Russian Airbus crash

[bealine]

My deepest sympathies to all the families involved.

May I ever so humbly suggest, however, to avoid any speculation which could lead readers of Pprune to form an opinion that the airframe type is at fault. Please remember that the press can, and often do, quote Pprune as a "voice of authority on the subject of aviation!"

Let's not forget what the speculation about the American Airlines DC10 crash at Chicago did for the Douglas Aircraft Company! The fine DC10 airframe, which Laker Airways and British Caledonian held in the highest esteem, was wrongly blamed and the short-cuts by American Airlines' engineers ultimately were responsible for the demise of the Douglas company, and latterly McDonnell Douglas!

Similarly, the pilots have both lost their lives too! Let's not jump to any conclusions about their actions.

We won't have long to wait for the initial reports!

[PEI_3721]

Again it appears necessary for the industry to revisit the presentation on Managing Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing; the presenter notes give additional cautionary information; … it could happen to us.

Whilst searching for more information on aquaplaning I was surprised by a paper which “concluded that modern aircraft tires have lower hydroplaning speeds than those predicted by the well-known and commonly accepted equation 9xSQR tyre pressure”. This is taken from 2nd International Meeting on Aircraft Performance on Contaminated Runways pages 14 and 265-269; (beware 11mb pdf).
Hydroplaning could occur as low as 6xSQR tyre pressure, so for a 125psi tyre instead of being at risk of aquaplaning above 100 kts it could be as low as 67kts.The paper also noted that hydroplaning has occurred on grooved runways.
Other papers given at the meeting discussed the problems of directional control on contaminated surfaces.

L337 & kms901, but 3210m was not available; see previous
RWY 30 TORA 2615M, TODA 3015M, ASDA 3015M, LDA 2425M.
Due to work in progress.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

What I have heard about the Russian pilot community is that, historically, they are (of course) as good as any other nation's pilots, if not better. In fact, very good on basic flying/instrument skills and spatial awareness. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union the concern has been that, because investment in all basic aviation infrastructure including pilot training has been reduced and cut back, there may be a delayed impact on the training of pilots in Russia. When I visited Russia regularly in the 1990s, many people seriously forecast this for the current decade. So maybe we are now hitting that training/skills deficit today. Not, of course, that this has any relevance to the current disaster.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

old, not bold - I am not sure why you 'shudder' at some of the implications in these posts. It is an unquestionable fact that you are simply not as safe flying on a Russian-registered aircraft as you are flying on one registered in the West. However, unpalatable that may be to the vested interests of the world - be they Russian, Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, African, South American or whoever else - that is the way it is. This is not some statistical anomaly - there are good reasons why this is so. More importantly, the worldwide aviation community should leave no stone unturned in pursuit of correct explanations and appropriate solutions. To reduce this to the simplistic level of , 'who has the best pilots?' leads us into unnecessary points scoring and jingoism. Nonetheless, we should not be embarrassed to recognise issues of cultural background, training, cockpit gradient, non-adherence to SOPs, general unprofessionalism and lack of appropriate education as significant factors in why there should be more accidents in one part of the world than another.

Tragically, there have been some truly shocking accidents involving serviceable Russian aircraft, ranging from loss of control of a passenger jet whilst being flow by the pilot's 12-year-old son through to pilots incorrectly following ATC instructions rather than TCAS warnings. As I have said, it is not as simple as saying, 'we are better pilots than they are' - it is much more complex than that. Let us not be afraid to question why this is - however awkward the answers may be. We are in the business of reducing commercial aircraft accidents to virtually zero, and we should not be afraid to face the truth in our pursuit of that acheivable goal.

[seacue]

From AP, midnight GMT:"Pilots regard the Irkutsk airport as difficult because its runway slopes and its concrete is especially slippery when wet."

Transport Minister Igor Levitin said the pilot had radioed ground control to say the aircraft had landed safely and then communication cut off. "There was rain, the landing strip was wet. So we'll have to check the clutch and the technical condition of the aircraft,"

Clutch likely means traction or tyre's braking ability. This AP report also says a pilot survived.

[Ignition Override]

Let's not forget that many posters on Pprune have either no advanced training or experience in any aircraft types, perhaps not even a private license, and don't even understand the concepts nor even the terminology. This can include almost all members of the press and many "aviation experts", whether wielding impressive academic titles (even at world-famous Embry Riddle, believe it or not. One of our pilots has a close...eh.. 'contact' there, is a professor who has very limited 'cross-country' experience) or otherwise.

