Russian Airbus crash

[DownIn3Green]

ffbb,

I'm leaving RIX tomorrow on SU via SVO and JFK...J Class the whole way, and I'm going to sleep real well tonight...enjoy your walk...real I'ntl EXPERIENCED pilots won't think you're crazy...

Cheers

[jondc9]

a long landing? poor brakes? some way that reverse thrust was not available and manifested it self in forward thrust? simple hydroplaning?

accidents are getting rarer...

does anyone know if they were making a precision approach?

j

[gunshy67]

Performance Penalties for A310 with Pratt Engines

Can someone brief me with info about the performance penalties with a thrust reverser locked out?

I see there are references to takeoff adjustment but not to landing?

And for a contaminated runway (wet) should all braking devices be operative or is there an equivalent level of safety with reduced landing weight?

Grateful for any factual reply.

Thanks

Gunshy

[Flyingphil]

Ok, S7 in the meantime published the respective data of the Acft & Crew:

-Airbus A310-324ET F-OGYP
Year: 1987
MTOW: 160t
Engines: PW4152
Fhrs: 59.860 (Quite low for a Long-Range-Jet of that age in my opinion)
Last A-Check: June 1st
Next C-Check was planned for October 2006 (@LH Technik I suppose)

PIC:
Born 1961, 10.500Fhrs

F/O:
Born 1958, 9.700Fhrs

So can any of the experts see a "suspicious" Number in the data above or is everything "normal"?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Flyingphil

Fhrs: 59.860 (Quite low for a Long-Range-Jet of that age in my opinion)

I don't think you'll find anything in such data, in fact it seems irrelevant for the carrier to publish it.

60k flying hours is not really low. It was idle for over a year after Delta disposed of it, then Aeroflot used it mainly on routes to Western Europe so not much overnight flying. It will have been a regular on Moscow to London for some years. And Russian airlines still don't have the high-utilisation techniques, with all the sophisticated technical backup to be able to do that efficiently, that western carriers have.

[CargoOne]

WHBM

I've seen somewhere that this airframe is at 10000 something cycles which gives an average of ~5:1 hrs/cyc ratio. Not bad at all for A310, which is not really a longhaul aircraft by today measurement.

Also some Russian operators are quite efficient in high utilization. Transaero used to hold a Boeing-recognized record for annual utilization of 737-700 (16 or 17+ hours a day average if memory serves me right), and many operators are on 3000 to 4000 hrs annually on a western aircraft.

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

Yes, Transaero do a lot of overnight sectors (eg. US, central Asia, Far East, eastern Russia itself).

[Flying Mech]

From memory I seem to recall that the 310 antiskid system is like the 300B4 with the nosewheel speed being used as a reference for main wheel braking/touchdown protection & antiskid protection.. Does anyone have any info on whether nosewheels will hydroplane on a contaminated runway?, thus deactivating normal & alternate braking? the crew would have to select manual reversion which may have been quiet a way down the runway when they realized this & in that mode they have no antiskid protection anyway.
The other more extreme possibility which is very rare possibility is a dual hydraluic failure after touchdown. In this scenario no braking or steering fuctions would be availible to the crew. Hopefully the CVR & FDR are in good enough condition to be usable.

[Basil]

1. I have a great deal of respect for Eastern Block pilot abilities (although over the last 10 years or so I thought they were demonstrating the superiority of the Russian bangseat at various air displays )
2. I have the impression that these guys have an excellent 'gung ho!' attitude which I am sure would have served them as well against us if the Cold War had turned hot as it did their their forefathers in tanks in WW2.
3. I don't care how many 'CRM courses' they do - they have to learn that in civil aviation the three most important things are SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY!
As Danny is so often wont to say: "It is not a willy waving contest."
4. and oh, yes, whilst the Captain is without doubt in command of the aircraft, the first officer must take some responsibility for a severe fvckup - so all you FOs just have a think about what you are going to do when it becomes clear that the captain is going to land high/long/fast on a wet/slippery runway - YOU are now the last person who can prevent a catastrophe.

