Aircraft Crash in Moscow
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Home » Gosavianadzor » News
January 9, 2013
Tu-204 Accident of 12.29.2012, at the airport "Vnukovo"
12/29/2012, there has been accident with the Tu-204 overrun at the airport "Vnukovo", which killed five people.
Based on the facts of accident Rostransnadzor organized collection of incoming information and the development of operational measures aimed at eliminating the recurrence of such aviation events.
Using continuously monitored data of the safety and analysis on aviation incidents involving aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214, airlines and maintenance organizations, it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi.
JSC "Tupolev" together with the maintenance organizations must to carry out activities aimed at improving the reliability of these systems of aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214.
Rostransnadzor Commission began to work to verify compliance with the requirements of legislation of the airline company CJSC "Red Wings", in accordance with the FZ-294.
Back to news
January 9, 2013
Tu-204 Accident of 12.29.2012, at the airport "Vnukovo"
12/29/2012, there has been accident with the Tu-204 overrun at the airport "Vnukovo", which killed five people.
Based on the facts of accident Rostransnadzor organized collection of incoming information and the development of operational measures aimed at eliminating the recurrence of such aviation events.
Using continuously monitored data of the safety and analysis on aviation incidents involving aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214, airlines and maintenance organizations, it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi.
JSC "Tupolev" together with the maintenance organizations must to carry out activities aimed at improving the reliability of these systems of aircraft Tu-204, Tu-214.
Rostransnadzor Commission began to work to verify compliance with the requirements of legislation of the airline company CJSC "Red Wings", in accordance with the FZ-294.
Back to news
Join Date: May 2010
Location: -
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently there is more to this accident than it seems.
"it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi."
1) limit switches - ok, we know already that these switches did not work and prevented the brakes and reverse from working.
2) landing gear failures - a better translation would be "landing gear extension and retraction system failures". Did they have problems with landing gear? When? Why? What kind of problems?
3) wing mechanisation - probably means that spoilers did not extend.
4) control of the front landing gear at the taxi - did they try to turn off the runway? how is that possible at this kind of speed? were they completely desperate?
This is frightening news, considering that the information comes from the most official source, the state air transport safety body...
"it was pointed out for immediate action to prevent malfunction of limit switches, landing gear failures, wing mechanisation and control of the front landing gear at the taxi."
1) limit switches - ok, we know already that these switches did not work and prevented the brakes and reverse from working.
2) landing gear failures - a better translation would be "landing gear extension and retraction system failures". Did they have problems with landing gear? When? Why? What kind of problems?
3) wing mechanisation - probably means that spoilers did not extend.
4) control of the front landing gear at the taxi - did they try to turn off the runway? how is that possible at this kind of speed? were they completely desperate?
This is frightening news, considering that the information comes from the most official source, the state air transport safety body...
The news release probably means more to those that can read Russian.
My sense is that they are concerened about multiple failures possibly having contributed. Such combinations typically present gotchas when one or more are hidden (non anunnciated or detectable) until you need their function when something else goes wrong
My sense is that they are concerened about multiple failures possibly having contributed. Such combinations typically present gotchas when one or more are hidden (non anunnciated or detectable) until you need their function when something else goes wrong
Careful with the sequence of photos. In Machaca's superb ones the third and fourth shots, of the after fuselage, are not in sequence: the fourth shows the fuselage very shortly after the crash and the third, later in the day when, presumably, the tail section's been towed aft to make way for rescue workers to enter the main section.
Likewise, the photo Kulverstukas posted from AviaRepair shows the cockpit section upright, after rescue operations, and not as it came to rest initially which seems to have been 90 degrees to port. So the view when rescuers arrived at the cockpit section would have been very different and more confusing.
Likewise, the photo Kulverstukas posted from AviaRepair shows the cockpit section upright, after rescue operations, and not as it came to rest initially which seems to have been 90 degrees to port. So the view when rescuers arrived at the cockpit section would have been very different and more confusing.
Last edited by broadreach; 9th Jan 2013 at 22:37.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yesterday there was breefing at RW and Mamaladse leaked some info at forumavia:
A/c was totaly in order. But...
1) +20 km/h more than MAX laning speed allowed
2) Strong crosswind (possible more than allowed)
3) SOP and FCOM violation
4) Very nervous situation at the cabin from the begining of last flight, because of mistakes made at previous flight.
