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

Plane crashes near Kazakhstan airport

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

Plane crashes near Kazakhstan airport

Old 30th Dec 2019, 05:04
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 52
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by pilotmike View Post
Interesting idea. From the article:



So to achieve departures at 2 minute intervals would require at least 7 of these systems in parallel close to each departure threshold. Where would these fit at most international airports? A quick look at Google Earth doesn't show much spare space available at most airports. Certainly it would be un-economic use of real estate in the UK where de-icing might only be required for a few tens of days per year. Where would 14 or 16 of these be located at Heathrow and at Gatwick?

In comparison, a fleet of de-icing rigs are far cheaper to buy, are mobile to get to wherever planes are parked to work in parallel, and can be parked in a very small space during the warmer months taking almost no space.

Don't get me wrong - the proposed buildings appear a good idea at first glance, however there will be some big hurdles to overcome purely because of their size, and the number required for effective operation.
For sure. It might be possible, but a very long way from practical. I just remember using the facility about a decade ago when I saw the discussion. Don't think a lot of new ones have been built since.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2019, 20:23
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Russia
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by chrisms86 View Post
.. a city of 1.7 million is small relatively speaking,
Sorry to disappoint.
In Russia a city of over 1 million is a LARGE city.
Eg. Perm is 1.2 million. (PEE), but has a thoroughly modern airport as well as a military section on the same terrain.

Nizhny Novgorod GOJ is the same size.
up_down_n_out is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2019, 23:37
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: US
Posts: 1
Whatever the reasons, a 2.4% loss rate if that's correct is absolutely horrendous
Daerio is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 00:39
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 4,354
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 01:41
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 58
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by andrasz View Post
There is a fine line between making an error of judgement and a willful disregard of basic safety rules. Like it or not, some cultures (and I would by no means single out one, can think of several...) are more prone for the latter. Luckily you happen to live in a region where by and large such rules are respected and adhered to.

As for the accident flight, what was different... ? A good analogy may be south/south east Asia, where runway excursions provide a perfect record of the arrival of the monsoon season. Change of seasons are always a risky period, requiring more attention and discipline.
Actually I don't live there anymore, I live in Asia. It is an over-generalization to brand an entire region as having a poor safety culture, especially in the 21st century. It is much more an organizational aspect. You can meet some truly crazy people in certain parts of the world including the central west, but that doesn't mean everyone behaves that way.
bud leon is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 01:58
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 58
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by MichaelKPIT View Post


This was in no way intended to be nationalistic. (And for full disclosure, although I live in Pittsburgh I am not American - I was born and raised in the UK, lived there for the first 35 years of my life and still carry a British passport.)

My point is this: we all understand the dangers of a contaminated wing. It was even quoted several posts back specifically how little contamination is needed to reduce a wing’s performance significantly. The dangers of icing are drummed into pilots ad nauseum yet here we have a flight literally taking off with snow on the wing! Even if we go out on a limb and assume it was a ferry flight, with no fare paying passengers, that still gives a minimum of three people on board. Two pilots and the person with the iPhone, filming it. The two pilots must have known it was dangerous; the cameraman would surely have been thinking “well this is a little unusual” because he was sitting there filming it! I’m sure take off performance was impaired, just not to the point where planet and aircraft remained inextricably bound, but it sets a precedent for “yes I should de-ice, but hey, the guy on the YouTube video got away with it - maybe I will too!”

The question was “have we not learned from Air Florida?” I stand vehemently behind my response: No - we haven’t.
OK, very sorry to misinterpret.
bud leon is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 10:58
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 275
Aviation Herald has been updated based on yesterday's statement from the airline. Accident: Bek F100 at Almaty on Dec 27th 2019, lost height shortly after takeoff and impacted building after two tailstrikes
Liffy 1M is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 11:36
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: LSZH
Age: 68
Posts: 3
icing on top of the wing

Originally Posted by Herod View Post
I concur with andrasz. The F100 wing will NOT tolerate ANY ice. (4,000 hours on type)
I recall having heard of two similar fatal accidents with the predecessor, the F-28. After the first one in Canada, airlines were warned about the rapid ice bildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel inside, and that there was no heating to prevent this. Another accident still happened in spite of the warning. Now I wonder, after similar F100 crashes, that the problem persists with these newer planes.
Peter

Last edited by petergloor; 31st Dec 2019 at 12:03.
petergloor is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 11:48
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 81
The captain decided only the elevators were to be de-iced.
The captain is dead, so we may never know his reasoning.
donotdespisethesnake is online now  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 11:59
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 0
I think the only reason you would 'only do the elevators', is if you were satisfied the wing was clean.
On the Fokker, you can't see the tail, as it's up high, so you might just get that deiced since it's impossible to check.
Nomad2 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 13:12
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 532
Originally Posted by up_down_n_out View Post
Sorry to disappoint.
In Russia a city of over 1 million is a LARGE city.
Eg. Perm is 1.2 million. (PEE), but has a thoroughly modern airport as well as a military section on the same terrain.

Nizhny Novgorod GOJ is the same size.
It might be argued that in the U.S. a city of 1.7 million people is relatively large.
Only 5 cities in the U.S. have populations greater or equal to 1.7 million.