SO, for any Russian/East European pilots reading this: If you want to prove how bold you are: get into a fight, ride a motorbike, do low level aerobatics, marry a German, Scottish, American bird but please don't fly the aeroplane I'm passengering in

[Ignition Override]

Mr. Norman S. Fletcher:

Just curious about the context, but was it possible that after WW2, nations which had lost vast numbers of aircraft and people might be conditioned to the situation, because there is no more shooting to worrry about?

As for safety cultures in recent decades, even in the west, at least in the so-called advanced aviation culture in the US, safety is largely a function of an airline's upper mgmt leadership-or the focus is to be "mission/revenue oriented" with little tolerance for serious problems to be written up in the maintenance logbook... How much 'hull loss' insurance is carried for a single 100-seat jet? Maybe a half-billion dollars? And this is for those built in the 1960s. This covers a company from the standpoint of liability.

To listen to what many freight airline pilots had to deal with (flying Lears, even a DC-6 with an engine fire-but no request for help, no declaration of an emergency...this guy from "northwestern" Europe refused to tell me the name of his former employers here) and the lessor-known companies is almost hard to believe. But remember, the FAA's former philosophy was to regulate aviation while promoting it. Quite a contradiction. All top administrators are appointed by the boss who lives in the White House.

If a pilot's job might be terminated after he, to comply with the FARs and proper airmanship, declared an emergency with ATC due to an engine flame-out, or engine fire for a bit, because the FAA might then find glaring inconsistencies in aircraft maintenance records...then we tolerate third-world airline ops, if among smaller cargo or third-tier carriers.

At one very infamous carrier, both pilots and the FE had to show the company's owner that a DC-8 can not rotate without elevator hydraulic pressure-at first, he did not believe them, until they showed him the indicator and explained. The owner once flew a Lear, a two-pilot aircraft, by himself, and the various FAA Inspectors who noticed these and other flagrant violations were "allegedly" 'bought off' somehow-numerous times. Unwritten policies can cut as many safety corners as anything else. But unwritten policies can not be demonstrated to our 'friends' at the FAA. A lady pilot here who once flew cargo Falcons at a small company told me recently that a Captain she was working with had an engine which could not be started and he considered either an untrained-for high speed windmill start or a single engine takeoff...from zero airspeed! He was afraid of the company's reaction if he made a 'write up' in the logbook that the engine could not be started!

The FAA can live with 'allegedly' falsified maintenance records. The maint. records showing previous LE flap (slat) problems for the infamous TWA B-727 which departed controlled flight over Michigan, mysteriously appeared many years after the pilots (Hoot Gibson etc) were almost hung out to dry- and many, many US airline pilots believed that the NTSB's conclusions and Boeing's defense were honest and accurate.
This was revealed not many years ago in "Aviation Week & Space Tech.".
How much we forget, at least in US civil aviation, when the "pot calls the kettle black".

[swish266]

I come from Eastern Europe

I will never forget the F--ker from Oz, who on purpouse looked at my first log-book, upside down (it is in Cyrilic) just to make a point...
That was at an Emirates interview in Sept '97. He was a senior instructor on the 310...
I hate my job now, because in my dozen years of expat flying I had to prove I was at least 3 times better than everybody else on the short list, just coz I speak English with East European accent...
But beware "good guys" - we will pull the carpet from under yr feet soon, coz we r good n cheap
Basil, U know wah to do wit dat long finger of yrs, dat U wave at us, EE pilots...

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

swish266 - your somewhat foolish post does far more damage to the image and reputation of Eastern European pilots than anything anyone else has written here.

Just out of interest, I note that in the last few days another Russian (Eastern Bloc?) aircraft has crashed with no deaths but some serious injuries. I can only presume that this is yet another statistical anomoly and that we can safely conclude there is still no problem.

