Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

A321 Aeroflot from Moscow overrun in Kaliningrad

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

A321 Aeroflot from Moscow overrun in Kaliningrad

Old 4th Jan 2017, 17:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 76
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re damage, the photos (courtesy of Kulverstukas) confirm that the nose gear has been ripped off, suggesting rigid obstructions in the run-off area that may have caused further airframe damage.

Although the CFM engine cowlings look relatively undamaged, the #1 (left-hand) engine's fan-reverser is not fully stowed (it may have been in transit), increasing the probability of ingestion and consequent engine damage. The swathe of mud on the fuselage above the left wing-root fairing may indicate full reverse was still in use (understandably) when the mud was encountered. #2 engine fan-reverser is not visible.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 18:55
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott View Post
Re damage, the photos confirm that the nose gear has been ripped off, suggesting rigid obstructions in the run-off area
Deep wet clay under thin ice, I think.
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 19:19
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bangkok, Paris
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Russian RT.COM news site tells a story completely focused on a "major malfunction of the landing gear": https://francais.rt.com/internationa...ose-sur-ventre
Seems like a different story from what's being discussed here...

This is the French language version, I couldn't find the same news article in the English version.
Quick translation of the title and first paragraph:

An Airbus A321 from the biggest Russian airline, Aeroflot, has come very close to a disaster. The pilots have managed to land the airplane without incident (sic) while facing a major malfunction of the landing gear. No one has been hurt.

In the evening of January 3rd, 171 passengers and six crew members aboard flight SU 1008 have felt like they were actors in an Hollywood movie. While approaching Kaliningrad, the landing gear of their Airbus A321 has been subject to a major malfunction. As a consequence, the landing has been acrobatic to say the least but the pilots have handled this situation perfectly.
alainthailande is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 19:29
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rough landing: Plane veers off runway in Russia, passengers evacuated (VIDEO)
Published time: 4 Jan, 2017 13:23
Edited time: 4 Jan, 2017 14:24

A passenger plane veered off the runway with 171 people on board, just after it landed in the western Russian city of Kaliningrad. One of the plane’s landing gear legs was damaged and the passengers had to be evacuated from the plane via inflatable slides.
A video of the plane with the front of the body lying on the ground emerged online.

The Aeroflot A321 jet, which was flying from Moscow, had seven crew members and 164 passengers.

It stopped 150 meters away from the runway, Ruptly video agency reports. Emergency slides were used to evacuate the passengers.

Following the incident, three people required medical help.

The local transport prosecution office has launched a probe into the cause of the crash-landing, an official statement on their website stated.

There is no equipment to evacuate the A321 plane, and the airport remains closed, a source in the emergency services told TASS news agency.

“In other, better-equipped airports, the plane evacuation process takes from 40 minutes to three hours.”

Maria Shatokhina, who was on board the plane, shared with RT her account of what happened, and how she felt.

“The landing was okay and on time, some passengers even started applauding. Then, the plane started shaking really hard, and it started to veer off to the left. I was near the window, on row 17, near the wing. We stopped, and then the smoke appeared inside the aircraft. Many people – most of them children – were crying. One boy, just behind me, was telling his mother, ‘Mum, it’s fine, calm down, don’t cry!’
“Everyone stood up, there was no panic and no shouting. The only thing I heard was, ‘evacuation.’ Then, I got out to the inflatable slide. I saw an engine and the cockpit just lying on the ground, I became really scared. It could all have exploded. I’m shaking with fear even now.”

https://www.rt.com/news/372642-plane...nding-airport/
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 19:32
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: FR
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting, in that article there is this:
"L’avion a atterri sur le ventre, sur une piste arrosée de substances retardant les incendies», a fait savoir le porte-parole de l’aéroport de Kaliningrad."
meaning "belly landing" [well, not quite true vs the pictures showing the main gear ~OK] and "onto a RWY [which had been] covered with fire-retardant substance [foam?]", "according to the airport spokesman".

