Russian Airbus crash

[victor two]

Condolences....... is there a better way

I don't want to seem like a heartless maggot here but I sometimes wonder why these threads very quickly become filled with heartfelt and agonizing condolence messages to the relatives of crash victims. I mean, it is obviously very sad and a real tragedy that these accidents happen but I find these condolences to be a bit much sometimes. Would it not be a better way if there was a dedicated "condolence book" listed among the other assorted topics on the home page people who feel the need to express their anonymous outpourings of grief can go on there, make their comment to whoever may wish to read it and the main thrust of the thread can continue.

Whack all the condolences for these accidents into the "condolence book" and let the thread run on good old fashioned wild speculation and second hand news, as they should.

Just a thought.......

[ffbb]

poor statistics

Screwballs - I agree with you completely - your statistics are poor ones - so to use your phrase - why bother?

Looking at 1998 to 2005. Fatalities on Russian airlines:
1998. Zero
1999. Zero
2000. Zero
2001. Bad year - about 210 dead - 2 aircraft lost - 1 shot by Ukrainian missile - 1 Tu-154 crashed at Irkutsk.
2002. Tu-154 collides with B757. 70 dead.
2003. Zero
2004. 2 aircraft blown up by terrorists - 90 dead.
2005. Zero
2006 to date. 1 A310 at Irkutsk.

To my mind the above does not suggest Russia has a particular problem - especially when we take out missiles and terrorism. I dont have all the fine detailed statitics to hand but your stats are misguided to say the least. As a further note - the EU has banned 92 airlines from its airspace - none are Russian - but there are a handful from other FSU countries.

I believe there is a problem in this part of the world (FSU in total) - there are too many small airlines - hundreds of them typically operating ad hoc charters - many would not pass an economic fitness test. But if you fly on a top 10 Russian airline such as Sibir (and these top 10 carry the vast majority of scheduled traffic) I am sure statistics will show safety levels on these airlines are comparable to carriers of similar size in Europe or the US.

I guess I must have misunderstood your comment that seems to suggest a link between Soviet bloc aviation sector culture and the shooting down of the Tu-154 by a Ukrainian missile or the blowing up of aircraft by terrorists. Without trying too hard I can think of an American missile downing an airliner in the Gulf - and a bombed B747 falling on a small Scottish town. Not to mention more recent terrorist acts. I must have misunderstood otherwise you would be saying these were connected to US aviation sector culture.

Post statistics or facts to contradict the statement: NSF - "many accidents are occurring to advanced western types being operated by crews from the old communist bloc."

There are no statistics that will back-up the NSF statement above.



[quote=Screwballs]Granted, however people asked for statistics and I provided ones, albeit poor ones, cannot waste more time on looking for better. I leave that up to those who claim otherwise.

Also, was not being specific to Sibir but, as it has been brought up; when was the last time a European airliner was blown up by a terrorist, shot down by a missile? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, it has. The point I'm making is the culture difference the former Soviet bloc and it's aviation industry and resulting incident rates.

[CargoOne]

Originally Posted by Screwballs

Well done ffbb, you have clearly proved me totally wrong. But wait, look what I can do...
2006. ten million deaths in Russian airspace.
It's always so easy to just make up numbers isn't it? Provide a link to a website that shows the facts.

How someone can provide a proof that something has not happend? Nothing happend = no records.
As to the proof of accidents listed by ffbb you can find relevant data (and at the same time you can see that there is nothing else applicable listed) on the websites maintaining the database for incdents/accidents like www.aviation-safety.net ; www.airdisaster.com ; and if you have an acceess the best source would be Airclaims database.

From my memory the only accident (commerical passenger jet airliners) missing in the list below is IL86 crash in 2002 (?) on departure from Moscow which was a ferry positioning flight with no pax on board.

[LowNSlow]

Screwball you have taken the most meaningless set of statistics on the site. Geographical location gives no clue as to the nationality of the aircraft or the crew. Admittedly the majority of the crashes in Russian (USSR as was) and US airspace are very likely to be that nationalities crews but, as mentioned before, there is no direct comparison between passenger miles and passenger deaths which is one of the comparisons that compares like with like.

