Plane crashes near Kazakhstan airport

[PAXboy]

BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-50922219)
Plane with 100 people on board crashes near airport in Kazakhstan's largest city Almaty

They say the Bek Air aircraft went down shortly after taking off at Almaty airport on Friday morning local time.
Emergency service personnel have rushed to the scene. Seven deaths have been confirmed but it is not known if there are any survivors.The plane was en route from Almaty, Kazakhstan's largest city, to the country's capital of Nursultan.

Almaty's airport said there were 95 passengers and five crew on board. It said the plane lost height at 07:22 local time (01:22 GMT), before striking a concrete barrier and crashing into a two-storey building. Footage has emerged rescuers working at the scene. In it, a woman can be heard calling for an ambulance.

[Eric Janson]

RT.com (https://www.rt.com/news/476906-bek-air-kazakhstan-jet-crash/) is reporting a Bek Air flight crashed just after take-off.

[dfstrottersfan]

If I have the correct one ---

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/z92100#23522307

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

... before striking a concrete barrier ...

Not that bloody concrete perimeter fence I hope.

[3wheels]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-bek-air-plane-100-21168658

At 0.28....looks like snow can be seen on the wings of the wreckage.

[Cloudtopper]

A few points:

Spoilers deployed.

FR24 showing it climbed to circa 3100 feet considering the field elevation of 2300 . 800 feet?

Rear mounted T tail engines.

Temp minus 11 C. Clear Ice?

Note-able similarities to the SAS MD 81 dual engine failure due ice ingestion ....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_751

That SAS accident and todays F100 accident both occurred on DECEMBER 27 ..!

[Nomad2]

Seems to be in three big chunks, and no fire which was a blessing.
Glad so many got out alive.
The runways at Almaty are very long.
It's a very fog prone airfield.

Pilots and Air traffickers can find themselves in jail there when things go wrong.

[Cloudtopper]

Not overly long considering the elevation..
7 confirmed dead, I doubt that is a final figure.

[Nomad2]

Indeed, Cloudhopper.
Sadly, now 14 confirmed. Tragic.

Runways are 4,400 and 4,500m. Long enough to support Tu-144 operations....

[industry insider]

At 0.28....looks like snow can be seen on the wings of the wreckage.

Hard to tell, it could be debris from the crash.

[Good memories]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palair_Macedonian_Airlines_Flight_301.

[unworry]

METAR around time of accident:
UAAA 270130Z 10002MPS 1000 R05L/P2000 R05R/P2000U BR FU NSC M12/M13 Q1014 R88/91//50 NOSIG=

a bit chilly

[unworry]

Kazakhstan's Ministry of Interior has reported that the captain died in the accident.

https://www.devdiscourse.com/remote.axd?https://devdiscourse.blob.core.windows.net/devnews/27_12_2019_05_57_37_7336459.jpg?width=920

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fc51fd36a-2869-11ea-b78c-de7d985f5cad.jpg?crop=1921%2C1081%2C14%2C90&resize=1200

[DaveReidUK]

FR24 showing it climbed to circa 3100 feet considering the field elevation of 2300 . 800 feet?

I can't see enough points on the FR24 plot to support that conclusion.

[unworry]

I can't see enough points on the FR24 plot to support that conclusion.

From another site:

ADS-B Data transmitted by the aircraft's transponder suggest the aircraft became airborne, climbed only to between 50 and 100 feet AGL, veered right and impacted buildings abeam of the runway about 3000 meters/10,000 feet down the runway 05R. Photographic evidence puts the final position to the right of the runway center line and about 750 meters/2500 feet past the end of the runway (4400 meters/14,400 feet length).

[jimjim1]

If I have the correct one ---
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/z92100#23522307

flight Z92100/BEK2100
Fokker100 UP-F1007

Absent entries indicate values unchanged from previous entry.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/190x152/up_f1007_4b3c496ebeacab86fe22550517e4fcb4dfbd5f73.png
No idea if these are actual returned values or FR24 interpolated/extrapolated fill-ins which it sometimes seems to do.

Sorry for image. One year pprune might get into the 1990's and allow some way of formatting text that I can figure out.

Values:-

CalAlt gs Track
0ft 17kts 34deg
48 56
100
135
155 53
140
2,275 146 58
2,225 132 55
2,200 76 81

[DaveReidUK]

From another site:

ADS-B Data transmitted by the aircraft's transponder suggest the aircraft became airborne, climbed only to between 50 and 100 feet AGL, veered right and impacted buildings abeam of the runway about 3000 meters/10,000 feet down the runway 05R. Photographic evidence puts the final position to the right of the runway center line and about 750 meters/2500 feet past the end of the runway (4400 meters/14,400 feet length).

FR24 doesn't support that analysis either, unless it's based on a different source of ADS-B data.

​​​​​

[Cloudtopper]

I can't see enough points on the FR24 plot to support that conclusion.


I haven’t asked for your support.
However, you could perhaps analyse the correct graph.

[andrasz]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-bek-air-plane-100-21168658
At 0.28....looks like snow can be seen on the wings of the wreckage.

From what I can see wing appears to be clean, both the no-step markings and the registration is clearly visible.
However the F100 is indeed very sensitive to icing, with no leading edge devices. Flaps seem to be set to zero, which IS a legal t/o setting on the F70/100 series.

Failure to gain altitude ultimately boils down to either wings not producing enough lift (ice?), or engines not producing enough thrust.

[DaveReidUK]

I haven’t asked for your support.
However, you could perhaps analyse the correct graph.

The "graph" shows a 15-second gap between the aircraft still on the runway at 01:21:03, and in a gentle descent at 01:21:18 (at approx 50' AAL).

As for its vertical profile between those two points, your guess is as good as mine. Except that I'm not about to try. :O

[unworry]

FR24 doesn't support that analysis either, unless it's based on a different source of ADS-B data.

​​​​​

BBC has just published this graphic of the crash site location, FWIW

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/2829/production/_110318201_kazakhstan_plane_crash_map640_v2-nc.png

[Ganzic]

I haven’t asked for your support.
However, you could perhaps analyse the correct graph.
I doubt it could climb very high at that distance, 50-100ft looks more likely. it pretty much stayed in the ground effect,

Passengers reported icing on the wing, while exiting via overwing exit everyone slipped and fell on "icy wing".

Almaty is an icing nightmare, flown there many times and in winter FOG, SMOG and high humidity make the conditions very interesting - very quickly.
Its another dark day in Kazakhstan Aviation. Assuming this is icing, it looks very similar to several other crashes in Almaty.

[Herod]

I concur with andrasz. The F100 wing will NOT tolerate ANY ice. (4,000 hours on type)

[rog747]

Freezing conditions, Temp/dew point M12/M13, Poor vis, (Freezing fog?)
Pretty full flight (heavy?)
Pax reported aircraft started to shake immediately on lift off, and that pax slipped on ice on the wings when exiting from over-wing exits during the EVAC.
Very sad accident - aerofoil icing with immediate loss of control after lift off?
...No fire was a blessing.

Fokkers in the past have suffered similar take off accidents with icing.

Kazakhstan President said those to blame will be severely punished - Phew gosh is that their Governments first reaction? Poor skipper is deceased...

[ReturningVector]

Freezing conditions, Temp/dew point M12/M13, Poor vis, (Freezing fog?)
Pretty full flight (heavy?)
Pax reported aircraft started to shake immediately on lift off, and that pax slipped on ice on the wings when exiting from over-wing exits during the EVAC.
Very sad accident - aerofoil icing with immediate loss of control after lift off?
...No fire was a blessing.

Fokkers in the past have suffered similar take off accidents with icing.

Kazakhstan President said those to blame will be severely punished - Phew gosh is that their Governments first reaction? Poor skipper is deceased...


So much for safety culture.
This might also apply to foreign pilots and airlines who fly in and out of Kazakhstan and end up in an incident. Scary stuff.