5) (!) Malpractice to say loud right things but doing wrong - landing speed on approach sounded to the SOP and kept 30-50 km higher, AoA sounded as 5 at pre-landing check but really is 2 and so on...
Limit switches is not the case, they was working but a/c newer touched with all three gears at landig (or more precisely "low flying"). There was 6 touches with left MG, 7 with right and 6 with nose.
Around 25-th (of 39) sec from touchdown at CVR was recorded "Takeoff?!?!" and after that flaps was moved to 18, then, couple seconds before end of the runway - both engines was shut off with emergency valve - there was signal from both MG, automatic engagemet of air brakes and spoilers, but in two seconds starts recorded alternating Ny, which coincides with the exit from the runway. Speed on the treshold was 220 kmh, speed of collision (end of record) - 170 kmh.
1) +20 km/h more than MAX laning speed allowed
2) Strong crosswind (possible more than allowed)
3) SOP and FCOM violation
4) Very nervous situation at the cabin from the begining of last flight, because of mistakes made at previous flight.
5) (!) Malpractice to say loud right things but doing wrong - landing speed on approach sounded to the SOP and kept 30-50 km higher, AoA sounded as 5 at pre-landing check but really is 2 and so on...
Limit switches is not the case, they was working but a/c newer touched with all three gears at landig (or more precisely "low flying"). There was 6 touches with left MG, 7 with right and 6 with nose.
Around 25-th (of 39) sec from touchdown at CVR was recorded "Takeoff?!?!" and after that flaps was moved to 18, then, couple seconds before end of the runway - both engines was shut off with emergency valve - there was signal from both MG, automatic engagemet of air brakes and spoilers, but in two seconds starts recorded alternating Ny, which coincides with the exit from the runway. Speed on the treshold was 220 kmh, speed of collision (end of record) - 170 kmh.
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 12th Jan 2013 at 20:02.
I don't understand the engines being commanded off ?
Were they trying to fly at that instant or stop? If they were trying to stop wouldn't they have been commanding reverse?
Or do I have the timing all wrong? or maybe even the words
Were they trying to fly at that instant or stop? If they were trying to stop wouldn't they have been commanding reverse?
Or do I have the timing all wrong? or maybe even the words
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is hard to believe that they deliberately reported correct numbers for CVR but actual values were very different. And there is written that it is widely (!!!) spread practise at Red Wings... If it is true, it can bring hard measures from Rosaviacia to the company.
Last 8-10s (500m) the aircraft goes on RWY only on the nose gear, sidestick full front. After it, before overrunning the end of RWY, fuel shut-off valves were closed.
The company is owned by Alexander Lebedyev multibilioner and oligarch from times of Yelcin era...
Last 8-10s (500m) the aircraft goes on RWY only on the nose gear, sidestick full front. After it, before overrunning the end of RWY, fuel shut-off valves were closed.
The company is owned by Alexander Lebedyev multibilioner and oligarch from times of Yelcin era...
Last edited by Karel_x; 12th Jan 2013 at 20:31.
Karel X, are you saying that, at the very end of the overshoot area, the aircraft was still only on its nose gear, with the main gear in the air? Does this match with the exit/collision speed of 170kph Kulverstuka's post mentions?
Loma - would not switching off as much as you can, when you're convinced it's going to hit the fan, be a natural reaction?
Loma - would not switching off as much as you can, when you're convinced it's going to hit the fan, be a natural reaction?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
We can only guess... It's possible that after hard landing at PED, caused by F/E used the spoilers, he was told "newer do it again without command" (this is not my, this is one of the versions from russian forum). After "Takeoff!" it's possible again that one was trying to fly (flaps 18) and other to stop (reverse) while third "do nothing without command".
Were they trying to fly at that instant or stop?
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 13th Jan 2013 at 06:48.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of that is in the data. It will be interesting to see if the mains were on the ground. From the nose damage, it looks like the NG collapsed. The video shows a pronounced nose drop, there seem to be no wheel ruts in the terrain, etc.
This accident has all the data to hand; at this point, in its absence, guessing is just that.
This accident has all the data to hand; at this point, in its absence, guessing is just that.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Shangrila
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheelbarrowing Part 2
Aircraft Stopping hangar Talk not on cvr/fdr
1. Reverted rubber hydroplaning.........
2. Dynamic Hydroplaning.......................
3. Viscous hydroplaning ...........
a. Taken from FAA.Gov.