[CargoOne]

Originally Posted by Norman Stanley Fletcher

swish266 - your somewhat foolish post does far more damage to the image and reputation of Eastern European pilots than anything anyone else has written here.
Just out of interest, I note that in the last few days another Russian (Eastern Bloc?) aircraft has crashed with no deaths but some serious injuries. I can only presume that this is yet another statistical anomoly and that we can safely conclude there is still no problem.

Althouht the wording is improper I support swish266 message. It is just disappointing to see/hear someone saying that Russian pilots are not as good as western just because they are from the East. So I suppose that his wording been influenced by previous posts, which are far away from what you could expect from the colleagues.

Another crash you referring was a military aircraft (althouth it was Tu-134, which is a commercial regional jet), operated by militaries. A bird strike on take-off run, one engine lost the thrust and crew decided to abort take-off but been unable to keep aircraft on runway at the end. A bit different category, isn't it? You are not counting C5 crash into a safery record of Delta or United, aren't you?

[Sonic Bam]

All operators telex went out from Airbus this evening. Had a quick read of it so following is not verbatum but what I remember:

Approach in cloud, below minimums, go around, starts left turn with climb to 2,500'. At 1,500' pitch/roll commands become erratic and descends. Unable to react to GPWS warning (insufficient altitude, attitude, power?). Suspected loss of orientation on Captain's side. At all times were controls functioning. No evidence of technical fault from FDR.

That's what I remember of it. Don't give me a hard time if you don't agree with it or think it inaccurate. Airbus drivers should see something in their crewroom tomorrow I guess.

[cornwallis]

Sonic bam,are you sure this post corresponds to the A310 over-run?Yours sounds more like the A320 that went into the sea!
As an aside it never ceases to amaze me how "experts" manage to draw a topic so far away from its original meaning.

[Sonic Bam]

Oh bugger, you are indeed correct sir. My apologies to all.

[DownIn3Green]

Swish266,

You are spot on, although your specific language could raise some eyebrows.

(NSF in particular...he's a "fast jet" man? so don't mind him) Small cockpit, small mind?...

I had a wonderful couple of segments on Aeroflot last week, and have worked with and trained many "EE" pilots...

My home is in America, but my heart is in Latvia...

I'll fly with you anytime, or welcome the opportunity to be a passenger on your a/c...

Keep up the good work, cheers....

[Norman Stanley Fletcher]

The problem here is that people here are answering the questions that nobody is asking. Cargo 1, you have said, "It is just disappointing to see/hear someone saying that Russian pilots are not as good as western just because they are from the East." Don't be too disappointed becasue nobody has actually said that. At no point in this debate have I, or anyone else contributing that I am aware of, suggested that former Eastern Bloc pilots are 'better' or 'worse' than their western counterparts. Such terminology, none of which is being used by me, only inflames unhealthy debate and results in entrenched positions on either side of the percieved divide. In practice this boils down to some inappropriate argument about the relative handling skills of different individuals - a spurious and completely unnecessary discussion when considering the issues here. And Sonic Bam, it is entirely reasonable to make the quote you did here - it is pertinent to the debate which is much larger than one Airbus overrun.

All very nice as it is that someone had great cabin service with Aeroflot, Balkan Holidays or whoever on a recent trip, it is comletely irrelevant as to whether the airline has an appropriate safety culture that runs from top to bottom. (Inicdentally, that is not to say that these specific airlines do not.) That means that there is proper maintainance, high standards of pilot training, the latest in aircraft technology, a flight monitoring and analysis system (similar to FLYDRAS or SESMA for those familiar with them), a no-blame culture, freedom from non-flying management interference in operational decisions, adherence to legal limits and SOPs, appropriate oversight of aviation at government level through a national organisation (CAA, FAA etc) and so forth. No doubt some of you can reasonably say that a number of Eastern Bloc airlines have this in place and a number of smaller airlines do not here in Western Europe or the States. Nonetheless, when taken as a whole picture, I hope that even the ardent propagandist out there for Soviet aviation would recognise that there are significantly more problems around in Eastern Bloc than there are in the 'West'.