[3wheels]

From what I can see wing appears to be clean, both the no-step markings and the registration is clearly visible.


Yes, but a few seconds later the camera pans, rather quickly, towards the right wing tip. Outboard of where the guy is standing seems to be covered in ice. Need to play it frame by frame.

[ManaAdaSystem]

When temperatures drop below -10 with FZFG you get into some very bad icing conditions, both for the airframe/wings and the engines. I have no idea if they deiced before departure, or if they did, what kind of fluid they used.
Type 1 (Clariant Safewing) will give you less than 10 minutes HOT. Type 2 nearly one hour.
If this takeoff was done without a proper engine run up before releasing the brakes... I’ve seen engine blades pick up 2-3 cm ice from landing to parking.
Wing ice can kill you. Engine ice can kill you. Combine the two and you need to be very careful and get everything right or you will get into trouble.

[Auxtank]

European regulators mandated the fitting of on-ground wing leading-edge heating systems on Fokker 70s and Fokker 100s following a series of icing-related accidents in 2009.

https://www.flightglobal.com/easa-acts-on-fokker-jet-wing-icing/84773.article

[AAKEE]

The "graph" shows a 15-second gap between the aircraft still on the runway at 01:21:03, and in a gentle descent at 01:21:18 (at approx 50' AAL).

FR24 graph can’t be used like this.
FR24 always show 0 feet ”on ground” and altitude when airborne and try to make an auto transition between.
The 2270-ish is virtually the same as airport altitude.
They dont look to have been high at all.

[DaveReidUK]

FR24 graph can’t be used like this.FR24 always show 0 feet ”on ground” and altitude when airborne and try to make an auto transition between.
The 2270-ish is virtually the same as airport altitude.
They dont look to have been high at all.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the limitations of FR24's use of ADS-B data (including synchronicity issues), hence my reluctance to draw conclusions. Particularly when data is missing.

[Thruster763]

Not clear when photos taken but post crash images show frosting on leading edge of vertical stabiliser.

[UltraFan]

According to Flight Global, Bek Air refused (sic!) to pass safety audit because... I can't believe it... "it is very costly and would unfairly affect their fares". And Kazakhstan aviation authorities who first insisted on the audit then suddenly "changed their mind" and allowed the airline to fly. I don't really wonder why.

[etudiant]

According to Flight Global, Bek Air refused (sic!) to pass safety audit because... I can't believe it... "it is very costly and would unfairly affect their fares". And Kazakhstan aviation authorities who first insisted on the audit then suddenly "changed their mind" and allowed the airline to fly. I don't really wonder why.

Was it not the result of experience that the dictum 'If you think safety is expensive, try an accident' was coined?
Should be engraved on every aviation CEO's desk imho.

[BoostTheBoost]

It reminds me of the Air Ontario F28 loss in March 1989. Ice contamination on the wings was the cause then, and this accident is almost identical, but there may be other causes.

[Capt Scribble]

Madrid Aug 2008, warm conditions but a similar profile and crashing near the runway. Lack of lift but in this case incorrect (no) flap set.

[EDMJ]

It reminds me of the Air Ontario F28 loss in March 1989. Ice contamination on the wings was the cause then, and this accident is almost identical, but there may be other causes.

Does the F28 and F100 have the same or similar wings?

In any case, aviation-safety.net has no less than three F100 accidents with the same sequence of events, icing conditions on ground > no deicing carried out > aircraft barely becomes airborne and starts rolling right/left > aircraft crashes.

[Tu.114]

They do not have the same, but very similar wings. While the F28 wing leading edge is rather straight, the F70/100s consists of various straight parts with noticeable angles between them. When the F100 was designed, the F28 wing was taken to Delft (or Utrecht?) University for a revision and improvement, and this is what they made of it. Furthermore, the main difference between the Fokker and the DC9/MD80 is that the Fokker does not have slats or any other leading edge device (except for a small fence and a match-sized stall strip), which might well account for the Fokker wings criticality when it comes to contamination.

It has been a while since I last flew the type and I do not have the performance tables any more, but I would strongly expect the takeoff of the accident flight to have been made with flaps 0°, which is rather normal for this type on long runways and in absence of deicing fluid on the wings.

I do *very* clearly remember the words of many instructors, strictly warning me against accepting the aircraft with the slightest amount of contamination on the wings. Those warnings are best well heeded on the type.

[cessnaxpilot]

An operator I worked for had an aborted takeoff for indications before V1 in Almaty. The response was to have the police meet the airplane and take the crew away for drug and alcohol testing. Safety first!

[guadaMB]

Madrid Aug 2008, warm conditions but a similar profile and crashing near the runway. Lack of lift but in this case incorrect (no) flap set.

Wx conditions, altitude, type and surely crew responsibility makes impossible to compare Spanair 5022 with this accident.

BTW, F-100 take-off procedure implies 0 flaps.

[CargoOne]

According to Flight Global, Bek Air refused (sic!) to pass safety audit because... I can't believe it... "it is very costly and would unfairly affect their fares". And Kazakhstan aviation authorities who first insisted on the audit then suddenly "changed their mind" and allowed the airline to fly. I don't really wonder why.

In all fairness the talk is about IOSA registration, which Kazakstan authorities have decided to make mandatory at some stage. It doesn’t really mean much , for example Ryanair has no IOSA registration (or at least haven’t had until very recently). It is more like the rules of the game for IATA carriers rather than safety on its own.

[Loose rivets]

Tail hit runway twice during takeoff. BBC news 18:00

Rotating, only to find it didn't want to become airborne?

Lots of concrete, so go a bit faster and try again.

[NWA SLF]

When I read about double tail strikes during takeoff I first thought loading problem but then went on to read that passengers exiting over the wings slid on the ice and thought OMG what an airline.

[Cough]

The pax interviewed by the BBC said that after exiting the RH overawing exit 'The wing was very slippy, it was icy'

[Fly.Buy]

Obviously no idea as to causation at this moment in time but reading about the potential of frost on wings very similar to Turkish Airlines Fokker F28 (TK345) January 1975 crashed just after rotation at Izmir airport.

[captplaystation]

Did my TR in 2000 with an ex Fokker instructor. As a previous post said, was very sternly warned to NEVER attempt take off with ANY contamination, and, a tactile inspection was highly recommended, in some companies it was actually mandatory.
I lost count of how many times I got it wrong visually, to be corrected by touch.

This accident to his ex Fokker colleague was the reason for the warning, along with extensive windtunnel work done by Fokker subsequent to the loss of the factory pilot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palair_Macedonian_Airlines_Flight_301

Repeated , with only one unfortunate truck driver lost, several years later in France.


Report: Regional F100 at Pau Pyrenees on Jan 25th 2007, crashed on take off due to contaminated wings (http://avherald.com/h?article=4129a2e2&opt=0)

[Auxtank]

The pax interviewed by the BBC said that after exiting the RH overawing exit 'The wing was very slippy, it was icy'

Assumption by Pax.

Anti-ice fluid feels very slippery as well; it's the way it coats the wing.

I know a lot of people are jumping on the icing thing - and it could well play out that way.
Just wanted to set it straight that if you have ice on the wing or anti-ice fluid, it can feel the same (slipperiness) to the unknowledgeable.

[SteppenHerring]

Apologies for possibly a stupid SLF question: whose call is it on whether to apply anti-ice fluid and what particular type? I know that ultimately the captain is responsible for everything, but if the ground crew declare it "fine", then what?

[Feathers McGraw]

Tail hit runway twice during takeoff. BBC news 18:00

Rotating, only to find it didn't want to become airborne?

Lots of concrete, so go a bit faster and try again.

Shades of early Comets...

[750XL]

Apologies for possibly a stupid SLF question: whose call is it on whether to apply anti-ice fluid and what particular type? I know that ultimately the captain is responsible for everything, but if the ground crew declare it "fine", then what?