But if foam was requested and applied ... then the PAX would have been told something?

Last edited by pax2908; 4th Jan 2017 at 19:50. Reason: Added last sentence
pax2908 is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 19:34
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,420
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Evacuate?

Originally Posted by Kulverstukas View Post
There is no equipment to evacuate the A321 plane, and the airport remains closed, a source in the emergency services told TASS news agency.

“In other, better-equipped airports, the plane evacuation process takes from 40 minutes to three hours.”
Presumably a mis-translation from whatever is the Russian for "recover" ?
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 20:05
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to give a brief idea.
The entire Baltic states area has just gone thru a massive thaw followed by heavy rain,- temperatures hit +7C.
That's quite unusual for this time of year, and can lead to a morass of mud.

Normally it could be the ground would be quite deeply frozen, but not this year.
(It stopped Hitler's army in October 1941.)

That would explain the very impressive stick in the mud or in french "bien embourbé!".

It's going to be a pig's ear to get back out, especially as in the next 48hrs it's all going to freeze solid like concrete.
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 20:38
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 46
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RoyHudd

And why would anyone "hope" that it was weather-related rather than fatigue of the pilots. Such a stupid comment, given above. Not a professional pilot.
Yep, you are completely correct. I am not a professional pilot. Army didn't want me because of my eyesight. :-(

I do however follow aviation with great interest still. And lately it has been many accidents due to fatigue, overwork, stress, time pressure and terrorism. I'm sure you know which I mean. I of course never wish anything to happen to anybody, but now when it did happen, I really hope everyone was well rested, with plenty of fuel, well balanced cargo and a nice working environment. A weather glitch is something you can not be completely blamed for unless you are really breaking the rules and doing seriously stupid stuff (like the Manx crash).
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 21:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Normally it could be the ground would be quite deeply frozen, but not this year.
(It stopped Hitler's army in October 1941.)
Really? Climate change over 75 years ago?
Basil is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 21:26
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: IAD
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmm - forgive me (while I take in all the other elements, circumstantial evidence, etc) but..

WOW, has anyone else ever seen the integrated LED lighting on the escape slides? Is this new, normal, required? Looks awesome and vastly improves the SA for escaping pax I'd imagine, especially based on these photos in winter weather, at night, etc... probably exactly what they were meant for.
EstorilM is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 23:10
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 76
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regarding this story in the media of a landing gear problem and the aircraft "veering" (turning, or swinging) off the runway, does anyone here know exactly where it finally stopped? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we not think it had vacated the far end of the runway, remaining roughly on the extended centreline?

Also, the photos above seem to show that both main-gear assemblies are normal, although the status of the brakes and (now-detached) nose gear for the landing are unclear.

Maybe up_down_n_out can clarify?
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 23:39
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
Normally it could be the ground would be quite deeply frozen, but not this year. (It stopped Hitler's army in October 1941.)
You might be confusing Leningrad with Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad was formerly Koningsberg and in October 1941 it was firmly in crazy Adolf's sphere of influence.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2017, 23:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WOW, has anyone else ever seen the integrated LED lighting on the escape slides? Is this new, normal, required? Looks awesome and vastly improves the SA for escaping pax I'd imagine, especially based on these photos in winter weather, at night, etc... probably exactly what they were meant for.
Evacuation Slide Lighting

Agreed, it looks like one of the best improvements in escape slide tech since side walls were added to keep people in the chute.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2017, 03:46
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Sky
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that We will have to observe some kind of fighting between company and airport operator.
Metar at 20.30utc reported friction coefficient 0.37!!!And just after landing at 21.00-0.32!
I think that LW was about max,because so many passangers on board and also they tankered some fuel for using on the way back to Moskow. My EFB makes me think little bit,that with max LW and "poor" braking action after control check factored LD is little bit greater,and just LD is about length of the RW
avoka is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2017, 08:32
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hundred Acre Wood
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was a bit doubtful of Mr. Hudd's figures in post #12 so ran them myself*. I came up with a lower factored LD of 2300m for a flap full, medium autobrake landing in the stated conditions with a serviceable A321 at MLW. This would imply an overrun was not inevitable. Also, if the reversers are "generally not much use" why does Airbus calculate their use in this situation saves almost 300m?

