Pulkovo TU-154 Crash
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fireflybob
Can anyone tell me if there has ever been a documented case of an airliner being downed as a DIRECT result of being struck by lightning?
Be quick before this post gets deleted too !
Last edited by PaperTiger; 23rd Aug 2006 at 17:49.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall/Spin Likelihood
It would seem that the Pulkovo TU-154 was trying to outclimb the thunderstorm. (see 9000m to 10,500m mention in article above). It had also reportedly requested a 20km deviation from track for weather avoidance. It's possible that the last Mayday call was sent as it was spinning down through 10,000ft. It would seem that the claim about a forced landing being intended is merely an assumption by somebody seeking to explain away their rapid loss of height.
Icin/turb induced loss of an engine whilst AoA challenged in coffin corner would be a likely explanation for what happened. Four Mayday calls would probably be the natural outcome of the crew's inability to achieve any spin recovery on the way down from 36,000ft. Attempted outclimbing of heavy weather whilst already near your altitude capability is never a sound course of action.
I very much doubt that it would be possible for many (or any) T-tailed a/c to recover from a spin because of the horizontal stabilizer being blanked atop the fin by wing-wash. The rudder would also be effectively blanked. A tail-mounted drag chute would be the only recovery aid.
It's also quite possible that severe icing may have played a part in any stall/spin entry scenario - much as it has in numerous turboprop icing accidents in less intense weather at lower altitudes.
TU-154 has a history of spin accidents.
Icin/turb induced loss of an engine whilst AoA challenged in coffin corner would be a likely explanation for what happened. Four Mayday calls would probably be the natural outcome of the crew's inability to achieve any spin recovery on the way down from 36,000ft. Attempted outclimbing of heavy weather whilst already near your altitude capability is never a sound course of action.
I very much doubt that it would be possible for many (or any) T-tailed a/c to recover from a spin because of the horizontal stabilizer being blanked atop the fin by wing-wash. The rudder would also be effectively blanked. A tail-mounted drag chute would be the only recovery aid.
It's also quite possible that severe icing may have played a part in any stall/spin entry scenario - much as it has in numerous turboprop icing accidents in less intense weather at lower altitudes.
TU-154 has a history of spin accidents.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: near airport...
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's Newspaper qotes reports of the plane beeing monitored at 11,700 meters (app. 38,400 ft) shortly before the first mayday calls. Two minutes later the plane was at 3000 meters (9,800 ft). This was a rough ride in my opinion...
Condolences to the families.
Condolences to the families.
Besides icing and turbulence as possible causes of power loss, I would add airflow in the stall/spin regime.
We saw that in the Challenger accident in St. Louis where the a/c was stalled at altitude.
We saw that in the Challenger accident in St. Louis where the a/c was stalled at altitude.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin Entry Causes
Besides icing and turbulence as possible causes of power loss, I would add airflow in the stall/spin regime
I think that was implied fairly clearly in what Belgique said above:
<<"Icin/turb induced loss of an engine whilst AoA challenged in coffin corner would be a likely explanation for what happened.">>
.
from facts at: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060823/53018402.html
.
"the crew had sent four mayday signals before contact was lost, three at 38,600 feet (11,700 meters) and one two minutes later at 10,000 ft (3,000 meters)" Obviously they cross-referenced the 4th mayday call's time to a simultaneous transponder mode Charlie (altitude) return to determine that last height.
The only way they'd get down that fast (14,550 ft/min) is if they were spinning. The 38,600ft is a dead giveaway that they WERE trying to outclimb the storm-clouds. Looking a bit "open and shut" from these facts alone. However the recorders are reportedly in good condition...... so the facts should emerge eventually.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
belgique
I think your view may be quite correct. Indeed, in another thread about flying into thunderstorms we were discussing some of the DON'Ts...trying to TOP a thunderstorm by less than 10,000 feet might be considered a don't.
sadly, the aviation world knows how to handle bad weather...AVOID IT. Too bad the pressure on pilots all over the world still makes them give it the good old college try.