Always the Captains call, though personally more often than not through experience I've seen the Captain ask the ground crews opinion and took their word for it rather than their own (generally, what else has been deiced, when, who, what aircraft, etc).

I'd be surprised if anything departed in -12c without deicing.

[segfault]

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Aircraft would be towed into and out of the building, and they would leave ready to fly, to minimize the time they spent exposed on the ground.

[switch_on_lofty]

Yes good try but it's a stupid idea. As a starter for 10; most aircraft are on 1hr or less turnarounds so all planes at an airport would need to be inside...
Did I get there first?

[Auxtank]

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Aircraft would be towed into and out of the building, and they would leave ready to fly, to minimize the time they spent exposed on the ground.

Right on the first count; it's a totally stupid idea.

Commercial aviation doesn't work like that, on so many levels you cannot begin to imagine.

[RatherBeFlying]

I remember seeing a blanket of snow - that had fallen during taxi and waiting our turn at ORD - sliding off the wing in the early takeoff run thanks to the anti-ice fluid application and adherence to holdover time:ok:

I doubt that much, if any, anti-ice fluid would still be adhering by V1, provided that all the ice had been removed.

However, all bets are off if an insufficient amount was applied.

[Barnacle Bill]

Always the Captains call, though personally more often than not through experience I've seen the Captain ask the ground crews opinion and took their word for it rather than their own (generally, what else has been deiced, when, who, what aircraft, etc).

I'd be surprised if anything departed in -12c without deicing.
Captain's call always! As a Captain, if I see (or even think) there is ice, rime ice, frost or any contamination on the wing it gets de,-iced. No, the Captain doesn't "take their word for it". The de-icing or anti-icing mixture (usually both) is entered in the tech log; type, application temp, time, etc is carefully recorded. If the hold-over time is exceeded, then it gets re-applied.

[ManaAdaSystem]

I remember seeing a blanket of snow - that that had fallen during taxi and waiting our turn at ORD - sliding off the wing in the early takeoff run thanks to the anti-ice fluid application and adherence to holdover time:ok:

I doubt that much, if any, anti-ice fluid would still be adhering by V1, provided that all the ice had been removed.

However, all bets are off if an insufficient amount was applied.

Anti ice fluids prevent ice and snow from forming on the wings, not act as a slippery substance that make the snow slide off the wing. In your case the HOT had expired.
I have flown for hours after deicing and i still had fluid dripping from the wings after landing.

[Deskscribbler]

On the HOTs, -12C in freezing fog can give HOTs as low as 20-25 minutes with certain SAE Type II or IV fluids (per this winter season's FAA guidance).

[UltraFan]

Kudos where kudos due. From a BBC interview with the survivor: "Then we started helping people who had been hurt. It was dark. We were lighting with cell phone lights. Helping out each other. All the guys trying to take out people. Because there was high risk of fire".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50922219

[chrisms86]

Kudos where kudos due. From a BBC interview with the survivor: "Then we started helping people who had been hurt. It was dark. We were lighting with cell phone lights. Helping out each other. All the guys trying to take out people. Because there was high risk of fire".


There have been blood drives as well, overcrowding at hospitals with people offering help.

Perhaps Almaty is a unique place in that the airport is practically the only game in town to get out of the area (not including a 48+ hour train ride), so anyone of any means has traveled out of there from the same half dozen airlines many times, on the same types of flights in the dark, ice, and fog. The population is also only 1.7 million isolated people so with 100 people you start playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon and get a lot of people in the same area affected more than we might think is typical. It's also the first day of Christmas break for schoolchildren so a lot of people are themselves traveling (remember Christmas is Jan 7 there).

[SnowFella]

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Aircraft would be towed into and out of the building, and they would leave ready to fly, to minimize the time they spent exposed on the ground.

Used to work in a large commercial freezer warehouse (nowadays downgraded to just chilled goods) and it's not a great idea to take cold soaked machinery into heat and then back into the cold even if the humidity in the warm area is low. The moment you go from cold to hot every surface starts collecting moisture to the point that it ends up dripping wet. Now take that bit of machinery back into sub zero temps before all that moisture has totally gone and it's near instant ice on every surface.
Even for something as small as a forklift it could sometimes mean several hours after leaving the cold section for a battery change before we could bring it back in again or things would just freeze solid!

[pilotmike]

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Aircraft would be towed into and out of the building, and they would leave ready to fly, to minimize the time they spent exposed on the ground.
Simple answer: No. It wouldn't work.

Rationale:
Humans are good at inventing systems and procedures which can be put in place to prevent known problems. Call it SOPs if you will. The de-icing / anti-icing procedure is a fine example: it works just fine when rigorously, conscientiously and consistently applied. And it isn't overly expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Humans are also very good at circumventing / flouting / ignoring systems and procedures to suit themselves whenever they believe it will save them time, bother or cost. And often it bites them and others in the a$$ - very hard, very painful and usually at very considerable cost. That might have happened here.

So your suggestion is to invent a very expensive, massively cumbersome, highly inconvenient, almost impossibly difficult to implement system to cater for the few cases where someone chooses not to comply with a simple, relatively cheap, highly effective, known good procedure...

Could you suggest one good reason why anybody who refuses to comply with the simple, effective, cheap, known good (de-icing) procedure will comply with a hugely cumbersome and expensive replacement procedure which only becomes necessary after they fail to comply with a simple de-icing procedure?

Hence my earlier simple answer - NO!

[PaulH1]

It works well in the Exec Jet world! Aircraft kept in a hangar. Passengers board in the hangar to keep dry and warm. Then the aircraft rolled out and de-iced if required.

[Herod]

Hey guys; don't flame segfault. He's new to Pprune, and we don't know his background. He does start with saying it might be a stupid idea. Lots of good ideas have been written off before (electricity, what is that useful for?). Yes, segfault; it's an impractical idea, but don't be put off posting

[172_driver]

Segfault isn't way off the mark either, we bring our airliner into the hangar when the cost of doing so seem to beat the cost of a de/anti-icing treatment. It's a judgement call. However, this is at a place where we're normally the only company over night. Wouldn't be practical at any larger airport.

[UltraFan]

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but in places like this where ice is a known issue, and as an addition to anti-ice procedures, would it help to have a climate controlled environment to store aircraft in the last hour or so before flight? I am thinking about something like a hangar with low humidity, increased temperature, instruments to detect ice, and obviously protection from precipitation.

Several factors need to be considered. One, as any glasses wearer will tell you, it doesn't matter what humidity is inside, when you enter from the cold, your glasses fog up massively. Another example is an instruction manual to almost any electronic device that advises you to NOT turn it on immediately after it was brought in from the cold. The reason is the same - condensation. If you bring in an airplane inside from the cold, you have no other option but to leave it there for a few hours or maybe even days to let the condensation evaporate. Otherwise, when you turn the power on, you will have multiple shorts all over the plane.

Second is the sheer size of hangars you need for such an operation. Some companies in Canada and Alaska who fly relatively small planes (I'd say, Beechcraft 1900 max) store their machines in hangars overnight to avoid using the unbelievably expensive de-icing fluid in the morning. Storing several even single-aisle planes in a hangar, however, would be prohibitively expensive. Keeping the hangars warm and dehumidified with constant movements would be astronomical.

[Winemaker]

... to avoid using the unbelievably expensive de-icing fluid...
I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

[750XL]

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

There are systems being developed and in place but not widely used at the majority of airports across the globe.

From what I gather, ballpark figures for Type 1/Type 4 figures are purchase for $2 a litre and sell for $5 a litre... Taking into account Type 1 fluid is mixed with water, anything down to 30/70 if your temps don't get much below freezing.

