Russian Air Crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pete Otube
How sad a person you must be.
When you can not even spare a thought for a fellow Human being who has been tragically killed.
I hope that I never find myself having to "spare a thought" for you, as it would seem that I would be wasting my time.
Unbelievable and very sad.
How sad a person you must be.
When you can not even spare a thought for a fellow Human being who has been tragically killed.
I hope that I never find myself having to "spare a thought" for you, as it would seem that I would be wasting my time.
Unbelievable and very sad.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couple of aerial shots of the crash site over on the www.airdisaster.com board.
The debris appears to be completely contained within the length and span of the aircraft. The tail is intact otherwise it's completely consumed by fire.
My initial impression was deja vu of photos from the prototype BAC-111 and DH Trident crashes. Flat impact, virtually no forward speed - indicative of a deep stall ?
The debris appears to be completely contained within the length and span of the aircraft. The tail is intact otherwise it's completely consumed by fire.
My initial impression was deja vu of photos from the prototype BAC-111 and DH Trident crashes. Flat impact, virtually no forward speed - indicative of a deep stall ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Otube - as we are regularly reminded these forums are public access and are often used by journalists. I can just see the story now 'Professional Pilots don't give a damn for victims of air disaster'.
This is not to say that you HAVE to provide condolences, but please let other people express themselves should they choose to.
Of course you would not express such an attitude if the loss had occured in Western Europe or the US, rather than what you obviously regard as 'backward' and non-connected parts of the world.
Two of my colleagues are flying out to Vladivostok over the weekend - a major Civil Aircraft loss of this type does not just have a local effect.
This is not to say that you HAVE to provide condolences, but please let other people express themselves should they choose to.
Of course you would not express such an attitude if the loss had occured in Western Europe or the US, rather than what you obviously regard as 'backward' and non-connected parts of the world.
Two of my colleagues are flying out to Vladivostok over the weekend - a major Civil Aircraft loss of this type does not just have a local effect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding "my thoughts are with the victims and families" ... I feel sad on the behalf of the victims and even more their friends and families. Though I don't know any of them (from what I am informed). Worldwide there are many people dying from numerous accidents of all kinds, all the time, around the clock. I feel sorry for ALL theses people and ALL their families, not just for the ones mentioned in the media because they make good stories.
However, writers here with premature speculations like if they want to have "said it first" what really happened, they seem to justify any post by signing with "my thoughts are with the families ..." or the like.
My thoughts are with ALL the people of ALL countries suffering ANY hardship from any accident, disease, death in the family etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
bobtoldmetodoit:
Here here.
It may be too early to speculate on the cause of the crash, but it is never too early to spare a thought for the victims and the families who have lost loved ones.
The Burdanovka crash makes me feel just as sick inside as the Concorde crash did.
Here here.
It may be too early to speculate on the cause of the crash, but it is never too early to spare a thought for the victims and the families who have lost loved ones.
The Burdanovka crash makes me feel just as sick inside as the Concorde crash did.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can pilots not read properly? Can they they not understand what they see written? I am not against condolences or thoughts, or better still, prayers on behalf of bereaved or injured humanity - but they must be at a personal level to have value. I am against meaningless affectations on this website that do nothing to help the poor victims or their families.
Who gives a damn for your thoughts if they don't know where or who they come from, and they don't reach the victims anyway?
[This message has been edited by Pete Otube (edited 06 July 2001).]
Who gives a damn for your thoughts if they don't know where or who they come from, and they don't reach the victims anyway?
[This message has been edited by Pete Otube (edited 06 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
According to INTERFAX, the read out of the recorders didn´t reveal any problems with the aircraft. Furthermore, the a/c had enough fuel, when it crashed.
http://www.avia.ru/cgi/news/news.cgi...n&id=994420914
An earlier release stated:
***Causes of air crash to become clear on Monday - Klebanov
[5 Jul 2001] The state commission for investigating the causes of the Tuesday air crash near Irkutsk will be able
to announce the causes of the disaster on Monday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov has told
Interfax.
He said Irkutsk experts, using equipment available to them, have read information from two of the three black
boxes. But the analysis was incomplete, as the equipment used by Irkutsk experts is imperfect, so the black
boxes will have to be sent to Moscow, Klebanov said.