.................." Is due to the viscous properties of water. A thin
film of fluid no more than one thousandth of an inch in depth
is all that is needed. The tire cannot penetrate the fluid and
the tire rolls on top of the film. This can occur at a much lower
speed than dynamic hydroplane, but requires a smooth or
smooth acting surface such as asphalt or a touchdown
area coated with the accumulated rubber of past landings…or oils
from other sources e.g. Asphalt, BE 18’s, etc. (My Input). Such a
a surface can have the same friction coefficient as wet ice."............
4. Matching Tires for dual Wheel Installation
5. Due to a dynamic hysteresis of toe in to toe out. There is an unpredictable issue of hydroplaning that cannot be planned on or designed for.
6. Tire alignment
a. Tire alignment, mechanical/angular difference of trucks, tow-in, tow out, Camber,
b. Tire alignment e.g. Crosswind, crab/yaw, roll axis, pitch, castor.
7. Tire pressure variation
a. Including energy from landing
b. Proper or actual tire inflation
c. Some newer aircraft have pressure indication e.g. 777
d. Tire Failuire
e. Tire missing
8. Wheel barrowing
The combination of excessive forward pressure on the control column during the ground run and high speed can cause the main wheels of some nosewheel aircraft to leave the ground, allowing the aircraft to run along on its nosewheel only. The forward pressure has only to lift tires from effective braking or WOW (weight on wheels) deactivation.
9. Performance Charts/Braking action
10. Antiskid releases per tire
11. FTFT
12. Unlimited retreads
13. Unbalanced including slip tolerance
14. Limitations Mel
a. Tire tread
b. Brake wear
15. Tire temps.
16. Debris
17. Engineered defects (back to alignment problems)
18. Runway Slope/Drainage design and natural settling/puddles/snow/KLGA etc.
19. There is more to list. Above is Tire related.
20. Remember the Braking Action Truck/Vehicle is Calibrated.
We all can learn.
1. Reverted rubber hydroplaning.........
2. Dynamic Hydroplaning.......................
3. Viscous hydroplaning ...........
a. Taken from FAA.Gov.
.................." Is due to the viscous properties of water. A thin
film of fluid no more than one thousandth of an inch in depth
is all that is needed. The tire cannot penetrate the fluid and
the tire rolls on top of the film. This can occur at a much lower
speed than dynamic hydroplane, but requires a smooth or
smooth acting surface such as asphalt or a touchdown
area coated with the accumulated rubber of past landings…or oils
from other sources e.g. Asphalt, BE 18’s, etc. (My Input). Such a
a surface can have the same friction coefficient as wet ice."............
4. Matching Tires for dual Wheel Installation
5. Due to a dynamic hysteresis of toe in to toe out. There is an unpredictable issue of hydroplaning that cannot be planned on or designed for.
6. Tire alignment
a. Tire alignment, mechanical/angular difference of trucks, tow-in, tow out, Camber,
b. Tire alignment e.g. Crosswind, crab/yaw, roll axis, pitch, castor.
7. Tire pressure variation
a. Including energy from landing
b. Proper or actual tire inflation
c. Some newer aircraft have pressure indication e.g. 777
d. Tire Failuire
e. Tire missing
8. Wheel barrowing
The combination of excessive forward pressure on the control column during the ground run and high speed can cause the main wheels of some nosewheel aircraft to leave the ground, allowing the aircraft to run along on its nosewheel only. The forward pressure has only to lift tires from effective braking or WOW (weight on wheels) deactivation.
9. Performance Charts/Braking action
10. Antiskid releases per tire
11. FTFT
12. Unlimited retreads
13. Unbalanced including slip tolerance
14. Limitations Mel
a. Tire tread
b. Brake wear
15. Tire temps.
16. Debris
17. Engineered defects (back to alignment problems)
18. Runway Slope/Drainage design and natural settling/puddles/snow/KLGA etc.
19. There is more to list. Above is Tire related.
20. Remember the Braking Action Truck/Vehicle is Calibrated.
We all can learn.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From forumavia:
Longeron:
Mamaladse:
Longeron:
Throttle was moved to Idle before touchdown, manual spoilers engagement was not done, RCL were immediately moved to the Max Reverse, without intermediate stop. Thrust (direct!) was 90.3/89.4% at the beginning of landing, after second move of RCL up to 84/85%.
Reverse flaps moved to reverse position only after closing of emergency valves.
Reverse flaps moved to reverse position only after closing of emergency valves.
