Aircraft Crash in Moscow
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rog747 - slippery
Apologies for my colleague's rudeness. Slippery? Yes, it is. Not difficult, just very different and, when empty I have always felt it was more like a butterfly than an aeroplane. If, in the incident under discussion, the runway slope was now going downhill, I can imagine that the T204 (if it is indeed like the 75) might have been feeling for the ground and feeling for the ground and feeling .... oops, too late!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: est
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by liider
Landing on 20.10.2012 in Novosibirsk Tu-204 "Red Wings" RA-64049, 60 pax + 10 crew:
Touchdown somewhere in the middle of 3600m runway - WOW switch on the left main gear is frozen, so reversers don't deploy. PNF continues to pull reverse lever to MAX REVERSE and applies so many force, that brakes the mechanical part, which blocks the engine power from rising higher than IDLE, when reverse is deployed. The power on one of the engine rises up to 86% MAX. Flight engineer doesn't notice that reverse not deployed and the rising of one of the engines' power. PF all the time applies all brakes, including parking brake. Aircraft stopped 300-350m after the runway threshold in deep snow with all wheels damaged.
This time not so lucky.
Touchdown somewhere in the middle of 3600m runway - WOW switch on the left main gear is frozen, so reversers don't deploy. PNF continues to pull reverse lever to MAX REVERSE and applies so many force, that brakes the mechanical part, which blocks the engine power from rising higher than IDLE, when reverse is deployed. The power on one of the engine rises up to 86% MAX. Flight engineer doesn't notice that reverse not deployed and the rising of one of the engines' power. PF all the time applies all brakes, including parking brake. Aircraft stopped 300-350m after the runway threshold in deep snow with all wheels damaged.
This time not so lucky.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the reason i back away from brakes and reverse problems now is the velocity at impact. Big brakes would not have stopped this overrun, so cannot blame brakes, not entirely, nor reverse. I think a dive to touchdown, (hurry, get down)
Then float, as prober says.....if you want to hurry the TD, go around.
Then float, as prober says.....if you want to hurry the TD, go around.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On some Russian sites they show a diagram where this aircraft was when flaring. Apparently it was still about 50 ft up when 2000 ft down range from the threshold. If this is true they had little chance regardless if their brakes functioned properly.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5625/...eb_e6a94bf_XXL
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5625/...eb_e6a94bf_XXL
There has to be more to this than faulty brakes / reversers.
A light 757 touches down at approx 125 knots. Assuming similar figures for this a/c how the hell did it manage to vacate the end of a 3000+ meter runway at 100 ish knots?
A light 757 touches down at approx 125 knots. Assuming similar figures for this a/c how the hell did it manage to vacate the end of a 3000+ meter runway at 100 ish knots?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
olasek, from the spot pointed on this picture to the treshold of rwy is good 2300 m. Is it too short for Tu-204?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, he allegedly was still in the air (50 ft) at this point so yes, amount of pavement left will be an issue.
A least in the US a commercial aircraft must touch down no more than 1/3 runway length down range, otherwise pilot's basic airmanship can be questioned.
A least in the US a commercial aircraft must touch down no more than 1/3 runway length down range, otherwise pilot's basic airmanship can be questioned.
Last edited by olasek; 30th Dec 2012 at 19:16.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mansfield, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody think the aircraft's ground speed looked particularly abnormal from the FR24 recording? At 1800ft (1115ft above runway) the ground speed was 131kt, at 1000ft (315ft above runway) the ground speed was 143kt. Unless there was suddenly a hefty tailwind is there any other reason for a sudden 12kt increase?
Last edited by TCAS_Alert; 30th Dec 2012 at 20:15.
Quote:
So at very worst here the touchdown would be some 700-800m in. This would still allow 2000m plus to stop the aircraft. Something doesn't quite add up.
Be that as it may, passing the last touchdown marker at 50 feet and not going around...
So at very worst here the touchdown would be some 700-800m in. This would still allow 2000m plus to stop the aircraft. Something doesn't quite add up.
Be that as it may, passing the last touchdown marker at 50 feet and not going around...
the image of the aircraft in the late approach has it approaching the 500' markers, and yes it is slightly high, but the crew are adjusting the flightpath. with a normal flare, the aircraft would be touching down in the normal touchdown zone, albeit on the long side but within the first 3000' or 1/3rd of the runway. It's height is around 10-12m, whereas it would normally be around 5m at that point and already in a flare, or without flare, it would be around 2-3m. AOTBI, the plane is going to touch down around 1700' into the runway, or slightly further down if the flare has errors. While it may not be pretty, or optimal, it is not out of the bounds of a reasonable approach.
Aviation is a risk management exercise as is life in general. It is not reasonable for the crew to have to have precognition of abnormal system operation that may affect an off nominal operation that is otherwise acceptable. A normal healthy deceleration rate is in the order of 0.2-0.3g, and at the speed this aircraft has gone off the end, it was slated to go off the end in all cases, the only difference of an early touchdown would have been a lower speed at the off. the residual speed is high enough that it is questionable whether there would have been any difference in the outcome, i.e., would the aircraft had stopped in the overrun before entering the tank trap...
Put this in perspective, the approach is still more stable than AF's A340 off at Lester B., by a lot. Having spent a fair bit of time looking at QAR exceedences and events, I would not get too excited about the touchdown on the basis of a single photo, in the absence of the DFDR.
