Russian Air Crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
Russian Air Crash
AIRLINER CRASHES IN SIBERIA
A Russian passenger plane has crashed in Siberia with all 143 people on board feared dead.
The Tu-154 was thought to be carrying 133 passengers and 10 crew when it vanished from radar screens close to Irkutsk while en route to Vladivostok.
An Emergencies Ministry spokesman confirmed the disaster. Rescue teams were heading to the crash site.
courtesy of Teletext News
A Russian passenger plane has crashed in Siberia with all 143 people on board feared dead.
The Tu-154 was thought to be carrying 133 passengers and 10 crew when it vanished from radar screens close to Irkutsk while en route to Vladivostok.
An Emergencies Ministry spokesman confirmed the disaster. Rescue teams were heading to the crash site.
courtesy of Teletext News
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
Full story at http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTopNews/airliner_jul3-ap.html
------------------
Per dementia ad astra
------------------
Per dementia ad astra
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1421319.stm
The above report suggests that there were 2 failed attempts to land for a scheduled fuel stop at Irkutsk, and then all 3 engines failed.
Sounds like fuel starvation to me.
It is possible that the Russian carriers don't encourage their Pilots to be over generous with their fuel load to save on costs etc .....
Maybe........
My thoughts are with all those who perished.
The above report suggests that there were 2 failed attempts to land for a scheduled fuel stop at Irkutsk, and then all 3 engines failed.
Sounds like fuel starvation to me.
It is possible that the Russian carriers don't encourage their Pilots to be over generous with their fuel load to save on costs etc .....
Maybe........
My thoughts are with all those who perished.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Markbingo,
Not to speculate on the cause of this disaster, but if it is as you say, you've hit the nail almost squarely on the head.
In the early-mid 90's I was involved in training a group of former Aeroflot pilots to Western Standards and procedures on the B-727. At the time, the company I worked for conducted regularly scheduled passenger operations throughout Europe.
One day coming into LGW, we hit the hold at Mayfield. LGW was closed as was our alt STn due to fog. I was preparing 2 Captains for their type rides on the Boeing. As we were holding I asked the guy in the left seat what his plans were if LGW didn't open up. Him and the other guy discussed it, checked with the F/E as to how much holding fuel we had, etc. These 2 guys decided we could hold for approx 1+45 before having to go to our alt. I asked what we would do if the weather hadn't improved by then. (and this is the part that really got me)
They said they would land at LGW anyway. I remember the words to this day: "This is Boeing, it is good aircraft, it will land ok".
We eventually diverted to MAN, but my point is, these 2 former Aeroflot guys were fully prepared to attempt an approach in zero-zero conditions with min fuel. That was the mentality of how they were trained in the former Soviet Union. Diverting to an alternate was not an option.
As another point of interest, their practice was to carry just enough fuel to get to their destination and no further, just to reinforce the above thinking.
Although nothing has been determined yet regarding this tragedy, it would be very sad indeed if these practices were still continuing.
Condolences to all affected...
Not to speculate on the cause of this disaster, but if it is as you say, you've hit the nail almost squarely on the head.
In the early-mid 90's I was involved in training a group of former Aeroflot pilots to Western Standards and procedures on the B-727. At the time, the company I worked for conducted regularly scheduled passenger operations throughout Europe.
One day coming into LGW, we hit the hold at Mayfield. LGW was closed as was our alt STn due to fog. I was preparing 2 Captains for their type rides on the Boeing. As we were holding I asked the guy in the left seat what his plans were if LGW didn't open up. Him and the other guy discussed it, checked with the F/E as to how much holding fuel we had, etc. These 2 guys decided we could hold for approx 1+45 before having to go to our alt. I asked what we would do if the weather hadn't improved by then. (and this is the part that really got me)
They said they would land at LGW anyway. I remember the words to this day: "This is Boeing, it is good aircraft, it will land ok".
We eventually diverted to MAN, but my point is, these 2 former Aeroflot guys were fully prepared to attempt an approach in zero-zero conditions with min fuel. That was the mentality of how they were trained in the former Soviet Union. Diverting to an alternate was not an option.
As another point of interest, their practice was to carry just enough fuel to get to their destination and no further, just to reinforce the above thinking.
Although nothing has been determined yet regarding this tragedy, it would be very sad indeed if these practices were still continuing.
Condolences to all affected...
Guest
Posts: n/a
DownIn3Green,
The problem you have notified has another reason:
when these guys flew under Soviet time -everywhere was AEROFLOT, everywhere they could get a service.Now they are flying abroad with a question :" Who will PAY if we land out of the destination???"
(10 years ago I flew for AEROFLOT and always had a fuel for diversion.)
About the TU 154 story:
Officials say about two main versions of tragedy- all 3 engines failure or bomb explosion. FDR has been found in a good condition,and I hope tomorrow can be deshifrated.