Direct thrust was a result of the wrong ajustment of reverse levers. This time there was no needs to force reverse blocking. Moreover, the same type of wrong adjustment found in 4 other 204 of RW, on a/c owned by other airlines this is not detected
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 13th Jan 2013 at 10:47.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karel X, are you saying that, at the very end of the overshoot area, the aircraft was still only on its nose gear, with the main gear in the air? Does this match with the exit/collision speed of 170kph Kulverstuka's post mentions?
Early in this forum, there are videos of last landing at Pardubice airport. OK, it is little hard (nose wheel "bang"), but it should not be the reason for conflicting or uncooperative atmosphere in the cockpit several hours later. Now it looks like cockpit crew discussion about this irrelevant mistake was the first link in the chain of following fate events.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be getting a bit confused here - probably with the translation difficulties, but can I summarise what we THINK we know?
TU204 crews appear to operate without full harness.
They touched down fast - "20kph over max permitted" or "30/50kph"?? Some serious issues with CRM?
They did not deploy spoilers manually - does that mean they failed on auto?
Apparently lots of hopping around on various legs (due to high touchdown speed?
They selected full reverse without pausing to allow reversers to unlock? This gave around 90% forward thrust? A second reverse selection gave 84% forward? I assume the throttle mechanism had been 'broken' like the previous case.
At around 25 secs someone tried to g/a and reduced flap setting. Other crew may have been trying to stop? Flt Engineer thought to have contributed absolutely nothing to all this.
A/c apparently 'wheelbarrowing' (weight on nosewheel) over the last section of the runway (ie no braking available?) with full 'nose-down command?
A/c exited the hard surface at 220kph and hit the road at 170kph? At runway end both fuel levers were selected off and the reversers appear to have 'deployed'???
I must admit all that leaves me in a state of total confusion and dread! Very little appears to make sense in terms of operating an a/c. Was this a training flight?
Is there any news when a preliminary report will be out? It is surely a blessing that there were no real passengers, just the unfortunate c/crew.
TU204 crews appear to operate without full harness.
They touched down fast - "20kph over max permitted" or "30/50kph"?? Some serious issues with CRM?
They did not deploy spoilers manually - does that mean they failed on auto?
Apparently lots of hopping around on various legs (due to high touchdown speed?
They selected full reverse without pausing to allow reversers to unlock? This gave around 90% forward thrust? A second reverse selection gave 84% forward? I assume the throttle mechanism had been 'broken' like the previous case.
At around 25 secs someone tried to g/a and reduced flap setting. Other crew may have been trying to stop? Flt Engineer thought to have contributed absolutely nothing to all this.
A/c apparently 'wheelbarrowing' (weight on nosewheel) over the last section of the runway (ie no braking available?) with full 'nose-down command?
A/c exited the hard surface at 220kph and hit the road at 170kph? At runway end both fuel levers were selected off and the reversers appear to have 'deployed'???
I must admit all that leaves me in a state of total confusion and dread! Very little appears to make sense in terms of operating an a/c. Was this a training flight?
Is there any news when a preliminary report will be out? It is surely a blessing that there were no real passengers, just the unfortunate c/crew.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to be getting a bit confused here - probably with the translation difficulties, but can I summarise what we THINK we know?
TU204 crews appear to operate without full harness.
They touched down fast - "20kph over max permitted" or "30/50kph"?? Some serious issues with CRM?
They did not deploy spoilers manually - does that mean they failed on auto?
Apparently lots of hopping around on various legs (due to high touchdown speed?
They selected full reverse without pausing to allow reversers to unlock? This gave around 90% forward thrust? A second reverse selection gave 84% forward? I assume the throttle mechanism had been 'broken' like the previous case.
At around 25 secs someone tried to g/a and reduced flap setting. Other crew may have been trying to stop? Flt Engineer thought to have contributed absolutely nothing to all this.
A/c apparently 'wheelbarrowing' (weight on nosewheel) over the last section of the runway (ie no braking available?) with full 'nose-down command?
A/c exited the hard surface at 220kph and hit the road at 170kph? At runway end both fuel levers were selected off and the reversers appear to have 'deployed'???
I must admit all that leaves me in a state of total confusion and dread! Very little appears to make sense in terms of operating an a/c. Was this a training flight?
Is there any news when a preliminary report will be out?
Last edited by Kulverstukas; 13th Jan 2013 at 11:52.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for my runglish
