TU154 out of Sochi is missing.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earlier post showed the " not ready for T/O" config warning.. Wondering, is it possible for it to test OK but not function properly? ... It might explain the "flaps" comment previous pages if, say, they reached up to raise the gear and saw the flap lever incorrectly positioned....
I'm wondering if the flight profile here might be similar to the Northwest DC9 in Romulus Michigan...
I'm wondering if the flight profile here might be similar to the Northwest DC9 in Romulus Michigan...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're looking at a double failure there. Firstly the crew not configuring properly, then the warning not working. Unlikely IMO
TOCW
I'm not promoting any theory whatsoever on this TU-154 accident but, FWIW, over the generations of jet airliners some T/O config warnings have been better than others - both in terms of the parameters covered and the method of detection. They all try to monitor the deployment of high-lift devices, of course.
On the B707 (first flight 1955), a first-generation jet, the system looked only at the position of the flight-crew's selector lever. The single lever controlled the trailing-edge flaps and the so-called leading-edge devices (Krueger flaps).
On the VC10 (first flight 1962), a second-generation jet which was outlived in service by the B707, the T/O config warning system used sensors on the leading-edge slats and the trailing-edge flaps themselves.
On early B747s (first-flight 1969) the extension of the leading-edge slats was not locally monitored by the T/O config warning, That, and crew error, led to a fatal accident in 1974:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19741120-0
None of the above systems monitored the degree of slat or flap extension, which on most aeroplanes is variable to suit the conditions.
Where does the TU-154 (first flight 1968) fit into this pattern of development?
On the B707 (first flight 1955), a first-generation jet, the system looked only at the position of the flight-crew's selector lever. The single lever controlled the trailing-edge flaps and the so-called leading-edge devices (Krueger flaps).
On the VC10 (first flight 1962), a second-generation jet which was outlived in service by the B707, the T/O config warning system used sensors on the leading-edge slats and the trailing-edge flaps themselves.
On early B747s (first-flight 1969) the extension of the leading-edge slats was not locally monitored by the T/O config warning, That, and crew error, led to a fatal accident in 1974:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19741120-0
None of the above systems monitored the degree of slat or flap extension, which on most aeroplanes is variable to suit the conditions.
Where does the TU-154 (first flight 1968) fit into this pattern of development?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 56
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Pali;9624629]70 seconds duration illustrated here.]
Pali, your investigation is wrong because of wrong runway. They departed runway 24
Pali, your investigation is wrong because of wrong runway. They departed runway 24
Last edited by Anvaldra; 30th Dec 2016 at 20:26.
As usual, there is not much signal yet and quite a lot of noise. However, if we take the maximum altitude and speed figures quoted by RT as reliable, we can discount the possibility of too low config takeoff. If one tries that stunt, trouble begins as the aeroplane is leaving the ground effect, at about half the wingspan height. 250 m or about 800 ft is unobtainable, unless one is very lucky Argentinian flying OE registered Super80.
Everything I have flown in recent decade and half fits into "western built L2T" category and while procedures might be different from Russian military's, my lowest all engine acceleration height was 800 ft and if there is trouble during cleaning up, aeroplane would definitively climb above that before hell breaking loose.
If it were my due to place bet now, I'd put my money on the tired pilot monitoring pulling the flaps lever to zero instead of gear up.
Could someone with Tu-154 experience comment on how easy it is to move flaps lever all the way up and how difficult it is for the pilot in the LHS to reach the gear handle, пожалуйста?
Everything I have flown in recent decade and half fits into "western built L2T" category and while procedures might be different from Russian military's, my lowest all engine acceleration height was 800 ft and if there is trouble during cleaning up, aeroplane would definitively climb above that before hell breaking loose.
If it were my due to place bet now, I'd put my money on the tired pilot monitoring pulling the flaps lever to zero instead of gear up.
Could someone with Tu-154 experience comment on how easy it is to move flaps lever all the way up and how difficult it is for the pilot in the LHS to reach the gear handle, пожалуйста?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you operating in combat zone the normal procedure is to go as high as possible as fast as possible.
Especially when most of the pax were members of a choir, and some journalists.
Not infantry or paratroopers. Nor military brass to impress with a steep takeoff profile.
Just seems common sense.
However, I defer to those with the experience I lack.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am kinda sure the captain mindset was already "switched" to Latakia take-off and landing.
It's nonsense, a TU154 doesn't light up like a bird and blast off on afterburners like stuff off an aircraft carrier.
Like it or not, it was full of a load of singers.
Nobody needing to be impressed at all in some ordinary airport in Sochi, just not expecting to be tipped suddenly into the sea & fed to the fish, a few days from the new year's parties.
Frankly, some of the speculation here has got out of hand.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 56
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, there is not much signal yet and quite a lot of noise. However, if we take the maximum altitude and speed figures quoted by RT as reliable, we can discount the possibility of too low config takeoff. If one tries that stunt, trouble begins as the aeroplane is leaving the ground effect, at about half the wingspan height. 250 m or about 800 ft is unobtainable, unless one is very lucky Argentinian flying OE registered Super80.
Everything I have flown in recent decade and half fits into "western built L2T" category and while procedures might be different from Russian military's, my lowest all engine acceleration height was 800 ft and if there is trouble during cleaning up, aeroplane would definitively climb above that before hell breaking loose.
If it were my due to place bet now, I'd put my money on the tired pilot monitoring pulling the flaps lever to zero instead of gear up.
Could someone with Tu-154 experience comment on how easy it is to move flaps lever all the way up and how difficult it is for the pilot in the LHS to reach the gear handle, пожалуйста?
Everything I have flown in recent decade and half fits into "western built L2T" category and while procedures might be different from Russian military's, my lowest all engine acceleration height was 800 ft and if there is trouble during cleaning up, aeroplane would definitively climb above that before hell breaking loose.
If it were my due to place bet now, I'd put my money on the tired pilot monitoring pulling the flaps lever to zero instead of gear up.
Could someone with Tu-154 experience comment on how easy it is to move flaps lever all the way up and how difficult it is for the pilot in the LHS to reach the gear handle, пожалуйста?
Could someone with Tu-154 experience comment on how easy it is to move flaps lever all the way up and how difficult it is for the pilot in the LHS to reach the gear handle, пожалуйста?
The very idea that the flaps were moved instead of the gear is quite unlikely. The gear goes up the moment positive rate is verified, so very early. Flaps retraction is later than 70 secs from brake release or even from lift off. In order to be safe, you need at least 400 km/h for clean config, something they never got close to.
The one pic shown earlier here does indeed suggest the flaps were up at impact, but apparently so was the gear (judging by another pic). So assuming for a moment that this CVR leak is true, it looks to me as if they completed gear retraction on schedule and then all of a sudden someone noted something they did not expect was happening to the flaps. In this situation, if the flaps retract prematurely, it would be very difficult to impossible to recover the plane, no height to give up to get the speed.
I am really curious to see the final results of that FDR and CVR, also it would be very interesting to see in what position the flaps lever was found if it was found at all.
Re Take off config warning, it is quite complex. I can't remember all of it, but a LOT of stuff has to be set correctly before the red light in front of the pilots goes out. Flaps, Slats and spoilers are certainly part of it.
In this case the average speed for 70 seconds flight from the runway threshold or let's say distance of 3.600m doesn't make sense.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would be very interesting to see in what position the flaps lever was found if it was found at all.
For those concerned that the wreckage in the first photo above is being dumped on the apron right in front of the airport terminal, the "Passenger Terminal" there is the Sochi cruise ship terminal, probably in winter shutdown.
Originally Posted by fox niner
What happened to those fan blades?