On some Russian sites they show a diagram where this aircraft was when flaring. Apparently it was still about 50 ft up when 2000 ft down range from the threshold. If this is true they had little chance regardless if their brakes functioned properly.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5625/...eb_e6a94bf_XXL
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5625/...eb_e6a94bf_XXL
If this is based on the photo, russianplanes.net - it is just wrong, a simple look at google maps shows that the distance markers are those of the 500', look at the rwy lights, they show up well, and are still in front of the aircrafts nose at this point.
As far as being 50' up at this, point, the aircraft stands 45' 7" high when on the ground.... (on slightly compressed/untilted gear) so it is definitely well less than that above the center line marking of the runway, and that is before the 500' markings.
Last edited by fdr; 31st Dec 2012 at 00:10.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the plane is going to touch down around 1700' into the runway, or slightly further down if the flare has errors. While it may not be pretty, or optimal, it is not out of the bounds of a reasonable approach.
Last edited by olasek; 31st Dec 2012 at 00:39.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An "interesting" landing found on YT. Same a/c type, same RWY...
Looking at the diagrams and pictures, this runway's RSA does not seem to be at least 1000ft. FAA regs would require EMAS if it could not provide at least 1000ft RSA. This has been written in blood, many times over, why disregard it?
Russia can not seem to get out of this airline accident rut it seems to stay in year after year. You have to question weather a proper safety culture can prosper in the place. I don't think the equipment is the problem, I think mindset and culture need to change before anything improves.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Age: 51
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an observer but need to point out.....
"landed on Vnukovo's runway 19 (length 3,060 meters/10,040 feet) within the designated touch down zone at 16:29L (12:29Z) "
Quoted from Accident: Red Wings T204 at Moscow on Dec 29th 2012, overran runway on landing
From a partially educated point of view - what could be a chain of events that led to a overun before a call for toga ?
Apart from the obvious of get down itis ?
"landed on Vnukovo's runway 19 (length 3,060 meters/10,040 feet) within the designated touch down zone at 16:29L (12:29Z) "
Quoted from Accident: Red Wings T204 at Moscow on Dec 29th 2012, overran runway on landing
From a partially educated point of view - what could be a chain of events that led to a overun before a call for toga ?
Apart from the obvious of get down itis ?
It all depends what speed it had when this "long" touch down occurred. Because as the video on YT shows (same aircraft type, same airline) the aircraft carries so much extra speed that it bounces, it floats, doesn't want to "stick" to the pavement so you have the chain affect of speed brakes, brakes and everything else not engaging because of (what effectively was) a poorly executed approach. Makes you wonder if pilots even bothered to compute Vref. Long touchdown by itself may not be out-of-bounds yet but combined with excess energy and it may very well put you outside of the limits.
really? The aircraft has descended between the two images taken of it, and the later image has a slight negative pitch angle, vs a slight positive pitch in the first image. For a given speed off target, there is a change in body angle required to achieve a given flight path angle... works out at about 1 degree per 5 kts... unless you change the CL/AoA slope by some other means. Works pretty much for any large aircraft, even TU204's. So assuming that the aircraft is still going anywhere near the ground, then they are not greatly over the target speed at all. IMHO. Forgive me, have only been doing flight path reconstruction for 35 years so would humbly bow to your inside knowledge that the crew did not, whatever you are saying... Suggest you wait until the data is recovered before criticising the recently deceased.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggest you wait until the data is recovered before criticising
I was not criticizing anybody, just merely showing how it could have happened.
I find claims of estimating aircraft speed based on angles from photos simply ludicrous, first of all there is so much unknown in the aircraft weight that even if you get angles right and avoid all errors inherent in photos your results may still be bogus. As to my own private suspicions I do have doubts about performance of the crew based on similar past landings of this airline/aircraft.
Last edited by olasek; 31st Dec 2012 at 04:54.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIEFR - Journalists may know sweet FA about what they write about. And their ethics are often questionable. But they do have a role (and a responsibility) to record and document significant events. Its part of the role they are supposed to play. (Although I can see your point also).
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fdr
I too took notice of the attitude change in the image couplet. I hesitate to infer speed or rate of pitch decrease. However, to see a decrease in Pitch at this point in the landing is strange. I consider it possible that the crew are trying to 'plant' the a/c, dive at the TD point. That is a mistake, so would be doubtful. Wind shear was not reported and the bank is neutral.
What do you make of the velocity at the impact point? I tentatively put it at 100 knots, though that is a soft number. Possible they initiated a very late attempt to GA? Had they applied thrust at any time, and not met minimum energy to rotate, or rotated early, well, that would be the ball game. As with most accidents, there will be a chain that makes all clear, but only with time and analysis.
Regards
I too took notice of the attitude change in the image couplet. I hesitate to infer speed or rate of pitch decrease. However, to see a decrease in Pitch at this point in the landing is strange. I consider it possible that the crew are trying to 'plant' the a/c, dive at the TD point. That is a mistake, so would be doubtful. Wind shear was not reported and the bank is neutral.
What do you make of the velocity at the impact point? I tentatively put it at 100 knots, though that is a soft number. Possible they initiated a very late attempt to GA? Had they applied thrust at any time, and not met minimum energy to rotate, or rotated early, well, that would be the ball game. As with most accidents, there will be a chain that makes all clear, but only with time and analysis.
Regards