And no, I don't need to debate what constitutes a city and it's boundaries.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 13:55
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: North
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by petergloor View Post
I recall having heard of two similar fatal accidents with the predecessor, the F-28. After the first one in Canada, airlines were warned about the rapid ice bildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel inside, and that there was no heating to prevent this. Another accident still happened in spite of the warning. Now I wonder, after similar F100 crashes, that the problem persists with these newer planes.
Peter
The Dryden accident is a very well known one. Much more complex than just "rapid ice buildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel." And yes, there was no "heating to prevent this." No airplane so far has any heating of the wings to prevent ice forming on the ground. I guess you are not a pilot?
Bowmore is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 14:32
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by Bowmore View Post
The Dryden accident is a very well known one. Much more complex than just "rapid ice buildup on top of the wings due to the cold fuel." And yes, there was no "heating to prevent this." No airplane so far has any heating of the wings to prevent ice forming on the ground. I guess you are not a pilot?
Partially correct. In the 90s they developed heater blankets for the wings of the MD-80. Don’t remember why they stopped using them. Possibly because it was easier/faster/cheaper to do a hands on check.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 15:46
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
Bombardier decided after several contaminated wing accidents with the CRJ200 that is was to be required to turn on the wing anti-ice inside of two minutes prior to take-off in order to de-ice the protected portion of the wing leading edge from missed frost and ice, or ice that may have formed while taxing. The wing anti-ice may then be turned off for take-off if not required. This procedure is still required whenever the temperature is 5 deg C or less with or without precipitation falling. They stated they would rather pilots do this for every flight when temps are low vs only deicing whenever contamination is found, (still required) because of the critically important need of maintaining a clean leading edge on a wing that doesn't have leading edge devices, (slats/leading edge flaps).
A cheap and effective mitigation strategy that has worked on the CRJ200 with a similar wing that has hard leading edge.

As a side note the CRJ200 and most other transport jets don't even have tail anti-ice capability. The engineers determined it was not required.

Last edited by cappt; 31st Dec 2019 at 16:04.
cappt is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 16:03
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
Bombardier decided after a couple of contaminated wing incidents with the CRJ200 that is was to be required to turn on the wing anti-ice inside of two minutes prior to take-off in order to de-ice the protected portion of the wing leading edge from missed frost and ice, or ice that may have formed while taxing. The wing anti-ice may then be turned off for take-off if not required. This procedure is still required whenever the temperature is 5 deg C or less with or without precipitation falling. They stated they would rather pilots do this for every flight when temps are low vs only deicing whenever contamination is found, (still required) because of the critically important need of maintaining a clean leading edge on a wing that doesn't have leading edge devices, (slats/leading edge flaps).
A cheap and effective mitigation strategy that has worked on the CRJ200 with a similar wing that has hard leading edge.
Strange. We are not allowed to use wing de/anti ice on ground with any other fluids than type I.
This because the other types may dry out and contaminate the leading egde of the wing.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 16:09
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post
Strange. We are not allowed to use wing de/anti ice on ground with any other fluids than type I.
This because the other types may dry out and contaminate the leading egde of the wing.
If you have already de-iced the wing and applied type4 the procedure is not required as you will be turning on the wing anti-ice just prior to takeoff anyway.
cappt is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 16:17
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by cappt View Post
If you have already de-iced the wing and applied type4 the procedure is not required as you will be turning on the wing anti-ice just prior to takeoff anyway.
No, as I said, we are not allowed to do that. The anti ice fluids will keep the wing clean as long as the HOT is observed.
With type I we can use the wing anti ice on the whole time, but on the NG it will trip off automatically after lift off.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 16:27
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by ManaAdaSystem View Post
No, as I said, we are not allowed to do that. The anti ice fluids will keep the wing clean as long as the HOT is observed.
With type I we can use the wing anti ice on the whole time, but on the NG it will trip off automatically after lift off.
Ok copy that, different aircraft. Yes on the CR700/900 that have leading edge devices this AD revision requiring wing heat for taxi is not required.
cappt is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 19:45
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 194
The de ice remark is bizarre, If you are going to treat the Tail, why not the wings? even if they are clear id say still treat them its -12, find this a really odd decision, Its early days but i would be very surprised (especially with the latest info about roll oscillation) if this incident is not ice related, the decision to treat one part of the aircraft and not the other is crazy, all down to $$$$.

The hours and years experience of pilots is near irrelevant it just makes you more complacent, plenty and plenty of 20K+ hour pilots have managed to crash perfectly serviceable aircraft over the years
Livesinafield is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2019, 22:02
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 8
Funny you mention "complacent." I've long wondered about the "sweet spot" for pilot safety, the best balance of relatively high experience and low complacency.

Triggered by learning how experienced is/was the Bek Air crew, today I found an AOPA PDF (1302agingpilotreport) with this in it:

"... Adjusted for age, pilots with 5,000 to 9,999 hours of total flight time had a 57 percent lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. The protective effect of flight experience leveled off after 10,000 hours..."

The Bek Air crew are/were late into their careers and have almost 32,000 hours between them, with over 9,000 combined hours on the type, per Buster the Bear's Flightglobal link above.
WBryanH 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.