He also said that the identification of the victims by relatives began at 1
p.m., local time.
http://www.avia.ru/cgi/news/news.cgi...n&id=994420914
An earlier release stated:
***Causes of air crash to become clear on Monday - Klebanov
[5 Jul 2001] The state commission for investigating the causes of the Tuesday air crash near Irkutsk will be able
to announce the causes of the disaster on Monday, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov has told
Interfax.
He said Irkutsk experts, using equipment available to them, have read information from two of the three black
boxes. But the analysis was incomplete, as the equipment used by Irkutsk experts is imperfect, so the black
boxes will have to be sent to Moscow, Klebanov said.
He also said that the identification of the victims by relatives began at 1
p.m., local time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although I have much experience on TU-154,I
can't explain this crash,at least to give a
meaningful answer.I would only be guessing.
Especially as every serious disaster takes
at least one month and therefore nobody tell
us true reason of tragedy untill end of the
investigation.If somebody has Russian version
of Windows,please visit on the web-site:
www.svavia.ru and overthere you'll find much
more information about this crash even names
of passengers and crew members.
can't explain this crash,at least to give a
meaningful answer.I would only be guessing.
Especially as every serious disaster takes
at least one month and therefore nobody tell
us true reason of tragedy untill end of the
investigation.If somebody has Russian version
of Windows,please visit on the web-site:
www.svavia.ru and overthere you'll find much
more information about this crash even names
of passengers and crew members.
Well I agree 100% with Pete, There is something very Creepy associated with this simpering phony "condolences" garbage. He at least has had the courage to come out and say it. Angel's reaction was pretty predictable, never mind, Jesus probably loves you 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I also have to agree with Pete. Expression of condolences that will never be seen by the subjects seems rather empty and pointless. If indeed such condolences are genuinely heartfelt, then posting a message on a web page is not as effective as getting out your fat (by Russian standards) chequebooks and seeing if it's possible to get some almost certainly needed financial help to those affected families, a lot of whom will have lost the only breadwinner. ...or is that 'caring' a bit too much ?
Sorry if my views offend anyone, it is genuinely not my intention to aggravate, but I have to say it as I see it.
[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Flaps90! ]
Sorry if my views offend anyone, it is genuinely not my intention to aggravate, but I have to say it as I see it.
[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Flaps90! ]
Pete O Tube and others, re condolences.
There are probably quite a lot of us who feel uncomfortable offering condolences to people we've never met.
Then again, some don't and for them, condolences are not "meaningless". So, perhaps it would be reasonable to let people post as they feel is right without being sniped at?
Whatever the case, this is not the best thread to put your thoughts forward.
There are probably quite a lot of us who feel uncomfortable offering condolences to people we've never met.
Then again, some don't and for them, condolences are not "meaningless". So, perhaps it would be reasonable to let people post as they feel is right without being sniped at?
Whatever the case, this is not the best thread to put your thoughts forward.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hamburg,Germany
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody who can provide information wether an official russian aviation safety website does exist ??
I looked into the Dep. of Transportation site, but all is in kyrillic...
any help is greatly appreciated http://www.jacdec.de
I looked into the Dep. of Transportation site, but all is in kyrillic...
any help is greatly appreciated http://www.jacdec.de
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the current political climate in Russia it's highly probable that they will be publicising their accident investigation results. It always helps families accept their loss if a logical explanation is found.
I believe (from what I've very recently heard) that this accident may well be something similar to the Tu154B one spelt out at this URL: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1995/951207-0.htm (i.e. human error)
The difference may have been that the 1995 accident a/c was at 9600 metres and this Irkutsk a/c was in its third instrument landing approach at 800m (2500ft), having missed the first two landing attempts. As it was a refuelling stop, it's possible that fuel quantities were down (and if they'd set up a crossfeed earlier and forgotten about it, they may have run one wing-tank dry, leading to both a fuel-starve progressive flame-out [as in 1,3,2 in quick succession) plus an autopilot-disguised significant out-of-trim situation. The simultaneous sudden combination of the two circumstances may well have led to a loss of control - in addition we don't know how useful/automatic the Tu154 reversion to backup-battery power (for standby flight instruments) in IMC would be. Loss of control may have followed very quickly. When they lose all electrics does the autopilot disconnect cleanly from the hydraulics? Is it immediately apparent to the crew when a flame-out initiated bus change-over has tripped the autopilot? Are there any back-up hydraulics for the flight-controls?