I know of one former newspaper writer who was a private pilot and covered airline and other aviation subjects. He had an actual interest in the topics which he reported, especially for the book which he wrote about a human tragedy (it almost became mass murder, literally). The guy later quit his newspaper and was almost killed while flying a cropduster. Many laymen somehow assume that "superior" military aircraft training and experience will save you in any situation, but many former military tactical (i.e. Navy F-4, AF F-16) pilots (with their families or hunting partners) die in light, private aircraft. I know the names of just a few. At least partial engine failure and/or possibly terrain, winds or density altitude (Montana) are factors.

Willie Everlearn:
Although I jumpseated once on a FEDEX A-300 and came up for a visit enroute where the layout and appearance impressed me, I was behind the c0ckp1t during approach and landing. If by chance the spoilers were not armed for the approach just before this tragedy, would the spoiler handle expose some (extra) red or orange color etc? Maybe illuminate a warning on the EICAS screen? FOs often touch the handle just to notice whether it appears to be extended after the gear are down as a back-up, in case the Captain forgets during the busiest part of the approach. This can be the case during an ILS, even IF the Approach Controller gives you a very good intercept heading when you are already level, and not hurriedly trying to fly and slow down and quickly get the Landing Checklist done correctly ("did he tell us to go to tower freq?...). How about with a non-precision approach, which is always a much more demanding approach?.

The spoilerhandle on the MD-80 near the thunderstorms at Little Rock (LIT) was not armed by the Captain. I don't remember seeing any different color on the 757 handle years ago.

Although I know almost nothing about the A-320, a Lufthansa A-320 had a tragedy upon landing many years ago at Warsaw, Poland. A tailwind might have also been a factor.
The hydroplaning conditions reportedly prevented the required main gear wheel spin-up, thereby allowing the software to also prevent autobrake/anti-skid and even thrust reverser actuation?
The A-320 FO died in the accident and Airbus, only after his death, supposedly modified the software so that some components would not have such a limitation on slippery, wet runways etc.

[ffbb]

a few facts might help

Norman Stanley Fletcher - you may be right - but this aircraft was not on the Russian register. In fact all lessors leasing their aircraft to Russian airlines have them on foreign registries - they insist on it. The only Russian registered western airliners are owned in Russia - not leased. This A310 was on an operating lease to Sibir where the owner insisted on foreign registration (in this case FO - French Overseas - being the original registration the aircraft had when it flew with Aeroflot) and the owner insisted that the aircraft was maintained by an EASA 145 approved organisation - in this case Lufthansa Technik with Sibir gradually increasing their role subject to the approval of the French DGAC and agreement with LHT. Likewise pilot training had to meet European requirements. Some commentators on this site are way off track - and some just like to have a pop at Mother Russia.

[quote=Norman Stanley Fletcher]old, not bold - I am not sure why you 'shudder' at some of the implications in these posts. It is an unquestionable fact that you are simply not as safe flying on a Russian-registered aircraft as you are flying on one registered in the West. However, unpalatable that may be to the vested interests of the world ...

[L337]

I think the LDA is a touch over 2,400 -

I see on closer reading that runway length was reduced due wip. However 2400m is still plenty long enough. For some reason yet to be determined, not long enough for the A310 on the day.

[hetfield]

@Ignition Override

Spoilers will deploy even with speedbrakelever not armed when reverse levers are pulled.

[old,not bold]

[quote=Norman Stanley Fletcher]old, not bold - It is an unquestionable fact that Unquote

How about a bit of evidence for the "unquestionable fact"? Statistical and robust would be good.

Quote "you are simply not as safe flying on a Russian-registered aircraft as you are flying on one registered in the West." Unquote

I'd rather take my chances on a Russian-operated and registered aircraft (which I do regularly) than on an aircraft operated by an airline from, and under the NAA of several of the countries I suspect you include in that vague term "the West", which I also do regularly. I now concern myself with maintenance standards and compliance, incidentally, but have worked on Flt Ops standards in the past in various countries.

Quote "Tragically, there have been some truly shocking accidents involving serviceable Russian aircraft" Unquote

So there have, and so there have been also with aircraft registered in the USA, UK, Europe, almost anywhere you care to name except, perhaps, Australia and Oman. The very small pieces of 111 passengers and crew I once had to help collect into plastic bags had to be separated from the bits of an aircraft registered in one of the countries I am very certain you regard as "safe".

I am puzzled about what it was in my post (0109 today) defending Russian standards from anti-Russian mythology that got it removed...perhaps this one will follow it into pprune's Gitmoland.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

fffb - thank you for your comments. I should perhaps modify the expression 'Russian-registered' to possibly 'Russian-influenced' or 'Russian-operated' - but my point still stands. I have no intention of 'having a pop at Mother Russia' for the sake of insulting a group of people, but the poor safety record of aircraft operating in that part of the world bears some examination. That has become particularly pressing when you consider that many accidents are occurring to advanced western types being operated by crews from the old communist bloc. The recent A320 accident during a go-around in bad weather would be a case in point.