I've done a fair bit of flying in the FSU on former Soviet and Western built aircraft and feel quite comfortable with it. Admittedly, the company I work for do have EVERY airline we fly on vetted.

[Ace Rimmer]

WHBM wrote:

I'm sure many are struck by the similarities to the Air France incident at Toronto.

CBs in the area.
Very wet runway.
Reports of landing long.
Very poor braking action.
Overrun at a significant speed.
Destruction by fire but sufficient escaped to show that evacuation time was key.

Add to the list no RESA (or no EMAS to mitigate the lack of RESA)

[ffbb]

Screwballs - steady on. My source for the list of crashes is a Russian Ministry of Transport report - they do an annual review of trends in aviation - it covers pax growth, fleet trends, numbers of airlines and airports and crashes . Mine is a printed copy that I got through friends of friends - I am not sure if its available on-line - I doubt it. But anyway if you look at:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/...php?Country=RA

you will see my list was fundamentally right. The official report I have does not include air force, aero clubs and private aviation. CargoOne is correct - an Il-86 did crash on a positioning flight from Moscow and there were fatalities amongst the crew but that didnt make it into the report as the report covered crashes in commercial passenger service. I think the above link - different page but from the same website as you chose your link - is probably more relevant than going back to 1945 - call me fussy.

I am not out to prove Russia is safer than other parts of the world - and I am also not saying that there are no problems out here. I am saying that for whatever reason as soon as there is an issue in this part of the world, a lot of folks find it very easy to jump to conclusions - when very often they would be more rational and respectful if it was another part of the world.

And more importantly, although the media love to paint a different picture, I believe that data for recent years suggests that Russian accident rates do not stand out from most other places - particularly so when you look at the top scheduled airlines and not the mom and pop operations with a fleet of one or two An-2s.

Lets wait for the facts on this current accident.

Originally Posted by Screwballs

Exactly what I was looking for, thank you CargoOne.

http://aviation-safety.net/statistic...st_geo_loc.php

Discuss.

Screwballs

[cornwallis]

I have dug my old A300 fcom out.
Details for an A300 at max ldg wt are:
rwy: DRY med autobrake-1520m WET med-1640m
lo " -2290m lo -2290m



rwy wet6.3mm(1/4in) med 2380m
lo 2450m
The fcom figures show details for greater depths of standing water that give lower figures.
Reversers (both) reduce distance by dry/wet 5%
and wet 6.3mm by 16%

[MarkD]

Has there been an indication yet as to how far down the runway initial contact was made? Sorry if I missed it on an earlier page.

[jondc9]

was the plane in question making a precision (is it still KRM in russia?) or non precision approach?

[PAXboy]

victor two

Condolences....... is there a better way

Agreed, well done for speaking up and saying what I have held back from saying each time. Allow me to give a professional perspective, my work involves me with bereaved people. They are very newly bereaved as my work is from soon after the death until the funeral, so I meet people every week who are bereaved in all the ways possible. This takes us from cot death, through young people to a natural end of life. Oh yes, and folks that have died in aircraft crashes.

When I meet these people, I never offer 'my condolences'. Why? There is no purpose to mouthing words about someone I did not know. I am there to help them in a practical way and I get on with it. I hear many in the funeral trade (which I am not) blather on about condolences and it is meaningless. Let us end this practice on PPRuNe.

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

ffbb - You took issue when I said previously "many accidents are occurring to advanced western types being operated by crews from the old communist bloc." You said, "There are no statistics that will back-up the NSF statement above." In the last 3 months 2 such aircraft have crashed - an A320 (3rd May) and an A310 (9th July). How many has to be 'many' before it becomes a valid statistic? Do these accidents not count? Maybe we should wait for a third or fourth one later in the year before including these in our list, and in the meantime just ignore these ones as statistical abberations. Your arguments are actually very well presented and, indeed, each of the other contributors has their own set of stats to prove their point. Nonetheless, for some reason I have not been able to follow, Screwball's stats are not very good but the ones supporting the old Soviet Union. You are also admitting that there are considerable problems with the smaller airlines that are not in your Top 10 list - however hard it is to accept these airlines in their many and varied guises all form part of the aviation picture in the former Soviet Union.

