737-300 runway excursion at Osh, Kyrgyzstan
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-300 runway excursion at Osh, Kyrgyzstan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RVR 50 metres!!
Update on this just released by the Russian CAA…
The crew went around from their first ILS approach due to lack of visual references. They decided to divert to their alternate (i.e. return to Bishkek) but soon after received indications of the failure of the right hand engine combined with the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew shut the right hand engine down and decided to perform an emergency landing in Osh despite weather being below minima.
The aircraft touched down very hard about 1400 meters past the threshold of runway 12, the gear collapsed and the aircraft skidded on its belly and engines to a halt 500 meters further down the runway. The occupants evacuated via slides, 10 occupants received injuries of various degrees, 4 received serious injuries.
Full details here
The heavy landing now seems more understandable if they were trying to shoot an ILS in 50m of fog, engine out and in manual reversion.
The crew went around from their first ILS approach due to lack of visual references. They decided to divert to their alternate (i.e. return to Bishkek) but soon after received indications of the failure of the right hand engine combined with the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew shut the right hand engine down and decided to perform an emergency landing in Osh despite weather being below minima.
The aircraft touched down very hard about 1400 meters past the threshold of runway 12, the gear collapsed and the aircraft skidded on its belly and engines to a halt 500 meters further down the runway. The occupants evacuated via slides, 10 occupants received injuries of various degrees, 4 received serious injuries.
Full details here
The heavy landing now seems more understandable if they were trying to shoot an ILS in 50m of fog, engine out and in manual reversion.
I agree and I suspect that it did not happen. The engine failure maybe but to then be followed by a double hydraulic failure is statistically highly unlikely. I suspect a mis-diagnosis or incorrect reporting.
The plot thickens, this from AvHerald:
On Dec 10th 2015 a reader pointed out a misinterpretration of the Russian original of Dec 7th pointing out that the first approach on the accident flight was not aborted due to lack of visual reference but following a hard touch down on the runway that collapsed the gear. A subsequent remark by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not fully comprehended initially, then makes clear, that the subsequent engine failure and dual hydraulic failure were the result of that first hard touch down and damage received.
On Dec 10th 2015 a reader pointed out a misinterpretration of the Russian original of Dec 7th pointing out that the first approach on the accident flight was not aborted due to lack of visual reference but following a hard touch down on the runway that collapsed the gear. A subsequent remark by Rosaviatsia (CAA), not fully comprehended initially, then makes clear, that the subsequent engine failure and dual hydraulic failure were the result of that first hard touch down and damage received.
Last edited by CaptainSandL; 10th Dec 2015 at 15:40.
Both - there were TWO hard touchdowns.
First hard touchdown led to a rejected landing, and plan to divert, but then damage from that landing resulted in subsequent in-flight engine/hydraulic failure, so they made second (emergency) landing (also hard, breaking gear, sliding off runway) at same airport.
Your confusion understandable, though. An unusual series of events, explained through double translation.
EDIT - actually, it is still unclear to me which of the two landings resulted in the gear failure. Perhaps the 2nd landing, after engine/hyd failures, was a belly-landing.
First hard touchdown led to a rejected landing, and plan to divert, but then damage from that landing resulted in subsequent in-flight engine/hydraulic failure, so they made second (emergency) landing (also hard, breaking gear, sliding off runway) at same airport.
Your confusion understandable, though. An unusual series of events, explained through double translation.
EDIT - actually, it is still unclear to me which of the two landings resulted in the gear failure. Perhaps the 2nd landing, after engine/hyd failures, was a belly-landing.
Flightglobal now reporting a more coherent account of what happened..
Flightglobal Dashboard
Investigators have revealed that a Kyrgyz-operated Boeing 737-300 suffered landing-gear damage in a hard touchdown at Osh before executing a missed approach.
Despite the impact the aircraft became airborne and started diverting to Bishkek but returned to Osh when it began suffering other system failures.
The damage sustained by the undercarriage during the first landing attempt meant the landing-gear subsequently collapsed when the aircraft touched down at Osh for the second time.
Russian air transport regulator Rosaviatsia states that weather conditions at Osh, which has a Category I instrument landing system, were below minima with runway visibility down to just 50m.
it goes on..