Having flown a T tail plane for many years, I would just add that ANY plane trying to outclimb a storm and getting into the odd world of the coffin corner might also tumble out of control.
I recall a DC8 (airborne express?)that was practicing stalls that never recovered(granted planes like the dc8 used aerodynamically assisted elevators, but let's not get started on that just yet).
all the best belgique, I think your guess will be the right one.
jon
I think your view may be quite correct. Indeed, in another thread about flying into thunderstorms we were discussing some of the DON'Ts...trying to TOP a thunderstorm by less than 10,000 feet might be considered a don't.
sadly, the aviation world knows how to handle bad weather...AVOID IT. Too bad the pressure on pilots all over the world still makes them give it the good old college try.
Having flown a T tail plane for many years, I would just add that ANY plane trying to outclimb a storm and getting into the odd world of the coffin corner might also tumble out of control.
I recall a DC8 (airborne express?)that was practicing stalls that never recovered(granted planes like the dc8 used aerodynamically assisted elevators, but let's not get started on that just yet).
all the best belgique, I think your guess will be the right one.
jon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wikipedia states Service ceiling: 12,100 m (39,700 ft) for the 154M
Service ceiling at 85,000 kg (187,390 lb) AUW
12,100 m (39,700 ft)
also @ http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/tu154-01.htm
Service ceiling at 85,000 kg (187,390 lb) AUW
12,100 m (39,700 ft)
also @ http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/tu154-01.htm
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: SEA (or better PAE)
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello.
Quite right Belgique.
By the way anti-spin tail chutes are, to my knowledge, used mostly on flight test articles for the stall test ( a very, very risky test). That is only way for a T-tail lane to recover during the test.
Cheers,
Quite right Belgique.
By the way anti-spin tail chutes are, to my knowledge, used mostly on flight test articles for the stall test ( a very, very risky test). That is only way for a T-tail lane to recover during the test.
Cheers,
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jondc9
...
I recall a DC8 (airborne express?)that was practicing stalls that never recovered(granted planes like the dc8 used aerodynamically assisted elevators, but let's not get started on that just yet).
I recall a DC8 (airborne express?)that was practicing stalls that never recovered(granted planes like the dc8 used aerodynamically assisted elevators, but let's not get started on that just yet).
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northumberland, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 293
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Pilot Ignored Weather Warning' - The Moscow Times
From The Moscow Times, main quotes here as only current articles available without subscription:
Number of seemingly important issues here relating to experience, training and cost cutting that I am not qualified to comment. However, would take this report with caution as Russian media has a long tradition of repeating what the government wants people to hear.
The pilot of the Pulkovo Airlines plane that slammed into the Ukrainian countryside, killing at least 170 on board, ignored a storm warning before taking off and subsequent warnings after the plane was in the air.
That revelation, which surfaced after air traffic controllers said they had notified commanding pilot Ivan Korogodin of the danger, is fueling speculation that bad weather -- and Korogodin's decision not to skirt it -- is the likeliest explanation for the crash.
Other theories, including a deadly lightning strike and terrorism, have been all but ruled out.
...
Korogodin, 49, had logged 11,900 flying hours, including 6,000 hours on Tu-154's and 2,300 hours as crew commander. He was considered a very experienced pilot, Pulkovo Airlines spokesman Vasily Naletenko said Wednesday.
Korogodin had been licensed to fly by the International Civil Aviation Organization. He had no previous record of accidents during his career with Pulkovo Airlines, which began in 1991, Naletenko said.
It is unclear why Korogodin flew toward the storm.
"It is always the pilot's decision whether to continue with the flight or to change course," said Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety at the British Airline Pilots' Association. "Pilots are instructed to make flight safety an absolute priority, and the pilots themselves are always in the best position to make that decision."
Oleg Panteleyev, editor of the aviation web site Aviaport.ru, agreed that pilots bore full responsibility for all weather-related decisions they made while in the air.
Evans added that "the only reason a pilot would fly into a storm is if he didn't know it was there." That seems unlikely in the case of flight 612, given that it was a daytime flight and Korogodin was told of the upcoming storm.