[ffbb]

agree to disagree

NSF - yes the statistics count but "many accidents are occuring to advanced western types being operated by crews from the old communist bloc" sounds a lot like the alarmist headlines from dodgy reports by the BBC and others.

Western aircraft are operated by airlines in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakstan, Kyrgystan, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaiijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The only FSU country that does not operate western aircraft is Tajikistan.

I invite anyone interested to go to http://aviation-safety.net and if you have time to look through the database. I looked through for all 15 of the ex FSU countries listed above - and unless I am much mistaken you will find - starting from the early 90s - Russia has had two fatal western aircraft crashes - 1994 and 2006 - the A310 last weekend - cause not yet known.

The recent A320 crash with the Armenian airline Armavia also fits your advanced western aircraft type category - cause not yet known.

Looking at all the FSU countries I list above - the only other fatal western aircraft crash I can find was a Boeing 707 Cargo in Baku Azerbaijan in 1995.

So we have 4 western aircraft crashes since the early 90s - over 15 years or so - one of which does not fit your advanced western aircraft theme and 2 of which we dont know the causes. Please leave the BBC to extrapolate this to suggest a trend as they always do - I do not accept this is a trend.

And screwballs - I do not say all parts of the world are equally safe - far from it. I have much more faith in Russian airlines than some other states of the FSU - I have worked in many of them. And NSF yes I did say I think there are problems with some of the smaller airlines across the FSU - its true.

The top 10 Russian airlines are large - the next 10 are also fairly large and there is considerable consolidation going on amongst these 20 right now. The top 20 carried 28 million pax in 2005 (Russian Transport Clearing House data) from a total of 35 million - the 28 million on the top 20 is the bulk of all scheduled traffic and major regular charter operations. The problem is that the other 7 million were carried on something like 300 other airlines - many of which will be shut down. This is a process that the Russian authorities are working on - when Aeroflot was broken up there were more than 600 airlines initially.

I have some sympathy with the Russian authorities - they must keep their country together politically, socially etc. Many villages and towns in the north and east rely on small An-2s and other such aircraft operating from unpaved runways in difficult conditons - basically providing the only links in some regions where if there were other transport links these services would probably have stopped long ago. Thats another subject.

Surely it can be seen that comparisons are difficult - at one point we were asked by one contributor to compare the whole FSU to BA. Since this thread started from the Sibir A310 crash the valid one to my mind would be large Russian airlines against similarly sized western carriers and sorry for labouring the point but I think when you look at western aircraft fatal crashes or total passenger aircraft fatal crashes since the early 1990s, the stats do not back-up the more alarmist viewpoints seen on this site and the now standard headlines that the media appy every time.

I am worried about what happened with the recent Sibir and Armenian crashes - but again we cannot say its a trend - in fact we cannot say much at all since we dont yet know the causes.

Suggest we agree to disagree - until the causes of the two recent crashes are known. If it turns out the airlines have been at fault through their processes or through the actions or misunderstanding of individual employees etc then of course alarm bells must ring.


[quote=Norman Stanley Fletcher]ffbb - You took issue when I said previously "many accidents are occurring to advanced western types being operated by crews from the old communist bloc." You said, "There are no statistics that will back-up the NSF statement above." In the last 3 months 2 such aircraft have crashed - an A320 (3rd May) and an A310 (9th July). How many has to be 'many' before it becomes a valid statistic?

[ffbb]

irkutsk airport

safetypee. I think you are probably right about concrete blocks at Irkutsk - concrete block are pretty standard here. Your comments may well prove to be relevant.

The media here - Russian and Russian based foreign media - are carrying stories of the development of a new airport - plus - in the meantime resurfacing the current runway at Irkutsk before that airport closes when the new airport is ready. This story was on Russian TV last night and is in the Moscow Times this morning:

A new airport is planned for the city of Irkutsk, Governor Alexander Tishanin announced Tuesday. "The plan for linking the cities of Irkutsk, Angarsk and Shelekhov provides for the construction of a new airport," Tishanin told reporters. The new airport would be located between the three cities in an area that is free of fog, Tishanin said, unlike the current Irkutsk airport, where an Airbus A310 airliner, operated by S7 Airlines, careened off a wet runway Sunday morning and slammed into adjacent garages, bursting into flames.