I have no doubt that the pilots' training was to the same standard or followed the same syllabus as their Western equivalents, but that in some ways just hightlights the very difficult problem facing operators from that part of the world. The real problem is culture and that is so hard to deal with. I spent many years in the RAF on fast jets at a time when the accident rate was very high - it is now significantly lower. I have to reluctantly accept that there were reasons for that being the case - many of them very unpalatable. It would certainly not be true to say the pilots of my generation were worse than the current crop but it would be true to say that the culture is now very different. Furthermore, if you look at the accident rate in the RAF around the 1950s (long before my time I might add!), then literally dozens of aircraft were lost every year and nobody batted an eyelid. Somehow, deep in the psyche of the whole system was the feeling that you were 'bound to lose a few' and thas was just one of the endemic risks of aviation. Over the last 50 years, a progressive attack on safety has been made and today there are very few military accidents. It is now widely accepted that accidents are not inevitable and that there are many individual things we can do to change the status quo.

We in the West should be cautiously grateful for what we have achieved and yet remain aggressively pro-active in pursuing safety, safety and safety as being the top 3 priorities of the airline industry. We do have much to offer other parts of the world here - experienced gained by our own countless failures but which we have come to terms with and learnt from. As I have said previously the wrong question is, 'Who are the best pilots?' as such enquiries generate the very defensive culture we are so desperate to rid ourselves of. There are, however, clear issues of safety that constantly raise their head in non-Western aviation related to pilot error (not ability) and we should unstintingly pursue these issues until they are resolved.

[old,not bold]

NSF....

Before you go much further with these vague and unsubstantiated assertions about Russian aviation vs "the West", may I suggest that you define "the West" with great clarity?

A list of countries in "the "West" would be clearest and most helpful to us all.

I ask only because when I have asked the question before, it turned out that what the person using the expression "the West" actually meant was those countries on whose Aircraft Register air transport accident rates, expressed as fatalities per million pass/miles, accidents per flown sector, or any other measure that takes into account the sheer volume of Russia's civil air transport, are lower than Russia's. The list is shorter than you might think, and a number of non-Russian countries (even some from "the West") are not on it.

[alf5071h]

NSF Beware of stereotyping the non ‘Western’ world. It is something that is easily done albeit unwittingly. I might have had sympathy for your views but for a recent visit to Moscow to attend a Human Factors Seminar.
The delegates were from all countries of the Federated States, representing a wide range of cultures and experiences. My impression from the 3 days of presentations and discussion was one of admiration for the high standard of professionalism, safety consciousness, and practicality, particularly in human factors. These attributes appear to be reflected in their operations – only two sectors, plus previous flying with Russian/Russian trained pilots.

Several operators, notably Aeroflot and Volga-Dnepr, have human factors / CRM programs that would shame many Western operations. The regulators, Interstate Aviation Committee, have fully embraced ICAO (more than some notable Western countries), and are using / adapting JAR-OPS as the basis of Operating Regulations.
The presentations on modern training programs, both for ab intio through to multicrew commercial jets, and specialist training for ex military pilots, showed how the system has changed to proactively alleviate potential problems and still meet international standards, including language.

Russian CRM ( Управление Ресурсами Экипажа ) has embraced Threat and Error Management training which ICAO is introducing, yet European regulators are still discussing, and the Russian approach to incident as well as accident investigation is up to, if not better than many ‘Western’ standards.

There may be much still to achieve in Russia; they have a long aviation history with embedded practices of multicrew operations and operation of less technologically sophisticated aircraft, but there may well be valuable lessons that the ‘West’ can learn from the apparent difficulties in their change to ‘Western’ ideals. The ‘dominant cultures’ of the ‘West’ might be forcing technological / cultural changes on a perfectly sound system, and the apparent difficulties in Russia only represent the problems that we have already introduced to our system with modern technology and a narrow view of human factors such as ‘our’ version of CRM.

The seminar was part of ICAO COSCAP (Cooperative development of operational safety and continuing airworthiness programme), this is well supported by Western industry; in this instance, the seminar was organized and run by Airbus, who continue to demonstrate excellent support for human factors and lead by example.

[UL975]

NSF.........Tragically, there have been some truly shocking accidents involving serviceable Russian aircraft, ranging from loss of control of a passenger jet whilst being flow by the pilot's 12-year-old son through to pilots incorrectly following ATC instructions rather than TCAS warnings.

Regarding TCAS, my understanding was that the Russian crew correctly followed THEIR SOP's to the TCAS RA generated against the DHL a/c. These procedures have now been changed.

