TU154 out of Sochi is missing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a compressor disc, the damage is consistent with the engine producing power at a high setting at time of impact. The damage was caused by fragments of earlier stages and possibly other wreckage ingested by the still running engine.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All speculation seems to be focused on crew error. Early reports have stated sequence as technical malfunction first and pilot error second.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sweden
Age: 83
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not an easy question... Actually your question is impossible to answer. Why? Here is what Wiki has to say about take-off speed:
The takeoff speed required varies with air density, aircraft gross weight, lift coefficient, and aircraft configuration (flap or slat position, as applicable). Air density is affected by factors such as field elevation and air temperature. This relationship between temperature, altitude, and air density can be expressed as a density altitude, or the altitude in the International Standard Atmosphere at which the air density would be equal to the actual air density.
Operations with transport category aircraft employ the concept of the takeoff V-Speeds, V1, VR and V2. These speeds are determined not only by the above factors affecting takeoff performance, but also by the length and slope of the runway and any peculiar conditions, such as obstacles off the end of the runway. Below V1, in case of critical failures, the takeoff should be aborted; above V1 the pilot continues the takeoff and returns for landing. After the co-pilot calls V1, he/she will call VR or "rotate," marking speed at which to rotate the aircraft. The VR for transport category aircraft is calculated such as to allow the aircraft to reach the regulatory screen height at V2 with one engine failed. Then, V2 (the safe takeoff speed) is called. This speed must be maintained after an engine failure to meet performance targets for rate of climb and angle of climb. ....You see?
The takeoff speed required varies with air density, aircraft gross weight, lift coefficient, and aircraft configuration (flap or slat position, as applicable). Air density is affected by factors such as field elevation and air temperature. This relationship between temperature, altitude, and air density can be expressed as a density altitude, or the altitude in the International Standard Atmosphere at which the air density would be equal to the actual air density.
Operations with transport category aircraft employ the concept of the takeoff V-Speeds, V1, VR and V2. These speeds are determined not only by the above factors affecting takeoff performance, but also by the length and slope of the runway and any peculiar conditions, such as obstacles off the end of the runway. Below V1, in case of critical failures, the takeoff should be aborted; above V1 the pilot continues the takeoff and returns for landing. After the co-pilot calls V1, he/she will call VR or "rotate," marking speed at which to rotate the aircraft. The VR for transport category aircraft is calculated such as to allow the aircraft to reach the regulatory screen height at V2 with one engine failed. Then, V2 (the safe takeoff speed) is called. This speed must be maintained after an engine failure to meet performance targets for rate of climb and angle of climb. ....You see?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting research paper by Jorgensen published post the Smolensk crash, it may be read at:
http://konferencjasmolenska.pl/mater...6jorgensen.pdf
Considering the analysis set out in this paper I would be inclined to suggest that the so called technical failure points towards slats/flaps. I cannot conceive any other reason or cause for loss of lift at this particular phase of flight.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South Africa
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kulverstukas
You have send me a chart in Russian. Thank you. I assume the left column is max take off based on my limited understanding of Russian. Vr,V2 and Vref i understand, where is V1, the point where you decide to continue the take off or abort the takeoff? Please just trying to understand Russian Philosophy.
You have send me a chart in Russian. Thank you. I assume the left column is max take off based on my limited understanding of Russian. Vr,V2 and Vref i understand, where is V1, the point where you decide to continue the take off or abort the takeoff? Please just trying to understand Russian Philosophy.
Markdp -
V1 simply means the maximum speed the aircraft can accelerate to and then stop, so, on any type, it depends on variables such as the runway length, aircraft configuration, aircraft weight, and the weather.
It's not a fixed value; it's calculated for each departure.
V1 simply means the maximum speed the aircraft can accelerate to and then stop, so, on any type, it depends on variables such as the runway length, aircraft configuration, aircraft weight, and the weather.
It's not a fixed value; it's calculated for each departure.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tarq57 : That was not what Markdp asked . In the chart there is no V1.
Without flaps the speeds here look like those of Concorde !
Impressive chart by the way. 100 Kmh difference between Flaps 0 and 28 .
Without flaps the speeds here look like those of Concorde !
Impressive chart by the way. 100 Kmh difference between Flaps 0 and 28 .
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Kulverstukas .
While I have you , I would like to thank you for your always informative and very educative posts here on Russian Aviation. You are a real asset to this Forum !
While I have you , I would like to thank you for your always informative and very educative posts here on Russian Aviation. You are a real asset to this Forum !