The problem you have notified has another reason:
when these guys flew under Soviet time -everywhere was AEROFLOT, everywhere they could get a service.Now they are flying abroad with a question :" Who will PAY if we land out of the destination???"
(10 years ago I flew for AEROFLOT and always had a fuel for diversion.)
About the TU 154 story:
Officials say about two main versions of tragedy- all 3 engines failure or bomb explosion. FDR has been found in a good condition,and I hope tomorrow can be deshifrated.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hamburg,Germany
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well my username may give the impression of knowledge in this case but first question would be:
If they really ran out of fuel what exploded after impact ? A triple engine failure should be next to impossible except there was either no more fuel or the fuel (and that could be the main reason)didn't reach the engines through a malfunction.
But the FDR is recovered and soon we hopefully will get more infos.
condolences to all relatives of the victims.
If they really ran out of fuel what exploded after impact ? A triple engine failure should be next to impossible except there was either no more fuel or the fuel (and that could be the main reason)didn't reach the engines through a malfunction.
But the FDR is recovered and soon we hopefully will get more infos.
condolences to all relatives of the victims.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can we cut out all this "my condolences" and "my thoughts" etc - it is meaningless and is just some anonymous writers trying to tell anonymous readers that deep down they are nice guys.
These "thoughts and condolences" do not reach anyone affected by the tragedy, and even if they did they are still meaningless as the origin remains unknown.
These "thoughts and condolences" do not reach anyone affected by the tragedy, and even if they did they are still meaningless as the origin remains unknown.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the USAToday coverage:
"It is so hard to comprehend how it could happen ... based on an elementary knowledge of aerodynamics. It is a weird accident," Shoigu told reporters on the meadow, which was littered with smoking fuselage. He said the plane was at an altitude of 2,800 feet when it suddenly made a 180-degree turn and crashed.
FROM AN EARLIER Tu154 ACCIDENT REPORT
07.12.1995
Aeroflot Khabarovsk Airlines
Remarks:
Went missing on a flight from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Khabarovsk. The wreckage was found 11 days later. The aircraft was flying at 9600m when it suddenly banked right and entered a steep spiral dive.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Fuel-feed selected from wing tanks on the left side only. This was done to counteract the tendency to fly left-wing low. The fuel imbalance caused the aircraft to bank to the right during the flight. The autopilot was able to counteract this bank until 35 minutes after take-off.
As they had been airborne for just under four hours:
The fire on impact would tend to rule out fuel exhaustion however what may have happened to cause near-simultaneous fuel starvation of all three engines might have been a Flight Engineer's fuel-panel adjustment. Ther reason for this would be a configuring of the cross-feed/cross-transfer system designed to avoid any one engine from flaming out due to the low fuel levels remaining (after they had overshot two approaches and were midway through the third). If you get it out of sequence, or a fuel-valve is stuck, you can end up with a rollback / flame-out (much like the UAL 767 out of Hawaii earlier this year).
Fuel management whilst at low tank levels is always critical. Pumpsare usually designed to pump from fuel collected inside a collector-box. At low fuel levels the boost pumps and tank outflow ports can become uncovered during turns and pitch attitude changes (or the steep spiral dive described above).
Alternatively they may have suffered a flameout of one engine due to low fuel levels (after a 3:40 flight time) and in the ensuing panic managed to get the fuel panel switchology wrong, flaming out the remaining two.
"It is so hard to comprehend how it could happen ... based on an elementary knowledge of aerodynamics. It is a weird accident," Shoigu told reporters on the meadow, which was littered with smoking fuselage. He said the plane was at an altitude of 2,800 feet when it suddenly made a 180-degree turn and crashed.
FROM AN EARLIER Tu154 ACCIDENT REPORT
07.12.1995
Aeroflot Khabarovsk Airlines
Remarks:
Went missing on a flight from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Khabarovsk. The wreckage was found 11 days later. The aircraft was flying at 9600m when it suddenly banked right and entered a steep spiral dive.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Fuel-feed selected from wing tanks on the left side only. This was done to counteract the tendency to fly left-wing low. The fuel imbalance caused the aircraft to bank to the right during the flight. The autopilot was able to counteract this bank until 35 minutes after take-off.
As they had been airborne for just under four hours:
The fire on impact would tend to rule out fuel exhaustion however what may have happened to cause near-simultaneous fuel starvation of all three engines might have been a Flight Engineer's fuel-panel adjustment. Ther reason for this would be a configuring of the cross-feed/cross-transfer system designed to avoid any one engine from flaming out due to the low fuel levels remaining (after they had overshot two approaches and were midway through the third). If you get it out of sequence, or a fuel-valve is stuck, you can end up with a rollback / flame-out (much like the UAL 767 out of Hawaii earlier this year).