Most significantly, I also would venture that, after a triple flame-out, having lost electrical power to crossfeed and cross-ship valves, there would have been no way they'd have been able to access the remaining fuel in the other wing's tanks. I doubt that the Tu154 has a RAT or ADG that would kick in. Just try and imagine the crew's confusion as one engine after another flamed out. They probably didn't even discover, before losing control, that it was the fuel panel setup that had led to their situation. So were they doing engine failure drills or engine-relight drills, as each successive failure diverted their attention from completing a drill? Sounds like a total overload for even a three-man crew.
So I'd suggest that this one will not go against the ruling odds and it will be an idiosyncrasy of the Tu154 and their crossfeeding habits that eventually caught them out. Final loss of control could have been the autopilot disguising an out-of-trim situation but was more likely to have been a loss of control in IMC stemming from the (total?) loss of electrics/ electrical inability to access remaining fuel / control loss.
Perhaps there's a Tu154M endorsed person out there who can comment.
I believe (from what I've very recently heard) that this accident may well be something similar to the Tu154B one spelt out at this URL: http://aviation-safety.net/database/1995/951207-0.htm (i.e. human error)
The difference may have been that the 1995 accident a/c was at 9600 metres and this Irkutsk a/c was in its third instrument landing approach at 800m (2500ft), having missed the first two landing attempts. As it was a refuelling stop, it's possible that fuel quantities were down (and if they'd set up a crossfeed earlier and forgotten about it, they may have run one wing-tank dry, leading to both a fuel-starve progressive flame-out [as in 1,3,2 in quick succession) plus an autopilot-disguised significant out-of-trim situation. The simultaneous sudden combination of the two circumstances may well have led to a loss of control - in addition we don't know how useful/automatic the Tu154 reversion to backup-battery power (for standby flight instruments) in IMC would be. Loss of control may have followed very quickly. When they lose all electrics does the autopilot disconnect cleanly from the hydraulics? Is it immediately apparent to the crew when a flame-out initiated bus change-over has tripped the autopilot? Are there any back-up hydraulics for the flight-controls?
Most significantly, I also would venture that, after a triple flame-out, having lost electrical power to crossfeed and cross-ship valves, there would have been no way they'd have been able to access the remaining fuel in the other wing's tanks. I doubt that the Tu154 has a RAT or ADG that would kick in. Just try and imagine the crew's confusion as one engine after another flamed out. They probably didn't even discover, before losing control, that it was the fuel panel setup that had led to their situation. So were they doing engine failure drills or engine-relight drills, as each successive failure diverted their attention from completing a drill? Sounds like a total overload for even a three-man crew.
So I'd suggest that this one will not go against the ruling odds and it will be an idiosyncrasy of the Tu154 and their crossfeeding habits that eventually caught them out. Final loss of control could have been the autopilot disguising an out-of-trim situation but was more likely to have been a loss of control in IMC stemming from the (total?) loss of electrics/ electrical inability to access remaining fuel / control loss.
Perhaps there's a Tu154M endorsed person out there who can comment.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this Irkutsk a/c was in its third instrument landing approach at 800m (2500ft), having missed the first two landing attempts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belqique,
I dont know if you operate as 2 crew + an FE, but in any 3 crew operation the FE will ALWAYS advise the rest of the crew, if he alters the fuel panel setup. The pilot who is in the best position, normally the Captain, will also monitor the FE panel on a regular basis.
This is know as crew coordination.
But who am I to argue, you seem to have solved this one already.
I dont know if you operate as 2 crew + an FE, but in any 3 crew operation the FE will ALWAYS advise the rest of the crew, if he alters the fuel panel setup. The pilot who is in the best position, normally the Captain, will also monitor the FE panel on a regular basis.