Liquid gold

[UltraFan]

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

Oh, ORD doesn't know the half of it. They still have road access and all the modern infrastructure. Imagine a place like Barrow or Deadhorse, as just two examples, where everything, including the de-icying fluid, has to be flown in. So add shipment costs to the price of the fluid itself. And they have freezing temperatures 9-10 months a year.

As for recycling, I'm not sure I understand the question. Isn't the de-icying fluid supposed to stay on the surface of the wings? :)

[Beamr]

There are systems being developed and in place but not widely used at the majority of airports across the globe.


I don't know about others, but at HEL the de-ice liquids are being collected, even the snow which becomes saturated by de-ice is being collected.

[750XL]

As for recycling, I'm not sure I understand the question. Isn't the de-icying fluid supposed to stay on the surface of the wings? :)

No, you don't want any de-icing fluid to stay on your airframe at all.

Anti-icing fluid, however, you do want to stay on your wings (until it sheers off near rotation speed)

[chrisms86]

1.7 million isolated people. HAHAHAHA! I don't think anyone can get any more American than this. But I get it, any place outside the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, is gloomy, dark and isolated.

Oh, and btw, 70% of population "there" don't celebrate Christmas.

PS Have I just been trolled? :suspect:

I have lived in Almaty for several years. Celebrating Christmas is not relevant to the school calendar I referenced. In any case a city of 1.7 million is small relatively speaking, especially if there is little else for thousands of kilometers in most directions.

[Strumble Head]

A quick thank you to the informed sources who have commented to date (and those to come.) As a confirmed PPRuNe lurker with long experience in various facets of aviation ops, it was a shock to me to realise that I'd never had to get into the fine detail of what determines the need for de-icing on the ground, nor how it gets done in today's world.

So the steers to relevant sources have been invaluable. I've also been reminded that safe operations in icing or snowy conditions are very expensive in time, direct cost and indirect cost (people time, reduced throughput etc.)

This brought back a memory of being SLF on a jet where the first de-icing was not successful. There were well-meant if ignorant suggestions from some (management) quarters, keen to see the aircraft depart, that 'most' areas met standard and this was good enough.

This provoked some very very blunt responses for which I am now even more grateful. Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners.

[Herod]

[QUOTE][Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners./QUOTE]

Precisely. I always made a point to the First officer that he was the professional with no pressure on him. I might make a bad decision because of pressure (although I don't think I made many). More than once the F.O. queried my decisions, and many times he was right.

[Willie Everlearn]

Did we not learn about the “clean wing” concept following the Air Florida accident in Washington waaaaay back in the early 80s?

Willie Everlearn

[750XL]

A quick thank you to the informed sources who have commented to date (and those to come.) As a confirmed PPRuNe lurker with long experience in various facets of aviation ops, it was a shock to me to realise that I'd never had to get into the fine detail of what determines the need for de-icing on the ground, nor how it gets done in today's world.

So the steers to relevant sources have been invaluable. I've also been reminded that safe operations in icing or snowy conditions are very expensive in time, direct cost and indirect cost (people time, reduced throughput etc.)

This brought back a memory of being SLF on a jet where the first de-icing was not successful. There were well-meant if ignorant suggestions from some (management) quarters, keen to see the aircraft depart, that 'most' areas met standard and this was good enough.

This provoked some very very blunt responses for which I am now even more grateful. Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners.

Just to further your post, in a previous company I worked for we used to charge about $5 a litre of de-ice/anti ice fluid and approx $400 vehicle callout fee. On a frost, you're looking about 250-300 litres on a mid size jet. On a snow day, anything upwards of 1000 litres


Not sure what the costs are like these days, tho

[admiral ackbar]

I've wondered about that; we use glycol in our cooling system at the winery and it's very expensive, about $1000/50 gallons or so. I looked at airport de-icing systems and it seems that glycol is not separated and reused but is eventually flushed down the drain. Are there systems to recycle glycol? That must be a huge bill at someplace like ORD.

YUL has been recycling glycol since 2014 to protect the environment around the airport (and save $$$)

https://www.admtl.com/en/adm/communities/environmental-protection/protection-milieu

[hans brinker]

Simple answer: No. It wouldn't work.

Rationale:
Humans are good at inventing systems and procedures which can be put in place to prevent known problems. Call it SOPs if you will. The de-icing / anti-icing procedure is a fine example: it works just fine when rigorously, conscientiously and consistently applied. And it isn't overly expensive in the grand scheme of things.

Humans are also very good at circumventing / flouting / ignoring systems and procedures to suit themselves whenever they believe it will save them time, bother or cost. And often it bites them and others in the a$$ - very hard, very painful and usually at very considerable cost. That might have happened here.

So your suggestion is to invent a very expensive, massively cumbersome, highly inconvenient, almost impossibly difficult to implement system to cater for the few cases where someone chooses not to comply with a simple, relatively cheap, highly effective, known good procedure...

Could you suggest one good reason why anybody who refuses to comply with the simple, effective, cheap, known good (de-icing) procedure will comply with a hugely cumbersome and expensive replacement procedure which only becomes necessary after they fail to comply with a simple de-icing procedure?

Hence my earlier simple answer - NO!

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/infrared-deicing-giving-glycol-a-run-for-its-money-1325/

[hunbet]

Before you all waste any more bandwidth on reinventing the wheel, here is a comprehensive study about deicing that contains every conceivable method :

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/airport-deicing-pds-2000.pdf

SLC has used a recycling system for years.This report is from 2017 but it was in place well before that time :

https://slcairport.com/blog/2017/11/airport-works-to-preserve-resources-by-recycling-deicing-fluid/

[WBryanH]

The deceased Captain, 58yo Marat Muratbaev, is apparently very experienced, having flown over 20,000 hours since 1982. At least that's what Sputnik reports, for what that's worth (see link below, in Russian).

If Sputnik is correct, it makes me wonder, why was Muratbaev flying for a new-ish LLC? Does Kazakhstan have a glut of experienced pilots and not enough seats for them? Does he have issues on his record? Other reasons?

ru (dit) sputniknews (dit) kz/society/20191228/12403390/pogibshy-komandir-samolet-almaty (dit aitch tee em el)

Per the Sputnik link below (in Russian), the 54yo FO Mirzhan Muldakulov has over 11,500 hours, over 4,000 of which on the Fokker 100.

That's pushing 32,000 hours for the pair of 50-something pilots.

Ru (dit) sputniknews (dit) kz/society/20191228/12408518/vyzhivshiy-pilot-samolet-bek-air-strazha (dit aitch tee em el)

[AAKEE]

Simple answer: No. It wouldn't work

ESPA in nothern Sweden have been using recycling of deicing fluid since the middle of the ’80:s.

Right now building another lane to keep up with the increased traffic.
Not a very big airport, 6:th in Sweden I think. Only one apron, one runway.
all departing A/C can leave via the deicing lane from the (only) apron.
Its a lot easier like this, they even had the spot for this available.

At bigger, already built up airports it wouldnt come very easy.

I would guess your answer is correct; At bigger airports, already out of space with the wrong layout it wouldnt work.

”Would you like to deice at the gate or would you like to deice at our recycling enviromental safe deicing apron, only 50% extra charge?”

On a long term basis, its of course possible, taking the time to incorporate the infrastructure and costs.


I also think that the actual price for deicing fluid isnt what makes up the bigger part of the bill ?

[IcanCmyhousefromhere]

As usual in such a sad event, no facts are available only conjecture. However, to make suggestions against a guy who is still warm on the slab is beyond the purpose of this forum. WBryanH, maybe you would care to reconsider your post and amend it?

[Retired DC9 driver]

A quick thank you to the informed sources who have commented to date (and those to come.) As a confirmed PPRuNe lurker with long experience in various facets of aviation ops, it was a shock to me to realise that I'd never had to get into the fine detail of what determines the need for de-icing on the ground, nor how it gets done in today's world.

