenger. I do take note of any others that are also taking some interest, as they are the ones that I will rely on to evacuate a smoke filled wreck. The others, that are SMS'ing, I assure you, I for one will not risk my life to defend yours, you have the right to disregard your life; you have no right to ask anyone else to show more care than you do for your skin.

From bitter experience, watching your own skin burn is not something you want to ever experience. Anyone standing between me and an exit with a suitcase is not going to be politely asked to do anything, such actions are a direct threat to the survival of everyone else irrespective of the mental dysfunction that may exist due to shock and lack of preparedness.

Certification calls for demonstrated evacuation in 90 seconds, using half of the available doors, and with incapacitation. It gets done, it is often not pretty, but it is passed. The problem is, as Airtours at Manchester showed, that the kinetic world we live in works by its own rules, and sometimes, that temporal luxury doesn't exist on the day. Once the tin is being wadded up, it is not a good time to start wondering where the exists may be.

[FlightDetent]

I do not see a disconnect between the two of us, fdr. Even against the odds that almost no-one is listening, we still must do our part. Saying no brace call needed - punters won't listen is ridiculous. That was the gist of mine.

[Leftexit]

A question from a SLF. Further up the thread it is stated that ATC twice warned the pilots of a bird hazard.
Bird strikes often have serious consequences, the shutdown of an engine, which I assume is high on the emergency priorities.
As pilots delay departure, or even return to the gate, for apparently much less serious issues than a potential engine shutdown should SOPs not instruct a delay if birds are in the flight path?

[gearlever]

A question from a SLF. Further up the thread it is stated that ATC twice warned the pilots of a bird hazard.
Bird strikes often have serious consequences, the shutdown of an engine, which I assume is high on the emergency priorities.
As pilots delay departure, or even return to the gate, for apparently much less serious issues than a potential engine shutdown should SOPs not instruct a delay if birds are in the flight path?

In my outfit there was no SOP for that. I think at most operators it rests with the Commander. At some airports e.g. EDDH, they have a "bird chase away" service if you ask for, which I did a few times. They use pyrotechnics and shotguns.

[kontrolor]

fdr agree. Only stern, shouting commands to leave aircraft helps in such case. But again, almost nobody is paying attention to safety briefings anyway....sometimes I have a feeling, that I'm the only one on the plane listening and looking where the exits are....

[Euclideanplane]

They use pyrotechnics and shotguns.
The use of shotguns seems uncommon. In Heathrow the policy is to fire cartridge guns.

[triploss]

Can't speak for all airlines, but many only actually use "Brace Brace!" For a PREPARED emergency landing (in which case the brace position and meaning of the command are demonstrated to the pax during cabin preparation phase) If mentioned in the safety video then Brace may be used.

For an unprepared emergency, varying with individual airline SOP, the "brace brace" can be omitted for the reasons mentioned above. The pax just aren't really familiar enough with it in a sudden emergency.
Also can't speak for all airlines, especially those in Russia - but most don't include brace as part of the safety briefing these days.

[lomapaseo]

Certification calls for demonstrated evacuation in 90 seconds, using half of the available doors, and with incapacitation.

and other rules like O2 masks that provide for passenger safety, The rule only provides a means for the passengers to remain unharmed, it's up to the passenger to use or not use the means provided. That seems to sell the most tickets. If we were to employ bull whips and batons to make the passengers respond that would defeat the mode of travel and force them onto less safe modes.of survival by chance alone.

[gearlever]

The use of shotguns seems uncommon. In Heathrow the policy is to fire cartridge guns.

Indeed, thx for correct description.

[lomapaseo]

The use of shotguns seems uncommon. In Heathrow the policy is to fire cartridge guns.

Depends on the threat of indigenous birds.

Young birds will easily scare with just the noise. However older more seasoned birds assess the threat and just move a little bit and wait around for the threat to leave before returning. After that a shotgun blast or other form of insurance would be used and followed by waving one or two killed birds over ones head to make sure the leaders got the message.. Following this back to pyrotechnics works fine again..

I first learned this trick many years ago when a team of well armed militia jumped out of the back of an old volks bus and took down quite a few gulls with shotguns. A year later I showed up with a different car full of guns, but all it took was for me to get out with a walki-talki antenna flashing and the birds took off before a gun could be fired. They are smart bastards and learn somewhat. I never could figure out if it was me, the walki-talki or the Volks-bus that they associated with.

Some bird control folks use follow-me trucks to run into flocks to disperse them Of course you first have to prove that the vehicle is deadly by waving a dead bird or two over your head so in the future just the vehicles presence is good enough. Gulls and sea birds seem to respond to the above.

[punkalouver]

You can read all details at this site with a link to an English translation of the report at the end of it. Bottom line, they knew about a flock of birds before takeoff, didn't retract the gear after the engine failure/damage, were prevented from stalling the aircraft(full backstick) by the high AoA protection, and selected the gear up when they were about to land in the field.

Russia’s Potemkin Miracle: The story of Ural Airlines flight 178 | by Admiral Cloudberg | Medium (https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/russias-potemkin-miracle-the-story-of-ural-airlines-flight-178-5608e797c63e)

[ATC Watcher]

Thanks for posting this punkalouver. quite interesting to say the least. and so sad to read the conclusions and the end remarks on the regulatory battles still going on. . The efforts of MAK to bring Russia aviation into the 21st century were clearly visible until a few years ago in all ICAO meetings I attended .The traditionally old Soviet era bureaucrats only speaking Russian, were replaced by younger technically educated staff that spoke fluently English and knew what they were talking about. All that stopped in a sudden and sadly it looks like Russia has not let go of the old era where corruption and vodka prevailed.