Referring to the current airport: Levitin (Transport Minister) told reporters that authorities were looking into a proposal to lengthen the runway at the airport by 400 meters and he announced financing for resurfacing the runway. Construction of the new Irkutsk airport would begin in 2008, Tishanin said.

The above is from a Moscow Times report - the report also suggests that the braking system may have failed.

The other point of note to my mind from Russian TV last night was that the garages and sheds into which the A310 collided, were described as being too close to the runway (closer than regulations allow) and that there may have been flamable materials stored there. Some reports have speculated on large gas bottles or fuel.

We will see what conclusions arise from the crash investigation but it wouldnt surprise to see a series of contributing factors.

[quote=safetypee]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.

[alf5071h]

Originally Posted by lomapaseo

Are there no new facts or analysis worthy of discussion in this thread?

Perhaps we should leave the ‘facts’ to the investigators, but for continued discussion we could consider the reported hazards in this operation and question our own as to the avoidance of the similar traps.
The questions:

• Are crews supplied with temporary landing performance charts (wet and contaminated) for the reduced runway length (displaced threshold)?
• If not would in-flight recalculation of landing performance be judged an unacceptable error provoking situation, particularly with MEL items? Consider a wide range of situations.
• Are there procedures / landing performance charts for a reverser inop?
• What additional limits (min runway length / crosswind) are there for standing water / reverser inop?
• Do operators provide alternative altitude-range tables for a (temporary) displaced threshold on a NPA?
• In addition to the minima changes what advice or restrictions would apply to the (assumed) lack of PAPI (temporary displaced threshold).
• Routinely would an operator warn of the hazards of a wet concrete runway, would standard landing performance be increased on a concrete runway?
• Do crews routinely brief both wet and contaminated landing performance to counter changes during an approach?
• Do crews consider how the landing data varies with wind, particularly tail and crosswind, again to counter changes during an approach?
• Do crews consider/brief the % of max landing weight the actual landing weight is for the conditions? Does this change the recommended braking level?
• Do operators increase landing distance required where there is a less than ideal overrun area? (I have seen a recommendation for this in an ‘official’ publication, which I cannot now locate – any suggestions.)

Like many things in our industry, it is easy to ask questions after the incident, but all the points above could have been applied in advance, who would have considered them; we should do now and in all future operations.
Safety seeks the avoidance of accidents; if accidents are “a series of unforeseen and unforeseeable diverse events, each one being necessary but singularly insufficient” (‘Human Error’ Bennett 2001), then perhaps we should fix or guard against the foreseeable events to give the crew the best chance of dealing with the unforeseen ones.
The final question requires a change of attitude, do not ask “Can we land here?” but “Should we be landing here?”

[qsyenroute]

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.[/QUOTE]

Sorry guys but as a controller I have seen this "spot landing" competition develop into a can of worms so many times - when a pilot does a "floater" deep into the runway and inevitably has to stand on the brakes.
Its all about spending the cash to re-position the PAPIs, etc. But then how long has it taken to come to terms with installing SMGCS?

[M609]

I second that, have seen it many times myself.

Many posters claim that Russian aviation safety is better then its image. Maybe true for passengers carriers, but the cargo outfits I have encountered does little to boost Russias image as far as safety goes. (True for some Ukranian operators as well).

"Highlights":

1. Seriously overweight departures, aircraft skimming the hil at the end of the runway with less then 50 feet to spare. 2 times "they" trashed the departure end RAG (On the overrun!) on one of our runways.

2. Huge deviation from SID, into high terrain in IMC.

You get away with stuff like that just a few times!


(The Norwegian MOD has discontinued the use operators from former CIS nations for passenger transport. Still use them for cargo though.)