So the steers to relevant sources have been invaluable. I've also been reminded that safe operations in icing or snowy conditions are very expensive in time, direct cost and indirect cost (people time, reduced throughput etc.)

This brought back a memory of being SLF on a jet where the first de-icing was not successful. There were well-meant if ignorant suggestions from some (management) quarters, keen to see the aircraft depart, that 'most' areas met standard and this was good enough.

This provoked some very very blunt responses for which I am now even more grateful. Classic situation where ground engineering and/or PIC can come under an awful lot of pressure to cut corners.

I operated a DC-9 32 flight into EWR one dark night. Supposed to be a quick turnaround. I went out for the walkaround, as Captain. Icy ramp, with light freezing rain coming down. So I talked to station manager, and said we "will need Type IV deicing wing and tail".
He informed me that they don't have any Type IV available, only Type 3 fluid. . Well I said in that case, we are going to the Hotel, and can he arrange crew transport ?
He came up to cockpit later, as I was talking to the F/O. Apparently he had "found " enough Type IV to use after all. So I told the Station Manager, I wanted to see him , standing in front of the aircraft , as it was deiced to ensure, (not trusting contract deice crew) that both wings and tail were given a proper overspray of Type IV fluid at the end.

If our 45 minute holdover time had been exceeded, before we could takeoff, we would have returned to the gate. Period.

[MichaelKPIT]

Did we not learn about the “clean wing” concept following the Air Florida accident in Washington waaaaay back in the early 80s?

Willie Everlearn

No. we did not: https://youtu.be/5GIU94dg1ek

[UltraFan]

No, you don't want any de-icing fluid to stay on your airframe at all.

Anti-icing fluid, however, you do want to stay on your wings (until it sheers off near rotation speed)

You may be right. I always called the liquid that washes the snow off the plane "glycol" and the orange stuff they pour on the wings anti.... OOOOH! That's where I got "lost in translation". Anti-icing fluid!!! I see my mistake now. Thank you!

[Maninthebar]

Much well informed speculation as ever but the questions seem to me to be around what was DIFFERENT about this flight. From what we (appear to) know:
Flight crew were experienced
Conditions not unusual for this airfield
Airframe a regular in this environment
Well-used airfield (ground crews experienced)

What made the difference for THIS take-off?

[UltraFan]

This is probably another dumb idea, and I'm sure you can all tell me why it wouldn't work - but what about keeping the skin of the aircraft warm enough that ice wouldn't form? Would the issue be excess weight/fuel consumption for a heating system, or are there other issues I'm not thinking of?

I don't think such a system is too difficult to design. Certifying and operating it would be a whole different story. Fuel consumption shouldn't be too different. They already have a heating system on leading edges, prop blades and other surfaces prone to icing. Heating the entire fuselage or even just the entire wing presents a "logistical" problem. How do you direct exhaust heat or electrical wires to do that. The entire wing would be a "no-step" area. And it adds huge complexity to an already complicated electrical systems of modern aircraft. Plus adds another hundred or thousand points of failure. And since the wings are full of fuel vapors it has to be absolutely protected against shorts and sparking.

Another problem I see is how much is "warm enough". Landing in Northern Siberia in December with 10% humidity at -65C is one thing, landing in Oslo in February with 100% humidity at -7C is another. Also, icing doesn't only occur in cold climates. Land at some tropical place, and your wings will frost up from cold fuel inside the wings. And the system would have to calculate all that and make sure it doesn't overheat the airplane while effectively de-icing it. And you shouldn't underestimate the consequences of overheating since most modern planes are made, at least to some extent, of composites held together with various "glues"... or sometimes with actual glue.

[UltraFan]

Much well informed speculation as ever but the questions seem to me to be around what was DIFFERENT about this flight. From what we (appear to) know:
Flight crew were experienced
Conditions not unusual for this airfield
Airframe a regular in this environment
Well-used airfield (ground crews experienced)

What made the difference for THIS take-off?

That's the question that usually takes a team of experts armed with labs and supercomputers months or sometimes years to answer.

[bud leon]

No. we did not: https://youtu.be/5GIU94dg1ek

You know this kind of tacit nationalism is unjustified when you have pilots in the US flying aircraft into the ground.
Human error knows no boundaries.

[andrasz]

Human error knows no boundaries.
There is a fine line between making an error of judgement and a willful disregard of basic safety rules. Like it or not, some cultures (and I would by no means single out one, can think of several...) are more prone for the latter. Luckily you happen to live in a region where by and large such rules are respected and adhered to.

As for the accident flight, what was different... ? A good analogy may be south/south east Asia, where runway excursions provide a perfect record of the arrival of the monsoon season. Change of seasons are always a risky period, requiring more attention and discipline.

[pilotmike]

https://www.wingsmagazine.com/infrared-deicing-giving-glycol-a-run-for-its-money-1325/

Interesting idea. From the article:

The JFK system is located adjacent to Hangar 12, the former TWA aircraft maintenance facility – a 12-minute taxi ride away from the winter departure runway 4L/22R.

“The Port Authority requires that during major storms, every plane must have a departure slot before it is allowed to come out for deicing. The Port Authority and the control tower liason so planes should then be able to go directly to the runway for takeoff,” says Sharkey. Louis adds, “You have a clear shot to the end of the runway after you deice.”

“We are looking for an average complete throughput time of under 15 minutes for a B-747.

So to achieve departures at 2 minute intervals would require at least 7 of these systems in parallel close to each departure threshold. Where would these fit at most international airports? A quick look at Google Earth doesn't show much spare space available at most airports. Certainly it would be un-economic use of real estate in the UK where de-icing might only be required for a few tens of days per year. Where would 14 or 16 of these be located at Heathrow and at Gatwick?

In comparison, a fleet of de-icing rigs are far cheaper to buy, are mobile to get to wherever planes are parked to work in parallel, and can be parked in a very small space during the warmer months taking almost no space.

Don't get me wrong - the proposed buildings appear a good idea at first glance, however there will be some big hurdles to overcome purely because of their size, and the number required for effective operation.

[Icare320]

This accident looks like the F-28 in Dryden airport Canada March 10, 1989.

[Nomad2]

To be fair to the Kazakhs, and I have a fair bit of experience working with them, they are very much rule followers, as opposed to rule-disregarders or ignorers.
I don't know for sure what happened with the Fokker, but two things are sure.

1. Pilots who work there know a lot about ice, iceing, deiceing etc. It's meat and drink to a Kazakh pilot.
2. Fokker pilots surely know about its reputation when carrying ice- any ice.

I think this'll turn out to maybe be undetected clear ice, or some unfortunate combination of circumstances- perhaps including a weight and balance issue, rather than recklessness.

Kazakh pilots are very wary by nature.

[HighSpeedAluminum]

So I talked to station manager, and said we "will need Type IV deicing wing and tail".
Apparently he had "found " enough Type IV to deice after all. So I told the Station Manager, I wanted to see him , standing in front of the aircraft , as it was deiced to ensure, (not trusting contract deice crew) that both wings and tail were properly de-iced with type IV fluid.

Small correction but jets “Deice” with Type 1 and “Anti-ice” with Type IV.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp10643-chapter4-airframe-208.htm

[Retired DC9 driver]

Small correction but jets “Deice” with Type 1 and “Anti-ice” with Type IV.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp10643-chapter4-airframe-208.htm

Ok well, they would de-ice with Type 3 first, then spray on the Type IV which acts as a coating, to dilute any further (in this case) light freezing rain. At about 100 knots, during takeoff, the Type IV fluid shears off the wings and other surfaces, before rotation.
As for the debate about de-icing aircraft quickly enough, for it to remain effective; ie maximum "holdover time" in precip, sometimes the safest plan is to finish the de-icing with an overspray of Type IV. Like this picture, I posted previously. "Green is good". In light freezing rain, after de-icing, and an overspray of Type IV, you have a holdover time of 45 minutes , on my old charts.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/deicing_aircraft_c0032b21b7959d8547ed1d311a858c5c47e03e28.jp g

[JanetFlight]

To be fair to the Kazakhs, and I have a fair bit of experience working with them, they are very much rule followers, as opposed to rule-disregarders or ignorers.
Kazakh pilots are very wary by nature.
Indeed...they managed to land an E-jet right out of the mx in Portugal with totally reversed ctrls and in IMC conditions without injuring anyone on the ground.