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Translated from AFM for Tu-154B:
- Cpt commands for gears up at 5-10m
- Accelerating to 320-330 km/h, at minimum hight 120m, Cpt orders flap retracting. He should decrease AoA so the plane accelerate up to 380-400km/h at the moment of full retracting 0° (for 100t TOW the minimum safe speed for 0° is approx 370km/h).
- F/o should report: Flaps and slats retracted, stabilizer 0°
- In standard mode, from 28 to 15° no change of slats and HS is provided, from 15 to 0° slats and HS are moved automatically
- Cpt commands for gears up at 5-10m
- Accelerating to 320-330 km/h, at minimum hight 120m, Cpt orders flap retracting. He should decrease AoA so the plane accelerate up to 380-400km/h at the moment of full retracting 0° (for 100t TOW the minimum safe speed for 0° is approx 370km/h).
- F/o should report: Flaps and slats retracted, stabilizer 0°
- In standard mode, from 28 to 15° no change of slats and HS is provided, from 15 to 0° slats and HS are moved automatically
Last edited by Karel_x; 2nd Jan 2017 at 11:18.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kulverstukas
Thankyou very much for your great contributions to this thread! Very informative and lots of insight gained from you. Much appreciated! Always looking forward to your posts.
I would also extend my thankyou to Karel_x who also manage to add new and interesting information on a regular basis.
Safe landings for both of you!
Thankyou very much for your great contributions to this thread! Very informative and lots of insight gained from you. Much appreciated! Always looking forward to your posts.
I would also extend my thankyou to Karel_x who also manage to add new and interesting information on a regular basis.
Safe landings for both of you!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubts...
Yesterday, arriving in Barajas Airport (MAD) met a Russian old friend, pilot now retired.
Taking a coffee, asked him about his glances in the TU-154 crash out of Sochi.
Besides he was an IL (Ilushin) specialist, he's been formed in Soviet (jet-era) air-industry so he's used to the construction philosophy that aimed those decades (mainly the 60s and 70s).
First, he's been very DIRECT on one subject: that is very "complicated" to misconfigure a Russian old bird for the TO protocol. He insisted on this: there are lots of procedures, one linked to the other that makes a couple of professionals make a stound mistake of fatal consequences almost impossible.
And added: "take a look at some crash record of Russian ACs and see how many crashed on TOs and how many the further investigation determined it was caused by an erroneous configuration for TO".
BTW: TU-154 is NOT my favourite plane to fly -as passenger, I mean- but have to admit it looks elegant and strong in its rather "old" lines.
So I took some time to investigate about TU-154 stats.
Registered out of the production line are +/- 1030 units during the almost 40 years of prod.
Is one of the fastest civilian jets ever made (up to 990 km/h at cruise level)
Important accidents involving this AC: +/- 30.
This meaning: the qualifying as "accident" vary with interpretations.
First conclusion: it's a very safe bird, with a rate of -3 to -4 %, which is NOT BAD. Same safety figures shared with European and American ACs.
Now come some interesting details.
- I've found ONLY ONE accident developed in TO procedure. Was due to possible windshear & thermal currents which led to an early stall in an extremely hot environment (Aeroflot 4225).
- One went down due to RADAR FAILURE.
- ONE after ATC went asleep and pilot didn't know there were maintenance vehicles on the runway.
- One after a severe ENGINE FIRE.
- One on approach due to cargo overweight and further disbalance.
- One hijacked andc then "shot-up-to-swisscheese" after a "regular" landing.
- One that stalled at FL380, followed by bad crew operations due to a very scarce instruction by the builder/airline (Aeroflot 7425)
- One on approach, found severe winshear and failed the horizontal stabilizer.
- One with a severe electrical failure (no crash, no injuries).
- One after TO (yes, but...) the crew IGNORED warning ligths telling problems to eng #2 believing the SYSTEM WAS WORKING BADLY and decided to take-off. Period.
- One run out of fuel. Crashed in bad-foggy weather in Libya.
- One "in flight" due to a FIRE in the tail section followed by a lack of control.
- One (another) during TO, but... This is Cubana de Aviación, Flight 389 from Quito to Guayaquil. After TWO rejected TOs, the stone-headed PiC decided for a third intent in which the crew FORGOT to select the hydraulic valves switches, with the result of a failed TO, runway excursion and a general disaster in a close to the airport neigbourhood. Avoidable and
- One crashing during approach, possible bad maintenance of the whole AC.
- One "in flight" due to AP malfunction after a sequence of strong vibrations during more than 15 minutes.
- One in flight with no causes found.
- One down after an unrecoverable spiral while in cruise at FL380.
- One that caught FIRE before TO (only two dead of a total of 160)
- One possibly gunned close to Lebanon coast.
- One made a bad approach under extreme Wx conditions (Polish AF plane near Smolensk).