Fuel management whilst at low tank levels is always critical. Pumpsare usually designed to pump from fuel collected inside a collector-box. At low fuel levels the boost pumps and tank outflow ports can become uncovered during turns and pitch attitude changes (or the steep spiral dive described above).
Alternatively they may have suffered a flameout of one engine due to low fuel levels (after a 3:40 flight time) and in the ensuing panic managed to get the fuel panel switchology wrong, flaming out the remaining two.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The cause is going to be interesting - if we ever find out.
Sounds as though it might have stalled. Possibly a panic maneuver, thinking they'd passed the runway, having spotted a road beneath them or some such.
The fire certainly suggests fuel on board. That's not to say that all crossfeeds were open & all boost pumps were on, however.
Sounds as though it might have stalled. Possibly a panic maneuver, thinking they'd passed the runway, having spotted a road beneath them or some such.
The fire certainly suggests fuel on board. That's not to say that all crossfeeds were open & all boost pumps were on, however.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Further to the earlier post above:
Setting up cross-feed/cross-transfer is one of those boring/mundane (yet totally critical) tasks in a 3 crew aircraft where the Flight Engineer can get you in big trouble. Pilots concede the demarcation dispute threshold by allowing the FE to manage "his" panel and as a result don't themselves monitor it (i.e. either the setting up or the eventual need to reconfigure it). If the FE then fails to watch it like a hawk (or gets distracted), it's a nice setup for a big surprise later on.
Meanwhile the autopilot can conceal large fuel imbalance discrepancies by trimming it out. If you decelerate and then disconnect the autopilot you will suddenly experience a rapid roll (because the trim is still in effect). By decelerating to slow speed before disconnecting you will guarantee that the amount of aileron trim (away from the heavy wing) will be maximised. If the autopilot disconnect was done as a result of an engine flaming out (because a tank had been run dry), then you've suddenly got the surprise out-of-trim forces plus the (apparent) engine-failure to contend with.
In this case I could suggest that the ensuing flameout of the other two engines in quick succession was either yaw-induced (not a good idea at low fuel-levels - but can happen on A/P disconnect if drastically out-of-trim) or because all engines had been left feeding from the one tank in cruise or crew-induced (panic-stricken switch-flicking). Any one scenario might be valid.
Then again the investigators' first reading of the FDR may be wrong. One of the recovery actions for an autopilot disconnect spiral entry would be to retard all throttles to idle. This might have been misconstrued as a triple engine failure - on a first reading of the black box.
However, if they'd already carried out two missed approaches they'd surely not be unaware of any significant fuel imbalance. i.e. Doubt the TU154M can do coupled approaches. Looking more like another case for CCTV.
Setting up cross-feed/cross-transfer is one of those boring/mundane (yet totally critical) tasks in a 3 crew aircraft where the Flight Engineer can get you in big trouble. Pilots concede the demarcation dispute threshold by allowing the FE to manage "his" panel and as a result don't themselves monitor it (i.e. either the setting up or the eventual need to reconfigure it). If the FE then fails to watch it like a hawk (or gets distracted), it's a nice setup for a big surprise later on.
Meanwhile the autopilot can conceal large fuel imbalance discrepancies by trimming it out. If you decelerate and then disconnect the autopilot you will suddenly experience a rapid roll (because the trim is still in effect). By decelerating to slow speed before disconnecting you will guarantee that the amount of aileron trim (away from the heavy wing) will be maximised. If the autopilot disconnect was done as a result of an engine flaming out (because a tank had been run dry), then you've suddenly got the surprise out-of-trim forces plus the (apparent) engine-failure to contend with.
In this case I could suggest that the ensuing flameout of the other two engines in quick succession was either yaw-induced (not a good idea at low fuel-levels - but can happen on A/P disconnect if drastically out-of-trim) or because all engines had been left feeding from the one tank in cruise or crew-induced (panic-stricken switch-flicking). Any one scenario might be valid.
Then again the investigators' first reading of the FDR may be wrong. One of the recovery actions for an autopilot disconnect spiral entry would be to retard all throttles to idle. This might have been misconstrued as a triple engine failure - on a first reading of the black box.
However, if they'd already carried out two missed approaches they'd surely not be unaware of any significant fuel imbalance. i.e. Doubt the TU154M can do coupled approaches. Looking more like another case for CCTV.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is there really enough plain info available on this crash right now to determine what has happened? I doubt it. Every serious investigation takes at least several months if not longer. Shouldn't we wait a minute for results? However I don't know if the Russians do publish their analysis like the US do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"Our specialists estimate the cause of the accident could have been a breakdown of the plane's fuel transmission system," said a senior executive of the Vladivostokavia airline which owned the plane. (via AP)</font>
Pete O Agree. Makes me cringe too.
[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 04 July 2001).]