Translating one of the comments from Youtube. "Only Russians after a plane crash will not only walk on the wing full of fuel, but also smoke and drop some cigarettes on it.. " :)

Par for the course for most Russians I think. With their lifestyle this was probably just a minor inconvenience. I bet the vodka was flowing afterwards though.

It seems to me (and I don't know for sure) that there is no problem with the fuel supply on Tu154 following an electrical failure. However, all engines take fuel from a single tank and cross-feed would be impossible without electrics. So they had around 30 min of fuel at their disposal.

To quote Wikipedia (always dangerous, I know, but it fits with what I heard when I used to pax on them):
So it ought to do a better job in these circumstances than an equivalent Western-built model. I don't think "unpaved runways" was meant to include areas covered with scrub and small trees, though!

It's not right, firstly Tu154 newer have military version and secondly for unpaved strips in small airports there used mostly Antonov planes.

It was never operated or intended to operate from unpaved rwys.

however, it was designed to use existing fragile/unreinforced rwys without causing too much damage, hence many wheels

Rumor from some russian blog - after instrument's power failed, crew filled glass with water and put it on the deck, used it as pitch/bank reference. :cool:

On ground?

Otherwise no good idea:rolleyes:

Some historical references on TU154 say that original design idea (before the drawing board) included ability to operate from unpaved runways, however TU154 was never operating from unpaved runways except for a couple of emergency landings and probably some test flights.
Oversized strong landing gear with extra number of wheels used to achieve low ACN (as most soviet paved runways had very low PCN) and durability for soviet less-than-perfect quality of pavement.

Unpaved runways could be different... You remember 727s used to operate from reasonable gravel and show runways. For real hardcore unpaved job USSR had Antonovs, while Tupolevs were more about bombers and mainline pax.

Why the glass of water idea doesn't work in the air .. with thanks to Bob Hoover.


YouTube - Stopped engine aerobatics

"Well Done " to the crew....
and to the designer and builders of the TU-154:)

Another youtube
 

Yet another piece from Russia Today TV: YouTube - Saving the Day: Hero pilots, survivors describe jet's 'miracle' landing

BTW: In my opinion quite reasonable piece of reporting, this one even has the crew saying a few words to the cameras.

Yours,
FD (the un-real)

The Tu5 does have a pretty good track record of having everyone on board walk away from an accident, leaving behind a big chunk of metal with only a few nicks and dents (and on occasion some lost pride...).

MA had two such incidents. One was in PRG in the early eighties, when a blotched landing led to a very high sinkrate impact with the runway. The fuselage cracked over the main spar, but the landing gear held up, and the aircraft rolled to a stop dragging a drooped tail. Nobody was injured.

The other one was in SKG in the late nineties (the type was withdrawn from service soon after). In part due to a certain blonde distraction on the jumpseat, the crew forgot to lower the landing gear. The day was saved by a pilot of an a/c on hold for takeoff who witnessed the approach, and when he realised they are actually going to land, yelled 'go around' on the twr freq. They could not arrest the sinkrate in time, but the engines were spooled up by the time the plane contacted the runway, and it skid on the flaps and rear fuselage in a nose-up attitude for a hundred metres or so, before getting up in the air again. The crew lowered the gear and circled to make uneventful second landing. (In case anybody wonders, no, the plane could not be used again...)

Of course the price of such sturdiness is carrying an extra 20 tons of metal compared to similar sized western jets. Up till recently I was unaware of the reason, but someone with insider knowledge enlightened me. Most western aircraft design specifications call for any single component to be able to demonstrably withstand 150% of the maximum design load. Because the Russian (Soviet) metallurgic industry was unable to supply raw materials of a sufficiently reliable consistency, the old soviet design specs called for 200%. Now the Russian industry is using the same 150% specs as the rest of the world, resulting in much lighter designs.

It's really interesting how most of you brag about the "well done" job designers of the Tu-154 did so the aircraft, crew and the passengers could survive such landing. Sadly, no one seems to care to prevent such landings by let's say, designing the fuel system so that one could fly with engines running for more than 30 minutes - even the most basic aircraft have the possibility for the engine to run without any electrical power (excluding the latest FADEC products of course). I really think that the case shouldn't be different for aircraft which carries 100+ passengers. But I guess in old Soviet Union one could certify a square rock as an aircraft, so the cause of this accident doesn't surprise me at all.

And only a remark to the guys who embrace that weight of this aircraft prevented the worst: if weight is really everything, I believe it's time for aircraft made of lead, isn't it? Composites have much greater strength with remarkably less density than steel, so weight doesn't really equal stregth.

FS, I think you missed the point. The Tu5 is NOT strong because of it's weight. It is strong, because it was designed according to higher failure tolerance standards than comparable western jets. The weight penalty is the price for a stronger structure.

I don't think anybody is saying that this is inherently a good thing (not to mention the 8.5 tons/hr fuel consumption...). It simply makes some accidents more survivable in a Tu5 than in other types. Surviveability has nothing to do with the causes leading up to an accident. Both of the MA incidents I outlined above were the result of monumental screwups that should have easily been prevented with a little CRM (and remember, in both cases there were three wise guys up front, not two). However the fact that everybody walked away after both had nothing to do with the causes, and all to do with the strength of the aircraft structure.

Regardless of the direct failure causes, I'm sure in this particular Russian case it certainly helped to have an extra pair of eyes and hands in the cockpit.

@Teddy

Are you kidding?:)

Hetfield, did you watch the video?

I don't think Teddy was asking a question. :ok:

@Turin

Yes I did.

And I think you are right.... now I got it:O

Ok, leaving aside any design fault issues -

From what I can tell, this was a complete and total loss of electrics. Not a partial failure with RAT providing the basics. The loss of electrics resulted in the loss of fuel pumps, and loss of hydraulic systems operated by electric switches. That the crew managed to find a closed airfield not marked on current aviation maps and make a successful flapless emergency landing is worthy of similar praise to that heaped on Captain Sullenberger and his crew. :D

Lucky Landing: Plane crashes in woods
 

There were 81 people on board the Tupolev-154M, which came down in the Republic of Komi. The jet was on its way to Moscow when it apparently suffered an electrical failure, forcing the pilots to divert it to the nearest airport. Their only option was an airfield designed for much smaller craft. The crash-landing saw the plane cross the short airstrip, and roll off several hundred metres into the woods. None of the people on board were injured, and the pilots have been praised for their efforts.

Lucky Landing: Plane crashes in woods - Russia