A veteran test pilot indicated that Korogodin and fellow crew members may have lacked the skills needed in an emergency situation.
Some Russian airlines, the pilot said, are so focused on cutting costs that they either hire pilots who lack emergency skills or do not set aside money for adequate training.
"As a result," he said, "the crew gets by when they fly the same routes in roughly the same conditions. But they are at a loss once something goes wrong during the flight."
The veteran pilot continued: "Sometimes, the pilots know they may be not able to pull it off with the skills they have, but still decide to fly out of fear that they would be asked why they didn't fly and their ignorance would be exposed."
Panteleyev speculated that Korogodin may have wanted to avoid paying taxes for landing and taking off twice. In the 1990s, legislation was adopted permitting airplanes to make emergency landings and pay only 25 percent of the standard landing tax. But that law has been abolished, giving airlines, and possibly pilots, an incentive to stay in the air.
"The number of planes making emergency landings has declined dramatically in recent years," Panteleyev said.
A Tu-154 pilot who flies for a major airline said Thursday that Russian pilots might be more inclined to take risks than their Western counterparts.
The pilot recalled that while he was in training, he and other pilots were shown an international air safety study revealing an informal link between a country's development and the risk that pilots from that country were willing to take. More developed countries, he said, have pilots who take fewer risks. "So the Europeans and Americans are less inclined to take risks than Russians and Chinese, for instance," he said.
Russian newspapers reported that the pilots might have lost consciousness due to g-force generated by the plane's downward tailspin; the plane is thought to have entered a tailspin at around an altitude of 12,000 meters. There was also speculation that the pilots may have been struck on the head in the midst of the turbulence.
In the post-Soviet era, the prestige and salaries of pilots have plummeted. Graduates of flight schools usually have no more than 50 flying hours under their belts when they leave, yet routinely get hired as assistant pilots by commercial airlines.
Only Aeroflot has its own flight school, which offers extra training for its pilots.
That revelation, which surfaced after air traffic controllers said they had notified commanding pilot Ivan Korogodin of the danger, is fueling speculation that bad weather -- and Korogodin's decision not to skirt it -- is the likeliest explanation for the crash.
Other theories, including a deadly lightning strike and terrorism, have been all but ruled out.
...
Korogodin, 49, had logged 11,900 flying hours, including 6,000 hours on Tu-154's and 2,300 hours as crew commander. He was considered a very experienced pilot, Pulkovo Airlines spokesman Vasily Naletenko said Wednesday.
Korogodin had been licensed to fly by the International Civil Aviation Organization. He had no previous record of accidents during his career with Pulkovo Airlines, which began in 1991, Naletenko said.
It is unclear why Korogodin flew toward the storm.
"It is always the pilot's decision whether to continue with the flight or to change course," said Carolyn Evans, head of flight safety at the British Airline Pilots' Association. "Pilots are instructed to make flight safety an absolute priority, and the pilots themselves are always in the best position to make that decision."
Oleg Panteleyev, editor of the aviation web site Aviaport.ru, agreed that pilots bore full responsibility for all weather-related decisions they made while in the air.
Evans added that "the only reason a pilot would fly into a storm is if he didn't know it was there." That seems unlikely in the case of flight 612, given that it was a daytime flight and Korogodin was told of the upcoming storm.
A veteran test pilot indicated that Korogodin and fellow crew members may have lacked the skills needed in an emergency situation.
Some Russian airlines, the pilot said, are so focused on cutting costs that they either hire pilots who lack emergency skills or do not set aside money for adequate training.
"As a result," he said, "the crew gets by when they fly the same routes in roughly the same conditions. But they are at a loss once something goes wrong during the flight."
The veteran pilot continued: "Sometimes, the pilots know they may be not able to pull it off with the skills they have, but still decide to fly out of fear that they would be asked why they didn't fly and their ignorance would be exposed."