[alf5071h]

qsyenroute, M609 don’t forget the combination of anomalous issues; accidents are rarely due to a single issue. How often are long landings associated with a tailwind? How do we engage the bean counters in flight safety?
Thus to add to the list:

• Do ATC change runways avoiding a tailwind when the runway changes from wet to ‘contaminated’?
• How do ATC determine if the runway is contaminated (see definitions below)?
• How quickly can ATC inform crew of a change in runway condition?
• Who explains, or do airport management understand, the need to balance commercial/operational interests with those of flight safety?
• Who conducts the risk assessment arising from the runway maintenance condition (is ‘slippery when wet’ acceptable when combined with a temporary displaced threshold)?

UK CAA AIC 61-99 “RISKS AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONS ON RUNWAYS AFFECTED BY SNOW, SLUSH OR WATER”
For JAR-OPS performance purposes, runways reported as WATER PATCHES or FLOODED should be considered as CONTAMINATED.
WATER PATCHES Significant patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Water patches will be reported when more than 25% of the assessed area is covered by water more than 3 mm deep.
FLOODED Extensive patches of standing water are visible.
NOTE: Flooded will be reported when more than 50% of the assessed area covered by water more than 3 mm deep.

M609 any national authority can ban operators from their airspace, but this action may only move the problem elsewhere. Flight Safety would be better served by those who identified the errors assisting those who are apparently in need of guidance by communicating the differing views of the operation. I hope that you (your unit) were able to discuss the issues and check that the visitors had not misunderstood your input or procedures.
And don’t forget that for every transgression you cite for one operator or country, someone will most likely find similar problems with your operations. The safety objectives of the industry are to prevent the reoccurrence of these problems; the negativity from the criticism in this thread does not contribute to flight safety. We do not require more instances of problems, we require practical solutions, more often arising from positive attitudes and working together

[barit1]

It's easy enough to find the individual accidents by Russian (or any other) operators, but accident rates (per 1000000 hrs, per 1000 flights etc) are perhaps less obvious - because traffic data may not be so forthcoming.

But rate comparisons are the only meaningful ones.

[M609]

How often are long landings associated with a tailwind?

Ok, I'll bite on that one. Very few, because due to limitations on runway lenght crews never accept tailwind at out airfield. (Well, not crews flyging anything larger then a King Air anyway) Hence we change runway a lot. The most common problem (for one rwy) is that crews try to do a steep approach to land on the numbers and not on the PAPI, which is 800m displaced. Result: To much energy over the THR and the resulting 'float' takes them past the papi as well.
Non-standard airfield? You bet!
I'm well aware of the chain of events/not one single cause etc, but said problems are only evident for type of operators. Others are more on the over-cautious side because of the peculiarities of the airfield/procedures.
Ex: Due to high ground, one rwy is more suited for heavy veight departures then the other. What do you do when the wind is blowing the wrong way? Well, serious operators, including all the military ones I have had the pleasure of working delay their flight or reduce weight by appropriate means.
Some less serious operators plow on with a tailwind departure, or use the other one, skimming over the hill at the end of that one.
Has the CIS operators gotten undue attention in the west? Perhaps, but you remember the bad ones....

And when someone finds flaws in a Norwegian operation I expect them to tell the proper authorities. (And they do find the flaws, and tell about it. It's the only way to improve. Just search for MyTravel and skidding of the runway on ice. Airport management has learned a lot from cases like that)

[ffbb]

almost in agreement

how about comparing rates for FSU (16 independent states) versus Turkey versus BA? Seem reasonable to you?

What about if we substituted Africa for FSU in the above - can we group together accident rates for Angola, South Africa, Congo etc. I think that might be misleading - and might generate a few messages.

The above is not really directed at you - in fact I am nearly in agreement with you. Rates are best, when the comparison of rates is based on individual airlines or sensible groups of airlines. But if these figures are not to hand at least a list of actual crashes does undermine some of the alarmist ignorant views of the media and some - at least I hope it does.

I am off to the park now here in Moscow - for a walk with my family. Some of the folks posting on this thread will call me reckless, but I reckon there is a reasonable chance I will not be flattened by tonnes of metal falling from the sky.

Originally Posted by barit1

It's easy enough to find the individual accidents by Russian (or any other) operators, but accident rates (per 1000000 hrs, per 1000 flights etc) are perhaps less obvious - because traffic data may not be so forthcoming.

But rate comparisons are the only meaningful ones.