[guadaMB]

The matter of icing (and de-icing) wouldn't be a matter if the INDUSTRY would take it seriously.
At the times being, there ARE paints and coatings enough durable to make almost all ACs "NON-ICEABLE".
There are paints to AVOID graffiti's stick to walls, but OWNERS do not want to spend in those paintings.
There ARE coatings that AVOID 100% a possible surface icing of ANYTHING. Mainly sub-products of SILICONES.

IF those coatings/paints were used, it would be 100% recommendable the "russian de-icing method" shown in a previous post video ;)

[lomapaseo]

The matter of icing (and de-icing) wouldn't be a matter if the INDUSTRY would take it seriously.
At the times being, there ARE paints and coatings enough durable to make almost all ACs "NON-ICEABLE".
There are paints to AVOID graffiti's stick to walls, but OWNERS do not want to spend in those paintings.
There ARE coatings that AVOID 100% a possible surface icing of ANYTHING. Mainly sub-products of SILICONES.

IF those coatings/paints were used, it would be 100% recommendable the "russian de-icing method" shown in a previous post video ;)

All true, except for the durable part (in a slip stream) and ice accretion on blunt surfaces that builds on itself like a spider web

It's only a matter of time before somebody suggest a solar panel array large enough to cover the whole airport

[Rwy in Sight]

All true, except for the durable part (in a slip stream) and ice accretion on blunt surfaces that builds on itself like a spider web

It's only a matter of time before somebody suggest a solar panel array large enough to cover the whole airport

And install a spring system below than array.

[MichaelKPIT]

You know this kind of tacit nationalism is unjustified when you have pilots in the US flying aircraft into the ground.
Human error knows no boundaries.

This was in no way intended to be nationalistic. (And for full disclosure, although I live in Pittsburgh I am not American - I was born and raised in the UK, lived there for the first 35 years of my life and still carry a British passport.)

My point is this: we all understand the dangers of a contaminated wing. It was even quoted several posts back specifically how little contamination is needed to reduce a wing’s performance significantly. The dangers of icing are drummed into pilots ad nauseum yet here we have a flight literally taking off with snow on the wing! Even if we go out on a limb and assume it was a ferry flight, with no fare paying passengers, that still gives a minimum of three people on board. Two pilots and the person with the iPhone, filming it. The two pilots must have known it was dangerous; the cameraman would surely have been thinking “well this is a little unusual” because he was sitting there filming it! I’m sure take off performance was impaired, just not to the point where planet and aircraft remained inextricably bound, but it sets a precedent for “yes I should de-ice, but hey, the guy on the YouTube video got away with it - maybe I will too!”

The question was “have we not learned from Air Florida?” I stand vehemently behind my response: No - we haven’t.

[Eric Janson]

The danger of freezing fog cannot be understated. Freezing fog contains super cooled water particles that will freeze instantly when disturbed by a rapidly moving surface.

I have had propeller blades collect 1/2cm of clear ice just on a short taxi in freezing fog.

The same is possible on the fan and compressor section of a jet engine.

[cappt]

The danger of freezing fog cannot be understated. Freezing fog contains super cooled water particles that will freeze instantly when disturbed by a rapidly moving surface.

I have had propeller blades collect 1/2cm of clear ice just on a short taxi in freezing fog.

The same is possible on the fan and compressor section of a jet engine.

The same can happen with supercooled water drops and dew laying on top the wing. Run your hand across it and it’s water, a minute later it’s turned to ice because you disturbed it. Any precipitation at or near freezing requires the utmost caution.

[hans brinker]

Interesting idea. From the article:



So to achieve departures at 2 minute intervals would require at least 7 of these systems in parallel close to each departure threshold. Where would these fit at most international airports? A quick look at Google Earth doesn't show much spare space available at most airports. Certainly it would be un-economic use of real estate in the UK where de-icing might only be required for a few tens of days per year. Where would 14 or 16 of these be located at Heathrow and at Gatwick?

In comparison, a fleet of de-icing rigs are far cheaper to buy, are mobile to get to wherever planes are parked to work in parallel, and can be parked in a very small space during the warmer months taking almost no space.

Don't get me wrong - the proposed buildings appear a good idea at first glance, however there will be some big hurdles to overcome purely because of their size, and the number required for effective operation.

For sure. It might be possible, but a very long way from practical. I just remember using the facility about a decade ago when I saw the discussion. Don't think a lot of new ones have been built since.

[up_down_n_out]

.. a city of 1.7 million is small relatively speaking,

Sorry to disappoint.
In Russia a city of over 1 million is a LARGE city.
Eg. Perm is 1.2 million. (PEE), but has a thoroughly modern airport as well as a military section on the same terrain.

Nizhny Novgorod GOJ is the same size.

[Daerio]

Whatever the reasons, a 2.4% loss rate if that's correct is absolutely horrendous

[Buster the Bear]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/crashed-f100-oscillated-sharply-before-losing-height-bek-air/135962.article

[bud leon]

There is a fine line between making an error of judgement and a willful disregard of basic safety rules. Like it or not, some cultures (and I would by no means single out one, can think of several...) are more prone for the latter. Luckily you happen to live in a region where by and large such rules are respected and adhered to.

As for the accident flight, what was different... ? A good analogy may be south/south east Asia, where runway excursions provide a perfect record of the arrival of the monsoon season. Change of seasons are always a risky period, requiring more attention and discipline.

Actually I don't live there anymore, I live in Asia. It is an over-generalization to brand an entire region as having a poor safety culture, especially in the 21st century. It is much more an organizational aspect. You can meet some truly crazy people in certain parts of the world including the central west, but that doesn't mean everyone behaves that way.

[bud leon]

This was in no way intended to be nationalistic. (And for full disclosure, although I live in Pittsburgh I am not American - I was born and raised in the UK, lived there for the first 35 years of my life and still carry a British passport.)

My point is this: we all understand the dangers of a contaminated wing. It was even quoted several posts back specifically how little contamination is needed to reduce a wing’s performance significantly. The dangers of icing are drummed into pilots ad nauseum yet here we have a flight literally taking off with snow on the wing! Even if we go out on a limb and assume it was a ferry flight, with no fare paying passengers, that still gives a minimum of three people on board. Two pilots and the person with the iPhone, filming it. The two pilots must have known it was dangerous; the cameraman would surely have been thinking “well this is a little unusual” because he was sitting there filming it! I’m sure take off performance was impaired, just not to the point where planet and aircraft remained inextricably bound, but it sets a precedent for “yes I should de-ice, but hey, the guy on the YouTube video got away with it - maybe I will too!”

The question was “have we not learned from Air Florida?” I stand vehemently behind my response: No - we haven’t.

OK, very sorry to misinterpret.

[Liffy 1M]

Aviation Herald has been updated based on yesterday's statement from the airline. Accident: Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019, lost height shortly after takeoff and impacted building after two tailstrikes (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

[petergloor]

I concur with andrasz. The F100 wing will NOT tolerate ANY ice. (4,000 hours on type)

I recall having heard of two similar fatal accidents with the predecessor, the F-28. After the first one in Canada, airlines were warned about the rapid ice bildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel inside, and that there was no heating to prevent this. Another accident still happened in spite of the warning. Now I wonder, after similar F100 crashes, that the problem persists with these newer planes.
Peter

[donotdespisethesnake]

The captain decided only the elevators were to be de-iced.