Rosaviatsia says the aircraft experienced a rough touchdown and the crew aborted the landing, choosing to divert to Bishkek.
But during the diversion the crew encountered signs of system failure in the starboard CFM International CFM56 engine as well as hydraulic problems.
Rosaviatsia states that the pilots shut down the powerplant and opted to return to Osh for an emergency landing – in spite of the poor weather.
The aircraft suffered a landing-gear failure on touchdown which, says the authority, indicates that the undercarriage had been damaged during the first landing attempt.
Flightglobal Dashboard
Investigators have revealed that a Kyrgyz-operated Boeing 737-300 suffered landing-gear damage in a hard touchdown at Osh before executing a missed approach.
Despite the impact the aircraft became airborne and started diverting to Bishkek but returned to Osh when it began suffering other system failures.
The damage sustained by the undercarriage during the first landing attempt meant the landing-gear subsequently collapsed when the aircraft touched down at Osh for the second time.
Russian air transport regulator Rosaviatsia states that weather conditions at Osh, which has a Category I instrument landing system, were below minima with runway visibility down to just 50m.
it goes on..
Rosaviatsia says the aircraft experienced a rough touchdown and the crew aborted the landing, choosing to divert to Bishkek.
But during the diversion the crew encountered signs of system failure in the starboard CFM International CFM56 engine as well as hydraulic problems.
Rosaviatsia states that the pilots shut down the powerplant and opted to return to Osh for an emergency landing – in spite of the poor weather.
The aircraft suffered a landing-gear failure on touchdown which, says the authority, indicates that the undercarriage had been damaged during the first landing attempt.
Last edited by CaptainSandL; 11th Dec 2015 at 09:45. Reason: Formating
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more coherent
suffered landing-gear damage in a hard touchdown
There are still too many different versions of the accident around to be sure what really happened.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dual hydraulic failure will result in complete loss of:
1. Ground spoilers
2. Inboard flight spoilers
3. Outboard flight spoilers
4. Autopilot A
5. Autopilot B
6. Yaw damper
7. Normal brakes
and
8. Alternate brakes
and together with one engine inoperative, in RVR 50m fog visibility...even if you have operative and good gears, this is CRASH landing!
Only God can save you this day!
Compliments to pilots and eagerly waiting for the report...
1. Ground spoilers
2. Inboard flight spoilers
3. Outboard flight spoilers
4. Autopilot A
5. Autopilot B
6. Yaw damper
7. Normal brakes
and
8. Alternate brakes
and together with one engine inoperative, in RVR 50m fog visibility...even if you have operative and good gears, this is CRASH landing!
Only God can save you this day!
Compliments to pilots and eagerly waiting for the report...
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yaw damper works with the standby hyd system. It's lost when using the A system. Still, the point is moot; more relevant is why the hell they chose to make that first approach which resulted in them crashing on two landings.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity, with a decision height at 161' agl, which I suppose it is on a Boeing 737, how many feet will you stray below that height when commencing a missed approach at it?
Most likely not 161'+ to severely damage your gear, but anyway, what can you expect when handled normally?
Most likely not 161'+ to severely damage your gear, but anyway, what can you expect when handled normally?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If weather at OM was at minimums approach was expected. Now we must wait to find out what was at RA 200ft...
But after GA this is great job!
Nearby Fergana airport (55nm or so) weather was at RVR 1500m, but dont know for weather minimums
edit: Also weather in Osh, when they first goes to alternate Bishkek, was ~ RVR 500m so I think they are conservative and thoughtfull crew
But after GA this is great job!
Nearby Fergana airport (55nm or so) weather was at RVR 1500m, but dont know for weather minimums
edit: Also weather in Osh, when they first goes to alternate Bishkek, was ~ RVR 500m so I think they are conservative and thoughtfull crew
Last edited by Skyspirit; 11th Dec 2015 at 17:27.
While I have no hands-on experience of aircraft maintenance, the appearance of the detached gear leg is not what I would expect to see on an aircraft that had been regularly loved and cared for. Any comments from those who know?
Only half a speed-brake
17 feet seems to ring a bell from an LVP course long time ago. Currently rated 737 driver required to confirm, minimum approach break-off height is the name.
fd.
fd.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 12th Dec 2015 at 08:49.