Incidentally, when I read such fatuous comments as 'he's a "fast jet" man? so don't mind him. Small cockpit, small mind', it does nothing to instill confidence in the debating opposition or indeed their powers of deduction. I am indeed a fast jet man, but have also flown old-wreck cargo planes, modern turboprops and passenger jets. I have flown more hours on Airbuses than all my military types put together and more often than not spend my working day next to someone who is not from the UK. You may not like what I have to say in the debate - but please do not assume that I know nothing.

[swish266]

discrimination

NSF, check Basil on previous page...

[TheShadow]

One Reverser Locked out - Both thrusting on landing Rollout?

So can a l.ocked out MEL'd Thrust Reverser produce forward thrust (if the pilot uses both for reverse - forgetting about the MEL)?

Pilots May Have Mishandled Airbus Brakes in Siberia Crash
WASHINGTON, July 19 — Investigators are looking into whether the crew of an Airbus jet that went off a runway in Siberia on July 9 may have improperly used a braking system that was partly disabled before takeoff, people with knowledge of the inquiry say.
The model involved in the crash, the Airbus A310, has a thrust reverser on each of its two engines, and normal procedure, as with other large jets, is that after touchdown the crew deploys the reversers, which direct jet blast toward the front of the plane, to assist the wheel brakes in slowing the plane down. After the thrust reversers are deployed, the crew applies the throttles on the engines.
But the plane in the accident, flown by a Russian airline called S7, began its overnight flight from Moscow with one of its thrust reversers disabled.
While the reason is not clear, there are a number of causes, including mechanical failure, that could disable a thrust reverser.
Planes can land safely without thrust reversers, but if only one is deployed and power is applied to both engines, the forces are applied in opposite directions, tending to spin the airplane. Normal procedure is to alert the crew to important items that are not working, including thrust reversers.
Planes are permitted to fly disabled thrust reversers for a limited time before they are repaired.
In Irkutsk, the plane ran off the runway and ripped through a six-foot concrete barrier, slammed into several small buildings, and burst into flames, killing 124 of the 203 passengers and crew aboard.
Survivors were quoted as saying that the plane’s engines appeared to be accelerating, then shut down. That would be normal in any landing in which both thrust reversers were used.
Investigators said that in some circumstances, a pilot could use a single thrust reverser, providing that power was applied only to that engine.
Several witnesses were reported to have seen the plane actually accelerate after landing before leaving the runway and slamming into the concrete wall at about 100 miles an hour, then hitting several unoccupied storage buildings and stopping in flames.
Investigators examining the flight data recorder have not reached any definitive conclusions about the cause of the crash. It appeared, according to one investigator, that while both engines gained power after touchdown, the one without the thrust reverser gained power more slowly.
The investigation is under the control of the Russian government, which has released only limited information. Non-Russians involved in the probe said that Russia’s Commission of the Interstate Aviation Committee had been upset by the initial statements that referred to problems with braking, and had issued an apparently thinly-veiled threat to take legal action against unauthorized leaks.
In an official statement, the commission said that "early and ungrounded" statements on the possible causes of the crash before the investigation was complete were "considered unethical in accordance with the international practice and may be regarded as an attempt to exercise pressure on the investigation and prevent the commission from finding the actual causes of the crash."
As a result, industry and government experts involved in the investigation declined to be publicly identified.
The authoritative journal, Flight International, reported Tuesday that the aircraft had landed at the proper point on the runway, then continued down the runway for some distance before yawing off to the right.
"This has led to speculation among Russian pilots that there might have been asymmetric thrust reverser deployment or braking, but no official sources will confirm or deny it at this stage," the publication said.
The two pilots, Sergei Shibanov, 45, and Vladimir Chernykh, 48, had no previous accidents, the airline said, and were highly experienced pilots qualified to fly international flights.
from NY Times