This is know as crew coordination.
But who am I to argue, you seem to have solved this one already.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found on aonother forum,unofficial partial transcription of the CVR:
Any thoughts ?
Okay,
I’ve got copy of preliminary CVR transcript fragment spreading a light what was up causing another black day in aviation history.
Plane was descended in night IFR conditions and piloted by Captain in standard approach pattern but was too high and huge descend caused IAS (Indicated Air Speed) increased, CA has extract interceptors (spoilers) and lower landing gears to reduce IAS for normal base turn recommended speed. However at the same time he was RETRACTED flaps with idle flight thrust and soon as he level off at base turn altitude and IAS sudden drop to minimal, Navigator call warning IAS decreasing too quickly and suggest to retract interceptors, but his warning interfered with altitude alert warning and was probably not heard. Soon as IAS decreased to minimum safe there was command (not identified which CA or FO) to set power 66, 68 then 74, 80 etc and finally max TO thrust was set but IAS remain too low and finally a/c enter in flat stall condition and hit the ground with unusually low horizontal speed. There is feeling that CA won’t go around by all means. (and btw at my point it is a main factor) There are also too much exclaiming words in Russian like “Damn! F…k! etc”
I do not put here translation of CVR fragment intentionally by copyright means and some other, but it looks like:
-(interceptors extracted, gears down, idle fl power, rate of descend abt 2600fpm)
- NA: IAS low (350 km/h)
- NA: Interceptors! IAS too low
- ??: set power 66
- ?? 68
- ?? Damn too slow
- ?? &&&
- ?? 74
- CA (a/c began made left step bunk) take off power
- EN: take of power set, spooling up through 78
- NA: We falling!!
- ?? : Damn!
- NA: altitude! IAS not increasing
- EN: maximum take off power
- NA: Oh guys we falling…
But again its not official and just to avoid unnecessary speculation and rubbish talks around..
Ruslan
UKOO
P.S. sorry my English
I’ve got copy of preliminary CVR transcript fragment spreading a light what was up causing another black day in aviation history.
Plane was descended in night IFR conditions and piloted by Captain in standard approach pattern but was too high and huge descend caused IAS (Indicated Air Speed) increased, CA has extract interceptors (spoilers) and lower landing gears to reduce IAS for normal base turn recommended speed. However at the same time he was RETRACTED flaps with idle flight thrust and soon as he level off at base turn altitude and IAS sudden drop to minimal, Navigator call warning IAS decreasing too quickly and suggest to retract interceptors, but his warning interfered with altitude alert warning and was probably not heard. Soon as IAS decreased to minimum safe there was command (not identified which CA or FO) to set power 66, 68 then 74, 80 etc and finally max TO thrust was set but IAS remain too low and finally a/c enter in flat stall condition and hit the ground with unusually low horizontal speed. There is feeling that CA won’t go around by all means. (and btw at my point it is a main factor) There are also too much exclaiming words in Russian like “Damn! F…k! etc”
I do not put here translation of CVR fragment intentionally by copyright means and some other, but it looks like:
-(interceptors extracted, gears down, idle fl power, rate of descend abt 2600fpm)
- NA: IAS low (350 km/h)
- NA: Interceptors! IAS too low
- ??: set power 66
- ?? 68
- ?? Damn too slow
- ?? &&&
- ?? 74
- CA (a/c began made left step bunk) take off power
- EN: take of power set, spooling up through 78
- NA: We falling!!
- ?? : Damn!
- NA: altitude! IAS not increasing
- EN: maximum take off power
- NA: Oh guys we falling…
But again its not official and just to avoid unnecessary speculation and rubbish talks around..
Ruslan
UKOO
P.S. sorry my English
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a reason why pilots are taught to fly stabilized approaches, rather than approaching hot and high corrected to a massive undershoot, in this case to what appears to be a deep stall. 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Riga, LATVIA
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from officials:
aircraft has crashed due to a stall during manual flying.
TU 154 pilots opinion: the aircraft computer does not let to get a stall...
So, what happened really?
aircraft has crashed due to a stall during manual flying.
TU 154 pilots opinion: the aircraft computer does not let to get a stall...
So, what happened really?