Panteleyev speculated that Korogodin may have wanted to avoid paying taxes for landing and taking off twice. In the 1990s, legislation was adopted permitting airplanes to make emergency landings and pay only 25 percent of the standard landing tax. But that law has been abolished, giving airlines, and possibly pilots, an incentive to stay in the air.
"The number of planes making emergency landings has declined dramatically in recent years," Panteleyev said.
A Tu-154 pilot who flies for a major airline said Thursday that Russian pilots might be more inclined to take risks than their Western counterparts.
The pilot recalled that while he was in training, he and other pilots were shown an international air safety study revealing an informal link between a country's development and the risk that pilots from that country were willing to take. More developed countries, he said, have pilots who take fewer risks. "So the Europeans and Americans are less inclined to take risks than Russians and Chinese, for instance," he said.
Russian newspapers reported that the pilots might have lost consciousness due to g-force generated by the plane's downward tailspin; the plane is thought to have entered a tailspin at around an altitude of 12,000 meters. There was also speculation that the pilots may have been struck on the head in the midst of the turbulence.
In the post-Soviet era, the prestige and salaries of pilots have plummeted. Graduates of flight schools usually have no more than 50 flying hours under their belts when they leave, yet routinely get hired as assistant pilots by commercial airlines.
Only Aeroflot has its own flight school, which offers extra training for its pilots.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest data from the MAK (Interstate Aviation Committee) reports that the aircraft climbed to 12,400 m. Maximum allowed weight at 12,100 m is 85 t. Take-off weight must have been around 93.5 t, given the distance from Anapa to St. Pete and 160 passengers. This would mean a weight of about 88at at the time of the crash.
The thunderstorm was reported as having been a heavy one, reaching up to 12-13 km.
It looks the aircraft stalled and entered a flat spin when it encountered turbulence at low speed as it was too high up for its weight.
The thunderstorm was reported as having been a heavy one, reaching up to 12-13 km.
It looks the aircraft stalled and entered a flat spin when it encountered turbulence at low speed as it was too high up for its weight.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fireflybob
I get more and more irritated by the way aircraft accidents are reported in the media, especially those that occur in the Eastern bloc.
The authorities in the Eastern bloc seem far too eager to give an immediate explanation as to what the cause of the accident was - comments such as "the aircraft was struck by lightning..." or the "cause of the accident was bad weather..." etc do little to improve public confidence or knowledge of flying. Is it part of the culture in the Eastern bloc that the appropriate Minister seems duty bound to give an immediate statement? How an earth can anyone know what the cause of any accident is before a proper investigation has been carried out?
Can anyone tell me if there has ever been a documented case of an airliner being downed as a DIRECT result of being struck by lightning?
The authorities in the Eastern bloc seem far too eager to give an immediate explanation as to what the cause of the accident was - comments such as "the aircraft was struck by lightning..." or the "cause of the accident was bad weather..." etc do little to improve public confidence or knowledge of flying. Is it part of the culture in the Eastern bloc that the appropriate Minister seems duty bound to give an immediate statement? How an earth can anyone know what the cause of any accident is before a proper investigation has been carried out?
Can anyone tell me if there has ever been a documented case of an airliner being downed as a DIRECT result of being struck by lightning?
But you know they [on TV] KNOW MUCH MORE than those stupid, Slow, Deceitful aviation EXPERTS !!!
I wonder what Paris Hilton thinks about this? [HOT]
I hate most media's reporting on subjects that have any technical difficulties.
To the Victims, God be with you
rhov
Just some questions here about aviation pressures around the world, and some points about certain segments of the so-called "advanced" aviation indu$try in the US.
First of all, operational pressures on Captains can vary within one country, and they depend to a large extent upon corporate attitudes towards safety, which can give Captains strong incentives to avoid either delaying a flight, or "writing up" an intermittent or failed component in the aircraft logbook. Weather radar not doing so good? A hydraulic pump only operates in a (thermal) bypass condition-when the FO holds the switch down? A DC-8 has no hydraulic pressure indicated for the hor. stabilizer? The owner (who flew some of his cargo jets solo- both during and after a ramp check...what type of 'alleged' payoff?) does not believe you until all three flightcrewmembers + the mechanic demonstrate the failure
The second or third-tier US cargo industry has many stories which might and do appear unbelieveable to those with more sheltered aviation backgrounds. Never mind some stories from the older days at Connie Kalitta and others. I know pilots who worked there. A Learjet engine failure at high altitude was ok, as long as you descended, re-started it but wrote up nothing about it in the aircraft (FAA document) logbook. In a different Pprune thread, certain situations were described.