- One that supposedly was flying above recommended cruise-ceiling, had a stall, then a flat spin. Possible crew overlooked the controls of the AC.
- One down after a blast (explosives, intentional) on board.
- One shot down by a military S-200 (Ukraine).
- One "destroyed" on landing. Had a strong tail strike but were no injuries, no dead.
- One deployed very bad approach procedures with the following crash. No survivors.
- One stalled fatally on approach.
- One crashed on a mountain top after a sequence of crew's small navigation errors.
- One crashed after TWO ENGINES failed after TO, then the THIRD. Possibly bird ingestion by fans.
- TWO TU-154s went down after MID-AIR collisions.
.......
And now we come back to present: my Russian friend told me that's not very understandable that a professional and experienced military pilot and his FO (supposedly also experienced and skilled enough to co-fly this bird) make a BAD CONFIGURATION FOR TAKE OFF in a Tu-154.
Asked if was a possibility the mentioned confusion of levers (flaps/gear), he doubted energically.
Taking a coffee, asked him about his glances in the TU-154 crash out of Sochi.
Besides he was an IL (Ilushin) specialist, he's been formed in Soviet (jet-era) air-industry so he's used to the construction philosophy that aimed those decades (mainly the 60s and 70s).
First, he's been very DIRECT on one subject: that is very "complicated" to misconfigure a Russian old bird for the TO protocol. He insisted on this: there are lots of procedures, one linked to the other that makes a couple of professionals make a stound mistake of fatal consequences almost impossible.
And added: "take a look at some crash record of Russian ACs and see how many crashed on TOs and how many the further investigation determined it was caused by an erroneous configuration for TO".
BTW: TU-154 is NOT my favourite plane to fly -as passenger, I mean- but have to admit it looks elegant and strong in its rather "old" lines.
So I took some time to investigate about TU-154 stats.
Registered out of the production line are +/- 1030 units during the almost 40 years of prod.
Is one of the fastest civilian jets ever made (up to 990 km/h at cruise level)
Important accidents involving this AC: +/- 30.
This meaning: the qualifying as "accident" vary with interpretations.
First conclusion: it's a very safe bird, with a rate of -3 to -4 %, which is NOT BAD. Same safety figures shared with European and American ACs.
Now come some interesting details.
- I've found ONLY ONE accident developed in TO procedure. Was due to possible windshear & thermal currents which led to an early stall in an extremely hot environment (Aeroflot 4225).
- One went down due to RADAR FAILURE.
- ONE after ATC went asleep and pilot didn't know there were maintenance vehicles on the runway.
- One after a severe ENGINE FIRE.
- One on approach due to cargo overweight and further disbalance.
- One hijacked andc then "shot-up-to-swisscheese" after a "regular" landing.
- One that stalled at FL380, followed by bad crew operations due to a very scarce instruction by the builder/airline (Aeroflot 7425)
- One on approach, found severe winshear and failed the horizontal stabilizer.
- One with a severe electrical failure (no crash, no injuries).
- One after TO (yes, but...) the crew IGNORED warning ligths telling problems to eng #2 believing the SYSTEM WAS WORKING BADLY and decided to take-off. Period.
- One run out of fuel. Crashed in bad-foggy weather in Libya.
- One "in flight" due to a FIRE in the tail section followed by a lack of control.
- One (another) during TO, but... This is Cubana de Aviación, Flight 389 from Quito to Guayaquil. After TWO rejected TOs, the stone-headed PiC decided for a third intent in which the crew FORGOT to select the hydraulic valves switches, with the result of a failed TO, runway excursion and a general disaster in a close to the airport neigbourhood. Avoidable and
- One crashing during approach, possible bad maintenance of the whole AC.
- One "in flight" due to AP malfunction after a sequence of strong vibrations during more than 15 minutes.
- One in flight with no causes found.
- One down after an unrecoverable spiral while in cruise at FL380.
- One that caught FIRE before TO (only two dead of a total of 160)
- One possibly gunned close to Lebanon coast.
- One made a bad approach under extreme Wx conditions (Polish AF plane near Smolensk).
- One that supposedly was flying above recommended cruise-ceiling, had a stall, then a flat spin. Possible crew overlooked the controls of the AC.
- One down after a blast (explosives, intentional) on board.
- One shot down by a military S-200 (Ukraine).
- One "destroyed" on landing. Had a strong tail strike but were no injuries, no dead.
- One deployed very bad approach procedures with the following crash. No survivors.
- One stalled fatally on approach.
- One crashed on a mountain top after a sequence of crew's small navigation errors.
- One crashed after TWO ENGINES failed after TO, then the THIRD. Possibly bird ingestion by fans.