The captain is dead, so we may never know his reasoning.

[Nomad2]

I think the only reason you would 'only do the elevators', is if you were satisfied the wing was clean.
On the Fokker, you can't see the tail, as it's up high, so you might just get that deiced since it's impossible to check.

[WingNut60]

Sorry to disappoint.
In Russia a city of over 1 million is a LARGE city.
Eg. Perm is 1.2 million. (PEE), but has a thoroughly modern airport as well as a military section on the same terrain.

Nizhny Novgorod GOJ is the same size.

It might be argued that in the U.S. a city of 1.7 million people is relatively large.
Only 5 cities in the U.S. have populations greater or equal to 1.7 million.

And no, I don't need to debate what constitutes a city and it's boundaries.

[Bowmore]

I recall having heard of two similar fatal accidents with the predecessor, the F-28. After the first one in Canada, airlines were warned about the rapid ice bildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel inside, and that there was no heating to prevent this. Another accident still happened in spite of the warning. Now I wonder, after similar F100 crashes, that the problem persists with these newer planes.
Peter

The Dryden accident is a very well known one. Much more complex than just "rapid ice buildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel." And yes, there was no "heating to prevent this." No airplane so far has any heating of the wings to prevent ice forming on the ground. I guess you are not a pilot?

[ManaAdaSystem]

The Dryden accident is a very well known one. Much more complex than just "rapid ice buildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel." And yes, there was no "heating to prevent this." No airplane so far has any heating of the wings to prevent ice forming on the ground. I guess you are not a pilot?

Partially correct. In the 90s they developed heater blankets for the wings of the MD-80. Don’t remember why they stopped using them. Possibly because it was easier/faster/cheaper to do a hands on check.

[cappt]

Bombardier decided after several contaminated wing accidents with the CRJ200 that is was to be required to turn on the wing anti-ice inside of two minutes prior to take-off in order to de-ice the protected portion of the wing leading edge from missed frost and ice, or ice that may have formed while taxing. The wing anti-ice may then be turned off for take-off if not required. This procedure is still required whenever the temperature is 5 deg C or less with or without precipitation falling. They stated they would rather pilots do this for every flight when temps are low vs only deicing whenever contamination is found, (still required) because of the critically important need of maintaining a clean leading edge on a wing that doesn't have leading edge devices, (slats/leading edge flaps).
A cheap and effective mitigation strategy that has worked on the CRJ200 with a similar wing that has hard leading edge.

As a side note the CRJ200 and most other transport jets don't even have tail anti-ice capability. The engineers determined it was not required.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Bombardier decided after a couple of contaminated wing incidents with the CRJ200 that is was to be required to turn on the wing anti-ice inside of two minutes prior to take-off in order to de-ice the protected portion of the wing leading edge from missed frost and ice, or ice that may have formed while taxing. The wing anti-ice may then be turned off for take-off if not required. This procedure is still required whenever the temperature is 5 deg C or less with or without precipitation falling. They stated they would rather pilots do this for every flight when temps are low vs only deicing whenever contamination is found, (still required) because of the critically important need of maintaining a clean leading edge on a wing that doesn't have leading edge devices, (slats/leading edge flaps).
A cheap and effective mitigation strategy that has worked on the CRJ200 with a similar wing that has hard leading edge.

Strange. We are not allowed to use wing de/anti ice on ground with any other fluids than type I.
This because the other types may dry out and contaminate the leading egde of the wing.

[cappt]

Strange. We are not allowed to use wing de/anti ice on ground with any other fluids than type I.
This because the other types may dry out and contaminate the leading egde of the wing.
If you have already de-iced the wing and applied type4 the procedure is not required as you will be turning on the wing anti-ice just prior to takeoff anyway.

[ManaAdaSystem]

If you have already de-iced the wing and applied type4 the procedure is not required as you will be turning on the wing anti-ice just prior to takeoff anyway.

No, as I said, we are not allowed to do that. The anti ice fluids will keep the wing clean as long as the HOT is observed.
With type I we can use the wing anti ice on the whole time, but on the NG it will trip off automatically after lift off.

[cappt]

No, as I said, we are not allowed to do that. The anti ice fluids will keep the wing clean as long as the HOT is observed.
With type I we can use the wing anti ice on the whole time, but on the NG it will trip off automatically after lift off.
Ok copy that, different aircraft. Yes on the CR700/900 that have leading edge devices this AD revision requiring wing heat for taxi is not required.

[Livesinafield]

The de ice remark is bizarre, If you are going to treat the Tail, why not the wings? even if they are clear id say still treat them its -12, find this a really odd decision, Its early days but i would be very surprised (especially with the latest info about roll oscillation) if this incident is not ice related, the decision to treat one part of the aircraft and not the other is crazy, all down to $$$$.

The hours and years experience of pilots is near irrelevant it just makes you more complacent, plenty and plenty of 20K+ hour pilots have managed to crash perfectly serviceable aircraft over the years

[WBryanH]

Funny you mention "complacent." I've long wondered about the "sweet spot" for pilot safety, the best balance of relatively high experience and low complacency.

Triggered by learning how experienced is/was the Bek Air crew, today I found an AOPA PDF (1302agingpilotreport) with this in it:

"... Adjusted for age, pilots with 5,000 to 9,999 hours of total flight time had a 57 percent lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. The protective effect of flight experience leveled off after 10,000 hours..."

The Bek Air crew are/were late into their careers and have almost 32,000 hours between them, with over 9,000 combined hours on the type, per Buster the Bear's Flightglobal link above.

[lalbak]

Ok copy that, different aircraft. Yes on the CR700/900 that have leading edge devices this AD revision requiring wing heat for taxi is not required.

Actually, taxiing with wing anti-ice on is not allowed since it can end up boiling the fluid and therfore render the fluid no longer usable.
With the 700/900/1000 wing anti ice will not switch off automatically after lift off.

[cappt]

Actually, taxiing with wing anti-ice on is not allowed since it can end up boiling the fluid and therfore render the fluid no longer usable.
With the 700/900/1000 wing anti ice will not switch off automatically after lift off.
That's correct, if you've anti-iced with type 4 wing heat is not to be turned on until just prior to beginning the take off roll.

Not to derail this thread anymore but the point is to eliminate any chance of undetected frost or ice by requiring wing heat be turned on during taxi to the runway anytime temp is 5 deg C or less, even on a sunny clear day. This airworthiness directive was put out in 2008 by Canada and Bombardier, the manufacturer of the CRJ.

[liider]

Four parts of takeoff video appeared on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_05Us4Qww
https://youtu.be/8qYW-hlWUd4 (https://www.forumavia.ru/e/?l=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F8qYW-hlWUd4)
https://youtu.be/6VmkzrhQlVk (https://www.forumavia.ru/e/?l=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F6VmkzrhQlVk)

[ManaAdaSystem]

Four parts of takeoff video appeared on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_05Us4Qww
https://youtu.be/8qYW-hlWUd4 (https://www.forumavia.ru/e/?l=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F8qYW-hlWUd4)
https://youtu.be/6VmkzrhQlVk (https://www.forumavia.ru/e/?l=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2F6VmkzrhQlVk)

Doesn’t look like fog to me.
Lack of lift or lack of thrust, or both.
They had plenty of space to abort this takeoff, but did not. I’m not impressed.

[BRUpax]

They had plenty of space to abort this takeoff, but did not. I’m not impressed.

Do you think so? I'm no pilot but looking at the video all appears normal until they actually rotate, at which point there's very little time (at least to me) to maintain control and safely stop on the runway.

[UltraFan]

Do you think so? I'm no pilot but looking at the video all appears normal until they actually rotate, at which point there's very little time (at least to me) to maintain control and safely stop on the runway.

"Safely" would be a question of luck. They could've overrun it. But it's still better than slamming the machine into bricks.