Just flew with a lady FO (from Michigan) whose Captain on a 2-engine Falcon at a smaller carrier years ago was tempted to make a 1-engine takeoff! He was afraid to describe in the logbook, the inability to start an engine! She talked him out of the nutty idea. One guy had an engine fire in a heavy recip. (DC-@) aircraft and never declared anything with Tower. No F. Herberge here.
If such pressures still exist in the US with many smaller companies (this was long before today's extortionate fuel prices) , imagine in foreign lands, where jobs are very difficult to be found and a diversion costs your company many thousands of dollars-just in landing fees, excluding the other costs, such as higher fuel prices.
Years ago, a Hungarian Malev crew, somewhere in 'eastern' 'Europe'
, gave the fueler a load of free H. wine so that the guy would fuel up their Tupelov!
I flew a trip with the guy who was the navigator on that flight. How is it now with many different governments and companies, all over the planet?
First of all, operational pressures on Captains can vary within one country, and they depend to a large extent upon corporate attitudes towards safety, which can give Captains strong incentives to avoid either delaying a flight, or "writing up" an intermittent or failed component in the aircraft logbook. Weather radar not doing so good? A hydraulic pump only operates in a (thermal) bypass condition-when the FO holds the switch down? A DC-8 has no hydraulic pressure indicated for the hor. stabilizer? The owner (who flew some of his cargo jets solo- both during and after a ramp check...what type of 'alleged' payoff?) does not believe you until all three flightcrewmembers + the mechanic demonstrate the failure
The second or third-tier US cargo industry has many stories which might and do appear unbelieveable to those with more sheltered aviation backgrounds. Never mind some stories from the older days at Connie Kalitta and others. I know pilots who worked there. A Learjet engine failure at high altitude was ok, as long as you descended, re-started it but wrote up nothing about it in the aircraft (FAA document) logbook. In a different Pprune thread, certain situations were described.
Just flew with a lady FO (from Michigan) whose Captain on a 2-engine Falcon at a smaller carrier years ago was tempted to make a 1-engine takeoff! He was afraid to describe in the logbook, the inability to start an engine! She talked him out of the nutty idea. One guy had an engine fire in a heavy recip. (DC-@) aircraft and never declared anything with Tower. No F. Herberge here.
If such pressures still exist in the US with many smaller companies (this was long before today's extortionate fuel prices)
, imagine in foreign lands, where jobs are very difficult to be found and a diversion costs your company many thousands of dollars-just in landing fees, excluding the other costs, such as higher fuel prices.Years ago, a Hungarian Malev crew, somewhere in 'eastern' 'Europe'
, gave the fueler a load of free H. wine so that the guy would fuel up their Tupelov! I flew a trip with the guy who was the navigator on that flight. How is it now with many different governments and companies, all over the planet?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 26th Aug 2006 at 05:12.
Originally Posted by BOAC
Anyone know the max certified altitude for the 154?
And no, I don't think the 154M has a stick pusher, just a shaker and I believe even that one was optional. Have to dig out my books once I am home.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eastern Europe Risks
Just two weeks ago, Slovak Airlines 737 on holiday charter to Corfu suffered tailstrike on landing. Crew "elected" to return with full load to Slovakia without reporting damage. I've seen the damage myself on the aircraft parked at Stefanik-Bratislava, large scrapes and two fist sized holes right through the fuselage !!
Pressure ? maybe..
Lucky to get away with it ? definately ! but sources believe that some jail time is in the future of the crew.
Pressure ? maybe..
Lucky to get away with it ? definately ! but sources believe that some jail time is in the future of the crew.