[rodthesod]

Originally Posted by UL975

Regarding TCAS, my understanding was that the Russian crew correctly followed THEIR SOP's to the TCAS RA generated against the DHL a/c. These procedures have now been changed.

Whether or not they followed THEIR inappropriate SOP's, their actions surely demonstrate, or perhaps indicate a lack of even basic TCAS training?

rts

[ffbb]

training

NSF - thanks. You say you - have no doubt the pilots' training was to the same standard or followed the same syllabus as their Western equivalent. I would go a little bit further - they did have western training. Coming back to a point I alluded to before - Russian airlines are not free to choose who they train with or who provides technical support to their aircraft. Most Western aircraft in Russia are on operating lease - all aircraft on op lease in Russia are on a foreign register and subject to the demands of the foreign registry and the foreign owner/lessor amongst others. The three registries currently used are Ireland, Bermuda (linked to UK) and France - all follow EASA.

Training is a key element where the registry and lessor are demanding. I dont know where the A310 crew was trained but am told many Sibir crews were trained in Toulouse. Wherever it was it had to be a fully approved training organisation - because the aircraft was on the French register and under the Russia-France bis 83 agreement the French have responsibilities for validating crew licenses. The French must have been satisfied - so the quality of training is not an issue - in my view anyway.

When you say many accidents are occuring to modern western aircraft operated by crews from the old communist bloc I cannot think which accidents you are referring to. I dont recall any fatal aircraft crashes of western types in Russia since the Aeroflot A310 in the early 1990s - the cause of which is well know.

True there was the recent Armenian A320 crash but its not a good example of any particular problem since so far as I know the causes are not yet known. Lets wait for the conclusions. I do however know that most Armavia crews were also trained in Western Europe.

On questions of culture - you may have a point - one that could apply to many parts of the world - and dare I say there are perhaps instances of poor communications, for example, even within crews in the west.

There is a certain attitude that prevails towards Russia/CIS airlines - in particular in the western media. It often seems to be easier to jump to conclusions whenever Russia/CIS is mentioned. Lets wait for more info.


[quote=Norman Stanley Fletcher]fffb - thank you for your comments. I should perhaps modify the expression 'Russian-registered' to possibly 'Russian-influenced' or 'Russian-operated' - but my point still stands.

[sixmilehighclub]

UK TV News reels lastnight reported that apparantly it had been raining heavily for days before and excess water was on the runway. It is also believed that the A310 landed too far down the runway and accelerated, crashing through a perimeter fence and into a row of garages.

Some evacuation of passengers took place at the rear and front doors. Of the crew, one stewardess and one pilot survived.
Those around the wing areas perished, because it is believed passengers opened the overwing exit doors and were engulfed in fire, which then took hold inside the fuselage and cabin.

There were also a number of children on board. David Learmont claimed that children would not be able to evacuate as quickly as adults.

I don't want to imagine the desperation of those who were onboard. My heartfelt condolences go out to all familes involved, and to their colleagues in the Airline.

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by Norman Stanley Fletcher

ranging from loss of control of a passenger jet whilst being flow by the pilot's 12-year-old son

While there's no mistaking the foolishness of what that pilot did, it's worth remembering that it exposed a highly undesirable feature of the A300/A310 autopilot fallback system; sufficient pressure on the yoke would switch it from command mode to CWS, without an audible notification that this had occurred. You'd get a visual indication, but the cause would not be immediately apparent.

[BEagle]

From AP, midnight GMT:"Pilots regard the Irkutsk airport as difficult because its runway slopes and its concrete is especially slippery when wet."

If it is promulgated as 'slippery when wet', then surely the contaminated figures for landing on icy runways must be used when the runway is wet.

Reuced LDA, slippery when wet..... A very dangerous combination.

[safetypee]

“Managing Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing” is also available at Wingfiles, a valuable website for aviation safety.
Also note the documents on
“Aircraft Energy Management during Approach”
“Getting to grips with aircraft performance”
If any Wannabes wish to download 78mb then see “A310 Flight deck and systems briefing for pilots”

The runway at Irkutsk appears to be constructed with concrete blocks; it is not possible from photos to determine if they are grooved. A problem with this method of construction, especially for older surfaces, is that the centre of each block can sink to form a dish in which water can accumulate; alternatively or in addition, any edge-sealant may swell up to further dam the water. Thus a wet concrete runway can soon become ‘flooded’ due to the puddles; this increases the risk of aquaplaning and contaminated landing data should be used, but even this does not guarantee the required level of safety (additional runway margin). Wet concrete surfaces should be treated with great respect.
Other hazards during this approach and landing could have been the temporary displaced threshold, possibly without visual glideslope indicators, and a non precision approach in a low cloud base (600); any one or in combination, may push an operation over the fine line between safety and an incident.