I'm confused by the videos. Oscillations started as soon as they rotated. They had a huge bank to the left, then they leveled off and seemed to actually touch the runway, and then went up again. Why retract LG before they had positive and consistent climb? Startle time should've been minimal since this is take-off and both pilots (or is there more?) should be "on high alert" about their surroundings. I just can't understand what I see on the videos.

[gearlever]

Do you think so? I'm no pilot but looking at the video all appears normal until they actually rotate, at which point there's very little time (at least to me) to maintain control and safely stop on the runway.

Very difficult decision even on a 4.400 meters/14,400 feet runway.
Only a few seconds to realize what's going on.

[BRUpax]

"Safely" would be a question of luck. They could've overrun it. But it's still better than slamming the machine into bricks.

My point is that as soon as they lost control (immediately after rotation), and that being the moment the problem became apparent, I would very much doubt that they had any directional control at that point.

[fokkerjet]

Fokker recommended the use of "the largest flapsetting that is permissible by take-off weight / altitude / temperature conditions", TOGA thrust, slow rotation at Vr to 10* pitch attitude, gear up with a positive rate of climb and "DO NOT EXCEED 10 DEGREES PITCH UNTIL AIRSPEED IS ABOVE V2+20 kts. When above V2 +20 kts, slowly increase the pitch attitude, keeping the speed above V2 +20 kts...retract flaps at or above Vfr +20 kts.

The on-ground wing leading edge system is automatically activated when either engine anti-ice system switched ON. ...the system was designed to keep the leading edges just above freezing...

[WBryanH]

New vid from the same source as the four that liider posted above. This one shows pre-flight prep on what is presumably the accident Fokker, that plane beyond the high-wing twin prop.

The vid starts at 6:58 reported time, 25 minutes before the crash. Spraying the control surfaces starts near at that time, and continues for ~3.5 minutes.

Best that I can see, they sprayed only the horiz stabs.

Source: Youtube vid titled "1007 de-icing 27 dec 2019"

[WBryanH]

Here's a sixth vid from that same source liider and I are posting from.

Cue to 2:00 to see the Air Astana A321 start its roll. It's in the upper right in the frame, with the small sideways triangle logo on the tail.

The Fokker lines up soon thereafter and begins its roll at 3:50, one minute and 50 seconds later.

Source: Youtube vid titled "On runway 871 and 2100 27 dec"

[Bournemouthair]

https://youtu.be/vfTfC4yYswA

[Cool_avion]

Here's a sixth vid from that same source liider and I are posting from.

Cue to 2:00 to see the Air Astana A321 start its roll. It's in the upper right in the frame, with the small sideways triangle logo on the tail.

The Fokker lines up soon thereafter and begins its roll at 3:50, one minute and 50 seconds later.

Source: Youtube vid titled "On runway 871 and 2100 27 dec"wake turbulence???

[rog747]

Video part 3 is the best one to view all the accident sequence events -

Take Off and rotation, and she then rolls right, then left gaining maybe less than 50 feet in height -
Tail strike, F100 back on the runway, and then it then veers off the runway to the right through 90 degrees, gear looks retracted, slides across the snowy perimeter road through a metal fence, by now going quite slowly, still sliding though, and aircraft still intact, no fire.

Sham about the pesky buildings otherwise they all would have walked away most without a scratch...

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

I’m not so sure the gear is retracted - could’ve been snapped off by the uncontrolled ground contact.

[rog747]

I’m not so sure the gear is retracted - could’ve been snapped off by the uncontrolled ground contact.

It was in the Media reports straight away, and mentioned in AVHerald that the gear was retracted...

Accident: Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019, lost height shortly after takeoff and impacted building after two tailstrikes (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

[gearlever]

There is an update on AvH with additional data from FDR.

Very strange IMHO......
IAS zero until 33 sec on take off run, thereafter suddenly 148 kt, spurious wind speeds of 96 kt multiple times during T/O, N1 of both eng below 40% at 45 until 54 sec.... spooky.
Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

[donotdespisethesnake]

On Jan 6th 2020 the airline held another press conference and released a diagram of additional FDR parameters (http://avherald.com/files/bek_f100_up-f1007_almaty_191227_summary_diagram.pdf). [..] which prompted the airline to conclude this was the vortex of wake turbulence.

It seems the airline is trying to pass the blame ahead of the official investigation, so I'll put my skeptical hat on.

[Herod]

IAS zero until 33 sec on take off run, thereafter suddenly 148 kt

That's a reject for a start, at least for me. Where does the bit about wake vortex come in? I don't see any preceding aircraft, and there is no previous mention of it.

[Cool_avion]

That's a reject for a start, at least for me. Where does the bit about wake vortex come in? I don't see any preceding aircraft, and there is no previous mention of it.
I believe an Astana a321 took off 90 seconds ahead of Bek Air.

[Avman]

The preceding aircraft apparently rolled 1 min and 50 secs ahead of the Fokker. It is also evident that the surface wind was calm. If that is indeed so, then wake turbulence cannot be entirely ruled out just yet.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

There is an update on AvH with additional data from FDR.

Very strange IMHO......
IAS zero until 33 sec on take off run, thereafter suddenly 148 kt, spurious wind speeds of 96 kt multiple times during T/O, N1 of both eng below 40% at 45 until 54 sec.... spooky.
Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019 (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

I'll take a wild guess that they are plotting FMS-derived parameters, which are probably garbage with respect to instantanoeus winds (typically FMS winds are intended for longer term navigational purposes) and garbage with regard to wind on the ground (since the logic won't be set up to deal with the ground case) and possibly the "speed" is again only set up for en route navigation intentions.

I'll also note that none of the parameters have a unit identified for the scale, so things could well be in metric units, given the location.

Assuming the angular terms are in degrees, 12-15 degrees of pitch and AOA both sound pretty high for a non-slatted aircraft. Especially in ground effect....

[RatherBeFlying]

Maybe the explanation for zero airspeed is that it took 33 seconds for the pitot blockage to melt off. And maybe the engine probes were iced up as well.

[pattern_is_full]

After readouts of FDR and CVR, investigating committee announces preliminary results "point in direction of icing." Wings were not de-iced.

After first lift-off attempt and rocking wings and settling back on runway, FO/PM calls reject and retards thottles, PIC/PF says "No need. Let's go, let's go." and firewalls throttles.

Accident: Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019, lost height shortly after takeoff and impacted building after two tailstrikes (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

[SamYeager]

After first lift-off attempt and rocking wings and settling back on runway, FO/PM calls reject and retards thottles, PIC/PF says "No need. Let's go, let's go." and firewalls throttles.

I find it rather difficult to have any regret for the death of the PIC/PF. It's just a shame that others had to suffer death and injury as a result of his decisions.

[Euclideanplane]

I find it rather difficult to have any regret for the death of the PIC/PF.
If he had not perished, it might have been useful to ask him how it came that his mental picture of the situation came to be so much different from the reality.

[Aksai Oiler]

Unfortunately FO passed away yesterday

"On Jan 28th 2020 Almaty's Health Department announced, that the first officer of the flight has died. The first officer had regained consciousness on Jan 5th 2020, left intensive care and was treated in a special department. On Jan 21st 2020 he had been discharged into home care. An emergency call was received from his home on Jan 28th 2020 reporting rapid deterioration of his condition, emergency services rapidly arrived on scene, found the first officer was suffering from cardiac arrest and attempted resuscitation, however, to no avail."

Accident: Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019, lost height shortly after takeoff and impacted building after two tailstrikes (http://avherald.com/h?article=4d127dc6&opt=0)

[fox niner]

Is there an autobrake RTO setting on the fokker? Which would apply max braking when the thrust levers are retarded?

[Royal Flash]

Is there an autobrake RTO setting on the fokker? Which would apply max braking when the thrust levers are retarded?
Yes, that is an option. So some F100/70's have it and some not.