- TWO TU-154s went down after MID-AIR collisions.
.......
And now we come back to present: my Russian friend told me that's not very understandable that a professional and experienced military pilot and his FO (supposedly also experienced and skilled enough to co-fly this bird) make a BAD CONFIGURATION FOR TAKE OFF in a Tu-154.
Asked if was a possibility the mentioned confusion of levers (flaps/gear), he doubted energically.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of this talk about lever confusion...
I googled "tu 154 cockpit" and found the following. Images are too large to insert here I think, so I'll link them instead. Maybe someone wants to educate the plebs about what lever is where...
Slovak Gouvernment Tu154M OM-BYO interior, modernised:
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...IMG_7488-2.jpg
Photograph from Aleksandr Markin of a Tu154M, featured on Wikipedia:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/331041...36610/sizes/o/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...926436610).jpg
Here is also a video from a Tu154M takeoff in 1991 operated by Malev. Various levers can be seen at 0:28:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1izgC0FMHiw
I googled "tu 154 cockpit" and found the following. Images are too large to insert here I think, so I'll link them instead. Maybe someone wants to educate the plebs about what lever is where...
Slovak Gouvernment Tu154M OM-BYO interior, modernised:
http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-co...IMG_7488-2.jpg
Photograph from Aleksandr Markin of a Tu154M, featured on Wikipedia:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/331041...36610/sizes/o/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...926436610).jpg
Here is also a video from a Tu154M takeoff in 1991 operated by Malev. Various levers can be seen at 0:28:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1izgC0FMHiw
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what lever is where...
Gears: overhead panel, right hand.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9621956
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post, thank you.
It was almost exactly what I previously said, "something doesn't add up".
I think I flew on that Malev a/c in 1988 from CDG.
It was the 1st time on a TU154B,- quite unforgettable.
With respect, you omitted the various accidents with the TU134,which is an extremely similar a/c albeit with only 2 engines, somewhat smaller, but also good safety record.
The most recent disasters which stick in the mind,
UTAir flight 471 Samara, landed 400m short of runway, failed to communicate/compensate for poor weather+ATC failures, 6 killed.
Pilot error
20 June 2011 Flight 9605, Petrozavodsk - CFIT landing. 47 dead. - ?mistook road for runway.
Pilot error
28 December 2011 OSH hard landing (over 2.5G!).
Crew not competent.
It was almost exactly what I previously said, "something doesn't add up".
I think I flew on that Malev a/c in 1988 from CDG.
It was the 1st time on a TU154B,- quite unforgettable.
With respect, you omitted the various accidents with the TU134,which is an extremely similar a/c albeit with only 2 engines, somewhat smaller, but also good safety record.
The most recent disasters which stick in the mind,
UTAir flight 471 Samara, landed 400m short of runway, failed to communicate/compensate for poor weather+ATC failures, 6 killed.
Pilot error
20 June 2011 Flight 9605, Petrozavodsk - CFIT landing. 47 dead. - ?mistook road for runway.
Pilot error
28 December 2011 OSH hard landing (over 2.5G!).
Crew not competent.
Last edited by up_down_n_out; 2nd Jan 2017 at 18:48.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you omitted the various accidents with the TU134,which is an extremely similar a/c albeit with only 2 engines
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 69
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tu-154 Crashes
"With respect, you omitted the various accidents with the TU134,which is an extremely similar a/c albeit with only 2 engines, somewhat smaller, but also good safety record."
When made the list of Tu-154 crashes selected the most "significant", just to make it readable-non-bothering. And to remark the almost nil presence of "immediate-to-TO" crashes.
And the stats ARE about Tu-154. If I had to add "precursors" and "similars", list would be endless.
As far as I remember, Tu-154 wasn't a follower of any type.
It was drawn from the beginning after a B-727 "inspiration", but from zero... There are many tales about some blue-prints that went from Seattle to Basmanny...
And, BTW, the accidents you mention (3), AREN'T during TO procedures.
I agree with you. It's difficult to make a configuration mistake in a so "analogic" AC.
Time and investigation will tell us...
When made the list of Tu-154 crashes selected the most "significant", just to make it readable-non-bothering. And to remark the almost nil presence of "immediate-to-TO" crashes.
And the stats ARE about Tu-154. If I had to add "precursors" and "similars", list would be endless.
As far as I remember, Tu-154 wasn't a follower of any type.
It was drawn from the beginning after a B-727 "inspiration", but from zero... There are many tales about some blue-prints that went from Seattle to Basmanny...
And, BTW, the accidents you mention (3), AREN'T during TO procedures.
I agree with you. It's difficult to make a configuration mistake in a so "analogic" AC.
Time and investigation will tell us...