* Using my airline's tables for this variant.
Doug E Style is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2017, 16:19
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RoyHudd View Post
More to the point, I trust the flight crew calculated IFLD (In-Flight Landing Distance). The A321 is a slippery beast, reversers are generally not much use, and the full length 2500m runway was definitely going to prove tricky with the 0/0 temp split, 12 knot crosswind, +SNRA and medium/poor BRAKING ACTION.

The QRH landing performance calculation shows that it was marginal at best, (IFLD comes to 2350 m, assuming low landing weight, CONF Full, Autobrake MED and a fully serviceable aircraft with no MEL items to affect. Factored Landing Distance, as advocated by Airbus, is 1.15 *IFLD, which comes to 2702 meters, over 200 meters longer than the full runway length. LDA is doubtless down to around 2200m, so an overrun was inevitable). Aquaplaning and/or temporary loss of directional control due to employment of full reverse would lengthen the landing run substantially, causing a yet longer overrun.

Standard winter conditions for that part of Russia though, but never easy with a slippery jet. And if the approach was a few knots fast, therein the problems really mount up.

And why would anyone "hope" that it was weather-related rather than fatigue of the pilots. Such a stupid comment, given above. Not a professional pilot.
The majority of Russian airports (and UMKK as well) gives the normative brake coefficient. So runway state 24/59//32 corresponds to POOR braking action with undetermined depth of wet snow

Last edited by Anvaldra; 5th Jan 2017 at 21:45.
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2017, 23:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 76
Posts: 2,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote from Anvaldra:
"So runway state 24/59//32 corresponds to POOR braking action with undetermined depth of wet snow"

In post #5 I guessed wrongly that a braking coefficient of 0.32 was equivalent to medium-poor. In fact it's medium.

That "R24/59//32" observation of runway state was attached to the 2100Z METAR, which I assume to be an observation officially current when the aircraft landed. But, as the reported wx was a heavy shower of rain and snow, it seems probable the braking action would have been deteriorating rapidly.

The 2130z METAR retained the same figures of runway state, but in view of the accident it seems unlikely that staff would have been available to take a new measurement in the interim. Consequently the actual braking action at the time of landing is open to speculation.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2017, 20:21
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott View Post
Quote from Anvaldra:
"So runway state 24/59//32 corresponds to POOR braking action with undetermined depth of wet snow"

In post #5 I guessed wrongly that a braking coefficient of 0.32 was equivalent to medium-poor. In fact it's medium.
AC No: 150/5200-30D (an interesting read) offers this useful table. The thickness of the wet snow was not reported, as far as I can tell. Assuming greater than 1/8" would lead to runway condition code 3 - Braking deceleration is noticeably reduced for the wheel braking effort applied OR directional control is noticeably reduced.
Attached Images
lemme is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2017, 09:51
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 58
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All this talk about braking action is quite irrelevant, AVH presented pretty good evidence that final stop was a litte over half way down and to the right of the runway, just short of taxiway C. This was NOT an overrun, it was a runway excursion, some gear malfunction with loss of directional control would be consistent with this.
andrasz is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2017, 11:04
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Andrasz, you are right. The main thing is excursion. So I try to point that directional control is different for medium and poor braking action and different crosswind component as well. I try to explain one more time that reported (don' t confuse with measured) friction coefficient 0.32 (METAR data at 21.00Z) corresponds to poor braking action according to FCOM limitation for CIS. Probably they hadn't this data and used ATIS data for 20.30Z
Anvaldra is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.